Andyx01 said:privatebydesign said:Also if it takes you 30 seconds to 'correct' the WB what are you doing for the other 29 seconds!
Right... Because your so amazing it only takes you 1 second.
P.S. I said color, not WB. Color correction involves more than temperature alone.
privatebydesign said:I have found heavily overcast evening light in Florida to be much bluer than your edit, if I was intending to actually do anything with the file I wouldn't change the temp much, if any, but would give it some positive tint.
If you like poor color reproduction for an artsy look; whatever floats your boat man. You could always invert the colors and apply a psychedelic glow to it too.
privatebydesign said:As for my monitor, it is calibrated and works very well when I use proof mode in PS to print.
Neat. You may find this site interesting: http://www.color-blindness.com/color-blindness-tests/
privatebydesign said:But your input is just a diversion, the WB is easily adjusted to whatever you want in any model camera with no IQ impact if you shoot RAW, ergo it doesn't change the premise of my point in the slightest.
There you go on WB again. The color including the WB was corrected in the edit. White balance alone does not correct color. Apologies' if you find the corrections offensive.
To answer your question, when is enough enough; You tell me, is 10fps enough? is 14? How about 60, or 120? Really depends on your needs. Obviously your needs aren't very high, that doesn't mean others aren't.
privatebydesign said:When I asked "when is enough enough" I was asking a broad question to see what people said, and there has been a healthy input, I wasn't specific about MP I was thinking of a more gear and output orientated question. The truth is we can get outstanding results that vastly outstrip virtually all practical output requirements with comparatively modest gear. A 1Ds MkIII can be had for around $1,000-1,500, a 300 f4L for $500-750.
Well, now you know what I said... Some people are okay with your setup, color accuracy, and quality requirements. Others have higher standards than you.
That is pretty much all argumentum ad hominem.
The only 'correct'* 'color' is done on a neutral tone and that is best done automatically via the WB tool. The only neutral tone in the image that is usable is the eye, putting the WB tool on the eye takes 1 second, any other 'adjustments' to the WB, color and tint, are entirely subjective. You were not here, you did not see the light I saw, your 'correction' is your subjective assessment of what you think it should look like on your monitor.
The rest of your drivel is just that, ad hominem drivel.
* 'correct' is used as meaning neutral. But neutral in this context is entirely fallacious, if the light is blue, or orange or green, the WB tool is useless as an accurate representation of the scene in front of you.
P.S. Thanks for the colorblindness tests, it seems I am good to make color assessments of my own images.
Attachments
Upvote
0