Google| Subject | Re: post processing |
| From | David Taylor |
| Date | 2014-03-16 15:36 (2014-03-16 14:36) |
| Message-ID | <lg4csh$4c1$1@dont-email.me> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle |
| Followups | YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle (17h & 57m) > David Taylor |
On 16/03/2014 13:23, YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote: []
YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlleYes, on some cameras I have the default exposure at -1/3 stop. I rarely find white-balance to be an issue, but I'm not often taking stage pictures (and I can appreciate the need for extra margin due to the greater dynamic range). I did take this one in Argentina:
I think it is quite rare to have incorrect exposure nowadays, and this is far rarer than having improper WB. Or just, not-so-pleasing WB. Some cameras have a tendency to overexpose, but it is easily fixed with a slight underexposure on camera.
When I need jpg for immediate use, well I batch process the raw "as is", just adding size and quality reduction to fit use. This is no more work.
Doing a lot of stage shots in dark conditions, I have use of the extra dynamic range given by raw (I hate washed spots). And I appreciate to be able to use Dfine filter for the iso noise, instead of the build-in. For the rest, I must admit I like post-processing. Dry lab.
Noëlle Adam
http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2009/Antarctica/2009-01-22-0051-21-size.jpg
but there were so many lighting effects that I wouldn't want to say whether the WB is "right" or not. As that was ISO 1600 on a Nikon D60, there was some post-processing (such as noise reduction in PaintShop Pro 10). 1/30s, f/6.3 Nikon 18-200 mm at 200 mm.
-- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
2014-03-13-
-
-
