Calibration Target. Just when you thought......

PhotoBoyKane said:

If anyone thinks that product is really worth one tenth the $130,
they deserve to part ways with their money. I've been shooting
professionally since the late seventies and can state the following
as a fact;
Present day cameras have sophisticated and well tuned metering
systems. You don't need a target to use instead of the scene you're
photographing, the SCENE is the optimum target.
White balance is best handled as a subjective facet of the image, NOT
as an absolute neutral tone. If anyone needs clarification, look at
the images posted on my side addressed below and post your questions
here. I'm not shooting from the hip, nor pushing any snake oil
answer to lighting situations that are beyond the range of any
available sensor or film stock.
The self-appointed "gurus" and "teachers" have about as much value as
a heckler at a comedy club. Their input is getting in the way of
photographers learning how to use their gear. It's not all that
hard, if I can do it, anyone can...

Click to expand...

So let me understand this, when you bought a new case of Ektachrome, you just shot it right out of the box and didn't shoot a test to see what CC filters you might need to correct the color or see if any ASA adjustment was needed. I doubt it. Not if you shot professionally. Using some kind of reference with digital is no different. Is is this a good one, Time will tell. Is it worth $130. That's subjective.

And again, you have been to one of Jim's classes or seen him work and you can honestly say his teachings are worthless? His client list is as impressive as any top pro. Jim isn't a self appointed anything. He's one of the best and most creative commercial shooters I know. He's been shooting high end digital since the early 90's. Go to his site http://www.divitalephotography.com/ and then tell me he's a self appointed guru or really knows his stuff.

Mike

--
'Change the way you look at things, and the things you look at change.'

Really funny post. Still laughing Thanks.

halfamo said:

Really funny post. Still laughing Thanks.

Click to expand...

Sorry my remark came out in the wrong spot. My enjoyment was created by Balloonchasers.

halfamo,

Thanks for the reply. Some times my humor is a little "out there" and I am not sure how others will take it. My experience was meant to show that there is no "cure all" ....... but sometimes we still buy into the hype.

I hope no one feels that I have said anything negative about anyone in this or
previous post.

John

Proud owner of a card that is grey....but maybe I should take a picture of the sliced bread and use that to set my WB? ;-)

--

Feel free to use any of these additional letters to correct the spelling of words found in the above post: a-e-t-n-d-i-o-s-m-l-u-y-h-c

Mike,

Experience and impressive client list are two of the main items that any smart marketing firm will use to its advantage to bolster new product market insertion. That's just the way it is in the advertising world. Healthy skepticism, regardless of source, allows one to see a new product from a lot of different angles, form their own opinions, and not just the ones that are being marketed.
Regards,
VG

photolando said:

PhotoBoyKane said:

If anyone thinks that product is really worth one tenth the $130,
they deserve to part ways with their money. I've been shooting
professionally since the late seventies and can state the following
as a fact;
Present day cameras have sophisticated and well tuned metering
systems. You don't need a target to use instead of the scene you're
photographing, the SCENE is the optimum target.
White balance is best handled as a subjective facet of the image, NOT
as an absolute neutral tone. If anyone needs clarification, look at
the images posted on my side addressed below and post your questions
here. I'm not shooting from the hip, nor pushing any snake oil
answer to lighting situations that are beyond the range of any
available sensor or film stock.
The self-appointed "gurus" and "teachers" have about as much value as
a heckler at a comedy club. Their input is getting in the way of
photographers learning how to use their gear. It's not all that
hard, if I can do it, anyone can...

Click to expand...

So let me understand this, when you bought a new case of Ektachrome,
you just shot it right out of the box and didn't shoot a test to see
what CC filters you might need to correct the color or see if any ASA
adjustment was needed. I doubt it. Not if you shot professionally.
Using some kind of reference with digital is no different. Is is
this a good one, Time will tell. Is it worth $130. That's
subjective.

And again, you have been to one of Jim's classes or seen him work and
you can honestly say his teachings are worthless? His client list is
as impressive as any top pro. Jim isn't a self appointed anything.
He's one of the best and most creative commercial shooters I know.
He's been shooting high end digital since the early 90's. Go to his
site http://www.divitalephotography.com/ and then tell me he's a self
appointed guru or really knows his stuff.

Mike

--
'Change the way you look at things, and the things you look at change.'

Click to expand...

Joe Marques said:

Joe Marques said:

Guess in all your years you never used studio lights where a camera meter is useless but a tri-color target is quite useful for exposure.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Joe, my guess is that you didn't actually look at my images. Most of what I get paid to shoot is done in-studio.

Once you've tested your studio gear, no color metering is necessary unless you're using odd colored reflective or transmissive light modifiers. By the way, I shoot both strobe and tungsten regularly. With tungsten, the camera meter is by no means useless. When shooting 35mm film under strobes, I used a technique called "pilot light metering". I'll gladly explain that one in depth if you, or anyone else, is interested. It allowed the TTL meter to set my exposure with excellent results. Again, hardly what I would consider to be useless...

I owned and used the Minolta color meter, but only on location under unpredictable sources was it of actual value.

Now that I've migrated to digital, the camera meter still handles tungsten or daylight flawlessly and the camera LCD or the tethered computer screen give me the visual feedback needed for strobe situations.
Your "guess" was interesting, but wrong...
--
PhotoBoyKane
Just some guy with a camera...
http://mysite.verizon.net/resqmxkh/a_few_images/index.html

PhotoBoyKane said:

When
shooting 35mm film under strobes, I used a technique called "pilot
light metering". I'll gladly explain that one in depth if you, or
anyone else, is interested.

Click to expand...

Teach me...

PhotoBoyKane said:

I owned and used the Minolta color meter, but only on location under
unpredictable sources was it of actual value.

Click to expand...

Me too. Still do. Adding filters to the front of lenses gave a kaleidascope of not too pretty reflections from lightsources - despite filters costing an arm and a leg reducing this was a case of taping them together.... Dialing in a white balance is much better.

The color meter had a flash adapter available which I never had. Sometimes however, apart from what has already been pointed out about diffusers (especially old ones when they go yellow) colour balance was more determined by whether the E6 process was working properly.

Like now, colour correction was made after scanning, only now it has become the responsibility of the photographer - yet I see no more £££'s / $$$'s heading his way for it..

Ian.

photolando said:

photolando said:

So let me understand this, when you bought a new case of Ektachrome, you just shot it right out of the box and didn't shoot a test to see what CC filters you might need to correct the color or see if any ASA adjustment was needed. I doubt it. Not if you shot professionally. Using some kind of reference with digital is no different. Is is this a good one, Time will tell. Is it worth $130. That's subjective.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You're right on point #1, I bought transparency film by the case, shot tests, and recorded film speed and color balance information. However, the only target of any use to me was an 18% gray card. My only need was to see how the emulsion being tested reacted. Kodak and Fuji both gave predictable color and contrast for their given "flavors". The properly exposed/processed 18% gray card, plus 2 1/3 stops and minus 2 2/3 stops, was the limit of detail that could be reproduced on the printed page. Now that we're in a digital age, the basics of that methodology are unchanged, just the procedural details have been altered. What used to require contrast masks and duping can now be done in a light and dry environment with PhotoShop. Color correction is also handled differently in some respects, but the basic rules of primary and secondary color theory still control the process.

photolando said:

photolando said:

And again, you have been to one of Jim's classes or seen him work and you can honestly say his teachings are worthless? His client list is as impressive as any top pro. Jim isn't a self appointed anything. He's one of the best and most creative commercial shooters I know. He's been shooting high end digital since the early 90's. Go to his site http://www.divitalephotography.com/ and then tell me he's a self appointed guru or really knows his stuff.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Point #2 is a bit more complex, and a lot more dangerous... Let's separate the two facets of this Jim.
1-No argument as to his abilities or success as a working professional.

2-Knowing his stuff, or imparting his knowledge isn't an issue, UNTIL his successes and abilities are somehow hitched onto an overpriced gimmick. I'm sure we could escalate our difference of opinion into quite a pitched battle, so I'll just have to try to sum it up like this;

In MY opinion, the product is NOT worth $130, and is NOT a useful addition to any photographer's collection of gear. I believe that your viewpoint is the result of your own valid experiences and observations, and isn't necessarily wrong just because it's not the same as my viewpoint.

I just typed in two additional paragraphs about my own clients and product endorsement options, and then erased them. I'd like to keep this on track as to the value of the product on it's own merits, or lack of same...
---
PhotoBoyKane
Just some guy with a camera...
http://mysite.verizon.net/resqmxkh/a_few_images/index.html

Great job of articulating what I was thinking. Kind of like Charlton Heston as a spokesman for the NRA; his acting in "Planet of the Apes" has NOTHING to do with the issues at the core of gun control and the right to keep and bear arms...
--
PhotoBoyKane
Just some guy with a camera...
http://mysite.verizon.net/resqmxkh/a_few_images/index.html

balloonchasers said:

Proud owner of a card that is grey....but maybe I should take a
picture of the sliced bread and use that to set my WB? ;-)

Click to expand...

Done it again !!

Back in the days of big flash bulbs that screwed into bases the same as household light bulbs, a technique called pilot light metering was developed. All of the lighting was done with light bulbs screwed into the fixtures, and metered with an "artificial" ASA in the light meter. The correct aperture was transferred to the lens, the light bulbs were replaced with flash bulbs, the sync cord was attached to the lens, the exposure was made, the flash bulbs were replaced, another exposure, etc...

I updated that technique to allow use of studio strobes with my 35mm film camera without having to continually pull out the flash meter or make adjustments for polarizers, ND filters, macro shots, etc. I'm including brand names, etc. but obviously some adjustment can and should be made for individual circumstances...
-35mm Fuji Velvia, RVP
-set camera to Shutter Priority, ei 6400
-set shutter speed to 1/40th second
-fresh 250 watt ETB model lamps in Speedotron strobe heads
-power output 400 ws per head
-filtration as required for neutral rendition of gray card (CC & LB) on lens

The TTL camera would read the light from the modeling lamps, factor in the shutter speed and ASA, and set the aperture to what it THOUGHT was the correct exposure. The modeling lamps alone would be underexposed by about 6 or 7 stops, but the flash at 400 watt seconds was about 6 or 7 stops brighter that the modeling lamps during the exposure time. I used a Nikon F100 set to run brackets of 5 frames in 1/3 stop increments and the best exposure was generally the one in the middle, occasionally one over or under by 1/3, rarely off by 2/3, and I never had to reshoot due to missing the exposure altogether.

Unfortunately, there's no way to fool digital cameras in the same manner, but fortunately we can get an image and a histogram that show us what we need immediately.

Please note how easy this is for a professional with thirty years of experience and an impressive client list to impart knowledge FOR FREE. If anyone wants or needs any clarification on how to make this technique work, they can ask for help and I'll respond as best I can.

--
PhotoBoyKane
Just some guy with a camera...
http://mysite.verizon.net/resqmxkh/a_few_images/index.html

PhotoBoyKane said:

PhotoBoyKane said:

PhotoBoyKane said:

Guess in all your years you never used studio lights where a camera meter is useless but a tri-color target is quite useful for exposure.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Joe, my guess is that you didn't actually look at my images. Most of
what I get paid to shoot is done in-studio.
Once you've tested your studio gear, no color metering is necessary
unless you're using odd colored reflective or transmissive light
modifiers.

Click to expand...

But we're not discussing color, we're discussing exposure. Perhaps we're not on the same page. The tri-color target has black-grey-white and is useful to check subject exposure in studio. Certainly more useful than a camera meter which can't measure studio strobes.

PhotoBoyKane said:

By the way, I shoot both strobe and tungsten regularly.
With tungsten, the camera meter is by no means useless. When
shooting 35mm film under strobes, I used a technique called "pilot
light metering". I'll gladly explain that one in depth if you, or
anyone else, is interested. It allowed the TTL meter to set my
exposure with excellent results. Again, hardly what I would consider
to be useless...

Click to expand...

Well you didn't mention continuous light so my general assumption for studio light is strobes. I think that's a very fair assumption since it's probaly 99% of the work posted here in the lighting section when people mention "studio".

My point remains valid, studio strobes and camera metering is useless.

PhotoBoyKane said:

I owned and used the Minolta color meter, but only on location under
unpredictable sources was it of actual value.

Click to expand...

Again, color metering was not the point of this particular debate. It was exposure.

PhotoBoyKane said:

Now that I've migrated to digital, the camera meter still handles
tungsten or daylight flawlessly and the camera LCD or the tethered
computer screen give me the visual feedback needed for strobe
situations.

Click to expand...

Great, except we were never talking about continuous lights AND while the LCD gives visual feedback there's nothing wrong with using a tri-color target to be sure exposure is on the money.

Remember, the only reason I replied to you was your obnoxious comment "crappola at any price". It serves a very useful purpose for many and there's no ONE right way to do anything.

Joe

Joe,

There can be quite a big difference between what a camera's LCD histo shows and the actual accurate exposure of the scene. The camera histo is processed for JPEG and most show clips on any one channel which may or may not be relevant to the capture. I think the guy in the video about this thing only talks about using PS histograms and not incamera.

Also, any of the lighting gurus on here can give several scene examples where equalized histograms don't relate to accurate exposure for relevant scene content.
Regards,
VG

Joe Marques said:

PhotoBoyKane said:

Joe Marques said:

Joe Marques said:

Guess in all your years you never used studio lights where a camera meter is useless but a tri-color target is quite useful for exposure.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Joe, my guess is that you didn't actually look at my images. Most of
what I get paid to shoot is done in-studio.
Once you've tested your studio gear, no color metering is necessary
unless you're using odd colored reflective or transmissive light
modifiers.

Click to expand...

But we're not discussing color, we're discussing exposure. Perhaps
we're not on the same page. The tri-color target has
black-grey-white and is useful to check subject exposure in studio.
Certainly more useful than a camera meter which can't measure studio
strobes.

Joe Marques said:

By the way, I shoot both strobe and tungsten regularly.
With tungsten, the camera meter is by no means useless. When
shooting 35mm film under strobes, I used a technique called "pilot
light metering". I'll gladly explain that one in depth if you, or
anyone else, is interested. It allowed the TTL meter to set my
exposure with excellent results. Again, hardly what I would consider
to be useless...

Click to expand...

Well you didn't mention continuous light so my general assumption for
studio light is strobes. I think that's a very fair assumption since
it's probaly 99% of the work posted here in the lighting section when
people mention "studio".

My point remains valid, studio strobes and camera metering is useless.

Joe Marques said:

I owned and used the Minolta color meter, but only on location under
unpredictable sources was it of actual value.

Click to expand...

Again, color metering was not the point of this particular debate.
It was exposure.

Joe Marques said:

Now that I've migrated to digital, the camera meter still handles
tungsten or daylight flawlessly and the camera LCD or the tethered
computer screen give me the visual feedback needed for strobe
situations.

Click to expand...

Great, except we were never talking about continuous lights AND while
the LCD gives visual feedback there's nothing wrong with using a
tri-color target to be sure exposure is on the money.

Remember, the only reason I replied to you was your obnoxious comment
"crappola at any price". It serves a very useful purpose for many
and there's no ONE right way to do anything.

Joe

Click to expand...

PhotoBoyKane said:

Pilot light metering solution...

Please note how easy this is for a professional with thirty years of
experience and an impressive client list to impart knowledge FOR
FREE. If anyone wants or needs any clarification on how to make this
technique work, they can ask for help and I'll respond as best I can.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that, I was intruiged by your method.

To a lesser extent when shooting 5x4 I was made to use 1600 asa b&w polaroid and shoot through a 16x ND filter to establish the correct exposure for 100 asa transparency. Cheaper than 100asa Polaroid !!

Much the same could be accomplished now I suppose if you have proportional modelling lamps and light heads (the same or otherwise) with appropriately proportioned lamps. Once you know the formula the exposure using your 'pilot light' method would always be 'correct'.

I find that compared to Polaroid of the past the LCD on the camera is a far better alternative, both for colour and exposure. The only better alternative is shooting tethered with a calibrated screen.

Technical knowledge apart - if a tungsten scene looks better shot in daylight mode, for whatever reason, there isn't an exposure chart or colour chart which will provide a better solution. It doesn't matter what the meters say, if it doesn't look right, it doesn't look right. Centering an exposure on any known gray value doesn't guarantee a correct exposure, but it can help.

Ian.

VG said:

Joe,
There can be quite a big difference between what a camera's LCD histo
shows and the actual accurate exposure of the scene. The camera histo
is processed for JPEG and most show clips on any one channel which
may or may not be relevant to the capture. I think the guy in the
video about this thing only talks about using PS histograms and not
incamera.

Click to expand...

I agree, however, it's not a problem using a black/grey/white target in my experience.

VG said:

Also, any of the lighting gurus on here can give several scene
examples where equalized histograms don't relate to accurate exposure
for relevant scene content.

Click to expand...

Not really relevant to this discussion. The histo I'm referencing is for a black/grey/white target which will ALWAYS have 3 spikes uniformly across the histo. Obviously, they will move based on exposure so placement IS the key to exposure. Here's a sample shot where I used the target to calibrate my handheld meter.

Here's the calibration (I used the f7.1 exposure as "ideal"):



Here's the exposure of a tough subject afte calibration - black and white toy car:



PS - I'm one of the guys who has demonstrated that a histogram of a SCENE is no way to judge exposure - here's a sample of what I've posted in the past:



Regards,

Joe

PhotoBoyKane said:

Please note how easy this is for a professional with thirty years of
experience and an impressive client list to impart knowledge FOR
FREE. If anyone wants or needs any clarification on how to make this
technique work, they can ask for help and I'll respond as best I can.

Click to expand...

It's important to remember that years of experience doesn't correlate to expertise. Talent plays a huge role as does accelerated learning. Tiger dominating golf since his early 20's is a classic example. There are unlimited examples of this concept - with talent being the crux of the most compelling data on employee performance - Gallup's "First, Break All the Rules" book.

So with DiVitale being in another league, it's only natural for you to be somewhat jealous and critical of him.

Joe

A DPR regular Primax featured in Rangefinder mag. 4 years ago he was a novice here taking snapshots with a point and shoot digital. Now his senior portrait work is as good or better than ANY photographer - 30 years experience or more:

http://www.rangefindermag.com/magazine/Aug07/32.pdf

Accelerated learning and talent at it's best.

Joe

It doesn't matter what color refererences the target use, if you're using the camera histogram to accurately judge exposure latitude then you'll always be off. Sometimes this matters, sometimes it doesn't. But generally, these discussions are focused on accuracy of some imaging parameter or other.

The white and black of the target correspond to what white and black in a digital capture and subsequent output? How black is the black? How white is the white? This sorta falls in line with the white towel reference that Chuck Gardner uses as texture/detail is a relevancy in these scenarios.
Regards,
VG

PS...Histograms can be used to judge relevant exposure of an image, just not equalized histograms. Matching the luminosity of the data is the key, not the spread of the data.

Joe Marques said:

VG said:

Joe,
There can be quite a big difference between what a camera's LCD histo
shows and the actual accurate exposure of the scene. The camera histo
is processed for JPEG and most show clips on any one channel which
may or may not be relevant to the capture. I think the guy in the
video about this thing only talks about using PS histograms and not
incamera.

Click to expand...

I agree, however, it's not a problem using a black/grey/white target
in my experience.

Joe Marques said:

Also, any of the lighting gurus on here can give several scene
examples where equalized histograms don't relate to accurate exposure
for relevant scene content.

Click to expand...

Not really relevant to this discussion. The histo I'm referencing is
for a black/grey/white target which will ALWAYS have 3 spikes
uniformly across the histo. Obviously, they will move based on
exposure so placement IS the key to exposure. Here's a sample shot
where I used the target to calibrate my handheld meter.

Here's the calibration (I used the f7.1 exposure as "ideal"):



Here's the exposure of a tough subject afte calibration - black and
white toy car:



PS - I'm one of the guys who has demonstrated that a histogram of a
SCENE is no way to judge exposure - here's a sample of what I've
posted in the past:



Regards,

Joe

Click to expand...

Joe,

Just a view on this post. A lot of people on the web think that EVERY great photographer has a website or some rag or peer group that exonerates them. Or think that they need these things to be classified in that category. There are multitudes of great imagers out there that we've never seen or heard of and whose techniques make a lot of the hohum stuff you see here seem trivial. So ANY may be a rather large word in this case.
Regards,
VG

Joe Marques said:

A DPR regular Primax featured in Rangefinder mag. 4 years ago he was
a novice here taking snapshots with a point and shoot digital. Now
his senior portrait work is as good or better than ANY photographer -
30 years experience or more:

http://www.rangefindermag.com/magazine/Aug07/32.pdf

Accelerated learning and talent at it's best.

Joe

Click to expand...

Joe Marques said:

The histo I'm referencing is
for a black/grey/white target which will ALWAYS have 3 spikes
uniformly across the histo. Obviously, they will move based on
exposure so placement IS the key to exposure. Here's a sample shot
where I used the target to calibrate my handheld meter.

Click to expand...

Joe

why would you want to calibrate a hand held meter and then revert back to the card for exposure values?

The idea of calibrating a meter is that when calibrated you use it. Where the spikes end up is dinkum.

Exposure wise, everything you've posted could be achieved with your meter. If the points on the card move up and down the histogram whats the point in them being there apart from the fact you put a card in the shot?

Joe Marques said:

But we're not discussing color, we're discussing exposure.

Click to expand...

I re-read the original message, it says 'You can also use one patch for color balance by shooting through it' so this thread includes colour balance too.
In a way, both are inextricably linked.

It seems to me that theres a lot of discussion about how to arrive at a ballpark exposure and then a need to use scientific measures to prove that you did in fact arrive there. Everything else is subjective.

Ian