AWB vs. ExpoDisc
Is the first pic AWB, 2nd pic Expodisc?
Which version more closely represents the actual scene?
I have been considering getting an Expodisc, really like this comparison. Thanks for posting it.
Correct...1st AWB, 2nd ExpoDisc. The ExpoDisc rendered the scene closer to 'actual', the AWB tinted the sky and everything else blueish in my eyes and the sky was total grey overcast. I haven't used it for long, but so far am impressed by it's accuracy.
Here's three more to show you indoors, AWB, Tungsten, ExpoDisc...
I need more practice making sure that I'm identifying the main light source when custom setting with it, but I think it works very well.
No doubt...you are correct Sir! LOL! I just don't have that kind of time anymore for PP.
is not exactly time critical.
If you have (a little) time,
download the AfterShot Pro trial.
Set up a basic preset (feel free to message me)
and watch the wonder of an entire's day shooting
being PP'ed to about 95% complete in under a couple of minutes.
Interesting...I've never heard of that software, I'll check it out.
The ExpoDisc rendered the scene closer to 'actual',
I use the box caps of the Pringles chips (when it's opaque, or something similar)
it works pretty well and cost is zero (because I confess I eat the chips):
AWB - always seems to add orange indoors
AWB it's a factory compromise between tungsten and daylight, it can change depending to the market share of a dedicated camera.
Tungsten - pretty close to real life except the slight blue added which you can definitely see in the white buds
Tungsten may vary depending to the age of the lamp, the real type and so on. So I never use this one.
So yes, ExpoDisc and/or similar are nice.
« Shoot RAW+ ...think JPEG »
- Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Are you guys pointing the camera back toward the light source or at the subject?-- hide signature --
Very interesting point Gary indeed. I supposed that you refer to the ExpoDisk (or similar). Thanks to point that. I forgot to mention something. To my side, most of the time, it should be better pointing the camera at the subject. Except for some ambiant light situations:
- when you are too far of the subject (or you can't access due to area restrictions limits, like museum or other exposition sites, or you have some water flow between you and the subject, and so on...).
- when you want more to take into account the lighting source itself (than a perfect WB), when you want the full ambiant light combined with some strong colour refractions (but for some reasons, you don't want the WB so white, although you evaluated the overall scene not enough cold or neutral, ExpoDisk can help to give you a sort of colorimetric trend).
- when you have a sort of predominant reflections from some natural/local reflectors, like a wall of bamboo who makes your subject too greenish (compared to the grey-chart method) and you just want to attenuate this effect, but not cancelled all.
- cases when you don't want a perfect white balance, but a pinch of ambiant light, 'to give this little something' from the atmosphere of the main scene. (than something totally neutral).
And yes, ExpoDisk is not a "scientific method" to get a 'perfect WB', imho. But it can help in such situations only. So I just realize now, through your kind posting, than ExpoDisk is not an 'all in one' solution to solve our WB callibration, because it should be deceptive.. Thanks for that.
So many reasons you can't remebering in PP, so many reasons to set your WB "in the field", anyway...
« Shoot RAW+ ...think JPEG »