Shooting RAW doesn't postpone the problem, it just allows you absolute control during post processing. For setting white balance, you should use a pure white card, not a neutral gray card. Paul
> I believe the auto setting is quite good. > Better perhaps is using the optional manual setting by measuring off a > proper grey card. It's quite easy and very useful for studio work for > instance. (Should this be an ordinary grey card BTW? - AFAIR any neutral > grey or white can be used successfully). > > Shooting RAW does allow you to correct the WB/Colour Temperature later. That > is of course only postponing the problem, isn't it? > Another method to correct colours is by using the pipette in Photoshop CS > (levels) to determine "neutral grey". I do this a lot. > > all the best > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 10. marts 2005 04:12 > Til: [email protected] > Cc: Paul Stenquist; Bruce Dayton; Rob Studdert > Emne: Setting White Balance (was: NorCal First Pic) > > > I just noticed that the white balance was set @ 4450 for every shot I took > - about ninety. That tells me that perhaps Bruce had set the WB at that > level for some reason and, of course, not knowing squat about WB, the tones > of the pics are all over the place. So, how important is the proper WB > setting? I know it can be adjusted in the RAW converters, but does the > image suffer in any way because of it? What's the best way to set WB on > the istD? Use the auto feature or try to set it by estimating the color > temp of the light. > > Shel > > > >
