Round ii- nikon d700 vs. x-e2

I would consider it worth the risk if it's in very good condition. The shutter is only rated to 150k and many die shortly after that, but many go well beyond that as well (keep in mind the DB is dependent on individuals actually reporting).
And a shutter replacement ($250-500 depending on what else they decide needs fixing) would still put it under the average price.
 
Ah. Makes sense. So even if I used an expodisc To set custom white balance in camera, it wouldn't apply anyway?

Correct. Setting a custom WB on the camera has no effect on the raw file. It only applies to the camera generated JPEG. If you shoot raw and you really want accurate WB then you'll shoot a reference target for the light.
Yes, but most programs will "apply" the WB setting to the raw file on import. Many OEM programs will even apply all of the Jpeg settings to the raw file... Not that it's "critical," but it can be extra work to "undo."

What programs "apply" on import is their interpretation of the camera's WB; if you load the same photo into 5 different raw converters no two will show exactly the same WB. So you can't set a WB on the camera and then expect to see that WB when you open the raw file. It'll typically be close but each raw converter inputs the file using their own profile. I know they usually say something like "As Shot" or "From Camera" but what you get isn't consistent one to the next nor does it necessarily match what you set on the camera.

I've done them all.. uni, custom, grey, etc etc...now I do none. Here's the reality...there is no such thing as a "correct WB." (and I can almost always find a pure white/black in an image, or close enough).

Of course there's correct WB. That color checker for example has known colors that we can measured by the numbers. If you photograph the color checker so that the colors in your photo match the real colors in the checker you've got correct WB. Photograph a grey card and if the RGB values for the card in your photo are equal you've got correct WB.

Now, if I was doing a long shoot with a bunch of images taken in the same light..hell yeah I'd use a grey card... set WB for one image and copy it to all the rest. But I don't typically do that kind of work.

The only good use for a color checker is to compare a print to your (hopefully calibrated) display...

You can use a color checker to create input profiles for your cameras. I find that to be a good use especially if you want accurate color.

Joe
 
Thanks everyone. I passed on the d700. Part of me regrets it but the other half kf me wants to get away from dslr's
 
Of course there's correct WB. That color checker for example has known colors that we can measured by the numbers. If you photograph the color checker so that the colors in your photo match the real colors in the checker you've got correct WB. Photograph a grey card and if the RGB values for the card in your photo are equal you've got correct WB.
I know that....but the point is that "correct" doesn't always mean true black/white/grey. In fact, for a lot of photography you don't WANT perfect color balance. And you don't usually want "accurate color." Quite often you want more/less saturation/vibrance/black point/white point, etc.

By input file I assume you mean a custom camera profile... I suppose, if you want. You could also just do it manually.

The end point really isn't that the image displays or edits "correctly" on a screen, but rather that it prints the way you expect it to. My screen can be jacked up, and my camera profile/defaults jacked up to compensate, and it wouldn't matter as long as it printed correctly (granted, that's a stupid approach).

I do calibrate my monitor, and I use printer profiles... that's more than enough for me. If I have a bunch of images with the same exposure/scene then I will edit one and sync them... Taking a grey card image would make that more "accurate," but not "better."
 
Thanks everyone. I passed on the d700. Part of me regrets it but the other half kf me wants to get away from dslr's
Well, at least it seems you are progressing towards a decision...
 
Of course there's correct WB. That color checker for example has known colors that we can measured by the numbers. If you photograph the color checker so that the colors in your photo match the real colors in the checker you've got correct WB. Photograph a grey card and if the RGB values for the card in your photo are equal you've got correct WB.
I know that....but the point is that "correct" doesn't always mean true black/white/grey. In fact, for a lot of photography you don't WANT perfect color balance. And you don't usually want "accurate color." Quite often you want more/less saturation/vibrance/black point/white point, etc.

I don't want accurate color? OMG! All these years and I've been doing it wrong!! And that college class I teach in Color Management -- OH NOOO!!! How many students have I misled? :wink:

correct

adjective : true or accurate : agreeing with facts : having no errors or mistakes
-- Merriam Webster

The point is "correct" always does mean accurate. All I said was, "If you shoot raw and you really want accurate WB then you'll shoot a reference target for the light." And I can back that up. You came along with, 'Here's the reality...there is no such thing as a 'correct WB.'" So that's just nonsense and you're sounding very confused now and trying to redefine simple words.

I think you want to say that you have license as the artist to interpret the color in your photo and if you don't want it to be accurate for whatever reason you're not wrong to do that. That's fine. Of course you can do that. But correct WB is a reality and an option for those who want to pursue it. There's a good argument held by experts in the discipline that your license to interpret the color in your photo is valid only after you can demonstrate that you posses the skill to be accurate when it's called for.

By input file I assume you mean a custom camera profile... I suppose, if you want. You could also just do it manually.

The end point really isn't that the image displays or edits "correctly" on a screen, but rather that it prints the way you expect it to. My screen can be jacked up, and my camera profile/defaults jacked up to compensate, and it wouldn't matter as long as it printed correctly (granted, that's a stupid approach).

I do calibrate my monitor, and I use printer profiles... that's more than enough for me. If I have a bunch of images with the same exposure/scene then I will edit one and sync them... Taking a grey card image would make that more "accurate," but not "better."

Most people would in general say that accurate is better than inaccurate.

Joe
 
No, I'm not confused...
Photography is about "feeling" and "communication," it has very little to do with "accurate" or "correct." And it really doesn't matter *what* the subject is (unless you're doing some type of scientific study maybe).

I think you want to say that you have license as the artist to interpret the color in your photo and if you don't want it to be accurate for whatever reason you're not wrong to do that. That's fine. Of course you can do that.
Yes, I guess that's what I'm trying to say...

And just to be a complete d!ck... Which is "correct," allowing whites to be yellow due to sunset/tungsten because that's how they actually were, or adjusting them to white even though they weren't white? Or setting Wb so that the pale thin skinned individual looks blue/pink as they actually were, or adjusting the WB so they appear as we perceive them to be? The answer is, neither is "correct." IMHO, chasing "correct" is fairly pointless.
 
No, I'm not confused...
Photography is about "feeling" and "communication," it has very little to do with "accurate" or "correct." And it really doesn't matter *what* the subject is (unless you're doing some type of scientific study maybe).

I think you want to say that you have license as the artist to interpret the color in your photo and if you don't want it to be accurate for whatever reason you're not wrong to do that. That's fine. Of course you can do that.
Yes, I guess that's what I'm trying to say...

And just to be a complete d!ck... Which is "correct," allowing whites to be yellow due to sunset/tungsten because that's how they actually were, or adjusting them to white even though they weren't white? Or setting Wb so that the pale thin skinned individual looks blue/pink as they actually were, or adjusting the WB so they appear as we perceive them to be? The answer is, neither is "correct." IMHO, chasing "correct" is fairly pointless.

Just because something is fairly pointless to you in the photos you take doesn't mean it's pointless to everyone else. Try this example: you're photographing a product for a corporation and the product contains the corporate logo and corporate colors. I'll bet their marketing dept. will be concerned that you achieve accurate WB. Your projecting what matters to you on everyone else. All I did was answer the OP's question and explain how to get accurate WB. You're free not to do that, you just don't get to say that since it doesn't matter to you it shouldn't matter to everyone.

Joe
 
It's probably silly but I have this silly concern that I am going to feel like less of a photographer with a tiny little camera. Not to anyone else, because I don't care what anyone else thinks, but to myself in my mind.does that make sense? But maybe that's the freedom I need. I've always given up on photography in the past because I take it too seriously and stop having fun w my big ole dslr. I need a middle ground.

X-e2 it is. But I will probably upgrade to the X-t1 next year
 
Thank you both of you. Is that like checker any more a crate than a digital gray card?

The color checker is not more accurate for setting a custom WB. If that's all you want to do then all you need is a piece of white Styrofoam -- the lid from a container at the grocery store salad bar is ideal. The color checker will permit you to create a custom ICC input profile for your camera if you have the necessary software.

Joe

What do you mean by this? I'm interested.
 
Thank you both of you. Is that like checker any more a crate than a digital gray card?

The color checker is not more accurate for setting a custom WB. If that's all you want to do then all you need is a piece of white Styrofoam -- the lid from a container at the grocery store salad bar is ideal. The color checker will permit you to create a custom ICC input profile for your camera if you have the necessary software.

Joe

What do you mean by this? I'm interested.

This is an dead thread from a year ago. Might be a better to start a new one. Looks like your new here -- welcome. Can you be more specific about what you'd like to know?

Joe
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top