What is gray?

[R_Fredrick_Smith]

Originally Posted by brother7

A question to R_Fredrick_Smith:
Do you have both the Digital Calibration Target and the 24-patch Gretag Macbeth? Do you shoot in RAW?

I have both and I shoot in RAW. As an experiment, under the same lighting conditions, I did the following...
1. Set custom WB using Digital Calibration Target.
2. Shoot image #1 of Digital Calibration Target.
3. Shoot image #2 of 24-patch Gretag Macbeth.
4. In ACR, open image #1 and perform a 1-click WB on the gray part of the target.
5. In ACR, open image #2 and perform a 1-click WB on a gray swatch. (I usually use one of the 2 swatches next to the white swatch)

What I've discovered is that in step 4, the 1-click WB doesn't change the WB much. (Remember, I did a custom WB in-camera prior to shooting image #1). But when I open the Gretag-Macbeth image, the 1-click WB yields a substantially different reading.

And in my opinion, the Digital Calibration Target WB is better than the Gretag Macbeth. Your experience and thoughts?

Yes, I've found the DCT more useful that the Macbeth. And I do believe the grays are different. But keep in mind that the 1/3rd from the right is the 18% gray. I think the ones you are clicking on are the 8% and the 12%. And its not really a question of better, but what you are using it for. I use the DCT for white balance and for precise exposure control and I use the Macbeth for RAW calibration in ACR (on the calibrate tab)

Cheers,
rfs

[Stecyk]

RFS,

Where did you get your three part gray card with the white, black, and grey? I have not found a similar gray card while browsing through the online stores.

I like your demonstration of the three peaks in the histogram. Would you hold this gray card at a 45 degree angle to the camera? Just thinking out loud, doesn't this 45 degree angle also depend upon the direction of the light source? I can visualize different schemes that would satisfy the 45 degree angle requirement, but that would also reflect different amounts of light.

Thank you.

Kevin

[jimmyd]

it's amazing the incredible amount of importance photographers place on the science of photography, discussing it in scientific terms and values. i wonder if that's why so many artists don't seem to hold photography, as an art, in the same esteem as painting and sculpture and other such artistic endeavors? photographers often seem overly busy looking for ways to quantify photography in scientific terms whereas artists, generally, are more focused on abstractions and aesthetics and things that are less quantifiable... like emotion and feeling.

i'm just thinking out loud here.

[rolandogomez]

jimmy,

I agree but also disagree with your remarks. When I shoot, the technical is out the door, but not subconsciously as I've come to learn it over the years. I try not to think outloud. (grin)

I often tell people at my workshops, you can take the tape measures and compasses and throw them away, as in my days of "photo books" all these captions stated things like 12-feet at 45-degrees, 3:1 lighting ratios. Who has the time to do the math? Just shoot the darn thing and make your "observations" then adjust.

On the disagreement, even a painter needs to use the right brush, brush stroke, and color pallett too, along with understanding the power of chiaroscuro and do I paint in Fresco, Oils, Acrylics or Charcoal and the type of canvas I put it on. Knowing how to mix hues, tints and paints in general can be "technical" too.

Wishing you the best, and happy holidays, talk soon, rg sends!

[brother7]

Originally Posted by Stecyk

Where did you get your three part gray card with the white, black, and grey? I have not found a similar gray card while browsing through the online stores.

Take a look at PhotoVision's website. That's where I got mine from.

Originally Posted by R_Fredrick_Smith

I use the DCT for white balance and for precise exposure control and I use the Macbeth for RAW calibration in ACR (on the calibrate tab)

What method do you use with the Macbeth for ACR's Calibrate tab settings? I've tried Fors' ACR-Calibrate script, but didn't like the result.

[jimmyd]

Originally Posted by rolandogomez

jimmy,

I agree but also disagree with your remarks. When I shoot, the technical is out the door, but not subconsciously as I've come to learn it over the years. I try not to think outloud. (grin)

hehehe... you're making my point and you probly know you are. once shooters learn the science and get comfortable with it they really don't have to spend much time thinking about it cuz it becomes automatic. remember that best-seller called automatic golf? that's what photographers need to work towards. that's what i tell guys when i'm helping them develop their skills: the tech stuff needs to become automatic and second-nature and if you spend too much time worrying about that stuff because it isn't automatic, you'll be spending less time on the creative side of things and/or you won't be spending your time getting what you need to get out of your model.

[brother7]

Originally Posted by jimmyd

it's amazing the incredible amount of importance photographers place on the science of photography, discussing it in scientific terms and values.

Two things I've heard that I use to justify trying to understand these concepts are:
1. For consistency, it's best to have a common starting point (WB, exposure).
2. You first learn the rules, then you learn when it's ok to break them.

My goal for getting "correct" WB is to have a common starting point from which to begin processing in PS.

But I tend agree mostly with your comment below about being overly obsessed with the technical. I know because I've done it and am still doing it. I'm trying to break that habit.

[R_Fredrick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Stecyk

RFS,

Where did you get your three part gray card with the white, black, and grey? I have not found a similar gray card while browsing through the online stores.

I like your demonstration of the three peaks in the histogram. Would you hold this gray card at a 45 degree angle to the camera? Just thinking out loud, doesn't this 45 degree angle also depend upon the direction of the light source? I can visualize different schemes that would satisfy the 45 degree angle requirement, but that would also reflect different amounts of light.

Thank you.

Kevin

Here is the website where I ordered mine:

http://www.photovisionvideo.com/target.html

I have the 14" one. I also used the 34" one for a while, but found it too large. The 14" one is just right. You get a 1 hour DVD with it and it goes in to detail on how to use, etc. As a general rule you place the target in the scene with the white side on the same side as the main light. You then fill the viewfinder of the camera so you can see all three divisions about equally. Then you shoot and look for the 3 spikes in the histogram. You usually hold the target toward the camera (which is the same thing you do with the incident bulb of a light meter).

cheers,
rfs

[R_Fredrick_Smith]

Originally Posted by jimmyd

hehehe... you're making my point and you probly know you are. once shooters learn the science and get comfortable with it they really don't have to spend much time thinking about it cuz it becomes automatic. remember that best-seller called automatic golf? that's what photographers need to work towards. that's what i tell guys when i'm helping them develop their skills: the tech stuff needs to become automatic and second-nature and if you spend too much time worrying about that stuff because it isn't automatic, you'll be spending less time on the creative side of things and/or you won't be spending your time getting what you need to get out of your model.

Exactly!

What it boils down to, is that one must be the master of the technical side of any art form, to then reach the point where that mastery is not even considered or thought about, but is just expertly used in the creation of the artistic work, and for the most part un-noticed by those who merely watch and wonder.

Based on the above observation, I certainly see a large number of photographers who do not know the basics of getting good exposures and lighting ratios. This is based on the photos they post to the forums. I often see in those photos, however, a really nice idea or pose, or theme, but just poor execution. That is why it is necessary to keep hammering at the technical side of things so that slowly more and more of these photographers will start overcoming the technical limitations and then be able to really capture the vision they have.

I think Rolando can relate to part of the idea of how these little technical things that are so clear to many of us, are somehow unknown or unthought of by many. As an example, at virtually every workshop of his that I've been to, there are always a number of photographers who when told the fstop to use for a given strobe lighting setup, ask for him to also tell them the shutter speed. Naturally he explains that they can use any shutter speed (at or below the sync speed), but usually they should choose one close to the sync speed of their camera. Sometimes this leads to a discussion of dragging the shutter and why you might do it. The people who ask that "what shutter speed" question, clearly do not understand the basics of strobe photography (a technical issue).

I look on Glamour One as sort of a giant workshop. Most of the members do not have their technical skills at a finely honed level, and thus I think there has to be a considerable and extended discussion of technical issues.

Cheers,
rfs

[Stecyk]

Originally Posted by R_Fredrick_Smith

Here is the website where I ordered mine:

http://www.photovisionvideo.com/target.html

I have the 14" one. I also used the 34" one for a while, but found it too large. The 14" one is just right. You get a 1 hour DVD with it and it goes in to detail on how to use, etc. As a general rule you place the target in the scene with the white side on the same side as the main light. You then fill the viewfinder of the camera so you can see all three divisions about equally. Then you shoot and look for the 3 spikes in the histogram. You usually hold the target toward the camera (which is the same thing you do with the incident bulb of a light meter).

cheers,
rfs

Thank you!