Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View",
where you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer
would use that in preference to the traditional viewfinder.

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.

It'll certainly tell you if you're using the wrong WB setting, but it's
no substitute for checking the RAW image on a calibrated CRT.

Yes, BUT WHAT IF YOU NEED AN IMMEDIATE IMAGE AND CAN'T PROCESS THE RAW
DATA!!!!!!

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I have two DSLRs, (Canon EOS 10D, & EOS 1Dmk2), & they both use
optical viewfinders. I certainly wouldn't waste my money on DSLRs with
[only] electronic viewfinders.

Are there any?

I hope not.

Nearly 40 years ago, I imagined a film-based SLR with an electronic
viewfinder that showed how the final image would look, depending on the film
you used, and (with B&W materials) the way you developed and printed.

That would be technically possible these days, but shooting in RAW mode,
there wouldn't be much use for it.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the
color
balance in real time.

Just shoot in RAW.
The colour balance is just a filter applied post shot to the RAW data.
You can then adjust it to whatever you want in the viewing conditions
you
want when you "develop" your pictures.

True, but what if you want or need to use the JPG immediately?

Most of the time, (on my Canons, at least) the automatic WB is good
enough for a casual observer. However, I find it unacceptable for
printing.

bang... bang... bang... bang... bang... [sound of William Sommerwerck
banging his head against a concrete wall]

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

I was making the point that Live View is a good way to get accurate color
balance at the time the photo is taken, especially under light sources
without continuous spectra. The issue is not whether a camera can take
raw
and compressed images at the same time, but whether one /needs/ a
properly
balanced JPG image /right away/. This is impossible with a raw file.

And how would you suggest that someone gets around that problem? It's
not always practical to shoot a white card & create a custom WB at the
time. (And in my case, I can't do it because the light's changing too
fast to get a useful WB from a white card anyway.)

Is deliberately misreading and misunderstanding what people post your
principal hobby?

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

On Thu, 14 May 2009 21:52:01 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:02:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:
snip
The value of an additional LCD view depends entirely on the sort of
photographic work you're doing. For close-up shots of complicated,
highly reflective objects a live view facility with pinpoint focussing
is a real boon - as is the ability to see the image in real time on a
computer screen. It allows for some very specialised techniques, such
as manipulating the depth-of-field by the millimetre.
You dont have a depth of field preview on the camera?

Indeed I do - but like most DOF previews it requires you to press the
button and hold it to maintain the function. You'd then have to
select the zoom focus function to magnify the portion of the image you
wanted to work on and make suitable adjustments - then move it to the
other end of the depth of field and do likewise...then move it back to
check the previous setting...and so on - and all on a three inch
screen. That's assuming you don't regard such conveniences as being
for wimps and prefer to squint through the viewfinder. You'd need a
particularly good tripod too with all that button pressing.
Using the data cable and a computer makes the operation faster, more
precise and realistically more feasible - all of which are benefits a
professional would consider essential.
In fact because of the limitations of DSLR live view at the current
time I'd say it was more of a function of use to the studio
professional than the amateur.

I wouldn't even say that.

See above.


If that's what you are up to, get a full frame film camera.


I'll give it some consideration.

There.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard
Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

Nearly 40 years ago, I imagined a film-based SLR with an electronic
viewfinder that showed how the final image would look, depending
on the film you used, and (with B&W materials) the way you
developed and printed.

That would be technically possible these days, but shooting in
RAW mode, there wouldn't be much use for it.

There would be, if you were shooting film. (See above.)

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

In message , Bob Larter
writes
dennis@home wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View",
where you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer
would use that in preference to the traditional viewfinder.

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.
Just shoot in RAW.
The colour balance is just a filter applied post shot to the RAW data.
You can then adjust it to whatever you want in the viewing conditions
you want when you "develop" your pictures.

Yes, that's what I do. It's especially important for my photography,
because I usually shoot under weird lighting, so it's impossible to set
an appropriate WB at the time.


The peculiar demands of pornography, eh ?

--
geoff

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

In message , William Sommerwerck
writes
"Bob Larter" wrote in message
.. .
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View",
where you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer
would use that in preference to the traditional viewfinder.

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.

It'll certainly tell you if you're using the wrong WB setting, but it's
no substitute for checking the RAW image on a calibrated CRT.

Yes, BUT WHAT IF YOU NEED AN IMMEDIATE IMAGE AND CAN'T PROCESS THE RAW
DATA!!!!!!

You cry in the corner ...

--
geoff

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Considering some of the cases that William S cited in a
thread last year, that had been successfully prosecuted
as being misleading in the US, I am surprised that someone
has not picked up on it over there...

This is one of those cases in which the people most-likely to object to
the
advertising are those aware of the ad's meaning, who therefore don't see
it
as a misrepresentation.

Sets that generate the image directly using LEDs or OLEDs are not
perceived
as having fundamental advantages *, so even if the display is incorrectly
called "LED", rather than "LED backlight", it is not seen as misleading.

Does that make any sense?

I'm not sure that it does, to be honest. I'm aware of the ad's meaning, and
it was exactly that which made me see it as a misrepresentation.


PS: Samsung's Website calls it an "LED TV" -- as distinct from "LCD TV" --
which is at least confusing.

No. More than that. It is patently *not* an LED TV. It is an LCD TV. Nothing
more, nothing less. I don't find that confusing - it is at the very least
misleading.



PPS: I've seen it in Fry's, and was not particularly impressed.

I haven't seen one yet, but hope to this coming weekend ...

Arfa

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

I've seen it in Fry's, and was not particularly impressed.

I haven't seen one yet, but hope to this coming weekend ...

The Fry's set appeared to have been set up in Garish mode, which, of course,
does nothing to make it look good.

"Frame Interpolate" was on, which I do not like, in any set using it. It
makes film look like video, which is Really Weird when watching material you
know was sourced from film.

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

On Fri, 15 May 2009 02:15:08 +0100, Arfa Daily wrote:

This is one of those cases in which the people most-likely to object to
the
advertising are those aware of the ad's meaning, who therefore don't see
it
as a misrepresentation.

Sets that generate the image directly using LEDs or OLEDs are not
perceived
as having fundamental advantages *, so even if the display is incorrectly
called "LED", rather than "LED backlight", it is not seen as misleading.

Does that make any sense?

I'm not sure that it does, to be honest. I'm aware of the ad's meaning, and
it was exactly that which made me see it as a misrepresentation.


PS: Samsung's Website calls it an "LED TV" -- as distinct from "LCD TV" --
which is at least confusing.

No. More than that. It is patently *not* an LED TV. It is an LCD TV. Nothing
more, nothing less. I don't find that confusing - it is at the very least
misleading.

I saw the ad. on TV last night and, had I seen it /before/ this thread
would have picked up on it, but how many viewers would? Most of us here
know the current state of OLED screens (and I'm waiting 'til they go to
32"+ and are affordable) but joe public will believe even politicians (and
they aren't affordable).

On similar lines is the 'digital' radio that's advertised - has LCD info
but is still analogue reception. IMO that's misleading as well.
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I was making the point that Live View is a good way to get accurate color
balance at the time the photo is taken, especially under light sources
without continuous spectra. The issue is not whether a camera can take
raw
and compressed images at the same time, but whether one /needs/ a
properly
balanced JPG image /right away/. This is impossible with a raw file.

And how would you suggest that someone gets around that problem? It's
not always practical to shoot a white card & create a custom WB at the
time. (And in my case, I can't do it because the light's changing too
fast to get a useful WB from a white card anyway.)

Is deliberately misreading and misunderstanding what people post your
principal hobby?

Nobody else seems to have a problem with my posts.

Again, how do you think that LiveView helps you get a properly
white-balanced JPEG, in camera? Or do you perhaps consider one of the
standard WB settings to be 'properly balanced'? If so, you & I are
talking about two different things.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View",
where you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer
would use that in preference to the traditional viewfinder.

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.

It'll certainly tell you if you're using the wrong WB setting, but it's
no substitute for checking the RAW image on a calibrated CRT.

Yes, BUT WHAT IF YOU NEED AN IMMEDIATE IMAGE AND CAN'T PROCESS THE RAW
DATA!!!!!!

THEN I SHOOT RAW+JPEG & USE THE JPEG WITH THE CRAPPY WB!!11!!!

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

geoff wrote:
In message , William Sommerwerck
writes
"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View",
where you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer
would use that in preference to the traditional viewfinder.

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the
color
balance in real time.

It'll certainly tell you if you're using the wrong WB setting, but it's
no substitute for checking the RAW image on a calibrated CRT.

Yes, BUT WHAT IF YOU NEED AN IMMEDIATE IMAGE AND CAN'T PROCESS THE RAW
DATA!!!!!!

You cry in the corner ...

LOL.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View",
where you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer
would use that in preference to the traditional viewfinder.

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.

It'll certainly tell you if you're using the wrong WB setting, but it's
no substitute for checking the RAW image on a calibrated CRT.

Yes, BUT WHAT IF YOU NEED AN IMMEDIATE IMAGE AND CAN'T PROCESS THE RAW
DATA!!!!!!


I do not understand what an immediate image is. If I want an immediate
image, I use my eyes.

If I want a record, I take a photograph. Which has to be do9wnloaded
ontp a copmputer or printed out to be any use.

So what on earth are you on about?

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

"PeterC" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 May 2009 02:15:08 +0100, Arfa Daily wrote:

This is one of those cases in which the people most-likely to object to
the
advertising are those aware of the ad's meaning, who therefore don't see
it
as a misrepresentation.

Sets that generate the image directly using LEDs or OLEDs are not
perceived
as having fundamental advantages *, so even if the display is
incorrectly
called "LED", rather than "LED backlight", it is not seen as misleading.

Does that make any sense?

I'm not sure that it does, to be honest. I'm aware of the ad's meaning,
and
it was exactly that which made me see it as a misrepresentation.


PS: Samsung's Website calls it an "LED TV" -- as distinct from "LCD
TV" --
which is at least confusing.

No. More than that. It is patently *not* an LED TV. It is an LCD TV.
Nothing
more, nothing less. I don't find that confusing - it is at the very least
misleading.

I saw the ad. on TV last night and, had I seen it /before/ this thread
would have picked up on it, but how many viewers would? Most of us here
know the current state of OLED screens (and I'm waiting 'til they go to
32"+ and are affordable) but joe public will believe even politicians (and
they aren't affordable).

On similar lines is the 'digital' radio that's advertised - has LCD info
but is still analogue reception. IMO that's misleading as well.
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

Most radios that are offered as "digital", are actually DAB types, although
they may well have an analogue receiver inside them as well, for when you
get fed up of listening to Daleks reading the news, or wondering why someone
in the orchestra, is blowing bubbles through a drinking straw, or even why
the whole orchestra keeps stopping momentarily at what you are sure are
inappropriate places ... :-)

As far as OLEDs go, I'm honestly not sure that they will ever get up to
'living room' size. A much better technology which is capable of being
manufactured to large sizes, and which can apparently rival the best CRTs
(as it is in effect a variant of CRT technology, without all the bulk) has
existed for some time now. But it is unfortunately buried in litigation over
ownership or some such, so doesn't look likely to come storming into our
shops anytime soon. Which is a shame, because from what I have read of it,
it would knock all of the current technologies completely into yesterday. If
you want to look into this technology, it's called "SED" or similar slight
variations. I think that the actual name is a little longer than 3 words,
but "Surface Emission Display" is enough to find it on the 'net.

Arfa

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
Most radios that are offered as "digital", are actually DAB types,
although they may well have an analogue receiver inside them as well,
for when you get fed up of listening to Daleks reading the news, or
wondering why someone in the orchestra, is blowing bubbles through a
drinking straw, or even why the whole orchestra keeps stopping
momentarily at what you are sure are inappropriate places ... :-)

I have a DAB radio in the car - with the correct aerial - and round London
it performs rather better than FM. So it's not all bad. But any radio
system won't work properly with an inadequate signal. And DAB was
originally designed with mobile reception in mind - although very very few
have DAB car radios.

--
*How do you tell when you run out of invisible ink? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

"Bob Larter" wrote in message
.. .
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On May 13, 12:31 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Arfa Daily" wrote in message

...

No, I wasn't either. I have two friends who both own top end digital
SLRs,
one because he is a professional photographer, and the other because
he is
a very keen hobbyist. I have looked at the viewfinder images closely
on
both of these cameras, and the rendition of flesh tones in all the
varieties is excellent, and the professional of the two has commented
to
me how good he thinks the viewfinder is at colour rendition under all
light levels (input that is, not viewing conditions).
Top level digital SLRs don't use any electronics in the viewfinder, its
all
done with mirrors.

And your posts use smoke and mirrors.
In this case strangely rarely and uniquely, Dennis is correct. My SLR has
no electronics in the viewfinder. Its all done with mirrors.


And a pentaprism, presumably. ;^)

My cheap e500 has a penta-mirror.
Prisms are too expensive?
Does the same job but has a higher light loss.

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

PS: Samsung's Website calls it an "LED TV" -- as distinct from "LCD
TV" --
which is at least confusing.

No. More than that. It is patently *not* an LED TV. It is an LCD TV.
Nothing more, nothing less. I don't find that confusing - it is at the
very least misleading.



PPS: I've seen it in Fry's, and was not particularly impressed.

I haven't seen one yet, but hope to this coming weekend ...

The PC I am using has an LED backlight display..
it is much brighter for the same power usage as my older screen.
I can't really say what the quality is like as it has a touch screen and
that makes it look a bit grainy.

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

I was making the point that Live View is a good way to get accurate
color
balance at the time the photo is taken, especially under light sources
without continuous spectra. The issue is not whether a camera can take
raw
and compressed images at the same time, but whether one /needs/ a
properly
balanced JPG image /right away/. This is impossible with a raw file.

And how would you suggest that someone gets around that problem? It's
not always practical to shoot a white card & create a custom WB at the
time. (And in my case, I can't do it because the light's changing too
fast to get a useful WB from a white card anyway.)

Is deliberately misreading and misunderstanding what people post your
principal hobby?

Nobody else seems to have a problem with my posts.


Maybe the other people understood what I was talking about. Imagine we were
having a similar conversation 20 years ago...

Me: Polaroid prints can be really handy if you need an immediate picture,
such as when you have to meet a newspaper deadline.

You: But you can get better quality by taking the photo on conventional film
and printing it just the way you like.

Me: Yes, but you won't have it ready in time. The Polaroid gives you the
picture immediately.

You: Printing a negative gives you control you don't get from the instant
print.

Me: [bangs head repeatedly against the wall]

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

Yes, BUT WHAT IF YOU NEED AN IMMEDIATE IMAGE AND
CAN'T PROCESS THE RAW DATA!!!!!!

THEN I SHOOT RAW+JPEG & USE THE JPEG WITH THE
CRAPPY WB!!11!!!

The white balance needn't be "crappy" if you take a moment to set it with
live view. I've tried it, and it works very well, particularly under
fluorescent light, where a bit of green/magenta correction is needed.

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I was making the point that Live View is a good way to get accurate
color
balance at the time the photo is taken, especially under light sources
without continuous spectra. The issue is not whether a camera can take
raw
and compressed images at the same time, but whether one /needs/ a
properly
balanced JPG image /right away/. This is impossible with a raw file.

And how would you suggest that someone gets around that problem? It's
not always practical to shoot a white card & create a custom WB at the
time. (And in my case, I can't do it because the light's changing too
fast to get a useful WB from a white card anyway.)

Is deliberately misreading and misunderstanding what people post your
principal hobby?

Nobody else seems to have a problem with my posts.


Maybe the other people understood what I was talking about. Imagine we were
having a similar conversation 20 years ago...

Me: Polaroid prints can be really handy if you need an immediate picture,
such as when you have to meet a newspaper deadline.

You: But you can get better quality by taking the photo on conventional film
and printing it just the way you like.

Me: Yes, but you won't have it ready in time. The Polaroid gives you the
picture immediately.

You: Printing a negative gives you control you don't get from the instant
print.

Me: [bangs head repeatedly against the wall]

What's been confusing me about what you've been saying is that you've
been talking about checking your WB in LiveView. If you're just saying
that you're happy with a JPEG that's using one of the standard WB
settings, then sure, you can use the image right away, & what you're
saying makes sense.
OTOH, I've been talking about a *real* WB, which requires either a
white card shot to set a custom WB, or tweaking the WB of a RAW file on
my PC.
Now if you want *both* options, you shoot RAW+JPEG, which is what I do.

Does that make things a bit clearer?

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Yes, BUT WHAT IF YOU NEED AN IMMEDIATE IMAGE AND
CAN'T PROCESS THE RAW DATA!!!!!!

THEN I SHOOT RAW+JPEG & USE THE JPEG WITH THE
CRAPPY WB!!11!!!

The white balance needn't be "crappy" if you take a moment to set it with
live view. I've tried it, and it works very well, particularly under
fluorescent light, where a bit of green/magenta correction is needed.

For casual photography sure, but I'm a lot fussier than that.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View",
where you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer
would use that in preference to the traditional viewfinder.

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.

It'll certainly tell you if you're using the wrong WB setting, but it's
no substitute for checking the RAW image on a calibrated CRT.

Yes, BUT WHAT IF YOU NEED AN IMMEDIATE IMAGE AND CAN'T PROCESS THE RAW
DATA!!!!!!


I do not understand what an immediate image is. If I want an immediate
image, I use my eyes.

If I want a record, I take a photograph. Which has to be do9wnloaded
ontp a copmputer or printed out to be any use.

So what on earth are you on about?

In all fairness, he could be talking about plugging his camera into a
printer & printing directly to it. I personally don't think that gives
acceptable quality, but there are plenty of people who wouldn't have a
problem with it.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

dennis@home wrote:


"Bob Larter" wrote in message
.. .
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On May 13, 12:31 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Arfa Daily" wrote in message

...

No, I wasn't either. I have two friends who both own top end
digital SLRs,
one because he is a professional photographer, and the other
because he is
a very keen hobbyist. I have looked at the viewfinder images
closely on
both of these cameras, and the rendition of flesh tones in all the
varieties is excellent, and the professional of the two has
commented to
me how good he thinks the viewfinder is at colour rendition under all
light levels (input that is, not viewing conditions).
Top level digital SLRs don't use any electronics in the viewfinder,
its all
done with mirrors.

And your posts use smoke and mirrors.
In this case strangely rarely and uniquely, Dennis is correct. My SLR
has no electronics in the viewfinder. Its all done with mirrors.


And a pentaprism, presumably. ;^)

My cheap e500 has a penta-mirror.
Prisms are too expensive?
Does the same job but has a higher light loss.

Correct on both counts.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Nearly 40 years ago, I imagined a film-based SLR with an electronic
viewfinder that showed how the final image would look, depending
on the film you used, and (with B&W materials) the way you
developed and printed.

That would be technically possible these days, but shooting in
RAW mode, there wouldn't be much use for it.

There would be, if you were shooting film. (See above.)

Sure, but why? It's so easy to do something very similar in PhotoShop.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

What's been confusing me about what you've been saying is that you've
been talking about checking your WB in LiveView. If you're just saying
that you're happy with a JPEG that's using one of the standard WB
settings, then sure, you can use the image right away, & what you're
saying makes sense.

Well, I was going more deeply than that. The Live View lets you fine-tune
the white balance fairly quickly.

If you run through the range of "conventional" color-temperature settings
under fluorescent light, * you'll see that it's rare for any of them to
closely approach neutrality. Some degree of green/magenta adjustment is
needed, and it's quickly set in Live View. (It is on my Canon, anyway.)

The issue that neither of us has discussed is whether what we see in Live
View is trustworthy with respect to accurate white balance. You need to
display the images on a calibrated monitor and see whether what /looks/
properly white on the camera's LCD actually is.

* Ordinary fluorescents, not those designed for photographic use, which can
be quite good.


OTOH, I've been talking about a *real* WB, which requires either a
white card shot to set a custom WB, or tweaking the WB of a RAW
file on my PC.

For which the WhiBal card is a good choice. Take a photo with it under the
same lighting, then "eyedropper" a sample of the card into the image you
want to correct.

Google "whibal". The site has a lot of useful information.

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Nearly 40 years ago, I imagined a film-based SLR with an electronic
viewfinder that showed how the final image would look, depending
on the film you used, and (with B&W materials) the way you
developed and printed.

That would be technically possible these days, but shooting in
RAW mode, there wouldn't be much use for it.

There would be, if you were shooting film. (See above.)

Sure, but why? It's so easy to do something very similar in PhotoShop.

But some people prefer silver-based photography. It took me quite a while to
"come over" to digital -- at least for anything "serious". And I still like
Polaroid photography, particularly the peel-apart materials.

Bit of a con, really ... ?
 

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Nearly 40 years ago, I imagined a film-based SLR with an electronic
viewfinder that showed how the final image would look, depending
on the film you used, and (with B&W materials) the way you
developed and printed.

That would be technically possible these days, but shooting in
RAW mode, there wouldn't be much use for it.

There would be, if you were shooting film. (See above.)

Sure, but why? It's so easy to do something very similar in PhotoShop.

But some people prefer silver-based photography. It took me quite a while to
"come over" to digital -- at least for anything "serious". And I still like
Polaroid photography, particularly the peel-apart materials.

Obviously that's a matter of personal taste. Neither is right or wrong.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------