"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"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.
There are only a few that use electronic viewfinders and they are low
end.

I'm pretty sure that one of them told me that his camera was over a
grand's worth, so I wouldn't call that particularly low end, although I
am sure there are others more expensive. If they do not have an LCD panel
on them to at least review the pictures you have taken, without having to
plug the thing into a computer, that rather defeats the object of it
being a portable 'digital' camera, doesn't it ? Even the 3 grand offering
on this page has a 3" LCD

http://www.calumetphoto.co.uk/Digita...utm_medium=cpc

Perhaps I am not being quite accurate in calling it a "viewfinder". I
accept that the higher end cameras have a proper optical viewfinder
operating on the SLR mirror / prism system, but the LCD panel also serves
as a supplementary viewfinder, as well as a display medium for photos
already taken.


It does not and cannot, because there is a ****ing great mirror between
the lens and the CCD as well as a closed shutter.

OK?
Arfa

Calm down my boy ! It's just a newsgroup discussion ... d:-)

Arfa

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
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?




My Nikon D60 has a raw+jpeg mode, and I think many others do as well. With
the size and speed of memory these days, it is not a big deal to store both.
I do this for my son's baseball games and zip up the jpegs and send them to
the other parents and if someone wants more versatility to tweak a
particular image I send them the raw file.

Leonard

Arfa Daily wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It does not and cannot, because there is a ****ing great mirror between
the lens and the CCD as well as a closed shutter.

OK?
Arfa

Calm down my boy ! It's just a newsgroup discussion ... d:-)


If you really want to stir him up, tell him all tobacco should be
banned. Then he will throw a hissy fit Phil Allison would be proud of.



--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

"Leonard Caillouet" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

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?

My Nikon D60 has a raw+jpeg mode, and I think many others do as well.
With the size and speed of memory these days, it is not a big deal to
store
both. I do this for my son's baseball games and zip up the jpegs and send
them to the other parents and if someone wants more versatility to tweak a
particular image I send them the raw file.

I find it interesting how people -- carelessly, if not deliberately --
misread posts.

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.

You don't have depth-of-field preview on the camera?

It's rarely mentioned that DoF preview is little more than a minor
convenience. It's likely to show more depth of field that you actually get,
because we usually look at the finished print at an effective magnification
higher than the viewfinder's, and the focusing screen's grain (however fine)
obscures the distinction between what is and what isn't out of focus. *

The safest thing one can say is that if something looks out of focus during
DoF preview, it will almost always be out of focus in the print. The
opposite is not necessarily true.

Canon's DoF preview, when a suitable electronic flash is attached, fires the
flash for about one second. This not only provides illumination to overcome
the dim image at small f-stops, but gives a good idea of the evenness (or
lack thereof) of the lighting.

* In general, the coarser the grain, the dimmer the image, but the
more-obviously objects pop in and out of focus. This is one of the reasons
professional cameras offer a variety of focusing screens.

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.

Regards,


--
Steve ( out in the sticks )
Email: Take time to reply: timefrom_usenet{at}gmx.net

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.

Regards,


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

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
We had some pretty fussy customers back then with serious pots of money,
and I can't recall any colour accuracy issues ever arising - aside from
one particular customer who used to complain on a weekly basis that
colours were "bleeding through" (convergence issues !) and in the summer
that there was something wrong because the grass in front of the wicket
on the cricket, was yellow ...
LOL. It didn't occur to him that well trampled grass, in summer, is often
yellow?


It was actually Mrs Fussy that always called us. Mr Fussy was an inoffensive
little thing who sat quietly up the corner ... No amount of explanation
would ever convince her that sometimes, grass *is* yellow. There was only
ever one engineer that she would have work on her set as well. I was his
apprentice, so I got to call on her with him. I clearly remember on one
occasion when my mentor was on holiday, the boss decided to send me on a
call to her, figuring that it would be ok, as she already knew me, and knew
that I was Peter's apprentice. When I turned up at her house, she wouldn't
even let me in the door. She told me that she was sure that I was very good,
but that I was not Peter, and he was the only one capable of adjusting her
TV just the way she liked it. The really amusing thing was that Peter never
really actually did anything other than take the back off and make twiddling
motions with his arms, and then ask her if it now looked better. Putting up
a test card showing a perfectly adjusted picture was also a no-no. She would
just trill "I don't care if you think that that silly picture looks right or
not. We don't sit here watching a test card, do we ?"

On one occasion when there was a real fault, and a replacement component had
to be soldered in, she marched into the room and said "Peter ! I do hope
that you're not smoking behind my television !" There are endless stories of
encounters with this customer, whom I swear was a real person,and who
behaved exactly as described.

grin I spent many years in the service industry, & I have a stock of
similar stories. My favourites are the colour-blind guy who complained
(under warranty) about his colour printers colour rendition, the lawyer
who sued my employer over his floppy disk drive, & the LOL[0] who was
upset that her inkjet wouldn't work without power.

Ah, happier and gentler times ...

Ayup. I really enjoyed being a field tech, even with all the loons you
see in that job.

[0] Little Old Lady.

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

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.

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

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.


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

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.

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

Leonard Caillouet wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
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?




My Nikon D60 has a raw+jpeg mode, and I think many others do as well.
With the size and speed of memory these days, it is not a big deal to
store both.

Yep, & the high end Canons can do that as well.

I do this for my son's baseball games and zip up the jpegs
and send them to the other parents and if someone wants more versatility
to tweak a particular image I send them the raw file.

I bet that shuts them up! ;^)


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

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Leonard Caillouet" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

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?

My Nikon D60 has a raw+jpeg mode, and I think many others do as well.
With the size and speed of memory these days, it is not a big deal to
store
both. I do this for my son's baseball games and zip up the jpegs and send
them to the other parents and if someone wants more versatility to tweak a
particular image I send them the raw file.

I find it interesting how people -- carelessly, if not deliberately --
misread posts.

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.)

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

JW wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:21:51 +1000 Bob Larter
wrote in Message id: :

Are you kidding? My EOS 1Dmk2 cost $7000AUD. A grand is nothing for a
decent DSLR.

For that kind of money, it better perform like those X-ray glasses you
used to be able to buy in the back of comic books!

grin You'd have to remove the IR filter & shoot with an IR strobe, but
yes, it could be done. ;^)

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

Stephen Howard wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:21:51 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote:

snip
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. OTOH, the LCD is
really handy to ensure that the shot turned out the way that you wanted
it to.

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.
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 rarely do studio shoots, so Live View is pretty much useless to me.
And this is despite the fact I often shoot wide-open at F1.4.

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

Stephen Howard wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:39:30 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

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.
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.
The Canon 5D II (and possibly other cameras) lets you connect to an HD
display so you can get an even bigger live view. I haven't tried this yet.

I think the new 500D and 50D models have this feature too, and it's
something I've got my eye on. I had a look at the specs of the new 5D
a while back and I'm sorely tempted...

The 5DII is a pretty nice camera. It's only major drawbacks are that
it's not as rugged or as fast to focus as the 1xx series Pro cameras.
It's really big plus is that it has a full-frame sensor, so you can make
the most of your wide-angle lenses.

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

William Sommerwerck wrote:
You don't have depth-of-field preview on the camera?

It's rarely mentioned that DoF preview is little more than a minor
convenience.

Ayup. I find it easier to just rely on my experience, & just take the
shot. Most of the time, the DOF works out the way I want it to.


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

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.

Regards,


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

The EOS 5DII is a full-frame digital SLR.

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

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It does not and cannot, because there is a ****ing great mirror between
the lens and the CCD as well as a closed shutter.

OK?
Arfa
Calm down my boy ! It's just a newsgroup discussion ... d:-)


If you really want to stir him up, tell him all tobacco should be
banned. Then he will throw a hissy fit Phil Allison would be proud of.

Hrmph! as I roll myself a cigarette..

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

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. ;^)


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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bob Larter wrote:
Top level digital SLRs don't use any electronics in the viewfinder,
its all done with mirrors. There are only a few that use electronic
viewfinders and they are low end.

Correct. I have two DSLRs, (Canon EOS 10D, & EOS 1Dmk2), & they both use
optical viewfinders. I certainly wouldn't waste my money on DSLRs with
electronic viewfinders.

Don't they have an LCD screen for viewing purposes, though?

Yes, they do.

Not that you
can judge the variety of tones that make up a face on something so small.

No, you can't. What they're good for is to check the histogram to make
sure that you haven't blown out any of the colour channels, to check the
composition, & to make sure that the subject didn't blink at the wrong time.

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Don't they have an LCD screen for viewing purposes, though? Not that
you can judge the variety of tones that make up a face on something so
small.

Not really, no.

The LCD on mine is for menu items and occasionally a quick postview of
shots already taken.,

That's what I mean. No point in having a digital camera if you can't look
at a pic instantly. Might as well stick to film.

I do lots of nightclub photography, & it's great to be able to show the
subject the shot right after you've taken it.

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

"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!!!!!!

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
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

"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]

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?

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

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.)

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

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

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
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

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
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

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
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

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?

"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.

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]

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.

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
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

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
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

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
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------