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

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

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.

"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.

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