DIY Warm Card?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Pat, Oct 31, 2007.

  1. Pat

    Pat Guest

    I was wondering if anyone had any experience with making a DIY warm
    card. I found one web page that suggested a color hex of D1EEF2 and
    that seemed to be pretty close to the colors I was playing with. So I
    started wondering if anyone else has made one and found a particularly
    sweet spot for the color. If so, what's the hex or color numbers.

    Pat.
    Pat, Oct 31, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Pat

    Guest

    On Oct 31, 12:52 pm, Pat <> wrote:
    > I was wondering if anyone had any experience with making a DIY warm
    > card. I found one web page that suggested a color hex of D1EEF2 and
    > that seemed to be pretty close to the colors I was playing with. So I
    > started wondering if anyone else has made one and found a particularly
    > sweet spot for the color. If so, what's the hex or color numbers.
    >
    > Pat.


    I've thought about it (briefly) but haven't tried.. I would imagine
    there are a number of issues that would make this a *very* personal
    choice - not the least being how accurately your print process renders
    that color. I'm guessing it is one likely to be affected by gamut
    issues...? And then the choice of how warm you want to go is a
    subjective one anyway...

    Umm, in other words, I'm no help at all! But it looks about right to
    me, maybe a tiny bit more saturation..?

    And I guess we should ask - is this for shooting film? I note you've
    posted it to r.c.d.. and I figure the answer might be quite
    different. Do many digi-shooters use a warm card (or know what it is?
    (O:)? I'm guessing most of us heathens just shoot raw and/or post
    process for a little warmth.. But I am attracted to the idea of
    setting up a consistent 'look'.

    Sorry to turn this around, but why don't you tell us more about what
    you are doing and how you've done it in the past? It doesn't seem to
    be a topic that has seen much discussion in photo groups..

    mt
    , Nov 1, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Pat

    Pat Guest

    wrote:
    > On Oct 31, 12:52 pm, Pat <> wrote:
    > > I was wondering if anyone had any experience with making a DIY warm
    > > card. I found one web page that suggested a color hex of D1EEF2 and
    > > that seemed to be pretty close to the colors I was playing with. So I
    > > started wondering if anyone else has made one and found a particularly
    > > sweet spot for the color. If so, what's the hex or color numbers.
    > >
    > > Pat.

    >
    > I've thought about it (briefly) but haven't tried.. I would imagine
    > there are a number of issues that would make this a *very* personal
    > choice - not the least being how accurately your print process renders
    > that color. I'm guessing it is one likely to be affected by gamut
    > issues...? And then the choice of how warm you want to go is a
    > subjective one anyway...
    >
    > Umm, in other words, I'm no help at all! But it looks about right to
    > me, maybe a tiny bit more saturation..?
    >
    > And I guess we should ask - is this for shooting film? I note you've
    > posted it to r.c.d.. and I figure the answer might be quite
    > different. Do many digi-shooters use a warm card (or know what it is?
    > (O:)? I'm guessing most of us heathens just shoot raw and/or post
    > process for a little warmth.. But I am attracted to the idea of
    > setting up a consistent 'look'.
    >
    > Sorry to turn this around, but why don't you tell us more about what
    > you are doing and how you've done it in the past? It doesn't seem to
    > be a topic that has seen much discussion in photo groups..
    >
    > mt


    Yeah, I've noticed that this doesn't get much comment in any of the
    normal NGs.

    I understand the desire to shoot pics and post process everything.
    Hey, if that works for you great. But I try to keep away from as much
    post processing as I can for a number of reasons. One is, I'm "old
    school" and like to hit the exposure and composition as close as I
    can, in camera. It's often easier/quicker for me to set things up
    right when I'm shooting than to do it afterwards. Second, I often
    shoot a LOT of pictures, so post processing takes time. I just don't
    want to deal with it. My view may be the minority in the NG, I don't
    know, but it works for me. Last weekend I did a wedding rehearsal
    Friday night, a wedding Saturday, and two football games on Sunday. I
    have a different "real job" and last night (Wednesday) I had to teach
    a camera course. Post processing isn't my cup of tea.

    So I'm thinking, "hey, I sort of like the nice warm look" and thought
    I'd give it a try. It's pretty standard in photography to use a
    warming filter or in TV to white-balance for it. But for a demo of
    white balancing for it, I didn't really want to blow $70 on a set of
    cards. Plus, when I do a wedding I have to white balance anyway
    because I'm shooting multiple cameras, so it's just as easy to white
    balance for warming. Then the cameras will all shoot pretty close to
    each other.

    So I thought I'd ask if anyone else was shooting a warm card. I
    somehow doubted it. It seems whenever I ask questions, I seldom get
    much of a response (thanks, by the way, usually no one answers my
    questions). But my questions tend to be about esoteric things: one
    was a confirmation of adding flash guide numbers, one was about a
    problem with the interaction of Java and ROES -- things like that that
    most people never come across.

    I think I go against the grain of most people here. Many people
    obsess about sharpness -- I often worry about softening. Things like
    that.

    As for you comment on saturation, I pondered that myself -- what level
    of saturation is correct and finally concluded that it probably
    doesn't make much of a difference. You can white balance off of any
    shade of gray equally as well, so it seems like any shade of the same
    blue would also work. But again, I'm not 100% sure.

    So I'm going to give the warm card thing a shot for wedding and
    portraits because it makes sense to me to do that. White is not all
    it's cracked up to be.
    Pat, Nov 1, 2007
    #3
  4. Pat

    The One Guest

    Im amazed how websites make the AWB setting look awful, much exagerated in
    the overall scheme of things.
    The One, Nov 1, 2007
    #4
  5. Pat

    Guest

    On Nov 1, 11:51 pm, Pat <> wrote:
    > Yeah, I've noticed that this doesn't get much comment in any of the
    > normal NGs.
    >
    > I understand the desire to shoot pics and post process everything.
    > Hey, if that works for you great.

    heheh - I didn't say it *worked* for me, just that it's what I do..
    (O:

    > But I try to keep away from as much
    > post processing as I can for a number of reasons.

    This is no place for common sense! You *must* waste eternities post-
    processing (and reading silly forum posts..?) so that you don't get
    out and take too many nice photographs...

    Actually, I completely agree with your desire, and I sometimes wonder
    if that initial amazement and delight I got - when I first discovered
    what I could do to images with a half decent computer setup - has
    helped me to partially lose sight of the bigger picture (pun
    intended). I was so in love with the fact I could now do exactly what
    I wanted, instead of some pro lab making decisions for me, that the
    basic tenets of good imaging might have become obscured....

    > It's often easier/quicker for me to set things up
    > right when I'm shooting than to do it afterwards.

    Might even be 'always', not just often.. (O:

    > Second, I often
    > shoot a LOT of pictures, so post processing takes time.

    Thankfully (see below) my days of that are over, and I don't take that
    many nowadays.

    > Last weekend I did a wedding rehearsal
    > Friday night, a wedding Saturday, and two football games on Sunday. I
    > have a different "real job" and last night (Wednesday) I had to teach
    > a camera course.

    You remind me of me about 20 years ago (ouch, it hurts to say
    that..). I did weddings on weekends for a coupla years, and I enjoyed
    it (for about the first 9 months) but then started to get a little
    bored with it - there's only so much creative wiggle-room in wedding
    photography, especially as I was working for a studio that specialised
    in very formal styles... By the end of it, I was not picking up my
    camera much for my own enjoyment - dang near killed off my hobby! But
    I don't do it for money any more, thank heavens. (There's an easy
    insult in there...(O:)

    > It seems whenever I ask questions, I seldom get
    > much of a response (thanks, by the way, usually no one answers my
    > questions).

    No problem. Pat, I have always been most impressed by your
    contributions here - you are clearly someone who 'walks the walk', and
    it shows in your polite wisdom and very on-the-mark suggestions. A
    great pity there are not more of you on the forum! (I was nearly
    going to say "us" but modesty does not permit...

    > But my questions tend to be about esoteric things: one
    > was a confirmation of adding flash guide numbers

    Yep, I could do that one, but don't remember seeing it...

    > one was about a
    > problem with the interaction of Java and ROES

    Certainly couldn't help with that one!

    > I think I go against the grain of most people here.

    Not me!

    > Many people
    > obsess about sharpness

    Oh, well, ok, er, maybe I do this a little.. but that's because I like
    to shoot cityscapes and landscapes and print them large-ish. I'm a
    bit old-school too, and I used to love the superb images I could get
    from a tripod-mounted, prime-lensed camera loaded with Kodachrome 25,
    subsequently projected on a Leitz Super Colorplan... I liked pushing
    35mm to its resolution limits, so I do tend to obsess a little about
    extracting whatever I can from digital. A part of me died when K25
    left this earth.

    > -- I often worry about softening.

    I can do soft! I even still have a home built set of soft filters,
    Cokin-style (made from optical grade perspex with dabs of clear nail
    polish, or lightly scoured, different shapes, etc) that I still drag
    out occasionally... But I admit, I have been known to PS my way to
    softness (very carefully and with some finesse, I might add.. (O;)

    > As for your comment on saturation, I pondered that myself -- what level
    > of saturation is correct and finally concluded that it probably
    > doesn't make much of a difference. You can white balance off of any
    > shade of gray equally as well, so it seems like any shade of the same
    > blue would also work. But again, I'm not 100% sure.

    Neither am I. But now I think about it I'm pretty sure it does matter
    (taken to extremes, if it was highly UNsaturated and therefore only
    very slightly off-white, it must give a lesser effect than if it is a
    deeper colour). But at the sort of sensible levels we are talking,
    no, it probably doesn't.


    > So I'm going to give the warm card thing a shot for wedding and
    > portraits because it makes sense to me to do that. White is not all
    > it's cracked up to be.

    True. And Pat, you have made me think about this so much, I'm going
    to try one too. I'll let you know what transpires...

    Thanks for the thought-provoking.. (O:
    , Nov 2, 2007
    #5
  6. Pat

    Pat Guest

    On Nov 2, 5:23 am, wrote:
    > On Nov 1, 11:51 pm, Pat <> wrote:> Yeah, I've noticed that this doesn't get much comment in any of the
    > > normal NGs.

    >
    > > I understand the desire to shoot pics and post process everything.
    > > Hey, if that works for you great.

    >
    > heheh - I didn't say it *worked* for me, just that it's what I do..
    > (O:
    >
    > > But I try to keep away from as much
    > > post processing as I can for a number of reasons.

    >
    > This is no place for common sense! You *must* waste eternities post-
    > processing (and reading silly forum posts..?) so that you don't get
    > out and take too many nice photographs...
    >
    > Actually, I completely agree with your desire, and I sometimes wonder
    > if that initial amazement and delight I got - when I first discovered
    > what I could do to images with a half decent computer setup - has
    > helped me to partially lose sight of the bigger picture (pun
    > intended). I was so in love with the fact I could now do exactly what
    > I wanted, instead of some pro lab making decisions for me, that the
    > basic tenets of good imaging might have become obscured....
    >


    I'm not opposed to post-processing. In fact, the pics I do for myself
    are, shall I say, HIGHLY processed. See www.artisticphotography.us
    But as I said, I am tired of being constrained by "convention" so I do
    what I please.

    > > It's often easier/quicker for me to set things up
    > > right when I'm shooting than to do it afterwards.


    I think this is a mentality that comes from working with film, where
    you did it right or you didn't do it at all.

    >
    > Might even be 'always', not just often.. (O:
    >
    > > Second, I often
    > > shoot a LOT of pictures, so post processing takes time.

    >
    > Thankfully (see below) my days of that are over, and I don't take that
    > many nowadays.
    >
    > > Last weekend I did a wedding rehearsal
    > > Friday night, a wedding Saturday, and two football games on Sunday. I
    > > have a different "real job" and last night (Wednesday) I had to teach
    > > a camera course.

    >
    > You remind me of me about 20 years ago (ouch, it hurts to say
    > that..). I did weddings on weekends for a coupla years, and I enjoyed
    > it (for about the first 9 months) but then started to get a little
    > bored with it - there's only so much creative wiggle-room in wedding
    > photography, especially as I was working for a studio that specialised
    > in very formal styles...


    Eeeks. I tell everyone, I'm very traditional and if you want formal
    pictures where everyone looks like they're in the Civil War, I'm not
    for you.

    By the end of it, I was not picking up my
    > camera much for my own enjoyment - dang near killed off my hobby! But
    > I don't do it for money any more, thank heavens. (There's an easy
    > insult in there...(O:)


    I shot a LOT when I was young. But didn't shoot as much when the kids
    were young. So I sort of took a break.

    >
    > > It seems whenever I ask questions, I seldom get
    > > much of a response (thanks, by the way, usually no one answers my
    > > questions).

    >
    > No problem. Pat, I have always been most impressed by your
    > contributions here - you are clearly someone who 'walks the walk', and
    > it shows in your polite wisdom and very on-the-mark suggestions. A
    > great pity there are not more of you on the forum! (I was nearly
    > going to say "us" but modesty does not permit...
    >
    > > But my questions tend to be about esoteric things: one
    > > was a confirmation of adding flash guide numbers

    >
    > Yep, I could do that one, but don't remember seeing it...
    >
    > > one was about a
    > > problem with the interaction of Java and ROES

    >
    > Certainly couldn't help with that one!
    >
    > > I think I go against the grain of most people here.

    >
    > Not me!
    >
    > > Many people
    > > obsess about sharpness

    >
    > Oh, well, ok, er, maybe I do this a little.. but that's because I like
    > to shoot cityscapes and landscapes and print them large-ish. I'm a
    > bit old-school too, and I used to love the superb images I could get
    > from a tripod-mounted, prime-lensed camera loaded with Kodachrome 25,
    > subsequently projected on a Leitz Super Colorplan... I liked pushing
    > 35mm to its resolution limits, so I do tend to obsess a little about
    > extracting whatever I can from digital. A part of me died when K25
    > left this earth.
    >
    > > -- I often worry about softening.

    >
    > I can do soft! I even still have a home built set of soft filters,
    > Cokin-style (made from optical grade perspex with dabs of clear nail
    > polish, or lightly scoured, different shapes, etc) that I still drag
    > out occasionally... But I admit, I have been known to PS my way to
    > softness (very carefully and with some finesse, I might add.. (O;)


    I always tell people, you're not really into photography until you've
    made something -- some piece of equipment because if you're not
    thinking that way, and not pushing your equipment, then you're just
    not trying hard enough.

    Last week I ordered a bunch of QR stuff so I could mount a QR base on
    my flash bracket so I could get the camera on/off faster. Pretty
    neat. So I have a QR base on the "top" of my bracket and a QR plate
    on the "bottom" so I can throw cameras on/off and put the bracket on/
    off the tripod easier. Then I had to modify the bracket to hold the
    bottom end of my wrist-strap.

    Here's my piece of wisdom for the day (darn, I couldn't keep a
    straight face typing that). If you go to Target or Walmart or Dick
    Sporting Goods you can find a nice duffel bag or backpack that you
    like. Then go to Walmart and get the foam for a pillow in the crafts
    department. For about $8 it's like 18x18 and about 6, 1" sheets. Cut
    1 sheet to go in the bottom of the bag you just bought for $15 to
    $50. Then take out the sheet and lay all of your camera equipment on
    it. Stand the foam on end the put it between your equipment. Cut it
    as necessary. Get out you hot glue gun and glue it all into place,
    including a foam "perimeter". Get your can of air and blow the crap
    out of it to get rid of foam dust. For $20 to $70 you now have a
    custom-made bag that perfectly addresses your need. After a month or
    so you'll take the foam about and redo the project so you like it
    better, but then you'll be real happy.

    Once you go custom, you never go back.

    >
    > > As for your comment on saturation, I pondered that myself -- what level
    > > of saturation is correct and finally concluded that it probably
    > > doesn't make much of a difference. You can white balance off of any
    > > shade of gray equally as well, so it seems like any shade of the same
    > > blue would also work. But again, I'm not 100% sure.

    >
    > Neither am I. But now I think about it I'm pretty sure it does matter
    > (taken to extremes, if it was highly UNsaturated and therefore only
    > very slightly off-white, it must give a lesser effect than if it is a
    > deeper colour). But at the sort of sensible levels we are talking,
    > no, it probably doesn't.
    >
    > > So I'm going to give the warm card thing a shot for wedding and
    > > portraits because it makes sense to me to do that. White is not all
    > > it's cracked up to be.

    >
    > True. And Pat, you have made me think about this so much, I'm going
    > to try one too. I'll let you know what transpires...


    I'm looking forward to seeing how it turns out.

    >
    > Thanks for the thought-provoking.. (O:
    Pat, Nov 2, 2007
    #6
  7. Pat

    Pat Guest

    On Nov 2, 5:23 am, wrote:
    > On Nov 1, 11:51 pm, Pat <> wrote:> Yeah, I've noticed that this doesn't get much comment in any of the
    > > normal NGs.

    >
    > > I understand the desire to shoot pics and post process everything.
    > > Hey, if that works for you great.

    >
    > heheh - I didn't say it *worked* for me, just that it's what I do..
    > (O:
    >
    > > But I try to keep away from as much
    > > post processing as I can for a number of reasons.

    >
    > This is no place for common sense! You *must* waste eternities post-
    > processing (and reading silly forum posts..?) so that you don't get
    > out and take too many nice photographs...
    >
    > Actually, I completely agree with your desire, and I sometimes wonder
    > if that initial amazement and delight I got - when I first discovered
    > what I could do to images with a half decent computer setup - has
    > helped me to partially lose sight of the bigger picture (pun
    > intended). I was so in love with the fact I could now do exactly what
    > I wanted, instead of some pro lab making decisions for me, that the
    > basic tenets of good imaging might have become obscured....
    >
    > > It's often easier/quicker for me to set things up
    > > right when I'm shooting than to do it afterwards.

    >
    > Might even be 'always', not just often.. (O:
    >
    > > Second, I often
    > > shoot a LOT of pictures, so post processing takes time.

    >
    > Thankfully (see below) my days of that are over, and I don't take that
    > many nowadays.
    >
    > > Last weekend I did a wedding rehearsal
    > > Friday night, a wedding Saturday, and two football games on Sunday. I
    > > have a different "real job" and last night (Wednesday) I had to teach
    > > a camera course.

    >
    > You remind me of me about 20 years ago (ouch, it hurts to say
    > that..). I did weddings on weekends for a coupla years, and I enjoyed
    > it (for about the first 9 months) but then started to get a little
    > bored with it - there's only so much creative wiggle-room in wedding
    > photography, especially as I was working for a studio that specialised
    > in very formal styles... By the end of it, I was not picking up my
    > camera much for my own enjoyment - dang near killed off my hobby! But
    > I don't do it for money any more, thank heavens. (There's an easy
    > insult in there...(O:)
    >
    > > It seems whenever I ask questions, I seldom get
    > > much of a response (thanks, by the way, usually no one answers my
    > > questions).

    >
    > No problem. Pat, I have always been most impressed by your
    > contributions here - you are clearly someone who 'walks the walk', and
    > it shows in your polite wisdom and very on-the-mark suggestions. A
    > great pity there are not more of you on the forum! (I was nearly
    > going to say "us" but modesty does not permit...
    >
    > > But my questions tend to be about esoteric things: one
    > > was a confirmation of adding flash guide numbers

    >
    > Yep, I could do that one, but don't remember seeing it...
    >
    > > one was about a
    > > problem with the interaction of Java and ROES

    >
    > Certainly couldn't help with that one!
    >
    > > I think I go against the grain of most people here.

    >
    > Not me!
    >
    > > Many people
    > > obsess about sharpness

    >
    > Oh, well, ok, er, maybe I do this a little.. but that's because I like
    > to shoot cityscapes and landscapes and print them large-ish. I'm a
    > bit old-school too, and I used to love the superb images I could get
    > from a tripod-mounted, prime-lensed camera loaded with Kodachrome 25,
    > subsequently projected on a Leitz Super Colorplan... I liked pushing
    > 35mm to its resolution limits, so I do tend to obsess a little about
    > extracting whatever I can from digital. A part of me died when K25
    > left this earth.
    >
    > > -- I often worry about softening.

    >
    > I can do soft! I even still have a home built set of soft filters,
    > Cokin-style (made from optical grade perspex with dabs of clear nail
    > polish, or lightly scoured, different shapes, etc) that I still drag
    > out occasionally... But I admit, I have been known to PS my way to
    > softness (very carefully and with some finesse, I might add.. (O;)
    >
    > > As for your comment on saturation, I pondered that myself -- what level
    > > of saturation is correct and finally concluded that it probably
    > > doesn't make much of a difference. You can white balance off of any
    > > shade of gray equally as well, so it seems like any shade of the same
    > > blue would also work. But again, I'm not 100% sure.

    >
    > Neither am I. But now I think about it I'm pretty sure it does matter
    > (taken to extremes, if it was highly UNsaturated and therefore only
    > very slightly off-white, it must give a lesser effect than if it is a
    > deeper colour). But at the sort of sensible levels we are talking,
    > no, it probably doesn't.
    >
    > > So I'm going to give the warm card thing a shot for wedding and
    > > portraits because it makes sense to me to do that. White is not all
    > > it's cracked up to be.

    >
    > True. And Pat, you have made me think about this so much, I'm going
    > to try one too. I'll let you know what transpires...
    >
    > Thanks for the thought-provoking.. (O:


    check your email. I sent you a picture. hope your email is real.
    It's full size, so if it bounces back I'll retry it.
    Pat, Nov 2, 2007
    #7
  8. Pat

    acl Guest

    On Oct 31, 5:52 am, Pat <> wrote:
    > I was wondering if anyone had any experience with making a DIY warm
    > card. I found one web page that suggested a color hex of D1EEF2 and
    > that seemed to be pretty close to the colors I was playing with. So I
    > started wondering if anyone else has made one and found a particularly
    > sweet spot for the color. If so, what's the hex or color numbers.
    >
    > Pat.


    What I did was print out 5-6 uniformly coloured A4 pages on my inkjet.
    I set the colour by starting with a particular blueish shade (which
    someone suggested) and rotating the hue, then printing a few sheets
    (ie I "bracketed" around a given colour). I then tried white balancing
    off each of the cards and selected which I preferred (I did this by
    shooting them in raw, taking lots of shots in raw, and assigning WB
    from each of the cards later in my raw converter; this saves a lot of
    time and shooting while testing). When I chose which one I liked, I
    just saved a white balance preset in my camera (you can save 4 and
    name them, which is quite convenient).

    Unfortunately, I don't know exactly which colour I finally settled on
    to white balance from. But it shouldn't be too hard to do something
    like that, right? Or did I misunderstand the question?
    acl, Nov 2, 2007
    #8
  9. Pat

    Pat Guest

    On Nov 2, 9:20 am, acl <> wrote:
    > On Oct 31, 5:52 am, Pat <> wrote:
    >
    > > I was wondering if anyone had any experience with making a DIY warm
    > > card. I found one web page that suggested a color hex of D1EEF2 and
    > > that seemed to be pretty close to the colors I was playing with. So I
    > > started wondering if anyone else has made one and found a particularly
    > > sweet spot for the color. If so, what's the hex or color numbers.

    >
    > > Pat.

    >
    > What I did was print out 5-6 uniformly coloured A4 pages on my inkjet.
    > I set the colour by starting with a particular blueish shade (which
    > someone suggested) and rotating the hue, then printing a few sheets
    > (ie I "bracketed" around a given colour). I then tried white balancing
    > off each of the cards and selected which I preferred (I did this by
    > shooting them in raw, taking lots of shots in raw, and assigning WB
    > from each of the cards later in my raw converter; this saves a lot of
    > time and shooting while testing). When I chose which one I liked, I
    > just saved a white balance preset in my camera (you can save 4 and
    > name them, which is quite convenient).
    >
    > Unfortunately, I don't know exactly which colour I finally settled on
    > to white balance from. But it shouldn't be too hard to do something
    > like that, right? Or did I misunderstand the question?


    Yeah, that's about it. I was just wondering what colors people were
    using (or if anyone had scanned a professional one and had the
    numbers).

    Thanks.
    Pat, Nov 2, 2007
    #9
  10. Pat

    Guest

    On Nov 2, 11:05 pm, Pat <> wrote:
    > On Nov 2, 5:23 am, wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Nov 1, 11:51 pm, Pat <> wrote:> Yeah, I've noticed that this doesn't get much comment in any of the
    > > > normal NGs.

    >
    > > > I understand the desire to shoot pics and post process everything.
    > > > Hey, if that works for you great.

    >
    > > heheh - I didn't say it *worked* for me, just that it's what I do..
    > > (O:

    >
    > > > But I try to keep away from as much
    > > > post processing as I can for a number of reasons.

    >
    > > This is no place for common sense! You *must* waste eternities post-
    > > processing (and reading silly forum posts..?) so that you don't get
    > > out and take too many nice photographs...

    >
    > > Actually, I completely agree with your desire, and I sometimes wonder
    > > if that initial amazement and delight I got - when I first discovered
    > > what I could do to images with a half decent computer setup - has
    > > helped me to partially lose sight of the bigger picture (pun
    > > intended). I was so in love with the fact I could now do exactly what
    > > I wanted, instead of some pro lab making decisions for me, that the
    > > basic tenets of good imaging might have become obscured....

    >
    > > > It's often easier/quicker for me to set things up
    > > > right when I'm shooting than to do it afterwards.

    >
    > > Might even be 'always', not just often.. (O:

    >
    > > > Second, I often
    > > > shoot a LOT of pictures, so post processing takes time.

    >
    > > Thankfully (see below) my days of that are over, and I don't take that
    > > many nowadays.

    >
    > > > Last weekend I did a wedding rehearsal
    > > > Friday night, a wedding Saturday, and two football games on Sunday. I
    > > > have a different "real job" and last night (Wednesday) I had to teach
    > > > a camera course.

    >
    > > You remind me of me about 20 years ago (ouch, it hurts to say
    > > that..). I did weddings on weekends for a coupla years, and I enjoyed
    > > it (for about the first 9 months) but then started to get a little
    > > bored with it - there's only so much creative wiggle-room in wedding
    > > photography, especially as I was working for a studio that specialised
    > > in very formal styles... By the end of it, I was not picking up my
    > > camera much for my own enjoyment - dang near killed off my hobby! But
    > > I don't do it for money any more, thank heavens. (There's an easy
    > > insult in there...(O:)

    >
    > > > It seems whenever I ask questions, I seldom get
    > > > much of a response (thanks, by the way, usually no one answers my
    > > > questions).

    >
    > > No problem. Pat, I have always been most impressed by your
    > > contributions here - you are clearly someone who 'walks the walk', and
    > > it shows in your polite wisdom and very on-the-mark suggestions. A
    > > great pity there are not more of you on the forum! (I was nearly
    > > going to say "us" but modesty does not permit...

    >
    > > > But my questions tend to be about esoteric things: one
    > > > was a confirmation of adding flash guide numbers

    >
    > > Yep, I could do that one, but don't remember seeing it...

    >
    > > > one was about a
    > > > problem with the interaction of Java and ROES

    >
    > > Certainly couldn't help with that one!

    >
    > > > I think I go against the grain of most people here.

    >
    > > Not me!

    >
    > > > Many people
    > > > obsess about sharpness

    >
    > > Oh, well, ok, er, maybe I do this a little.. but that's because I like
    > > to shoot cityscapes and landscapes and print them large-ish. I'm a
    > > bit old-school too, and I used to love the superb images I could get
    > > from a tripod-mounted, prime-lensed camera loaded with Kodachrome 25,
    > > subsequently projected on a Leitz Super Colorplan... I liked pushing
    > > 35mm to its resolution limits, so I do tend to obsess a little about
    > > extracting whatever I can from digital. A part of me died when K25
    > > left this earth.

    >
    > > > -- I often worry about softening.

    >
    > > I can do soft! I even still have a home built set of soft filters,
    > > Cokin-style (made from optical grade perspex with dabs of clear nail
    > > polish, or lightly scoured, different shapes, etc) that I still drag
    > > out occasionally... But I admit, I have been known to PS my way to
    > > softness (very carefully and with some finesse, I might add.. (O;)

    >
    > > > As for your comment on saturation, I pondered that myself -- what level
    > > > of saturation is correct and finally concluded that it probably
    > > > doesn't make much of a difference. You can white balance off of any
    > > > shade of gray equally as well, so it seems like any shade of the same
    > > > blue would also work. But again, I'm not 100% sure.

    >
    > > Neither am I. But now I think about it I'm pretty sure it does matter
    > > (taken to extremes, if it was highly UNsaturated and therefore only
    > > very slightly off-white, it must give a lesser effect than if it is a
    > > deeper colour). But at the sort of sensible levels we are talking,
    > > no, it probably doesn't.

    >
    > > > So I'm going to give the warm card thing a shot for wedding and
    > > > portraits because it makes sense to me to do that. White is not all
    > > > it's cracked up to be.

    >
    > > True. And Pat, you have made me think about this so much, I'm going
    > > to try one too. I'll let you know what transpires...

    >
    > > Thanks for the thought-provoking.. (O:

    >
    > check your email. I sent you a picture. hope your email is real.
    > It's full size, so if it bounces back I'll retry it.


    Got it - excellent stuff, thanks - reply sent to your email..
    , Nov 2, 2007
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lazlo Woodbine

    Using 70-306 as warm-up for 70-316

    Lazlo Woodbine, May 11, 2004, in forum: MCSD
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    608
    Guest
    Jun 10, 2004
  2. LnkWizard
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    367
  3. rgraham48

    Hello it's warm at last

    rgraham48, Oct 21, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    478
    slylittlei
    Oct 21, 2003
  4. Addi Amirav

    to warm up those lonely nights....

    Addi Amirav, Nov 16, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    539
    WormWood
    Nov 16, 2004
  5. pcbutts1

    HAVE A NICE (AND WARM) THANKSGIVING

    pcbutts1, Nov 25, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    523
    Old Gringo
    Nov 25, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page