Canon should be totally ashamed of this (and some others too) HP got this basic and absolutely es

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mike Henley, Nov 10, 2004.

  1. Mike Henley

    Mike Henley Guest

    Mike Henley, Nov 10, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mike Henley

    Renee Guest

    You don't seem to quite understand what this test means.

    This is a test of using Canon's AUTO white balance, the AWB, accessed
    through the function menu. It is *not* the results of simply, as you say
    "the white balance test". It is the AUTO white balance test. The reviewer
    doesn't show the results of using the other various white balance PRESETS.
    The presets are choices such as Daylight, Fluorescent, Tungsten, Cloudy,

    Although I have entirely different type of Canon, on my Canon the AWB
    setting makes my photos come out a little more orange.

    When I use the TUNGSTEN preset indoors, not AWB, the photo color comes out

    I'd guess that the Canon 20D D-SLR has settings similar to my Canon SLR-type

    Even I know (as one who doesn't know much about cameras) that you have to
    experiment with some of the settings instead of just using AUTOMATIC mode
    for everything.
    Renee, Nov 10, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Sounds like HP simply chose to allow the camera to make much larger changes
    in automatic mode. That is something that would annoy a professional
    photographer, though it's handy for casual snapshooting. The pro would want
    the automatic changes to be relatively small so as not to produce unexpected
    Michael A. Covington, Nov 10, 2004
  4. Mike Henley

    Will M Guest

    You truly don't know anything do you Mike?

    Study photography and learn something about colour temperature.
    Will M, Nov 10, 2004
  5. Mike Henley

    Bryce Guest

    You need to type less and do a little bit more research.
    Bryce, Nov 10, 2004
  6. Mike Henley

    Jaxak Guest

    My Ferrari does not have a traction control, so the wheels spin if I his the
    gas pedal too much. Friends BMW has it, shame shame on you Ferrari. Because
    this is a photoforum, I should also add that I don't own a digital camera,
    because I'm too stupid to use it
    Jaxak, Nov 10, 2004
  7. Mike Henley

    Des Perado Guest

    I do wish people would steer clear of subjects they obviously do not

    I do wish people would learn that the subject line is for a brief subject
    line and not for an essay.
    Des Perado, Nov 10, 2004
  8. Mike Henley

    BG250 Guest

    Cameras that try to get white balance right in every situation are actually
    not desirable. Say your taking a picture of wood furniture of a light color,
    like the natural wood. White balance could be tricked into thinking it is
    incandescent light and make the wood look dull grey. Serious photogs will
    manually set the WB or use Kelvin if the camera supports that.
    BG250, Nov 10, 2004
  9. Mike Henley

    Skip M Guest

    Dude, why did you even bother to type anything in the message box? Your
    subject line didn't even fit on my 19" monitor. Geez, keep it short.
    And next time, don't troll.
    Skip M, Nov 10, 2004
  10. Mike Henley

    Mike Henley Guest

    I fully understood that this was the AWB when I posted, but what you
    don't seem to understand is that there is no universal "tungsten" or
    "fluorescent" light situation that a preset will get right all the
    time. Each light pulp is different; a different intensity of tungsten
    or fluorescent or whatever or even a mixture of more than one light
    source in the situation. Even when you do a custom/manual white
    balance in-camera in-situ, or even if you do it in post-processing
    using a white object in the image, there's rarely ever a decidedly
    "white" thing in reality. You can use a white balance slider
    afterwards in post-processing to correct it, but then it'd be
    different for each lighting situation or angle on a lighting
    situation, and you'd be messing with something that could've and
    should've been gotten right the first time, at a great expense of
    time, and you'll be doing it to your liking rather than how it
    *really* is, which to me means that you just won't be getting it right
    no matter how "fine" it looks unless it's exactly like the natural.

    In my experience, and I've been testing this over the past week
    between an HP camera and a major japanese manufacturer's camera that's
    much more expensive and I got with the intention of upgrading to it
    from the HP but now won't be keeping, if a camera won't get it right
    in the auto setting it won't get it right with a preset either. Now
    you may get it to "come out fine", but "fine" is not good enough, and
    especially when you put images from the two cameras next to each other
    (I could show you the images if you want to), and, quite importantly,
    especially when you're dealing with skintones. I will not have any
    respect for a camera that can't get skintones right, and will make me
    have to go through sliders, curves, histograms, and swatches for each
    individual image when another much cheaper cameara will just get them
    consistently right time after time and regardless of light source.
    (yes, there's more to skintones than just white balance, but white
    balance is one thing that shouldn't be screwed up)

    The HP too has presets and manual/custom if you wish to switch off
    auto and use those, but it also has an auto white balance that DOES
    work, eventhough it's budget-priced even for a P&S. The Canon 20D
    doesn't, and Canon should be totally ashamed of that, and no bullshit
    excuses from the Canon apologists will do.
    Mike Henley, Nov 10, 2004
  11. Mike Henley

    Mike Henley Guest

    I've done more than a "little bit" of research and I've been
    experimenting with actual cameras over the past week. You need to type
    a little more and make sense.
    Mike Henley, Nov 10, 2004
  12. Mike Henley

    Mike Henley Guest

    This doesn't make any sense at all. Auto white balance can be switched
    off if needed but when it's working it should actually work as

    Yes, a professional photographer really enjoys a poorly performing and
    practically useless ***Auto*** white balance (sarcastic).

    Here's the deal, everything you can do with the images from a camera
    that gets auto white balance wrong you can still do with the images
    from a camera that gets it right; the difference is that with one you
    have something that is correct and natural by default and if you want
    to deviate from the correct and natural for a particular image then
    you can, but with the other you have screwed up skintones and you'll
    have to laboriously mess and waste time with each individual image in
    post-processing to get it the way you think it should be, and even
    that wouldn't be good enough compared to how it really was.
    Mike Henley, Nov 10, 2004
  13. Mike Henley

    Mike Henley Guest

    May you should stay out of it then because your analogy doesn't apply to the topic.
    Mike Henley, Nov 10, 2004
  14. Mike Henley

    Bryce Guest


    actual cameras!

    Bryce, Nov 10, 2004
  15. Mike Henley

    Bryce Guest

    a "tad" bit maybe?

    Is "tad" more than "little"?
    Bryce, Nov 10, 2004
  16. Mike Henley

    Sabineellen Guest

    Like I said, "serious photogs" can manually set the WB if they wish to, but if
    a camera is to be set to AUTO WB then it better have a competent AUTO WB
    (assuming the camera has both AUTO and Manual, which most do), especially when
    budget priced P&S seems to get it right. I see NO sense at all in the claim
    that a camera with a poorly performing AUTO white balance is of photographic
    merit; Auto is one thing, Manual is another.
    Sabineellen, Nov 10, 2004
  17. Mike Henley

    Aerticus Guest

    I ain't no expert on Canon's (my one is a T90 :) but what I do know is
    that as the number of variables increases so does the complexity of using
    the device - any device whether it be software or hardware.

    This IMHO seems to be part of the learning curve with any equipment.

    On mission critical shots and assuming the shoot is in RAW I nam sure that
    RAW support allows tweaks to AWB and WB settings.

    If I had a Canon (hint hint) I am sure I could be more specific.

    Perhaps the consolation is that digital images may be post-processed?

    Although the point is, I suppose, to use settings to get as close to the
    finished output you desire as it cuts down on repeat work and post

    My 2c

    Aerticus, Nov 10, 2004
  18. Auto white balance is inherently subject-dependent; results will be
    better or worse depending on whether the subject matches the assumptions
    of the white balance algorithm. Do you balance the picture overall to
    grey, or just the brightest object on the assumption that it's white?

    However, this doesn't matter very much. Anyone shooting a 20D in
    circumstances where white balance is critical should either be shooting
    in RAW (so WB doesn't matter until conversion time) or do a manual white
    balance from a white or grey card.

    The HP camera's auto white balance is more critical because it doesn't
    *have* RAW output.

    Dave Martindale, Nov 10, 2004
  19. Mike Henley

    Sabineellen Guest

    Hi Dave,

    Thanks for the reasonable reply.

    I personally think any situation that includes skintones (usually in artificial
    lighting) is a critical situation. I have no problem with RAW output for
    creative control, but I don't think this should be an excuse for poor AUTO or
    default output performance. As for subjectivity, I totally agree, it becomes
    entirely subjective, and that's why I think a camera should by default get it
    as right as possible, otherwise it'd be left up to you to decide what skintone
    a person has, and this i find totally unacceptable (the other relevant issue is
    of course color accuracy). It probably doesn't matter for a sunset or a flower
    shot, but I think it's absolutely ridiculous that I should sit with RAW,
    sliders, curves, histograms and swatches to decide what skintone an individual
    had - it shouldn't be up to me, it should be just as it was (color accuracy too
    is again something I feel should be gotten right by the camera by default).
    This doesn't mean that you can't do creative control stuff, it just means that
    you don't have to ALWAYs laboriously do it because what you're getting out by
    default is incorrect.

    PS to all: By the way, the "ridiculous Subject line" was an error of cut &
    paste that I didn't notice. How long was it?
    Sabineellen, Nov 11, 2004
  20. Mike Henley

    dj_nme Guest

    Sabineellen wrote:

    This is the subject line of your original post:

    Canon should be totally ashamed of this (and some others too) HP got
    this basic and absolutely essential thing right in their little digicam
    that's cheap even for a P&S, so why can't Canon?!! Yes, I know,
    there's more to the Canon 20D, but w

    Some would think that it is _slightly_ excessive ;-)
    dj_nme, Nov 11, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.