Custom White Balance

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by John Kecskes, Dec 28, 2008.

  1. John Kecskes

    Mr.T Guest

    Well that obviously depends on whether you are adjusting levels/contrast, or
    color/hue at the time.

    Mr.T, Dec 29, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. John Kecskes

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Don't apologise, John - it's usenet! D-Mac tends to get a little upset
    when he is pulled up on any error-laden posts...

    The only thing you need to note is that if you *do* get a white balance
    filter cap thingy, do NOT use it by pointing it at the scene - that is
    NOT how it works. It basically turns your camera into an *incident*
    light meter. That means you point it *back* at where your camera will
    be for the shot, take the white balance, go to the taking position and
    use that white balance setting for your shots. Repeat process if/when
    the lighting changes..

    If it all sounds too hard, just forget about it and use that white
    card/paper method. But I do suggest looking into a soft-blue card to
    give a slightly warmer effect. Experiment! If you have a good printer,
    why not try printing your own? - on mine, a card printed at 245, 245,
    255 (RGB) works well for a very soft blue that will result in a warmer

    If you try this, use a good quality heavy white matte paper, I
    particularly like Epson Double-Sided Matte which can be printed on one
    side and the obverse can be used for the 'normal' white-bal.
    Mark Thomas, Dec 29, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. John Kecskes

    Noons Guest

    What is blatantly clear is your complete ignorance of the subject
    Custom white balance in a camera has got absolutely NOTHING to do with
    imaging software exposure corrections. Only a moron ignorant
    like you could possibly confuse the two.
    Noons, Dec 29, 2008
  4. John Kecskes

    John Kecskes Guest

    No, I won't be getting cap thingy, have been using a hand held light
    meter for many years for film work and I do mostly using it in
    Incident mode
    I have a Epson R-800 printer and it does a good job
    Mainly use gloss, but will try Epson Matte paper soon

    John Kecskes, Dec 29, 2008
  5. John Kecskes

    John Kecskes Guest

    I was who started asking this question in the first place, however
    setting the white balance has everything to do with the software
    exposure correction.
    If it is not done correctly in the camera in the first place no amount
    of software manipulating will get it right. It is next to impossible
    to over come wrong colours in the software, if you try to alter one
    others will alter just as much.
    Each of us have a opinion, you don't have to be nasty if somebody else
    is different to you.
    John Kecskes, Dec 29, 2008
  6. John Kecskes

    Mr.T Guest

    Do explain then, IF you really think you can!!!

    Since they BOTH simply attempt to map pixel values to a given color space,
    maybe you could *attempt* to explain why you think they have "absolutely
    NOTHING" to do with each other?

    (or maybe you are simply making up your own definitions so you can claim
    others are wrong?)

    Please start with the raw camera data, and explain exactly what you think is
    the difference as far as the final file data is concerned.
    (Keep in mind that any good camera will save a RAW data file in which the
    color balance information is simply saved as a correction to be applied
    later by software in any case)

    Of course that might require a level of knowledge and understanding that you
    obviously don't possess!

    Mr.T, Dec 29, 2008
  7. John Kecskes

    Mr.T Guest

    Try shooting RAW instead, the color balance info is simply saved as a
    correction to be applied later by software, so obviously NO difference to
    the final result in that case.
    For those who DO insist on throwing away half the camera information at the
    time of shooting, (by saving to an 8 bit compressed file with all
    corrections applied, rather than a 16 bit data file) then yes getting the
    color balance right in the first place is obviously necessary.

    Continuing to argue without at least acknowledging the difference is
    pointlessly stupid.

    Mr.T, Dec 29, 2008
  8. John Kecskes

    Noons Guest

    Mr.T wrote,on my timestamp of 29/12/2008 6:12 PM:
    It's YOU who has to explain, moron. The claim is YOURS, moron.

    Custom white balance does NOT attempt to "map pixel values to
    a given colour space", moron. There isn't ANY "colour space"
    involved in its operation, moron.
    Exposure corrections in imaging software using the eyedroppers
    do NOTHING in relation to colour, moron. They deal with
    relative intensity levels and dynamic range, moron.

    YOU are wrong. Simply. And the fact you cannot find
    ONE SINGLE reference ANYWHERE in the WWW that supports
    your claim is plenty of evidence that all you are doing
    is trolling, and as usual, very stupidly and demonstrating
    your complete lack of knowledge of photography.
    So, and without further ado: **** OFF, troll.
    Noons, Dec 29, 2008
  9. John Kecskes

    Noons Guest

    John Kecskes wrote,on my timestamp of 29/12/2008 5:55 PM:

    Please provide proof of your claim that camera white balance has
    "everything to do with software exposure correction"? Credible
    proof that is, not just "I say so".
    Completely wrong, of course. If you use RAW capture, you can always
    correct the white balance later on. It's a function of the processing
    of the raw data, not a physical attribute of the sensor. You can fiddle
    as much as you want with the camera setting, later on you can always
    correct to a different whit balance WITHOUT any loss IF you apply
    it to the RAW file.
    Please quote where I was nasty in my replies to you
    so far. Or are you that coward troll mrT?
    But now I shall be, given that you started down
    that path:

    You don't have to be stupid and ignorant and maintain your
    stupidity and ignorance once CLEARLY shown that you
    got NO CLUE what you are talking about. It's your choice,
    not mine.

    Like I said: provide ONE credible reference that claims
    and proves "camera white balance is the same as software
    exposure correction", as you claim above. One, please.

    If not then for sanity's sake shut the heck up and
    listen, instead of demonstrating your crass ignorance
    with every post.
    Noons, Dec 29, 2008
  10. John Kecskes

    Mark Thomas Guest


    Are those *your* words, Douglas? Because that page does NOT mention the
    author's name ANYWHERE, nor is there any acknowledgment that the words
    are not your own. Furthermore, many of the links on the page are
    invalid as this is a very old quote - Gordon no longer uses that domain
    or email address. That sort of behaviour is imo very insulting to the
    original author.

    Here's how you *should* acknowledge the original author of an archived page:

    Similar to your example, this is a page that no longer exists, and is
    reposted to make a point. But you will notice that full credit is given
    to the author.

    In regard to that page, Jeff, AC, I and others notice that despite you
    saying that you would show a completed, linear panorama for that scene
    (to prove that we were all wrong when we said it was impossible), you
    have *not* been able to do so.

    Do the Manly thing Doug. Your '4theidiots' link has been universally
    derided as not even close to answering the challenge, but it *is* a
    useful teaching tool. I show it to people and get them to spot all the
    errors, so they can learn to do panorama stitching *properly*.

    So, either post the completed panorama, or simply admit that you got it
    wrong (just like you did with your incorrect description of how to use a
    white balance filter - why can't you just admit that?).

    Happy New year, Douglas! Don't let a few tiny errors and embarrassments
    get you down!
    Mark Thomas, Dec 29, 2008
  11. John Kecskes

    Mr.T Guest

    If I thought for a moment you could understand, I might waste some more
    time. But this is from the same person who wrote in another post in reply to
    someone else, almost exactly what I said already in this thread, and
    contradicts himself.

    Just what the hell IS your position, other than to abuse as many people as
    you possibly can?

    And then says :
    And how exactly do you you map pixel values WITHOUT reference to a chosen
    color space?
    Your photo's must be as meaningless as your arguments.
    So obviously does not know how a digital camera works, how image data is
    encoded, or how to use photoshop to adjust anything other than levels. Maybe
    you should look for the color balance and hue adjustment tools.
    Maybe you should also investigate what Camera RAW, or Lightroom does,
    *besides* simple intensity level adjustment.

    Anyhow, good luck with your bi-polar disorder, I'm sure my wasting more time
    on you is not going to help though.

    Mr.T, Dec 30, 2008
  12. John Kecskes

    Noons Guest

    BWAHAHAHA! The obvious response of the ignorant troll
    grasping at straws.

    But this is from the same person who wrote in another post in reply to
    What I said is written and won't be changed, and
    it's been the same all along. It's YOU who is changing the
    story now, moron!

    To say the truth, moron. Something you are OBVIOUSLY
    not familiar with. Why are you pulling in another reply
    to someone else, in a reply to you? Can you even follow a single
    train of replies to YOU, moron? Or is the effort of concentration too
    You should really try thinking once in a while, moron:
    it won't hurt you.

    Custom white balance does NOT map pixel values, moron. Period.
    Colour profiling is an operation that has NOTHING to do with
    colour white balance. Colour profiling is performed AFTER the colour
    white balance, and can be redone many times independently.
    Cripes, but you are STUPID....
    As opposed to yours which are unseen, unshown,
    and only exist in your sordid imagination, you imbecile moron!

    Listen, you STUPID moron: "imaging software" has NOTHING to do
    with camera firmware! Can you even GRASP the absurd IDIOCY of
    your idiotic claims?

    WTF has that got to do with in-camera white balance,
    you IMBECILE?
    Do they run IN the camera as well, you stupid idiot?
    Can you even fathom the abyssal stupidity of your claims?

    Bipolar was your mother, fuckwit. That's why she produced
    a reject like you.
    Thanks for showing to all how once again you have put your foot
    in your mouth and demontsrated to everyone the imbecile and moronic
    troll that you are.
    For ONCE, admit that you cannot even understand basic English,
    Noons, Dec 30, 2008
  13. John Kecskes

    D.Mac Guest

    What's up Charlie?
    Peeved I produce some evidence you lied. Stalked me over it and and never
    once appologised for your defamatory statements?

    Get a life idiot. You sure don't have much of one now.
    D.Mac, Dec 30, 2008
  14. John Kecskes

    Mark Thomas Guest

    I see you couldn't answer the question.

    Hint - those words were penned by Gordon Moat, not you. Yet neither his
    name, or any indication those words are not yours, appears anywhere on
    that page.

    Just like when you plagiarised the wedding tips list, and had to remove
    it from your site.

    So, when are you doing the Manly thing, Doug?

    And here's your last chance - would you like to unreservedly withdraw
    the two separate (and false) allegations about 'theft' you made, admit
    you lied, and apologise?:

    Because take a wild guess what is going to happen if you don't..?

    There are other issues that will be dealt with also, but we'll start
    with those.

    It's entirely up to you, of course.
    Mark Thomas, Dec 30, 2008
  15. John Kecskes

    Noons Guest

    Mark Thomas wrote,on my timestamp of 30/12/2008 7:00 PM:
    Yikes: NY resolution? I hope so, because the feud
    between you two is getting beyond imbecile. About
    time one of you carried through with the veiled
    threats. Sick and tired of it, quite frankly.
    Noons, Dec 30, 2008
  16. John Kecskes

    D.Mac Guest

    Comming from you that's a huge statement, Noons.

    The basic issue is and always will be that this bastard started attacking me
    in 2003 because he couldn't or wouldn't believe someone else (me) could do
    something he believed couldn't be done. Enlarge digital images with a
    substancial degree of quality

    Ever since then he's taken a personal interest in attacking me and
    interfering (as much as he could) with my business and family, every time I
    make a post. No appologies for his lies, defamation and stalking, just more
    slander and defamation.

    As someone who commissioned a report, I have no need to announce who wrote
    it. It's just another straw the prick is grasping to save his drowning ass.
    At least Bret Douglas knew when to stop. I think I'll take your advice
    When I get back to Australia, I'll waste the money and get a restraining
    order (AVO in NSW) against him. He's interfered with the orderly conduct of
    my business' for long enough.
    D.Mac, Dec 30, 2008
  17. John Kecskes

    Jeff R. Guest

    Not me!
    I don't have a dog in that fight.
    (Why bother arguing that you cannot add valid detail with your process? Its
    like arguing that the tides cannot be stopped.)

    I'm waiting (patiently) for you to correct the errors you made here:

    Would you like me to list the as-yet-unaddressed errors of fact?

    It would be nice if you would apologise for the insults, too, but I don't
    expect good manners from D.Mac.

    The *best* result?
    Post your much-touted stepped-out panorama, and watch as we all squirm and

    Do the Manly thing, Doug.
    Jeff R., Dec 30, 2008
  18. John Kecskes

    Noons Guest

    Dougie boy:
    ANYTHING from me is a HUGE statement, mate.
    You should know that by now.
    Bow to the master, insignificat!
    Good for you. Have a great NY.
    Noons, Dec 31, 2008
  19. John Kecskes

    Mark Thomas Guest

    At least I can spell apology. I don't apologise for telling the truth
    about your false claims, as proven innumerable times.

    Another LIE. Here's a direct quote (my emphasis) from Gordon Moat,
    clarifying exactly that point:
    ...that from:

    Could it be stated any more clearly? Douglas did NOT commission this
    article. So once again, he LIES.

    Have a great new year, Douglas, keep up the fine display of integrity.
    Mark Thomas, Dec 31, 2008
    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.