Doug Kerr
Well-known member
A fascinating article by Sara Frances, M.Photog.CR, entitled "Numbers Don’t Matter! (at least not as much as you might have thought)", has just appeared in the ProPhoto Home forums, here:
http://www.prophotohome.com/forum/p...t-much-you-might-have-thought.html#post465948
Its origin is said to be "Newsfeeds", whatever that means. I guess that means it was first published someplace else. If so, it is well under cover.
It's a very curious article. It begins:
"Once you select a white balance device that passes about 95% manufacturer tested neutrality, the practical yet precise photographic artist is good to go. Well, maybe 96%. Whoa you say, numbers don’t lie! Gotta have those readouts neutral right on the money."
Whoa, indeed. I'm already baffled. What could "a white balance device that passes about 95% manufacturer tested neutrality" mean? Does that mean its manufacturer claims that it is "95% neutral"; what might that mean?
Then there's "Gotta have those readouts neutral right on the money". What is a "readout", anyway, and how could it be "neutral"?
A little later, we have: "Scientifically tested neutral is often not the neutral anyone wants!" Does that mean that sometimes we want a neutral that isn't neutral (there is of course no such thing), or does it mean sometimes we want a reference target that isn't quite neutral (quite so), or does it mean that we want a reference target that is neutral but just not scientifically tested?
Overall, it almost seems as though the author has taken a number of words and catch phrases, pertaining (somehow) to the matter of white balance color correction, put them into a hat, and drawn out sentences.
Later, we have: "If a certain device, no matter how accurately manufactured, consistently gives you slightly green faces and you weren’t photographing Martians, then that’s not the device for you."
Well, I'm not sure how a white balance measurement tool, or a "neutral" target, that came fairly close to actual neutrality (and I assume that is what is meant by "accurately manufactured") would result in subjects not having green faces coming out in the corrected image with green faces - unless of course the ambient illumination had a very ill-behaved spectrum, in which case throwing out the WB tool seems the wrong thing to do.
So I can't find any part of the story actually saying anything. Of course, then none of it can be "wrong".
I'm sure there is some point to all this, but I miss it. Perhaps others of you, more familiar with actual photographic white balance practice, can find the pony in there.
Best regards,
Doug
Older than John McCain, but only in the daytime,
and I don't believe in anything practical except lunch and sex
http://www.prophotohome.com/forum/p...t-much-you-might-have-thought.html#post465948
Its origin is said to be "Newsfeeds", whatever that means. I guess that means it was first published someplace else. If so, it is well under cover.
It's a very curious article. It begins:
"Once you select a white balance device that passes about 95% manufacturer tested neutrality, the practical yet precise photographic artist is good to go. Well, maybe 96%. Whoa you say, numbers don’t lie! Gotta have those readouts neutral right on the money."
Whoa, indeed. I'm already baffled. What could "a white balance device that passes about 95% manufacturer tested neutrality" mean? Does that mean its manufacturer claims that it is "95% neutral"; what might that mean?
Then there's "Gotta have those readouts neutral right on the money". What is a "readout", anyway, and how could it be "neutral"?
A little later, we have: "Scientifically tested neutral is often not the neutral anyone wants!" Does that mean that sometimes we want a neutral that isn't neutral (there is of course no such thing), or does it mean sometimes we want a reference target that isn't quite neutral (quite so), or does it mean that we want a reference target that is neutral but just not scientifically tested?
Overall, it almost seems as though the author has taken a number of words and catch phrases, pertaining (somehow) to the matter of white balance color correction, put them into a hat, and drawn out sentences.
Later, we have: "If a certain device, no matter how accurately manufactured, consistently gives you slightly green faces and you weren’t photographing Martians, then that’s not the device for you."
Well, I'm not sure how a white balance measurement tool, or a "neutral" target, that came fairly close to actual neutrality (and I assume that is what is meant by "accurately manufactured") would result in subjects not having green faces coming out in the corrected image with green faces - unless of course the ambient illumination had a very ill-behaved spectrum, in which case throwing out the WB tool seems the wrong thing to do.
So I can't find any part of the story actually saying anything. Of course, then none of it can be "wrong".
I'm sure there is some point to all this, but I miss it. Perhaps others of you, more familiar with actual photographic white balance practice, can find the pony in there.
Best regards,
Doug
Older than John McCain, but only in the daytime,
and I don't believe in anything practical except lunch and sex