Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: daylight WB as reported in C1

  1. #1
    Member picman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    139
    Post Thanks / Like

    daylight WB as reported in C1

    Just noted something odd. I always shoot with the daylight setting for white balance (I shoot raw so it does not matter much I guess). I "develop" in Capture One. Whereas for the 24-70, 85 and 135 Zeiss lenses the normal reading for daylight seems to be 5350 Kelvin (and -2 tint), the 16-35 Zeiss gives a reading of 5050 (and -1 tint). Is there any explanation for this?

    Cheers, Bob.

  2. #2
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: daylight WB as reported in C1

    I've been curious about this myself, except my numbers are different. My 24-70, 50, 85, and an m42 135 all generally give me a "daylight" WB of 5550 Kelvin/ -3 tint when set in-camera. However, sometimes that number changes. For instance, I have a few shots with the 24-70mm that come up as 5800 and -3. Hmmm?

  3. #3
    Member picman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    139
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: daylight WB as reported in C1

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    I've been curious about this myself, except my numbers are different. My 24-70, 50, 85, and an m42 135 all generally give me a "daylight" WB of 5550 Kelvin/ -3 tint when set in-camera. However, sometimes that number changes. For instance, I have a few shots with the 24-70mm that come up as 5800 and -3. Hmmm?
    Wow, this is getting stranger and stranger. In the meantime I checked what it says in DxO

    5210 K for the 16-35
    5397 K for the 24-70, 85 and 135

    all with tint -2.

    Cheers, Bob

  4. #4
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: daylight WB as reported in C1

    I doubt that C1 is misreading the camera settings. The only explanation is that the camera uses different settings depending on lens, or even focal length for zooms. This doesn't seem unusual for Sony, as I suspect also that Sony has a built in AF compensation for the 16-35 and 24-70 for what it considers the best average for the field curvature characteristics of each lens.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  5. #5
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: daylight WB as reported in C1

    It seems like that would be the case, Edward, but I'm getting different readings every once in a while for both zooms and primes. I'll have to do more investigation.

    On a side note, I know that you're into IDC primarily because of the color, and I'm starting to move away from C1 more and more for that very reason. Its color profile isn't quite right (too magenta, maybe?,) and Raw Therapee seems dead on. I actually went through every camera color profile in C1 to try and get a close match to RT, but no luck.

  6. #6
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: daylight WB as reported in C1

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post

    On a side note, I know that you're into IDC primarily because of the color, and I'm starting to move away from C1 more and more for that very reason. Its color profile isn't quite right (too magenta, maybe?,) and Raw Therapee seems dead on. I actually went through every camera color profile in C1 to try and get a close match to RT, but no luck.
    I keep on downloading RT every now and then, but it seems to have an issue with my computer. It crashes every time I start it. Anyhow, I am extremely pleased with IDC from the output side, but this converter is a pain to use whenever I have more than a few images to work with. My favorite converter for workflow and efficiency is DPP, and I am still keeping hope that Sony will provide us one day with a similar program.
    Last edited by edwardkaraa; 16th July 2009 at 09:48.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  7. #7
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: daylight WB as reported in C1

    Yeah, it's a constant battle between workflow, ease of use, and output. I haven't had any problems with RT on my system, and every time that I think I'm going to stay with C1, I compare my images with RT, and RT wins every time. The detail is only slightly better with RT, but the color seems much better. I think I'm going full on RT....for now.

  8. #8
    Member picman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    139
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: daylight WB as reported in C1

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    Yeah, it's a constant battle between workflow, ease of use, and output. I haven't had any problems with RT on my system, and every time that I think I'm going to stay with C1, I compare my images with RT, and RT wins every time. The detail is only slightly better with RT, but the color seems much better. I think I'm going full on RT....for now.
    Waiting for a Mac version

  9. #9
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: daylight WB as reported in C1

    If I was on Mac, I'd probably be using RPP.

  10. #10
    Member dbogdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Brighton MI.
    Posts
    70
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: daylight WB as reported in C1

    The problem with RT is that I would prefer to send the file directly to an editor. When you set up that option, it saves and moves it as an 8bit tiff. It seems 16 bit can only be saved to file, creating yet one more version, forcing you to again retrieve it to move forward with the work flow.

    -david

  11. #11
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: daylight WB as reported in C1

    Agreed there. I wonder why they can't send the file at 16 bit??

  12. #12
    madcat207
    Guest

    Re: daylight WB as reported in C1

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    Agreed there. I wonder why they can't send the file at 16 bit??
    I don't remember where I saw it, but since RT is made to be compatible with GIMP, the developed TIFFs have to be sent in 8 bit.

    While i agree its annoying, I can personally live with it, since most of my output ends up as 8 bit anyway (printing or JPG for stock or display).

  13. #13
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: daylight WB as reported in C1

    I just save as a 16 bit tiff, and then open in PS separately. If you do any adjustments in PS, it's good to use 16 bit so there are less artifacts and what not, but it doesn't always matter, I guess.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •