Is this the right way to cover up stage lighting?

Your camera settings are saved in a raw file, plain and simple. They are changable before saving as an image if necessary.

See i always change the WB setting in PP, yet, i diddnt think (and apparently neither did the writer of that article i posted) that the RAW file held any of the in-camera setting preferences such as contrast, sharpening, WB etc.

x

tipsy wrote in post #3329696
See i always change the WB setting in PP, yet, i diddnt think (and apparently neither did the writer of that article i posted) that the RAW file held any of the in-camera setting preferences such as contrast, sharpening, WB etc.

x

contrast and sharpening are different than WB.........are you guys not paying attention to your PP work when you open different files?

Go put your camera in AWB, go take a bunch of different shots indoor and out and look at the "temperature" setting in your RAW converter once you've uploaded your images, this is the WB setting.

Or you could shoot JPEG and PP with Lightroom. I find it does the trick for my modest abilities.

Nick_b wrote in post #3329870
Or you could shoot JPEG and PP with Lightroom. I find it does the trick for my modest abilities.

and you get 1/3 less info to use, less flexibility.

taygull wrote in post #3329881
and you get 1/3 less info to use, less flexibility.

Fair enough, but for my amature use JPEG works. Not to mention for me to PP RAW files I would need double the memory and a faster camera and a faster computer.... so I'll stick with JPEG for now. Oh ya, and if I did shoot RAW I wouldn't even know how to use that extra 1/3 of info available to me. It's a personal choice we all have to make.


On the ethical question of should we alter the stage lighting? I think if you are attempting to create the best photo possible then the stage lighting often has to be altered from reality. Lighting that might work in a club setting does not always translate well into a photograph. Not altering it because of "ethical" reasons is silly to me.

I am in the "try to make the stage picture capture the moment as realistically as possible" school of thought. The odd lighting is part of the reality of such things. Do I make some b & w versions? Of course I do. Usually when I can't make it look right in color though.

There is probably no correct answer to this dilema, only personal choice.

skifurthur wrote in post #3330230
I am in the "try to make the stage picture capture the moment as realistically as possible" school of thought. The odd lighting is part of the reality of such things.

RAW's benefits really tend to become evident, not when things go right, but when things go wrong in an exposure. When you botch an exposure, RAW has much more information to help you salvage the image. The fact is that the camera doesn't have the dynamic range that the human eye has, so you aren't going to replicate the scene exactly. RAW gives the photographer greater flexibility to use the camera's limited dynamic range in the way he/she sees fit.

bacchanal wrote in post #3331445
RAW's benefits really tend to become evident, not when things go right, but when things go wrong in an exposure. When you botch an exposure, RAW has much more information to help you salvage the image. The fact is that the camera doesn't have the dynamic range that the human eye has, so you aren't going to replicate the scene exactly. RAW gives the photographer greater flexibility to use the camera's limited dynamic range in the way he/she sees fit.

Agreed. A photo is always an limited reality, made somewhat more limitless by the skill and imagination of the photographer.

skifurthur wrote in post #3331510
Agreed. A photo is always an limited reality, made somewhat more limitless by the skill and imagination of the photographer.

Agree but disagree....Raw will allow you to capture more data, uncompressed and convert to a mode that will print better thus giving better results. As well I'd prefer to make the decisions on what the image looks like rather than Canon.

I like the first two. Nice B&W conversion as well.
Don't mind the orange too much.
There are a bunch of ways to correct colors in PS: Hue/sat, Curves, levels, channel mixer.

I tend to go for 'pleasing' rather then 'accurate' skin color.

Shooting RAW does make this a whole lot easier.
I have the WB set to 'Tungsten' on camera, simply so 1) the RGB histogram is usable; 2) You get a close reseblence on the display to what you see; 3) iView DPP use the 'in camera' settings to display the file and as a starting point respectively. That way I can see what the image looks like uncorrected, and see what (if) I need to correct something.