White Balance Filter

If I had to make that choice, I would choose neutral over portrait first. ; But it would depend on what will be photographed the most!

 

i have the expodisc portrait. ; the neutral was a bit too "cool" for me. ; i like the slightly warmer look of the portrait.
CLICK HERE.... ;

 

I don't have one; I find that it's been okay just using the dropper tool for WB, and then using sliders if the dropper isn't "right".

Plus it seems that the latest iteration of dSLRs have gotten awfully good with AWB.

 

If you're a RAW shooter, white balance is a very easy correction, since the information normally applied in camera can just be applied in the software on your computer instead. ; However, if you shoot JPEG, WB correction isn't quite as easy or as good - better to try to get it right when shooting. ; You can make minor WB changes with JPEG, but larger corrections aren't possible because the colors themselves will change, not just the color cast.

I personally haven't used one of the exposure caps for many years...I used to have a neutral one back with my 2nd digital cam. ; With my DSLRs, I prefer to just manually set white balance off of a white or grey surface, or leave it on Auto for most daylight scenarios where the camera can usually do a great job. ; If it's challenging, I'll use manual WB.

But I'm also one who endorses the idea of not always going after technically 'perfect' white balance - often times for me the sublime light provided by nature or man can provide a stunning warmth or coolness that is precisely the atmosphere I want to capture. ; If I corrected the white balance, it would achieve technical perfection, but lose all atmosphere and emotion which was being conveyed by the light and the color cast.

 

I mainly use Aperture 3, but I also have full versions of Bibble Pro and now CS5, although the latter I am still a novice at (esp with ACR). ; I haven't used full Photoshop since Photoshop 5.

 

RAW+JPEG Fine will give you the best quality JPEG to go with your RAW file. ; It also takes up the most space, but 32gb will still hold a lot of pics!

Hard to say if you should get the filter or not, heck I went through several software purchases before I settled on my current batch!

ACDSee Pro was actually my first one, but that's only for Windows. ; And most of the others have free full trials with no watermarking, so you can take them for a test drive without having your pics....modified by the software.

 

Well RAW takes a wee bit more input than JPEG...jpeg is if you just want the photo to come out of the camera ready to go. ; RAW is just what it sounds...no processing has been applied, so things like noise reduction, white balance, sharpening, color & contrast tweaks, etc are still awaiting your input. ; Note too you have to have a RAW processor and converter on your computer - likely one came with your camera. ; You can usually pick a 'default' processing - that applies essentially all of the settings the camera would have, and just convert that to JPEG - though you aren't really taking advantage of RAW processing power. ; Of course, if you save the RAW, you can always go back later and process it all over again completely differently. ; RAW typically adds some processing time to your shooting - you don't just come home, plug in the card, and that's it - photos ready. ; You have to do the basic processing (default one-touch type, or saved batch processing procedures) and convert to jpeg to post them and share with others.

That's why those RAW+jpeg options exist - some folks want to have the RAW file to work on if need be, or if desired, but also just have a nice, simple JPEG straight out of the camera that they can share immediately. ; Many folks will look at the JPEG, and if the results are nice and acceptable, you don't even have to go work on the RAW file...just save it and use the JPEG. ; If you find one of your JPEGs looks bad - blown highlights, underexposed, bad white balance, etc...then you can go into the RAW file for that shot, and tweak and process it as need be...convert the end result to RAW and delete the jpeg that came from the camera.

Also note: RAW files are absolutely HUGE! ; They take a ton of memory - many times more than a JPEG. ; So make sure you've got the storage space to contend with them. ; It's up to you if you keep your RAW files always, or get the JPEG result you want and delete the RAW to save room - just remember keeping a RAW file does give you the ability to always go back years later and reprocess shots with new software technology, maybe getting some better results than the first time around.

But regardless of the fact that 99% of DSLR shooters will absolutely burn you down with insults and shame, don't feel bad either if you just prefer shooting JPEGs, and not going through the whole processing/RAW conversion process. ; It's hard for some photogs to understand how anyone would 'accept' the processing decisions of the programmer who set up the camera JPEG in-camera...but I'm sure there are similar arguments from those with stick-shift cars who don't understand someone buying automatic transmissions, chefs who don't understand someone buying a jar of tomato sauce rather than making their own from scratch, and so on and so on. ; Simply put, not everyone is 'into' sitting in front of a computer working on their photos...and that's OK. ; I must personally confess to having very little interest in post-processing and tweaking...my love is solely and entirely in the process of taking a photograph - working with the camera's controls, tweaking those in the field to get specific results, and framing/exposing/composing my shots. ; That's where I'm happy. ; When it comes time to sit in front of a computer and start opening photos, moving sliders, mousing brushes around, applying filters, stacking layers, etc...my interest just flies straight out the window, and starts daydreaming about taking more photos! ; So most of the time, probably 90% of the time, I shoot JPEG only, and post my results straight out of the camera. ; I know - sacreligious! ; But the results are up to my standards, I sell photos, and I've published photos, so they seem to be up to par to the rest of the world enough to make me happy.

My recommendation would be to try RAW, and see what you think. ; The best option would be to shoot the RAW + JPEG option...I'd use the highest quality JPEG setting available (fine). ; That way, you still have your JPEGs like you always have, PLUS you have a RAW file of every photo. ; Play around with some of the RAW files, marvel at how much you can recover and tweak, and decide if that is the way you want to go. ; Certainly, the more you get things right in camera, the less you have to 'fix' in RAW, but at the same time, if you do blow something, in RAW you have a very reasonable chance of correcting it. ; With RAW + JPEG, you can still share the JPEGs, and have a quick result right from the camera...and then play with the RAW files, see how big they are on your drive, and see if you want to continue with them.

 

Although you can fix white balance in raw, it is much easier and time efficient to try to get it correct at the time of the pic. ; Just a personal preference. ;

 

Simple to answer. ; $2.00 eBay filters are cheap (stuff) and will perform as such. ; If they don't break the first time you use them, you will probably want them to when you see the results. ;

It only takes a few seconds to use an expodisc and then your good as long as the light doesn't change significantly. obviously if you go from dark rides to bright outdoor light it is going to change but that is an extreme example

Posted from my htc Incredible.