said:
Let's keep this thread on-topic then. There are several "Filter" threads already, but I think the discussion in the following thread is similar to what you are asking. Read through it and add what you want to know about the 81A there instead.

The words below are not a personal complain to any NR administrator (therefore do not take them to that direction), my purpose is to help...I want the administrators of NR to take notice.

- If a user (like me) opens a thread with some specific item, and a more-general-purpose thread exists, the administrators will close the new-thread, and ask the user to use the existing thread (although it is not the same as the one just opened)
- If a user posts a specific question in a more-general-purpose thread, the administrators will ask you to keep on the original topic..

Is this not contradictory?

Thanks gentlemen for touching on this subject. I do shoot RAW + jpg just in case I need more than simple editing and I've learned to appreciate the flexibility of RAW files. I'll save my money.

Hi all,

I'll stay will earlier comments. Shooting Automating, with neutral settings. RAW should allow for the most satisfactory conversion.

The LCD monitor is just an indicator of what's happening. Relative values, who's hitting marks and such.

My best,

Mike

dbl post - oops

My experience with Color correction filters:
Common filters
FL-D Fluorescent Filter - for use under fluorescent lights
80A Filter - Correcting incandescent light.
Warming filters - landscape

The first thing about filters that is easy to forget is that you loose up to two light stops so generally I try not to ever use any. I have used a FL-D filter under Fluorescent lighting to take the green cast out which helped but not much. The problem is when you have mixed sources (different K temps) you just create a different color cast on the image. Then with your flash, you are now trying to compensate for the corrected result of the filter and gel that. Not fun.

Any more I use either my WB tool or set my "K" temp and gel a light (CTO) if I want to spill warm lighting on my subject.

Here is a K-temp guide that I have in my bag.

Temp Typical Sources
1000K Candles; oil lamps
2000K Very early sunrise; low effect tungsten lamps
2500K Household light bulbs
3000K Studio lights, photo floods
4000K Clear flashbulbs
5000K Typical daylight; electronic flash
5500K The sun at noon near Kodak's offices :-)
6000K Bright sunshine with clear sky
7000K Slightly overcast sky
8000K Hazy sky
9000K Open shade on clear day
10,000K Heavily overcast sky
11,000K Sunless blue skies
20,000+K Open shade in mountains on a really clear day

Rx4Photo said:
Niko, you're basically correct in that my post was targeted more toward questioning the usefulness of this 81A filter.... I almost started a new thread with "Filters" as the primary subject but thought it'd fit in here. Probably not, huh?

Let's keep this thread on-topic then. There are several "Filter" threads already, but I think the discussion in the following thread is similar to what you are asking. Read through it and add what you want to know about the 81A there instead.

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=730

I dont use a filter on the lenes, but as others have sugested, I do use one on the flash

I shoot RAW, use a grey card and WB in lightroom

Niko, you're basically correct in that my post was targeted more toward questioning the usefulness of this 81A filter. I posted it in this thread because I thought it would be close enough to the present discussion about getting the right exposure - skin tones and such - when shooting human subjects and flash. I almost started a new thread with "Filters" as the primary subject but thought it'd fit in here. Probably not, huh?

I should have known better than to mention K.R. - I've read enough here to know that! Will gladly start a new thread if necessary. Thanks.

Before responding to Rx4's post lets keep the discussion away from Ken comments. Rx4 I think your question is totally different topic then whitebalance with flash. Unless you mean using filters with flash? It sounds to me like you are asking about filters in general. In-camera versus computer.

Hello all,

I'm rehashing this thread to ask about Filters to correct and warm up skin tones. I guess you could say I'm on a quest to step up the outcome of some of my photos, particularly with flash photo and human subjects indoors and outdoors.

Was doing a little reading on K. Rockwell's site to learn about 81A filters and wondered if it's common to use this now-a-days or do most people shoot without filters and just warm up skin tones in post? He says that many people just keep an 81A on their cameras all the time because it not only warms up skin tones but also warms up outdoor scenery as well. Does this make sense if shooting RAW?

Thanks for your ideas.

Hi,

One more point. While RAW is RAW, meta data is picked up in many of the raw converters and transferred to raw converters such as Adobe Camera Raw and read as a starting point to the converter will try to read a WB in the "As Shot" for color processing, which can be a blessing or a curse.

WB in RAW metadata can also affect the Raw Convert (generally speaking), so that you can have 'one of' in your RAW processing for general printing that is easy correction, but batch processing spanning a variety of color venues that could be very difficult to correct - you'd want to correct for accurate WB in those venues.

ACR needs to be 'refreshed' every so often, too. Settings tend to stagnate over time and need to be reset. It is at the bottom of dialog box.

My best.

Mike

guys, this is one of the best dicussions that I have come across.....fantastic information

It really depends on your lighting and what look you are going for. Why not just leave it on Auto and "IF" it has an issue,..fix it post through Lightroom.

*Studio460,...I like your company party. Much prettier,..oops,..I mean better than mine.

Short answer, you can't without using gels.

You are trying to shoot indoors, with non-white lighting, and balancing with a white lighting source? You need to make your flash the same color as your indoor lighting, or get indoor lighting the same temp as the flash. You can correct some in post processing, but shooting RAW only. Game over if you are in JPG.

Use Standard instead of Vivid colors, that will help too and turn down the saturation.

If it is your home, and you expect to take pics there often in the same, then you may want to invest in some more natural temp lighting. You will appreciate it in the long run.

IndyGeoff said:
studio460 .. on their website it says range 2 feet at f2.8
(6 feet if i can get to f1.0 lol)

how much more distance do you get since I do not usually shoot 2 feet away from my subjects.

thanks

TaoTeJared said:
studio460 - I would love to see you thoughts on the LP (probably in a new thread). I have been looking at these for a while but haven't seen many using them.

LED will be the future weather we like it or not, I just want to stay ahead of the curve.

Guys, I'll reply in more detail about the LitePanel Micro, later (in a new thread).

Short answer: Typically, both LED and KinoFlo-type (fluorescent) sources can be very bright at close distances (e.g., LitePanel 1x1, KinoFlo Barfly, etc.), but quickly fall off to nothing after several feet. However, newer, higher-Wattage LED instruments are getting increasingly brighter, but tend to be very expensive.

studio460 - I would love to see you thoughts on the LP (probably in a new thread). I have been looking at these for a while but haven't seen many using them.

LED will be the future weather we like it or not, I just want to stay ahead of the curve.

shot RAW and correct in PP, also get grey card as it helps a lot

studio460 .. on their website it says range 2 feet at f2.8
(6 feet if i can get to f1.0 lol)

how much more distance do you get since I do not usually shoot 2 feet away from my subjects.

thanks

Hi,

"I usually just shoot RAW with auto WB and adjust in post so I can tweak it visually to find the best balance for what my subject is. As long as you're shooting RAW, adjusting white balance later doesn't affect image quality."

+1

Generally that really works out very well.

And again, with Sean, if tungsten is the culprit, gel for tungsten on the flash, and WB tungsten - if that venue was what I was doing.

Nikon's speedlights' Gel packs work terrifically well on the SB800s and SB900s for that.

My best,

Mike

TaoTeJared said:
I'm trying to think of any other ways - we are up to 5 different ways or variances, there has to be at least a couple more! :)

Recently, I've actually been shooting tungsten interiors of holiday snapshots with an uncorrected, daylight-balanced, LED LitePanel Micro, and letting the practicals go warm (mainly, because I just haven't gotten around to ordering the hard gel from LitePanel yet!):

LitePanel Micro

It's a bit more convenient than using a flash in dark interiors, and with the Micro's built-in dimmer, it's a snap to manually balance my LitePanel's output to match the ambient exposure.

Below, is an uncorrected still image I shot at our recent company Xmas party of my friend Rick, using the LitePanel Micro attached to my D90's hot shoe (it's merely a mechanical mount--there's no "synch," since it's a continuous-source light, designed primarily for video):

Nikon D90; AF Nikkor 35mm f/2.0
ISO: 2,000; f/2.2 @ 125th; daylight preset white balance.

But, this was in a club setting with lots of effects and mood lighting going on. In a home, with more noticeably warm incandescent lighting (or warm CFLs), I would be much better-served by using either LitePanel's tungsten correction hard gel (orange-ish piece of plastic), or taping a piece of Lee correction or CTO to my LitePanel.

I'm trying to think of any other ways - we are up to 5 different ways or variances, there has to be at least a couple more! :)

The best results I've found are when you correct your flash to the color temperature of your interior practical/ambient sources (e.g., if your interior sources are tungsten, then use the tungsten preset white balance). Throw some 3400-degree Kelvin correction gel or CTO (a slightly warmer type of correction gel) on your flash, then dial down your slow-shuttered, matrix-balanced TTL exposure correction anywhere from -0.7 to -2.0 EV, and voila!

Oh, I see others have already suggested correcting your flash with CTO. Correction gel is typically sold in 21" x 24" sheets for about $6.00/sheet (large rolls are also available at about $120/roll). As Drab mentioned, one sheet would last a lifetime. You can find theatrical gel at any expendable supply store (a store which specializes in supplies for the movie industry). Most suppliers (at least in L.A.) tend to stock Lee-brand gel more than Rosco-brand gel. If you contact Lee, you can request a swatch book (given out free, at retailers that stock Lee and Rosco products). The swatch book gels are just about big enough to cover most on-camera flash heads.

I use the set by kelvin mode set to either 3200ish while using an orange gel on my sb900, or 5560k with no gels as the xenon gas in flashes burns at 5600k... Sometimes if I'm not lazy Ill find a white wall (or grey card) and manually set my WB.

If your flash(es) are not overpowering the ambient light, I certainly agree that the best way to go is to gel the flash to the ambient light source and shoot RAW. Use NX2 or Lightroom, whatever, to tweek light balance for your final image. Trying to chase white balance when background is light with tungsten or flourescent and your foreground is lite by flash, you'll waste too much time trying to balance things out - unless you're jason o'dell or scott kelby - who seemingly live for making software corrections.

There is no "correct" white balance in a mixed light situation. 1/4 to 1/2 CTO over the speedlight can greatly reduce problems, as even if it isn't a perfect match it is likely to be far closer. (Indoors). It is also far cheaper and packs far smaller than an expodisc. (Indoors).