Fuji Finepix S2 and Portraits

[Eyron]

I am testing my S2 with studio flash run off the sync. port.
I am using my Tamron 90/2.8 macro lense.
My meter reading when I pop the flashes is,
shutter speed 1/125 sec. and f stop F4.8.
Exposure is good.
Picts. are very sharp.
They look great but not exactly accurate.
Color has a slight pink cast.
I am using daylight white bal. but I have tried auto as well.
If I adjust in photshop it seems the picts. it need some red and yellow to
get the skin tones accurate.

Anyone have experience with the S2 and studio portraiture?
Why the slight pink cast?

EEO

[Bob Hatch]

"Eyron" <odd1@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:7bBZa.150063$rsJ.32218@news04.bloor.is.net.ca ble.rogers.com...

> I am testing my S2 with studio flash run off the sync. port.
> I am using my Tamron 90/2.8 macro lense.
> My meter reading when I pop the flashes is,
> shutter speed 1/125 sec. and f stop F4.8.
> Exposure is good.
> Picts. are very sharp.
> They look great but not exactly accurate.
> Color has a slight pink cast.
> I am using daylight white bal. but I have tried auto as well.
> If I adjust in photshop it seems the picts. it need some red and yellow

to

> get the skin tones accurate.
>
> Anyone have experience with the S2 and studio portraiture?
> Why the slight pink cast?
>
> EEO
>
>
>

What Andre said. Manual white balance only.

You can use the following for white balance:

A piece of photo paper (from a lab) unexposed and run through the processor.
It's a good clean white.

A Kodak Gray Card. (only Kodak. others don't seem to have a really true gray
color)

A set of these cards from
[url]http://www.proofz.com[/url]

These are the ones I use and I far prefer the 65 degree one.

HTH
--
[url]http://www.bobhatch.com[/url]
Our web site about RV Stuff
A work in progress

[Tesselator]

> > I am testing my S2 with studio flash run off the sync. port.
> > I am using my Tamron 90/2.8 macro lense.
> > My meter reading when I pop the flashes is,
> > shutter speed 1/125 sec. and f stop F4.8.
> > Exposure is good.
> > Picts. are very sharp.
> > They look great but not exactly accurate.
> > Color has a slight pink cast.
> > I am using daylight white bal. but I have tried auto as well.
> > If I adjust in photshop it seems the picts. it need some red and yellow

> to

> > get the skin tones accurate.
> >
> > Anyone have experience with the S2 and studio portraiture?
> > Why the slight pink cast?
> >
> > EEO

> What Andre said. Manual white balance only.
>
> You can use the following for white balance:
>
> A piece of photo paper (from a lab) unexposed and run through the processor.
> It's a good clean white.
>
> A Kodak Gray Card. (only Kodak. others don't seem to have a really true gray
> color)
>
> A set of these cards from
> [url]http://www.proofz.com[/url]
>
> These are the ones I use and I far prefer the 65 degree one.
>

Hi Bob,

I have a question. How would that help when using a studio flash
setup? That would work for floods or spots but flash? And if it's
Studio it's probably pointed at a diffusion shield of some type.
I would /think/ the best way would be to rapid strope and record
your ballance off the umbrella surface, or pannel or whatever
is being used for diffusion. Is this wrong?


Also Eyron, do you have to take these through post anyway? If
your post editing and color correction facilities are set up
professionally and your file format is deep just keep doing
the corrections there as I'm guessing you'll have to anyway.
No good?

O :-)

[McLeod]

If white balance is the only problem why not just shoot in raw and make your
white balance corrections there? Same thing as doing it on the camera.

"Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message
news:bh8bun$ulnv3$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...

> "Tesselator" <Jimmmboe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bh841f$clm$1@catv02.starcat.ne.jp...

> >
> > Hi Bob,
> >
> > I have a question. How would that help when using a studio flash
> > setup? That would work for floods or spots but flash? And if it's
> > Studio it's probably pointed at a diffusion shield of some type.
> > I would /think/ the best way would be to rapid strope and record
> > your ballance off the umbrella surface, or pannel or whatever
> > is being used for diffusion. Is this wrong?
> >

> Yes. You want to white balance according to the light hitting the subject,
> same as if you were outdoors or using any other kind of light subject. The
> temperature of the stobes will vary depending on brand and age of the

tube,

> so custom white balance is the only way to get accuracy.
>
> You have the subject hold the card and white balance according to the
> instructions for your camera.
>

> >
> > Also Eyron, do you have to take these through post anyway? If
> > your post editing and color correction facilities are set up
> > professionally and your file format is deep just keep doing
> > the corrections there as I'm guessing you'll have to anyway.
> > No good?
> >
> > O :-)

> If you custom white balance the amount of post processing for color

balance

> is almost zero.
> --
> [url]http://www.bobhatch.com[/url]
> Our web site about RV Stuff
> A work in progress
>
>

[Larry Miracle]

I think your problem is not color balance or white balance but
oversaturation.

The S2 seems to saturate colors more than some of the other cameras.
Although this looks great outdoors it can look oversaturated when used
with strobes.
An oversaturated face looks red.

Set COLOR to ORG (original) and set white balance to AUTO and you will
be happy with the results.

Also in brightsunlight I like to set the TONE to ORG for maximum
detail in highlights and shadow.
Set COLOR to HIGH to add a little pop.
I then use photoshop to add contrast if needed.

Larry






On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:11:47 GMT, "Eyron" <odd1@rogers.com> wrote:

>I am testing my S2 with studio flash run off the sync. port.
>I am using my Tamron 90/2.8 macro lense.
>My meter reading when I pop the flashes is,
>shutter speed 1/125 sec. and f stop F4.8.
>Exposure is good.
>Picts. are very sharp.
>They look great but not exactly accurate.
>Color has a slight pink cast.
>I am using daylight white bal. but I have tried auto as well.
>If I adjust in photshop it seems the picts. it need some red and yellow to
>get the skin tones accurate.
>
>Anyone have experience with the S2 and studio portraiture?
>Why the slight pink cast?
>
>EEO
>
>

[Tesselator]

Hey, thanks for that Bob. Yes that makes sence (today) when I
think about it. I didn't understand that the WB would/could
also be proformed from the exposure at strobe ignition off the
PC Sync. For studio still shots I still do medium and large
format film.

O :-)

> > Hi Bob,
> >
> > I have a question. How would that help when using a studio flash
> > setup? That would work for floods or spots but flash? And if it's
> > Studio it's probably pointed at a diffusion shield of some type.
> > I would /think/ the best way would be to rapid strope and record
> > your ballance off the umbrella surface, or pannel or whatever
> > is being used for diffusion. Is this wrong?
> >

> Yes. You want to white balance according to the light hitting the subject,
> same as if you were outdoors or using any other kind of light subject. The
> temperature of the stobes will vary depending on brand and age of the tube,
> so custom white balance is the only way to get accuracy.
>
> You have the subject hold the card and white balance according to the
> instructions for your camera.
>

> >
> > Also Eyron, do you have to take these through post anyway? If
> > your post editing and color correction facilities are set up
> > professionally and your file format is deep just keep doing
> > the corrections there as I'm guessing you'll have to anyway.
> > No good?
> >
> > O :-)

> If you custom white balance the amount of post processing for color balance
> is almost zero.
> --
> [url]http://www.bobhatch.com[/url]
> Our web site about RV Stuff
> A work in progress
>
>

[Tesselator]

"Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message news:bh8fpk$vq45a$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...

> "McLeod" <wmcleoa910@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:wePZa.153188$hOa.3291@news02.bloor.is.net.cab le.rogers.com...

> > If white balance is the only problem why not just shoot in raw and make

> your

> > white balance corrections there? Same thing as doing it on the camera.
> >

> I don't understand peoples facination with wanting to "use raw" and correct
> everything later. Why is it not easier to white balance once, in camera,
> rather than 80 times in computer. It takes me less than 15 seconds to do a
> manual white balance in camera. After that every darn image is "close" to
> color perfect.

Hasn't it got to do with the association one makes with operations
usually done in darkroom? Digital Darkroom work almost always has
to be proformed anyway if it's a professional shot. I think we're
assumming that these are for professional work. Being in a studio
w/house flash and all...

> Heck, maybe you have a lot more time than I do to fiddle with images on the
> screen.

So if it's for work then making the time to do it right is way worth
it. And the deeper bit depths of RAW are definatly worth working with.

[McLeod]

Interesting remark at the end. You are opening it through the software
anyway, aren't you? I think you probably don't understand the concept of
RAW data.


"Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message
news:bh8fpk$vq45a$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...> Heck, maybe you have a
lot more time than I do to fiddle with images on the

> screen.

[Gymmie Bob]

Some digital cameras do not have a settable white balance control but only
presets for certain types of lighting. If those calibrations are off they
are screwed and have to do it after.

"Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message
news:bh8fpk$vq45a$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...

> "McLeod" <wmcleoa910@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:wePZa.153188$hOa.3291@news02.bloor.is.net.cab le.rogers.com...

> > If white balance is the only problem why not just shoot in raw and make

> your

> > white balance corrections there? Same thing as doing it on the camera.
> >

> I don't understand peoples facination with wanting to "use raw" and

correct

> everything later. Why is it not easier to white balance once, in camera,
> rather than 80 times in computer. It takes me less than 15 seconds to do a
> manual white balance in camera. After that every darn image is "close" to
> color perfect.
>
> Heck, maybe you have a lot more time than I do to fiddle with images on

the

> screen.
>
> --
> [url]http://www.bobhatch.com[/url]
> Our web site about RV Stuff
> A work in progress
>
>

[Bob Hatch]

"Gymmie Bob" <NoThanx@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:8QXZa.5744$SV1.374405252@mantis.golden.net...

> Some digital cameras do not have a settable white balance control but only
> presets for certain types of lighting. If those calibrations are off they
> are screwed and have to do it after.\

But he was asking about a Fuji S2, not a WalMart Special.
--
[url]http://www.bobhatch.com[/url]
Our web site about RV Stuff
A work in progress

[Tesselator]

"Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message news:bh9ffi$u44j9$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...

> "Gymmie Bob" <NoThanx@notspam.com> wrote in message
> news:8QXZa.5744$SV1.374405252@mantis.golden.net...

> > Some digital cameras do not have a settable white balance control but only
> > presets for certain types of lighting. If those calibrations are off they
> > are screwed and have to do it after.\

>
> But he was asking about a Fuji S2, not a WalMart Special.

LOL!

[Bob Hatch]

"McLeod" <wmcleoa910@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:5zUZa.155499$hOa.123907@news02.bloor.is.net.c able.rogers.com...

> Interesting remark at the end. You are opening it through the software
> anyway, aren't you? I think you probably don't understand the concept of
> RAW data.
>
>

Ya your right. I just don't understand the complex concepts of digital.
--
[url]http://www.bobhatch.com[/url]
Our web site about RV Stuff
A work in progress

[Eyron]

Thanks guys

I will try the man. white bal.

Also in Raw mode does the camera not use the cameras set white balance?

EEO
"Eyron" <odd1@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:7bBZa.150063$rsJ.32218@news04.bloor.is.net.ca ble.rogers.com...

> I am testing my S2 with studio flash run off the sync. port.
> I am using my Tamron 90/2.8 macro lense.
> My meter reading when I pop the flashes is,
> shutter speed 1/125 sec. and f stop F4.8.
> Exposure is good.
> Picts. are very sharp.
> They look great but not exactly accurate.
> Color has a slight pink cast.
> I am using daylight white bal. but I have tried auto as well.
> If I adjust in photshop it seems the picts. it need some red and yellow

to

> get the skin tones accurate.
>
> Anyone have experience with the S2 and studio portraiture?
> Why the slight pink cast?
>
> EEO
>
>
>

[Gymmie Bob]

I bought both my Fuji cameras at Target stores. Paying too much doesn't make
the quality better.


"Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message
news:bh9ffi$u44j9$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...

> "Gymmie Bob" <NoThanx@notspam.com> wrote in message
> news:8QXZa.5744$SV1.374405252@mantis.golden.net...

> > Some digital cameras do not have a settable white balance control but

only

> > presets for certain types of lighting. If those calibrations are off

they

> > are screwed and have to do it after.\

>
> But he was asking about a Fuji S2, not a WalMart Special.
> --
> [url]http://www.bobhatch.com[/url]
> Our web site about RV Stuff
> A work in progress
>
>

[Bob Hatch]

"Gymmie Bob" <NoThanx@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:X8_Za.5757$882.375100527@mantis.golden.net...

> I bought both my Fuji cameras at Target stores. Paying too much doesn't

make

> the quality better.
>
>

Do you even come close to understanding the difference between an S2 and a
$300 FinePix?
--
[url]http://www.bobhatch.com[/url]
Our web site about RV Stuff
A work in progress

[Bob Hatch]

"Tesselator" <Jimmmboe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bh9l5d$11i$1@catv02.starcat.ne.jp...

>
> "Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message

news:bh9jco$100dt1$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...

> > "McLeod" <wmcleoa910@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > news:5zUZa.155499$hOa.123907@news02.bloor.is.net.c able.rogers.com...

> > > Interesting remark at the end. You are opening it through the

software

> > > anyway, aren't you? I think you probably don't understand the concept

of

> > > RAW data.
> > >
> > >

> > Ya your right. I just don't understand the complex concepts of digital.
> >

>
>
> Hmmm... Let's see. I can explain it to you. There's a ZERO and a ONE.
>
> Hehehehe O :-D
>

That's where I screwed up. I thought it was ONE and ZERO. :-)

--
[url]http://www.bobhatch.com[/url]
Our web site about RV Stuff
A work in progress

[McLeod]

That's what I thought.


"Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message
news:bh9jco$100dt1$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...

> Ya your right. I just don't understand the complex concepts of digital.
> --
> [url]http://www.bobhatch.com[/url]
> Our web site about RV Stuff
> A work in progress
>
>

[Bob Hatch]

"McLeod" <wmcleoa910@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:I_2_a.123485$4UE.76901@news01.bloor.is.net.ca ble.rogers.com...

> That's what I thought.
>
>

What is it about some who when disagreed with must insult the understanding
or intelligence of the person who disagrees with them.

I fully understand the "concept" of RAW date. I also understand the concept
of working with up to 6 clients a day with between 70 and 100 image each.
These images must be shown to each client for their selection and purchase.
To be lazy at the camera and have to spend the time to correct approximately
350 images every damn day in order to provide the client with an image that
"looks good" would be just plain stupid.

I also understand the concept of getting the best image in the camera to
start with. It's amazing the number of folks using film who will brag about
their "spot on" exposures and have no realization that the image they see on
the printed paper is the result of a darn good lab tech correcting their
screwups.

Do as you will but I will continue to expose the image correctly in the
camera because while I understand the "concept" of RAW date I also
understand the "concept" of correct exposure using either film and digital.
--
[url]http://www.bobhatch.com[/url]
Our web site about RV Stuff
A work in progress

[Bob Hatch]

"McLeod" <wmcleoa910@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:HQ8_a.126093$4UE.30577@news01.bloor.is.net.ca ble.rogers.com...

> Well, Bob, I probably would have let it go if I hadn't wasted a Slice of
> Time looking at your website. I can point to more than a half dozen shots
> where the exposure appears to be off. Owning a good digital camera

doesn't

> necessarily make someone a good photographer. Maybe you should learn to
> spend a little more time in post processing as well. And by the way, I

have

> been a professional photographer for over 17 years and I think you're
> probably worth every penny you charge per image.
>

Like I said, can't disagree with out insults. Too bad.
--
[url]http://www.bobhatch.com[/url]
Our web site about RV Stuff
A work in progress

[Gymmie Bob]

Yes, the S2 has less resolution than some -and is an old partially obsolete
camera.

"Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message
news:bh9obs$vm1pl$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...

> "Gymmie Bob" <NoThanx@notspam.com> wrote in message
> news:X8_Za.5757$882.375100527@mantis.golden.net...

> > I bought both my Fuji cameras at Target stores. Paying too much doesn't

> make

> > the quality better.
> >
> >

> Do you even come close to understanding the difference between an S2 and a
> $300 FinePix?
> --
> [url]http://www.bobhatch.com[/url]
> Our web site about RV Stuff
> A work in progress
>
>