Another White Balance Question

[LVDiver]

I followed the thread below and used the white balance solution for photoshop from DigitalDiver.net by David Kusner "http://pt010.da-kine.info/adjustments.htm". This worked very well for some photo's I took in Belize with a digital camera and no strobe. I know it isn't perfect, but it's much better than I could do trying to manually adjust each picture. This raises a couple of questions:
- Since the end result of many of these were quite good, (after the photoshop procedure listed above), how much of a difference will a single strobe make to someone who isn't going to be very proficcient with it and also isn't very experienced with manual camera settings like white balance? Will they be much better than how the Photoshop correction would be? I would probably add an Ikelite DS-50 to a Fuji 900 w/Ikelite housing. I was not taking photo's in RAW, they are Jpeg's.
-This leads to question #2. I cleaned these pictures that were taken as JPeg's. I read that taking them in RAW is much better if you have the space on your memory card. Would RAW pictures have looked better than JPeg's using the above procedure, or is this only a benefit using Photoshop in some other way.
Any input would be greatly appreciated since I have to decide what I want to do for a trip to Cozumel next month.

Thanks,
Sean

 

[Puffer Fish]

It all depends on the conditions and the data in the image. You need to look at the channel data, actually, the red channel. Any image that has all of the data, but it is supressed (a bell shaped distrabution of the data from the red channel, that is not clipped (meaning the whole shape is still there) can be corrected to look very nice.

Try taking a picture in murky water, with the sun near the horizon, and you may have no red data at all, then, nothing will fix the image.

Stobes rule - and having one makes better, and in more conditions. I know of no one that would give one up after using (must be one out there).

Regarding RAW versus JPEG - RAW is raw, but JPEG is not a single standard. It deppends on the quality of the JPEG. I was going to say compression, but it is possible to have a jpeg, without any compression.

For the most part, if you have a Fuji 900, the highest JPEG, is well, fairly good and I would doubt it would make much difference, but will save a lot of processing and memory on your part. I have two fuji's, one above and one below that model and shoot mostly in jpeg. Making large prints, then use RAW. Also, if you understand all of the digital data, and are comfortable making lots of adjustments, shoot RAW.

 

[havnmonkey]

RAW will give you more powerful editing... More info on the file will give your computer more options to fix it.

I would say; use a higher jpeg quality until you are comfortable with your compostions-- you like the angles or contrasts and the strength of the subjects in your photos. Once you start to see what looks good after its printed out then go on to RAW and make those pictures standout after the editing.

 

[Mariozi]

White balance? Shoot RAW first, worry about WB later...
2 strobes makes better lighting, not as harsh as one strobe.
By the way... we worked years, locked on the "daylight" white ballance of slide films, and no harm was done.
For the ones who like it simple: when in doubt I go for "sunny", "cloud" ou "flash", in wide-angle "cloud" seems to work better, in macro maybe "flash" will do.
One nice thing to do, if you want to shoot JPG, is to shoot the first day RAW, and when back at the hotel, work in your software until you find the right WB for the rest of the trip... and redo this adjust every few days, weather or sea condition change.