Printable View
With some help from Gollywop in the form of a written tutorial, I spent some time last evening and created a D300s NUWB file (that's my new abbreviation :)
I've sent it to Iliah for him to check it out...once blessed, it is available.
Coefficients after taking 27 images and tweaking the heck out of it are:
0.99609375, 1.00390625, 1, 1
Jim,
I shot side by side with one of the guys who came up with the UNIWB in YNP last year. We both derived similar exposures, except I did not have to correct every image in PS to negate the green cast. In my opinion it is an unnecessary step.
Best,
Chas
Jim,
I look forward to hearing about your experences using your NUWB file.
James
Chas....
My simple comment would that you haven't used it enough to see the difference...or the 1/3 to 2/3rds stop gain in DR in certain situations. Not only do I get better shadow area exposure, but noise is lessened as well due to the optimized exposure.
I don't quite understand how having a very close to real RAW histogram from which to expose by, wouldn't be a good thing as it is dramatically different than what the camera presents you with without using this. All of the cameras internal image optimizations / tweaks are applied to the jpeg derived histogram.
I don't use PS to convert my RAW images as I find that NX, while a PITB gives me better results. The conversion there is quite simple and since I use this for everything shot outdoors, I don't consider it an extra step.
Perhaps you don't use the in camera meter as I do?
Jim,
I have my in-camera settings tweaked via lower contrast and RGB settings to better reflect what the camera is capable of recording when using the histogram as a reference for exposure. If we both end up shooting at the same exposure how is one method preferential over another. As mentioned we consistently came up with similar exposures....with me using my spot meter and he UNIWB. I think it is more prudent that the user knows how their camera captures light with regard to the meter pattern in use, and how the post-production software of choice renders the captured info. For example LR2 opens the images at a gamma different than captured, making most images appear lighter.
Regardless...what matters most is the end result...use whatever method(s) you find best!
Best,
Chas
I do believe we in overall agreement :)
