Stopnascar, thanks for the lucid response. What we have here is the basis of a discussion.

I used lightmeters for years and knew then as I know today that I got any reading I wanted depending upon where you point them, incident versus reflected, spot versus average versus evaluative. However, I believe the histogram gives the most objective measure of exposure.

As a practical matter, viewing the histogram after the shot takes no more time than using the hand-held meter before the shot. That being the case for me, I would rather use the histogram. Furthermore, you have to meter every shot. With the histogram, you apply the same compensation to all pictures though the actual exposure may change. All this is true for similar lighting.

As for the gray card, you really needed a densitometer to use the card properly. I do not think the gray card serves any useful purpose in today's digital photography. I cannot figure out a role for it. Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

Let me rephrase my earlier response.

What does a hand-held lightmeter do that your built-in meter and histogram do not do?

How do you use the lightmeter information along with the camera's information?

Why is a hand-held reading more "accurate" than the camera's?

Do you accept the meter's reading as the "truth" and not "adjust" it as you see fit?

Please be specific.

My advice: throw the meter away. Your camera has a better system already built in. Learn to use it and adjust your exposures with the histogram.

I used such light meters for forty years evolving into the current DSLR approach. There is a good reason why this happened. Do not try to turn the clock back.

I need help on getting edits into the right folder. Here is what I did. I imported the photos from the camera into the destination folder, developed them and assigned keywords as I usually do.

But I did something unusual without knowing it because that destination contains only the unedited files with keywords. The edited ones are in the Previous Import catalog. In trying to sync them with the destination folder, I added the edits to the Quick Collection but cannot find a way to get them into the destination folder.

How do I get those edits in Quick Collection into the destination folder?

Thanks for the help.

I am using white balance and color balance interchangeably and that may be wrong. Someone should clarify this point. Expodisc refers to white balance.

I do not know what kinds of lens caps you have but I will caution you that not all "white" plastic is truly white. Expodisc is. In fact, each unit ships with its actual calibration. Regarding convenience, the Expodisc is a lot better than a gray card. In all respect to the many fine photographers who still use them, they are antiquated. Furthermore, I think you still have to sample it in post-processing to adjust the color balance. Not so with Expodisc.

The same comment applies to those people who use coffee filters, Kleenex and anything else handy that looks "white".

Let me know if you have any more questions.

George, the top one is too warm unless it was shot as the sun was setting. Background looks too bright for that. I think you already noted the bottom on is off: too blue or purple. The truth is probably in between the two but closer to the first one.

Color balance used to frustrate me: should it be like the original whatever that was or should it be like anything else that I like? And not only can you adjust the color temperature, you can also adjust the tint. I have been using an Expodisc for about three years and love it. The only shortcoming is that if you change the environment like going from sunlight to inside, you have to recalibrate. That takes less than a minute. Experience has shown that the Expodisc gets me exceeding close to the original scene. Occasionally, I do tweak a bit in post-processing and that is usually if I have a white for the balance tool.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any more questions.

They both are off. The first one less so.

The boat tours are interesting but not photogenic. The Chicago Architecture Foundation has very interesting walking tours that are far better. If you really want to see Chicago in its photographic splendor, get away from the Loop.

Sorry but I do not agree. AWB is best if one has no other objective way of assessing white balance. Estimating is not objective.

When adjusting in post-processing, one has to decide if the white balance should be true to the original scene (try remembering that accurately) or changed to achieve some artistic effect. Both are valid. Using something objective like the Expodisc strives to capture that original balance. Without it, trying to get that original balance can be a real challenge.

I would agree that adjust color balance in post-processing "take very little time" but accuracy, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder.

This is the touristy stuff. Chicago has many more photographic gems. For example, you mentioned the North Avenue beach and it does offer great skyline shots. But, go over to the chess pavillion and take in the players. Or if you like flowers, either of the two conservatories. Go to the one in Garfield Park and take in some classic architecture in the surrounding park. The other conservatory in Lincoln Park was designed by the same architect. Both are splendid buildings. Or go exploring for Frank Lloyd Wright homes. Oak Park has the most but so do the Chicago neighborhoods. And the classic is Robie House in Hyde Park on The University of Chicago campus.

Looking for something unique? The UC campus will take you back to gothic Europe. Nothing like this. Catch the mid-day carillon performance at Rockefeller Chapel. Join the carillonneur in his loft and then walk up to the top of the Chapel for raw skyline shots unlike anything else in the city. And it is all free.

I think this article is a great big leap backwards.

His approach is arbitrary, time consuming, and imprecise. It is like ignoring your meter and histogram so you can shoot manually. Years ago when we had inferior tools, we did just what the author advocates and hoped to fix it in the darkroom. As much as I love and respect the age of film, I am not going back. Now, to quote the article.



I use Expodisc and think it is a far superior approach to color balance and I challenge the author's claim that "most photographers I know sell off their ExpoDisc...." I hope no one follow's the advice in this article.

Where are you staying and how are you getting around? What do you like shooting?

Tell me more and I will suggest some things.

The University of Chicago is an extraordinary setting. Not only does the Art Institute have great art, it is a great photographic backdrop. Sunday morning at the Maxwell Street open market which is not exactly at Maxwell Street any more.

Where are you staying and how are you getting around? What do you like shooting?

Tell me more and I will suggest some things.

The University of Chicago is an extraordinary setting. Not only does the Art Institute have great art, it is a great photographic backdrop. Sunday morning at the Maxwell Street open market which is not exactly at Maxwell Street any more.

This is a philosophical question whose answer lacks the certitude like two and two are always four. The reality is that just about every photographer does some post-processing. Even the simplest steps such as cropping, adjust exposure and saving as a jpg are all post-processing albeit very rudimentary. Only some self-delusional "purists" eschew post-processing.

Learn it, practice it and enjoy it. And forget about getting "perfect" shots in the camera that do not benefit from a little magic later on. That is not reality. And forget about manual settings. Another self-delusion. Look at post-processing like personal grooming. You would never leave home without it because you know it makes a good thing better.