Help with setting of canon rebel 550d - 360 panorama

[99designs]

Hi, I am trying to do setting of the camera to shooting virtual tour 360 degree with canon 550d + Samyang 8mm F3.5 Fisheye. I read a lot of information and videos and all of them the starting with shooting of the images. My problem is that I can not uderstand how correctly do setting of the camera. I got it how to shoot the images and build the 360 panorama. But I can not find right combination of the setting :

- white balance - but how actualy choise white balance setting ? some of the bloggers write about "lock white balance" how to do it ?

- ISO - so need to be high or low ISO ?

- manula mode - that is ok I found it

- exposure - how to set up ?

I found step by step tutorials but the part with canon setting no ...

Thanks!

[ebiggs1]

Pano's in LR use dng.  PS uses a psd.  I doubt any jpg is involved in either one.  You can export as a tif if you want.  It would be a monster size file!  Usually no one uses a RAW file for viewing so exporting as a jgp is pretty standard.

Maybe other software use jpg for merging but I have no idea as I only use LR and PS.

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Pano's in LR use dng.  PS uses a psd.  I doubt any jpg is involved in either one.  You can export as a tif if you want.  It would be a monster size file!  Usually no one uses a RAW file for viewing so exporting as a jgp is pretty standard.

Maybe other software use jpg for merging but I have no idea as I only use LR and PS.

---

I think you're correct on the file types used to save HDR projects.  Never realized, or even tried, to export HDR to anything but a JPEG..  But, I don't see how exporting as a TIFF is significantly different than converting from RAW to DNG.  I wonder if you still have access to modify the component images that make up the Merge.

Photo merges in Canon software, and for in-camera conversions, produce/use  JPEG files and merge those for the final result. 

In some cameras bodies, you must shoot JPEG to do an in camera HDR.  Some bodies save the original files, but most that require you to shoot JPEG do not save the originals.  That's how my 6D works, and I dislike it.  You can get MUCH better results doing the HDR processing in the computer.

As I recall, the 5D3 allows you to shoot RAW to produce an in-camera HDR, but it creates an output JPEG.  At least the 5D3 saves the original files.  I would guess the 5D4 may be similar.  I cannot see the camera bodies performing a sophisticated Merge than the computer software.

[ebiggs1]

You are light years ahead of me for in camera merges or HDR.  The cameras I have and use now do not have that feature.  And my memory does not serve me well on the ones that did, if any!  I have a hard enough time keeping up with what I am doing today.

[ebiggs1]

B from B,

Oh, man, where to start again but here goes.

A RAW file has no WB. The raw data is a set of monochrome luminance values. When the raw data is demosaiced a WB profile is applied to the RAW data, but there is no WB information contained in the actual RAW data that was read out from the sensor. Whatever WB was selected in the camera at the time the photo was taken has absolutely no effect on the readout from the sensor data, it is only used to apply a WB to the RAW data to produce the thumbnail or preview jpeg image. 

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

B from B,

Oh, man, where to start again but here goes.

A RAW file has no WB. The raw data is a set of monochrome luminance values. When the raw data is demosaiced a WB profile is applied to the RAW data, but there is no WB information contained in the actual RAW data that was read out from the sensor. Whatever WB was selected in the camera at the time the photo was taken has absolutely no effect on the readout from the sensor data, it is only used to apply a WB to the RAW data to produce the thumbnail or preview jpeg image. 

---

You're assuming that the selected exposure value is unaffected by the WB setting. But really that makes little sense. It it were true, then only pictures taken at a single default WB setting would be properly exposed. And the "Auto" WB setting would be essentially useless, because the picture would be properly exposed only if the camera's computation of the scene's WB happened to match the default.

To put it another way: in any exposure mode but manual, the RAW file does contain WB data, encoded in the selected EV.

[ebiggs1]

Settings in the camera (except exposure) do NOT affect the RAW data. RAW is RAW is RAW.  They are numbers.

Whatever settings you make to the camera, the RAW file is still just the RAW data. Just because you load a RAW to Photoshop or DPP in your case and see something different, doesn't mean it actually is different. It isn't.  The whole point of RAW is that the data stays the same. You are simply manipulating how it looks.  Photoshop might apply any WB setting to your loaded RAW file so it looks like you intended. But that isn't the same as the data actually being changed. It isn't.

All cameras pass metadata along with the image data, and one piece of this metadata is the white balance recorded by the camera. From that point it's up to the post-processing package to do what it wants with it;  Photoshop uses it as a starting point one of the few metadata tags that it honors.  

If you viewed clipping of highlights on your camera's monitor you would correct the exposure setting not the WB setting. The white balance affects the image color temperature as a whole, the exposure setting affects the highlights, shadows, and mid-tones. RAW is RAW is RAW.

[ebiggs1]

I leave mine set to AWB most of the time. A RAW file does not become an image until it is saved as another format, you can play with it, modify it, or change it as much as you like, and the final result will be as if you used the new settings when you first took the picture.

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

I leave mine set to AWB most of the time. A RAW file does not become an image until it is saved as another format, you can play with it, modify it, or change it as much as you like, and the final result will be as if you used the new settings when you first took the picture.

---

Setting WB balance is something that I have been puzzling for quite a while now.  I think using AWB may not be such a good thing, after all.  If I am shooting a series of photos at a single location using ISO Auto, then my AWB can vary from one shot to the next.

For example, suppose I am shooting with AWB outside on a bright sunny day, where some shots are backlit, etc.  When I open them in LR, sometimes the "As Shot" setting matches the LR setting, and sometimes it will be a close match to the "Daylight" setting, or it can vary anywhere in between "Daylight" and "Shady".  Now this is where the fun begins.

I have to wonder if the AWB is all over the map like that, then what effect could that be having on ISO Auto, or on SS in Av mode, or on aperture in Tv mode, that I may have let the camera body set for me.  If shoot a couple of hundred shots at or near the same location, like a pond with wild birds, then I get fewer shots that are slightly under/over exposured by setting WB to some fixed value, instead of using AWB. I still haven't drawn in any firm conclusions, though, because other factors come into play, too, like the shooting technique of setting the exposure with the shutter when using BBF.

[ebiggs1]

" I think using AWB may not be such a good thing, after all.  If I am shooting a series of photos at a single location ..."

Don't fall into the Bob from Boston mistake.  WB in RAW is meaningless.  There is no such setting.  What you are looking at is the jpg thumb that LR or whatever editor is using so you can view a RAW file at all.

"A RAW file has no WB. The raw data is a set of monochrome luminance values. When the raw data is demosaiced a WB profile is applied to the RAW data, but there is no WB information contained in the actual RAW data that was read out from the sensor. Whatever WB was selected in the camera at the time the photo was taken has absolutely no effect on the readout from the sensor data, it is only used to apply a WB to the RAW data to produce the thumbnail or preview jpeg image."

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

" I think using AWB may not be such a good thing, after all.  If I am shooting a series of photos at a single location ..."

Don't fall into the Bob from Boston mistake.  WB in RAW is meaningless.  There is no such setting.  What you are looking at is the jpg thumb that LR or whatever editor is using so you can view a RAW file at all.

"A RAW file has no WB. The raw data is a set of monochrome luminance values. When the raw data is demosaiced a WB profile is applied to the RAW data, but there is no WB information contained in the actual RAW data that was read out from the sensor. Whatever WB was selected in the camera at the time the photo was taken has absolutely no effect on the readout from the sensor data, it is only used to apply a WB to the RAW data to produce the thumbnail or preview jpeg image."

---

I'm not sure if you understand what I am saying.  I understand that a RAW file is raw data fromt the sensor.  I am talking about the things that may or may not happen to settings before the RAW data is ever collected.  You're talking about things that occur after the RAW data has been collected.  

The AWB mode doesn't pick a standard "Daylight" or "Cloudy" value.  AWB can be set anywhere across a wide range of values.  The camera uses a shutter speed, aperture value, and an ISO setting to take the shot and collect the RAW data.

If I use Av, Tv, or Manual with ISO Auto, then the camera is automatically determining one leg of the Exposure Triangle. Can other settings, like AWB, affect the way the camera determines how to automatically adust shutter speed, aperture, or ISO?  I get the occaional mystery shot, which has been over/under exposed for no immediately obvioius reason, even when I am shooting outdoors.  I use ISO Auto in Manual mode, so I will restrict my remarks to that mode.

I have noticed that if turn off AWB, and use a fixed setting, then my rate of mystery over/under exposed shots seems to have dropped significantly.  If WB balance should have no effect (which I agree with, BTW) then why using a fixed value for every shot, instead of AWB, should result in more consistent exposures.

On that note, I realize that putting a filter on the lens WILL affect that light that falls on sensor and is captured as RAW data.  I have since stopped using UV filters, only Clear, and I my exposures are more consistent in a series of shots.  Similary, using filters with AWB.

This seems to be a which came first, the chicken or the egg, question.  Is ISO Auto being set before or after AWB is being set?  Changing the WB setting can have a noticeable impact on a histogram, and the distribution of frequencies.  I wouldn't think a WB setting could, would, or even should affect how the camera determines ISO Auto, nor a shutter speed or aperture value, for that matter.  

RAW data should be exactly that, raw data.  But, the camera doesn't consistently behave that way when I let it set one leg of the Exposure Triangle.  Maybe, the camera is just not coming up with a good setting.  But, I cannot argue with apparent results, and whether I can draw any valid conclusion.  I have pondering a conclusion for over a year now. 

For now, I don't use AWB, anymore, and use "Daytime", instead, for everything..  Seeing how it shouldn't make any difference, maybe you should stop using it, too.