 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2005White balance
Hi, A certain person in this group recently said how it was difficult to get exposure correct while also having to worry about white balance when the subject keeps going from sunlight to cloud. I don't get it. White balance is a non-event to me while shooting. Isn't white balance applied at the RAW conversion stage, whether in-camera JPEG or post shooting in the software? I just leave it set on auto so the LCD playback looks okay. Am I missing something? On a similar vain: What do people do about colour balance when using fill flash? I shot some outdoor portraits last week and the flash was obviously warmer than the available light when clouds passed over the sun. The match was quite good when the sun was out Even if I had a filter for the flash, I would have been constantly putting it on and taking it off. Most of these pics will end up as B&W anyway so it doesn't really matter in this case. -Mike Mike, Maybe he doesn't shoot RAW, not all photographers want to do graphic editing to there photos. However if he just set his Kelvin level to 5200-5500 it would equal Daylight balanced film like Kodak 100 gold or Velvia 50. Did he change film when some one went from sun to shade? The correct Kelvin level for flash is usually the same for noon daylight film ex. 5500K Did you ever shoot film? Did you change film when you used a flash? Or did you change film if you went took a shot in the shade? Why on digital then? But thats one of the many beauties of digital, you have options and can get as crazy as you want trying to be perfect. :+) "Mike Warren" <miwaNOSPAM@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message news:42de373f$0$23034$892e7fe2@authen.wh ite.readfreenews.net... > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > -Mike > Maybe he doesn't shoot RAW, not all > photographers want to do graphic editing > to there photos. To me, that's the equivalent of taking a roll of film to the local 1 hour photo processor. > Did you ever shoot film? Yes. I am getting back into photography after about 20 years. I lost a lot of my interest and became a snap-shooter when I no longer had a darkroom. Now, with Photoshop, I can gain control of the process again. > Did you change film when you used a flash? Or did > you change film if you went took a shot in the shade? > Why on digital then? White balance is done after shooting with film. I think the same applies with digital. You just have to shoot RAW to achieve it. Even using RAW, it's still a lot easier with digital than film. -Mike >Mike, >Maybe he doesn't shoot RAW, not all >photographers want to do graphic editing >to there photos. That is true, millions of people are happy to pass over there negs to an el-cheapo 2hr lab and they'll stick em into the album without further thought. >Did you ever shoot film? Did you change >film when you used a flash? Or did you >change film if you went took a shot in >the shade? Why on digital then? Digital doesn't have to emulate all the faults and problems that film has. If it did, everyone wouldn't be moving towards it in droves. Why on digital? - Because we can, and because it's easy. What does digital mean to you? What's the biggest advantage you can see? For some it's the polaroid advantage: Take photos of your girlfriend in various states of undress and nobody needs to know. Or take a photo, and there it is on a piece of cheap paper in a matter of minutes. That's the trashy side of digital. Some like the instant feedback, the insurance value of being able to see that uncle Frank didn't blink when the flash went off. But I think for most, the DSLR brings more than that. It is an SLR, there's a hint that they care about which subject is in focus, and which is not, they care about selecting a suitable aperture or a suitable shutter speed. Why would these people suddenly *stop* caring when it's time to prepare an image for print? ..well, many don't. They carry on caring about the fine details, so they shoot RAW and stay in control right up until the print is made. >But thats one of the many beauties of >digital, you have options and can get as >crazy as you want trying to be perfect. >:+) Indeed. More true if you shot RAW rather than JPEG just in case that certain shot is amazing and warrants the extra time spent in the digital darkroom to make it how you want it.  SignatureOwamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga > Mike, > Maybe he doesn't shoot RAW, not all [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Velvia 50. Did he change film when some > one went from sun to shade? That's what I do and it's never off enough that a touch of color adjustment can't fix it. Using auto WB is asking for problems, like shooting in late day sun and the camera corrects for it and cools it off? Or shooting a sunset and it tries to "white balance" it? SignatureStacey >> Mike, >> Maybe he doesn't shoot RAW, not all [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >day sun and the camera corrects for it and cools it off? Or shooting a >sunset and it tries to "white balance" it? If you shoot RAW, there is no such concept as 'white balance problems'. The camera dumps the sensor data into a file, and add's a recommendation about what the color temp should be and stores that recommendation in the RAW file to provide a starting point. If you shoot JPEG in auto mode, an incorrect guess on the cameras part can have a drastic impact as to which bits of the sensor data ever make it into the JPEG file. So I agree with you, this isn't a good idea. Unlike John, you still do minor color balance adjustments on the file prior to printing (as I, and many others do) which demonstrates that regardless of John's claims it is nearly impossible to get it spot on during shoot-time. SignatureOwamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga > That's what I do and it's never off enough that a touch of color adjustment > can't fix it. Using auto WB is asking for problems, like shooting in late > day sun and the camera corrects for it and cools it off? Or shooting a > sunset and it tries to "white balance" it? I've done sunsets in RAW and the camera didn't correct for anything...still looked like a sunset. RAW is like a digital negative. >> That's what I do and it's never off enough that a touch of color >> adjustment can't fix it. Using auto WB is asking for problems, like [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I've done sunsets in RAW and the camera didn't correct for > anything...still looked like a sunset. RAW is like a digital negative. He's talking about shooting jepgs.. SignatureStacey > Most of these pics will end up as B&W anyway so it doesn't > really matter in this case. Twice as bad - you have to keep track of both the black ~and~ white balance! >;^) > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > -Mike White balance is not applied to the RAW files at the time of the picture being taken, although the K temperature is recorded in the file. Color temperature is applied when the RAW file is being converted in computer. You can ignore the K number in the RAW file and choose whatever that fits you. I like twisting it to the way I like it, warmer or cooler, not necessarily need to be absolutely accurate to the reality. You can do that with JPEG in Photoshop but you lose a lot of quality. >White balance is not applied to the RAW files at the time of the picture >being taken, although the K temperature is recorded in the file. That's generally true, but at least one camera, the Nikon D2X, balances when the RAW data is digitized, by varying the amplification before the ADC, accordingly. Kudos to Nikon for realizing that posterization is just as detrimental to image quality as sensor noise is. On a camera with bigger, more noise-free pixels, this could solve a lot of issues with incandescent-light photography nicely. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > White balance is not applied to the RAW files at the time of the > picture being taken, I know. That was my point. Why are some people so concerned about white balance when shooting? -Mike >>White balance is not applied to the RAW files at the time of the >>picture being taken, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -Mike You do if you are using JPEG/TIFF! You don't if you use RAW. >>>White balance is not applied to the RAW files at the time of the >>>picture being taken, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >You don't if you use RAW. Precisely. SignatureOwamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga > > White balance is not applied to the RAW files at the time of the > > picture being taken, > > I know. That was my point. Why are some people so concerned about > white balance when shooting? If you're carrying around a camera, and you shoot a RAW pic of some people, and they want to see it, and you made them look blue or orange on the LCD because the WB was set incorrectly, they'll think you suck. Other than that... no reason. :-) > If you're carrying around a camera, and you shoot a RAW pic of some > people, and they want to see it, and you made them look blue or orange > on the LCD because the WB was set incorrectly, they'll think you suck. If you look at my shots on the LCD, you can't tell if they were shot RAW or JPG. >> If you're carrying around a camera, and you shoot a RAW pic of some >> people, and they want to see it, and you made them look blue or orange >> on the LCD because the WB was set incorrectly, they'll think you suck. >If you look at my shots on the LCD, you can't tell if they were shot >RAW or JPG. That's because the 10D uses the embedded JPEG for diplay, so there is no RAW data ever interpreted for the LCD at viewing time. The 20D uses separate JPEG files, and their RAWs have 50% resized JPEGs embedded in them, so you can actually zoom into the detail better on the 20D review if you shoot fine JPEG. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > > If you're carrying around a camera, and you shoot a RAW pic of some > > people, and they want to see it, and you made them look blue or orange > > on the LCD because the WB was set incorrectly, they'll think you suck. > > If you look at my shots on the LCD, you can't tell if they were shot RAW > or JPG. But I bet you *can* tell if the white balance was set incorrectly. > > If you look at my shots on the LCD, you can't tell if they were shot RAW > > or JPG. > > But I bet you *can* tell if the white balance was set incorrectly. I shoot RAW & auto white balance - it doesn't matter. It's always been right so far when I import the images into PhotoShop and they look fine on the LCD. >> > White balance is not applied to the RAW files at the time of the >> > picture being taken, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Other than that... no reason. :-) I've used autoWB for that very reason, but I don't do it as often anymore because I like to be reminded what light I shot under, or with what kind of filter, and this is more apparent in daylight mode. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > I've used autoWB for that very reason, but I don't do it as often > anymore because I like to be reminded what light I shot under, or with > what kind of filter, and this is more apparent in daylight mode. Back when I got my 10D and was making the transition from many years of film to the new world of digital, I tried to match the color balance to the scene. But it seems like my idea of "shade" was the camera's idea of "cloudy" or something else. So I learned about shooting RAW and now just set the camera on Auto for white balance. So far, it's worked great. When doing people, I'm not necessarily looking to get a perfect Kodak Shirley (you young'ins will have to look that up). >> I've used autoWB for that very reason, but I don't do it as often >> anymore because I like to be reminded what light I shot under, or with >> what kind of filter, and this is more apparent in daylight mode. >Back when I got my 10D and was making the transition from many years of >film to the new world of digital, I tried to match the color balance to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >great. When doing people, I'm not necessarily looking to get a perfect >Kodak Shirley (you young'ins will have to look that up). I would do that, except that when I did, I found myself wondering what the lighting was. If I want to color-balance, I'll do it to the RAW file. The off-color JPEG lets me know what the lighting was a lot quicker. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >> White balance is not applied to the RAW files at the time of the >> picture being taken, >I know. That was my point. Why are some people so concerned about >white balance when shooting? The problem is automatic white balance. That can screw up the colour where you don't want it, and you can't always correct for it properly in JPGs. (You can alter the wb however you like in raw formats). If you are happy with shooting film developed at the photomat as mentioned earlier, then set your camera on a -fixed- daylight white balance and use that with JPGs. You'll end up getting similar results. (Film never changes its "whitebalance" without changing rolls or adding filters.) If you might want to alter the colours later, shoot raw. If you get the WB set wrong (including using "automatic"), your colours can be totally wrong. It's not always the case, either, that you want your shot to have whites looking exactly the same white. For a dusk shot to have the proper ambience, maybe you want a bluish tinge, as film would capture it, rather than as 'auto wb' digital or your perception does. SignatureKen Tough >You can do > that with JPEG in Photoshop but you lose a lot of quality. You won't lose a lot of quality shooting jpegs in the shade with the camera nailed at 5200K and adjusting the color is PS afterwards. You're much more likely to end up with a bad problem using auto WB than just setting the camera to 5200K. SignatureStacey >>You can do >> that with JPEG in Photoshop but you lose a lot of quality. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >likely to end up with a bad problem using auto WB than just setting the >camera to 5200K. Agreed, but you'd be way better off with RAW. Auto white balance won't damage the RAW file regardless of how far wrong it might be. (Except when using the Nikon 2DX as JPS commented) SignatureOwamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga >Hi, ----snip---- >What do people do about colour balance when using fill flash? ----snip---- >Even if I had a filter for the flash, I would have been constantly >putting it on and taking it off. ----snip---- >-Mike Mike, sorry if I missed something but it does not seem like anybody answered this part of your question. A picture that has mixed color temperature lighting in it can be problematic in both jpeg & RAW because even in RAW "you" must select "1" color temperature for the entire picture. In this case you would have to select the best looking WB temperature that resides between these 2 extremes. In most cases that would be in favor of the strongest light source, in this case that's probably still the sun. The fill flash color imbalance would need to be dealt with via post processing, not a fun processes but than I am a relative novice in both postproccessing & RAW conversion. I can tell of 2 ways I deal with this, they may not be the best way of dealing with this problem but they have worked well for me but it requires a little or a lot of effort & @ times is not possible/practical. 1> Replace "fill flash" with a light reflector, reflecting the same color light as the main light source. Much easier to do with an assistant whenever possible or a preset area to take the picture(s). 2> Apply a filter to your flash to change it's color temperature closer to that of the main light source. If your shooting in RAW with most DSLR's you won't need to tell the camera anything about WB because "you" will select that yourself "later" when you convert it. Note: If your shooting in JPEG, "you" will need to either wait for the cloud(s) to pass or reset a custom WB before taking the shot. If your using "fill flash" with either JPEG or RAW "you" will also need to add the closest matching filter to the flash. Option #1 works much better for "me" & the type of pictures I usually take, so I now rarely use flash & when I do (almost always indoors) I try to make it the dominant light source but use a diffusion filter on it to avoid harsh flash lighting, also a 2nd slave flash helps a lot too. Sometimes I wonder where all the fun has gone in photography because @ times it can be hard work to get it right, which is why I am, & always will be an amateur enthusiast photographer, not a professional. Correct or not, my definition of a professional photographer is "somebody who makes more in the related field than they spend on all of their related equipment". Since I have never charged for my services, I will likely never meet this description unless I happen to be the only 1 in the right place @ the right time with a camera & manage to take a once in a lifetime picture(s) & even then that picture(s) would have to be worth a lot to cover 25+ years in film & 5 years in digital photography equipment investments. Hope somebody else with more knowledge can give you a better answer than I have, frankly I would like to hear & learn from it too! With DSLR's being quite low on noise even with relatively high ISO settings & with many quality digital noise reduction programs out there, I very rarely use my flash anymore. It took me a while to learn to live without it, but I am glad I stuck it out & got through the leaning curve. Going flashless also reduces the possibility of red eye to virtually nil, although it's often easily corrected with a good photo editor. The best way I have found to fix a problem, is to avoid it's creation in the 1st place! Respectfully, DHB . "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > Mike, sorry if I missed something but it does not seem like anybody > answered this part of your question. A picture that has mixed color [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > would be in favor of the strongest light source, in this case that's > probably still the sun. You could also run off two different versions, each with a different color balance, and then selectively combine them. It all depends on who's paying for your time. :-) >> Mike, sorry if I missed something but it does not seem like anybody >> answered this part of your question. A picture that has mixed color [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >It all depends on who's paying for your time. :-) Paul Mitchum, This is a great suggestion but it may only work with relatively stationary objects, like mountains & etc. but may not work so well for pictures of people as referenced by the original poster's questions: >" What do people do about colour balance >when using fill flash? >I shot some outdoor portraits last week and the flash was >obviously warmer than the available light when clouds passed >over the sun." However your suggestion may work for that too in a DSLR that allows selection of saving "RAW+JPEG" @ best quality. Since this is done in-camera for 1 exposure which is in the buffer, there would be no movement between the 2 pictures. The JPEG would have a fixed WB of the camera's or photographer's choice @ the time it was taken & the RAW WB would be selected later when it's converted. So in actuality, your suggestion may be a very valid option even for people pictures. The only reason I say "maybe" is because I have never done it & I do understand that with JPEG compression, it's possible that perfect alignment may not always be "good enough", but it certainly sounds worth further investigation. Yes even if it works, it's more post processing time with a good editor but if it's an important picture(s), it may be well worth the extra effort. My post processing skills are likely not up to this task yet but others may wish to try it & when I am ready/able, I will certainly give it a try. Thanks for your input, it's fuel for thought & future reference. Respectfully, DHB . "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > >> Mike, sorry if I missed something but it does not seem like anybody > >> answered this part of your question. A picture that has mixed color [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > so well for pictures of people as referenced by the original poster's > questions: You misunderstand; sorry if I wasn't clear. If you have taken a single RAW picture, and it has mixed color balance in various parts, you might try the following: Convert the RAW file using one set of color parameters, and then convert it *again* using a different set of color parameters. Now you have two images. Assuming, say, a flash photo of someone on a tungsten-lit street at night, you'd correct one to make the subject look good, and correct the other one to make the scene look good. Take these converted images into something like Photoshop and combine them as layers, revealing whichever part you want in a given portion of the image. Cut the subject out of the streetlight-corrected image, for example, replacing her with the proper version. It could be easy, or it might not be. Whether you tried it would depend on how important it is to color balance the whole image. That's why I say it all depends on who's paying for it. :-) >> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:42:02 -0700, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >on how important it is to color balance the whole image. That's why I >say it all depends on who's paying for it. :-) Paul Mitchum, Your correct, I did misunderstand but now that you have explained it further, I'm at a loss to figure how I missed it originally. However thanks for the clarification, I will definitely note this & try it when needed. It does sound like a fair amount of work but may well be worth it for some special pictures. As a general rule I have not done all that much work in RAW mode because for much of what I do it's far more effort than it's worth but for certain things, it's clearly the best choice. Now thanks to you, I have another reason to choose RAW over JPEG for certain situations. Respectfully, DHB . "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Most of these pics will end up as B&W anyway so it doesn't > really matter in this case. auto white balance is the worst. each time it balances the subject, if your subject is wearing a pink shirt, then the next person is wearing a blue, what will happen from frame to frame? It will make the more subtle differences between cloudy and sunny sky seem, well, subtle. I try not to work out in the sun anyway. Its open shade for me as much as possible, if its a wedding and you just gotta, well those shots are not portraits anyway, fill flash it and let the background do what it wants. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.