 |
 | 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 / November 2005White Balance for Sunsets
White Balance for sunsets should be set to the sunny sky setting. I just discovered this yesterday, I think that is the correct approach. >White Balance for sunsets should be set to the sunny sky setting. I just >discovered this yesterday, I think that is the correct approach. It depends what you want. The most natural render, I think is somewhere in-between a fully WB'ed image, and a daylight WB (closer to daylight). The same way in which you might WB a shot under incandescent light so that it shows the light color a little bit, much like the way we perceive it. To render literally (daylight WB) makes the color cast much stronger than the way we perceive it. However, you may want to exaggerate the sunset's color, so "daylight" would be the way to go. You also have to watch out not to render the sunset in the highlight zone, as this zone in many JPEG renders and RAW conversions winds up in a low-contrast zone that whitens the colors. Expose to the right, but render to the middle, for saturated colors.  Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>White Balance for sunsets should be set to the sunny sky setting. I just >>discovered this yesterday, I think that is the correct approach. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > a low-contrast zone that whitens the colors. Expose to the right, but > render to the middle, for saturated colors. Can you explain the render to the middle vs expose to the right advice? I understand the expose part but what do you mean by render? Greg >>> White Balance for sunsets should be set to the sunny sky setting. I >>> just discovered this yesterday, I think that is the correct approach. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Greg Given the mention of RAW, it would be my guess the inference is related to post processing aka rendering. Perhaps I'm wrong. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >Can you explain the render to the middle vs expose to the right advice? > I understand the expose part but what do you mean by render? Expose=Record Render=Display Shoot a sunset, for example, with +EC, but use -EC when it is converted to increase the apparent saturation. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>Can you explain the render to the middle vs expose to the right advice? >> I understand the expose part but what do you mean by render? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Shoot a sunset, for example, with +EC, but use -EC when it is converted > to increase the apparent saturation. Ok, got the first part. But when do you mean the -EC? During RAW conversion? Or while processing in Photoshop or what have you? If so, thanks for the tip. Greg >>>Can you explain the render to the middle vs expose to the right advice? >>> I understand the expose part but what do you mean by render? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >conversion? Or while processing in Photoshop or what have you? If so, >thanks for the tip. Either way. Darkening an image is a simple, no-risk process. Brightening an image reveals all kinds of weaknesses. There's simply no point in under-exposing digital images if you don't have to. It only gets you posterization and noise. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>>>Can you explain the render to the middle vs expose to the right advice? >>>>I understand the expose part but what do you mean by render? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > There's simply no point in under-exposing digital images if you don't > have to. It only gets you posterization and noise. I'm not sure about this case though. With intense colors if you overexpose, those colors will be blown and cannot be recovered. I understand your idea of overexposing low contrast images for less noise and better detail but am not convinced that's the way to go for more saturation. Maybe merge the luminance from an overexposed image and the luminance from an underexposed version. >I'm not sure about this case though. With intense colors if you >overexpose, those colors will be blown and cannot be recovered. I >understand your idea of overexposing low contrast images for less noise >and better detail but am not convinced that's the way to go for more >saturation. Maybe merge the luminance from an overexposed image and the >luminance from an underexposed version. Nope. Try it. RAW saturation is merely the ratio between the strengths of the 3 channels. Exposure does not change these ratios in a linear format. Film does, and specific RAW conversions may be non-linear. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > White Balance for sunsets should be set to the sunny sky setting. I just > discovered this yesterday, I think that is the correct approach. I shoot RAW, so I don't care. >> White Balance for sunsets should be set to the sunny sky setting. I >> just discovered this yesterday, I think that is the correct approach. > > I shoot RAW, so I don't care. Yeah. What's white balance? ;-) SignatureMike Warren My web gallery: http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/mike >> White Balance for sunsets should be set to the sunny sky setting. I just >> discovered this yesterday, I think that is the correct approach. >I shoot RAW, so I don't care. And you accept the WB that the RAW converter chooses for you? There has to be a WB somewhere in the process. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>> White Balance for sunsets should be set to the sunny sky setting. I just >>> discovered this yesterday, I think that is the correct approach. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And you accept the WB that the RAW converter chooses for you? There has > to be a WB somewhere in the process. Doesn't the RAW converter deafult to "as shot" white balance? Mine does, at least I think so. I always set the camera to auto and that is the setting chosen by default in the RAW converter, I adjust the white balance if needed in the conversion. I'll have to try a different in-camera white balance setting and see which the converter then uses by default. >>>>White Balance for sunsets should be set to the sunny sky setting. I just >>>>discovered this yesterday, I think that is the correct approach. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > in the conversion. I'll have to try a different in-camera white balance > setting and see which the converter then uses by default. It will default to the in-camera WB (except with the Dx2 in PS?). I leave Auto WB on as default but it's useful to learn situations where the WB *can* be used manually. Shooting a gray card is the ultimate but you can also just put it on shade even if there are beams of sun and maybe get something nicer than Auto would have chosen. More importantly a series of shots will be more consistent. Either do it in the field or later in raw conversion or both. I used to resent having to check all the settings on the camera, not wanting to be distracted by the ideal image in my mind but it only helps if you consider the various technical conditions and possibilities to explore different ways to capture. It just takes work to learn till it's second nature and doesn't slow the process of selecting a scene & snapping. Any other specific effects people know for manual WB? > White Balance for sunsets should be set to the sunny sky setting. I just > discovered this yesterday, I think that is the correct approach. I shoot jpg with WB set at Auto. I also underexpose, based on the camera's meter, to deepen the colors -- about two stops -- and work from there. Unfortunately, with an SLR you can't preview the shot before you take it. >> White Balance for sunsets should be set to the sunny sky setting. I just >> discovered this yesterday, I think that is the correct approach. > >I shoot jpg with WB set at Auto. I also underexpose, based on the camera's >meter, to deepen the colors -- about two stops -- and work from there. >Unfortunately, with an SLR you can't preview the shot before you take it. That is really unfortunate. You are ruining your images with noise and posterization. You do not capture greater saturation by under-exposing. An image may *look* more saturated upon display if it is displayed a little dark, but a sunset doesn't have any more saturation if under-exposed - in fact, it has more random color noise. A sunset shot with +1 EC and rendered dark in PP or RAW conversion will be just as saturated, with less noise (unless the shot is in JPG and the JPG has low contrast in the highlights). Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > I also underexpose, based on the camera's meter, to deepen the colors -- > about two stops -- and work from there. All that does is give you more noise, less detail, and less tonal range. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> I also underexpose, based on the camera's meter, to deepen the colors -- >> about two stops -- and work from there. > > All that does is give you more noise, less detail, and less tonal range. I may have misrepresented myself. Simply using the meter, the camera meters on the entire scene and the color is washed out. In order to deepen the sunset colors, and allow the image to appear more as my eyes see it, I have to darken the image by under exposing a bit. The images come out perfect. I have yet to see a camera that can meter a sunset perfectly by itself, and you'll notice that a lot of p and s cameras have a sunset mode to compensate for this. I'm looking for great tonal range in the sunset, not the overall landscape. Even spot metering will just get me in the ballpark. >I may have misrepresented myself. Simply using the meter, the camera meters >on the entire scene and the color is washed out. In order to deepen the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >for this. I'm looking for great tonal range in the sunset, not the overall >landscape. Even spot metering will just get me in the ballpark. This was all understood the first time. The point is, you are succumbing to illusion. A higher exposure has all the saturation and less color noise than the darker one; it simply looks washed out as is, but has more color saturation, which isn't obvious until you darken it after the shot. This works with RAW very well, and to a lesser degree with JPEGs. With JPEGs you don't want to go into the very highest highlights if the camera is in low-contrast mode (although, that's exactly where you want it if you're shooting RAW). Digital exposure never gains anything from under-exposure, except faster shutter speeds and/or smaller apertures (which can also be had with higher ISOs). The capture is linear, and using higher exposure might result in RAW values of 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, etc, whereas two stops less exposure will result in 250, 250, 250, 250, 251 for the same pixels. Those three middle values are all off, causing posterization and color noise. You can make it dark again in software if you go for the higher exposure, and basically what you're working with then is 250, 250.25, 250.5, 250.75, and 251. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > I may have misrepresented myself. Simply using the meter, the camera meters > on the entire scene and the color is washed out. In order to deepen the > sunset colors, and allow the image to appear more as my eyes see it, I have > to darken the image by under exposing a bit. Exposure with digital is like Blackjack. The best exposure is the one that comes closest to clipping the highlights, without actually going over. Underexposing is never a good idea; you can darken the picture later. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> I may have misrepresented myself. Simply using the meter, the camera >> meters [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > comes closest to clipping the highlights, without actually going over. > Underexposing is never a good idea; you can darken the picture later. I understand what everyone is saying, and I'll give it a try. My problem(?) is that I like to go directly from the camera to a computer image or a print, only using software if I can't accomplish this. I realize this flies in the face of shooting in RAW and them "developing" the image using software. > White Balance for sunsets should be set to the sunny sky setting. I just > discovered this yesterday, I think that is the correct approach. try daylight for a golden sunset. try tungsten for a white sunset with blue sky. experiment, and learn. >> White Balance for sunsets should be set to the sunny sky setting. I >> just discovered this yesterday, I think that is the correct approach. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > experiment, and learn. Yes, probably no hard & fast rules but this seems a useful starting point. Here's the shot where I made that discovery: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Santa-Cruz/2005-11- 12-bonny-doon&PG=1&PIC=1> Not really a sunset but warm evening light. When I shot with auto-WB it came out an ugly blue then I thought to force WB to daylight & it looked right in the LCD review. I did shoot raw+jpeg but I save time messing with raw if I can get it right the first time, at least for the web stuff when there are dozens of pics. Here's the actual sunset: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Santa-Cruz/2005-11- 12-bonny-doon/all&PG=11&PIC=64> I played with WB in those raw files just now and the daylight setting still looks best. I do like to tweak the WB in the raw file sometimes to fake the look I want, sometimes rather extreme. |
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
|
©2008 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.