Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / October 2006
Oops... wrong white balance...
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Steve Cutchen - 07 Oct 2006 23:52 GMT I took some pictures at a car wash fund raiser today using a custom white balance by mistake. (Canon 300D. WB was set up for indoor volleyball) When I realized, I took two shots in quick successions with custom and auto WB so that I'd have two pictures that differed only by WB.
Is there a way to use these two pictures to develop a standard adjstment I can make in PShop to correct the earier pics? I have PShop CS. And iPhoto.
tomm42 - 08 Oct 2006 01:55 GMT > I took some pictures at a car wash fund raiser today using a custom > white balance by mistake. (Canon 300D. WB was set up for indoor [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > adjstment I can make in PShop to correct the earier pics? I have PShop > CS. And iPhoto. In PSCS under Image-Adjustment try photofilters. If your pic is too blue try an 85 filter, adjust the intensity until the color balance looks OK.
Tom
Scott W - 08 Oct 2006 02:06 GMT > I took some pictures at a car wash fund raiser today using a custom > white balance by mistake. (Canon 300D. WB was set up for indoor [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > adjstment I can make in PShop to correct the earier pics? I have PShop > CS. And iPhoto. Were you shooting in raw mode by any chance? If not you might think about leaving you camera in raw mode, white balance is not a problem then.
Scott
Steve Cutchen - 08 Oct 2006 03:29 GMT > > I took some pictures at a car wash fund raiser today using a custom > > white balance by mistake. (Canon 300D. WB was set up for indoor [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Scott No. jpg.
Greg "_" - 08 Oct 2006 04:04 GMT > > > I took some pictures at a car wash fund raiser today using a custom > > > white balance by mistake. (Canon 300D. WB was set up for indoor [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > No. jpg. Take a color sample of the one you like from a known spot, Then a sample from the one you don't, use color balance to more evenly match the bad to the good for , shadows,highlights and mid tones.
 Signature Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back.
www.gregblankphoto.com
Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) - 08 Oct 2006 18:18 GMT >> > > I took some pictures at a car wash fund raiser today using a custom >> > > white balance by mistake. (Canon 300D. WB was set up for indoor [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > sample from the one you don't, use color balance to more evenly match > the bad to the good for , shadows,highlights and mid tones. and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these problems will evaporate.
Marc Sabatella - 08 Oct 2006 20:47 GMT > and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these problems > will evaporate. I never understand this type of comment. While there are indeed many advantages to shooting RAW, and being able to easily set white balance after the fact is indeed one of them, I don't think it is fair to say "all these problems will evaporate". It can still be quite tricky to *determine* what an appropriate white balance should be during PP. Once you figure it out, the software will *render* the chosen WB quite effectively, but it may still be difficult to figure out exactly how you want the scene to look, so the strategies suggested in the post to which you were responding still make sense, it seems to me.
--------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com
Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/
Mark² - 08 Oct 2006 21:03 GMT >> and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these >> problems will evaporate. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you want the scene to look, so the strategies suggested in the post > to which you were responding still make sense, it seems to me. I agree with you that it was an over-simplification. What you DO gain via RAW is the ability to non-destructively perform initial color correction at the level of "capture"...even if after the fact. But you're right in that its hardly automatic or instantaneous. It still takes effort and some know-how/fiddling. The poster's basic point, though, is correct in that RAW offers real benefits in error-correction involving white balance.
> --------------- > Marc Sabatella [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" > http://www.outsideshore.com/
 Signature Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson
Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) - 08 Oct 2006 21:09 GMT >>> and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these >>> problems will evaporate. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > though, is correct in that RAW offers real benefits in error-correction > involving white balance. i didn't say that it's automatic. But, BEFORE buying SLR all should be aware that it's NOT point'n'shoot camera. For great photo great effort must be made. Shooting jpg with SLR is wasted possibility of having great pics instead of good ones. And wsted money spent for SLR, since in that case top-of-the-range compact would serve better. Having RAW indeed benefits in correcting WB, but that's far from all. Exposure correction is another one. And it's still far from all. RIGHT?
Mark² - 08 Oct 2006 21:31 GMT >>>> and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these >>>> problems will evaporate. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Exposure correction is another one. And it's still far from all. > RIGHT? Right. -Though I'm confused a bit by your oddly repeated use of the word "all." ?
 Signature Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson
Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) - 09 Oct 2006 07:45 GMT >>>>> and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these >>>>> problems will evaporate. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > -Though I'm confused a bit by your oddly repeated use of the word "all." > ? hm...late evening perhaps? i meant far from all there is to correct - or have available for correcting... capisci?
Mark² - 09 Oct 2006 07:49 GMT >>>>>> and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these >>>>>> problems will evaporate. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > correcting... > capisci? Ummm... ? I guess??
:)
 Signature Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson
Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) - 09 Oct 2006 09:46 GMT >>>>>>> and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these >>>>>>> problems will evaporate. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Ummm... ? > I guess?? ok...longer version:
shooting in RAW brings you benefits of possibility to correct many things, like WB, exposure, colors..etc. correcting WB is so just of of those many possible options.
Is it now OK? (please bear in mind that i'm NOT english speaking by birth)
Mark² - 09 Oct 2006 15:28 GMT >>>>>>>> and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these >>>>>>>> problems will evaporate. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > Is it now OK? (please bear in mind that i'm NOT english speaking by > birth) Yes. I assumed that English was not your first language. ;)
 Signature Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson
Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) - 09 Oct 2006 18:57 GMT >>>>>>>>> and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these >>>>>>>>> problems will evaporate. [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > Yes. I assumed that English was not your first language. > ;) aha... so...am i forgiven? and did i pass? :-)) what grade do i get?
Mark² - 10 Oct 2006 00:37 GMT >>>>>>>>>> and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these >>>>>>>>>> problems will evaporate. [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > aha... > so...am i forgiven? and did i pass? :-)) what grade do i get? C for syntax B for content A for effort
:)
 Signature Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson
Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) - 10 Oct 2006 08:07 GMT >>>>>>>>>>> and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these >>>>>>>>>>> problems will evaporate. [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > A for effort > :) yeeeeeeeah! i'm quite happy as long as i pass :-)
Steve Cutchen - 09 Oct 2006 04:16 GMT > >>> and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these > >>> problems will evaporate. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Exposure correction is another one. And it's still far from all. > RIGHT? As the OP, what I shoot primarily is indoor volleyball. I needed a camera that I could shoot at a fast enough shutter speed indoors to freeze action with a 3.5 to 4 f-stop. I'm using a 300D with hacked firmware, shooting at ISO 3200 and noise correcting to my camera's noise using Noise Ninja. I use a Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 US lens. Occasionally I use a 50mm 1.8 Mk I when it's really dark. I also occasionally use a 70-210 3.5-4.5 US if I need the reach at a certain venue. In dark gyms, even at 3200, I'm shooting wide open at about 125th. In well lit gyms, I still shoot 3200, stop down a bit, and take advantage of the ability to shoot with more DOF.
My output is typically cropped and reduced to 800 px wide jpgs for a team web site and 720 px wide jpgs used for an endo of season slide show video. I'm not printing at full resolution.
Gyms are typically lit with mercury vapor, and I set a custom WB for the gym when I get there. Saturday at the Car Wash fundraiser, I simply forgot to reset the WB to auto until I had taken several photos. A simple mistake.
Currently, I usually do pretty much all of my PP in iPhoto and it is quick; simple cropping, a little histogram adjustment of exposure and maybe a bit of sharpening. Then the pics get cropped to 800 when I export to an iPhoto-generated web page with thumbnails.
http://www.clearlakevolleyball.com
I tried a lot of methods of correction... using color matching, using the white point eyedropper in Curves, trying to match color histograms in iPhoto... What I eventually did was to examine the color differences in the PS info window while hovering over my two reference photos. Based on the difference, I used Curves to move the Blue 80% point down a bit and the Red 20% point up a bit until the result looked OK. I recorded this move as an Action and did the rest of the photos.
Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) - 09 Oct 2006 07:50 GMT >> >>> and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these >> >>> problems will evaporate. [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > point down a bit and the Red 20% point up a bit until the result looked > OK. I recorded this move as an Action and did the rest of the photos. ok, it can happen to all that we forget to set something...like, say, leaving ISO at 3200 while shooting in a bright day :-(( I agree that if shots are needed for specific purpose then RAW is not needed, and secondly, jpg willgive you far more shots available. It's just...in this case you must look more, i guess.
Steve Cutchen - 09 Oct 2006 13:29 GMT > >> >>> and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these > >> >>> problems will evaporate. [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > needed, and secondly, jpg willgive you far more shots available. It's > just...in this case you must look more, i guess. I've thought about shooting in RAW just to play with it. But I haven't done it.
Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) - 09 Oct 2006 13:54 GMT >> >> >>> and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these >> >> >>> problems will evaporate. [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > I've thought about shooting in RAW just to play with it. But I haven't > done it. try it out...when you'll have some time and then play around with RAW files in, say, Adobe photoshop and you'll see that benefits. After that there's real option you will switch to RAW. But, then again, having RAW means more work, sure. jpg's are final image, while raw's have to be "developed". That can be automated in PS to some degree, but it's still some work involved. you must decide if it's worthed, if you have time to do that etc...
Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) - 08 Oct 2006 21:06 GMT >> and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these problems >> will evaporate. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > want the scene to look, so the strategies suggested in the post to which > you were responding still make sense, it seems to me. true to some degree. But, choosing wb when shooting jpg is exactly same tricky. If left on AUTO, well, then it's the same when having RAW. There's an AUTO option, too.
Steve Cutchen - 09 Oct 2006 04:18 GMT > >> and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these problems > >> will evaporate. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > tricky. If left on AUTO, well, then it's the same when having RAW. There's > an AUTO option, too. WB in jpg is simple with a good reference gray card. I just forgot to reset it for the outdoor shoot. No different than forgetting to reset the ISO, which I didn't do...
Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) - 09 Oct 2006 07:51 GMT >> >> and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these problems >> >> will evaporate. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > reset it for the outdoor shoot. No different than forgetting to reset > the ISO, which I didn't do... i must try out this grey card method...
Steve Cutchen - 09 Oct 2006 13:33 GMT > >> >> and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these problems > >> >> will evaporate. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > i must try out this grey card method... Simple with the Canon... Nikon's probably the same? Shoot the card. Menu to Custom White Balance. Select the card picture as the target. Select Custom WB for the WB.
All it looks for is to make the picture target RGBs the same. So even if you don't have a gray card with you, if you can find a good white target under the lighting in question, you can use that.
Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) - 09 Oct 2006 13:56 GMT >> >> >> and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these >> >> >> problems [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > if you don't have a gray card with you, if you can find a good white > target under the lighting in question, you can use that. hm...so first i should find grey target, right? or, as you said (if i understand correct), shoot total white surface under specific lighting would do the trick. Then remember color temp and use it on all shots made there...
Steve Cutchen - 09 Oct 2006 17:46 GMT > >> >> >> and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these > >> >> >> problems [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > specific lighting would do the trick. Then remember color temp and use it on > all shots made there... All ya need is a target that should be x-x-x in RGB... all three the same. White card... gray card... a clean white source in a pinch...
You shoot the target under the lighting you want to balance, and then simply tell the camera to use the target shot to set the custom WB. It figures out what would have been needed to make that target have equal RG and B.
Marc Sabatella - 09 Oct 2006 15:52 GMT >> true to some degree. But, choosing wb when shooting jpg is exactly >> same [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > WB in jpg is simple with a good reference gray card. I just forgot to > reset it for the outdoor shoot. Right, but the point others are making is that "resetting" it after the fact is easier and more effective with RAW. The difficulty reamins figuring out exactly what to set it *to*.
BTW, I have issues with doing custom WB using grey card (or white, or Expodisc, or whatever). More with the whole *idea* of white balance. Although the assumption is that our eyes adjust to the light and see white as white (and other colors correspondingly) no matter the lighting, this isn't how I perceive the world at all, and it rather goes against centuries of convention in the art world. When painting in a traditional representational manner, one normally goes to some lengths to portrary the color of the light *despite* the adjustment our eyes may be making to fool us into removing the color cast. The idea being that a painting of a room lit by firelight *should* look very different from one lit by an overcast sky through a window. Most artists in this tradition would say their are painting the light as much as they are painting the scene. So it always strikes me as ironic the lengths that photographers will go through to remove all hint of the nature of the light from their photographs.
Of course, I'm not saying that WB doesn't have it's place. It is true that our eyes will perceive more color in a room lit by incandescent light than a camera will actually be able to record if the WB is not set reasonably. But then, "reasonably" need not mean set in such a way that white truly looks white. I wonder if it would be possible to devise a surface that reflected light in such a way that is could be to set custom WB in a manner that would still retain some of the character of the light. Of course, we could always carry around a set of biased cards. Set the WB using a cool-biased card when in warm light so the camera will somewhat overshoot the color temperature (I think I have that right), etc. I gather Expodsic offers something like this. But it would be interesting to consider whether there was any way to do this more auomatically.
--------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com
Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/
Steve Cutchen - 09 Oct 2006 17:50 GMT > >> true to some degree. But, choosing wb when shooting jpg is exactly > >> same [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > lighting, this isn't how I perceive the world at all, and it rather goes > against centuries of convention in the art world. <snip>
I agree completely... It would be a shame to ruin a wonderful sunset shot by correcting away those wonderful warm tones.
In my case, I'm shooting volleyball in a gym with mercury vapor lighting... and I want to get skin tones to look non-ghostly. heh.
The Maverick - 09 Oct 2006 04:44 GMT > > and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these problems > > will evaporate. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > want the scene to look, so the strategies suggested in the post to which > you were responding still make sense, it seems to me. The dead easy solution (which personally I find essential if you want accurate skin tones) is to ALWAYS include an 18% grey colour card in one of the shots under that lighting condition. Then whilst in raw converter you only need 1 click with the white balance correction tool to ascertain, with DEATHLY accuracy, the correct colour temp / tint.
Try it with and without - bet you $1 the white card gets them closer everytime.
Lionel - 12 Oct 2006 07:39 GMT >> and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these problems >> will evaporate. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >"all these problems will evaporate". It can still be quite tricky to >*determine* what an appropriate white balance should be during PP. It's a hell of a lot easier than trying to determine it while you're shooting! And with practice, it's pretty easy to come up with a good WB in PP. One trick I use is to use the WB dropper on the white of a subject's eye, then fine tune it to taste.
> Once >you figure it out, the software will *render* the chosen WB quite >effectively, but it may still be difficult to figure out exactly how you >want the scene to look, so the strategies suggested in the post to which >you were responding still make sense, it seems to me. Ever tried applying those strategies in the middle of a shoot, especially under mixed lighting? - It's pretty painful.
 Signature W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Cutchen - 12 Oct 2006 12:10 GMT > >> and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these problems > >> will evaporate. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > One trick I use is to use the WB dropper on the white of a subject's > eye, then fine tune it to taste. It sounds like you are correcting to white has equal RGB, which you CAN do easily while shooting with a custom WB using a white (or gray) card.
Lionel - 13 Oct 2006 02:46 GMT >> >> and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these problems >> >> will evaporate. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >It sounds like you are correcting to white has equal RGB, which you CAN >do easily while shooting with a custom WB using a white (or gray) card. Sure, if you have time/opportunity, & the lighting mix doesn't change.
 Signature W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Cutchen - 13 Oct 2006 03:23 GMT > >> >> and a word of advice for the future...shoot RAW and all these problems > >> >> will evaporate. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Sure, if you have time/opportunity, & the lighting mix doesn't change. I guess it depends on the camera... On a 300D you literally just shoot the card. Menu to Custom WB. Click and you're done. 15 sec., If you're slow.
Our old volleyball gym had mercury vapor lights and skylights. So as the evening progressed and light from the skylights faded, I would redo the WB maybe 3 or 4 times. The new gym has much better lighting, and no skylights... I can even shoot stopped down a bit! DOF!
Mark² - 08 Oct 2006 05:16 GMT > I took some pictures at a car wash fund raiser today using a custom > white balance by mistake. (Canon 300D. WB was set up for indoor [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > adjstment I can make in PShop to correct the earier pics? I have > PShop CS. And iPhoto. When I've made that mistake in the past on a series of photos shot under the same lighting conditions, I just open one file...and record an action in photoshop while I use color balance. Once I've corrected the first photo, I simply run the recorded action on the others in the series, and bing...they're all corrected automatically.
 Signature Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson
|
|
|