Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Analysis
Horses White Balance Help
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
Nov 13, 2014 14:51:35   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
streetmarty wrote:
....In the third photo I am wondering how to handle the window in the tack room.....


My advice? Don't worry about it :) . Trying to add tint to the window or trying to darken it probably won't look natural. Going by the blue cast on the girl's blouse, I'd say the WB needs to be shifted to the right a touch. If it was mine I'd tone down the highlights and lift the shadows a bit, and probably not much else.

I think the lighting's a bit uneven in the first two, so even if you do manage to get an acceptable WB setting, the horse's nose is going to look different. The predominance of fluorescent lighting will be the reason why the WB is off. Using the fluorescent WB setting might have helped, but if there was ambient sunlight in there as well, and if that ambient light and fluorescent light weren't evenly mixed throughout the shot, it's never going to look right.

Active D is just in-camera processing that produces a jpeg image from a single exposure. Using raw would have given you more leeway as regards PP work. Another possibility is in-camera HDR which merges different exposures in-camera and will give an end shot that does have more dynamic range than a single exposure. Most modern cameras can do hand-held HDR.

Reply
Nov 13, 2014 17:25:42   #
streetmarty Loc: Brockton, Ma
 
[quote=Rongnongno]None seems to be in focus. WB is the least of your problems.[/quot I've seen a lot of your comments to others as well you're the last person I'd ask for help.

Reply
Nov 13, 2014 17:27:36   #
streetmarty Loc: Brockton, Ma
 
R.G. wrote:
My advice? Don't worry about it :) . Trying to add tint to the window or trying to darken it probably won't look natural. Going by the blue cast on the girl's blouse, I'd say the WB needs to be shifted to the right a touch. If it was mine I'd tone down the highlights and lift the shadows a bit, and probably not much else.

I think the lighting's a bit uneven in the first two, so even if you do manage to get an acceptable WB setting, the horse's nose is going to look different. The predominance of fluorescent lighting will be the reason why the WB is off. Using the fluorescent WB setting might have helped, but if there was ambient sunlight in there as well, and if that ambient light and fluorescent light weren't evenly mixed throughout the shot, it's never going to look right.

Active D is just in-camera processing that produces a jpeg image from a single exposure. Using raw would have given you more leeway as regards PP work. Another possibility is in-camera HDR which merges different exposures in-camera and will give an end shot that does have more dynamic range than a single exposure. Most modern cameras can do hand-held HDR.
My advice? Don't worry about it :) . Trying to a... (show quote)


Thank you. Now that is the kind of answer that means the world to me and I appreciate it very much!

Reply
 
 
Nov 13, 2014 17:36:32   #
Rongnongno Loc: FL
 
streetmarty wrote:
I've seen a lot of your comments to others as well you're the last person I'd ask for help.
Yet all are out of focus if I believe the thumbnails.

Reply
Nov 13, 2014 19:38:08   #
rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA
 
Rongnongno wrote:
Yet all are out of focus if I believe the thumbnails.


Did you even consider that the images may have been intentionally shot out of focus by stylistic choice? There are quite a few photographers who do this for artistic expression. May not be your cup of tea, but focus is not exactly related to what the OP is asking about.

Reply
Nov 13, 2014 21:01:11   #
streetmarty Loc: Brockton, Ma
 
rook2c4 wrote:
Did you even consider that the images may have been intentionally shot out of focus by stylistic choice? There are quite a few photographers who do this for artistic expression. May not be your cup of tea, but focus is not exactly related to what the OP is asking about.


Thank you!! :)

Reply
Nov 13, 2014 22:35:13   #
Rongnongno Loc: FL
 
rook2c4 wrote:
Did you even consider that the images may have been intentionally shot out of focus by stylistic choice? There are quite a few photographers who do this for artistic expression. May not be your cup of tea, but focus is not exactly related to what the OP is asking about.
:shock:

You just made 90% of folks incapable of focusing manually happy!

:thumbup: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Reply
 
 
Nov 14, 2014 08:40:54   #
streetmarty Loc: Brockton, Ma
 
Rongnongno wrote:
:shock:

You just made 90% of folks incapable of focusing manually happy!

:thumbup: :lol: :lol: :lol:


One day I'll have a question about focus and you'll tell me my white balance is off. I'll bet 90% of your friends don't like you!

Reply
Nov 14, 2014 09:20:08   #
Rongnongno Loc: FL
 
streetmarty wrote:
One day I'll have a question about focus and you'll tell me my white balance is off. I'll bet 90% of your friends don't like you!
Stop trying to get personal, it does not become you.

When you post in photo analysis you open the picture to all aspect. Not being in focus is a major flaw as this cannot be corrected. WB is correctable. That you do not appreciate the comment on it is one thing; that you try to make it a 'personal conflict' is another. Had you not reacted I would not have commented further.

Your reaction shows that you are fully aware of the problem but unable to deal with it on a personal basis for a reason I do not care to know. It is none of my business.

If you are half as smart as you think you are this can be the last post on 1) your reaction 2) my interference on focusing.

Reply
Nov 15, 2014 08:04:42   #
pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY
 
Rongnongno wrote:
None seems to be in focus. WB is the least of your problems.


While Ron does use the hammer between one's eyes to make a point, he is correct they are not in focus. You said aperture priority so what was the ap set at AND what shutter was selected. Was the shutter even with ISO 800 so slow that you did not hold it steady.

It wasn't until photo3 that the yellow whatever started to come into focus. Maybe you were so wide open to get more light that your DOF was really thin.

Reply
Nov 15, 2014 13:08:06   #
streetmarty Loc: Brockton, Ma
 
pithydoug wrote:
While Ron does use the hammer between one's eyes to make a point, he is correct they are not in focus. You said aperture priority so what was the ap set at AND what shutter was selected. Was the shutter even with ISO 800 so slow that you did not hold it steady.

It wasn't until photo3 that the yellow whatever started to come into focus. Maybe you were so wide open to get more light that your DOF was really thin.


Thank you Pithy I appreciate the time. You bring up good points and I have made note. The lights were weird, they are fluorescent but, the covers are yellow from age.

Reply
 
 
Nov 15, 2014 16:06:01   #
pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY
 
streetmarty wrote:
Thank you Pithy I appreciate the time. You bring up good points and I have made note. The lights were weird, they are fluorescent but, the covers are yellow from age.


Now you're into white balance with the yellow hue. If your camera shoots raw and you can post process, you don't care about white balance, that can be modified in post.

If you shooting .jpg then you will need to set the white balance in camera. You picked a difficult lighting and posting the pics will help you get a better handle next time.

Best of luck!!!!!

Reply
Nov 15, 2014 19:59:11   #
greg vescuso Loc: Ozark,Mo.
 
Hope this helps, you have a few things going on here the fluorescent lights mixing with your ambient light will give you trouble and to compound that you said the cover over the fluorescent lights are yellowish. It also looks to me like you might have used a flash on the second image this will add another color temperature to the two you already are dealing with . To get the best results in this type of situtations you will want to set a custom white balance for the room, and remember if your using a flash set the custom white balance using the flash. There are a few ways to do this so google setting white balance tutorials and this should help. I will use the dome off my Gary Fong lightspere and it works good for a quick and easy way to set a custom white balance. I don't know why the images are out of focus without knowing your shutter speed but the third one is more in focus around the yellow jacket and that leads me to believe you might be using a manual focus lens and they are very differcult to get focused correctly, if that was the case I have given up trying to focus my manual focusing lens thru the view finder and will focus in live view zoomed in 10 times.

Reply
Nov 15, 2014 22:12:10   #
streetmarty Loc: Brockton, Ma
 
greg vescuso wrote:
Hope this helps, you have a few things going on here the fluorescent lights mixing with your ambient light will give you trouble and to compound that you said the cover over the fluorescent lights are yellowish. It also looks to me like you might have used a flash on the second image this will add another color temperature to the two you already are dealing with . To get the best results in this type of situtations you will want to set a custom white balance for the room, and remember if your using a flash set the custom white balance using the flash. There are a few ways to do this so google setting white balance tutorials and this should help. I will use the dome off my Gary Fong lightspere and it works good for a quick and easy way to set a custom white balance. I don't know why the images are out of focus without knowing your shutter speed but the third one is more in focus around the yellow jacket and that leads me to believe you might be using a manual focus lens and they are very differcult to get focused correctly, if that was the case I have given up trying to focus my manual focusing lens thru the view finder and will focus in live view zoomed in 10 times.
Hope this helps, you have a few things going on he... (show quote)


Thank you Greg for the help. I took these first few shots with the 18-140 without flash. The first two pictures were 35 and then 50. I changed to a fixed 35 1.8 when we went out side and there was no focus issues. I thought the vr would be better than it is I guess.

Reply
Nov 16, 2014 04:19:49   #
rpavich Loc: West Virginia
 
streetmarty wrote:
I'm a street guy so this whole indoor thing has got me scratching my head. The first and second photos were taken literally 5 seconds apart after taking a foot zoom. Nikon D7100 w/ 35 1.8 Auto1 Standard Active D normal ISO800 Aperture Priority. In the third photo I am wondering how to handle the window in the tack room. My thoughts are with going to the Kelvin scale for the WB. Thanks for the help, you guys are the greatest. Marty


The lighting is easy; just do a custom WB before shooting. The predominant light source appears to be those fluorescents.

The reason your shots are different is that the camera makes decisions based on what's in the field of view; exposure, WB etc; change FOV...and everything changes. Normally we don't notice too much because the shots are "close enough" but this is the reason that I shoot on manual mode and do custom WB's; each shot is the same as the last.

As for the window; here is how you take care of a bright window.


1.) Set exposure (in manual mode) for the window itself. Adjust until it looks great and the room is very dark.

2.) Add flash to the room to even it out with the window exposure.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Photo Analysis
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.