White Balance
Apr 22, 2012 19:28:07 #
Dgratzinger
Loc: Pennsylvania
Hello all!
I'll be taking portraits for a First Communion on Sunday in the church. I was there today taking some readings on the lighting. I tried flourescent and tungsen WB, but, they were just not right. I then went for AWB. When I got home, noticed that the images were just a bit yellow... when I plugged into LightRoom and set to Auto, the colors were just fine. Why is my camera (Canon 7d) Auto WB not working the same?
Also, There is alot of white and, of course the girls will be in white. How do you take the best reading to be sure that the photos aren't "blown out"?
Thanks for any help!
P.S. I'm attaching the before Auto and the after LR Auto
Donna
I'll be taking portraits for a First Communion on Sunday in the church. I was there today taking some readings on the lighting. I tried flourescent and tungsen WB, but, they were just not right. I then went for AWB. When I got home, noticed that the images were just a bit yellow... when I plugged into LightRoom and set to Auto, the colors were just fine. Why is my camera (Canon 7d) Auto WB not working the same?
Also, There is alot of white and, of course the girls will be in white. How do you take the best reading to be sure that the photos aren't "blown out"?
Thanks for any help!
P.S. I'm attaching the before Auto and the after LR Auto
Donna
BEFORE - Camera AWB
AFTER - LR AWB
Apr 22, 2012 20:01:01 #
Welcome to UHH. I would also like the answer. When I was shooting a bridal shower at my son's house, I used auto mode and aimed camera at the light in the ceiling as that was the room lighting, then I checked the histogram to get the settings. Then switched to Manual mode and reset the ISO. It worked for me, whether it was right or not. Had very good pictures. The only boo boo was the patio door behind the bride to be, needless to say I had to crop the right side a lot. LOL Good luck.
Apr 22, 2012 21:43:36 #
The job of AWB is to find the average lighting situation to try to keep everything lit. Think about the algebraic gymnastics a camera goes through when you have a blown out sky and a dark foreground. In your situation the yellowish tint is due to Incandescent Lighting within the church. Your 7D can compensate for this. See page 70 in your manual.
Now look again at your photo - you have a strong blue foreground, a serious white mid-frame and a warm wood and cream background. LR like many other programs recognized the yellowish tint and adjusted for it.
In the future, either learn what light and White Balance Settings go together or shoot a Grey Card and let your camera do the work. Page 71. Aiming the 7Ds light meter at the white cloth or flowers may have solved the problem as well.
Personally I think LR washed out the easter lilies.
Now look again at your photo - you have a strong blue foreground, a serious white mid-frame and a warm wood and cream background. LR like many other programs recognized the yellowish tint and adjusted for it.
In the future, either learn what light and White Balance Settings go together or shoot a Grey Card and let your camera do the work. Page 71. Aiming the 7Ds light meter at the white cloth or flowers may have solved the problem as well.
Personally I think LR washed out the easter lilies.
Apr 23, 2012 06:08:14 #
I am short of time this AM, but would mention that there is a procedure for using the "White Caps" to set the white balance. The article mentioned that in a pinch, use a coffee filter (no not the brown ones!! :lol: )
:idea: Color space setting in your camera menu is also an interesting if not some what confusing issue, especially when you make the mistake I made by setting space in camera and also in printing. :oops:
:idea: Color space setting in your camera menu is also an interesting if not some what confusing issue, especially when you make the mistake I made by setting space in camera and also in printing. :oops:
Apr 23, 2012 06:51:38 #
For White balance, get a grey card, they are cheap. Or get an expodisk, they get great reviews.
As for exposure, my advice will always be the same; use a hand held light meter...then you won't have to worry about who's wearing white, who's wearing black..what color flowers they are or any of that...that balony is only because camera meters are easily fooled.
As for exposure, my advice will always be the same; use a hand held light meter...then you won't have to worry about who's wearing white, who's wearing black..what color flowers they are or any of that...that balony is only because camera meters are easily fooled.
Apr 23, 2012 07:10:42 #
Dgratzinger
Loc: Pennsylvania
Thanks everyone! I'll check my manual and get myself a grey card.
I appreciate the input and have learned so much from you all on this site since I joined.
Donna
I appreciate the input and have learned so much from you all on this site since I joined.
Donna
Apr 23, 2012 07:48:12 #
I recommend an Expodisc and not a gray card. The difference between the two is that the Expodisc sets the white balance of the scene you see. The gray card sets the white balance of the light hitting the camera. These are not necessarily the same. Whatever you do, do not use a coffee filter, your hand, a piece of paper or anything not proven to work but is cheap and sounds like a good idea. As a last result, use the camera settings; they are better than nothing but barely.
As for metering, your built-in meter is all you need. When used properly, it is at least as accurate as an hand-held meter and is certainly faster. You do not have time to stand there fiddling with a meter and missing shots. I have read a lot about meters and except for some studio work, I believe they are useless with the dslr's and a nostalgic anachronism. I know I will invoke the ire of lovers of hand-held meters but I defy anyone to prove that the built-in meter cannot do the same job as the hand-held one. You have more convenience with the camera meter, one less thing to lose or break, and can shoot a lot faster.
Hope this helps.
As for metering, your built-in meter is all you need. When used properly, it is at least as accurate as an hand-held meter and is certainly faster. You do not have time to stand there fiddling with a meter and missing shots. I have read a lot about meters and except for some studio work, I believe they are useless with the dslr's and a nostalgic anachronism. I know I will invoke the ire of lovers of hand-held meters but I defy anyone to prove that the built-in meter cannot do the same job as the hand-held one. You have more convenience with the camera meter, one less thing to lose or break, and can shoot a lot faster.
Hope this helps.
Apr 23, 2012 07:58:51 #
abc1234 wrote:
As for metering, your built-in meter is all you need. When used properly, it is at least as accurate as an hand-held meter and is certainly faster.
As for metering, your built-in meter is all you need. When used properly, it is at least as accurate as an hand-held meter and is certainly faster.
Faster? Hardly.
"When used properly..."
That's a big phrase...no wonder we have people with exposure problems every day here on the hog....all they have to do is remember all the conflicting advice about how much to offset the meter based on their judgement, and then chimp a few shots to make sure they are in the ball park.
abc1234 wrote:
You do not have time to stand there fiddling with a meter and missing shots.
You do not have time to stand there fiddling with a meter and missing shots.
Not sure where this wives tale came from but this is fully untrue.
I use a meter all of the time and do not "miss shots" because I'm "fiddling" ...I miss more shots by chimping and adjusting my camera for it's light meter swings....
abc1234 wrote:
I have read a lot about meters and except for some studio work, I believe they are useless with the dslr's and a nostalgic anachronism.
I have read a lot about meters and except for some studio work, I believe they are useless with the dslr's and a nostalgic anachronism.
Instead of reading about them....try using one for a week and tell me how they are. I was of your opinion also...dyed in the wool metering chimper....my pro photog friend keep telling me..."quit screwing around...buy a meter...you'll thank yourself."
I did...and I did.
abc1234 wrote:
I know I will invoke the ire of lovers of hand-held meters but I defy anyone to prove that the built-in meter cannot do the same job as the hand-held one.
I know I will invoke the ire of lovers of hand-held meters but I defy anyone to prove that the built-in meter cannot do the same job as the hand-held one.
I defy you. Just read the hog....search "what's wrong with my exposure??" and check out the amazing amount of conflicting advice given about how much to adjust, when to adjust and all that....
Yes....you can get a good metered shot with the built in meter...I agree....but saying that isn't the whole story is it?
[quote=abc1234]
You have more convenience with the camera meter, one less thing to lose or break, and can shoot a lot faster.
[quote]
Not true. Have you used one or just read about them?
Apr 23, 2012 09:14:54 #
rpavich, I had only about forty years of manual metering experience and I do not miss it a bit. Look at my avatar. Missed more shots because of fiddling with meters or got more off exposures because of them. Had a Luna Pro that read incident and reflective and also had a flash meter. I stand by what I wrote. I get better results in toto from digital than I did from film and with a lot less effort. I can concentrate more on the art than the science and I like that.
I will agree with you about all the wrong exposures posted here and the conflicting advice. However, I will submit that the problem is that the photographer has no idea of what a properly exposed photo looks like or how to get it. It is a matter of education, not equipment. That was certainly an advantage to traditional photography: you learned the basics.
With a hand-held meter, you always have the problem of what to meter and incident versus reflective. Secondly, if you are shooting sports or events, do you really have time to meter each shot and why do you think that the exposure stays the same from shot to shot?
Bottom line: the camera does not care whether you set the exposure with the built-in meter or the hand-held one. When used properly, both give the same result. The rub is how do you know what is proper? Look at the photo, look at the histogram. And then use the method appropriate for the job.
You and I usually agree on matters but in this case, we will agree to disagree.
I will agree with you about all the wrong exposures posted here and the conflicting advice. However, I will submit that the problem is that the photographer has no idea of what a properly exposed photo looks like or how to get it. It is a matter of education, not equipment. That was certainly an advantage to traditional photography: you learned the basics.
With a hand-held meter, you always have the problem of what to meter and incident versus reflective. Secondly, if you are shooting sports or events, do you really have time to meter each shot and why do you think that the exposure stays the same from shot to shot?
Bottom line: the camera does not care whether you set the exposure with the built-in meter or the hand-held one. When used properly, both give the same result. The rub is how do you know what is proper? Look at the photo, look at the histogram. And then use the method appropriate for the job.
You and I usually agree on matters but in this case, we will agree to disagree.
Apr 23, 2012 09:23:28 #
Dgratzinger
Loc: Pennsylvania
Ok, so, sounds like i can really use the camera's readings for exposure and once I get that, I can set custom wb since the auto feature nor any of the presets was getting it quite right?
Apr 23, 2012 09:36:25 #
Gidgette wrote:
Welcome to UHH. I would also like the answer. When I was shooting a bridal shower at my son's house, I used auto mode and aimed camera at the light in the ceiling as that was the room lighting, then I checked the histogram to get the settings. Then switched to Manual mode and reset the ISO. It worked for me, whether it was right or not. Had very good pictures. The only boo boo was the patio door behind the bride to be, needless to say I had to crop the right side a lot. LOL Good luck.
I forgot to mention that I used an Expodisc while shooting at the light.
Apr 23, 2012 10:02:18 #
abc1234 wrote:
rpavich, I had only about forty years of manual metering experience and I do not miss it a bit.
I mentioned that because instead of saying what you just said, you said:
Quote:
I have read a lot about meters and except for some studio work, I believe they are useless with the dslr's and a nostalgic anachronism.
End quote.
And considering your comments I couldn't believe you'd had experience with them...that's all. I stand corrected on your experience, no insult intended.
abc1234 wrote:
Missed more shots because of fiddling with meters or got more off exposures because of them.
I guess that's where we differ...I have not.
abc1234 wrote:
Had a Luna Pro that read incident and reflective and also had a flash meter. I stand by what I wrote. I get better results in toto from digital than I did from film and with a lot less effort. I can concentrate more on the art than the science and I like that.
Had a Luna Pro that read incident and reflective and also had a flash meter. I stand by what I wrote. I get better results in toto from digital than I did from film and with a lot less effort. I can concentrate more on the art than the science and I like that.
that's fine that you get better results...others (like me) do not. But the reason I responded was your blanket poo-pooing of hand held meters. That's a LOT different than a personal preference.
abc1234 wrote:
I will agree with you about all the wrong exposures posted here and the conflicting advice. However, I will submit that the problem is that the photographer has no idea of what a properly exposed photo looks like or how to get it. It is a matter of education, not equipment. That was certainly an advantage to traditional photography: you learned the basics.
And precisely why a meter is so valuable....you learn correctly and not from others "close enough" mistakes.
abc1234 wrote:
With a hand-held meter, you always have the problem of what to meter and incident versus reflective.
With a hand-held meter, you always have the problem of what to meter and incident versus reflective.
I don't. I dont' see your problem.
abc1234 wrote:
Secondly, if you are shooting sports or events, do you really have time to meter each shot and why do you think that the exposure stays the same from shot to shot?
Secondly, if you are shooting sports or events, do you really have time to meter each shot and why do you think that the exposure stays the same from shot to shot?
No...and I don't intend to....but that all depends on the circumstances doesn't it?
Not only that, the CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD isn't a sporting event under uneven lighting...it's in a chapel with even lighting.
I dont' think that your comment here is relevant.
abc1234 wrote:
Bottom line: the camera does not care whether you set the exposure with the built-in meter or the hand-held one. When used properly, both give the same result. The rub is how do you know what is proper? Look at the photo, look at the histogram. And then use the method appropriate for the job.
Bottom line: the camera does not care whether you set the exposure with the built-in meter or the hand-held one. When used properly, both give the same result. The rub is how do you know what is proper? Look at the photo, look at the histogram. And then use the method appropriate for the job.
Right..and if a person has 40 years of experience, they can get away with that...the OP doesn't...which is why I suggested what I did.
abc1234 wrote:
You and I usually agree on matters but in this case, we will agree to disagree.
We certainly do. :)
Apr 23, 2012 10:03:07 #
Dgratzinger wrote:
Ok, so, sounds like i can really use the camera's readings for exposure and once I get that, I can set custom wb since the auto feature nor any of the presets was getting it quite right?
This two settings are should be independent of each other. However, pick your white balance first whether you use the camera's pre-sets, Expodisc, or gray card. Leave it alone during the session unless the light changes. Then, decide upon your exposure method and shoot away.
Apr 23, 2012 10:03:26 #
ole sarg
Loc: south florida
Are you saying that a light meter reading will eliminate the yellow cast from a iridescent light.
rpavich wrote:
For White balance, get a grey card, they are cheap. Or get an expodisk, they get great reviews.
As for exposure, my advice will always be the same; use a hand held light meter...then you won't have to worry about who's wearing white, who's wearing black..what color flowers they are or any of that...that balony is only because camera meters are easily fooled.
As for exposure, my advice will always be the same; use a hand held light meter...then you won't have to worry about who's wearing white, who's wearing black..what color flowers they are or any of that...that balony is only because camera meters are easily fooled.
Apr 23, 2012 10:06:48 #
ole sarg wrote:
Are you saying that a light meter reading will eliminate the yellow cast from a iridescent light.
No
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.