What is causing such a color difference between these 2 photos? They both had the focus box on the 2 bears together, and they were taken literally a second apart. 16:19:15 and 16:19:16 I did not have time to change any settings, but have included the info for each photo. I simply exported the RAW file as a JPEG for UHH, oh and straighten a tiny bit.
I really need to learn what is causing this and how I can keep it from happening in the future!
Canon R5 and RF 100-500 with 1.4 extender.
Thank you! Beth
Note camera setting: WB mode - Auto Ambience. (aka Auto WB)
If you pull the RAW into an editor that shows you the 'as shot' K temp and tint, you'll likely see different values. The camera just decided a different value between frames.
BTW: if you shoot in RAW, using Adobe RGB as your color space is not relevant. It only accomplishes a different file name, giving you the leading underscore in the name. Your digital editor controls the colorspace during editing and / or the colorspace of the output file format.
Looks to me like there is more Snow in the first, more foreground in the second. Meters do strange things! Not familiar with Auto Ambiance, but... Looks like just a tiny touch to fix in post. Nice Bear Family!
Too quick for me, Paul!
The exposure is not the same (shutter speed 1/320 vs 1/500), so perhaps quixdraw's comment about the framing applies?
The only difference I can see is that the shutter speed in the second image is slower causing it to be a bit overexposed and washed out.
I haven't a clue as to why .
DirtFarmer
Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
Spot metering?
The bears have different areas on their fur which could cause metering differences. The framing is slightly different so the metering could be on different sections of fur.
Pick a white balance you like and apply it to the other image.
DirtFarmer wrote:
Spot metering?
The bears have different areas on their fur which could cause metering differences. The framing is slightly different so the metering could be on different sections of fur.
Pick a white balance you like and apply it to the other image.
Her screen print of the EXIF data both show Metering - Evaluative Metering, Canon's version of using the entire frame.
Photolady2014 wrote:
So do you suggest sRGB?
It's up to you. You get different file names could be the only tangible difference. If you ever use RAW+JPEG, you will also get JPEGs that don't need any additional processing, including the minimal conversion of the colorspace from Adobe RGB to sRGB.
Linda From Maine wrote:
The exposure is not the same (shutter speed 1/320 vs 1/500), so perhaps quixdraw's comment about the framing applies?
"Evaluative metering" evaluated the amount of dark (grass) and light (snow) differently between the two shots because of the amount of snow in each picture.
Photolady2014 wrote:
So do you suggest sRGB?
If you are going to post on the web; and many printing companies like sRGB.
(My cameras are set to sRGB.)
Longshadow wrote:
If you are going to post on the web; and many printing companies like sRGB.
(My cameras are set to sRGB.)
Thanks, I think I will switch!
DirtFarmer
Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
CHG_CANON wrote:
Her screen print of the EXIF data both show Metering - Evaluative Metering, Canon's version of using the entire frame.
Being a Nikon guy I didn’t recognize the Canon parameters.
But as Longshadow said, it could be the different framing.
Linda From Maine wrote:
The exposure is not the same (shutter speed 1/320 vs 1/500), so perhaps quixdraw's comment about the framing applies?
Yes that, she did change the framing while using auto WB. Not cool.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.