Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Glad you're enjoying yourself. I haven't made any kind of comments about aircraft carriers. You however feel free to comment about something you know little about. This post: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-703922-1.html#12387584 was not in jest. Your photos in general are a good example of why that post was serious but clearly that doesn't matter to you. Still you feel free to be insulting, there's your porker.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

Now, Now...Did you forget to put on your big boy pants this morning? Why don't you post one of your technically perfect photos so I can pass judgement on it?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The problem with that statement is:

1. The "white" truck is an extremely tiny and insignificant element in the image.
2. You don't absolutely know that the truck is neutral white, recently washed and with no colored dust on it.
3. You don't really know the color of the light incident on that truck since it's a mixture of heavy overcast and tree canopy.

The fountain in the foreground is probably a better target since it's illuminated by the heavy overcast, maybe "cloudy" WB.

But your main issue with color balance is that you are blindly insisting that something in the image must be white so you can click on it with the eyedropper. That's not always possible. You are thinking like a mechanic, not an artist.

Here are three examples taken at about the same time. They show what I was seeing at the time. Your approach would have totally screwed them up.

Guess what WB I used.

Sunset

(Download)

Blue Hour

(Download)

After dark

(Download)

controversy Loc: Wuhan, China

Just curious...how do the pictures you take in the dark of night or in a very poorly lit room look? Certainly, you wouldn't use flash, an artificial lighting source, an irrationally high ISO, or do any post-processing because that would alter the scene and the purity of your SOOC skills. Right? And, certainly, someone with your skills would have no trouble capturing an excellent image in darkness.

Look forward to viewing some posts of your SOOC photos taken in darkness.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Just as well since you probably think that Battleship Gray is a neutral color. It's not.

You would have screwed this one up too.

(Download)

BebuLamar

If I have the real life scene still there (as in the case I take pictures in my home) then I would try to adjust the raw files to get the same look. If I don't have it there any more I would do it the way I feel (which could be very far from real).

controversy Loc: Wuhan, China

Uh, Battleship Gray is neutral enough for Government work. :-)

You do know what Neutral Gray is and its significance/importance to photography and "getting it right" -- particularly when it comes to setting "correct" white balance. Right?


-------------NEUTRAL GRAY-------BATTLESHIP GRAY
Hex Color:---#898e8c---------------#848482
RGB:---------(137,142,140)---------(132,132,130)
CMYK:------- (4,0,1,44)------------- (0,0,2,48)

BebuLamar

With your information I would think the battle ship gray is more neutral than neutral gray.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Google’ Battleship gray color’. You will see that there is no consensus, especially among paint suppliers, just as there is no universal agreement on Daylight WB among camera manufacturers or software vendors.

The only thing everyone agrees on is that R=G=B is neutral for digital images.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

The white balance for the foreground is set for shade -- the white trailer is a just a check and confirms the WB setting.

Show me where I mentioned using the eyedropper or said that's how I set WB.
You are as usual making up BS and shoveling as fast as you can.

The subject of the photo is the fake ruins in the foreground. They are in open shade. Nikon sets the exact same WB for the subject of the photo as I did.

The sky is daylight WB and Nikon sets the same WB for the sky as I did.

You have spent a lifetime taking photos and being restricted to setting only one WB for the photo even though the scene was lit by multiple different sources. You've gotten accustomed to that compromise. I don't have to do the same and there's no rule that says that's the best thing to do. 30 years ago I worked with an architectural photog who regularly set multiple WB in a single film photo. It was a lot of work and often expensive but it made a better photo. There was no rule that he had to use only one WB.

You don't like that I combined two WB settings in the same photo. That's fine you don't have to like it. I do like it. What you don't get to do is say there's anything incorrect in what I did.

The WB for the sky is daylight just as Nikon would set it for white clouds in a blue sky mid afternoon. Explain why that's wrong.

The WB for the subject in the foreground is shade just as Nikon would set it for a subject lit outdoors in open shade. Explain why that's wrong.

Let's see the link to the rule that says only one WB is permitted in photos outdoors when multiple light sources are present.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Sure, here's one of my photos for technical critique.

And below that is some help for you.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The clouds are sunlit from the upper left. What is throwing the dark shadow? If it's clouds, the foreground is in Overcast WB, not Shade. Shade is intended for a case where is open shade, lit by the blue sky instead of the sun.

The image SOOC shows the WB as "Manual". Nikon didn't set the WB, you did. If the camera was set to Daylight WB it would have recorded it that way in the SOOC EXIF.

What would happen if I had isolated the sky-lit side of the island, the building on top of the flight deck on the aircraft carrier, and changed its WB to open shade? Would that have corrected the image in your view? If you think so then you don't understand WB.

My original objection to this image is that it's not a good example. The fact that we are even having this discussion proves that.

controversy Loc: Wuhan, China

Ysarex, it's starting to feel like the comical arguments against the plain, straightforward elements of digital photography you present are based upon an irrational need in some folks to stay uninformed and to refuse to learn and grow. Everything you've said is present in the documents from various camera manufacturers, in photography training/schools, every photolab, and, in various forms, articulated by every successful commercial photographer.

Simply owning a camera no more makes one a photographer than putting leaves in one's hair makes one a tree.

My thinking is that some upcoming arguments against your posts will probably reference climate change and quote Dr. Fauci. Just saying...

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Why does the white mat look yellow where the sun is shining directly on it? Is is because you used Auto WB?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The difference is whether you approach digital photography as a science or as an art.

Anybody can approach it scientifically and get "accurate" images that don't show any artistic sense.

Can you make a decent accurate image of a sunset? Most photographers try to improve on nature.