scuff

What do you all typically do with people if you have a cool background? This was taken after/close to sundown on an overcast, cold day. I like how blue it is because we were definitely feeling it at this point. But, I don't want her to look sick. I warmed up her skin a bit. How does it look? What do you typically do in situations like this? I'm torn between thinking she won't match the environment and wanting her to look right.

(Download)

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Don't know what you're comparing it with, but she and the shot look good.

JohnR Loc: The Gates of Hell

It looks a little light and a bit noisy on my monitor otherwise fine.

Amator21 Loc: California

I like it as it is. I especially like the composition. It has a certain shock value to it! Thank you for posting!
Poul

R.G. Loc: Scotland

If you're not happy with the way she looks you'll find that global adjustments are too restrictive. Either make selections or do what you can with the HSL tool (or whatever your equivalent is).

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"...How does it look?" Epic vanishing point perspective...
Albeit maybe get closer.... Effective use of 24mm at f/2.8 typically requires getting up close and personal in order to have the talent dominate the frame... If you don't tilt the lens up or down and have it at approximately chest level distortion will be minimal and actually compliment this "Lifestyle" narrative...

Shooting wide glass is never easy... mastery comes with practice...

"...What do you typically do in situations like this?" I shoot a Gray (or White) card, shoot RAW and do final color balance in post. btw, her teeth have a yellow cast (not good) select them and add a Hue/Saturation Layer to kill the yellow color cast and tweak the brightness ever so slightly...

Bottom Line? Fabulous Narrative... superb acuity... Just get up close and personal with the talent... More than you feel comfortable with... Trust me here... been there... it feels like you're in their personal space until you look at the capture... that will reaffirm my inference on shooting 24mm on FF... Do this with authority so your model has absolute confidence in your workflow...

If your had increased this models size in the frame to take up 3/4's the vertical space this would have been a dynamite shot... You certainly got the framing of the venue right... Next time Get Closer!

"If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough”
The quintessential maxim of the great photojournalist Robert Capa
Enough said.

Thank you for sharing your epic visual statement scuff

Alphabravo2020

I don't like much of a mismatch between subject and background lighting. Otherwise it starts to look like the subject was photoshopped into the photo. I think your levels look good here.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Skin toes are somewhat objective. There is an acceptable range as long as they are not extreme where a person is obviously too red, as they are blushing or running a fever, too green or cyan which makes them look "sick", blue as if they are suffering anoxia or a kinda jaundiced yellow. What you have is fine and compatible with the ambience of the scene.

Even under studio portraiture conditions, I prefer a cooler background, usually blues and greens because they emphasize the warmth of the subject's skin tone and provide the contrast of opposing colours. Warm backgrounds seem to be more monochromatic.

I added about .02 red to the skin tone- it's a matter of your taste.

MrPhotog

Cool background in a studio and outdoors are two different things.

When the light is ‘cool’ or bluer outside, and the sky is overcast, you get a lot less red light coming through the clouds. Water absorbs red light, and the high moisture content in the cloud-covered sky just sucks up red light.

On the other hand, the water vapor in the sky allows UV light, and shorter wavelength blue light, to pass freely.

As a result, when you set you exposure, your lens aperture is opened to adjust for the lower intensity (overall) light. Typically this would be two or three stops more exposure on an overcast, cloudy, or heavy overcast day. In relation to the visible light making the exposure, this allows 4 to 8 times more UV light into the camera.

Your eye doesn’t see the UV, but most films and some sensors are sensitive to these wavelengths. As a result, they overly influence the color balance.

In the days of film, the front line of protection was to always use a UV or UV1 protection filter on the lens. These are very slightly yellow. An alternative was the slightly pink Skylight (1A) filter which not only protected from excess UV light but also absorbed some of the excess blue light from scenes in open shade, which were lit by the wide blue sky (cool) and not direct sunlight.

Believe it or not, the arguments over which was a better filter were as intense as today’s political dramas, or Canon vs Nikon rants.

About all anyone could agree on was that these were cheap insurance against some types of physical damage, and you shouldn’t mix them if you wanted consistent color balance between lenses.

These filters can still help with digital cameras. Obviously they give some physical protection. With digital however, different sensors may react to UV light to a different extent. That can vary by manufacturer, or between models. Some manufacturers may already have built in UV protection or absorption as part of the sensors. That would eliminate the need for a filter.

Camera makers already do something similar to remove excess Infra Red sensitivity, and some cameras are modified to restore that range of unseen light and allow IR photography.

With some cameras simply adjusting the white balance before a shot might do the trick. The theory here is that overcast sky has a much different (cooler) color temperature than bright daylight. Carrying (and using) a white card or clean sheet of copy paper is a cheap and simple experiment to see if it helps with your equipment.

If that doesn’t help, you can look for a slightly stronger skylight filter—I believe it is a Skylight1B — or a slight ‘warming’ filter like an 81.

More common is the slightly stronger 81A filter.

This filter cuts the color temperature by 200K, which might be all you need. The 81a filter is designed as a warming filter with interior lighting. It was very popular when using ‘professional’ type A color balanced films designed for 3200K lighting with ‘amateur’ type B 3400K lights designed for home movies and Kodachrome.

Similarly, the other 81 series filters are progressively warmer:
81 filter causes a 100 K warming effect
81 A is 200K warmer
81 B is 300K
81 C is 400K
81 D is 500K
81 EF is 650K
These get you into the realm of ‘ tobacco’ colored filters which have some devotees in the the landscape photography community as they affect the rendition of greenery and can darken the sky without polarization.

I can’t link to it, but if you go to B and H’s website and search for tiffen 81A filter they will have a good description. For that matter, they have excellent descriptions of all the different filter colors I am mentioning. A google search for ‘81A filter’ should get you there.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Yes! you could warm up the entire scene, including the subject's skin tone with a filter, however, you will lose the effect on a partially overcast day at dusk. My experience is that digital images are not as affected by excessive UV as the film was. Back in the day, I used a full complement of warming and cooling filters, skylight filters, and the UV-16 which worked well with electronic flash. Nowadays, I can easily control colour balance with the in-camera white balance (pre-sets or custom) and some tweaking in post-processing.

In commercial work, oftentimes accurate colour match is required. In pictorial work sometimes a warmer or cooler rendition enhances the mood.

srt101fan

A wonderful, intriguing image! Don't know about your color issue, to me content/subject is king here and makes the technical aspects less noticeable.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Seems like the issue you are seeing is due to white balance so set your white balance differently? However this will affect the whole scene.

Another alternative is to use a little bit of fill flash. You could gel the flash and warm her up a bit while retaining the cool tone overall.

But I agree with srt101fan’s post above. If you shoot closer and her skin is a large part of the frame then it’s more of a concern.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Lovely composition 🎖️🔥🏆🔥🎖️

Quixdraw Loc: x

A VERY interesting photo. I would not do anything to significantly alter it, it has an Edge of reality quality that is quite unusual. Skin tones are within normal range, I would not worry about that. For future reference, get the model to take a few deep breaths, open her posture and her hands. The impact of that might surprise you.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Close to sundown, whites rarely look pure white (unless its a source of light) - everything is effected by color cast, although sometimes we don't notice it is there.