lesdmd Loc: Middleton Wi via N.Y.C. & Cleveland

[quote=lleach]How do you feel about letting the camera "auto WB" do its job?

I shoot with a Nikon D300 and the auto White Balance is seldom fooled. It seems to have problems only in mixed light situations and then I correct after the photos come out of the camera.

MtnMan Loc: ID

Hi,

Good results with auto WB is my experience so far also.

I suspect it may be affected by what you choose to do on metering. That is, setting spot metering and pointing it at the snow may give a different WB setting than setting matrix metering and allowing it to sample the whole scene. I think like with focus if you point it and hold the release half way down it will preserve the settings if you then recompose.

I also realized my Panasonc P&S has a SCENE setting for snow. Alas I cannot figure out how to know what it does when you select that mode and I haven't tried it in the snow yet. If the weatherman is right I may get my chance tomorrow morning. ;-)

I think the Nikon (D5100) might also have a "beach and snow" scene mode. Those modes usually set some things and leave you limited flexibility. At least on the Nikon you can see what it has set up. I'll check it out too.

Regards,
Larry Leach


[quote=lesdmd]

architect Loc: Chattanooga

Thanks Lesdmd. I have been trying to go directly into ACR from Photoshop. Going in from Bridge works great.

I also find that Auto White Balance works well, most of the time, but then I often adjust a bit in Adobe Camera RAW, when needed.

MtnMan Loc: ID

BTW, I don't think setting spot metering and pointing at the snow is the right idea. That should give you grey snow. I suspect you should point at something NOT snow; preferably something grey.

Snow tomorrow is looking dubious. It rained today and is pretty warm this evening. It is snowing up at our local ski area, tough, which is a couple of thousand feet higher than where I live.

http://www.bogusbasin.org/web-cameras/index.aspx

Regards,
Larry Leach




[quote=lleach]Hi,

Good results with auto WB is my experience so far also.

I suspect it may be affected by what you choose to do on metering. That is, setting spot metering and pointing it at the snow may give a different WB setting than setting matrix metering and allowing it to sample the whole scene. I think like with focus if you point it and hold the release half way down it will preserve the settings if you then recompose.

I also realized my Panasonc P&S has a SCENE setting for snow. Alas I cannot figure out how to know what it does when you select that mode and I haven't tried it in the snow yet. If the weatherman is right I may get my chance tomorrow morning. ;-)

I think the Nikon (D5100) might also have a "beach and snow" scene mode. Those modes usually set some things and leave you limited flexibility. At least on the Nikon you can see what it has set up. I'll check it out too.

Regards,
Larry Leach

topdoghawaii Loc: Honolulu, Hawaii

I have a Nikon D200. I usually set my color balance to "More Vivid". Although I still photoshop to enhance it. I am pretty happy with it.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Here is what I meant when setting white/color balance and exposure are science. Science is about measuring things. You can measure color temperature and tint and you can measure how much lightness a scene has. You can use that information to describe what the camera and you see. And, of course, you can override that information later as you reinterpret what you want in the final picture. Art trumps science here.

Composition? You cannot measure composition. It is not science, it is art. All you can do is compare it to your own personal esthetic or to the community's rules for composing.

You can have a "perfect" picture scientifically but it can still be as boring as a weedy lawn in August. And you can have a great looking picture but unable to see what is lurching in the shadows or with a sickly yellow-green cast to the white clouds.

As for white balance versus color balance, I have been using the terms loosely and interchangeably. I do not know if that is correct. To me, white balance is setting color temperature and tint so that if the shot has white in it, your final presentation of it will also have the same white. Once you do that, the colors will fall in line and be free of any cast. For me, that is color balance.

I will be glad to learn if this is wrong and what the accepted definitions of these terms are.

charlessmall18

OK, here's a dirty little secret: the default white balance is just that: "white" -- as in adult Caucasian. The default white balance is not optimal for Caucasian infants (they are too "white" believe it or not) nor is it optimal for "people of color" (insert your choice of "color" here). Run some exposure and white balance tests on a variety of people of different "colors" and i think you will catch my drift.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Are you referring to all gear, or is that your experience with specific camera(s)? Hmmm.... something to think about

tvmastercontrol Loc: Iowa

I can't express the importance of White Balance enough. As a broadcaster (30 years now) if the time is taken to properly set your white balance, your photos or video will look natural. It's when the time is not taken to properly set your White Balance that you get the different hues that make your photos or video look somewhat off kilter or at the very worse like crap. It's been said in some of the earlier replies, and they are correct. Anytime the "light temperature" changes, a person should go through the White Balance procedure again before shooting any pics. As we say in the broadcasting industry, crap in = crap out. Once it's shot wrong, it's practically impossible to correct. I've seen it happen to many times. Sure you can make it "look better", but not as good had it been shot with the correct White Balance.

MtnMan Loc: ID

Hi,

There have been significant changes in recent years with the digital revolution; both in the cameras and in the software for processing. If you think about them you may want to reconsider your intutivie advice.

I have no clue as to what the corrections for white balance may have been in chemical processing of photos but with digital photos you can easily adjust the white balance afterwards if you take the pictures in RAW and have software to do so.

In some modern cameras such as my Nikon D5100 there is a mini-photoshop built right into the camera that lets you make some adjustments after the shot and before you transfer the picture to your computer or printer. I'll have to check if white balance is one of them.

Several other controls enter the picture, so to speak, with digital. We have already discussed one a little; the color control. That is seperate from white balance. The Nikon D5100 has a number of choices for this and you can adjust several sliders on it.

I realized this morning there is a third choice in the D5100. It is called "Picture Control". There are several baslines you can set; e.g. Landscape. Then you have sliders to adjust things like contrast and sharpness. They don't tell you what the baseline settings are for each but they do tell you that the sliders are relative and not absolute. So I guess you'd have to learn your camera to use this stuff.

These are processing choices that come after your selections of focus and metering options. I am beginning to think that the only one thing you have to be absolutely sure to get right when you take the shot is focus. That includes setting the f-stop and lens zoom right for the desired depth of field. I think you can work everything else aftewards.

Of course it is best to have things close to how you want them up-front and check on your LCD that you have what you want before the time for the shot pases.

Regards,
Larry Leach

lesdmd Loc: Middleton Wi via N.Y.C. & Cleveland

I have no experience with video but I would guess that when shooting a live event that involves panning from shade to sunlight, and where clouds could further complicate settings, that some sort of auto white balance setting has to be utilized. In this case stopping to set custom white balance every time the action moved would be impractical.
In photography, I propose a simple experiment. Would someone take three RAW shots of the same scene. One with auto white balance set on the camera, the other using some sort of custom white balance setting, and the third with a deliberately wrong setting. Take the three shots and process them in Camera RAW so that the temperature is the same on all three. Is there now a visible difference amongst the photos?

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Part of what I strive to do is create the best image possible without PP. I guess that comes from my film days (hours spent in the darkroom trying for the illusive perfect print). I often wonder if today's shooters appreciate the wonder of adjusting contrast with a simple adjustment on the computer when this process used to involve picking the film, changing the chemicals, adding contrast filters, etc.

tk Loc: Iowa

tvmc, Thanks for your expertise. Please continue to give us help when you can. Looking forward to seeing your work.

Oh, and go Hawks.

architect Loc: Chattanooga

I also try to get the best image in- camera based on my Kodachrome 25 and B&W film experience, AND I greatly enjoy the ability to perfect or enhance the in camera file with Photoshop. I for one would never want to go back. Now, shooting RAW and with relatively noiseless high ISOs, I can concentrate on the artistic values and less on the technical side.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Neither would I (want to go back). I just appreciate what can be done with RAW & PP so easily. As one example, I used to shoot B&W high contrast images of pen and ink drawings for artists. This involved using the correct film, the correct chemical, & contrast filters when printing. So different today. The point, as you say, is to start with the best image and go from there.

Ah Kodachrome 25, how I loved thee!