Question on Digital photography White Balance

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:27:15 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Ken
<kewaynco@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Over the Christmas holidays, we visited our kids and grandkids. I took
>lots of candid photos of the grandkids outdoors. I have a Digital Rebel
>- It was set on AV with an aperture of 2.8 and I let the camera pick the
>speed. I set the white balance to partial shade. There were few clouds
>in the sky and I had a polarizing filter for the blue sky. It was set at
>200 asa.
>
>All of the pictures turned out with a yellowish-brown overtone - even
>the skin colors were that way. I have to assume that I set something
>wrong since that is not how it appeared to the naked eye, but I am not
>sure what. Since they were candid photos, I didn't have a lot of time to
>figure out settings. The landscape around the grandkids was, of course,
>composed of brown leaves and yellowish tones from the dead grass, etc.
>
>Can someone tell me what I might have done to get more natural looking
>colors?

I would guess not setting the WB to partial cloudy as you did. If you had
the camera set to raw mode you can just reprocess with a different WB
setting. For future reference you could experiment by shooting a similar
situation in raw and then postprocessing with various WBs to see the
effect.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken wrote:
>
> Over the Christmas holidays, we visited our kids and grandkids. I took
> lots of candid photos of the grandkids outdoors. I have a Digital Rebel
> - It was set on AV with an aperture of 2.8 and I let the camera pick the
> speed. I set the white balance to partial shade. There were few clouds
> in the sky and I had a polarizing filter for the blue sky. It was set at
> 200 asa.
>
> All of the pictures turned out with a yellowish-brown overtone - even
> the skin colors were that way. I have to assume that I set something
> wrong since that is not how it appeared to the naked eye, but I am not
> sure what. Since they were candid photos, I didn't have a lot of time to
> figure out settings. The landscape around the grandkids was, of course,
> composed of brown leaves and yellowish tones from the dead grass, etc.
>
> Can someone tell me what I might have done to get more natural looking
> colors?

set color balance to auto?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

if you can, set WB to custom and pick out a white surface. use that as a
reference for future pix. then, consider higher ISO.


"Ken" <kewaynco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nniFd.4836$KJ2.3953@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Over the Christmas holidays, we visited our kids and grandkids. I took
> lots of candid photos of the grandkids outdoors. I have a Digital Rebel
> - It was set on AV with an aperture of 2.8 and I let the camera pick the
> speed. I set the white balance to partial shade. There were few clouds
> in the sky and I had a polarizing filter for the blue sky. It was set at
> 200 asa.
>
> All of the pictures turned out with a yellowish-brown overtone - even
> the skin colors were that way. I have to assume that I set something
> wrong since that is not how it appeared to the naked eye, but I am not
> sure what. Since they were candid photos, I didn't have a lot of time to
> figure out settings. The landscape around the grandkids was, of course,
> composed of brown leaves and yellowish tones from the dead grass, etc.
>
> Can someone tell me what I might have done to get more natural looking
> colors?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken wrote:
> Over the Christmas holidays, we visited our kids and grandkids. I took
> lots of candid photos of the grandkids outdoors. I have a Digital Rebel
> - It was set on AV with an aperture of 2.8 and I let the camera pick the
> speed. I set the white balance to partial shade. There were few clouds
> in the sky and I had a polarizing filter for the blue sky. It was set at
> 200 asa.
>
> All of the pictures turned out with a yellowish-brown overtone - even
> the skin colors were that way. I have to assume that I set something
> wrong since that is not how it appeared to the naked eye, but I am not
> sure what. Since they were candid photos, I didn't have a lot of time to
> figure out settings. The landscape around the grandkids was, of course,
> composed of brown leaves and yellowish tones from the dead grass, etc.
>
> Can someone tell me what I might have done to get more natural looking
> colors?

The color temperature of partial shade is around 7-8,000K which is
fairly blue.
The camera tries to compensate for this extra blueness by lowering the
amplification in the blue channel. In your case, the color temperature
was not as high as the camera assumed, so the resulting image was
deficient in blue, which = yellow. You can of course correct the color
imbalance (in Photoshop) by using IMAGE > ADJUST > COLOR BALANCE and
adding a little blue to the image.
Bob Williams

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Crownfield wrote:

> Ken wrote:

>> All of the pictures turned out with a yellowish-brown overtone - even
>> the skin colors were that way. I have to assume that I set something
>> wrong since that is not how it appeared to the naked eye, but I am not
>> sure what. Since they were candid photos, I didn't have a lot of time to
>> figure out settings. The landscape around the grandkids was, of course,
>> composed of brown leaves and yellowish tones from the dead grass, etc.
>>
>> Can someone tell me what I might have done to get more natural looking
>> colors?
>
> set color balance to auto?

Yes.. I don't like the 'Cloudy' and 'Shade' settings on my 10D.. I always
see a slight yellow cast.

I've found in most cases, 'Auto' is the best for JPEG.. (But you still need
tungsten for incandesent lamps.

Of course, RAW is the best because you can choose the best white balance and apply
it after the fact..

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Just as an aside, I use auto white balance on my 10D & 20D when shooting jpg
and have always been happy with the outcome. Can someone explain how the
camera assesses and sets the right colour balance in the auto mode.

regards

Don from Down Under


"Jimmy Smith" <nospam@pleaseno.more> wrote in message
news 1lFd.25452$zy6.13977@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> if you can, set WB to custom and pick out a white surface. use that as a
> reference for future pix. then, consider higher ISO.
>
>
> "Ken" <kewaynco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:nniFd.4836$KJ2.3953@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> Over the Christmas holidays, we visited our kids and grandkids. I took
>> lots of candid photos of the grandkids outdoors. I have a Digital Rebel
>> - It was set on AV with an aperture of 2.8 and I let the camera pick the
>> speed. I set the white balance to partial shade. There were few clouds
>> in the sky and I had a polarizing filter for the blue sky. It was set at
>> 200 asa.
>>
>> All of the pictures turned out with a yellowish-brown overtone - even
>> the skin colors were that way. I have to assume that I set something
>> wrong since that is not how it appeared to the naked eye, but I am not
>> sure what. Since they were candid photos, I didn't have a lot of time to
>> figure out settings. The landscape around the grandkids was, of course,
>> composed of brown leaves and yellowish tones from the dead grass, etc.
>>
>> Can someone tell me what I might have done to get more natural looking
>> colors?
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <41E5FE7F.3070109@cox.net>,
Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote:

>The color temperature of partial shade is around 7-8,000K which is
>fairly blue.
>The camera tries to compensate for this extra blueness by lowering the
>amplification in the blue channel.

No; the program or firmware that creates the JPG or TIF scales the RAW
data differently. On many cameras, the blue signal is actually much
weaker than the green, and balancing for shade will require multiplying
the RAW data by a smaller factor than it would for white daylight.

The RAW image data captured in the camera is unaffected by white balance
settings. White balance settings are only parameter to be applied by
default in converting to a viewable image. In an shot of a white wall
under incandescent light, the blue channel may utilize a few bits less
than the others, in the RAW data.

It really shouldn't be that way, but that's the way it is done. It is
probably too complicated to change the amplifier gain for every pixel,
and there is no way to read just the blue pixels first, then the red,
then the green, etc.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Cloudy skies are cooler, color temp wise, than sunny skies. So, when you
set the WB to the setting you did, you set it to a warmer balance than
necessary. "Cloudy" means solid overcast.
Also, be sure that the polarizing filter wasn't a warming filter, some are.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Ken" <kewaynco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nniFd.4836$KJ2.3953@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Over the Christmas holidays, we visited our kids and grandkids. I took
> lots of candid photos of the grandkids outdoors. I have a Digital Rebel -
> It was set on AV with an aperture of 2.8 and I let the camera pick the
> speed. I set the white balance to partial shade. There were few clouds in
> the sky and I had a polarizing filter for the blue sky. It was set at 200
> asa.
>
> All of the pictures turned out with a yellowish-brown overtone - even the
> skin colors were that way. I have to assume that I set something wrong
> since that is not how it appeared to the naked eye, but I am not sure
> what. Since they were candid photos, I didn't have a lot of time to figure
> out settings. The landscape around the grandkids was, of course, composed
> of brown leaves and yellowish tones from the dead grass, etc.
>
> Can someone tell me what I might have done to get more natural looking
> colors?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks, everyone, for your helpful input. I will be better prepared next
time.

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> In message <41E5FE7F.3070109@cox.net>,
> Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>The color temperature of partial shade is around 7-8,000K which is
>>fairly blue.
>>The camera tries to compensate for this extra blueness by lowering the
>>amplification in the blue channel.
>
>
> No; the program or firmware that creates the JPG or TIF scales the RAW
> data differently. On many cameras, the blue signal is actually much
> weaker than the green, and balancing for shade will require multiplying
> the RAW data by a smaller factor than it would for white daylight.
>
> The RAW image data captured in the camera is unaffected by white balance
> settings. White balance settings are only parameter to be applied by
> default in converting to a viewable image. In an shot of a white wall
> under incandescent light, the blue channel may utilize a few bits less
> than the others, in the RAW data.
>
> It really shouldn't be that way, but that's the way it is done. It is
> probably too complicated to change the amplifier gain for every pixel,
> and there is no way to read just the blue pixels first, then the red,
> then the green, etc.