Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
I will soon purchase a D70s. The topic of "white balance" to improve
digital photo light and color rendition is occasionally mentioned in
this group. It is my understanding that the white balance in the
camera needs to be adjusted whenever light conditions change. I'm
concerned that this is a lot of work and could be inconvenient. What
follows is a hypothetical tourist visit to Washington, DC. Would the
following photo opportunities require a white balance change?
1. First stop - Ford's Theater. Indoors - Inside lighting is with low
light tungsten bulbs. I plan to take photos without flash. Is a
balance correction required?
2. Next stop, Lincoln Memorial. Statue is deep in the shadows with
natural light. Do I need to make a white balance adjustment here using
the natural light? What if I use a flash?
3. Now on to the World War II Memorial. Outdoors with bright sunshine.
Is another balance change needed?
4. Now to the Air and Space Museum. Indoors-Florescent lighting. Do I
need to change the balance again?
This seems like a lot of adjustments. Assuming I will need to make
them, what is the best way to do this. Should I carry a white card
with me or is there some other practical way to do this on the fly?
Suggestions would be appreciated.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
"Alan Wonsowski" <awonsow@atattglobal.network> wrote in message
news:ftgjc1ttorsq9n4fcltvhal4dimsigjjbf@4ax.com...
> 4. Now to the Air and Space Museum. Indoors-Florescent lighting. Do I
> need to change the balance again?
>
Just an FYI ...
The Air and Space museum actually has a mix of tungsten and flourescent
lighting. But I believe they use color balanced flourescent as I have not
experienced a color shift using standard films.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
In article <ftgjc1ttorsq9n4fcltvhal4dimsigjjbf@4ax.com>, Alan Wonsowski
<awonsow@atattglobal.network> wrote:
> I will soon purchase a D70s. The topic of "white balance" to improve
> digital photo light and color rendition is occasionally mentioned in
> this group. It is my understanding that the white balance in the
> camera needs to be adjusted whenever light conditions change. I'm
> concerned that this is a lot of work and could be inconvenient. What
> follows is a hypothetical tourist visit to Washington, DC. Would the
> following photo opportunities require a white balance change?
I carry a small 15% gray card and can do a custome whitre balance very
quickly... Basically take one shot of the card.
I bought a "The Last Gray Card" from filmtools.com. They are currently
showing out of stock.
=-=-=-=-=
The Last Grey Card. It is all but impossible to create glare on it due
to its soft, slightly textured matte surface - you don¹t have to twist
and tilt to find it¹s proper light. It is extremely rugged and
washable.
Cinematographer Steven Poster, ASC gives this review:
³One of my all time favourite tools is something called The Last Grey
Card. It is a plastic based, painted surface which is washable. It
comes in 4"x5" and 8"x10".
The 4x5 card is the perfect size to fit in a 4x5 Tiffen Filter case
and fit in your back pocket.
The surface has always given me a good standard to meter by. The paint
was designed scientifically to have the grey value with neutral color
components.²
=-=-=-=-=-=
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
"Steve Cutchen" <maxfaq@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:040720051925241522%maxfaq@earthlink.net...
> In article <ftgjc1ttorsq9n4fcltvhal4dimsigjjbf@4ax.com>, Alan Wonsowski
> <awonsow@atattglobal.network> wrote:
>
>> I will soon purchase a D70s. The topic of "white balance" to improve
>> digital photo light and color rendition is occasionally mentioned in
>> this group. It is my understanding that the white balance in the
>> camera needs to be adjusted whenever light conditions change. I'm
>> concerned that this is a lot of work and could be inconvenient. What
>> follows is a hypothetical tourist visit to Washington, DC. Would the
>> following photo opportunities require a white balance change?
>
> I carry a small 15% gray card and can do a custome whitre balance very
> quickly... Basically take one shot of the card.
>
> I bought a "The Last Gray Card" from filmtools.com. They are currently
> showing out of stock.
>
> =-=-=-=-=
> The Last Grey Card. It is all but impossible to create glare on it due
> to its soft, slightly textured matte surface - you don¹t have to twist
> and tilt to find it¹s proper light. It is extremely rugged and
> washable.
>
> Cinematographer Steven Poster, ASC gives this review:
>
> ³One of my all time favourite tools is something called The Last Grey
> Card. It is a plastic based, painted surface which is washable. It
> comes in 4"x5" and 8"x10".
>
> The 4x5 card is the perfect size to fit in a 4x5 Tiffen Filter case
> and fit in your back pocket.
>
> The surface has always given me a good standard to meter by. The paint
> was designed scientifically to have the grey value with neutral color
> components.²
You can also take a quick look at the display on the back. I realize it's
not the same as seeing the image on your computer, but it can give you an
idea if your white balance is way off.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
> I will soon purchase a D70s. The topic of "white balance" to improve
> digital photo light and color rendition is occasionally mentioned in
> this group. It is my understanding that the white balance in the
> camera needs to be adjusted whenever light conditions change.
Yes, this is also true of film cameras. Except with film cameras, the
work adjustment consists of removing one entire roll of film and
replacing it with another - daylight film versus tungsten film. Whereas
on a digital, it's a matter of a couple of button presses. At least,
with most digital SLR's it is this easy. Some P&S digitals hide this
setting deep in menus, where it would indeed be a paint to change, if
they offer it at all.
Of course, the camera still works if you have the wrong type of balance
selected - you just get picutres with an unnatural color cast to them
(blue-faced people shot outdoors with tungsten film or WB setting,
orange-faced people shot indoors with daylight film or WB setting).
Most digitals have an auto WB setting that does a decent job of
adjusting on the fly, so in this sense, it is far better than film. So
you shoot with that setting, then look at the result on the LCD to see
if you need to atually swtich to another setting. With my Pentaxc
*istDS, I find that indoors in tungten lighting, I do usually need to
set that explicitly. Auto works fine just about any other time.
Yes, you *can* carry a white card and use the "manual" WB setting, but
that's definitely more work than you need. The predefined "sunshine",
"shade", "tungsten", "flourescent" and other settings should be more
than enough. And as someone observed, if you shoot RAW, you can always
fix it later.
Note that changing the ISO equivalence is actually at least as much if
not more of an issue as you change lighting conditions. Again, film is
no better - and there you have to change whole rolls of film, not just
press a couple of buttons. But taking indoor pictures with no flash
will require higher ISO settings than outdoor pictures.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
marc@outsideshore.com
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 19:35:21 -0400, Alan Wonsowski wrote:
> I will soon purchase a D70s. The topic of "white balance" to improve
> digital photo light and color rendition is occasionally mentioned in this
> group. It is my understanding that the white balance in the camera needs
> to be adjusted whenever light conditions change. I'm concerned that this
> is a lot of work and could be inconvenient. What follows is a hypothetical
> tourist visit to Washington, DC. Would the following photo opportunities
> require a white balance change?
>
> 1. First stop - Ford's Theater. Indoors - Inside lighting is with low
> light tungsten bulbs. I plan to take photos without flash. Is a balance
> correction required?
Set to "tungsten." Tweak balance in post.
> 2. Next stop, Lincoln Memorial. Statue is deep in the shadows with natural
> light. Do I need to make a white balance adjustment here using the natural
> light? What if I use a flash?
Set for "daylight" or "cloudy" for a little warming effect. You'd have to
have a pretty big flash to fill the inside of the Lincoln Memorial from
the shooting position. Not impossible. I've done it. Not with the
Lincoln Memorial, but I've fill flashed a two story building. (Okay.
If you must know: 4 1000 watt-second power packs, 4 heads, each
across the street -- about 100 feet -- from the building.) Or position
someone behind one of the columns either side of Lincoln, aiming the flash
at the Lincoln statue, and fire the flash remotely, when you shoot the
outside of the memorial.
> 3. Now on to the World War II Memorial. Outdoors with bright sunshine. Is
> another balance change needed?
Daylight or Cloudy.
> 4. Now to the Air and Space Museum. Indoors-Florescent lighting. Do I need
> to change the balance again?
Tough call. Set for the predominate light source. Doesn't the A&S Museum
have a wall of glass in some exhibits to let in natural light? In that
case, daylight balance or if it's not direct sunlight, but just skylight
-- cloudy. Or do a custom white balance using anything handy that's
"white."
> This seems like a lot of adjustments. Assuming I will need to make them,
> what is the best way to do this. Should I carry a white card with me or is
> there some other practical way to do this on the fly? Suggestions would be
> appreciated.
Not many. 2, maybe 3.
Mostly, I just use the pre-set white balances -- daylight, cloudy,
tungsten, etc. -- and fine tune the color balance, if necessary, in post
production. Sometimes, shots that are color shifted because of improperly
set white balance or mixed light sources can produce unique and
striking images.
And FWIW, with mixed lighting sources (of different color temperatures),
you can NEVER get "correct" white balance, or color balance to use the
pre-digital term, in a single exposure. You can only strive to obtain a
average, "pleasing to the eye" color balance. (You can get true color
balance with mixed sources, but it requires a heavy tripod, a light touch
on the shutter and cocking lever, and multiple exposures of each light
source with the others turned off, color correcting for each source, and
building, partial exposure by partial exposure, the final color "true"
image. Not an easy thing to do and get it right. Or spend about 3 days
with PhotoShop masking off areas and individually correcting them. I'd
rather do the in-camera, multiple exposures. Faster.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 19:35:21 -0400, in
<ftgjc1ttorsq9n4fcltvhal4dimsigjjbf@4ax.com>, Alan Wonsowski
<awonsow@atattglobal.network> said:
[various lighting scenarios with different WBs]
>This seems like a lot of adjustments. Assuming I will need to make
>them, what is the best way to do this. Should I carry a white card
>with me or is there some other practical way to do this on the fly?
>Suggestions would be appreciated.
It's all totally dependent on how fussy you are about accurate colour, &
whether you shoot RAW or JPEG. For reference, consumer colour negative
film is all daylight-balanced, so it'll only give you reasonably
realistic colour under direct sunlight, or with a flash of around the
same colour-temperature. Shooting consumer film under tungsten or
fluorescent light will give you enormous colour casts, but most
non-photographers will barely notice that the colour is way off.
FWIW, I always shoot RAW, so I just set a suitable WB when I download my
pphotos to the computer, but I leave my camera set to AWB (automatic
white-balance), so that the colour looks 'right' when I show my shots
to my subjects on the cameras LCD panel.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Alan Wonsowski <awonsow@atattglobal.network> wrote:
> This seems like a lot of adjustments. Assuming I will need to make
> them, what is the best way to do this. Should I carry a white card
> with me or is there some other practical way to do this on the fly?
> Suggestions would be appreciated.
You want an ExpoDisc. Better than a white card. You can also use it to
meter for 18%.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
> I never cared about white balance in the ol' film days
You might have never cared, but it seems to me you should have, at least
a little. Shooting indoors with daylight film or outdoors with tungsten
is definitely a recipe for very bad color. But I'm guessing what
happened was, you shot mostly using daylight film as you generally have
to go out of your way to get tungsten. Shooting outdoors, then, you got
good results. Shooting indoors under incandescent lighting, you also
left enough automatic settings happening that you pretty much always
ended up using flash, which made the lighting close enough in color to
daylight. So the only time you got poor results were if you
accidentally bought tungsten film or if you shot indoors in a situation
where there was enough incandescent light to not need flash, neither of
which probably happened all that often. So only a few of your shots
would have been improvsed much by being aware of these issues.
> But then, I don't believe that every skin tone should be a
> perfect Shirley.
The discrepancies that occur from incorrect white balance settings can
be pretty bad. It would more than outweigh any other tradeoffs between
digitals. That is, a $100 camera with correct WB will arguably take a
better looking picture than a $1000 camera on the wrong WB setting. So
it would be foolish not to think about white balance to some degree if
one is considering spending $1000 on a camera. Fortunately, the auto
setting *does* often produce decent results on many cameras in many
situations, so you don't have to think about it *all* that often to get
results as good as you happened to get in film.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
marc@outsideshore.com
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
In message <pan.2005.07.06.02.35.08.954035@thisaddress.com>,
stefan patric <not@thisaddress.com> wrote:
>And FWIW, with mixed lighting sources (of different color temperatures),
>you can NEVER get "correct" white balance, or color balance to use the
>pre-digital term, in a single exposure. You can only strive to obtain a
>average, "pleasing to the eye" color balance. (You can get true color
>balance with mixed sources, but it requires a heavy tripod, a light touch
>on the shutter and cocking lever, and multiple exposures of each light
>source with the others turned off, color correcting for each source, and
>building, partial exposure by partial exposure, the final color "true"
>image. Not an easy thing to do and get it right. Or spend about 3 days
>with PhotoShop masking off areas and individually correcting them. I'd
>rather do the in-camera, multiple exposures. Faster.
Do you ever leave them slightly off-balance, just to have a hint that
they were different, without the bold difference of literal mixed
lighting?
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 02:53:35 +0000, JPS wrote:
> In message <pan.2005.07.06.02.35.08.954035@thisaddress.com>, stefan patric
> <not@thisaddress.com> wrote:
>
>>And FWIW, with mixed lighting sources (of different color temperatures),
>>you can NEVER get "correct" white balance, or color balance to use the
>>pre-digital term, in a single exposure. You can only strive to obtain a
>>average, "pleasing to the eye" color balance. (You can get true color
>>balance with mixed sources, but it requires a heavy tripod, a light touch
>>on the shutter and cocking lever, and multiple exposures of each light
>>source with the others turned off, color correcting for each source, and
>>building, partial exposure by partial exposure, the final color "true"
>>image. Not an easy thing to do and get it right. Or spend about 3 days
>>with PhotoShop masking off areas and individually correcting them. I'd
>>rather do the in-camera, multiple exposures. Faster.
>
> Do you ever leave them slightly off-balance, just to have a hint that they
> were different, without the bold difference of literal mixed lighting?
It depends on what I'm shooting and how important the color balance is to
the shot. With architectural interiors, "proper" color balance is VERY
important, particularly if you're dealing with interior designers. I
balance all light sources, if I can. I try to make the picture look like
the eye sees it -- colorwise. If, for example, some lights have colored
filters over them or the light globes themselves are colored, I correct
only for the type of lamp, so the color given off by the lamp is "correct."
If, however, I'm shooting people, I'll tend not to have "correct" color
balance, but will "warm" the shot a little to make the skin tones more
"healthy" looking. Shots particular in snow or at the beach surrounded by
lots of blue sky and blue water tend to be too "cool" even though the
white balance is correct. So, I over-correct the shot a little, because
the eye doesn't "see" the excess blue, and give it a slightly warm tone.
All in all, one should at least strive to have the color balance in photos
look "natural" even if it's not technically color correct.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> Alan Wonsowski <awonsow@atattglobal.network> wrote:
>
>> This seems like a lot of adjustments. Assuming I will need to make
>> them, what is the best way to do this. Should I carry a white card
>> with me or is there some other practical way to do this on the fly?
>> Suggestions would be appreciated.
>
> You want an ExpoDisc. Better than a white card. You can also use it to
> meter for 18%.
>
><http://www.expodisc.com/>
>
You're still making the usually incorrect assumption that the scene
averages out to a neutral gray.
I'll take a styrofoam cup over an Expodisc any day.
> usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > Alan Wonsowski <awonsow@atattglobal.network> wrote:
> >
> >> This seems like a lot of adjustments. Assuming I will need to make
> >> them, what is the best way to do this. Should I carry a white card with
> >> me or is there some other practical way to do this on the fly?
> >> Suggestions would be appreciated.
> >
> > You want an ExpoDisc. Better than a white card. You can also use it to
> > meter for 18%.
> >
> ><http://www.expodisc.com/>
>
> You're still making the usually incorrect assumption that the scene
> averages out to a neutral gray. I'll take a styrofoam cup over an Expodisc
> any day.
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.