White balance

Hi,

A certain person in this group recently said how it was difficult
to get exposure correct while also having to worry about white
balance when the subject keeps going from sunlight to cloud.

I don't get it.

White balance is a non-event to me while shooting. Isn't white
balance applied at the RAW conversion stage, whether
in-camera JPEG or post shooting in the software?

I just leave it set on auto so the LCD playback looks okay.

Am I missing something?

On a similar vain: What do people do about colour balance
when using fill flash?

I shot some outdoor portraits last week and the flash was
obviously warmer than the available light when clouds passed
over the sun.

The match was quite good when the sun was out

Even if I had a filter for the flash, I would have been constantly
putting it on and taking it off.

Most of these pics will end up as B&W anyway so it doesn't
really matter in this case.

-Mike

Mike,
Maybe he doesn't shoot RAW, not all
photographers want to do graphic editing
to there photos.

However if he just set his Kelvin level
to 5200-5500 it would equal Daylight
balanced film like Kodak 100 gold or
Velvia 50. Did he change film when some
one went from sun to shade?

The correct Kelvin level for flash is
usually the same for noon daylight film
ex. 5500K

Did you ever shoot film? Did you change
film when you used a flash? Or did you
change film if you went took a shot in
the shade? Why on digital then?

But thats one of the many beauties of
digital, you have options and can get as
crazy as you want trying to be perfect.
:+)


"Mike Warren"
wrote in
message

ite.readfreenews.net...
Hi,

A certain person in this group
recently said how it was difficult
to get exposure correct while also
having to worry about white
balance when the subject keeps going
from sunlight to cloud.

I don't get it.

White balance is a non-event to me
while shooting. Isn't white
balance applied at the RAW conversion
stage, whether
in-camera JPEG or post shooting in the
software?

I just leave it set on auto so the LCD
playback looks okay.

Am I missing something?

On a similar vain: What do people do
about colour balance
when using fill flash?

I shot some outdoor portraits last
week and the flash was
obviously warmer than the available
light when clouds passed
over the sun.

The match was quite good when the sun
was out

Even if I had a filter for the flash,
I would have been constantly
putting it on and taking it off.

Most of these pics will end up as B&W
anyway so it doesn't
really matter in this case.

-Mike






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

John_B wrote:

Maybe he doesn't shoot RAW, not all
photographers want to do graphic editing
to there photos.

To me, that's the equivalent of taking a roll of film to the
local 1 hour photo processor.

Did you ever shoot film?

Yes. I am getting back into photography after about 20
years. I lost a lot of my interest and became a snap-shooter
when I no longer had a darkroom. Now, with Photoshop, I
can gain control of the process again.

Did you change film when you used a flash? Or did
you change film if you went took a shot in the shade?
Why on digital then?

White balance is done after shooting with film. I think the
same applies with digital. You just have to shoot RAW to
achieve it. Even using RAW, it's still a lot easier with digital
than film.

-Mike

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:14:37 -0400, "John_B"
photography.firstchurchofthestreets.com wrote:

Mike,
Maybe he doesn't shoot RAW, not all
photographers want to do graphic editing
to there photos.

That is true, millions of people are happy to pass over there negs to
an el-cheapo 2hr lab and they'll stick em into the album without
further thought.

Did you ever shoot film? Did you change
film when you used a flash? Or did you
change film if you went took a shot in
the shade? Why on digital then?

Digital doesn't have to emulate all the faults and problems that film
has. If it did, everyone wouldn't be moving towards it in droves.

Why on digital? - Because we can, and because it's easy.

What does digital mean to you? What's the biggest advantage you can
see? For some it's the polaroid advantage: Take photos of your
girlfriend in various states of undress and nobody needs to know. Or
take a photo, and there it is on a piece of cheap paper in a matter of
minutes. That's the trashy side of digital.

Some like the instant feedback, the insurance value of being able to
see that uncle Frank didn't blink when the flash went off.

But I think for most, the DSLR brings more than that. It is an SLR,
there's a hint that they care about which subject is in focus, and
which is not, they care about selecting a suitable aperture or a
suitable shutter speed. Why would these people suddenly *stop* caring
when it's time to prepare an image for print?

...well, many don't. They carry on caring about the fine details, so
they shoot RAW and stay in control right up until the print is made.

But thats one of the many beauties of
digital, you have options and can get as
crazy as you want trying to be perfect.
:+)

Indeed. More true if you shot RAW rather than JPEG just in case that
certain shot is amazing and warrants the extra time spent in the
digital darkroom to make it how you want it.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

Mike Warren wrote:

Most of these pics will end up as B&W anyway so it doesn't
really matter in this case.

Twice as bad - you have to keep track of both the black ~and~ white
balance! ;^)

Mike Warren wrote:
Hi,

A certain person in this group recently said how it was difficult
to get exposure correct while also having to worry about white
balance when the subject keeps going from sunlight to cloud.

I don't get it.

White balance is a non-event to me while shooting. Isn't white
balance applied at the RAW conversion stage, whether
in-camera JPEG or post shooting in the software?

I just leave it set on auto so the LCD playback looks okay.

Am I missing something?

On a similar vain: What do people do about colour balance
when using fill flash?

I shot some outdoor portraits last week and the flash was
obviously warmer than the available light when clouds passed
over the sun.

The match was quite good when the sun was out

Even if I had a filter for the flash, I would have been constantly
putting it on and taking it off.

Most of these pics will end up as B&W anyway so it doesn't
really matter in this case.

-Mike


White balance is not applied to the RAW files at the time of the picture
being taken, although the K temperature is recorded in the file. Color
temperature is applied when the RAW file is being converted in computer.
You can ignore the K number in the RAW file and choose whatever that
fits you. I like twisting it to the way I like it, warmer or cooler, not
necessarily need to be absolutely accurate to the reality. You can do
that with JPEG in Photoshop but you lose a lot of quality.

In message . net,
l e o wrote:

White balance is not applied to the RAW files at the time of the picture
being taken, although the K temperature is recorded in the file.

That's generally true, but at least one camera, the Nikon D2X, balances
when the RAW data is digitized, by varying the amplification before the
ADC, accordingly. Kudos to Nikon for realizing that posterization is
just as detrimental to image quality as sensor noise is. On a camera
with bigger, more noise-free pixels, this could solve a lot of issues
with incandescent-light photography nicely.
--


John P Sheehy

l e o wrote:

White balance is not applied to the RAW files at the time of the
picture being taken,

I know. That was my point. Why are some people so concerned about
white balance when shooting?

-Mike

Mike Warren wrote:
l e o wrote:


White balance is not applied to the RAW files at the time of the
picture being taken,


I know. That was my point. Why are some people so concerned about
white balance when shooting?

-Mike


You do if you are using JPEG/TIFF!

You don't if you use RAW.

"John_B" photography.firstchurchofthestreets.com wrote:

Mike,
Maybe he doesn't shoot RAW, not all
photographers want to do graphic editing
to there photos.

However if he just set his Kelvin level
to 5200-5500 it would equal Daylight
balanced film like Kodak 100 gold or
Velvia 50. Did he change film when some
one went from sun to shade?


That's what I do and it's never off enough that a touch of color adjustment
can't fix it. Using auto WB is asking for problems, like shooting in late
day sun and the camera corrects for it and cools it off? Or shooting a
sunset and it tries to "white balance" it?
--

Stacey