Also confused about WB: Pic looks good with weird K!

[enigma]

There recently was an interesting thread about WB settings, temperatures etc. My question is related, but different.

I've learned that the color temperature for clody/shade is about 6000K or up. Roughly.

Why is it then that most of my shots from Zion NP, taken either under an overcast sky or in the shade, looks best at 4,000K? I have no problems with it, but I would like to understand what causes this "unnatural" setting.

Can it have something to do with ETTR (exposing to the right)? Because the dynamic range in the shade was relatively small, I could push the exposure "to the right" by at least one stop. In ACR, I just pull it back by the same amount. I know exposure compensation throws WB off a bit. But from 6,000 to 4,000? Isn't that odd?

I'm at work now, but I'll try to post an example when I get home, if that would help. Using the reasonable presets "shade" or "daylight" introduces a horrible brownish cast over the pictures.

Has it something to do with altitude, or is it a local phenomena --- like the brown/red mountains or something? This kind of makes sense when I think about it. The mountains must work like giant red/brown reflectors. Hmmm...

This has never happened to me on other locations.

Thanks for your input!

[tim]

I've noticed sometimes images look best with weird color temps, but I don't care so long as they look good. I'd be interested to hear any explainations though.

[enigma]

Here is an example. This pic was shot in early afternoon. There was an overcast, but I was in the shade anyway (sun behind clouads and behind mountains).

The two shots have been identically processed. The first has a "reasonable" WB of 6650K. The second has WB of 4100K. Tint was just above zero for both. Weird, huh?

[tdaugharty]

I like the warmer image .. Seems to add more ambience

[enigma]

I like the warmer image .. Seems to add more ambience

Thanks for your input! I'm unsure which one I like the best (the image in itself is not that good). But my point is that the WB seems to be more "real" and "accurate" (or maybe "neutral") at 4,100K. I wonder why.

Thanks!

[PacAce]

The 2nd one is more natural looking and I like that one over the 1st which is too orangish for my taste especially when you consider that the pictures were taken in the early afternoon.

[tim]

What Leo said.

[cdifoto]

"Correct" isn't always "right".

[PhotosGuy]

"Correct" isn't always "right". It's heart-warming to see that someone actually remembers what I said? http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/smilies/rotfl2.gif

[cdifoto]

It's heart-warming to see that someone actually remembers what I said? http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/smilies/rotfl2.gif

Don't flatter yourself - I didn't remember it as something you said.:rolleyes: :lol: :p

[PhotosGuy]

Don't flatter yourself :D If I read your smilies correctly, then see what you get out of it when you read mine? ;) http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/smilies/0097.gif

[cdifoto]

:D If I read your smilies correctly, then see what you get out of it when you read mine? ;) http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/smilies/0097.gif

:lol:

[In2Photos]

The 2nd one is more natural looking and I like that one over the 1st which is too orangish for my taste especially when you consider that the pictures were taken in the early afternoon.
But what if the OP never stated that the shot was taken in the early afternoon? Would you still like the "cooler" shot? I prefer the warmer image as it brings out the autumn look of the scene.

[RuggerJoe]

The white balance is only an approximation based on conditions. I would think it would be thrown off if there is a thicker or thiner cloud base, or something to give the light a color cast (polution, haze, smoke, vocanic ash, a large colored surface reflecting light). You were the only one there, when you took the shot did the light have a warmer cast to it? Also, I think our minds adjust for the white balance in varying conditions of what we are seeing. Our mind knows something is supposed to be a certain color and we mentally compensate for that to an extent. The first shot may have been the actual light conditions and the second shot could be more like what you saw. I don't think out brain see thing objectively, it's always putting in a certain amount of interpretation, where as a camera will only record what it sees.

[enigma]

...a large colored surface reflecting light). .

Thanks for your input! This is exactly what I am thinking. "A large colored surface reflecting light",... like red/brown mountain walls!

I do not remember the scene as having a warmer color temp (or brownish cast). But, as you said, our brains have a "built in" WB and most often we don't even notice these things. Our brains compensate automatically.

Thanks for all the input so far! Do we have any other feasable explanations?