First Time Tinkering w/White Balance

[earl_damron]

Hi Folks.

I decided to get my D60 out this evening and play around with the custom white balance setting. I took a small, approx 6" x 6" piece of cardboard and taped a similar size piece of printer paper over it to use as a white card.

Here are the images, first with Auto and the second with Custom (using my card):

Auto
-------
http://www.earldamron.com/images/WB_Custom.jpg

Custom
-----------
http://www.earldamron.com/images/WB_Auto.jpg

The difference in the two images is amazing. I think the second image is much more accurate, in terms of the subtle colors in the tree bark. The Auto picture seems to have an overall gray tint about it. Neither image I would say is PERFECT.

The manual says to photograph a white subject so that a standard exposure is obtained. That makes me think one should invest a fair amount of time creating accurate white card images. Then again, I thought one of the benefits of this would be obtaining correct color in any situation...on the fly.

Does anyone have a good tips for making a white card or using it more effectively?

[Rustle]

The current issue of PCPhoto recommends using paint swatches. As well, the article talks about setting a light blue as your "white" to achieve a warmer tone in the image.

http://www.pcphotomag.com/content/2002/aug/whitebalance.html

Russ

[earl_damron]

Very interesting article Russ. Thanks very much.

Earl

[philgabe]

Earl:

The "auto" picture seems to have a blue cast to it, the "custom" one seems to have a yellow cast. Without knowing what the "correct" colors were, it doesn't "look" like either of these pictures has the correct colors. Since you said that the second one looks more accurate I'm wondering if you tried to use Photoshop to "perfectly" reproduce the correct tonal range out of these two pictures and if it's the case that it was easier to achieve that with the second one than the first one. I'm asking that because at the end of the day in many cases neither the auto WB or custom WB provide perfect color range and some editing in PS in necessary. If that's the case then unless it's easier to achieve the correct tonality with custom WB, I don't see the point of ever using it. It's just a thought, but I realize that I always shoot auto WB and always adjust the range if the image is not accurately reproducing the colors I remember. Maybe I should change that?

Cheers,

Philippe
www.epochphotos.com

[earl_damron]

Philippe, I understand your point, and I agree that neither shot has the correct white balance. However, your point also brings me to a thought I've been having a lot lately.

Are digital photographers (I count myself in this crowd) cheating?

When a film/slide photographer takes shots in the field and then has them developed, I'm thinking the shots are either good or bad. Of course, I realize a film photographer could scan in a photo and retouch it with Photoshop, but that's not my point. I guess I always thought that "regular" (i.e., film) photographers either got it right --OR-- they learned from their mistakes (exposure, color, shutter, etc) and hoped for a better shot the next time.

When I take a shot, if it's too dark, I lighten it. If it's too light, I darken it. Still, in the back of my mind, I'm thinking I didn't get it right and the processed result is not mine.

As I said, I agree with your point. However, is it a worthy goal to never have to do anything with the photos one takes? If it is, then achieving proper white balance would also be a worthy goal.

Earl

[philgabe]

Earl:

I see what you mean and I agree with the goal of "getting it right" out of the box (or the camera!). On the other hand, in my eyes it's really a question of philosophy more than "cheating" or "being honest". I respect photographers that will take a picture and then just print it without any adjustments or cropping. I also respect photographers that will take a picture (and try to get the best possible image) and then improve upon the image using darkroom techniques. I don't think that the issue is that much "digital" versus "film" because even when you shoot film you can do an awful lot of tweaking in the darkroom (and if you have your film printed by a custom lab, it's likely that they will do a bunch of adjustments that you may not even be aware of). I tend to be probably a little more in the second category when it comes to WB, perhaps because setting a WB with a white card or in Photoshop is really "calibrating" the scale of color (in the sense of telling the computer what is the "0")--I'm not sure there is intrinsically anything different whether you tell the camera what "0" is or you tell PS what "0" is. So I may be more inclined to be in the first category when it comes to exposure, composition (I try to crop only when it's really absolutely necessary--i.e., I screwed up composition), etc..but WB more in second category.
This being said I'm throwing these thoughts because of our discussion, I never had put too much thoughts into this, but it's a very interesting point you made and thanks for raising it. I'm not convinced myself what I said above is my final answer on this, but it is for the time being...lol.

Cheers!

Philippe
www.epochphotos.com

[philgabe]

Earl:

There's definitely no right or wrong in our discussion, but I had the following thought after I sent the previous message. Maybe struggling a little bit with what you meant by "cheating".

How do we define "cheating" when we take pictures? I was thinking about what happens when we shoot film. We pick a film that is balanced for some kind of light. We then expose the film and sometimes we get the "right" match between the actual temperature of light and film and sometimes we don't. Suppose you take a picture on day light balanced film but you expose under artificial light and you get this warm orange, yellow, red cast. If you don't tweak the colors in the darkroom are you "cheating" because the colors are definitely not those that your eyes perceived when you shot the shutter? But then if you change the colors in the darkroom and come closer to what you saw when you took the picture, are you still "cheating" because you don't have a perfect match. Maybe in neither case you are cheating because the point of the picture is the subject and the message that it conveys? I was having these thoughts after our exchange and thinking about the picture linked below. It's a picture that was taken on daylight balanced film indoors under artificial light and early morning light. I saw the subject (my niece), grabbed my camera and shot. I didn't want to use the flash or take time to set things up as kids tend to move constantly. The purpose of the picture was definitely to capture the innocence and kind of sadness of my niece. The colors are way off from what my eyes saw.
http://www.epochphotos.com/images/photo.php?photo=394&exhibition=7
In my views the fact that the colors are way off contribute to the appeal of the image, it reinforces the theme...when I scanned the picture I reinforced slightly the balance of red/yellow..so I tweaked the colors that to start with were not accurate...it is no different than having the 'wrong" WB on a digital camera and using PS to adjust (whether you adjust to come closer to what you saw or even further for artistic or other reasons).
I'm curious what you think about that.

Cheers.

Philippe
www.epochphotos.com

[earl_damron]

I guess I used cheating because of something I was doing with my recent batch of Alaska photos.

I submitted two of my images to a photo contest (I love 'em but I'm sure they're very average to good photographers). When reading how to submit images for the contest, part of the information said "digitally manipulated images will not be accepted". I was all ready to submit a 4 x 6 that I thought looked very pleasing, until I remembered I had adjusted the color level in Photoshop to be more pleasing to me. At that moment, I felt like I would have been cheating had I submitted the photo as printed because I had digitally manipulated it. I went back, extracted the JPG from the RAW using Canon's extraction tool, and printed the JPG in 4 x 6 mode at a Kodak Photo Kiosk.

I really think that for photos we take and use for our own pleasure, there's no such thing as cheating. For any photos we may sell, I'm NOT SURE there's such a thing as cheating. For something like a photo contest, I believe there is such a thing as cheating.

Bear in mind, there was nothing you said that made me think "that's cheating and I'm not going to do it". It was merely a thought to prompt others to share how they feel about something that's crossed my mind of late. I apologize if I chose an offensive word. Your thoughts, all valid, are appreciated.

[philgabe]

Earl:

Don't worry nothing you said offended me. I just love a good discussion and the points you raised made me think big time. i would be surprised if just adjusting levels and sharpening in PS would be not allowed in a photo contest, it may be more combining two images in one or things like that they want to keep out. In any case, do not think that I got offended in any ways by what you said, to the contrary I appeciate a discussion that's deeper than 'what lens should I use'...:)

Cheers!

Philippe
www.epochphotos.com

[earl_damron]

Good deal Philippe. I agree.

BTW, very nice photos on your site. A very nice variety.

c'ya

Earl

PS: you can check out some of those "level-adjusted" images :p at http://www.earldamron.com/gallery/list.php?exhibition=3

[Swat2]

Hey, guys, I really enjoyed your discussion and think I profited from it. Just 2 observations of my own.

First, what's the ethical or philosphical difference between using custom light balance with a digital, and hanging all kinds of filters on the front end of my film Nikon - poly, warming, star, etc.??

Second, I remember that Ansel Adams once remarked that most of his art was performed in the darkroom. And looking at his results, I can only say Thank the lord he did!!

Thanks for bringing up such an interesting subject.

Don

[earl_damron]

Swat2 wrote:
First, what's the ethical or philosphical difference between using custom light balance with a digital, and hanging all kinds of filters on the front end of my film Nikon - poly, warming, star, etc.??


All photographers use their best effort to "order chaos" as John Shaw says. This would include everything you mentioned. I'm totally clueless as to what "art" can be performed in a darkroom, so other film folks would have to comment here. I guess I just want to make the best images possible, without having to rely on Photoshop.

Swat2 wrote:
...I can only say Thank the lord he did!!


I couldn't agree more!

Earl

[philgabe]

Earl:

NI enjoyed your Alaska pictures. My favorite is the Eagle on a Berg, the expression on the face of the eagle and the dead centering of it gives a real funny feel to that image. The landscape pictures are cool too and make me wanna go to Alaska.

Great job!

Philippe

[earl_damron]

Thanks Philippe.

I like that one too. It was a big hit with some other folks on the boat, just to look at it through the LCD on the back of the camera.

I plan to move up to Alaska as soon as the opportunity presents itself.

Take care.

Earl