White balance before or after?

[Rory]

I've just made the leap up to a 300D from a Fujifilm S7000, and I'm very pleased with the improved quality. I am now shooting in RAW (great!) and am wondering if it is better to adjust the white balance when importing the images into photoshop, or to try and nail it at the point of capture... I take a lot of archival shots of theatrical productions, and the different lighting from shot to shot is often too much for me to keep up with in the short time I have... Is there any cons to doing it this way, or should I just take the time and try to get my head around white balance settings??

Thanks in anticipation :)

[Curtis N]

There's no easy answer when it comes to shooting theatre, since the light genrally isn't "white" anyway, what with all the colored gels they use. I have gotten reasonable results using the tungsten white balance setting. If you're shooting RAW, the white balance setting in the camera only affects how it is displayed on your monitor until you convert it.

Of course you can adjust the white point using various methods with the RAW converter, but you may wind up in the loony bin if you have hundreds of images and you try to get each one just right. Using the eyedropper tool to click on a "white" part of the image like an actor's white shirt won't work if it was illuminated by a colored gel when you took the shot.

If you have trouble getting the resulting image to look just the way you remembered it, don't despair. Our brains adjust to color temperature automatically (the whole reason we need white balance to begin with), so what we see under theatre lighting is never going to be the same as what the camera sees.

I have found theatre photography to be quite a challenge. Good luck, and post some pictures when you get them!

[Rory]

Thanks for all of that, I used to use the Tungsten setting on the FujiFilm. I need to investigate the 300D a little further - today was my first shoot with it and I was a little nervous because I am not very used to the camera yet... I'll consult the manual to make sure my white balance is set to tungsten - thanks!

Here are two shots that I just resized in photoshop, I'll post the same shots adjusted in the RAW converter...

[Rory]

Same two shots adjusted in the RAW converter:

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

I actually like the original set more.

[DocFrankenstein]

Well... I would meter the color temperature of the actual projectors without the gels (or at least try to approximate it)

My guess is that it's not going to be consistent anyways, so your best bet is to set the camera to tungsten and shoot RAW. If/when the actual images are going to be used, the default settings will look OK and you'll still be able to adjust the WB after.

You might wanna ask CDS cause he shoots a lot of theater work too.

[Rory]

I actually like the original set more.

I may have gone a little over board with the adjustments actually, I think I prefer the portrait shot before the adjustment, but the other one is way too yellow. To the eye, that shot doesn't have any of that amber in it.

[Rory]

If/when the actual images are going to be used, the default settings will look OK and you'll still be able to adjust the WB after.

I think you're right, I'll keep a set of the RAW images untouched, and adjust as necessary... just got to figure out how to change the white balance setting on the camera now - thanks!

[Curtis N]

Nice shots!
The second set looks a little blue, but I wasn't there. Only you know what it really looked like.
Since I also use a 300D, I'm interested to know what lenses and settings you used.

[Rory]

I'm interested to know what lenses and settings you used.

EFS 18-55mm, the portrait shot was 1/8, f4.5, 34mm, ISO 100. The landscape was 1/8, f8.0, 30mm, ISO 100.

As you can see from the original shots, they turned out really amber, so I just tried to cool them down... There is a lot of blue gel in the air, but I think I did over-cool it a bit with the RAW converter :)

[Jackal]

You might want to invest in a nice fast lense for those dark conditions. If you've got the cash go for the Canon 50mm 1.4 (About $300). Or the cheaper 50mm 1.8 (About $70 but it's autofocus isn't the greatest and it's rather plasticky).

Nice shots by the way. I'm sure you needed a tripod for them.

With a faster lense like the 50mm 1.4 you might be able to even hand hold at maybe 200 ISO. But of course the depth of field will be shorter so I'm not even sure if you'd like that. =)

[Rory]

You might want to invest in a nice fast lense for those dark conditions... I'm sure you needed a tripod for them. With a faster lense like the 50mm 1.4 you might be able to even hand hold at maybe 200 ISO. But of course the depth of field will be shorter so I'm not even sure if you'd like that. =)

Thanks for the advice, I'll have a look at those lenses. I definitely did use a tripod
:) The necessary depth of field varies so dramtically shot to shot, so it's difficult to know what is best, and I am still learning, so DOF, fStop and ISOs are a little overwhelming at times. What is great though, is how much better the 300D is performing in the low light compared to the Fujifilm S7000, the rest I'll catch up with as fast as I can! :confused:

Here's another shot from the shoot, adjusted with the RAW converter to fix the "amber issue" Dark and moody this one... Incidentally, the show being photographed is Edward Albee's The Goat OR, Who is Sylvia? But discussion of that subject matter is for a completely different forum!

Thanks everyone for your input.

[Curtis N]

the portrait shot was 1/8, f4.5, 34mm, ISO 100. The landscape was 1/8, f8.0, 30mm, ISO 100.Wow. That's a pretty slow shutter for shooting live people. Did you get motion blur in many shots? Did you consider cranking up the ISO to enable a faster shutter?

I have also been advised to use fast prime lenses for theatre work. If you're shooting the whole set with a 50mm then DOF may not be too bad, but I think I would pull my hair out trying to shoot without a zoom lens. The size of what you want to compose changes moment by moment. I think you would miss a lot of shots that way.

[Rory]

Wow. That's a pretty slow shutter for shooting live people.

Luckily all of our archive shots are posed, so no need to worry about that :) I think I will change the ISO though

[jimsolt]

I've just made the leap up to a 300D from a Fujifilm S7000, and I'm very pleased with the improved quality. I am now shooting in RAW (great!) and am wondering if it is better to adjust the white balance when importing the images into photoshop, or to try and nail it at the point of capture... I take a lot of archival shots of theatrical productions, and the different lighting from shot to shot is often too much for me to keep up with in the short time I have... Is there any cons to doing it this way, or should I just take the time and try to get my head around white balance settings??

Thanks in anticipation :)

I just found out about this source (http://pictureflow.fileburst.com/_WhiBalManual/index.html) from another post on this forum. It IS a sales presentation, but it is loaded with information about RAW and white balance.

The gist of it is that when you shoot RAW, you are selecting the white balance for what you see initially when you look at your picture, but you haven't made any actual correction to the RAW file, and you have total control over the white balance at that point. The product being sold is basically 4 cards that you can photograph in the light you are shooting either after, during, or before the pictures you are shooting. When you get to the RAW conversion you select the proper card with your "eyedropper" and it ajusts to the white balance for that scene. You can then use that correction for all scenes shot in that light.

With or without the sales product, it gives some very good suggestions of how to deal with white balance in RAW and how "not to" deal with it. It makes a good case for the white balance presets NOT being very good for the lighting you are talking about, and the "custom" setting not being very handy for the situations you describe.

Jim

[Feihung08]

First off, I like the second set (that you adjusted) much better. It actually looks like a 'stage' and I'm sitting at a play! Which is the feel I would assume you want! Secondly, excellent job on the pics in the first place! No motion blur and very sharp! Would like to see what you would've done with the newer Digital Rebel, the 350D!

[Rory]

I just found out about this source (http://pictureflow.fileburst.com/_WhiBalManual/index.html) from another post on this forum. It IS a sales presentation, but it is loaded with information about RAW and white balance.

Thanks, that answers a lot of questions. The set I shot on is actually white, I'll try using that with the dropper and see what happens!

[Hellashot]

Point of capture. I've found that using auto white balance or a specific preset in the camera often gives a more accurate look than using "auto" in RAW conversion. You can definately fix is in the RAW conversion if you made a mistake while shooting, but use as a last resort.

[Curtis N]

The product being sold is basically 4 cards that you can photograph in the light you are shooting either after, during, or before the pictures you are shooting. When you get to the RAW conversion you select the proper card with your "eyedropper" and it ajusts to the white balance for that scene. You can then use that correction for all scenes shot in that light.Hold on, just a minute.
See the background in this picture? It's a WHITE curtain! Technically called a cyc drop, illuminated by gelled lights. If you held up a white card, grey card or whatever on that stage for use by your eyedropper later, it wouldn't look white. And using it to try to set your white balance would certainly be problematic.

This is the crux of the problem with theatre photography. How do you "white balance" light that isn't even intended to be white?

Using white or grey cards to set white balance is quite useful elsewhere (though I don't understand the need to buy "special" ones), but they won't help much under theatre lighting.

[jimsolt]

Hold on, just a minute.
See the background in this picture? It's a WHITE curtain! Technically called a cyc drop, illuminated by gelled lights. If you held up a white card, grey card or whatever on that stage for use by your eyedropper later, it wouldn't look white. And using it to try to set your white balance would certainly be problematic.

This is the crux of the problem with theatre photography. How do you "white balance" light that isn't even intended to be white?

Using white or grey cards to set white balance is quite useful elsewhere (though I don't understand the need to buy "special" ones), but they won't help much under theatre lighting.

Of course I can't be on that stage to try it, but I think if the white or gray card being held on the stage was in an area, for instance in the same light as the actor's face, and used for a white balance, the actor's face would appear to be normal and your cyc would appear to be the same color it appears in your picture.

If you suggest to your camera that the cyc lights are white, the cyc will be seen by the camera as white. Granted if all the lights on the stage are of some color other than white, this may not be a good technique. If there are no objects on the stage that appear white, you would not want to suggest to your camera or your editing program that they are white. Stage lighting does create problems, but if the object is to take a photograph that looks like the stage does, some white balance reference is needed. If you could be assured that all the lighting instruments are putting out 3200K light before the gels are inserted, that might in fact be the proper reference -- incandescent. That 3200K is a fairly standard approach in TV studios, but is really not necessary and I expect for that reason is not adhered to for stage productions.

As to the cards in the SALES PITCH being different, the seller makes some claims as to their superiority that make some sense, but he also admits other types might work as well. I recommend the tutorial not as a selling point, but as a source for good sound information.

Jim

[Curtis N]

I think if the white or gray card being held on the stage was in an area, for instance in the same light as the actor's face, and used for a white balance, the actor's face would appear to be normal and your cyc would appear to be the same color it appears in your picture. Probably true, if indeed you want the actor's face to appear "normal." So it depends on your goal. Do you want natural-looking skin tones, or to you want to accurately reproduce the color of the actor's face under that lighting? Most often the goal in theatre photography is to try to capture the "mood" generated by the lighting design.

The photo I uploaded was obviously an exteme example to illustrate my point. Usually the coloring of the stage is much more subtle. There is even a special gel called "bastard amber" (don't ask me where that term comes from) which is used to prevent spotlights from "washing out" brightly lit skin.

If you have the opportunity to shoot your white card under a light at full power without any gel, that might give you a benchmark. At some point you need to determine how much fussing around is worth the time for the information it gives you.

[PhotosGuy]

First off, I like the second set (that you adjusted) much better. Me, too. As for the gelled theatrical lighting, I wouldn't fight it. I'd set a 3200K WB & shoot as it is & as the audience sees it.
The "correct" WB isn't always the "right" WB! ;-) For instance, you'll get better colors of a sunset if you use a Cloudy pre-set.

[jimsolt]

There is even a special gel called "bastard amber" (don't ask me where that term comes from) which is used to prevent spotlights from "washing out" brightly lit skin.

I am familiar with "bastard amber." In my college theater we used it in combination with what we dubbed "son of a b*$#ch blue." :lol:

I agree completely that the idea is usually to make it look like it does on the stage.

Jim