|
Re: the six million dollar question!
In reply to Tom2572,
6 months ago
|
Tom2572 wrote:
Nell27 wrote:
boardsy wrote:
CosmoZooo wrote:
Actually I have a question about the WB which seems relevant to all these WB discussions. What is considered a good WB: meaning does a enthusiast and up photographers aim to account for the indoor lighting to get the colors as they would be without that light. Is a white wall supposed to look white or is it supposed to look as my eyes see it without the camera?
I other words the walls in my room right now don't look quite white because of the dim incandescent lighting plus the shadows from multiple objects make it even less white and uneven. Of course the lighting also impacts the skin colors of the people I see making them more yellow.
I've raised this same question after one of my friends who is more into photography commented on the inaccurate WB on his face, but later as I was thinking about it I realized that the camera is more or less showing what my eyes see, which is colors according to the ambient lighting. If the wall doesn't look white to me and the face looks more yellow under the indoor lighting, why wouldn't I want the camera to reflect that?
"Accurate" white balance or realistic "as it was" white balance? I truly don't understand photographers who insist on making a scene, that was yellow-tinted due to sodium lighting, look "true" white, which is actually blue-ish daylight caused by the diffusion of sunlight through the earth's atmosphere (presumably?) i.e. just a different lighting environment. Maybe they get taught it in photography school? Or they think it makes them more scientific and professional, and able to spot the issue in amateurs' shots so they can tsk-tsk and shake their heads; "shoulda fixed the white balance"?
Having said that editing is in the eye of the beholder, and if you prefer the "true" white look or realistic as-it-was for your shots, more power to you. I admit I sometimes choose a half-way point between as-shot and "accurate" for the best of both worlds.
Alan
It's really very simple. Proper white balance gives you correct colors.
Photography is as much about lighting as it is anything else and if your pictures were taken in a room where the color temperature of the lighting was too warm or cool, then there's a 90% chance that your pictures will have improper color (the quality of the lighting was poor).
Yes, the picture you get may look like the scene you photographed but that doesn't mean it's technically a good picture. You'll like it (and that's really all that matters) but people who know something about photography (other than pushing a button) will see a problem.
I've been involved with photography for quite awhile and know a few professional photographers. I don't know anyone who sets an improper white balance on purpose. As a matter of fact, proper white balance and exposure are the two most important technical aspects of any picture.
Once you have these two aspects correct, you can easily make any artistic adjustments in Photoshop.
Naturally everyone is different; many people are happy with what they're doing and couldn't care less about the technical side of photography. Nothing wrong with that. Photography is a personal thing and, as I said, as long as a person is happy, with their pictures, that's all that matters.
Call me crazy, but I tend to put composition a little higher on the totem pole than WB and exposure, both of which can be fixed in post (exposure within reason of course). What you can't fix is a bad composition no matter how hard you try. Personally, I tend to split the middle with incandescent lighting. I was there, I remember the yellow cast. I'll tone it down a bit but I'm not going to turn yellow into white, and I'll actually say that people who know more than the people who know something about photography will see even more of a problem when a lamp in the background of a photo is emitting a brilliant white cast.
I pretty much agree. "Correcting" the WB in post process can benefit some images, but applying it without a thought to every image often produces images with a sort of a "clinical" look - like they were taken in an operating room. Sometimes it works out, other times not.
Tastes vary, though - I've even seen WB correction applied to pictures taken in candlelight. I personally wasn't impressed by the results.
| Post (hide subjects) | Posted by | When | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | 2 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 2 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 3 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 2 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 3 | ||
| 6 months ago |