gareth Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 An update to my "new camera" situation, as discussed here .... In a complete and utter about-turn from my earlier comments in the other topic, I decided that if I was going to spend money on a camera, I might as well make a proper job of it - so I've got a Minolta Dynax 5D with the 'kit' 18-70mm lens. So far, so good. I'm slowly getting the hang of all this manual control that I suddenly have. I have a question about white balancing, though ... when taking photos of rigs incorporating mixed sources (tungsten and discharge) what do you normally white-balance to? So far, the best results I've got are by manually setting the white balance to something like 3500K - just above the temp of tungsten, but not so high that it puts a blue cast across the picture. Anyone got any hints for getting pictures that look as 'real' as possible in terms of colour temp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marky Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I guess it would depend what you are photographing. If it's photo's of people, who would presumably be lit with a tungsten source, you should favour that colour temperature so that the faces look good and vice versa for a discharge light. The only situation I could think of where you would have a problem with mixed colour temperature's would be something with beams etc. So, I would white balance around 3000k, for the faces and let the beams look slightly colder...or colour correct the beams! I don't think I answered your question though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeR Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Gawd White balance and still cameras eh whats the world coming to. I don't spose it has a built in light meter does it ? If so take your white balance from 15% grey or the palm of your hand which for some reason has the same reflective quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody74 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I favor tungsten for balance, because more often than not, my arc sources have color in them. Now if the color is getting messed up by going tungsten, then I'll try and split the difference. And you can always manipulate after the fact to get a better representation of the actual look. -w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marky Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Huh? A white balance on ANY camera is one of the most important things for good pictures! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeR Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Huh? A white balance on ANY camera is one of the most important things for good pictures!Nonsense None of my 35 mm cameras have a white balance. However I have full control over aperture and shutter speed settings. A jessops lightmeter in the camera bag completes the set up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Lewis Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 None of my 35 mm cameras have a white balance. However I have full control over aperture and shutter speed settings. A jessops lightmeter in the camera bag completes the set up. But surely the issue then is whether your 35mm film is balanced for daylight or artificial light? If you were taking non flash shots under fluorescent lighting, you'd either put up with the green cast, or use a conversion filter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 For the most part I just let my D100 guess. It's usually right, and when it isn't it's close enough for Photoshop to finish the correction without losing anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeR Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 But surely the issue then is whether your 35mm film is balanced for daylight or artificial light? If you were taking non flash shots under fluorescent lighting, you'd either put up with the green cast, or use a conversion filter?Yes you have to buy the right film for the application. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Yes you have to buy the right film for the application.And there is your white balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeR Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Yes but we were talking about specific white balance setting devices on cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbsy Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Exactly the same physics applies to film cameras. As was already noted, you can buy film rated for daylight (most common) or tungsten. Beyond that though, if you're shooting colour negative film, when this is printed compensating filters are included in the system to further correct for minor variations. (As an aside, in professional film making, the "colour timing" for the print is a major part of the post production process. It used to be done purely optically with filters, but nowadays can also be handled electronically, allowing a great range of control.) The only difference with electronic cameras is that the user is applying the colour correction (or some of it) at the time the photo is taken, either manually or through "automatic colour balance" features. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuxlux Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Anyone got any hints for getting pictures that look as 'real' as possible in terms of colour temp?Have you considered getting a gray card and setting it with that? That way its actually based on how the camera sees the light in a venue...though only as a specific point obviously.http://www.rawworkflow.com/products/whibal/http://www.photoxels.com/tutorial_white-balance.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p.k.roberts Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Have you considered getting a gray card and setting it with that? That way its actually based on how the camera sees the light in a venue...though only as a specific point obviously. As you say, only at a specific point; so it's not really going to work is it? Also, the way a camera renders colours will probably not match the way the human eye sees them and that's before you view the images on a monitor which has yet another way of construing the colours! So I would suggest that in the the real world, the best you can hope for is to give the closest impression possible of the way the lighting appeared to you.To do this I would suggest that you pick a fixed white balance on the camera, chuck the images into your picture manipulating software of choice and tweak them to acheive this. :blink: - quote tags fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuxlux Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 As you say, only at a specific point; so it's not really going to work is it?It's potentially more consistent than "auto white balance" as that can vary from shot to shot. Also, the camera guesses from what it can see and tries to make what it thinks is balanced. It can be a better starting point that forcing it to a particular temperature.Also, the way a camera renders colours will probably not match the way the human eye sees them and that's before you view the images on a monitor which has yet another way of construing the colours!Very true, the amount of variation in monitors/printers etc... course you can go for colour profiles and calibration, but that's likely to be long drawn out. There's an element of "adjust to taste". It's rather like sound reproduction -- are you trying to make an absolute identical likeness, or something that sounds good, and even fool the brain into thinking its the absolute likeness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.