White balance tips

[mikeintosh]

Does anyone have any helpful tips on white balancing? I'd like to be able to capture the lighting in the tank exactly the way it looks -- regardless of the type of bulb? I would like to avoid having to resort to any Photoshop work, if possible.

Right now when I manually WB, the colors look, I suppose, as they SHOULD if they were under white light. But I would like to be able to capture the corals with the blue tint from the 20k bulbs.

Any of you experienced photographers have any useful tips?

Thanks

[TitusvileSurfer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14260369#post14260369 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh
I'd like to be able to capture the lighting in the tank exactly the way it looks -- regardless of the type of bulb?

That probably is not going to happen. Your monitor is going to show you different colors than what the picture actually is. My monitor looks different than your monitor. "Exactly the way it looks -- regardless of the type of bulb" just isn't going to happen.



<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14260369#post14260369 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh
I would like to avoid having to resort to any Photoshop work, if possible.
Well....ummmmm....are we talking about the same WhiteBalance? :confused:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14260369#post14260369 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh
Right now when I manually WB, the colors look, I suppose, as they SHOULD if they were under white light. But I would like to be able to capture the corals with the blue tint from the 20k bulbs.

Well like I said it will never be exact, but you can get it pretty darn close. By making the tank white, you are actually changing it from blue to red. So just change it back to blue. Without Photoshop? I still don't get that one. Just how are you expecting to do this?

[mikeintosh]

Photoshop was only brought up because I would like to capture the image as close to "what I see" as I can. Do all the work FROM THE CAMERA and resort to as little post production as possible.

I guess I may be explaining wrong... but with the way I'm currently white balancing, the corals look very drab. Like if you were looking at them under common white light -- no depth or richness. I'd like the photo to have the same rich tint of blue as if they were under the 20k's... make any sense?

Right now I have one of those white balance lens caps. They're a bit tricky to get right, though. Should I be facing the source of light or the subject when adjusting the WB?

The auto WB gets a lot closer, but the reason I have the slr is for the control.

[TitusvileSurfer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14260549#post14260549 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh
Photoshop was only brought up because I would like to capture the image as close to "what I see" as I can. Do all the work FROM THE CAMERA and resort to as little post production as possible.

That is silly. Photoshop's job is to get the image as close to "what you see" as possible.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14260549#post14260549 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh
I guess I may be explaining wrong... but with the way I'm currently white balancing, the corals look very drab. Like if you were looking at them under common white light -- no depth or richness. I'd like the photo to have the same rich tint of blue as if they were under the 20k's... make any sense?
So use Photoshop to correct for that.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14260549#post14260549 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh
Right now I have one of those white balance lens caps. They're a bit tricky to get right, though. Should I be facing the source of light or the subject when adjusting the WB?
You should adjust the WB with Photoshop.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14260549#post14260549 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh
The auto WB gets a lot closer, but the reason I have the slr is for the control.
Control is Photoshop's last name.

[Recty]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14260549#post14260549 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh
but the reason I have the slr is for the control. Thats pretty much the reason to have photoshop too :)

[Reef Bass]

I fiddled (wasted time) with custom white balances for too long and never got the colors right. They would get closer to what I saw but were still too far off.

The breakthrough for me came when I followed the advice in this forum to shoot in RAW mode and to set the color temp in Photoshop. Colors look great. And it's SO easy.

Photoshop is not an evil to be avoided. It is your friend that can help you make your picture look as close to what you see as modern imaging technology will allow. Or you can take your picture apart and reassemble it in a different way. The choice is yours.

And frankly, I find it more of a challenge to make my pictures look as much like the live subject as possible than to create a visually abstract though "inaccurate" image (while that's fun too).

Once you go RAW, you'll never go back...

[dendronepthya]

I trust Photoshop's algorithms more than the ones in my camera.

[cjtice]

I had read a thread here the other day that mentioned using "the coffee filter" trick to adjust their custom WB. Does anyone else know what this means.

I am kinda with Mikeintosh, in that if you compose the picture correctly, you minimize your time in PP. I have done a lot of reading in Photography magazines and on the web on the POTN board, and they would all agree that the real skill is in composing and once you master that, you will need very little Post Processing.

I still use PS to alter my pics, cause I have not fugured out how to master composure, but when I do, I will be one happy man. I mean, I can take 500 pics with my 40D and about 10 turn out good enough to even look closer at.

Good Luck,
Chris

[TWallace]

If you have a DSLR, the easiest option is to shoot in RAW mode and use Adobe Camera Raw to adjust the white balance. I've tried shooting in JPG and setting a custom white balance. I could never get it just right and it would often take several attempts just for my camera to set the white balance (Nikon D50) when pointing at the sand or some other white object in the tank. Switching to RAW has made my life so much easier with white balance, I'll never go back to JPG for aquarium shots.

[mikeintosh]

Exactly my point, Chris... I never wanted to take PS out of the equation, but I really would rather utilize it as a tool for enhancement and slight color correction. And the "coffee filter" trick is covering the lens while setting the white balance. It works great in a pinch but isn't always so accurate.

I would much rather spend more time composing and color adjusting behind the camera ONCE so all my shots in that session come out fine... as opposed to being forced to spend hours fixing each photo. I'm looking to improve as a photographer not necessarily as an image doctor.

TWallace: I may have to try your RAW trick. I've been trying to avoid shooting RAW because of file size, but I may have to give this one a try. Thanks.

[TitusvileSurfer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14275660#post14275660 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh
I would much rather spend more time composing and color adjusting behind the camera ONCE so all my shots in that session come out fine...
Batch processing is lost on so many people. If you want to edit all of your images the same way, you can edit 1000 of them at the same time.

[mikeintosh]

Understood. But it won't improve my photography skills...

[TitusvileSurfer]

but that's just it, editing is photography skills.

[Reef Bass]

editing is photography skills

So very true. When I got my dSLR, I was familiar with film photography and concepts. Post processing beyond cropping was a new frontier. And what one does with post processing is very much photography. Adjusting composition through cropping. Adjusting contrast and lighting via software. All photography skills.

Of course, one needs to develop the computer skills to effectively manipulate the photograph digitally, but it's still photography.

[mikeintosh]

Agreed. But that's only one aspect of it. I'm still trying to develop my skills pre-production, which most folks lack as well. If you ask any Professional Photographer (who's job is not image manipulation), they would tell you, as well, they would rather spend much less time on Photoshop and more time shooting.

I am a graphic artist by trade and spend all day on PS as it is. But I would like to develop my "in the field" skills as well.

Re: batch processing, it really is only effective if the conditions in the shots are identical.

[Reef Bass]

Yes, quality image capture is the heart of the photography, digital or film. No amount of post processing can save a poorly focused overexposed image. And sure, more perfect original images usually get less post processing.

We bring different backgrounds to the conversation. Me with my film photography and computer but not Photoshop background and you with your Photoshop abilities wanting to strengthen your image capture talent.

[BlueCorn]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14278217#post14278217 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh
Agreed. But that's only one aspect of it. I'm still trying to develop my skills pre-production, which most folks lack as well. If you ask any Professional Photographer (who's job is not image manipulation), they would tell you, as well, they would rather spend much less time on Photoshop and more time shooting.


Yes.

But they would also tell you, with regard to white balance, that shooting RAW and adjusting WB in post-processing is the most effective and most accurate method.

Photographers have been "setting white balance" since color film was invented. Whether through the chemical processing method or via film selection; i.e. daylight, tungsten, etc...

Photoshop, or whatever post processing tool you use, isn't evil or cheating. Much of the "craft" in film photography is in the processing. Ansel Adams considered the negative to be like a musical score. The true performance was in the print. He spent days on each image, in the darkroom, until the print came out the way that he wanted. Most of the techniques that we use in photoshop, as photographers, come from the traditional darkroom. If Ansel was alive today he'd be using photoshop.

While I absolutely believe that you should do everything in your power to get the shot right in the camera, there are somethings that are just better handled after the fact.

[BlueCorn]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14278217#post14278217 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh

Re: batch processing, it really is only effective if the conditions in the shots are identical.

White balance generally doesn't change during a given shoot. If you take 100 pictures of your aquarium over the course on an hour the WB setting is going to be REALLY close to the same on every shot. In Adobe Lightroom I can adjust all 100 or those image in about 3 clicks of a mouse.

[mikeintosh]

With respect to Photoshop, I am in total agreement that it is an invaluable tool in photography. Unfortunately, most people jump in to post-production before they've even understood the basics. Even Ansel Adams learned to be well-versed behind the lens before composing in the dark room.

And, sorry, I forgot to include my comment that when white balancing, conditions change on different shoots; so batching wouldn't necessarily apply.

I am really surprised to hear so little support for understanding how to shoot great photographs BEFORE jumping into Photoshop. Back in the dark room days, I would never advise someone (who's learning) to practice in the dark room before being able to understand how to take good shots, much less know how to use their camera. Photoshop is more of an abused tool nowadays.

Although I do enjoy this friendly banter, I still have yet to hear any folks suggest tips on how to SHOOT better aquarium photos.

[BlueCorn]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14279056#post14279056 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh

Although I do enjoy this friendly banter, I still have yet to hear any folks suggest tips on how to SHOOT better aquarium photos.

They've been suggesting it, you just don't like the answer.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14279056#post14279056 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh
I am really surprised to hear so little support for understanding how to shoot great photographs BEFORE jumping into Photoshop.


I'm not seeing that at all. Nearly everyone on the thread has been echoing the point that there is an absolute need to get as much right as possible, in camera. White balance, especially in aquarium lighting conditions, just happens to be one that better suited to adjustment via software. You don't have to agree but it is true. Every professional that I work with, with the exception of one who has Expodisk as a sponsor, shoots RAW and adjusts WB after the fact. If you're obsessing about your WB while you're shooting you're just not going to be productive.

Do what you like but belittling people for using the correct tool for the job is a bit asinine.

Cheers

[kilroy217]

Only one person here has mentioned Lightroom. If you're not an uber-Photoshop user, Lightroom is the perfect alternative. You can still do batch processing of white balance, exposure, or any other component of the photos. I agree with what beerguy said with respect to one thing - get as much right as possible, in camera, but don't obsess over white balance, because it is one of those things that is very easy to change with software. Just my two pennies worth... thanks for listening. :)

[Tremont]

I use one of these to set white balance when shooting in jpeg mode (which I do often for doing long time lapse captures):

http://www.expodisc.com/product-overview.php?cat_id=1&keywords=ExpoDisc

It works flawlessly if I point this at my light and set the custom white balance that way (ie. the white balance is the same as what I see through the viewfinder).

If I am taking stills, I just shoot in RAW and set the white balance in Photoshop.

-Tre

[mikeintosh]

Thanks, I think I'll give that expodisc a try.

[BlueCorn]

:lol:

[TitusvileSurfer]

Wait your going to pay over $200 for a couple of filters you have to screw on and off before each shot, which in the end will have less realistic results than a couple of clicks of a mouse anyway?

I'm totally confused.

"Photographers... now seem content to leave their digital cameras in a white balance mode that is at best a crap shoot and at worst completely inaccurate... Thankfully, a company called ExpoImaging is working very hard to make the process of getting a custom white balance so easy that it would be criminal to avoid the process."

Yes well...its the late 2000's. Technology is to the point that we can be perfectly content. For the guys stuck in the 90's...try this product. Wait. Editing software was up to speed by the 90's. For the guys stuck in the 80's...try this product.

[Poseidon]

mikeintosh- One thing that has not been mentioned yet, that can have a DRAMATIC effect on your images is that most aquarium lighting "flickers" whether it is halide or Fluorescent. This flicker can ruin white balance for one image, or all of them... Have you ever taken a series of pictures in a high school gym? Ever get that one image that is just way off in color? Same thing can happen at your aquarium.

I think it is great that you are trying to minimize computer time, to increase shooting time, but at some point it becomes counter productive. I use both Lightroom and CS4 to process my Wedding images, and I would never be able to set a perfect WB for the ever changing conditions that I am presented with.

Please don't develop an aversion for post processing, it is a tool, and it is there to help you. ;)

[Tremont]

Buying an Expodisc was much cheaper than buying Photoshop CS4 to automate converting several thousand RAW images to the same white balance setting (I can't find a way to do this in Elements). You can achieve a similar result by pointing your camera at something white with your light pointed at it if you don't want to waste 100 bucks.

Using Expodisc gives me a accurate picture with zero post production and very little hassle. I don't use it for stills for the exact same reason, because I can make my images look much better by doing the post production.

I would love to be able to do the RAW conversion for the whole time lapse sequence manually as it would result in a better video.

-Tre

[TitusvileSurfer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14275660#post14275660 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh
I would much rather spend more time composing and color adjusting behind the camera ONCE so all my shots in that session come out fine...
You do realize that screwing on that filter, or setting up white balance with any other method are only effective if the conditions in the shots are identical right? ONCE you figure out what to set in camera, you must redo everything from scratch every time the conditions change.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14278217#post14278217 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh
Re: batch processing, it really is only effective if the conditions in the shots are identical.
Very simply, you are asking how to batch process before the photos are recorded. I hope your shooting a brick wall, because anything will legs will be gone by the time you figure out what your doing and are ready to take a picture.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14275660#post14275660 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh
TWallace: I may have to try your RAW trick. I've been trying to avoid shooting RAW because of file size, but I may have to give this one a try. Thanks.
You realize RAW is what we are referring to when we say Photoshop right? He tricked you. =) Its very funny because a RAW image MUST be edited and converted to a JPEG before the image is usable. So much for your editing time. <a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14278217#post14278217 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh
If you ask any Professional Photographer (who's job is not image manipulation), they would tell you, as well, they would rather spend much less time on Photoshop and more time shooting.
I bet your average professional photographer spends at least double the time in Photoshop than they do shooting. Take a Wedding photographer, unless they are specifically going for speed, I bet they spend 10 times the amount in Photoshop than they did at the wedding. If the wedding photographer is going for speed, the images are likely being downloaded remotely to a van in the parking lot where multiple editors are busy like elves in Santa's workshop.

[TitusvileSurfer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14279056#post14279056 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh
With respect to Photoshop, I am in total agreement that it is an invaluable tool in photography. Unfortunately, most people jump in to post-production before they've even understood the basics. Even Ansel Adams learned to be well-versed behind the lens before composing in the dark room.


I don't think you get it. What your wanting to do is dark room work. It is post production work. This has nothing to do with understanding the basics. Perfect colors are well beyond the basics.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14279056#post14279056 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh

And, sorry, I forgot to include my comment that when white balancing, conditions change on different shoots; so batching wouldn't necessarily apply.

HELLO?! Of course they change. Five seconds of mouse clicks is time better spent than 2-5 minutes of adjustments every time this change occurs. Heck if you came shooting with with me tomorrow you'd never take a picture. The light changes faster than you could figure out what setting to use. I can't even change my exposure fast enough.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14279056#post14279056 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh

I am really surprised to hear so little support for understanding how to shoot great photographs BEFORE jumping into Photoshop. Back in the dark room days, I would never advise someone (who's learning) to practice in the dark room before being able to understand how to take good shots, much less know how to use their camera. Photoshop is more of an abused tool nowadays.

You have your priorities sooo mixed up. I find it hard to believe you use Photoshop for a living as a graphic artist and can't grasp this.
Back in the dark room days you would never advise someone to practice in the dark room before being able to understand how to take good shots, much less know how to use a camera?
Sir, if you don't understand exposure, metering, composition, and all of the other bare bones basics which aren't even related to white balance, why are you so worried about color correction? White Balace may not be difficult, but it isn't basics.

People didn't piddle around dark rooms for many reasons.
A. Dangerous chemicals take married with children out of the equation.
B. You have to fully and completely dedicate a room in your house for this purpose.
C. Aside from the fact of loosing a room in your house, dark rooms are very expensive.
D. The knowledge required to edit film color photographs in a dark room is scary.

Photoshop, compared to a dark room, is VERY easy, VERY inexpensive, and it consumes VERY little time.

Now that I have told you why nobody but the most dedicated had their own color-capable dark room (black and white dark rooms don't count in this white balance thread.) I want you to look at some color pictures taken in the 60's, 70's, or early 80's. I bet they have a reddish cast to them hu? You see to correct for white balance in film, the film itself has to be tailored to the white your balancing to. Most film has a reddish cast because of the typical bluish lighting. Now those who had a dark room could correct for these discrepancies on their own, those who did not got lots of orange pictures from the lab.

As you can see, "Back in the dark room days, I would never advise someone (who's learning) to practice in the dark room before being able to understand how to take good shots" is a sill thing to say.

"In the Photoshop era, I would advise someone (who's learning) to practice after each shoot before being able to understand how to take good shots" makes a lot more sense.

[mikeintosh]

Man, you guys are some angry cats...

The original question asked for help pre-production. Didn't think it would strike a nerve with a couple of you.

Much thanks anyways to the rest of you guys.

[TitusvileSurfer]

What I am getting at is you are a self proclaimed post-production pro. Your are literally a professional by trade and definition. Why are you so determined to solve a post-production issue with pre-production? Especially after knowing it will cost more money and take more time for results which won't come out as accurate by comparison, it just doesn't make any sense at all.

[Yankees2519]

i skimmed through this thread so ill offer my opinion.. i shoot raw mostly, but still try to get the WB as accurate as possible so i dont spend as much time in PP. To answer your question about the "coffee filter" trick, you simply place a clean white coffee filter over the end of your lens and take a picture of a bright part of your tank. use that picture to set a custom WB. ive tried it once and was pretty impressed how well it worked. Good luck!