Author Topic: Looking for the ultimate answer on White Balance (Read 21103 times)

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #25 on:** March 09, 2015, 22:57 »

Pretty simple answer is, if the film is normally Daylight 5400K and you add a 81A you would have 5000K.

Since we are digital, filters are pretty much irrelevant, because you can change the "film" (digital recording sensor) to whatever you want.

If you put an 81A on your lens and shoot Auto White Balance, you will have accomplished nothing. The camera will correct as if there was no filter.

I shoot Auto White and correct after.

For people who like complete control, you can select the White Balance and correct after.

Or maybe use the grey card and set everything perfectly with a grey card and adjust afterwards. I just prefer the easier route, since I'm going to adjust afterwards... I shoot auto white balance.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 09, 2015, 06:58

Errm - isn't "white balancing" all about adjusting the colour balance to replicate what the scene would look like under white light?

You can use it to do other things, of course, but tungsten-balanced film in the old days had a strong blue cast to balance the orange of the lights, and the 81A filter (if I remember the name correctly) was created to do the same thing if you were shooting with daylight balanced film in a tungsten lit environment.

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #26 on:** March 10, 2015, 00:40 »

Quote from: bunhill on March 09, 2015, 15:14

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on March 09, 2015, 15:10
When we were used to shot in film we had not all these problems… it was daylight or tungsten. Stop.
And we all lived happy like this…

I used to do a lot of RA-4 color printing in the early 90s. You could pretty much compensate for a caste just the same as today.

Of couse I was telling about E6 (and previously E4) process
In my work I used only transparencies (slides) and the only possibility of correction was in phase of color separation made by specialists with very expensive equipment (times before the CTP)

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #27 on:** March 11, 2015, 12:34 »

Different question, how do I correct WB on an image without any white in the image?

For example this image:

luissantos84 · « **Reply #28 on:** March 11, 2015, 12:52 »

there is no wb problem, resubmit

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #29 on:** March 11, 2015, 13:05 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 11, 2015, 12:52

there is no wb problem, resubmit

Well, the reviewer and admin think there is. I told them there wasnt, but hey.

I just want to know how to fix the WB when there is no white in the image to go from.

pixsol · « **Reply #30 on:** March 11, 2015, 13:07 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on March 11, 2015, 12:34

Different question, how do I correct WB on an image without any white in the image?

Ron - I dont think the picture has WB issues. If this was a rejection from SS, the reason that you would have received I would assume would be the 'Poor Lighting' pack (exposure / lighting / WB). You may want to look at perhaps making some changes to the exposure (like maybe increase it by 0.10 in LR). Just a thought.

bunhill · « **Reply #31 on:** March 11, 2015, 13:39 »

I think that image could do with being warmer (not because that is necessarily accurate - but because we expect images of old Mediterranean stone to be warmer even in winter). Also probably about 1/3 - 2/3 more exposure towards the centre & a bit of s - curve.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #32 on:** March 11, 2015, 15:03 »

Quote from: pixsol on March 11, 2015, 13:07

Quote from: Semmick Photo on March 11, 2015, 12:34
Different question, how do I correct WB on an image without any white in the image?

Ron - I dont think the picture has WB issues. If this was a rejection from SS, the reason that you would have received I would assume would be the 'Poor Lighting' pack (exposure / lighting / WB). You may want to look at perhaps making some changes to the exposure (like maybe increase it by 0.10 in LR). Just a thought.

Quote

White Balance -- The incorrect white balance setting was used.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #33 on:** March 11, 2015, 15:15 »

Quote from: bunhill on March 11, 2015, 13:39

I think that image could do with being warmer (not because that is necessarily accurate - but because we expect images of old Mediterranean stone to be warmer even in winter). Also probably about 1/3 - 2/3 more exposure towards the centre & a bit of s - curve.

All my images from France, are basically rejected for White balance, focus and noise. There is no noise, I shot them at 100 ISO, focus is tack sharp. Which leaves the WB which apparently is off but I dont see it. I checked images with shadows as Perry mentioned and I couldnt see a color cast on the shadow.

All rejected for WB

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #34 on:** March 11, 2015, 15:28 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on March 11, 2015, 12:34

Different question, how do I correct WB on an image without any white in the image?

For example this image:

I don't see great problem of WB. And anyhow it is very subjective.
Maybe the image is too much magenta and need to be a little lighter, but nothing deserving a rejection.

ultimagina · « **Reply #35 on:** March 11, 2015, 15:31 »

Personal experience with SS when shooting interiors:

Adjusting the WB by clicking on objects as close as possible to neutral grey => rejected
Processing with a warmer WB, closer to what the artificial light produces => accepted.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #36 on:** March 11, 2015, 15:33 »

I have been emailing with SS, but they agree with the reviewer.

So I am trying to understand WB, hence this thread.

How would I correct WB if there is no white? How do I determine what temperature the image needs to be? I assume its based on the conditions during the shoot. Sunny and warm, daylight.

This one is off, I can see that. I agree with the reviewer.

tickstock · « **Reply #37 on:** March 11, 2015, 15:47 »

They are all LCV. Those kinds of shots might have sold a couple times ten years ago but I doubt they would get many downloads these days. My guess is they don't want that type of content but the wb is off and so is the exposure and so is the crop.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #38 on:** March 11, 2015, 16:14 »

Looking at that door, my impression is that the yellows have been boosted in some sort of "vibrance" adjustment, to try to compensate for a WB that is a bit too cool. The result looks unnatural.
I uploaded a shot of a lot of people sitting in shadow the other day, rather than leaving them blue I adjusted the balance to make them look normal, while the edges of the image had a dusty, reddish look. SS was happy with that (and it sold straight away).
There are a lot of things to think about with WB. I have a book by a leading landscape photographer who shot seaside rock pools in shadow without filtering to correct the light, because he wanted a blue cast. Another photographer might have wanted the limestone to look grey, as it normally does. The blue happens to be more effective than a more natural grey would be.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #39 on:** March 11, 2015, 16:45 »

I did boost vibrance, and reduced the blue channel.

But reading all the comments makes me think WB is as subjective as composition. Which makes it hard to figure out what they want. WB has never been a major issue for me and now it is.

Still dont know how to determine what is a correct WB but I will read up about it.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #40 on:** March 11, 2015, 16:55 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on March 11, 2015, 16:45

Still dont know how to determine what is a correct WB but I will read up about it.

the only way to have a 100% correct WB is editing the photo the moment you shoot it, what your eyes are seeing at that exact moment, outdoor WB is always tricky to figure out, don't over think man, just go with what you feel its best

no photographer would edit the same way, that goes for wb, saturation, contrast and all other sliders

hansenn · « **Reply #41 on:** March 11, 2015, 17:33 »

Ron, no one can give you the right receipt for a correct WB. Only the "right out of the book" solutions. It's not that easy as people (books) say.

I also never had WB rejections, untill about past 2 years. Tried to fix them with the eye dropper tool but with no succes.
Sometimes I got them through by changing the WB into daylight, but often they got rejected again.

I surely see WB problems in your images, but maybe that´s subjective.
I would try to move the blue saturation slider in LR to the left, about halfway.

pixsol · « **Reply #42 on:** March 12, 2015, 00:36 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on March 11, 2015, 15:03

Quote from: pixsol on March 11, 2015, 13:07
Quote from: Semmick Photo on March 11, 2015, 12:34
Different question, how do I correct WB on an image without any white in the image?

Ron - I dont think the picture has WB issues. If this was a rejection from SS, the reason that you would have received I would assume would be the 'Poor Lighting' pack (exposure / lighting / WB). You may want to look at perhaps making some changes to the exposure (like maybe increase it by 0.10 in LR). Just a thought.

Quote
White Balance -- The incorrect white balance setting was used.

OK Ron

I always get the 'Poor Lighting' pack as a reason and if in case you had received the same, I thought you could look at the other options.

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #43 on:** March 12, 2015, 02:08 »

When we speak of outdoor photo, in most of the cases, WB is totally subjective and can be different according to the vision or the feeling of the photographer. A personal interpretation, like do painters (nobody will tell to a painter that the WB is incorrect…)

Make them happy, submit these images in black and white!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #44 on:** March 12, 2015, 08:09 »

If you're concerned about 'correct' white balance, put a white/grey/black card in frame for each image, then use that to correct. But if you're just waliking around taking photos, white balance is subjective.

samards · « **Reply #45 on:** March 12, 2015, 11:25 »

I also thought in the beginning that my rejections are for WB, but then realized the are not. WB can be anything, if you like it warm, make it warm (just skin color is a bit tricky), it's all artistic decision

There are though some general rules (for example for daylight or studio lights should be from 5400 - 5600K etc), but WB is not general stock photography problem. It is more light, harsh shadows or lack of details in shadows, blown out highlights, or generally uneven light, even if there are no clippings.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #46 on:** March 12, 2015, 11:36 »

Quote from: samards on March 12, 2015, 11:25

I also thought in the beginning that my rejections are for WB, but then realized the are not. WB can be anything, if you like it warm, make it warm (just skin color is a bit tricky), it's all artistic decision There are though some general rules (for example for daylight or studio lights should be from 5400 - 5600K etc), but WB is not general stock photography problem. It is more light, harsh shadows or lack of details in shadows, blown out highlights, or generally uneven light, even if there are no clippings.

But it becomes a problem when the reviewers tell you this

Quote

White Balance -- The incorrect white balance setting was used.

When something is subjective its all about what the reviewer likes. Art is highly subjective, so at that point its no longer a matter of technical specifications, but emotion and opinion. And thats where things go haywire in the review process. Something is sharp or it isnt, WB and composition cant be judged on in the same way.

Difydave · « **Reply #47 on:** March 12, 2015, 15:05 »

As already said, there is no "right" WB. What I do think though is that it is possible to "improve" an image too much. Shooting outside I usually use "Auto" WB in the camera. I don't use LR, but I shoot RAW, so I tweak the exposure if it needs it in my preferred conversion program. Add a bit of contrast, tiny bit of saturation. Just occasionally I might warm up or cool down a shot very (very) slightly depending on the result I want. That's it as far as exposure/colour is concerned unless I'm looking for a specific effect.
Shooting indoors with flash I set a custom WB using a grey card. It's stored in the camera, so it only needs doing once.

chairboy · « **Reply #48 on:** March 13, 2015, 01:02 »

But it becomes a problem when the reviewers tell you this

Quote

White Balance -- The incorrect white balance setting was used.

Mike, I'm going to guess that the reviewer and his/her handler doesn't understand camera raw, and that it would be fruitless to try explaining.

You might try taking a photo of anything (seriously, anything) at the same settings as the original photo except this time set the WB to Auto. Take your original image, paste it into the new photo, and add whatever metadata ought to be there.

Then re-submit with apologies and tell them you've fixed the problem. It just might work.

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #49 on:** March 13, 2015, 02:32 »

Quote from: chairboy on March 13, 2015, 01:02

[…]
Then re-submit with apologies and tell them you've fixed the problem. It just might work.

Most of the time it works even it you fix… nothing.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Looking for the ultimate answer on White Balance (Read 21103 times)

Uncle Pete

Beppe Grillo

Semmick Photo

luissantos84

Semmick Photo

pixsol

bunhill

Semmick Photo

Semmick Photo

Beppe Grillo

ultimagina

Semmick Photo

tickstock

BaldricksTrousers

Semmick Photo

luissantos84

hansenn

pixsol

Beppe Grillo

Sean Locke Photography

samards

Semmick Photo

Difydave

chairboy

Beppe Grillo

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors