pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: White Balance  (Read 5386 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

tab62

« on: March 15, 2011, 15:23 »
0
Lately, I have been getting rejections due to incorrect White Balance- someone mention to me about setting my camera to Auto on the White Balance- Currently, I have it set to Neutral. Any ideas on how I can get better White Balance folks?

Thanks.

Tom


« Reply #1 on: March 15, 2011, 16:09 »
0
It depends on your camera. If you shoot in RAW you can reset it in the RAW processor. If you can set it manually you can set it by shooting a piece of white or grey paper in the lighting conditions you are shooting in and then setting the WB from that photo. The camera manual should have the details in it.

lagereek

« Reply #2 on: March 15, 2011, 16:19 »
0
Well I presume youre shooting in RAW and as already said it depends on camera and sadly no camera has really got a good WB, not even the HD systems.

White paper, yes. Best method, although expensive is to use Auto and then tweak the colors in the raw converter.

« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2011, 16:23 »
0
Hi Tom,

Just read manual.

« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2011, 16:26 »
0
Honestly, until you really know what you are doing you are far better off simply sticking with your camera's default settings. To do otherwise is very much like buying a dog and barking yourself. Not only is it much harder work but you won't do as good a job as the dog.

Forget WB, graycards and all that stuff unless you are shooting commercial product/fashion images in which absolutely accurate representation of the exact colours is essential.

The only reason I shoot in 'P' mode rather than full Auto is that in Auto the camera also decides the ISO which I don't want. The main problem with that is the camera can choose some weird numbers like ISO 320 which seems to cause excessive noise/artifacts for stock purposes.

So many photographers seem to try so hard to make life difficult for themselves. They pay huge amounts of money for some very sophisticated electronics and the expertise of a major manufacturer ... and then override it all thinking they can do the job better themselves.

lagereek

« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2011, 16:35 »
0
Honestly, until you really know what you are doing you are far better off simply sticking with your camera's default settings. To do otherwise is very much like buying a dog and barking yourself. Not only is it much harder work but you won't do as good a job as the dog.

Forget WB, graycards and all that stuff unless you are shooting commercial product/fashion images in which absolutely accurate representation of the exact colours is essential.

The only reason I shoot in 'P' mode rather than full Auto is that in Auto the camera also decides the ISO which I don't want. The main problem with that is the camera can choose some weird numbers like ISO 320 which seems to cause excessive noise/artifacts for stock purposes.

So many photographers seem to try so hard to make life difficult for themselves. They pay huge amounts of money for some very sophisticated electronics and the expertise of a major manufacturer ... and then override it all thinking they can do the job better themselves.

To be honest with you, I cant really see anything working in P or fully Auto modes. For starters if you shoot in Raw, which you should do, all in-camera settings should be zeroed, especially sharpness and noise-red, these are the ones causing artifacts and noise.

WB, is of less importance since many pros simply shoot with a daylight setting and then simply tweak the colors the way they want them. To achieve the right colors are alway critical, maybe not 100% spot-on but as close as possible.

« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2011, 17:06 »
0
To be honest with you, I cant really see anything working in P or fully Auto modes. For starters if you shoot in Raw, which you should do, all in-camera settings should be zeroed, especially sharpness and noise-red, these are the ones causing artifacts and noise.

WB, is of less importance since many pros simply shoot with a daylight setting and then simply tweak the colors the way they want them. To achieve the right colors are alway critical, maybe not 100% spot-on but as close as possible.
But he's not a 'pro'. He hasn't got the gear of a pro or the experience of how to use it and he's not being paid like one either. Therefore Mr Canon's default settings will do a far better job for him than his own guesswork for a good few years yet.

What do you mean you "can't see anything working in P or fully Auto modes" anyway? JPEG and P Mode have worked just fine for me and, as far as I'm aware, none of the 250K+ licenses I've sold have had reason to complain. This is microstock. It's about the efficient production, both in time and money, of stock images to the required specification. The required specification being the succesful acceptance of said images by the agencies. Anything more than that is a waste of your time and your money. I'd rather spend more time on the golf course than hours messing about in RAW for no noticeable gain in either quality or value.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2011, 17:08 by gostwyck »

« Reply #7 on: March 15, 2011, 19:25 »
0

To be honest with you, I cant really see anything working in P or fully Auto modes. For starters if you shoot in Raw, which you should do, all in-camera settings should be zeroed, especially sharpness and noise-red, these are the ones causing artifacts and noise.

It's my understanding that in-camera settings are used for JPEG-creation. The camera always shoots RAW, uses the settings and create a JPEG and then deletes the RAW if you didnt choose to keep it. RAW is data straight from the sensor.

lagereek

« Reply #8 on: March 16, 2011, 01:25 »
0
To be honest with you, I cant really see anything working in P or fully Auto modes. For starters if you shoot in Raw, which you should do, all in-camera settings should be zeroed, especially sharpness and noise-red, these are the ones causing artifacts and noise.

WB, is of less importance since many pros simply shoot with a daylight setting and then simply tweak the colors the way they want them. To achieve the right colors are alway critical, maybe not 100% spot-on but as close as possible.
But he's not a 'pro'. He hasn't got the gear of a pro or the experience of how to use it and he's not being paid like one either. Therefore Mr Canon's default settings will do a far better job for him than his own guesswork for a good few years yet.

What do you mean you "can't see anything working in P or fully Auto modes" anyway? JPEG and P Mode have worked just fine for me and, as far as I'm aware, none of the 250K+ licenses I've sold have had reason to complain. This is microstock. It's about the efficient production, both in time and money, of stock images to the required specification. The required specification being the succesful acceptance of said images by the agencies. Anything more than that is a waste of your time and your money. I'd rather spend more time on the golf course than hours messing about in RAW for no noticeable gain in either quality or value.

Oh dear!  no, no, it wasnt meant as critics you know. All in all, sure as he says below, if you shoot in Raw, forget it, you can use any old settings and just change it in the converter.

Me personlly?  I dont even use any WB in-camera I use a Binuscan and Zeiss spectro/color, for really critical work but for those who doesnt depend on photography for a living, its a too expensive piece of hardware.

« Reply #9 on: March 16, 2011, 07:55 »
0
Quote
the camera can choose some weird numbers like ISO 320

I've read that the ISOs 160, 320 and multiples there-of are actually native ISOs producing the least amount of noise and that the rest are just exposure compensated from those values.

I've seen tests that show that ISO 160 is actually cleaner than ISO 100.

P.S. I haven't done the tests myself, just seen the results of tests that others have performed.

« Reply #10 on: March 16, 2011, 09:06 »
0
Quote
the camera can choose some weird numbers like ISO 320


I've read that the ISOs 160, 320 and multiples there-of are actually native ISOs producing the least amount of noise and that the rest are just exposure compensated from those values.

I've seen tests that show that ISO 160 is actually cleaner than ISO 100.

P.S. I haven't done the tests myself, just seen the results of tests that others have performed.


If the following article is right, then ISO 160 is actually ISO 200 pulled down by a third of a stop, which reduces noise (good) and costs dynamic range (bad), so there are two sides to it. Maybe the cameras default to these figures to reduce noise, which people are more likely to notice than loss of DR.

"So, if the 160-multiple ISOs are not the native ones, why are they cleaner, and how are they derived? Well, it is correct that the 125-multiple ISOs are the noisiest because they are derived by a digital exposure push. ISO 125 is actually ISO 100 with a 1/3 stop digital exposure push, ISO 250 is ISO 200 with a 1/3 stop digital exposure push, etc. However, the 160-multiple ISOs are actually the cleanest not because they are "native", but because they are a result of a digital exposure pull. This pull brings down the exposure of the entire image, and hides much of the noise that would be visible at the next higher ISO. ISO 160 is the cleanest because it is the native ISO 200 with a 1/3 stop digital exposure pull, yielding even less noise. ISO 320 is actually ISO 400, with a 1/3 stop exposure pull, etc.

So now that we know this, which ISO settings are best? Just because 160, 320, 640, etc, are not "native" does that mean you shouldn't use them? Well, no, not necessarily. They are less noisy, after all. It's just important to understand that there is a price to pay for this lack of noise. That price is decreased dynamic range.

Because ISO 320 is actually ISO 400 pulled 1/3 of a stop, that means that the highlights are going to clip at exactly the same point as they would at ISO 400. The 1/3 stop pull is just making that point 1/3 stop darker than pure white. The entire image at ISO 320 is 1/3 stop darker (and may be less noisy) than the image at ISO 400, so the blacks lose detail 1/3 stop sooner, but you don't get that 1/3 stop back at the highlight end of the range -- it's still gone. Therefore, at ISO 320 you're losing a net 1/3 stop from the total usable dynamic range that you would have if you were shooting at ISO 400."


The article is here: http://shootintheshot.joshsilfen.com/2010/05/13/canon-hd-dslr-native-iso/

RacePhoto

« Reply #11 on: March 17, 2011, 00:11 »
0
Seems I've been reading this about non-native ISOs for years. The 50 and 80 on some cameras, is just an electronic variation of the 100 ISO and doesn't make the same difference as between 100 and 200, which are real ISO ratings. If my S90 has 80 ISO I doubt if it's really 80. I don't know, didn't research it, I just shoot at 100. But on a 5D the 50 is real! Kind of like digital zoom which might as well not exist. Not sure if the ISO 50 on the G series is real or some dummied down 100?

Pushing ISO is the cause of the nosier results. Pulling will get the same as the native ISO. At least that's the way I've read it in the past.

The Canon G cameras have a built in ND filter which isn't a filter, it's electronic. :D There's your pulled intermediate ISOs useful function if needed.

 

Quote
the camera can choose some weird numbers like ISO 320


I've read that the ISOs 160, 320 and multiples there-of are actually native ISOs producing the least amount of noise and that the rest are just exposure compensated from those values.

I've seen tests that show that ISO 160 is actually cleaner than ISO 100.

P.S. I haven't done the tests myself, just seen the results of tests that others have performed.


If the following article is right, then ISO 160 is actually ISO 200 pulled down by a third of a stop, which reduces noise (good) and costs dynamic range (bad), so there are two sides to it. Maybe the cameras default to these figures to reduce noise, which people are more likely to notice than loss of DR.

"So, if the 160-multiple ISOs are not the native ones, why are they cleaner, and how are they derived? Well, it is correct that the 125-multiple ISOs are the noisiest because they are derived by a digital exposure push. ISO 125 is actually ISO 100 with a 1/3 stop digital exposure push, ISO 250 is ISO 200 with a 1/3 stop digital exposure push, etc. However, the 160-multiple ISOs are actually the cleanest not because they are "native", but because they are a result of a digital exposure pull. This pull brings down the exposure of the entire image, and hides much of the noise that would be visible at the next higher ISO. ISO 160 is the cleanest because it is the native ISO 200 with a 1/3 stop digital exposure pull, yielding even less noise. ISO 320 is actually ISO 400, with a 1/3 stop exposure pull, etc.

So now that we know this, which ISO settings are best? Just because 160, 320, 640, etc, are not "native" does that mean you shouldn't use them? Well, no, not necessarily. They are less noisy, after all. It's just important to understand that there is a price to pay for this lack of noise. That price is decreased dynamic range.

Because ISO 320 is actually ISO 400 pulled 1/3 of a stop, that means that the highlights are going to clip at exactly the same point as they would at ISO 400. The 1/3 stop pull is just making that point 1/3 stop darker than pure white. The entire image at ISO 320 is 1/3 stop darker (and may be less noisy) than the image at ISO 400, so the blacks lose detail 1/3 stop sooner, but you don't get that 1/3 stop back at the highlight end of the range -- it's still gone. Therefore, at ISO 320 you're losing a net 1/3 stop from the total usable dynamic range that you would have if you were shooting at ISO 400."


The article is here: http://shootintheshot.joshsilfen.com/2010/05/13/canon-hd-dslr-native-iso/


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
13 Replies
4194 Views
Last post January 21, 2011, 02:02
by luissantos84
White Balance

Started by tab62 « 1 2  All » Newbie Discussion

33 Replies
9499 Views
Last post April 10, 2011, 20:20
by luissantos84
74 Replies
20068 Views
Last post January 15, 2012, 13:49
by Sandeel
9 Replies
4049 Views
Last post June 19, 2012, 15:24
by StanRohrer
41 Replies
11666 Views
Last post October 22, 2012, 04:04
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results