What's wrong with this photo (ignoring subject and composition)

[h00ligan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'd like some feedback on the color balance etc in this photo. The RAW file came out EXTREMELY blue compared to the jpeg produced by the dlux 4. There was little to no thought about composition, this was a daily shooting exercise to wrap my head around lighting. I was really surprised to see the raw come out so blue (does the dlux 4 auto wb in manual mode?).

 

I appreciate the feedback, and again, the subject and composition is bland at best, it was a learning exercise.

 

I should say, what did i do incorrectly in Lightroom - as far as attempting to enhance the color and whatnot.

[h00ligan]

here is the out of the cam jpeg - additionally, sorry about the compression on the first - i'm brand new to lightroom and exported a very poor quality jpg somehow.

[h00ligan]

Here's a jpg out of lightroom without any changes.

[h00ligan]

and to add more confusion, here's another pic from the 'shoot' that was run through lightroom. I have no faith in my 'skills' and would really love pointers of what I'm doing incorrectly in post processing.. unless there's just too much that is bad to even get started - in which case, back to the drawing board!

[Luke_Miller]

I don't think you are doing anything wrong. This image is an extreme example of a scene illuminated by light of different temperatures. The buildings appear to be lighted by the last rays of the setting sun, so that light is very "warm" with lots of red/orange. The foreground appears to be in full shade, so it is very "cold" or blue. If you use a while balance that makes the forground look right the buildings will have exagerated red tones. If you make the buildings look right the forground gets more blue. There is no one white balance setting that will produce an image that looks like what we saw at the time. We have the ability to generally see colors correctly regardless of the temperature of the light, while the camera is greatly influenced by changes in light temperature.

 

What is needed is to white balance the sunlit buildings and the shaded foreground separately. You can do it in Lightroom using the white balance tool for one portion and the brush tool with a color filter for the other.

[h00ligan]

thanks! I'll look into that.

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

First, I would say the main difference I see between the first/fourth images and the middle two is primarily saturation, not white balance. The first/fourth have BOTH more blue and more yellow (more saturation), not a bias towards blue or yellow (WB).

 

(As an aside - what color space are you using for your workflow, and are you using sRGB for the jpegs you post to the web? An image sent to the web with Adobe 1998 color values will always look undersaturated).

 

Secondly, a reminder that there is no such thing as WB in RAW images until you - the photographer - choose it. The camera will store, as one data point, the setting it would have picked for a jpeg, but the RAW software does not have to use that setting. Same goes for Saturation, Contrast, Sharpening, etc. A raw RAW image will rarely look like a jpeg created in the camera - unless and until you make adjustments to all those parameters to make it match (or make it look completely different - your choice).

 

I don't see any need to separately WB the building and the unlit scenery - the contrast between blue and yellow is part of what makes these shots interesting. It is also "natural" - sunsets are reddish precisely because the blue light is being scattered around in the sky. Areas unlit directly by the sun catch all that blue light (which is more or less what Luke said).

 

If you had friends standing on the foreground sidewalk and wanted to eliminate the blue in their skin, that's one thing, but since the light on the building seems to be the main subject, (and looks good in the more intense shots) and the complementary blue color everywhere else sets off that yellow, i don't see a problem.

 

It sounds to me like you probably need to read both a good book on color perception and color photography in general (so you know what it is you're aiming for), and also a book on shooting RAW (so you know how to hit the target). RAW gives better results, but needs a skilled hand to come out right, just as processing color film needs some lab experience.

 

Realistically, one thread on the internet won't come close to giving you all the knowledge you need.

[h00ligan]

First, I would say the main difference I see between the first/fourth images and the middle two is primarily saturation, not white balance. The first/fourth have BOTH more blue and more yellow (more saturation), not a bias towards blue or yellow (WB).

agreed

 

(As an aside - what color space are you using for your workflow, and are you using sRGB for the jpegs you post to the web? An image sent to the web with Adobe 1998 color values will always look undersaturated).

 

I'll have to double check.. and see what comes out of the cam.. thanks for pointing that out.

 

Secondly, a reminder that there is no such thing as WB in RAW images until you - the photographer - choose it. The camera will store, as one data point, the setting it would have picked for a jpeg, but the RAW software does not have to use that setting. Same goes for Saturation, Contrast, Sharpening, etc. A raw RAW image will rarely look like a jpeg created in the camera - unless and until you make adjustments to all those parameters to make it match (or make it look completely different - your choice).

 

Well understood. Sorry if my responses indicated otherwise, i'm quite sure of what raw is and does, but thank you for reiterating, i must have indicated otherwise.

 

I don't see any need to separately WB the building and the unlit scenery - the contrast between blue and yellow is part of what makes these shots interesting. It is also "natural" - sunsets are reddish precisely because the blue light is being scattered around in the sky. Areas unlit directly by the sun catch all that blue light (which is more or less what Luke said).

 

If you had friends standing on the foreground sidewalk and wanted to eliminate the blue in their skin, that's one thing, but since the light on the building seems to be the main subject, (and looks good in the more intense shots) and the complementary blue color everywhere else sets off that yellow, i don't see a problem.

 

Thank you for that opinion, i rather liked the difference in color, but thought it may come off as over manipulated - I'm not good enough to capture in memory the scene and shoot it, too focused

 

 

It sounds to me like you probably need to read both a good book on color perception and color photography in general (so you know what it is you're aiming for), and also a book on shooting RAW (so you know how to hit the target). RAW gives better results, but needs a skilled hand to come out right, just as processing color film needs some lab experience.

 

Realistically, one thread on the internet won't come close to giving you all the knowledge you need.

 

agreed on all points, can you recommend reading on both subjects? It's difficult for me to be so bad at something, I'm used to being considered an expert in my (technical) field. I do think that given my IT background and history supporting publishing i'm probably ahead of your average beginner regarding RAW and workflow, but i know nothing compared to the vast majority of 'photographers' (in quotes to exclude people that angle a PAS and consider it art) when it comes to making good photos, a lot is trial and error right now. I do however see marked improvement since i started reading, and joining online communities. I plan on taking some courses at a local community college as well, which i would think will help things exponentially - at least given a good instructor. I need to learn more about critical thinking in photog and examination of what makes certain photos great.

 

Thank you for your feedback, it's very helpful.

[dpattinson]

for interest, here's something shot on film that has pretty much exactly the same effect: institut de france on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[bill]

These are tiny files - it looks like you are bouncing against the Forum limits - nothing meaningful can be judged from these images. When sizing to post here, give yourself some "headroom" - slightly smaller files than the rules suggest. Then they will show as you intend.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[h00ligan]

David - that is a really really great photo.

 

Bill - it wasn't a file limit, it was due to me not understanding how to get a proper jpeg export in LR. I'm a photoshop guy not a LR guy - so now i'm just exporting at full and resizing in photoshop when I have to post.

 

Thanks!

[adan]

I have to confess that my general photo wisdom at this point is based more on 35 years of practice rather than contemporary 21st-century reading. 'Way back when, I got a lot of my basic understanding of how pictures "work" by reading the Time-Life series of photography books, published in the early 70's. Still available through used books stores (including Amazon) or libraries. The one on "Color" is most applicable to this thread.

 

Amazon.com: The Camera: Life Library of Photography (9780709330219): Jerry Korn, Beatrice T. Dobie, Martha T. Goolrick, Sheldon Cotler, Arnold C. Holeywell, Robert G. Mason, Melvin L. Scott, The Editors, Martin Mann, Ogden Tanner, Diana Hirsh, Paul T

Amazon.com: The Print: Life Library of Photography (9780701243821): The Editors of Time-Life Books, Jerry Korn: Books

Amazon.com: The Great Themes, Life Library of Photography [DELUXE EDITION] (9780701382995): The Editors of Time-Life Books: Books

Amazon.com: Color: Life Library of Photography (9780781302098): Martin Mann, Jerry Korn: Books

 

Also the Masters of Contemporary Photography series from Alskog ("contemporary" again meaning 1970-75) - Alskog, inc. - AbeBooks

 

Obviously there have been many great photographers in the decades since these collections came out - but I've never seen newer book series using newer work that are as competent, clear and well-illustrated on the subject of how working photographers put together careers and great images, or on camera technique (which hasn't changed significantly, even if the "processing" is a whole new world).

 

Same for digital processing - I've worked into it over 17 years of scanning film, then shooting jpegs, then using RAW, teaching myself every step of the way.

 

But Real World Camera Raw has always gotten high marks: Amazon.com: Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS3 (9780321518675): Bruce Fraser, Jeff Schewe: Books - if you don't want to take 17 years

 

The original author of Real World Camera Raw, the late Bruce Fraser, also wrote columns for CreativePro.com: CreativePro Author | CreativePro.com

 

In a more general sense, there are also lots of books on color theory, perception and so on. Mostly directed at painters and such - but equally applicable to color photography. Why and how colors work together (or don't): Amazon.com: Color Theory (Watson-Guptill Artist's Library) (9780823007554): Jose Parramon: Books (check the "also bought" links for more). Hit a local art supply store and poke through their book section, especially graphic design and art theory subsections.

[h00ligan]

i'm copying and pasting all the links into a text file! thanks so much for taking the time to list of of those, i really appreciate your help and insight. I also realized that a dodge and burn is effective at evening the image out a bit.