click image for larger veiw
Hi Gang,
I’m moving to the Badwater area of DV for the next couple of images. This shot was made in early twilight and with the significant (and sad 
level of air pollution sitting in the valley, the light was very blue. Both Travis and I commented when we walked out on to the the area that the light just screamed for use of tungsten white balance. Selecting tungsten white balance biases any day light towards blue. During certain times of the day, like twilight, even more so. The blue, then, is not a function of photoshop trickery but rather a choice made in the field about the mood and light at the moment and working with that. Architectural photographers have made use of this relationship between tungsten film and daylight for decades to capture some of the most beautiful images you’ve seen in Architectural Digest.
Technical: Canon 1Ds MarkII, 16-35mm@16, f/9, ISO100, Singh Ray 2 stop reverse neutral density filter.
Related posts:
5 Comments
Is it safe to assume you are not shooting in RAW? I had understood that in-camera settings for white balance would not affect RAW images.
This looks like it was an incredible trip for you, Alec!
Hi Kevin,
I’m really glad you asked this question, though I can’t imagine why someone would have told you that! I shoot nothing but raw both personally and professionally (I also spend a lot on hard drive space) . White balance control is essential (i’ve recently become a big fan of the Expo Disc http://www.expodisc.com/?gclid=CJi7_-ynu5cCFQHBDAodqEiZSg for white balance control).
You have full control of all settings, regardless of the format you tell your camera to shoot in. This misunderstanding begs a lot of questions for me and I’m not sure where to start. But I’m going to take a stab at it:
1) White Balance settings are independent of the format you choose to shoot in;
2) Camera Raw is an UNCOMPRESSED format, that’s it. Jpeg is a compressed format;
3) To convert a Raw file into a usable, editable file, you need to run it through a raw converter;
4) The raw converter allows you to make all sorts of changes prior to CONVERSION, including CHANGES to white balance;
5) None of this is to the exclusion of the choices you make in the field. You choose WB in the field, you can custom set it, you can use auto, you can use one of the presets. Its IS INDEPENDENT OF FORMAT CHOICE.
6) You can change it later (with some penalty) in the raw converter.
I hope this helps. Start shooting RAW!!!
Hi Alec,
Just a clarification: You said;
> “6) You can change it later (with some penalty) in the raw converter.”
In fact you can change it later (with NO penalty at all) in the raw converter. When you shoot in raw the only affect White Ballance has in the camera (or later) is that the (JPEG) thumbnail and histogram displayed on the back of the camera are subject to the setting.
A very small point, you said:
> “2) Camera Raw is an UNCOMPRESSED format”
Nearly all cameras including Canon do in fact compress the raw data files but it is non-destructive compression and does no damage to the image data. Some Nikon cameras (and some other makes?) do offer a smaller raw file with a low level of distructive compression that does do some damage to the image data.
Yes, raw is the only way to fly
Regards, Jeff
Hey Jeff,
Good to hear from you and thanks for the comments. Shooting incorrect white balance and converting later in the raw converter works very well. But you can clip some detail in certain colors when changing in the raw converter and this can be a very small issue. That is the “some penality” part of it. For certain, its small, but may be important in some instances. I recently ran a test with my camera comparing all white balance settings shot in the field, and an auto setting converted to those settings in raw. THEY AREN’T the same (but may be more than acceptable), and one still needs to pay attention to this issue if color matters. With all that being said, I tend to agree with you. There isn’t any substantial or noticeable penalty. I’m sure you’ve seen the difference in the studio, where reds must be protected or they will get clipped. Its a bigger issue in the studio (and still not a “big” issue) then in the field, in my experience. Then there is always the “shoot it right and save yourself the work later” part of the issue!
I didn’t know that there was still compression in the raw. Thank you for pointing that out for everyone. THANK YOU for being here and sharing your comments, As always, much appreciated and happy holidays! I’m off to by a Drobo drive management deal to handle all those raw files! eeeiiisshh, I hope I get a gift card to B&H this holiday
Cheers,
Alec
Hi Alec,
Yes, I understand your issue and can see how the test worked this way but the reasoning or technical specification is different.
A raw file is simply a âraw dumpâ of the data captured by the CMOS sensor in the camera and this data is in no way influenced by the settings made on the camera as to White Balance. These White Balance settings are recorded in a parameter table stored in the raw file for the processing software to access but no changes are ever applied to the actual data recorded in the raw file.
The reason you can clip a color channel in a raw file is mainly down to two reasons:
1. The histogram and image displayed on the back of the camera is from the JPEG process and is therefore influenced by the White Balance setting on the camera, so if the camera is set to Auto WB and the image is of a sunset the Auto is removing some of the red but the raw is still recording all the red.
2. If you have a monochrome histogram (luminance) then there is a formula for combining the red, green and blue data to give a sort of average. If one color like red is much higher than the other two then by optimizing the luminance histogram the red channel will be clipped.
Cheers, Jeffâ¦