White balance question ...

[gpsmikey Profile Private message]

OK, I have a question for all you folks that get the great sunset shots -- do
you leave your camera set on "Auto white balance" or do you switch to a
manual mode like "Daylight" to get the better colors in sunsets etc??
I have typically been staying in the auto mode (since if I don't I promptly
forget when taking a picture inside that I am still in daylight mode .. grrr ).

Just curious what others do.

mikey

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Mikey, do you shoot in RAW at all? With that, it hardly matters if you've used the wrong white balance setting because it can be corrected during processing, which is a good thing since you're obviously like I am--always forgetting where you and the camera were last time around.

Barbara

[MG - Admin]

Depending on the camera you shoot with, auto white balance seems to work really well for sunsets. RAW does allow you to make adjustments after the fact, but I think there are times the end result, while looking nice, is not really what you saw at the time when the photo was taken. Next time out take one from each setting, and one from RAW if you have the capability, and see if you can pick which one is more accurate without knowing the settings of each when looking at them. Chances are that the auto one will be the most accurate.





Mike

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Mike, you just made a convincing argument. Your pictures say it all. They're wonderful shots, in particular the beach scene. I haven't had my camera on auto in so long that it's probably turned rusty, but I'm going to give it a try.

Barbara

[Marty Profile Private message]

My secret?
Photoshop.

Crank the saturation, and play a little with Colorazation.
Be careful to not over-do it. Sometimes there's a fine line between natural looking and those that seem fake.

I've taken some so-so sunsets and turned them into WOW! What a Sunset!

[gpsmikey Profile Private message]

Mikey, do you shoot in RAW at all? With that, it hardly matters if you've used the wrong white balance setting because it can be corrected during processing, which is a good thing since you're obviously like I am--always forgetting where you and the camera were last time around.

Barbara

I tried shooting in RAW, but everyone laughted at me, so I stay dressed these days

From the comments, I think maybe I will just keep on shooting in auto, although, I
have found that my soccer pictures turn out much more consistent when I lock it
in either cloudy or sun white balance ( I finally realized that as zoomed in on the
girls as I am, the camera was trying to "balance" it correctly and the grass etc would
shift from picture to picture sometimes depending on the light on the players - I
have been getting much more consistent results using the manual white balance ... now
the trick is to remember to go back to auto for normal shooting).

Those are great pictures Mike (if you saw my show on Washington, all those were
shot in "auto" WB, so it is not a case of they look bad).

Thanks for the feedback folks!

mikey

[DickK Profile Private messageWebsite]

Mikey --

I agree with Mike G. I've experimented a little bit but unless I was going for some kind of effect, I can't see any reason to take the WB off auto in that situation. And like already mentioned, if I want to "tweak" the image afterwards, that's what the editor is for.

At the risk of stating the painfully obvious, what I have found worth playing with in manual mode is the exposure time. I spent a fun time on the beach in Hawaii last October shooting a sunset for a 30-45 min period and got some interesting results by varying the exposure times. I wasn't surprised that auto mode gave results that weren't what I'd expected from years of shooting film or what I wanted, but switching to full manual proved very instructive when I could immediately see what I was getting. For me, that's where digital beats film hands down--the immediate feedback.

Dick

[MG - Admin]

Just to clarify, when I spoke of using auto white balance for taking sunset photos, I meant just that. I wasn't speaking of using the automatic settings (aperture, shutter speed, iso, etc.) for taking the photo, just the white balance feature. I almost always shoot in manual or aperture priority modes with the white balance set for auto. I hope that makes sense.

I think if you were to allow the camera to choose the shutter speed, aperture, etc. for a sunset you would have a hard time getting good results. In most cases, the camera would probably try to use the flash and underexpose the shot.

[gpsmikey Profile Private message]

Thanks people -- yes, I did understand the actual exposure issue is another
can of worms and often either go to manual or just roll in several stops of
offset depending on just what I'm doing. I was just curious about the color
balance issue ( I do love digital where I can get instant feedback on where
my exposure is though !! )

mikey

[pwholmes Profile Private message]

One thing I've done with video is use a white balance card and set it manually. It's a little more work but gives great results if the lighting stays consistent. Which makes me wonder if I can do that with my Canon S5. I'll have to check.

Paul Holmes

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

I almost always shoot in manual or aperture priority modes...

Mike, are you saying you even use aperture priority outdoors? I tend to use shutter priority when hand-holding the camera outdoors, but this may have to do with what I tend to point the camera at--birds, squirrels, butterflies, etc. that never sit still. Then there's the problem where I'm an extremely unstable person (shut up, Mikey) and need the speed to eliminate camera shake. Even leaning against a tree doesn't seem to help.

Barbara

[gpsmikey Profile Private message]

Mmmfrrmmmrf.

Actually, I used to use shutter priority and kept running into the issue where
you bottom out on the F-stop and things are under exposed. After reading
comments from others shooting sports and things, I have found shooting
aperature priority gives me better results - I can fiddle with the aperature
to get the depth of field I want while watching the shutter does not fall below
what I want to be shooting at but still not bottoming out (although the shutter
may end up slower than what you want, you still get the shot.

As far as the camera shake goes, do yourself a favor and try a monopod -
it is amazing what it does for reducing camera shake - you can still move
the camera all around, but it takes out most of that short "pitch" moment
you normally get trying to hold a long lens pointed at something (the
center of rotation is now the bottom of the monopod at 5 feet instead of the
center of the camera at a couple of inches.

mikey

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Mikey, I tried a monopod, and it's great as long as I've got the time to fiddle with its height, but it fails completely when chasing birds, which is a favorite activity. The dangling cord works better than nothing, but it still slows me down.

You're right about the downside of shutter priority, and I don't use it when the light is low unless I'm using a tripod and a slow speed. You're also correct about those underexposed shots.

I know what I want: a phenomenally fast camera. When I push up the ISO on mine, the results are unacceptable, but the pocketbook is nowhere near ready for that next camera.

Barbara

[MG - Admin]

Barbara:

I think you're understanding the issues with both shutter and aperture priority modes. I prefer aperture because I like to control the depth of field. If my shutter speed drops too low I just pump up the ISO to compensate.

Mike

[gpsmikey Profile Private message]

I know what I want: a phenomenally fast camera. When I push up
the ISO on mine, the results are unacceptable, but the pocketbook is nowhere near
ready for that next camera.

Barbara

I have not played with it, but have you checked out utilities like Noise Ninja ?? it
seems to get good reviews. You also might want to snoop through what this guy
has to say about noise reduction utilities:
http://www.michaelalmond.com/Articles/noise.htm

mikey