Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Bynx - that is one of the benefits of shooting raw - white balance can be changed/adjusted without any lost of image quality or affect on the colours (changing white balance on a jpg will cause colour cast issues - hard to fix in post). Because I shoot just raw I leave my white balance to auto (unless I know I want a specific white balance - for an effect - just one less thing to worry about adjusting in post).

Barry - I was using the Nikon 10.5mm DX fisheye - (this is a cropped sensor specific fisheye - so it would amount to a 15.75mm in 35mm terms). However, because its a fisheye it has a curve to the lens and takes in more of the surrounding area (as you can see in my photos) I was reading up on it and fisheye lenses like the one myself and Simon used give you a 180 degrees of view (along the diagonal of the frame. This is why I was shooting at weird angles - so to not get certain building elements in my photos (from the building we were on). I hope that helps. It is definitely a specialty lens - but the more I have begun to use it and learn what I can take with it - the more I like it. Here is another example of a photo I took with the fisheye lens (not from the other night - this was taken in the summer at the Docks.

Well Jordan, I know I didnt have the camera set to WB Auto. If I wanted to match the shots I took, again sometime, and if the WB was set to Auto, would they match without changing WB in processing?

Bynx - Auto WB is going to try and give you "natural" colours - so that white looks white and light grey looks light grey. Thats the function of auto WB. It certain lighting conditions, especially mixed lighting environments (i.e. natural light mixed with indoor lights) can screw with your auto WB picking the correct white balance. In these situations you may want to select the WB you want for the scene. So not always will auto WB match the setting you use - I am sure if I look at my auto WB for all of my photos that night most would be slightly different from each other (as the light in the scene changed). But with my raw converter program (I use Apple's Aperture - all the others have same features) I can adjust the white balance in one photo and then apply the same setting to all of the other photos that night - if I want.

The problem with auto white balance, even shooting raw, is that it is constantly changing (auto adjusting) while you are shooting. So if the light conditions are constantly changing it makes it harder to make a universal change in post. In those challenging conditions its best to set to a specific Kelvin so it is constant and consistent so if you do need to make a universal change later your files will have a static reference/starting point.

Exif data will only ever show you what the camera was set to when you took the shot.
As others have mentioned here, RAW is just that, raw. When you get a rendered preview or when you convert to your final image it will process with that WB setting. If you use lightroom for example, there are the standard camera WB options that you can switch out to, or in develop mode you can tweak it with a fine tooth comb along all tints and colour temperatures.

Raw also allows you to "reclaim" some of the light information that is captured but your processing software will by default never show you.

Yes but you don't need a static reference point when changing WB - when you change the WB for a series of photos (to be the same) whatever the WB was originally makes no difference (in RAW of course). The end image will still be the same - cause the light from those images will be whatever it was at the time of the picture. If you set your camera to a specific WB and the lighting conditions change as you shoot you will then have an image that is now slightly off colour - because the colour balance is off. But at the end of the day if you choose to change that WB to a preset of your choice then all of the images will change accordingly. I think the important thing is to realize that you cannot set a universal WB unless you know the lighting was constant throughout your shooting period.

Ok here are 3 shots by Barry, Simon and Myself. All taken from the same spot around the same time. Assuming we all shot Raw, is the difference in color due to our post processing?

The one on the left is mine.

Yes, I did some post processing. I use TWILIGHT in picture style in Canon software "Digital Photo Professional"

WB is "Shot settings", which means whatever I set in my camera at the time the photo was taken. I used "Auto" at that time.

It is most likey a combination of factors - length of exposure - white balance setting - and post processing. I say exposure setting as each appears to be exposed differently - a short exposure - darker image will have darker less punchy / noticeable colours. Depending in pp done WB could be completely different for each shooter. Each of you used different camera brands and each brand renders colours slightly differently by default and also the lens used can have an affect on colour.

Based on simon's response I'd assume that he and Barry are using similar camera's.
I'd also assume that the difference between the two of their's and yours is once again hardware.
Without sufficient information otherwise though I don't think this is a very good example of white balance differences.
Metering, ISO, Aperture and exposure all seem to be very different and would thus make it much more difficult to exemplify the differences.

What you should do is some test shots to see for yourself the differences.
Ensure that the only thing changing between photos is the white balance.
Do them with both raw and compressed shooting to exemplify the differences and similarities.

Sources like this should also prove handy: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/white-balance.htm

This has been a good eye opener for me on Raw. Thanks guys.

Bynx, of those 3 pics, mine I think is the one in the middle. This was the least "bluish" of mine & was due to post processing. I tended to stay on the dark side with all mine, but could easily have shifted to brighter colors by say, changing certain of the hues in RAW, especially blue...and possibly yellow/orange.

I still don't know why the very first pic posted (Eddie S ?) had such dense red tailights & mine didn't.
Maybe he got lucky with more cars moving away at the time, but I doubt that, since I took enough shots that that scenario would have been duplicated. I think its my choice of f stop of 20 or 22. Sapna's original shot that got all this started was shot @ F11 I think. And it turned out great.

Jordanfaust,

That fisheye looks like a lot fun. My wide angle is, in 35 mm terms, 18 to 36 mm...and I get a bit of fisheye effect with it, but not enough to really twist things, & sometimes just enough to be annoying...like concaving a building I don't want curved. Oh well.

I learned something tonight I never knew & don't know if it comes up here or not. But evidently, most of us shoot in color space RGB1998. But if we upload to a web site, using that color space, it will look like crap unless we change the color space to sRGB...which happens automatically when you use the "save for web" (or "save as" so as not to overwrite the original file) function. I didn't. Back to the drawing board.

Hi Barry,

A couple of things I would just like to mention to you - unless you really need to - because need a really long exposure or because you need an extreme depth of field - you should try and avoid shooting at high F-stops. the reason for this is you are degrading the image quality, particularly sharpness. Digital sensors have an issue with diffraction (I really dot' know how to explain it - so just putting link for extra reading for you - http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... graphy.htm) Most cropped sensors start to diffract around F12 or higher (depending on the sensor - the smaller the sensor the sooner diffraction can start). Since you were shooting wide angle lens - you will have a very large depth of field even at like F8 - the ideal F-stop for sharpness - this is just a general rule for most lenses - but their are exceptions for some types of lenses.

Also you ideally should not be shooting in Adobe RGB1998 colour space. This space is not computer happy. On computer screens, etc it will produce very muted colours. You really should just shoot sRGB as default - you will be much happier with the images that come from the camera. HOWEVER - this only affects jpegs from the camera. If you shoot RAW the colour space you choose has no affect as RAW contains more colours then either of these two colour spaces (Adobe RGB1998 and sRGB are capable of displaying) These are just for purposes of if you shoot jpeg. And unless you have a specific reason for doing so - always shoot sRGB - which is designed for on-screen / computer viewing.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Thanks J/F...those are 2 huge things I never knew. I always shoot in RAW, but if my color space is sRGB, will this negatively affect prints, or does RAW override sRGB ? I just checked my camera (Olympus E510) & sure enough, the color space was Adobe RGB. The only other possible one was sRGB.

Hey Barry,

RAW does not look at the RGB setting of your camera - so what you set there has no effect on the RAW image. What will have an effect on RAW is the program you use to convert it and edit it. Some programs like Photoshop allow you to pick the colour space you work in (the amount of colours available for you to have access too when processing your photos). I really do not use photoshop or lightroom so really can't speak how exactly they handle colour space - but I think by default they should give you the largest colour space available for when editing your photos. I use Apple's Aperture - and as far as I know i uses the largest colour space available (I believe this is called ProPhoto - as it does not allow me to select any other colour space). Another link that hopefully will help explain colour space much better than I can. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... spaces.htm

When printing that is a whole other issue - as your printer will have its own available colour space (what colours it can print). Depending on the printer it may or may not have a profile available from the manufacturer for it. Your program - i.e. say photoshop will use this profile to automatically adjust the photo to fit within the printers colour space (there are other options you have to control this - i.e. relative or absolute adjustment - how the colours are shifted to fit within the printers colour space) I won't go into any more detail as their are entire books to just cover printing! Its a very large topic with lots of information that is also dependent on the printer you have and the program you use to print with. I have read lots of material on printing and to be honest I would still classify myself as a beginner on this subject.

Thanks for that J/F. When I print, I print large, so I have it done by someone with serious equipment & skill, so presumably he gets the color space right. I do know I am always very happy with how he does my prints.
I've had 3 of them accepted in some fairly prominent juried art shows, so I know they are pretty good.
I once used Pro Photo for a bit, but went back to Adobe RGB...can't remember why. I think Pro Photo may be ahead of its time...still. And evidently looks like crap on web pages. But it's color space is huge by comparison, to Adobe RGB.
Man there is so much to learn in digital photography...I think my head may explode. And a lot of this color & light stuff I took in university physics.
I am really impressed with this tpmg...how it functions, seemingly without formal structure, yet very organized...and the people are really helpful & respectful towards one another. Pinch me.
Thanks again.

looks like "rooftopping" made the Toronto Star as news ....

http://www.thestar.com/photos/article/1 ... in-toronto

was also the headliner in the metro.