White Balance problem or camera problem... please help

[KhronoS]

Recently i was at a wedding as a second shooter and i have encountered a quite odd problem. Only when i was shooting with the flash.
I don;t know what is the problem. Because you can't fix it with color temperature. Only the dress has the bluish tint and sometimes even the shirt of the groom.
What do you think guys? And what are your advices?
It's just a problem with the camera? maybe the settings? or just a light trick?

Here are 3 examples:







Waiting for your answers.
Thanks.

[Ads]

[dEARlEADER]

on the first shot where the dress appears the most blue the flash was not used

Camera Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 40D
Image Date: 2008:07:26 18:30:57
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 60.0mm
CCD Width: 3.82mm
Exposure Time: 0.0040 s (1/250)
Aperture: f/4.5
ISO equiv: 160
Exposure Bias: -0.33
White Balance: Auto
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)

I would think this to be a WB issue, but if you shot this RAW and can't correct the temperature than it must be a reflection/glare from the material?

If you shot these jpeg the correction isn't as easy to fix. I'd be using an expodisc If I dared shoot a wedding JPG.

I dunno, someone like Big Mike most likely has a better answer.

[RyanLilly]

So when you say cant fix it with "color temp" are you referring to the white balance color temp slider in a RAW converter?

Both sunlight and flash are on the blue side of the spectrum, I would think that there would be sufficient adjustment to the warmer side. Although the first on is really blue. What was you WB set to in camera?

[D-50]

definately sounds like a wb issue. Here is a great example of why you should always shoot in RAW. If its RAW you should have no problem adjusting the temp. You may need to mask in the dress if when you adjust the temp for the dress other parts of the photo become oddly colored but that is easy as well. Th second shot does not seem to as blue as the first. I think what happened is the shiny part of the dress difracted light in an odd way and thats why you got a blue cast on just that part.

[Bifurcator]

I ran a test and could fix it no problem so I guess he's talking ONLY about the two sliders at the top in CameraRAW.

Also I wonder why he's using auto white balance? I wouldn't do that for a paying gig or someone's wedding. It's easy to fix but it'll probably cause problems - as it did here.

[KhronoS]

Well first of all i went with a fellow photographer... maybe not very experienced since he blamed the camera (he is a nikonian which is anti canon).. which he was kind enough to offer me the chance to shoot the wedding as a rookie )

Second of all i used the AWB since no other option gave me a better result.

About the temperature (the temperature modifier in Lightroom, similar with the slider in raw of the photoshop) thing, well the blueish tint it's not all over the image so it can't be corrected with Temperature because when i have good results with the dress the rest are very warm, maybe too warm. The only way is with masking which is quite time consuming.

Ohh, and i shot JPG, because i wanted to have more room to play with the settings. I took like 750 photos )). I know very well the advantages of the RAW images, but for the moment i can't use it as long as i don't have the necesary space (some backup cards).

I studied a little longer the images, and it might be a diffraction situation. Because they mostly appear where the shadow casts.

My personal oppionion i like for example the first photo, it has a different look than the corected one. But, hey, you can't gave photos with blue dress when it was white )

[Big Mike]

Ohh, and i shot JPG, because i wanted to have more room to play with the settings

That's your problem.

Also I wonder why he's using auto white balance? I wouldn't do that for a paying gig or someone's wedding

I shoot AWB all the time, I don't have time to be switching WB as the light or location changes...and no time for custom either. Of course, I shoot in RAW and can adjust it later when needed.

[Bifurcator]

Second of all i used the AWB since no other option gave me a better result.

If you're shooting JPEG only on a paying gig stop it. Now mister!

If you're shooting JPEG+RAW (which I personally think is the best option) and need the white balance reference in the JPEG (and it's a paying gig or something that matters like a weding, etc.) then you should have a white card and do a custom WB every time you change environments. It only takes a sec. and it makes all the difference in the world. Auto or the presets are usually lame! I'm not even sure why manufacturers include them. They're basically useless in all the cameras I've owned - from cheepy P&S to the dSLRs I've owned.

Tip: If you use a white card that's the size of a credit card you can carry it in your wallet. I carry white and grey.

And again I was able to correct them perfectly in CameraRAW with the color sliders on tab 3 - as well as in PS with the Hue/Saturation tool.

[Bifurcator]

I shoot AWB all the time, I don't have time to be switching WB as the light or location changes...and no time for custom either. Of course, I shoot in RAW and can adjust it later when needed.

I like having the JPEG references. But if you do RAW only then I can see not caring about WB at all and just leaving it on Auto.

[KhronoS]

I don't why people keep pointing out that the problem is the fact that i shoot jpg. Raw or jpg there was the same result, so there is the same problem, the only thing is that in raw could be corrected more easily.

To be sincere, i never had white balance problems like this, and maybe that's why i asked some opinions.

Ohh and i wasn't payed, so i was able to play how i wanted without any concern

[Big Mike]

I don't why people keep pointing out that the problem is the fact that i shoot jpg. Raw or jpg there was the same result, so there is the same problem, the only thing is that in raw could be corrected more easily.

RAW is easier to fix, it's also non destructive. Making changes to a JPEG will usually result in some damage or degradation of the image quality.

Also, the first & 3rd images are under exposed, which is compounding the problem. When a large portion of the image is white, it can fool the camera's meter and cause underexposed images, so you must add exposure or else be more precise with what you meter off of.

[JerryPH]

Well first of all i went with a fellow photographer... maybe not very experienced since he blamed the camera (he is a nikonian which is anti canon).. which he was kind enough to offer me the chance to shoot the wedding as a rookie )

Being "Nikonian" is not being anti Canon... being anti-Canon is just being a snob... lol. The problem is not camera brand related, its just a little lack of knowledge.

Second of all i used the AWB since no other option gave me a better result.

Well, it almost gave you a better result... lol You get brownie points for trying.

About the temperature (the temperature modifier in Lightroom, similar with the slider in raw of the photoshop) thing, well the blueish tint it's not all over the image so it can't be corrected with Temperature because when i have good results with the dress the rest are very warm, maybe too warm. The only way is with masking which is quite time consuming.

Actually, it is across the whole frame, its not clearly visible because other objects are not white, at least it is so in the picture you provided.

It would not have been an issue had you been shooting in RAW. When using the ACR settings, you have 2 sliders, the temp and hue (is it that way in LR? It is in PS CS3).

In a RAW image, that HUE slider would have done the job that you needed... mainly affect the dress hue to white and though it would have warmed the picture some, it would have been very little... in fact, in my own attempts to fix my errors (yeah, been here and done that too... lol), it added very little warmth to the picture. Overusing just the temp slider made a more negative impact to the picture warmth in my experience. Adding the use of the hue slider solved that perfectly (in my case I required both sliders for best results).

Ohh, and i shot JPG, because i wanted to have more room to play with the settings. I took like 750 photos )). I know very well the advantages of the RAW images, but for the moment i can't use it as long as i don't have the necesary space (some backup cards).

They're falling EVERY day. When I got my camera, a single 8GB SanDisk Extreme IV CF card was $475 each locally. Today that same card I can get about anywhere for under $130.

But, besides that... if you want to play, you'll have to pay. Please, I don't want to sound harsh, but in any other role except where there is the potential to inconvenience a paying client, this is not what I would call a valid excuse. Not when you are out there doing weddings in the position as a second professional photographer.

In a pinch, you could have had someone with a laptop and card reader available to you and have them transfer the RAWs for you as you zoomed around, using only 2 cards. Difficult? Definitely, but possible, and it would have cost you less time in post. Even if you missed a few shots, the results that you did have, would have been better.

hey, you can't gave photos with blue dress when it was white )

lol... no, it tends to piss off the bride for some unknown reason. I don't know, it has to be a woman thing. Maybe someone nice lady here can explain that one to us dumb men.

[Bifurcator]

Yup, well said Mike. I always thought that the discussions about JPEG vrs. RAW on this and other sites were about their use in hobby land. It was always a natural assumption of mine at least, that if you're on a gig or even a "practice gig" you shoot RAW. <shrug>

EDIT: Yup, Jerry too. (On the RAW issue).

[Big Mike]

Yup, well said Mike. I always thought that the discussions about JPEG vrs. RAW on this and other sites were about their use in hobby land. It was always a natural assumption of mine at least, that if you're on a gig or even a "practice gig" you shoot RAW. <shrug>

My take on the subject is that it only takes a few seconds to create a JPEG from a RAW file...but you shoot in JPEG, you can't get a RAW file at all.

[dEARlEADER]

I'm a jpeg shooter..... but if I was being paid i'd be shooting raw for sure.... I generally like to take time to set up my camera and get things right from the beginning to minimize post processing... but as Big Mike said.... no time for twiddling on paid wedding gigs.... you need to shoot RAW for the flexibility when you are into wedding variables......

but the op mentioned he was just a wing man so shooting jpeg for practise.... I still think I'd shoot RAW as wing man for paid gig just to get used to the processing format....

It takes big kahuna's to shoot a wedding in jpeg.... If I could rise to that level I'd be a superhero.....

how did wedding photographers do it in the film days????