Is this a white balance problem?

Rollei12

TPF Noob!
Joined
Feb 2, 2015
Messages
71
Reaction score
2
For awhile now, I've had some problems with some of my pictures having harsh colors. The lighting seems to be good, and my camera gave the thumbs up for a correct exposure, but then when I had them developed, I get harsh colors and not the warmer colors I've seen other people get.

At the same time, I'll get nice pictures with warm colors and I wonder what I'm doing wrong. Is this a white balance issue I've been reading on, or do I need to use filters? I currently don't use any UV filters or anything.

Here's an example of a harsh photo on the left with a nice warm one on the right.

harsh: f16 or so
warm: f5.6
 

Attachments

  • bright2.jpg
    bright2.jpg
    576.3 KB · Views: 189
  • plant2.jpg
    plant2.jpg
    331.5 KB · Views: 178
The tree shot seems to be extremely contrasty. It's also shot at f/16, so there's lots of DOF.

The plant has much less contrast, and shooting at f/5.6 creates an OOF background.
 
The tree shot seems to be extremely contrasty. It's also shot at f/16, so there's lots of DOF.

The plant has much less contrast, and shooting at f/5.6 creates an OOF background.

How would I be able to get the same warmness in fuller landscape shots? Does the aperture have something to do with this?
 
Warmth may be helped by lowering the color temp used.

Aperture is about sharpness, DOF, vignetting... optical properties, not color rendition.
 
The first shot appears to be overexposed, and set to a white balance that's too low, numerically. The second shot also appears to have a bit too "cool" a white balance, as seen in the rather cold-tone snow in the shadows. White Balance is somewhat of a matter of personal taste; some people seem to prefer cooler tones, cooler color rendering, while others prefer warmer color tones and warmer renderings of things. At times, making an image deliberately cool in WB can improve the artistic effect; many times, warming the WB up into the 6,500 to 8,000 or higher degrees Kelvin range can add a warmish glow that reminds many people of summer light, or sunset light, and so on. Many times "accurate color", and exact, by-the-numbers White Balance looks rather mundane, and a deliberate shift will look better. Accurate color rendering is usually not as good as pleasing color rendering.
 
For awhile now, I've had some problems with some of my pictures having harsh colors. The lighting seems to be good, and my camera gave the thumbs up for a correct exposure, but then when I had them developed, I get harsh colors and not the warmer colors I've seen other people get.

At the same time, I'll get nice pictures with warm colors and I wonder what I'm doing wrong. Is this a white balance issue I've been reading on, or do I need to use filters? I currently don't use any UV filters or anything.

Here's an example of a harsh photo on the left with a nice warm one on the right.

harsh: f16 or so
warm: f5.6


Since your question is about color balance and not depth of field, let's stick to color. There is no direct connection between aperture setting and color balance. White balance is set (in a digital camera) in the camera's basic menu settings and won't change when aperture is changed. You might want to pick up your camera and check this. Do you know how to check the preset white balance values? Pick one and then change the aperture. Color balance values shouldn't change. If your camera allows you to set individual values for various RGB colors, check those values in the same way.

What your camera is reading in the image will determine color balance when you are using a simple "Auto" setting on your camera. Look at your photos and notice what areas the camera has selected as the "proper" color balance reference. Notice too the direction of the sunlight into your lens. "Exposure" is not the same as "color balance". Therefore, whether your camera gives a "thumbs up" or not for exposure, you need to set and check the camera for proper white balance. Most modern digital cameras make the basic control of color balance pretty simple. Have you looked at the menu selections for white balance? Have you read your owners manual regarding this topic?

How are you selecting white balance? Is your camera on "Auto"? Do you ever move off of "Auto"? Have you read your manual regarding white balance? Have you set any custom white balance value? Have you experimented with white balance settings just to explore what is changed with each setting? If not, what plan are you applying to learning the functions of your camera?
 
Last edited:
To help you understand how white balance renders photos, I'd suggest a little exercise:
Take a white object, like a teacup. Place it in direct sunlight and photograph it with each of the general WB settings on the camera (sun, shade, cloudy, indoors, flash, etc.) The move the object to shade and repeat the process. Then try it indoors and shoot again with each WB setting. It will help to write down each light source and WB setting as you go.

When you're done, you will be able to see how the different settings render color in different light temperatures.
 
".....when I had them developed....."
If these are prints from film, then a whole truckload of other factors enter the picture. So to speak.

Most print film is color-balanced for daylight exposure. You don't get to play with white balance while shooting.

The technician running the processing machine (or even worse, the one who programmed it so the technician doesn't need to) can color-correct the print after the machine scans the negative. That's either a judgment call or an automatic program, and again, you have no control.

Then to post the images here, you scan the prints. If the print is off in the first place because of the technician's faulty judgment, your starting point is bad. Still, you can make color adjustments in your scanning software. If you want the best scans, though, you'll have a film scanner and scan the negatives yourself, eliminating the technician and the guy that programmed the machine at the film processor.

So each stage of this process, from developing the negative to getting the prints to scanning the prints, involves possible color shifts. What it comes down to is that the print you get back from developing may not represent your shot in any way, shape, or form. You simply have no control over it.

Here's an example. First is a scan of the print I received in my photo package, and second is my own scan of the negative. How the hell did they arrive at that print???!?!?

Gull%2520as%2520printed.jpg


Gull%2520from%2520neg.jpg


If you're shooting film, in my opinion you MUST invest in a quality film scanner and learn to handle it yourself. Get the negatives or transparencies developed, but don't let anybody else print them for you.

There are quality labs out there that have experts running the print machines, but that doesn't happen at the drugstore.
 
Film? I missed that completely. Obviously my exercise is meant for digital but you could try it with film (shoot in each light source, noting what it was, then compare the prints or scans).
 
".....when I had them developed....."
If these are prints from film, then a whole truckload of other factors enter the picture. So to speak.

Most print film is color-balanced for daylight exposure. You don't get to play with white balance while shooting.

The technician running the processing machine (or even worse, the one who programmed it so the technician doesn't need to) can color-correct the print after the machine scans the negative. That's either a judgment call or an automatic program, and again, you have no control.

Then to post the images here, you scan the prints. If the print is off in the first place because of the technician's faulty judgment, your starting point is bad. Still, you can make color adjustments in your scanning software. If you want the best scans, though, you'll have a film scanner and scan the negatives yourself, eliminating the technician and the guy that programmed the machine at the film processor.

So each stage of this process, from developing the negative to getting the prints to scanning the prints, involves possible color shifts. What it comes down to is that the print you get back from developing may not represent your shot in any way, shape, or form. You simply have no control over it.

Here's an example. First is a scan of the print I received in my photo package, and second is my own scan of the negative. How the hell did they arrive at that print???!?!?

Gull%2520as%2520printed.jpg


Gull%2520from%2520neg.jpg


If you're shooting film, in my opinion you MUST invest in a quality film scanner and learn to handle it yourself. Get the negatives or transparencies developed, but don't let anybody else print them for you.

There are quality labs out there that have experts running the print machines, but that doesn't happen at the drugstore.

Thank you for the information! All this time I thought that the prints I was getting from the developer were prints that look EXACTLY like the film. But apparently not. Now I have to wonder what my film looks like? How much better would they look compared to the prints I got? The film scanner I have in mind is the Epson V550. Any feedback on that would be great!

I'm not happy with the lab I was going to. I'm not going to them anymore, but looking to develop myself. I'm just wasting money at the moment.
 
To help you understand how white balance renders photos, I'd suggest a little exercise:
Take a white object, like a teacup. Place it in direct sunlight and photograph it with each of the general WB settings on the camera (sun, shade, cloudy, indoors, flash, etc.) The move the object to shade and repeat the process. Then try it indoors and shoot again with each WB setting. It will help to write down each light source and WB setting as you go.

When you're done, you will be able to see how the different settings render color in different light temperatures.

I do have a simple point and shoot digital camera that I used to use. It's what I used before I got into film cameras. So what info you put down helped a great deal too!
 
Flatbed scanners can do film with the transparency adapters, but they don't do film anywhere near as well as an actual film scanner. OTOH, actual film scanners can be...... pricey, several hundred dollars. They do a MUCH better job, though, mostly because they handle the film better and they don't have the glass panel to look through, which affects the ability to focus on the film.

I have an outdated Nikon LS-2000 film scanner, and I also have an Epson V330 flatbed scanner. Here's is a scanned negative from each, and then a blowup of the center of the scan. You can see that the flatbed is not as sharp, and adds a color fringe. It's still better than a lab print, though!

Film scanner:
Scan-120809-0002.jpg


Flatbed:
Squirrel%2520flatbed.jpg


Film scanner:
raw%2520crop.jpg


Flatbed:
Flatbed%2520crop.jpg
 

Most reactions

Back
Top