correct the white balance?

[denada]

hi, all. trying to decide whether or not to correct the white balance destroys me. i believe the off white balance is actually the film, as opposed to my scanner messing up. it can give photos a cool aura. but it also makes give the colors less range.

i know some digital photographer calibrate before shooting. but for those who don't, do you correct the white balance or do you sometimes leave it off?

what do you think for the below example?

not messing with the color ...

corrected in lightroom ...

thanks!

 

[tirediron]

I adjust the WB until it looks the way I want it to. Usually that's the "correct" WB, but sometimes it's warmer or cooler for a specific look. For your image, I would correct the WB, and then reduce the highlights and boost the saturation a little.

 

[EIngerson]

I honestly would have used the color sliders. Drop the greens then the left overs with yellows. But first, try raising the shadows, Up the exposure (very little) then drop the highlights.

After that you'll see a little noise in the darks, drop the blacks and voila, magic happens.

Just my thoughts.

 

[john.margetts]

If you are doing product photography you need colours to be exact - so need to control white balance. For all other photography, white balance is not sacred. As Tirediron said, adjust white balance until it looks like you want it to.

 

[Tim Tucker]

Things are not absolute.

There is not one accurate WB, in fact scenes are very often lit by light of varying colour temperature, especially sunlight and shadow.

There is no real accuracy in the way film is or how your scanner recorded it. You are recording the real scene on film with it's colorspace based on the layers of emulsion (which is not accurate of the scene), and then converting it to a digital space that again cannot display the full colours of the scene.

What you have noticed is that inaccurate WB kills the colour. This is because with a colour cast there is an overall similar colour mixed through the entire scene which reduces the contrast between colours (because they all contain the same tint).

What you also have to remember is that the eye corrects colour (or WB) even in a print or on a display.

WB is not about accurate colour but more about creating stable colour. Accurate colour is not possible across a range of different media (there is a difference in colour between gloss and matt paper). Accurate colour in product photography uses standard calibrated colour to create consistency across different media, it also relies on the photographer understanding the importance of the background and it's effect on the colour. Colours themselves will also vary dependant on the colour temp of the light source under which they're viewed. Reference colour says "this is how the colour would appear under a specific reference WB" and is used to create consistent colour.

 

[The_Traveler]

The answers re wb are fine and complete.
What I would do is rotate the image a bit.
Right now it goes down to the right, rotating it makes it 'recede' more naturally, I think.

 

[Ysarex]

hi, all. trying to decide whether or not to correct the white balance destroys me. i believe the off white balance is actually the film, as opposed to my scanner messing up. it can give photos a cool aura. but it also makes give the colors less range.

i know some digital photographer calibrate before shooting. but for those who don't, do you correct the white balance or do you sometimes leave it off?

When I make photos one of my goals is to take full advantage of the technology and so have the widest range of options. Therefore I shoot a WB reference and my default goal is to render the subject colors as accurately as the tech permits and/or better. By shooting the WB reference I set myself up to be able to at least start from a position of "as accurately as the tech permits." It's a mistake to forego that option. By "and/or better" I mean I will adjust the color to look better than it really was to make a better photo; in which case with the goal to not show my hand. I want people to look at the photo and believe it. If I can make it better than accurate and get away with that I will. I don't however want someone to look at my photo and immediately think; "shopped!"

what do you think for the below example?

thanks!

Your original photo immediately scans as green. I don't know how a non-photographer would react, but in way less than 1 second my mind had already processed: daylight film uncorrected and exposed to industrial grade fluorescent lights -- greeeeeen. It takes a whole lot longer for me to then consider that the color cast might be a deliberate choice and to start looking for justification for that possibility. I need a pretty obvious reason to not see it as a classic error.

It's a photo of people. The three people in the booth are prominent because they're lit and facing the camera. The one thing on this planet we are all conditioned to see with an expectation for normal color is human skin. Is it not the color we are all most familiar with? Human beings are basically reddish orange without a huge degree of variation. In your carnival booth are three Caucasians. I'd adjust the color so that their skin was in the appropriate range for an average Caucasian.

Joe