I recently made an intersting discovery on white balancing. For those who don't know, color has a temperature which was found out by a Mr.Kelvin from UK 100+ years ago. 5600 Kelvin is the daylight temperature and is natural colors. When the light is cold and blue outside, the eye adjust to "dalight." The same happens when you sit in a restaurant with dark yellowish light; most people recognize this as white (day-)light. Or tubes which are green are also seen as white light.
But film cameras see color temperature without mercy. So the yellow light in the restaurant becomes warm orange, perhaps even red. The factory hall with tubes is green. The child playing on the beach by sunset becomes very red and hot in the skin color. And so on. Film are made to produce correct colors by daylight (5600 kelvin) and all sorts of filters exist to correct colors to daylight (like blue filter to correct yellow light to daylight, etc).
In the digital era cameras has "auto W/B" which means that the camera automatically adjust the color temperature to natural colors as sen by daylight 5600 kelvin.
However, the quality of this auto feature vary and if there is a mixture of light (tubes in the ceiling and daylight coming in from the window and candelights onthe table) the auto feature becomes confused and make a choice.
the correct way to adjust W/B (white balance) is to set it manually, usually by choosing "manual" and then point the lens towards a white paper or wall while pressing the shutter. Then the camera 'sucks' that balance and adjust.
Only error you really can do is holding the paper in not the light of the subject you are photographing.
Anyway, long story to get to the point.
the other day I had the fellow above come to me to do a 5 minute portrait for a mag. He was late so the natural light was very limited. In fact it was dark, the light was extremely blue with a tint of orange-reddish sunset beaming in, kind of reflecting.
I often use auto white balance because it is quite ok or I can adjust it in Photo Shop anyway.
But f... it, on this one I had to go 200 ISO and 1/8 second to get the shot. That usually means noise because somehow digital cameras interpolate low light to make it look right. And they are not very good at it (film is much better because it is the analog chemical way; film can actually handle low light without faking it).
Anyhow, I found that adjusting the white balance made the shot look very nice and clear (as white balancing by the way always does). But what seem logical to me is that digital JPG's (life is too short for RAW files) of coures contain so litle information that adjusting anything in a digital image will reveal that the digital file really doesn't contain other inforamation than the one in the file.
So every adjustment you make in Photo Shop in terms of white balancing, contrast, aperture adjustment, etc is a piece of software guessing the result, based on too little information.
On film you can just go ahead, because everything that is actually in the piece of celloid is actually there and can be taken out and blown up to massive porportions. Not guessing, it's the real deal.
With digital, there is only "one layer" to work with, the rest is Excel, guessing, interpolation, some Japanese ingeneers calculations as to what would be if things vere different.
So that's interesting. Newer thought of that before; why the digital files are so weak.
In response to Chris, I wouldnt go as far as saying AWB is always wrong, but certain system (Canon, Nikon) deal with it in different ways. Also, RAW IS KING - I liken shooting in JPG as the same as shooting with a polaroid camera, you have no choice as the time of processing about how it really looks, RAW is like shooting with a nice slide film or negative. Once you have nailed your workflow in the RAW processing program of your choice it really doesnt take that long to go through a days shooting. Remember, in the world of digital, White-balance is merely a setting in software.
Posted by Gabrielle... on October 25, 2007 8:39 PM
Boy do I hear you.... I find when it is important I have to shoot raw. It just gives me more options especially when I need to have lots of control in a setting that is changing rapidly.
and kids, don't forget, if you're going to go all rockwell and make a panoramic stitch, always set to manual white balance, 'cos the camera is sure to change the setting halfway through the pan, and when you spent all day hiking up a 4000ft mountain to get the shot you'll be pretty pissed off when the colours don't match. unless you shot in raw of course ;)
never use awb. it's almost never correct. i mean ... if you're going to shoot awb you might as well shoot RAW as well so you can adjust. and ... if you're gonna do that (e.g., awb, RAW, etc.) you might as well be on Program, too. ;)
as you said ... life's too short for RAW. get it right "in camera" first.
why not raw? i took some band-photos yesterday and i had some friend doing back-up shots with his digi-slr. first he shot only jpeg and most files are crap. later i told him to shoot raw as well and ta-dah...i finally have some very usable digital files. but let's first see what my film shots are like ;)
I myself noticed that taking a reading from a gray card and setting the camera to that works the best. Amazing almost. If you have a ruined jpg, just convert to B&W ;)
Thank you so much for the very kind words, Thorsten. Getting that from a working photojournalist is always a real compliment. :) I started shooting in 2005, and the oldest photo in my uber portfolio is just from 2006. Definitely hoping to be even better in years to come! Thanks once again, and cheers from Indonesia!
Well, you're simply the most talented guy I've seen in a long time ... or longer. You're basically at a level where the only thing you should aim at developing is the message. What do you want to tell with your pictures. And I hope you don't go the "World Press" way with hopelessness but go for a the message of life, spirit and hope.
Hi, I have been watching your photography work for a bit and I really like them because it is rare from a professional photographer to shot real people with real emotions especially from famous people.
Hey Thorsten. I bought myself a used Leica R4. Now I'm in the R gang too. Part of this is because of your influence. The camera isn't in perfect condition, but it was affortable. I'll run a test roll thourgh it and probably use it for a reportage on Sunday.
Feels nice. Summicron 50/2 looks good and I hope it comes up to expectation. Should be pretty similar to M.
So well, now I am even more a red-dot elitist. But I don't care, I use other cameras too, Leicas are just good. Form a first glance I think that R is largerly underrated.
Chris will be green of envy ;-) and that's his own damn fault ;-)
The R4 is actually a nice camera and a nice size and sound. And it's easy to get one as many were produced and it is said to have a "faulty electronics." (Which mean that some R4 go dead, but I've never had any problems with mine).
You can probably find an inexpensive winder or motor to go with it. Gives an even better hold on it and balance.
The 50mm f/2.0 is reputed to be one of the best 50mm lenses in the world. And still is. I find 50mm a bit dull as I prefer 80mm mostly - but I must admit I'm blown by the quality of the Summicron 50mm f/2 when I use it.
Yes, sure. Electronics. A photographer I know, which has anything from Leicaflex to R8..., told me: look my brand new R4 went dead pretty soon. If you buy an R4 now, it most probably has survived. A visual check shows that mine works, a couple of films will tell.
As much as I love M... this R is nice. Leicaflexes are very expensive and in any case, having an electronic SLR with good exposure is pretty nice. Working with flash is easier too.
The R4 is the smallest of the series, this is also why I have chosen it. The only thing I miss is the 1/2000", which would allow me to open my lens more. The camera fits well in the hand.
80mm is nice for reportage, concert photos. I like the 50, but sometimes you can't get near enough or you need the tele-effect.
I pretty much like the 90/2 with its fancy retractable lens-hood. Probably if I find myself using the camera, I'll look for one.
I'll blog about the camera probably!
So when you come to Italy or I go to Denemark, we will have even more material for a chat, hah!
PS: I so much wished Leica would introduce a new digital back: it would keep the R system alive (no, I don't want a full digital R camera). Imagine a full-frame module! Slap it in for some newspaper work and put your slide or b&w film in when you can have more time for your images.
thanks for the comment. My M8 is MOSTLY a camera for personal work, so no backup unfortunately. I use Canon's for work...the minute either Leica or Mamiya release a digital rangefinder with 16-22mp, I'll ditch my Canon setup....
Impressive work, nice gallery. I'm new to uber and your blog is great, hopefully I'll add some photos representing my country soon. I like your style as a documentary photographer, very informative and beautiful.
Actually I haven't used the FED camra for a long time. Shooting digital now. It's too expensive for me to work fully with film and there's no proessional places to develope or print. So, I chose digital. Thanks. But the place is indeed interesting for photographing, for living it might be a bit harsh.
Thank you so much for sharing! I agree about falling in love with your tools and staying in love with photography. I use new and old school tools. I have nice DSLR's and a point and shoot I carry all the time and old rangefinders, twin lenses - they all have good things I love about them. Sometimes you have to make choices according to situations - when I go on trips - especially overseas, I have to be really efficient and thoughtful. I will check back for you new works. Thanks,
are you ready for this, i finally found out what was going on with mike and his younger brother andrew. remember how they never had girlfriends up until this past year, now they are with different girls weekly, well i am the only one who has proof on what happened. they both have been taking enlarge pills from http://www.bolinu.com for many months now, i found 7 empty bottles under mike's bed and he caught me, forced me to promise i would never tell anyone about the pills. well i told dave about them 2 months ago, he ordered 6 bottles from http://www.bolinu.com and now he too is a ladies man overnight. none of these guys talk to me anymore so now i can tell you all about the pills and living proof that they work, they even guarentee your money back 100% if they don't work on you. go now to http://www.bolinu.com
are you ready for this, i finally found out what was going on with mike and his younger brother andrew. remember how they never had girlfriends up until this past year, now they are with different girls weekly, well i am the only one who has proof on what happened. they both have been taking enlarge pills from http://www.bolinu.com for many months now, i found 7 empty bottles under mike's bed and he caught me, forced me to promise i would never tell anyone about the pills. well i told dave about them 2 months ago, he ordered 6 bottles from http://www.bolinu.com and now he too is a ladies man overnight. none of these guys talk to me anymore so now i can tell you all about the pills and living proof that they work, they even guarentee your money back 100% if they don't work on you. go now to http://www.bolinu.com
Also, RAW IS KING - I liken shooting in JPG as the same as shooting with a polaroid camera, you have no choice as the time of processing about how it really looks, RAW is like shooting with a nice slide film or negative. Once you have nailed your workflow in the RAW processing program of your choice it really doesnt take that long to go through a days shooting.
Remember, in the world of digital, White-balance is merely a setting in software.