2018 Project 52, 1st quarter by Sandy (skitterbug)

[Geoff F]

With flower photography, Sandy, I try to make a Custom White Balance before shooting. Raw format is fairly easy to change the white balance during editing but starting with a correct white balance setting will get you fairly close to being exact and often much better than relying on auto white balance or any of the other presets.

Sometimes looking at the background areas of a photo instead of just the main subject can be another clue to the correct adjustment.

But some flowers are always tricky and will change their apparent colour depending on various light angles. Irises in particular are a flower which always gives me problems. I have even picked a bloom and taken it indoors to place alongside my computer while I was adjusting the white balance; and it 'changed colour' as I went inside. Standing in the doorway I could hold the bloom at arms length so it varied between being outside and inside by about 6 ft and I could watch the colour 'change'.

[skitterbug]

With flower photography, Sandy, I try to make a Custom White Balance before shooting. Raw format is fairly easy to change the white balance during editing but starting with a correct white balance setting will get you fairly close to being exact and often much better than relying on auto white balance or any of the other presets.

Sometimes looking at the background areas of a photo instead of just the main subject can be another clue to the correct adjustment.

But some flowers are always tricky and will change their apparent colour depending on various light angles. Irises in particular are a flower which always gives me problems. I have even picked a bloom and taken it indoors to place alongside my computer while I was adjusting the white balance; and it 'changed colour' as I went inside. Standing in the doorway I could hold the bloom at arms length so it varied between being outside and inside by about 6 ft and I could watch the colour 'change'.

Hi Geoff - I wasn't exactly sure how to do a custom white balance correction but hunting on the web gave me the "how to do it" video that explained what I needed to do! So next time, when I try taking a photo of a flower, I will be prepared to try this technique! Normally, I simply leave the white balance setting to auto. I figure it is best to shoot in RAW because I need as much as possible to work with in PP.

The video I watched used a grey card? Do you have any preference about which type to choose - grey or white? Or does it really matter?
Just curious as usual!

Thank you for the extra information. I really appreciate the help and encouragement!

[DanK]

Sandy,

I use a pocket-sized whiBal. Accurate, small enough to stick in your pocket, and with a lanyard for hanging around your neck.

To each her or his own, but unlike Geoff, I haven't used a custom white balance in years. It takes time, and I don't find it at all helpful. Keep in mind that a WB setting, custom or otherwise, has no effect whatever on the color data included in the raw file. It's simply metadata that the software uses as a starting point, a first value for rendering the image. When I am unsure of WB, I take a shot with the whiBal in the image, making sure that the light falling on the image is comparable to that on the surface for which I want a correct WB. I then use that for an initial neutral WB, rather than relying on a custom WB. If it is not quite what I want, I modify it in post. For example, with many flower photos, I find I prefer a slightly warmer than neutral WB.

If you use Lightroom, this is particularly easy. If you have a bunch of images captured under similar lighting, you can set the WB using the image with the whiBal in it and then sync that WB to other images in the filmstrip.

Dan

[Cantab]

Sandy, I use a WhiBal card much as Dan does (if it's necessary and if I remember to do so). My recollection is that some grey cards may not be entirely accurate for the purpose of doing a white balance. There have been threads on this topic here in the past on CiC.

[skitterbug]

Hi Dan - It may be beneficial for me to do this for a bit and see if it affects my photos. I've had other comments about flower pics that I displayed, in regard to the color being off. It is hard for me to see that on my computer screen but I may need to be aware that I am not seeing what others see (gasp).

Yep, I do use Lightroom 6 so I'll check the sync feature! Thanks!

Sandy,

I use a pocket-sized whiBal. Accurate, small enough to stick in your pocket, and with a lanyard for hanging around your neck.

To each her or his own, but unlike Geoff, I haven't used a custom white balance in years. It takes time, and I don't find it at all helpful. Keep in mind that a WB setting, custom or otherwise, has no effect whatever on the color data included in the raw file. It's simply metadata that the software uses as a starting point, a first value for rendering the image. When I am unsure of WB, I take a shot with the whiBal in the image, making sure that the light falling on the image is comparable to that on the surface for which I want a correct WB. I then use that for an initial neutral WB, rather than relying on a custom WB. If it is not quite what I want, I modify it in post. For example, with many flower photos, I find I prefer a slightly warmer than neutral WB.

If you use Lightroom, this is particularly easy. If you have a bunch of images captured under similar lighting, you can set the WB using the image with the whiBal in it and then sync that WB to other images in the filmstrip.

Dan

[skitterbug]

Hi Bruce - I'll go for white then. The cards can't be that expensive!

There was a firmware update for the Canon Mark II. Not sure what all was included or if only the wifi ability was added in this update but maybe it will make a difference in other areas as well. I am an optimist! Now if I could find a "firmware update" for me! <chuckle>

Thanks for replying!

Sandy, I use a WhiBal card much as Dan does (if it's necessary and if I remember to do so). My recollection is that some grey cards may not be entirely accurate for the purpose of doing a white balance. There have been threads on this topic here in the past on CiC.

[Cantab]

Hi Bruce - I'll go for white then. The cards can't be that expensive!

Sandy, my post may have been a bit misleading. Some grey cards, especially those intended for exposure purposes are not great for white balance purposes. However, the WhiBal grey card is good. They come in different sizes (and prices). I bought the pocket size, such as this one: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...e_Pocket.html#! . (This link may display the webpage intended for Canadian customers.)

[Geoff F]

I use a Lastolite EzyBalance Calibration Card which is a flexible plastic membrane held in place by a spring steel edge. 10 ins square target area in a choice of grey on one side and white on the other. Folds up to fit into a 7 ins diameter pouch. The white side can even be used as a reflector.

Also, just a thought, is your monitor correctly calibrated?

[skitterbug]

Thank you Bruce for the explanation. No problems about B&H since it figured out it was me back again! <my name popped up at the top of the page.... ) Apparently, I've been surfing their site a lot lately. <lol>

[skitterbug]

Hi Geoff - I have an iMac that offers all sorts of color display choices. I stayed with the one that Apple selected. I'd asked about this question elsewhere on CiC and came to the conclusion that what I had would be okay. I do like the idea of using a White Balance card/grey option for some of my photos. Then I will be able to see if it makes a difference in colors appearing as they should!

[skitterbug]

Week 5 - Another cold week with snow falling. There isn't enough snow to make the landscape pretty and it seems too cold to be out.

I've decided that the lighting system in our kitchen is horrible for photography! Setting any sort of equipment close to the gas range wouldn't be too smart either so this is a hand held pic. I finally used f/5.6 - 1/13 - ISO800 and hope that this one conveys how delicious this stuff is!

I debated about leaving the edge of the cooking container show and then I decided it was a distraction.

Home made caramels - looks like delicious lava to me!

[Wavelength]

Week 4 - Due to the miserably cold weather, going out for photo work wasn't for me! I received a surprise bouquet and made use of it in my beginning effort to learn about macro/stacking techniques. I have a thread here that initiated a lot of interesting info that has been helpful.

So I tried working with a rose. I think this is comprised of 18 shots because I wanted to be thorough and I wanted to see what Affinity Photo would do blending them. Affinity Photo offers a "focus merge" and that's the way I did this one. There is one extra rose petal that I wish I had removed but for the rest of the picture, I am pleased. I will appreciate opinions, ideas for improvement, etc.

f/2.8 - 1/15ss - ISO100 - tripod - no flash but used a couple of lamps for extra lighting

Pink Rose

What a beautiful flower...color, lighting both superb!!!

[Geoff F]

Another tricky exposure scene, Sandy. Good focus and this looks good although I would be tempted to do a little bit of 'spotting in' with those small over exposed bits particularly in the bottom right corner. Virtually impossible to shoot this type of scene without getting a few over exposed spots.

[skitterbug]

Thank you very much Nandakumar! With so many of the members using stacking techniques, I've become quite curious about what I might be able to accomplish! I'm glad you enjoy the pic!

[skitterbug]

Another tricky exposure scene, Sandy. Good focus and this looks good although I would be tempted to do a little bit of 'spotting in' with those small over exposed bits particularly in the bottom right corner. Virtually impossible to shoot this type of scene without getting a few over exposed spots.

Hi Geoff - I decided to try to fix those over exposed bits and used Affinity Photo's cloning tool. There is probably a bit more that could be done but I decided to stop with the area that seemed most glaring. Thanks for the suggestion!

Edited Caramel pic!

[Cantab]

Sandy, I'm of two minds about the edited version in post #55. Removing the overexposed bits results in a loss of "sparkle" in the original image.
But it may simply be an issue of personal preference and what type of feel you want to create.

[skitterbug]

Sandy, I'm of two minds about the edited version in post #55. Removing the overexposed bits results in a loss of "sparkle" in the original image.
But it may simply be an issue of personal preference and what type of feel you want to create.

Hi Bruce - I'm not sure which one I like better since both have some interesting features. I like practicing/experimenting since that's what I think P52 is all about so I went with Geoff's suggestion to see what the end result might be. I was pleased that I couldn't detect how I changed the shiny bits, only that they were gone.

Now for a chuckle, I ought to make another pot of caramels and see if I can obtain better results! I wanted the swirling mass to look a bit more like lava. (good excuse for candy making, right?) Too bad I can't share the caramels with the group! <LOL>

Thanks for commenting! I appreciate your thoughts!

[Cantab]

Too bad I can't share the caramels with the group! <LOL>

That was my thought too!

[skitterbug]

Week 6 - The groundhog came and said 6 more weeks of winter.... Isn't it always? So I'm still hiding inside. While working in our kitchen today, a beetle decided to visit. I don't really mind them so long as there are only a few to deal with. This one landed on the faucet and waited until I turned off the water before heading to the open end to slurp some moisture. I don't believe I've ever seen a beetle dance around waiting for a drink before. I know....I find humour in crazy places.

But then I decided to see if I could capture this beetle in photos and so gave it a try. The first three are about the beetle and then I finally gave up and focused on the faucet itself. I wasn't sure which of these I liked the best so I am posting four of them. The rest will probably end up in the rubbish!

#1 - ISO200 - 1/80ss - f/2.8



#2 - ISO500 - f/5.6 - 1/80



#3 - ISO500 - f/5.6 - 1/80ss



#4 - ISO320 - f/5.6 - 1/80ss

[Cantab]

Sandy, an interesting set of photos in difficult lighting.

The last image caught my attention, perhaps because of its comparative simplicity. I'm surprised you were able to apparently freeze the moving water with a shutter of 1/80 but you seem to have done so.