Eagles- Washing Bum? And correcting WB

[NorthernFocus]

...I love the deep greens-leaning-towards-blue of clear (non-eutrophicate) wild northern waters as opposed to the soupy yellow-greens of typically eutrophic-ruined waters we see a lot of down here. The bluer cooler greens speak to me of remote/northern/unspoiled often emphasized by the deeper green reflections of conifers...."northern waters" aspect of the water at cooler temps than in your final versions. As you point out and I agree - this is about preferred, not correct, but I thought I'd share my thoughts on another "preferred".

Thank for the detailed comment, Mark. It is very insightful and instructive for how people view images differently based on their personal frame of reference. And I agree with your general characterization of the cooler colors of northern waters and conifers. That is what most people remember and what one sees most days and most places in northern latitudes.

That very general perception is likely why I never "corrected" the WB more in the original processing of the images. Back when these were taken I didn't have any software with a WB sampling tool. As a matter of fact back then I didn't fool with WB adjustment other than by occasionally applying a warming filter effect until it looked "right". So (again) it really begs the question of whether one really wants to seek a truly "correct" WB versus processing the image to the desired perception. For mass appeal, the original versions are probably closer to what most visitors would remember from a trip to Alaska. The "corrected" versions do in fact likely better reflect the reality of that moment in time at that location. But they don't necessarily make the photos "better".

If one experiences Prince William Sound in different seasons and under various lighting conditions, in any given location the colors of both trees and water vary dramatically. Close to shore the water color is a function of the seasonal color of the trees, the color temperature of the light, and the condition of the water. The trees change with the seasons and moisture content, lighting changes with time of day, time of year, and cloud cover, and water condition changes with location, depth, the state of the tide, time of year, etc.

Interestingly, one could argue that digital photography and the flexibility of PP techniques are making the art of photography and painting more similar. It is much easier now with PP to render a photograph as desired or targeted for specific viewers' preferences rather than simply capturing "reality".

[NorthernFocus]

May I ask a question about the WB topic? You don't necessarily want a white object in a picture to appear pure white, do you? The eagle's head in the first picture has a yellowish tint, to me, which I consider totally acceptable and even desirable for outdoor photography, because with nature photography we generally want to capture the temperature of the natural light at the time, else our photos wouldn't bear the appearance of time of day/environment in which the photo was actually taken. I thought the LR white balance tool was intended to set the WB to make whatever "neutral" thing you base it on look neutral in tone, so I don't usually base my WB on it when I want to preserve a natural lighting look.

Exactly. That's the point I was trying to make in my long winded comments to Christina. In nature photography, the WB tool should be used as a tool. Not interpreted as a standard. Studio photographers likely have a different perspective.

[rawill]

Like an above poster, I am in awe of magnificent bird shots like this.

I have read the comments with interest.
What I love about this forum is the information so freely shared, and the odd controversy!