Another Conumdrom

[ChrisH]

I have posted two images of Hambelden Church in Buckinghamshire. The first appears to have a green colour cast but I think rather attractive. The second has had the cast removed by neutralising in Match Colour (Photoshop CC)

I would be interested to know which you prefer.

Unedited

Edited

[CormacD]

Hi Chris, I think the second is better as the church stands out and it is meant to be the main focal point and not the green grass.
Cheers....Lindsay

[ChrisH]

Thanks Lindsay

[Saorsa]

I prefer the second but it now appears a bit too warm. You might try just a little de-saturation to reduce the brilliance of the green while keeping a neutral tone to the church.

[Shadowman]

I think the first stands out more against the overexposed sky.

[DanK]

I'm guessing that you took this either early or late with auto white balance, and the cool color tint is the result of the AWB adjusting as if the light were less tinted than early and late-day light is. Is that right? IMHO, AWB isn't trustworthy when the light has a distinct cast.

I think somewhere in between the two is probably best.

Color match seems like the wrong tool to use, IMHO. What I would do is find something that should appear neutral--either a white or a gray--and start by adjusting that to a neutral color. then I would adjust further to taste.

One option is to use a fixed color temperature in taking the picture, which might give you a more realistic initial rendering. The best, I think, is to have a spectrally neutral target, like a whiBal, under the same lighting. Then use that to adjust the temperature, sync that setting to the real photo, and adjust from there.

[joebranko]

I prefer the unedited shot myself. 🤔 I would crop some off the grass.

[Urbanflyer]

To me, the first looks like morning and the second like evening. So white balance, color temperature, is key. If you were trying to capture the whole scene, then which represents the time of day the image was shot?

If you were trying to capture the architecture of the building, which is more true to the color seen there? Cropping out some of the foreground will help focus on the building in either case.

[NorthernFocus]

Of the two choices I prefer sans green. WB could still be optimized.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Dan, and Chris,

I think somewhere in between the two is probably best.

I tend to agree, although I suspect the latter is more correct because the sun is at a low angle, therefore its light ought to be redder in the places lit by it.


The following touches a nerve with me, as I struggle with the following decision making process, so, if I may play devils advocate with your suggestions Dan ...

What I would do is find something that should appear neutral--either a white or a gray--and start by adjusting that to a neutral color. then I would adjust further to taste.

OK, lets say the stonework of the church is 'neutral grey', so where should we sample?
If we choose the sunlit part, we'll get one answer, looking somewhat like the first image.
If we choose an area in a tree shadow, we'll get a different answer, looking somewhat like the second version.
(roughly speaking - Chris could always try and post the results)

One option is to use a fixed color temperature in taking the picture, which might give you a more realistic initial rendering. The best, I think, is to have a spectrally neutral target, like a whiBal, under the same lighting. Then use that to adjust the temperature, sync that setting to the real photo, and adjust from there.

The same problem exists with using a WhiBal card, where it is placed, and hence what it is lit by, will have the same dramatic effect on the resulting WB used.
Or it'll be placed without much thought and 'take its chances' with light source and there will only be one answer, but that's probably worse than AWB, which is at least working from an average of the mixed light sources visible in the image. If you (all) see where I'm coming from?
That said the AWB version here is too green.


Perhaps the best answer is a monochrome conversion

Cheers, Dave

PS
Dan please be assured I'm not having a go - as I said above, this is something I struggle deciding and wish to explore everyone's decision making process.

[Manfred M]

+1 to what Dan has written. The stonework on the first shot is definitely too green, but in the second one, you have gone to far over to the magenta for the image to look right.

That being said, you are shooting in a bit of a mixed light situation with warm tones where the sun hits the church and cooler tones in the shaded areas. If it were my shot, I would be heading towards neutral tones in the stone, perhaps swinging slight to the warms side. Neither the green nor magenta colour casts do it for me.

[DanK]

Dave,

Sorry to be slow responding. I had been traveling. You are absolutely right about the whiBal.

By the way, there is an interesting difference in idioms. In the US, "have a go" means "give it a try."

Dan

[ucci]

I'm with Canadian Joe. Dig up some of the lawn in #1 and it would be a great winter's evening shot. And #2 is a good shot as well, maybe taken on a warmer evening. In which case light casts for both would probably be appropriate for the intended use of the shot.

Okay a digression. Us ozzies tend to be economical with words. Down right lazy in fact. And so it is that 'have a go' has a third meaning down here. If some one gets pugnacious and looking for a fight to tell them 'to have a go' is to invite them to bring it on and do their best, the inference being that you are not all all phased by them and you reckon if they try it on and swing a punch or two you will do them like a good dinner!

[Rebel]

2nd for me Chris, nice shot!

[pnodrog]

I think the cast in the first one is more cyan than green. Because of the lighting conditions I agree with Dan and would use a WB correction. Increase the colour temperature and and correct tint (very slightly towards magenta). You can restore the grass colour by using a hue adjustment on green.