At the creek

[xpatUSA]

yes, [the selected WB] does determine the initial rendering, but that doesn't have any practical implications at all, if one assumes that the WB has to be set in post.

I don't assume that the WB has to be set in post. Quite the opposite in fact, even though - like your good self - I shoot raw. Being an outsider here, I must ask if "most of us" leave all color-balancing to post-processing?

For everyday outdoor shooting, I find that the AWB in my Canons usually comes fairly close. I still consider it only a starting point, but it is convenient, and it often comes closer than a fixed Kelvin value would.

AWB in my Sigma cameras is pretty poor - I only use it if I have no other choice. As most of us should know, a simple Kelvin value does not represent a standard lighting value such as D55; there is a "tint" involved too ...

[MrB]

As some of the light travelling to the water will be refracted down into the water rather than reflected, shouldn't we expect to see the scene above the water as being brighter than the reflections?

Philip

[rpcrowe]

IMO - there are four ways that I get my images color balanced the way I desire (I always shoot in RAW)...

1. Shoot a white balance target and use that in conjunction with the Adobe Camera Raw eye dropper.

2. Shoot an image of the white balance and set your camera up with a custom white balance. Different cameras have different procedures to do this...

3. In ACR select a neutral color with the eye dropper.

4. Use the camera AWB and then modify it (if needed) in ACR... I almost always do this in daylight shooting...

Both my Canon DSLR cameras as well as my Sony mirrorless APSC cameras do a pretty fair job in AWB.

I have never used an arbitrary Kelvin (such as 5,000 or so) unless I know the Kelvin of my light source...

"CORRECT" while balance is often not the most pleasing. I try for the most pleasing colors but, it seems to help to be as close to correct when shooting as possible...

[Round Tuit]

The easiest way to colour grade is to use Color Lookup; either as an adjustment layer (my preferred workflow) or as an adjustment on the image itself.

I always start with a properly colour corrected image; grading primarily involves specific adjustments to the highlights, mid-tones and shadow areas. I find that the 3DLUT option has the most "looks" and I usually find what i want there. I tend to take down the opacity and will sometimes use a blending mode other than Normal.

The reason I tend to go the layer mask route is that I will paint areas to decrease the effect here hand there, especially in the skin areas.

Thank you Manfred. I take it that "Color Lookup" is an adjustment layer available in Photoshop CC. I do have Photoshop but my version is from the jurassic era of CS4! Could I use three Curve adjustments to alter the colour and the "blend if" option to target the highlights,midtones and shadows areas. On a more basic level, could you point me to a reference that explains how colour grading works, whether the changes in colour are aimed mostly at the hue vs saturation and/or intensity. Most of what I have found on the internet is related to video and of limited applicability to still images.

Yes it changes the look, but as Dan has pointed out, we don't have a lot of choice here as the original composition is not working all that well for the reasons he has given. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to re-shoot, so an edit that crops away part of the image that is not working is often all one can do. The problem I have with the original is the focus is on a part of the scene that doesn't contribute to the image and in fact it detracts. The reason I went for a tighter crop than either Dan or Richard is that I found that the background's softness was distracting too much from the subject so I wanted less of it. Had she been turned in the opposite direction, the main crop would have been on the left hand side and the area on the right hand side would have played a bigger role in the composition.

The more I look at the picture, the more I question the highlighted statement. My initial reaction to the post was very similar to yours, Dan's and Ted. But the offending right side enhances so many factors that contribute to the "vulnerability" of the girl that I am not sure that it can be dismissed. It makes her smaller, it takes her further away from the observer, it places her in an inhospitable environment, it emphasizes the darkness and lack of saturation of the entire scene. All of this leaves me with a dilemma. That is: how to preserve that feeling of vulnerability while making the picture more effective?

[Rufus]

I still like your original composition, Andre, for reasons similar to those you have described so well, althought I still feel more headroom would have helped.

After several views, I have a couple of other observations. The rocks on the right are very sharply focused so a little gaussian blur might further guide the viewer to the fact that the main subject is the girl and the rocks are secondary. Also, you could try flipping the image on the centre vertical line so the girl is on the right so as we "read" the image from left to right we see the foreground, subject and blurred background. This can make a surprising difference to the way the brain perceives some images.

[Round Tuit]

I still like your original composition, Andre, for reasons similar to those you have described so well, althought I still feel more headroom would have helped.

After several views, I have a couple of other observations. The rocks on the right are very sharply focused so a little gaussian blur might further guide the viewer to the fact that the main subject is the girl and the rocks are secondary. Also, you could try flipping the image on the centre vertical line so the girl is on the right so as we "read" the image from left to right we see the foreground, subject and blurred background. This can make a surprising difference to the way the brain perceives some images.

All good comments but...The original isn't mine!

[Rufus]

All good comments but...The original isn't mine!

Oops. Sincere apologies to Andre, and especially to Mike the OP.