Header Picture :: Splash

Balancing Act

After a week of non-technical posts, I am going to spend most of this week discussing, well, mostly technical aspects of photography (sorry Jenn, you know I just can’t resist it). Did you really expect anything different? I mean come on, I am a scientist, hardcore geek, a nerd. And for the record, I fully embrace my nerditude, so your efforts to deride it will be vain, ha! I also expect that someday geeks will rule the world, but I digress…

california20la20jolla20rock20water20sea20ocean_jpg_650

One of the most overlooked parameter in digital photography has to be White Balance (I mean with a name like that are you really surprised!). Most people simply set their camera to Auto WB and just leave it at that. In fact one of the main reasons I shoot in RAW is to have the flexibility to modify the WB in post-processing. Granted RAW gives you other things as well, but WB flexibility is high up on my list. Most of you already know this  (I actually found out there are people who read this blog, so I don’t have to pretend anymore, really pumped!), so I won’t dwell on this. Instead, I would like to focus on a little trick that makes WB even more invaluable.

When your camera determines the appropriate WB, it evaluates the scene and makes an “average reading” that will apply to the entire scene. Likewise, when you manually set WB, the chosen value will be applied to the entire photographs. In most situations, this perfectly fine and you don’t need to go any further. However, there are many cases, where a single “generic” WB setting cannot render the scene properly.

Take for example, the photograph posted above. This picture was taken in LaJolla, CA, as the marine layer was coming in and out of the coast. The sun was filtering through the layer and imparting a beautiful golden glow on the rocks. On the other hand, any area that wasn’t directly lit, was fairly bluish and cool.

In this case, had I chosen a cool WB setting (say 4500 K), the entire scene would have come out blue, not reflecting the contrast between warm and cool tones (photo 1 below).

 cool

Conversely, had I chosen a warmer WB setting (say 7500K) , I would have successfully recreated the golden glow, but lost the cool tones in the water (see photo below).

 warm

The solution here, is pretty simple: WB blending. Digital gives us the flexibility to merge several  photographs into one, so why not take full advantage of it? Instead of being bound by the limitations of the medium I am shooting on, I simply double processed the same frame. Once with a cool WB, a second time with warmer WB. The two images were blended in Photoshop, a little contrast tweak and tadaaaa!

Bookmark and Share

Posted on April 28th, 2009 in Photography Tips Post-processing techniques

7 Responses to “Balancing Act”

  1. stan rose says:

    Good subject, Younes! I often blend two WB settings to achieve a better result with one shot–however, you have to be extremely careful with this approach, or you end up with the dreaded “unnatural” look and you end up being blasted by other photogs ;)
    In your example, a blend i think was a good idea, but in my personal opinion you overdid it, a more subtle blend would be better in my opinion.

  2. Younes says:

    Thanks for the feedback Stan, I really appreciate it. I overdid it here just to make it more visible and I agree that the saturation could be pulled back a fair bit (it’s easy to get carried away when you’ve been staring at a file for long enough).

  3. Kevan says:

    Specific example aside – you raise a good point though. To be a photographer, you have to be smarter than the camera!

  4. Neville says:

    “it’s easy to get carried away when you’ve been staring at a file for long enough”
    K, so its not just me. LOL
    Great post. I should practice this a bit more.

  5. Victor says:

    Thanks for sharing your processing techniques Younes, excellent article. For me the photo above doesn’t look unnatural (I can’t understand how photos can be natural if a camera sensor (or a film) already imposes limitations on how photos look). BTW what do you mean you are scientist and hardcore geek? Isn’t photography your primary occupation?

  6. Younes says:

    Thanks for the kind words Viktor. Photography is not my primary occupation at all, though that is my goal. I am a molecular biologist by training, but work in Patent Policy…

  7. How embarrassing – for me! I never even thought of WB blending. I’ve always had to find other ways of trying to accomplish the same thing, but this is so logical that it is kind of embarrassing that it never occurred to me. Thanks!

Please be the first, or second or, well you know, to leave a reply; I really really really appreciate it when you do