White Balance

[humbug]

hi folks,
took this photo while at troup head, aberdeenshire yesterday.
done at bit of cropping and level adjustment but just can't seem to get the white balance right.
all the photo's i took of birds with white body's have the same result although i changed the white balance settings on the camera, any suggestions on getting it right??




File Name IMG_0347.JPG
Camera Model Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL
Shooting Date/Time 21/07/2007 13:33:57
Shooting Mode Aperture-Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed ) 1/800
Av( Aperture Value ) 6.3
Metering Mode Evaluative Metering
Exposure Compensation 0
ISO Speed 800
Lens 55.0 - 200.0 mm
Focal Length 200.0 mm
Image Size 3888x2592
Image Quality Fine
Flash Off
White Balance Mode Daylight
AF Mode AI Servo AF
Picture Style Standard
Sharpness 3
Contrast 0
Saturation 0
Color tone 0
Color Space sRGB
Noise Reduction Off
File Size 3779 KB

[WestLothian]

The white looks overexposed on my monitor.
Are the graphs showing this on your camera and software?
It is a very nice sharp image - congratulations.

[humbug]

i've deleted the files from the camera, but after further tinkering i suspect that they are overexposed. wasn't thinking that at the time of taking, oh well another lesson learnt.
i'll just have to go back when the rain stops, it's only around 10 miles from my house.

[SteveHL]

Try center spot metering off the white on the bird. If its bright use AE-.7 to 1.
Hope this helps.
Cheers
SteveHL

[richardkm]

It's definitely worth shooting in RAW, as you get more exposure latitude and the ability to alter the white balance after exposure. Also, I leave my lcd screen on info with the histogram turned on, that way you can quickly check the exposure immediately after the shot.

If you have Photoshop CS2 onward, try the Shadow/Highlight function to tone down the white a little bit.

[Ollie]

The white does look a bit blown on this. when I'm photographing anything with a lot of white on I always set the camera to under expose by at least -2/3rds of a stop sometimes even a full stop depending on the lighting conditions. This is when shooting in jpeg mode by the way. Here is one of a Swan that I consider to be just about correctly exposed. Can't remember the exact settings but the camera was definitely set to under expose
Roger.

[HowlinWolf]

White balance has nothing to do with blown highlights. Once this has happened, no amount of post processing will retrieve them. White balance is all about correcting colour temperature of the light under which the subject was shot. The human eye compensates for this imbalance but digital sensors (or film, for that matter) can't, unless given a helping hand. Shooting in RAW enables the white balance to be corrected using computer software.

As far as exposure goes, either take a meter reading using manual mode from something you perceive to be a mid tone, or a spot meter reading (again using manual mode) from the white plumage, this time opening up the lens at least one to one and a half stops. Light meters are calibrated to read all subjects at 18% gray (although this is not the case for multi-pattern metering, which applies some compensation automatically). White is around two stops lighter than this tone, hence the more exposure needed to reproduce white as white. With experience, you will be able to instinctively adjust the exposure compensation on your camera, or know when it's best to resort to manual mode. You have to get to know how your meter reacts under certain conditions.

The use of the histogram on you camera is another way of assessing exposure. Always expose to the right: just enough to have some pixels of the image recording as white, assuming of course, that there is a white tone to be recorded in the image. The histogram should slope to almost zero as it reaches the right side of the screen. If pixels are stacked up beyond the right of the graph you will have lost detail in highlights.

21st century light meters in cameras are good, but not infallible. The only way to ensure that the subject does not influence the meter reading is to use a hand held meter and take an incident meter reading. This only measures light falling onto the subject, not reflected from it.

HW

[matt_xyz]

Ah, the original poster was simply asking about exposure rather than white balance, now I understand. I was looking for some subtle colour cast on the gannet image and couldn't really see a problem. But the highlights are slightly blown. As HowlinWolf points out, this is not the same as white balance, which refers instead to the colour temperature of the image.

Regarding white balance, I shoot in RAW and tend to leave it on Auto. I rarely change the white balance when post processing, although occasionally I'll warm an image up slightly.

Regarding exposure, HowlinWolf and others have provided some good advice.

Matt

[Hobjob]

Originally Posted by HowlinWolf

As far as exposure goes, either take a meter reading using manual mode from something you perceive to be a mid tone, or a spot meter reading (again using manual mode) from the white plumage, this time opening up the lens at least one to one and a half stops.

HW

Hmmm
Few of us would have the time or ability to take manual readings
when taking in flight shots.

Consider bracketing for such shots, with 2/3 over and underexposure,
if your camera can.

It is easier to get back info in an under-exposed photo than an
over-exposed one.

I had a quick play in photoshop, magnetic lassooing the over-exposed
bit and changing the levels for that bit only, but didn't bother to try and get the
colour back - it is too blue.

Its an improvement, but going back and taking anpother shot seems prefereable

[humbug]

hi folks,
thanks once again for the advice, i'm just a beginner at this but my first thoughts on this pic was that the white has a hint of blue taken from the sea and the lack of detail in the white wing feathers which led me to believe it was the white balance, i'm now shooting in raw and have been tinkering with a few pics but still just learning, anyway here's another one from the same day(no tinkering) so is it just overexposure that's to blame for the lack of detail???