Got the blues!

[Mike McCarty]

I recently posted some baby pictures across the hall. As part of my preparation before the subject showed up, I was fiddling with different ways to augment the window light in my bedroom. The room is pretty dark because the walls are painted a very dark green. One thing I tried was to add a little common bulb light to the ambient light side. I then remembered that the camera has different white balance settings for different lighting set ups. So, on my menu I found the incandescent bulb setting and thought that I might be sooo clever to use this setting.

Well, the little red headed, blue eyed beauty showed up and we got underway. After having shot about twenty shots (I still can't get over the fact that I can preview my work instantly) I then remembered to look at the results. Everything I had done was blue! So, without trying to remain soooo clever, I just switched it back to what I was used to, which was auto white balance.

I discussed my lack of cleverness with my fellow at the camera shop and he confirmed that what the camera had done, because of the incandescent setting, is take all the natural (predominant) window light and made it blue. I would show an example but I deleted them all. I may have to invest in one of those bulbs which matches the natural light temperature. Then a little duck tape and a chair back and I'd be in business.

In the auto setting, the camera interpreted the natural light pretty well and made the bulb light a bit golden red, which didn't seem to hurt that much since she was a red head anyway. I suppose you can deduce from this that you cannot use specific white balance settings with mixed light sources. At least without doing your research.

One might also conclude that if you were using any of these specific white balance settings, and, there is the presence of natural sunlight, you could be getting some unpredictable (blue) results. And, next time I think I'll take a close look at my first attempt and not my twentieth.

These are the musings of someone still stumbling along with his new digital machine.

[Jean Kelly]

Me too Mike, I found early that specific settings don't guarantee the right lighting and have some very blue and very orange yellow photos to prove it.

Jean

[Tom Edgerton]

Mike--

You're intuitively a way better photographer than I, based on previous posts of yours. But when you think about it, it makes sense that the one thing that digital cameras can't do better than film is deal with mixed-temperature light. Any device that's going to average the predominant color temperature in a situation is still going to show whatever off-color light is lurking around. Our brains can compensate readily, but optical devices can't.

When I was an advertising art director, we used to jump through all kinds of hoops to either change the off-color light to whatever temp was predominating, block the off-color sources, or pick a film--daylight or tungsten--that would give us most of what we wanted, and then we would live with the rest.

While this may seem like a real pain, the beauty was that it really sensitized me to evaluating the temperature of different light sources as soon as we'd walk into a situation. Later, I actually began to use such disparities creatively for effect, such as your realizing that a little extra warmth was good for your red-headed subject--even though this seemed like a problem at the time.

Thanks for a useful post.

Best--TE

[Marvin Mattelson]

Mike, when you use an auto white balance you are compromising the varying light sources. You need to take a custom reading with only the main light source on and not allow the other sources to effect it's integrity. This is the equivilent of matching the film to the lightsource. In cooking, additional ingredients should enhance the taste of the main ingredient, not overwhelm it.

[Holly Snyder]

Hi Mike,

Forgive me if you've done this before, but you'll get the best color temperature results if you use a gray card (as Marvin implied), particularly with mixed temperature light sources. Using the PRE setting on your camera, have someone hold a gray card around 6" in front of whatever you're photographing. Then get close enough so that the gray card is the only thing in your viewfinder and take a picture. (The manual explains the detailed steps). This will store to memory the white balance for your particular lighting setup. Then you can use this setting for the rest of your photoshoot. However if you change the angle you're photographing from, or change the position of the lights, you'll need to do the procedure again.

You can get gray cards from most camera shops. Ritz Camera has them for around $12. They're worth every penny, and more, when you see the color difference in your photos.

Regards,

Holly

[Mike McCarty]

Thanks guys and gals,

This white balance is all new to me. I am going to get one of those gray cards, I can handle $12 dollars.

I went back and found an example still loaded in my camera. The first is with the white balance set on incandescent and the second is using auto white balance and a reflector board just off camera to our right.

In these two examples there are two 24x60 windows flanking the head board of the bed, all on the wall to our left. In front of each, on a night stand, is a lamp, which shows as a golden light in our left corner of the second.

What is really amazing is just how smart this camera got when it was allowed to figure it out for itself. I'm still going to get the card.