White Balance: Examples past and present

After the recent snow we've been having, what could be better than using something white as an example of how scenes are affected by choosing different white balances. So I stepped out into the cold yesterday around late morning/early afternoon time, with the intention of spending a good hour in and around Debdale Park, Gorton, just ten minutes from my home. I was sans gloves, so I was back after half an hour, but below is the best 'snowscape' image shot using different white balance settings.

Auto:
A risk of too many blues in the snow parts (especially in the shadows). Sky should be blue, snow should be brilliant white.

Cloud:
A lot better. The trees now look more natural: plenty if browns etc. Also, less blue in the shadows that hit the snow.

Shade:
A lot more orange and brown; possibly too much. Interesting to compare them. Looks somewhat old fashioned, like an old colour film or a cheap Christmas card.

Direct Sunlight:
Very crisp, as you would expect from the sun bouncing directly off the brilliant white snow. Also a lot warmer and natural-looking than the Auto. Guess Auto falls short when photographing snowy scenes.

Flash:
Obviously, I wasn't using flash, but this was shot using the WB preset for flash. Not bad. Warmer than the Auto setting, whose function is to remove any colour casts in an image.

Tungsten:

Less said about this the better. Using this setting assumes the scene is lit with a tungsten/incandescent bulb, thus it aims to remove any red/orange casts. The result- however- is a very cool blue image. 

This is a subject of photography that has caused me considerable trouble when I was an absolute beginner, due to both a lack of understanding and a beginner's desire to control every last thing on my camera (which- with very little understanding of something as important as White Balance- drew me into very murky waters indeed). I used to think White Balance was about setting my camera to reflect the dominant colour in a scene, thus providing images with an unwanted tint. So instead of using my camera to collect the colour cast I was using it to apply one. Below are some 'schoolboy errors' from the early days (2yrs ago).

All-in-all a good portrait, but I went through a phase of constantly changing the white balance for different scenes, and also different people, especially Tungsten and Fluorescent.

So, if I was changing the white balance to match the lighting in different scenes, this was one of the disasters that occurred while shooting neon lights using a fluorescent WB.

Not only was I 'toying around' with different White Balance settings, but also 'tinkering' with the colour temperatures within these settings (below is an example of the intricacy of this system), further confusing my schoolboy mind. I'm not beating myself up over it any more, though. On the level one course they used to call me 'White Balance' Jon because it was evident I had been messing around with it. But I'm a bigger and better photographer now, and doesn't everyone get a little overzealous with things they've just learned? I refer here to the amount of people who overdo things on Photoshop, like selective colouring. Fair play to them, I say! And also good luck!

Within each WB preset is also a the above graph, which I can only presume refers to more specific  colour temperatures. Of course, 'presume' is all I can do, for I do not possess a Masters degree in Thermo-dynamics or statistics. Some things are best left, I feel.

White Balance & Colour Temperature

White Balance exists to ensure the colours in an image are as accurate as possible (1). It provides an adequate reference point used by the camera to correct any harsh colour casts in an image that occur as a result of the dominant light in the shooting situation. For instance, a white wall lit by a halogen light may result in a yellow colour cast, whereas another type will result in a different cast. This is because- unlike the human eye- the camera lacks the intelligence to automatically adjust itself to different colour temperatures.

Colour temperature is a means of quantifying different types of light (and the light radiated from objects shot under that light). It is measured using the Kelvin (K) scale, which attempts to assign different colour temperatures to a range of common scenes and light sources. Below is a a representation of the Kelvin scale.

The Kelvin scale is used in digital photography (film is different 'kettle of fish' entirely) as a guide to the warmth or coolness a scene. This guide is inseparable from White Balance.  Notice how the lower the number, the warmer the colour.

Our cameras come with White Balance settings used to reflect some of the common lighting scenarios we may find ourselves in (e.g. Direct Sunlight, Tungsten, Shady, Cloudy and Auto). Each setting will give completely different (and very interesting) results. As an example, below are two basic images I shot nearly two years ago using different White Balance settings:

Tungsten/Incandescent:
Choosing this for a scene counterbalances the warmth of the light inside the indoor market, thus rendering the scene very cool.

Cloudy:
I don't know why I chose to shoot this as cloudy here, but in retrospect it  works as a nice comparison. Choosing  this setting assumes there is a cool light present from an overcast sky, thus warming the scene. 

Shooting images in RAW means we can change the image's white balance afterwards by opening it in Adobe Camera Raw, affording us more control over the overall result. For this reason, many people suggest choosing the Auto White Balance (AWB) setting in-camera, then either choosing one of the white balance presets or using the scale provided in ACR. Below is an image shot in RAW using AWB, followed by the same image processed with different white balance settings in ACR:

Auto White Balance (5200k):
Note how Adobe Camera Raw details the temperature as 5200k when the AWB is used in-camera.

2500k:
This is the same image after reducing the temperature to 2500k in ACR. This should give a decent idea of how cooler such a change makes.

Shade (7500k):
And this is after choosing the Shade present in ACR. Note 'shade' is given a value of 7500k on the Kelvin Scale. On the whole, it looks like the Auto setting has it pretty exact in this case.

It is also possible to set the White Balance manually on my camera (Nikon D3100). Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be working on my camera at the moment, but I will endeavour to update this post as soon as it is back up and running.

1)  http://digital-photography-school.com/introduction-to-white-balance

Brief Two: Broughton House: Evaluation

Below are my final ten images for this brief (the ones I had printed) followed by the ones of each subject I felt didn't work. This should give an idea of the way I worked on the day, my thought processes, and of the development of my ideas. At the end of the post, I will include a few early examples that didn't really hit the spot.

Harry Edwards, 88, Military Provost Staff Corps.
f5.6, 1/80th, ISO400, 22mm.
Composition was key here. I definitely wanted the Pietro Annigoni's 1955 portrait of the queen (1) in the background, but I wasn't sure about the tree (I thought it too seasonal).  This one worked best because its shot at eye-level, indicating equality with one's subject. Below are some of the variations to this theme.

Shooting from beneath the subject is never recommended in portraiture , and this shows why: the composition is too awkward, accentuating Harry's crouched posture, and doing him no favours whatsoever.

Shooting from above gives am equally detached feel to the image. The viewer almost strains to look at the subject.

 Later in the afternoon, I shot more of Harry in the Smoking Room (below).

I was quire interested in having some of the old men smoking, but  a lot of them didn't turn out right (see Richard below). However, I very nearly chose this as part of the final ten: I just thought it too close in relation to the other ones (32mm).

The issue with smoke, is it tends to distract from the subject's face.

I've always liked the contemplative portrait, especially with old people. It was what I was going for two years ago when  I did a shoot at Auden Court.

I started turning a lot of the ones I didn't choose into black and white as an attempt to create the effect of JM Mortram (Small Town Inertia), or perhaps the people from the nursing home in Saigon that I mention in my research post.

Thomas 'Tom' McDonough, 77, Lancashire Fusiliers.
f5.6, 1/50th, ISO400, 24mm.
This was one of my initial favourites. I'd shot Tom in the smoking room as soon as I arrived, with a mixture of results, but it was only in going to his room later in the day that I started to get what I wanted.

It was a toss-up between this and the one I finally went with. I like the way he seems to be looking up to god. It has grace. The grace of a man who's life's been cut short by a terrible accident, leaving one leg paralysed. Every picture tells a story.

This is equally as strong. Is interesting looking at these closer shots here, for I feel there's another ten in here for another day. Keep reading to see more like this.

This was shot upon my arrival when the light was very crisp (better examples below).The simple of act of reading a newspaper and drinking a cup of tea brings the documentary feel to life here. And- unlike in the other images- the TV in the background has a purpose here, for there’s not a not a lot else for the residents to do.

So I was just sat back chatting to Tom at this point, when a lovely burst of light entered, very nearly illuminating one half of his face. I tried to position him into it, before discovering I was up against it with his electric wheelchair. Shame his eye is in shadow.

A lesser image than the one above because of his pained facial expression, but better once I'd converted it to monochrome and increased the contrast (below).

I used the high pass filter to sharpen Tom's face here. I learned this technique from Digital SLR Photography (2), who ran a feature called 101 Portrait gems 

Raymond 'Rory' Riding, 71, Lancashire Fusiliers.
f5.6, 1/50th, ISO800, 18mm.
This is the widest angle I used at 18mm. I like these wider types of portraits. A course mate offered some constructive criticism by announcing I had to many of my subjects resting in one of the thirds of the frame. I disagreed because it was my intention to have the background environment as prominent as possible, but nevertheless I appreciated her words all the same. Rory's room was very dark, causing me to up the ISO to 800, then try my utmost to pull the detail from the shadows in photoshop (Image>Adjustments>Shadows/Highlights). Richard Gaskille told me to send at least 5 versions of the same picture at different brightness settings, but even with a brightness of +30 the background was still too dark on this. See for yourself below.

See what I mean?

Below are some of the others of Rory:

I aimed to shoot all the ones in their own rooms near to the window, for I had never done it before and heard/seen good results. I like the way one part of the face is lit and the other in near complete darkness. Of course this played havoc when preparing them for print, but this is where the Shadows/Highlights adjustment layer came in handy.

All strong images, these, reminiscent of Mortram's blind Eugene (Postcards from the black), but I this works better in documentary images. In my portraits it wasn't what I was going for. Contemplative is one thing, miserable is another. I also liked the light from the corridor outside the room here.

I tried to light Rory using his TV. I've seen it done before, but there simply wasn't enough light in the room. Perfect example of one that looks better in black and white (below) 

Clifford Blood, 93, The King's Own Royal Regiment.
f5.6, 1/50th, ISO400, 22mm.
I was concerned there was too much orange and beige here. I shot all my images using the Shady White Balance just to give them that homely feel, but I can't help but think Clifford's skin tone merges with the furniture a bit too much. Also a lot of detail in the clothing of this and many others were lost in the shadows straight from camera, which I remedied by boosting the overall exposure and masking out every thing but the jumper with a black mask.

This was one I could have gone for.

Arthur 'Eric' Watkins, 89, Royal Navy.
f5, 1/40th, ISO400, 20mm.
I've known for a long time that Eric has a perfect face for a project like this (even another member of staff said it). Added to this is the fact he wears his old naval medals at all times. I like the way the composition leads us to the other two empty chairs. Somewhat reminiscent of Richard Gaskille's image that I used in my research post. Empty seats just seem to invoke someone missing in these scenarios, whether if this is the case or not.

I tried one from the opposite side, capturing the  buzzer the residents press when in need. Gives a sense of the environment we are in, this.

I said there was another ten of a lot closer shots. There is no doubt this would be Eric's one in that collection (29mm). I love the formal nature of his face.

Malcom 'Mike' Waites, 77, RAF.
f8, 1/125th, ISO400, 32mm.
This is the only one whose subject is not looking at the camera, but I didn't care: I just love the lighting in it. Many of the residents sit in the same spots day-in-day-out. This is Mike's. I noticed him sat right in the middle of the late morning light, and I had to take this candid shot of him after the previous ones of him in the smoke room were less than impressive (below). I used f8 because the light from the window really was quire severe. Obviously, this threw the background into complete darkness, meaning again I had to do my thing with the Shadows/Highlights adjustments layer.

This is the original straight from camera. Way too dark, but I knew there was an image there.

I think this was the only other one of Mike I could have used, but at the time I didn't think very much of it at all: what I thought was my distracting shadow in the doorway, I now feel brings an abstract edge to the image. Retrospect is a great thing in the editing process.

Rabbit caught in the headlights doesn't really work in portraits, as I learned on level one.

Kenneth 'Ken' Fitzgerald, 84, Royal Artillery.
f5.6, 1/50th, ISO800, 24mm.
Much like Harry's picture, I wasn't sure about the xmas tree in the background here. I do like his expression, though: very placid.

Duncam Smethurst, 82, 7th Queen's Own Hussars.
f5, 1/40th, ISO400, 22mm.
This is the brightest of the ten. However, I was concerned about a shadow that covered Duncan's left eye, which I removed with a mask. Also, like an idiot, I left my notes on his bed, so had to clone the creases in the sheet to cover this.

D'oh! You can also see the shadow I mentioned here.

Alternative composition shot from the opposite side. Feels way too cramped to me.

Jack Godbert, 89, Royal Navy.
f5.6, 1/100th, ISO100, 18mm, flash.
This was the only one of the ten I shot using flash, largely because of the fact Jack was sat  away from all light entering in through the main windows. I mentioned whilst discussing Rory's pictures that I didn't want any miserable faces, which is why I was doubtful about this one, but I sought reassurance from both my tutor and a few other students, the consensus being I have captured his natural mood on the day. 

Robert 'Rob' Bailey, 54.
The youngest person in the home. There is a very relaxed feel to this, and I feel the different colour groups (black, red, yellow) adds to the 'lounging' mood. Its one of my favourites because of this.  I remembered the advice of Richard Gaskille (tutor): “don’t even think about the camera at first, and concentrate on talking to the subjects to get them relaxed” (paraphrased)

I also experimented with flash (including the diffuser I'd borrowed from the college with the orange and blue discs), but I realised early-on that this tended to completely obliterate the dominant mood in the rooms. Below are some examples of this.

The orange diffuser warmed the highlights a tad too much, especially since I was playing with a yellow background. Note the way Richard's head blends with the wall.

A lot better without the diffuser. More definition in the face.

There's nothing wrong with this picture. Its a good picture. It just wasn't what I was aiming for. I've mentioned the miserable point, but this is just too smiley. Maybe John's relatives would adore it, but it lacks mood for me.

Its the same with this. Its just too basic. As I have mentioned before, there are those who take pictures of objects and those who take pictures of the light falling on those subjects (3) 

I'll leave this point about photographing light as my parting thought. My main intention was to make best use of available light on the day. This would include using a lot of natural window light. Of course, when we set out on such a task (especially for me, who only had the basic kit lens at my disposal) we are at the mercy of the light on that given day. Although the light was more than manageable (and very nearly perfect in some cases, during some parts of the day), the residents' individual rooms were lacking, meaning I had to improvise to get the best out of my camera (you will note how I have used ISO800 in some, and slowed the shutter to 1/40th in others, but mainly moving and directing my subject was the key variable).

Of course, we are naive to overlook the importance of post-shoot processing in images such as these. I shot the images in RAW, meaning- even with the likes of Rory's image, which was the darkest- i could reveal at least some of the detail from the shadows in the background (to show his environment, as intended). And it was during post-processing these images that a course mate introduced me to the Shadows and Highlights Adjustment, which turned out to be a godsend in lessening shadows, especially when it came to sending for print: as an act of quality control I like to convert to the images back to the sRGB profile to lessen the shadows more (or whatever edit), then convert it back to the DSLustre profile so it would be ready for print again. I would then open the image in Windows Image Viewer to give a more random view and the element of detachment from Photoshop (since I figured this is designed to make all images look good).

Sometimes I work too hard!

1)  http://www.philosophyinaction.com/blog/?p=6011

2)  Digital SLR Photography, November 2011, pg52.
3)  Demolder, D (2011), Advanced Photography: Camera Skills, p36, free with Amateur Photographer, October 22nd 2011.