Wedding + WB question

eoren1

Just got back from a good friend's wedding and had brought along my 350D. Had it set for tungsten lighting as that was the predominant light (with a bit of natural light coming in through the windows of the hall).
I started culling in LR and was set to white balance them when I ran into a conundrum. When I click on the bride's dress, the photo takes on a somewhat 'colder' appearance. With the 'as shot' or 'tungsten' settings, there is a warm glow (often too strong) to them. I confess that I did not shoot a 18% gray card to help matters.
My question is - which is 'correct'? WB with the eyedropper off the bride's dress or the groom's lapel or leave it 'as shot' or 'tungsten'?
Thanks a lot,
E

ps - I was not the primary on this shoot. I was there without the wife so figured the camera would keep me busy enough. Turns out that I ended up doing most, if not all, of the PJ-type shots as the pro didn't follow them around to the bridal suite and other areas. I really want to make sure I put out the best photos I can from the set.

Examples:
WB off dress

As shot


WB off dress

As shot


WB off dress

As shot

pathfinder

I agree that neither of these WBs is totally on target, and yet we know the dress probably is white, and not vanilla. Usually warmer is slightly better than too cool.

Why not take both of these two images - one balanced in tungsten and one WB off the dress, in layers, and blend them together, just as the light is a blend of daylight and tungsten.
You will probably find the shadows are warmer than the highlights also - the tungsten lighting being the only light in the shadows.

When I am editing in the RAW converter, I sometimes find neither the As Shot setting or the Custom setting, balanced off a neutral, does not seem ideal, so I will choose a color temperature somewhere in between for my custom temperature choice. Works fairly well frequently.

eoren1

Thanks for the comments. I had set the WB manually on a few shots where there was nothing neutral to use the dropper on. However, I was hoping for some method of ensuring some consistency throughout - especially of the dress and skin tones. I'm worried that 'eyeballing' it would lead to variations among the shots. I guess one method is to use the 'sync' function in LR to make sure at least each series was consistent.
E

sparkyphotog

In situations like this, I pick one image and set the white balance to achieve the look that I want (the "right" setting is the setting that looks best to you). Then I apply that white balance setting to all the images shot under the same lighting conditions. The result is a consistant look across all images from the shoot. I don't use LR, but rather Nikon Capture NX as I shoot with Nikons. It allows for applying a custom white balance setting with a specific color temperature to batches of images. I'm assuming you can do the same or something similar in LR.

schmoo

Ah, so the real reason why brides wear white!

I agree, neither is totally on target although I find the cooler version more appealing to the eyes. LR has some great options for presets, no? I would think that fine-tuning the WB on your first shot and applying it across the set would be a snap, which you could later tweak even more for your final shots in PS.

Apart from the WB, they look really good!

CatOne

Was the dress WHITE WHITE or was it somewhat off-white? If the latter, using it to WB will lead to shots that are too cold if you AWB off the dress.

Try AWB off the book in the second photo and see what you get.

That said, white balance doesn't have to be EXACT. There's some perception in there as well. My gut would be to use a white balance between the two -- the tungsten setting is definitely too warm, but the other is too cold. I'd probably AWB off the dress (assuming was WHITE WHITE white ;-) and then warm it up by 200-500K, to taste.

eoren1

Thanks Sparky, Schmoo and CatOne!
The dress was not, in fact, white-white which is where the cooler WB is coming from. I'll play a bit with the settings again and try my best to eyeball one in a series then sync them.
This is becoming quite an enlightening experience as a mini-foray into wedding photography. And I feel like I'm getting off very easy with only 500 shots from the event and no pressure as to what I turn out...
E

Scott_Quier

I grabbed a couple of your X2 sized files and played around with it for a few minutes. As has already been noted, the dress is not white. There are areas where one can click to get a decent WB.

Using ACR, I clicked where indicated with the WB tool:

Scott_Quier

Same thing in this photo. Here it was more evident that the dress was not white, so I selected something that is almost ALWAYS white. Not knowing the bride or the environment, I don't know which is closer to the truth. The lesson here is that you need to find something either in the photo or something you bring with you that is a reliable source of neutral (white, black, gray - gray is best:D) and use that to get your WB. Then, either use that to set a CWB or use it in post.

arodney

pathfinder wrote:

When I am editing in the RAW converter, I sometimes find neither the As Shot setting or the Custom setting, balanced off a neutral, does not seem ideal, so I will choose a color temperature somewhere in between for my custom temperature choice. Works fairly well frequently.

Right. I'll do the same thing. WB using the eye-dropper. You've got a neutral white but that doesn't mean its a preferred rendering. A tiny tweak on the tint or temp slider will often provide a far more pleasing image. Then copy and paste that custom setting to the rest of the images, done.

eoren1

Thanks Scott and Andrew for the added thoughts.
Scott - good point. I'll look in each series for fixtures or other items that are more reliably 'white' and then slide from there.
Andrew - while researching this here and via Google, I came upon the art/science of camera calibration. That is adjusting the camera calibration tab in LR/ACR for particular cameras. Found some sample settings for the Canon 350D that I'll try when I get home. As our color-guru, I was wondering what your take is on this. Is it worth purchasing a Macbeth color checker and doing the camera calibration?
Thanks again for everyone's input. I'll be sure to post my WB shots here and my wedding stuff in the People section when I'm done.
Eyal

arodney

The calibration can be somewhat useful but I wouldn't go there unless you find you have issues achieving a desired color appearance with the rendering controls outside of Calibrate. In the end, such processes are great if your goal is to produce a colorimetrically correct image of a Color Checker! That doesn't guarantee anything else you shoot will appear as you desire. Having a Color Checker is a useful product to have around. At this point, if it ain't broke.

eoren1

Thanks again everyone.
Took your advice to heart and ran through the images last night.
Posted them in a new thread in the People forum.
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=90972
Greatly appreciate all the help!!
Eyal

joshhuntnm

Scott_Quier wrote:

Same thing in this photo. Here it was more evident that the dress was not white, so I selected something that is almost ALWAYS white. Not knowing the bride or the environment, I don't know which is closer to the truth. The lesson here is that you need to find something either in the photo or something you bring with you that is a reliable source of neutral (white, black, gray - gray is best:D) and use that to get your WB. Then, either use that to set a CWB or use it in post.

This looks good to me, Scott. I agree the issue is "what looks good" not "what is correct."

I used to work with sound guys that had complicated instruments that told them the eq was right for that hall, but it sounded aweful. There is a verse in the Bible that says, "your much learning has driven you mad." sometimes, it is easy for me to get so lost in "what is right" i forget "what looks good."

arodney

joshhuntnm wrote:

This looks good to me, Scott. I agree the issue is "what looks good" not "what is correct."

Rendering is subjective!

A must read:
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf

LiquidAir

Note that the walls in the room are yellow which means the color temperature of reflected light is going to have a lower color temperature than the direct light. Even if all your lights are the same, a large colored surface like that can effectively put you in a mixed lighting situation. Generally in mixed light situations like this one I balance roughly for the highest color temperature light source which, in the case of these images, will be the highlights.

You can see what is going on with your "WB off dress" shots; the color of the walls is all over the map which doesn't tell me much about the color of the dress, but it does tell me that you WB is for different light sources in each shot. Of the three samples you gave, the WB off the dress version of the second shot looks the best to me. The first thing I would do is try the temperature and tint values from the second shot on the first and third. In Lighroom, I'd sync the white balance across the shots (I use that feature a great deal).

eoren1

Thanks for that explanation Ken.
I went back with all of this advice and did a lot of WB adjustment until the colors looked 'right'. Just redid one set that had a blue tint to them.
Photos in the People section but here's what I ended up with for these:

Though I ended up liking it better in b/w






Thanks again everyone!
E

CatOne

arodney wrote:

Right. I'll do the same thing. WB using the eye-dropper. You've got a neutral white but that doesn't mean its a preferred rendering. A tiny tweak on the tint or temp slider will often provide a far more pleasing image. Then copy and paste that custom setting to the rest of the images, done.

Or "lift" and "stamp" that setting, depending on your choice of tools