DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> Is tungsten "legal" in Basic Editing?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 55, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/29/2006 02:26:34 AM · #1
My camera has a tungsten setting that I was thinking of using for a future challenge. Is this allowed under Basic Editing rules?
03/29/2006 02:27:24 AM · #2
Yup. ALL camera settings are legal in ALL challenges.

R.
03/29/2006 02:28:23 AM · #3
Thank you very much! :)
03/29/2006 02:29:33 AM · #4
Do you know HOW (or why, or when) to use it?

R.
03/29/2006 04:14:29 PM · #5
Sorry I didn't see this sooner, Bear Music.

Um...probably not. ;)
I just tried it, and I'm guessing voters will say it's too BLUE.

When should I use it? Why?
I think I might know how.
I tried it before with a similar shot, but I don't think it will have appeal here.

Suggestions?

Message edited by author 2006-03-29 16:15:27.
03/29/2006 04:18:58 PM · #6
It's a preset white balance setting. Depending on how you are lighting your scene (daylight, fluorescent light, tungsten light (think light bulb)) the setting you choose will make your picture turn out looking natural as opposed to having it look too orange or too blue.
03/29/2006 04:19:27 PM · #7
I have my camera set to flash white balance all the time, doesn't matter if I am outside, inside or wherever. Flash white balance gives me a cooler color I can work better with. It was a tip from Nasti and I have never looked back on it. I don't touch the white balance button anymore.
03/29/2006 04:21:12 PM · #8
Originally posted by kiwiness:

I have my camera set to flash white balance all the time, doesn't matter if I am outside, inside or wherever. Flash white balance gives me a cooler color I can work better with. It was a tip from Nasti and I have never looked back on it. I don't touch the white balance button anymore.


but then you always have to change your settings in PS..
so why don't you just set it manual / preset to the color of light you have?
03/29/2006 04:21:23 PM · #9
Read this about colour temperature.
One of the basic things to know with digital photography.

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_balance
03/29/2006 04:22:47 PM · #10
Originally posted by kiwiness:

I have my camera set to flash white balance all the time, doesn't matter if I am outside, inside or wherever. Flash white balance gives me a cooler color I can work better with. It was a tip from Nasti and I have never looked back on it. I don't touch the white balance button anymore.


OK, I'm curious about this tip. I take it you are shooting JPEG, otherwise the WB isn't a factor. So, what makes the bluish cast easier to work with?
03/29/2006 05:05:15 PM · #11
Originally posted by joycobb:

Sorry I didn't see this sooner, Bear Music.

Um...probably not. ;)
I just tried it, and I'm guessing voters will say it's too BLUE.

When should I use it? Why?
I think I might know how.
I tried it before with a similar shot, but I don't think it will have appeal here.

Suggestions?


Here's how it works, in a nutshell; different light sources emit light that is warmer or cooler (more yellow/red or more blue). Tungsten light (houseehold lightbulbs) is much warmer than daylight. A practical semonstration of this I'm sure you've experienced is sitting inside as twilight falls; all your lights are on, the colors look normal to you, you look out the window and see some startling bright blue/violet colors towards the horizon. You step outside to take a look, and they look great. You look in the window, the inside looks normal.

But if you STAY outside, the eye begins to compensate, and the bluish color becomes muted; you look back inside the window, and the light inside the house looks very yellow. Your brain has auto white balance compensation built in to it.

Most digital cameras have at least the following white balance (WB) settings: auto, daylight, flash, tungsten.

If you shoot inside the house at night with daylight WB, the pictures look very yellow/red. If you shoot outside with tungsten WB, they look very blue. Auto WB tedns to a decent job of compensating, but you don't always want the camera to do the adjusting. For example, if you're shooting in a tungsten-lit room with a window wall on a twilight view, auto WB (AWB) will try to split the difference and neithe inside nor outside will be "accurate". Sometimes the best shot would be at tungsten WB, with the room looking natural and the outdoors scene very cool. But if you're in the yard shooting back at the house, daylight WB will render a warm, inviting glow through the windows of the house.

So you should be aware of situations where the lighting varies, and learn to use your WB dial to advantage. If you don't want to worry about it, in general your AWB setting is your workhorse.

Another common WB setting is "shade"; in daylight, open shade is much cooler than direct sunlit areas, because it is lit by reflected light from a blue sky which is a cooler color than direct sunlight.

This will do for starters.

Robt.
03/29/2006 05:08:15 PM · #12
To follow up on Bear's post, WB can be used for effect. In this photo, for example I set the WB to daylight under tungsten lighting to "warm" the photo. The radio isn't actually that nice looking LOL.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/467/thumb/307365.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/467/thumb/307365.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
03/29/2006 05:08:27 PM · #13
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by kiwiness:

I have my camera set to flash white balance all the time, doesn't matter if I am outside, inside or wherever. Flash white balance gives me a cooler color I can work better with. It was a tip from Nasti and I have never looked back on it. I don't touch the white balance button anymore.


OK, I'm curious about this tip. I take it you are shooting JPEG, otherwise the WB isn't a factor. So, what makes the bluish cast easier to work with?


Many people think digital cameras render a slightly warmer-than-optimum result. Shooting daylight on the flash setting cools things down a tad, and the results just look a little crisper. In general, the warmer the rendition of an image the less sharp it looks. Blue images look sharper than red images. Odd but true.

Robt.
03/29/2006 05:12:04 PM · #14
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

In general, the warmer the rendition of an image the less sharp it looks. Blue images look sharper than red images. Odd but true.
Robt.


I did not know that... cool, learn something new everyday.
03/29/2006 05:13:13 PM · #15
Yet another choice is to shoot RAW and choose WB later. In reality, WB is just a "compensation" applied to the RAW data anyway, so when shooting JPEG with a WB, you're just letting the camera handle the WB choice, with your overall direction (the setting).
Shooting RAW, you can tailor the WB later, without any impact on image quality. Adjustig WB on a JPEG after the fact can be very destructive, by contrast. To me, this is one of the biggest benefits of shooting RAW.
03/29/2006 05:14:55 PM · #16
Originally posted by kirbic:

Yet another choice is to shoot RAW and choose WB later. In reality, WB is just a "compensation" applied to the RAW data anyway, so when shooting JPEG with a WB, you're just letting the camera handle the WB choice, with your overall direction (the setting).
Shooting RAW, you can tailor the WB later, without any impact on image quality. Adjustig WB on a JPEG after the fact can be very destructive, by contrast. To me, this is one of the biggest benefits of shooting RAW.


Yup, but I doubt Joy's a RAW shooter :-) And in either case it's good to understand these things through the medium of straight JPG before casting loose into the RAW seas of infinite possibility, right?

R.
03/29/2006 06:06:52 PM · #17
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by kirbic:

Yet another choice is to shoot RAW and choose WB later. In reality, WB is just a "compensation" applied to the RAW data anyway, so when shooting JPEG with a WB, you're just letting the camera handle the WB choice, with your overall direction (the setting).
Shooting RAW, you can tailor the WB later, without any impact on image quality. Adjustig WB on a JPEG after the fact can be very destructive, by contrast. To me, this is one of the biggest benefits of shooting RAW.


Yup, but I doubt Joy's a RAW shooter :-) And in either case it's good to understand these things through the medium of straight JPG before casting loose into the RAW seas of infinite possibility, right?

R.


As usual, you are on the money, and if I had looked at the OP's cam, I'd have realized RAW was not an option :-P
03/29/2006 06:13:13 PM · #18
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

In general, the warmer the rendition of an image the less sharp it looks. Blue images look sharper than red images. Odd but true.

Robt.

The shorter wavelength of the blue light should allow greater rendering of detail than longer red waves, though this should be occurring at the nanometer scale and not obvious on any output device we commonly use.

It probably had to do with the number and distribution of blue- vs. red-sensitive cone cells throught the retina, the specific anatomy of which I can't remember right now; psychology probably is a factor too.
03/29/2006 06:23:18 PM · #19
When I grow up, I wanna be as smart as the good General :-)
03/29/2006 06:37:32 PM · #20
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

When I grow up, I wanna be as smart as the good General :-)

Read lots about everything and try to understand the underlying principles by which things work. Reading anything by the late Dr. Isaac Asimov isn't a bad start.

(Asimov had just written a pair of books on the Human Body and Brain, and was asked to appear on a radio show as a "brain expert." A paraphrase appears below, based on an exerpt from his book Opus 100.)

ISAAC ASIMOV: Heavens, I'm not a brain expert. I write books on hundreds of subjects -- I couldn't possibly be an expert on all of them. I read all I can about something, and then report what I learned in a way most people can understand.

INTERVIEWER: So ... you're not really an expert on anything then.

ISAAC ASIMOV: Well, I'm an expert on one thing.

INTERVIEWER: What's that?

ISAAC ASIMOV: On sounding like an expert!
03/29/2006 06:41:48 PM · #21
Originally posted by GeneralE:

ISAAC ASIMOV: On sounding like an expert!


He's my hero too, General! Describes the both of us to a T doesn't it? And I think we can add Kirbic to the know-it-all list also...

R.
03/29/2006 06:57:40 PM · #22
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

ISAAC ASIMOV: On sounding like an expert!


He's my hero too, General! Describes the both of us to a T doesn't it? And I think we can add Kirbic to the know-it-all list also...

R.

Team Bullwinkle : )
03/30/2006 06:10:11 AM · #23
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by kiwiness:

I have my camera set to flash white balance all the time, doesn't matter if I am outside, inside or wherever. Flash white balance gives me a cooler color I can work better with. It was a tip from Nasti and I have never looked back on it. I don't touch the white balance button anymore.


OK, I'm curious about this tip. I take it you are shooting JPEG, otherwise the WB isn't a factor. So, what makes the bluish cast easier to work with?


I don't usually have to change the white balance in the RAW converter as there is no exagerrated blue cast in most situations. But I find a cooler temperature easier to process than a warmer temperature for some reason.
03/30/2006 06:17:53 AM · #24
If you look at the colour space maps - sRGB particularly, but also AdobeRGB, you'll find they extend into the 'warm' or 'red' section of the spectrum far less than the blue and green. Which basically means that you have more territory to play with in the blue/green space.

e
03/30/2006 06:41:26 AM · #25
Thank you all so much for your help! I have learned so much here from all of you, and you gave me my first laugh of the morning!

You're correct...my cheapo camera doesn't give me the option of shooting RAW. :) I do have the white balance settings of Auto, Daylight, Tungsten & Fluorescent. I usually set it for Daylight when I am outdoors...it looks more natural. I don't have the Shade setting.

Without giving away my entry in a future Challenge, I had a shot that I previously took in Tungsten mode and I loved it. So I re-shot yesterday with the same setting. When I edited and used levels, it looked blue in a light unnatural way. But if I just leave the levels alone, it gives me the creative Tungsten dark blue effect I want.

NOW, whether voters will get it or not is an entirely different story! It might be too "out there" for mass appeal, but I think I'll take the chance. :)

Thanks again for all the info. I will go have some coffee and come back and read this in depth. The part about how the brain and eyes adjust is very interesting. I appreciate it!

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/20/2019 08:51:03 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 07/20/2019 08:51:03 PM EDT.