 Jessica Wright |
Color of Snow
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Michael A. Bielat |
Check your camera's white balance. That may be the issue. Search your manual for white balance and read up on how to use their presets and even how to custom white balance.
Flourescent light is greenish and needs to be white balanced so your camera knows what true white should look like. Incandescent is more orange/red. Flash lighting is close to natural lighting but should be white balanced accordingly. See if you camera has auto white balance for a quick fix to your issue.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Alan N. Marcus |
Hi Jessica, A daylight vista is illuminated mainly by direct sun light. If direct sunlight were the only light source, shadows would receive no light (zero) and we would not see anything in shadow, just complete blackness. We all know this not the case so the question is; where does the light come from that is illuminating objects in shadows? The answer is, scatter light, mostly from the sky. Most times this will be blue light. Blue because the atmosphere contains water vapor and dust that scatter the shorter light frequencies. The light frequencies being the shortest are violet and blue. Thus the illuminates on a sunny day are sun + bluish sky light. The skylight component causes neutral colored objects like snow and white shirts etc. to take on a bluish character. We can mount a warming filter as a countermeasure or use software to neutralize this effect. After a time, photographers begin to notice these observable facts without the aid of a camera. Alan Marcus
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Tony Sweet |
If I could just drop my two cents in here, Jessica, light has color. Shade and overcast light is blue. The brigher the day and bluer the sky, the deeper blue is the color of your shade as in you bird image. It's not a problem, it's the nature of things. You could, of course, use a warming filter or set your camera to cloudy or even shade white balance to adjust the color cast in the shaded area, but that would affect the color of your bird, which may be in a different quality of light. Solution, meter and set the white balance for your subject and let the chips fall where they may. Actually, shaded light (blue cast) can work to complement warmer light in the scene. Also, if you prefer, you could perform a curve adjustment layer on the blue area and correct the color cast. It's your image and your decision to make.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jessica Wright |
Thank you for all your helpful tips. I will be sure to put them to good use.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jessica Wright |
Hi a quick question to go along with the blue snow. What warming filters should I use, since I know there are many and in different strengths. Thanks
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Alan N. Marcus |
Hi again Jessica, Just go to your local camera store or check the web. You want a UV & Skylight filter. The skylight reduces blusishness in open shade. Only necessary with film. Digital - used your image editing sofware to adjust color balance. Alan Marcus
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jessica Wright |
THank you for your tip.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jessica Wright |
Hi I want to say thank for all the tips. I just have one question about the blue snow. Would a Nuetral Density or a Circular Polarizer help too. Thank you.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Christopher A. Walrath |
Hi, Jessica. The circular polarizer reduces glare and reflections on non-mettalic surfaces. It won't do much for the color correction. The neutral density would just reduce the amount of light reaching the film which is useful if your goal is to increase exposure time at a specific aperture. I would just go with an 81A or 81B filter, depending on the amount of correction. Bear in mind that these filters have color themselves, so I would try the 81A first. If this proves inadequate then try the B but I think you'll find the A to be sufficient. Thank you
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Alan N. Marcus |
Hi Chris, A neutral density filter is exactly that, neutral meaning it reduces light energy but has no impact on color. So too is the polarizer be it circular or linear. The good news is: We can correct distant landscapes and scenes with open shade and snow using a filter called a skylight. This is a UV absorber that is also slightly salmon in color. The skylight is designed to slightly warm a scene partially illumined by direct sun and scatter light from a blue sky. It has another name, the Wratten 1A. (So named its creator the firm of Wratten & Wanewright of London, they were the worlds furthermost filter makers early 1900’s. You can shoot digital without filter and use the editing and correction abilities of your photo editing software. Hope this helps! Alan Marcus
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Irene Troy |
I’m throwing my two cents worth (and it is just that – 2-cents worth!) into this discussion: personally, I have to agree with Tony’s approach to the problem – if it is even a problem. Right now I am finishing a writing job in Canada that has taken me into some extreme cold and loads of snow. Many days the sky has been heavily overcast thus not doing much to the white snow. However, on days when the sun is bright the snow can have a bluish overtone. I tried all the familiar “fixes” such as setting the exposure to compensate for the brightness; using a GND filter and shooting two images – one for a darker subject and one for the lighter snow with the thought of combining the images in PS. A couple of days back I finally realized that all of this was unnecessarily complicated. By taking my reading from the main subject and setting the WB accordingly, I ended up with a better image. Yes, I do have bluish tones in part of the image; however, the warmer light is nicely balanced against that blue. In your example your subject is the bird, not the snow. By exposing for the bird the snow may have a blue overtone. Unless it is very unnatural, you might consider not “fixing” the snow. Anyway, try some variations if you can and then decide which YOU prefer. I hope to edit and upload some of my snow images as soon as I get home, so perhaps you can take a look and tell me what you think. Good luck Irene
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Irene Troy |
One last thought: I’m certainly not the photographer that many others are on this forum and I have respect for their expertise; however, just from a personal observation that has begun to take shape on this trip: I wonder if all these choices that digital gives us – both in the field and back in our digital darkrooms – have resulted in turning the relatively simple into something much more complex. This is not meant as a slam at digital (which I use and love!) or an attempt to start a side discussion into the merits of post capture editing. It’s just that by knowing that I have choices as to what happens post capture has made me think about what I am actually doing in the field. I trying to stop and think more about what I am trying to convey in my image and less about the technical possibilities. Anyway, that’s one cent more in this discussion!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jessica Wright |
Again thank you everyone for your help.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Richard Lynch |
Color balance after the shot may not be the ultimate solution (making the best capture always is), but it can be pretty painless and not very complicated if you use Photoshop OR Elements -- and it is the only way to fix it now (unless you can go back and reshoot). You can use Curves as Tony suggested, or other tools as well like Color Balance (which I show how to use in my Correct and Enhance Your Images course), or even just Levels. To use Levels (which you have in both Photoshop and Elements): You may need to adjust other sliders (e.g., for Red and Green channels), but this is a beginning. I don't suggest using post-processing as a crutch at all, but if the image is worth saving and can't be reshot, simple color balance with levels can do the job. My tool of choice is Color Balance for more difficult and involved corrections. Richard Lynch
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
wildlifetrailphotography.com - Donald R. Curry Contact Donald R. Curry Donald R. Curry's Gallery |
I'm an old time film user that recently went digital. The way I fixed this with film was to use center metering with the center on the snow and a + 1.5 exposure compensation. Does that not still work for digital?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Irene Troy |
Hi Donald – one of the most commonly held misconceptions about digital – at least from what I hear and, embarrassingly, once believed – is that exposure principals are different from film. I had to learn that exposure is exposure regardless of capture methods. I usually use spot metering when shooting snow scenes, especially when the main subject and the snow/light is very contrasty. I then overexpose by at least 1/3 and often well past 1 full stop. Most of the time the results are fairly good, but, as Richard points out, when the colors are just a smidge off I have used his technique in PS to good result.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
wildlifetrailphotography.com - Donald R. Curry Contact Donald R. Curry Donald R. Curry's Gallery |
Thanks Irene, I meant to say spot metering when I said center metering. Being located in Tennessee I don't have many occasions to photograph snow, but this technique works for waterfalls or other white subjects as well. I use the spot metering and then if needed make corrections in PS later. I use the palm of my hand as a guide. Anything the color of the palm of my hand I give a +1. Snow is much lighter so I give it a +1.5. I follow the same procedure for darker subjects, but in the negative direction. Or, spot meter something neutral and the compensation would be zero. It has worked well for film over the years. This is an old technique used by many. The reason for my question was that I was unsure if this same technique applies to white balance. Your answer appears to be yes with a little post adjustment at times.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||||||||