40D: Weird colours

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by yakim_peled|1, Sep 24, 2008.

  1. A few days ago I took this picture. The colours came out all weird and twisted. It is nothing like the actual colours. It was an ordinary sunset, light blue sky, white clouds, yellow sun. I shot sunsets before with the same camera and settings (RAW, AWB, converted it to JPEG without any PP save from crop) and it is the first time this has happened to me. Why has this happened? Why hasn't it happened before? What can I do to avoid it? What can I do to reproduce it? I must admit I actually like the final outcome as it's very unique but I am not happy that things happen without me knowing why. Happy shooting, Yakim.
    00QxDv-73041584.jpg
     
  2. Here is a sunset I shot less than a year ago. Colours are similar to the ones which were actually present. Happy shooting, Yakim.
    00QxDz-73043584.JPG
     
  3. What metering did you use? I think that the problem is that camera wanted to correctly expose sun and all the other
    things are a lot underexposed. Also auto white balance wanted to correct orange color cast and changed colors to
    colder. If you want to avoid it use manual white balance and meter on the sea water without sun in the frame add 2
    stops and
    then recompose. If you want to reproduce it use spot metering on the clouds around the sun and set white balance to
    3300K.
     
  4. Just a guess, but since both images were taken with whitebalance set to auto, it seems that in the first picture something caught the attention of the WB algorithm and confused it. Probably such scenes are better taken with WB set manually or in raw.
     
  5. 1. Metering was, in both cases, Evaluative.



    2. Pardon my ignorance but what does exposure has to do with WB?

    3. How do you meter MWB if there is nothing white in the frame?




    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  6. 2. Not much but auto WB uses correctly exposed part of the picture to set WB.
    <br>3. You need to memorize values or carry a gray card with you. In your situation I'd use WB=5500K (daylight/flash color temperature) and you'd get nice, orange colors. I usually change white balance on computer later. Besides if you meter white balance from a gray card/something white you won't get orange sunset because everything will be corrected. That's why you need to use daylight setting.
     
  7. 2. I never knew that. Why and how?

    3. I feel silly to ask but I never had to it, AWB worked well for more than a year. If you want to set MWB, don't you have to use a white card rather than a gray one?

    But as I shoot in RAW, I guess I don't have to do it at all, right? I can always change it later if I please.

    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  8. 2. I never knew that too but noticed it while taking pictures with few different light sources. The one I focus on and
    which is correctly exposed also had correct WB.
    <br>3. You can use both gray card and white card to set correct white balance.
    <br><br>
    Yes, if you shoot RAW you can change it later without image quality getting worse. You can correct .jpg pictures as
    well if you have to but you won't be able to see color temperature values.
     
  9. Hi Yakim, I`ve ask CPS for help on this issue with AWB, I believe 40d takes AWB from the inner circle around the center FP. hence the light object in the 1st shot, (not sure how it was cropped) would show differents from the previous. Most of our work is AWB in many venues each night. if we use a FP outside the inner curcle colour balance seems to be affected where the inner area is over. by stickin to center FP and a neutral tone colour is fine. mostly shoot jpeg tho

    Cheers

    PS still not heard from CPS but works OK so not bothered
     
  10. -- "But as I shoot in RAW, I guess I don't have to do it at all, right? I can always change it later if I please. "

    Yes, the only thing that might happen (and that depends on the raw converter you use) is, that the raw converter uses the values (for WB) generated by the camera as a default starting point. (DPP will do that, ACR (to my knownledge) can do that, but allows to switch that off). Anyhow, as soon as you set WB to your taste in the converter, the values from the camera become meaningless.
     
  11. Chris, Thank you very much. I will look forward to what CPS has to say about this.

    Rainer, I use DPP.

    I will try to change the WB and see what happens.

    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  12. You're complaining? It looks very nice. Some people couldn't get that look if they tried.
     
  13. Yeah, I agree with Wayne. What's the secret to getting that look?
     
  14. I agree with Wayne and Ralph. If I shot that, I would print it, sign it, frame it, and sell it (with a copy of my wall, of course!).
     
  15. Guys, I thank you for the compliments. However, look at what I wrote in the OP: "I must admit I actually like the final outcome as it's very unique but I am not happy that things happen without me knowing why."

    I'm now at home. I'll try to change the WB and post the results.

    Happy shooting, Yakim.
     
  16. Now I'm really puzzled. No amount of change in WB brings back the original colours. Here are some examples. WB = 2500. Happy shooting, Yakim.
    00QxWg-73141684.JPG
     
  17. WB = 3500.
    00QxWl-73143584.JPG
     
  18. WB = 4500.
    00QxWn-73143784.JPG
     
  19. WB = 5500.
    00QxWs-73143884.JPG
     
  20. WB = 6500.
    00QxWw-73143984.JPG
     
  21. WB = 7500.
    00QxWy-73145584.JPG
     
  22. WB = 8500.
    00QxX1-73145784.JPG
     
  23. WB = 9500.
    00QxX6-73145884.JPG
     
  24. Last try. Click WB. I clicked on the edge of the cloud which was white. No big change. Happy shooting, Yakim.
    00QxXG-73147584.JPG
     
  25. BTW, if anyone from Canon/CPS will want the RAW file, I will send it to them. I have several but only one has that bird which add so much.... :)

    Happy shooting, Yakim.
     
  26. Is it needless to say that the preset WB settings also did not work?

    Happy shooting, Yakim.
     
  27. If that helps, the original WB is somewhere close to 4700K.

    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  28. Hi Yakim, I would check that all settings in your converter actually are what you think they are - these (all) look like duotone conversions to me...
     
  29. The clouds and birds are in silhouette. I don't think changing the WB values are going to do anything for you. This is an exposure issue, not a WB issue, IMHO.
     
  30. Peter, which settings are you referring to?

    Rob, I don't get it. If I change the exposure then all I do is to make the picture lighter or darker. This has no effect on colour.

    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  31. Forgot to add (if it matters), it is DPP v. 3.4.1.1.

    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  32. I think I am going to find a similar scene and try to reproduce it. Some how I think there is a combination of things at work here. Like the others and yourself, I liked the first image, but the WB= 2500 and 3500 are just Awsome.

    Jason
     
  33. I think that's an awsome image. I'd go with 5500, I like how dramatic it feels. I'd be very interested in knowing how the effect occured. I only recently bought a 40D which is what drew me into this thread and I can honestly say it inspires me to go out and try it myself.

    I'm far from being an expert but, as a guess it seems like the colours are off because the camera metered too much off the sun and most of the image is underexposed as a result giving some very dark tones, though to wonderful effect. Am I right in thinking those brown edges on the clouds would be more orange/yellow if it was exposed more? Along with a lighter blue sky would that be more like what you saw with your own eyes?
     
  34. I'm not really sure what happened here, it does look like a duotone as one person aslo pointed out. One suggestion I have is to take your camera off of AWB, especially if you are shooting sunsets, last light of the day or first light. I set my camera to daylight white balance, which is what film would capture it as so that you capture the true colors that are going on. AWB will always try to make your image neutral in color and will remove the warm light you are trying to get. Now if I am shooting on a overcast days or in forest where I want natural colors then I use cloudy setting or AWB will work usally pretty well in those conditions. You can always change it in the RAW converter.
     
  35. Halloween is fast approaching. You have captured the perfect spooky clouds-over-the-moon picture (even though it's the sun, I won't tell
    anyone). Just relax and go with the flow.
     
  36. [[Rob, I don't get it. If I change the exposure then all I do is to make the picture lighter or darker. This has no effect on colour. ]]

    This is clearly wrong, as your second example "Regular sunset colours" proves.
     
  37. Looks like the shot was taken with the camera set to monotone.
     
  38. Eric, from now on I will sure take the camera off the AWB when shooting sunsets. You see, I always shot in AWB thinking: "I could always change it later in DPP if I wish". Thing is, I was proven wrong. It worked well to date but suddenly it got completely wicked.

    Rob, I apologize for my thickness but I clearly :) don't understand. Please be as detailed as possible.

    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  39. Yakim, since I don't know how the original colors were, it's a bit hard to tell ... but for me, the truth must
    have been somewhere between 5500K and 7500K ... eventually a bit "tint" (is that "Color tone" in DPP?) needs to
    be applied. Just don't forget,
    that the sun itself was likely overexposed (despite the -1 EV correcture used for the picture) and will therefore
    not go back to the original colors (at least not without further manual work on it). But the clouds look good for
    me in the range of 5500K to 7500K.
     
  40. 1. I wrote in the OP: "It was an ordinary sunset, light blue sky, white clouds, yellow sun". These were the original colours. 2. I tried playing with both exposure and WB. Noting could restore the original colours. One may be able to achieve this with extensive PS work but that is not the point. The point is that - from a pure technical PoV - the camera simply screwed up. BTW, that same thing happened when I did a bit of macro. When I got close, I got this pic (which I nicked: "The alien"). Very cold colours. Other shots of the same bug but when it was smaller in the frame, had much warmer and true to reality. Happy shooting, Yakim.
    00Qxv4-73287584.jpg
     
  41. Yakim,
    I think this is an exposure issue. Evaluative metering places great emphasis on the chosen AF point. For example, if you place your camera on a tripod pointed at a scene that is light on the left and dark on the right (shade and sunlight) and then take two photos exactly the same but using the left AF point in the light area, and take the next shot with the right AF point in a dark area, you will find the the 2 photos are completely different in exposure. In your shot you are probably using the centre AF point which is placed directly on the sun. This will cause the camera to try and correctly expose for the sun - which it did. But, with such a dynamic range from the sun to other areas in the photo you basically ended up with a very low saturated shot - it is almost monochrome. Since white balance is simply an RGB offset applied to each pixel from a reference and monochrome is where each of RGB are the same value for each pixel it is simply going to color the entire picture cool and warm (blue to orange) as you see when you change the WB.
     
  42. I cannot help to answer the questions posted, but I felt compelled to say I really like the image, the original one (that
    sparked the thread) is really cool, and I really really like the WB 5500 and WB 7500.
    It helps that the photo itself is spectacular!
     
  43. Id be interested in seeing a screen crop from DPP Tool Palette. Ideally both the RAW tab and the RGB tab with all of the controls reset to as shot.

    There are a lot of parameters to tweak the image with. Im also thinking this must have been a very very contrasty image maybe way outside of the camera's ability to capture it. Bright sunlight and silhoutes dont get processed too well. Have you tried the tune dial next to the white balance control you can ever more bizarre effects with that too.

    M
     
  44. [[Rob, I apologize for my thickness but I clearly :) don't understand. Please be as detailed as possible. ]]

    Peter Rowe pretty much said what I was going to write. You have pointed your camera at the sun and it exposed for it. This is not a white balance issue, this is an exposure issue.
     
  45. Peter, I understood the first part and think you may indeed onto the core problem (me….). Nevertheless, your last sentence got me baffled. Could you explain it in simpler words? Happy shooting, Yakim.
    00QyGw-73445684.JPG
     
  46. Martin, here is the RAW tab. Happy shooting, Yakim.
    00QyHH-73447684.JPG
     
  47. And here is the RGB tab. Happy shooting, Yakim.
    00QyHL-73447784.JPG
     
  48. Well, it's exposure issue? Then what about the grasshopper? I took two pictures at one minute interval. This is the one with the normal colours. Happy shooting, Yakim.
    00QyHi-73449584.JPG
     
  49. This is the one with the weird colours. Happy shooting, Yakim.
    00QyHp-73449784.JPG
     
  50. [[Very cold colours. Other shots of the same bug but when it was smaller in the frame, had much warmer and true to reality]]

    I find it difficult to believe, Yakim, that you can't see the difference between your two grasshopper shots.

    The second one shows the grasshopper in shadow and the first one shows the grasshopper casting his (or her) own shadow, clearly being lit by an external light source (the sun?).
     
  51. As the difference between the two shots is 1 stop I took the normal one and underexposed it by 1 stop at DPP. As you can see, it just looks darker but the colours don't look like the weird one. In both cases the center AF point was used and it was placed on the grasshopper's face. Happy shooting, Yakim.
    00QyI1-73451684.JPG
     
  52. Unless you mean the blue and green colors at the bottom of the frame, which, to me, appear to be objects in the foreground that are simply out of focus.
     
  53. [[As the difference between the two shots is 1 stop I took the normal one and underexposed it by 1 stop at DPP. As you can see, it just looks darker but the colours don't look like the weird one.]]

    Of course it doesn't. One shot is being lit directly by the sun and one is not. You can't just take a subject fully in sunlight and drop the exposure by 1 stop in post production and expect it to come out looking like the sun wasn't there in the first place.
     
  54. Rob, in the first shot it was sunny. In the second it was slightly cloudy but I can assure you that the colours were nothing like you see in the weird pic. In fact, they looked very much like the underexposed pic.


    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  55. [[Rob, in the first shot it was sunny. In the second it was slightly cloudy but I can assure you that the colours were nothing like you see in the weird pic. In fact, they looked very much like the underexposed pic.]]

    Yakim,

    You do understand that the camera does not see the world the same way your eyes do, right?
     
  56. Rob and Peter, you obviously try to tell me something but I just don't get it. I think that the key sentence is the last one in Peter's post but I simply don't understand it.

    Now please treat me like a complete moron and explain in the simplest terms possible. I really don't mind to be considered as such as long as I am able to understand this issue to the core.

    It's midnight now in Israel and I have a busy day tomorrow. I'll look at it tomorrow and hopefully be able to figure it out. Remember: Use the simplest terms possible.

    And of course, my deepest thanks.

    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  57. Yakim,

    Might I suggest you go to your nearest library and/or book store and pick up a few books on the fundamentals of photography? You seem to have dug yourself into a deep whole of misconceptions and misunderstandings and I'm not sure a web forum is the best place to try and correct these. I'm not saying this to be insulting.
     
  58. Hi Rob,

    I am shooting for 18 years and I honestly think I got the basics well covered. What I know is that aperture and shutter determine the amount of light getting into the film/sensor. Now, what does that has to do with the colours of the image?

    BTW, the libraries and book stores in my vicinity has no books about photography.... :-(

    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  59. Yakim, re your grasshopper shots....Chris mentioned that AWB measurment is on the circle around the centre AF point. In your picture where the grasshopper is small in the frame, there is nothing white or grey around where the centre AF point would be - all the colour around the centre AF point is warmer than white/grey, and so AWB will try and pull it down to neutral giving a colder image. If you use the tool in DPP to select an area of white/grey (I would choose the area between the grasshopper's front feet) then the WB comes up with a much warmer picture (see attached). However, with the picture where the grasshopper is bigger in the frame, the AWB region includes a large area of off-white/grey on the grasshopper's right hand cheek (left cheek in frame) giving a much warmer picture as the computer in the camera sees this already as neutral.
    00Qyqe-73615684.JPG
     
  60. You need to remember, a camera and its software are dumb - the camera has no way of knowing how your eyes and
    brain see things. You can't rely on the algorithms in the camera's software to give the results you expect all the time.
     
  61. Yakim,

    direct sunlight, especially in the morning and evening but also during the day, is warm (yellow / orange). When the sun is
    covered by something (like a cloud, or when you're in the shade) most of the light that illuminates your scene comes from
    the sky, which is neutral (when it's cloudy) or cold (blue-ish, when the sky is blue).

    The brain and the eyes are very good at compensating for this effect, which is why, unless we train ourselves to see it,
    we don't much notice that the light is more yellow or more blue. But the sensor in your camera sees the difference very
    clearly, and on the computer screen so do you.

    AWB tries to compensate for this effect, but it is very conservative about it, so a picture taken in cold light will generally
    still look somewhat cold, while a picture taken in warm light will generally still look warm. I don't shoot Canon, but I've
    noticed that with my camera, setting the white balance manually will give much more consistent results. I'd suggest you
    play with the various manual WB settings on your camera and get a feeling for what they do; alternatively you could get
    in the habit of checking & adjusting WB after the fact on the computer.
     
  62. I must admit I am thoroughly confused.

    Rob and Peter are convinced that this is an exposure issue, a notion I find difficult to believe because I can't
    understand how exposure can be related to colour.

    Pete is convinced that this is a WB issue, which I find much more reasonable, but then comes the question: If it
    is indeed so, why can't I bring the original colours back. After all, RAW files are supposed to enable you just that.

    Whatever the answer, it must be the same for both pictures and also account for the fact that this has never
    happened to me in the 18 years that I shoot. What was so special in those particular sets? I have shot the same
    subjects before and in that location before and in similar conditions before.

    Would you please make up your mind? :)

    >> You need to remember, a camera and its software are dumb - the camera has no way of knowing how your eyes and
    brain see things.

    I agree.

    >> You can't rely on the algorithms in the camera's software to give the results you expect all the time.

    Well, it has been doing just this to date. I wonder what was so special in these particular conditions that
    sparked the change?

    P.S. All of a sudden all these questions regarding lens/camera A vs. lens/camera B seems so easy to answer, don't
    they?
    :)


    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  63. Yakim, you said

    "Pete is convinced that this is a WB issue, which I find much more reasonable, but then comes the question: If it is
    indeed so, why can't I bring the original colours back. After all, RAW files are supposed to enable you just that."

    You have to understand that in your sun-lit picture, parts of the picture are in direct sunlight (i.e. warm light) while parts
    are in the shade (i.e. cold light). In the other picture, everything is in the shade (cold light). By changing the overall white
    balance, there's no way you can make one of them look like the other -- if you make the shade picture warmer, it will be
    warm all over, including the parts that are cold in the sunlit picture.

    Scene lighting is a very complex issue, you almost always have a mix of different color temperatures and tints. AWB will
    give you a rough starting point, and manual calibration can get you closer to getting consistent results, but most of the
    time there's just no way to fix differences in lighting in the camera or on the computer, which is why it's very important to
    get the lighting right in the first place, by waiting for the right moment or by adding your own light / shade. And in order to
    do that you have to understand the light first.

    It's hard to believe that you've never noticed the effects of changing light in 18 years of shooting, unless most of that
    was with negative film (photo labs will try to adjust white balance for you when they make prints).
     
  64. Proof of concept: Adjusted the exposure by 1.25 stops and turned the color temperature WAAAY up. This is as close as it gets without doing localized adjustments in Photoshop. But it doesn't look natural, because you wouldn't get such warm light without any shadows; nature's diffuse light isn't generally warm.
    00Qyvr-73639584.jpg
     
  65. Philipp, I am willing to believe you if Rob and Peter will..... :)

    >> nature's diffuse light isn't generally warm.

    It was in this case. It looked very much like my DPP -1 underexposed example.

    And yes, 15 of my 18 years were shooting film and it was mostly developed and printed in photo labs.

    Can you please comment on the original picture?

    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  66. "Can you please comment on the original picture?"

    You mean the sunset picture? Without having seen the actual sunset you photographed I can only speculate. I have in
    the past frequently seen sunsets where the whole part of the sky around the sun takes on various shades of the same
    golden color, just like in this picture.

    Now you can say "no, I know what I saw, and the sky didn't look like that". But these are the two alternatives:

    1) You made the simple, very common and very human mistake of thinking you saw one thing when in fact it was
    another

    or

    2) the sensor in your camera, suddenly and arbitrarily on only this picture, recorded light in a fundamentally different way,
    resulting in a different but still plausible picture; also, this happens only with _your_ camera.

    Given what I've seen, alternative 1) is vastly more likely, and so I'll go with that. Think about it: Your eyes see the whole
    rest of the sky, and it is blue; so your brain perceives it as blue, even in the small area where it's not. Your eyes see
    white clouds everywhere, and your brain knows that clouds are supposed to be white, so it sees white clouds. In the end
    you see a variety of colors where physically there's only shades of the same color. Our vision is easily tricked into
    seeing what we expect, rather than what's actually there; only with practice we can learn to sometimes compensate for that,
    at least to some degree.
     
  67. No, I know what I saw, and the sky didn't look like that.... :)

    But seriously, the whole point of my incapability to understand is that in each and every other shot (tens of thousands just with digi: 1D and 40D), what I saw is what exactly what I got in the picture. What was so different in these particular shots?

    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  68. EXIF of Grasshopper pics:

    I AWB, FLASH, 1/250th f/6.7 Tv mode ISO 200 (-0.5EV compensation, no FEC info)

    II AWB, no flash, 1/750th f/2.8 Av mode ISO 200 (-0.5EV compensation)

    First image should be around 5600K, second image much higher (7500-10000K depending on whether light is diffuse via cloud or open blue sky in shade because sun blocked by smallish cloud).
     
  69. "But seriously, the whole point of my incapability to understand is that in each and every other shot (tens of thousands just
    with digi: 1D and 40D), what I saw is what exactly what I got in the picture. What was so different in these particular shots?"

    The difference is that you're beginning to pay more attention to the results you're getting from your photography. Light hasn't
    changed, your camera hasn't changed -- you have: You're getting more discerning, and your ability to see is improving. Accept
    it, don't tell yourself it isn't real or that your camera is lying to you, and instead get out there and take pictures! Find different
    kinds of light and try different WB settings and just play with them and see what you get.
     
  70. I tried to reproduce the sunset pic. Very similar conditions. ISO 100. Av. F/9.5. 1/8000. AWB. The only difference is the metering (center weighted, by accident) and the lens: 17-55/2.8 instead of 100/2.8. Colours are true to reality. Mark, I did not understand what you mean. Could you please elaborate? Happy shooting, Yakim.
    00QzLU-73821684.JPG
     
  71. Yakim, all this pointing your camera at such a bright sun, and looking through the viewfinder...you're probably burning up the sensor and your retina. Could lead to all sorts of difficulties!
     
  72. Yakim, I don't get your point with your most recent picture of the sun -- it looks just like the other one, only it's not a
    sunset so it's more blue-ish, less orange-ish. It's still all shades of the same color. If you could show us two raw photos
    of the SAME sunset at the SAME time taken with the SAME white balance, and one of them has different colors than
    the other, that would be meaningful. This isn't.

    Seriously, stop trying to find faults with your camera and the pictures it takes. You're pushing yourself into seeing
    problems that don't exist. All the photos you've shown here look exactly the way I'd expect them to look. You keep
    acting like somehow the camera didn't take the picture right when, in fact, all it did was record what was there.

    Once you stop trying to find fault with the results your camera gives you you can start trying to actually understand the
    relationship between what you THINK you see, what is actually there, and what your camera records (at its various
    settings). And it involves taking lots of pictures out there, playing with WB settings on the camera and on the computer
    and comparing the results, and believing that your camera works the way it was designed to work.
     
  73. You know Philipp, your last paragraph reminds me of early replies to the first reports of the AF problems in the 1D Mk III......

    Thing is, I know what I saw and it was nowhere near those weird pictures. It has not happened before and not since. I just want to get to the bottom of this and unfortunately, despite of all the best efforts of all the good men here in PN, I failed. Some think it's exposure issue, others think it's WB issue and others think it's a combination of the two. Can you blame me for being confused?

    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  74. I'm definitely no expert (and I'm not getting into the camera v eye business) but..

    It's my understanding (and interpreting, hopefully correctly, the above posts) that the exposure could cause the loss of colours - in order to expose the sun correctly (the sun is close to both the centre of frame and the selected focus point) the camera has grossly underexposed the surrounding sky.

    When you *really* under or overexpose then you end up losing colour info (much like being able to bring back blown highlights from RAW files. You can get details back but the colours are gone). In the case of your sunset picture, changing the white balance in pp doesn't regain the colours as they were because the colour information was never recorded in the first place.

    If you underexpose a shot by several stops you would not expect to be able to pull a perfect picture from the file in pp.

    Beyond that, I'm stumped... :)

    Good luck
    AD
     
  75. I am thinking it is more likely a camera problem, perhaps slightly corrupted firmware or possibly but less likely a card with slightly corrupted segements. My reasoning is simple: Yakim is an experienced photographer and I doubt he is seeing/imagining somethign different to what the camera is seeing and the photos are clear anomalies compared to tother shots he has just taken.

    The sunset photo looks quite desaturated - easy to produce in photoshop but impossible to produce if trying to take a natural looking shot that is full of golden warms colours. I have taken thousands of shots in warm light on either AWB or daylight and never seen anything like this.
     
  76. I think it's a "mistake" any camera could do, could be a problem of light source temperature, where the scene was
    judged not to be in daylight, and the camera chose a "non-daylight" White Balance. -- It could be something else,
    but in my experience it can happen with any camera, but it does happen in sunset/night/low light situations.
    Since you shoot only JPG you are limited, but RAW would have given you the option of choosing a different White
    Balance and let you choose a better look.
    <br><br>
    I had this happen occasionally with my Nikon D300, sometimes in 10 consecutive shots, just one and only one has a
    strange blue cast, I see it right away in the camera, all the others look normal -- the last time there was no
    sun in the picture but the sun was already set, i was shooting with sun behind me.
    <br><br>
    Whenever you take a photo you should check how it looks in the viewfinder right away, and especially at sunset
    the light conditions change so quickly (or when sun goes behind a cloud as in your case) that you should be
    taking multiple photos, bracketing too, and then picking 1 or 2 out of 20 or 30 but that 1 or 2 will look great
    and it only lasted a few seconds, like when the sun rays just peak from behind a cloud...
    <br>
    <img src="http://www.robertbody.com/wyoming07/images/2007-07-27-y-mammoth-3909.jpg">
    <br>
    <img src="http://www.robertbody.com/arizona08/images/2008-09-08-supers-clouds-24253.jpg">
     
  77. >> Since you shoot only JPG you are limited, but RAW would have given you the option of choosing a different White Balance and let you choose a better look.

    I shot in RAW (look at the OP) and later changed the WB (and posted the results). Have you read the whole thread?

    >> Whenever you take a photo you should check how it looks in the viewfinder right away, and especially at sunset the light conditions change so quickly (or when sun goes behind a cloud as in your case) that you should be taking multiple photos, bracketing too, and then picking 1 or 2 out of 20 or 30 but that 1 or 2 will look great and it only lasted a few seconds, like when the sun rays just peak from behind a cloud...

    You are right. I will definitely do this next time. Then again, when I did looked at the screen all I could think is: "WOW! What a cool colours". You see, I was not in a shooting session. I was babysitting my kids in a nearby pool and was watching them/playing with them most of the time. Thus, I had very little time to think about shooting and only when I came back home I thought about it a bit more and started to worry.

    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     

Share This Page