blue "cast" on prints

I took some photo (still) against a pure white background in open

shade and the white appeared bluish on the print from my cheapie HP

722 printer. Might this be corrected by changing the white balance of

the Canon 10D?

Is the digital image bluish? Then it's most likely the white balance. If the digital image on screen is not bluish, then it sounds like you have a color calibration issue with your on screen image and your printer.

 

How to calibrate is something I'm struggling thru right now.

This is the second question today on blue color casts.

 

I am using an Olympus compact C5050 with the white balance on auto setting and have no problems in that area.

 

Am I missing something that I should be looking for here?

 

The above photo was taken in bright sun over the yacht harbor with heavy high fog over the bridge...a somewhat difficult image to color balance. It was taken with auto white balance. The white of the boat is very white...both on screen and on the print.

 

Tell me about white balance please.<div></div>

Todd, I wouldn't worry about using anything other than auto white balance on your C-5050, assuming Olympus has at least maintained, if not improved upon, what's in my C-3040. I've fiddled with various custom settings and very rarely is there any improvement over the full auto setting.

 

Even my live theatre photos under heavily gelled stage lights turn out better when I use auto white balance. The presets never match the gels (which can vary from moment to moment anyway) and even the custom balance works only as long as the lights remain exactly as they were when I set the tweak. Again, since stage lights can change from moment to moment, just as daylight can, it's easier to let the camera do the work.

 

Joseph, chances are you'll need to work on calibrating your entire system, from capture to monitor to printer. Easy to do for b&w work without any special gear, but nearly impossible without special equipment and software for color work. Ellis Vener has aptly described it as chasing one's own tail.

It seems that a Canon 10D is a rather up-scale and pricy camera, and I would think it would be a bit easier to use that what I read here.

 

My C5050 and other similar compact digital cameras are not nearly as pricy, but seem to do quite well in auto modes. The additional photo above was taken in a small dark chapel two weeks ago with the C5050 in auto mode. I chose not to use the more noisy Nikon film camera with 800 speed film, and even though the photo is a touch warm, it is far better than anything I could get in that situation with a high speed film camera.

 

Don't cameras such as the 10D have full auto controls that can be used as effectively in such situations as compact digital? It seems to defeat the purpose of high level computerized digital camera automation if one needs to go through a long process of adjustments to obtain an acceptable image...or are we making it more difficult for ourselves by trying to fiddle with manual adjustments when such may not be necessary? This might be a case of, "If it isn't broken don't fix it!"

 

I ask this in the even that I get insanely impulsive someday and buy a DSLR.

 

With my C5050, it seems the less I do the better the image. Just a thought.<div></div>

This may be a calibration issue, which could cost a lot to correct- probably too much until you are ready to invest in a good printer.

 

Make the picture look good on your screen, and then add yellow and do test prints until the blue goes away. Keep track of how much yellow you add to get a value to try on any print you make.

If you have a 10D, you can dial in an individual color temperature in 100K increments, use Auto mode, or one of the canned modes. If you have a 10D and shoot in RAW mode, you can dial in color temperature corrections after the fact using the RAW converter software. Daylight is around 5000-5500K I believe. You might think about color temperature this way: If you have an electric stove and turn it on, as it heats up, it begins to turn red. Well, that's actually a pretty "cool" temperature, (even tho' a reddish picture is sometimes referred to as "warmer" - this is sort of backwards) because if you were to keep cranking up the juice, the stove's element would eventually turn blue, then white-hot. Light behaves in a similar way. If I'm shooting inside using tungsten lights (regular, old lightbulbs), then the image will likely come out with a red or yellowish cast. I can offset this with my software after the shot by lowering the default color temperature with my RAW converter and voila'! It gets the red out. Hopefully I got that analogy right - it's late! :) Best wishes . . .