For many situations, the automatic White Balance setting is sufficient to render lighting that closely replicates how you are seeing the image in real time.
I was asking my local Walgreen's store photo guy for advice about all the available SD chips. I didn't realize there are so many variants now. This will make a good next post, but this post is for him. As I got to visiting with him, he told me that his wife was likely to be ordering a new digital camera at that very moment. The couple are serious birders and that's the central focus of the camera they are acquiring. They take bird pictures often from long distances as you might guess. I hope to visit further with these folks. I can probably learn something from their birding photography experiences. I enjoy this activity myself, although when it comes to birds, I am an amateur. This is a wonderful specialty that has always interested me, but one I have only recently began to pursue more in earnest. I have been doing more wildlife photography in general during the past few years and have specifically taken an interest in various bird viewing areas within my geography. My best wishes to this couple in their birding pursuits.
Some cameras allow you to save manually taken White Balance settings for different conditions, but if you practice it a few times, you will see that it is so simple that you can do it on the fly with very little trouble under any lighting conditions you find yourself in.
During our very brief discussion at the store, this gentleman mentioned that he wanted to better understand ISO and White Balance. Having been in photography for a long time I sometimes find it difficult to know what topics to write about that would be meaningful for other photographers who are just getting into photography. Today, digital photography is usually what they are getting into. Although ISO has long been with us, previously known as ASA or DIN, it means the same thing as it always has. White Balance has also always been with us, but not always by that name or as used by rank-and-file photographers. In the old days, we used film types, primarily Tungsten or Daylight choices, in conjunction with filters in order to correct the color contamination from various light types as rendered by the delicate silver-halide film emulsions and the dyes therein.
This is not a snow scene. It was taken within minutes of the others shown in this series. White Balance, ISO, along with exposure settings can be manipulated creatively to create different effects.
The whole concept of white balance is to cause your captured color images to look as closely similar to what your eye was seeing at the time--OR in some cases to make it look the way you want it to look, which may be completely different from what your eye was seeing at the time. This discussion can be complicated or it can be easy. I will leave the complicated discussion either for later or for other forums. My readers are generally not looking so much for the science behind White Balance as for the practical application. My store friend is probably looking for an answer that will help him take excellent pictures of birds--presumably outside. He made the statement to me that he is not just looking for a good and recognizable picture of his quarry, but he wants to see the gleam in his eyes. I think his reference was to a specific situation involving a bald eagle, but I think I get the idea. This discussion should help him achieve that gleam.
. . . . he is not just looking for a good and recognizable picture of his quarry, but he wants to see the gleam in his eyes.
I have one more disclaimer, primarily intended to stave off comments from those who want to point out the subjectivity of color. Let me just beat them to the punch. Color IS subjective. Although scientists pretty much agree that everyone sees colors more or less the same way, there can be subtle, even stark differences. You've probably wondered how anyone can know if one person is perceiving red when another person is perceiving blue--while both are looking at what your brain interprets as green. I have. I am not a scientist, but I know that It is an individual's brain that interprets and decides how those colors are presented to your sense of sight. It is possible that these perceptions could be different for everyone--but as long as it was perceived the same way for any given individual each time--then it wouldn't really matter--everyone would be calling that the same thing. I dunno the answer to this. Scientists claim they know, and personally I believe that everyone sees colors more or less at least close to the same way. But the fact really is that it does not matter.
Choosing the White Balance pre-set for Cloudy conditions can brighten a too gray day.
Outside of the fact that some people have genetic differences that disallow them seeing certain colors as distinguished from others--called color blindness--this should not be made into be a big issue. I became aware of one of my family being color blind to a particular orange as in contrast to green once while we were traveling in the Bahamas. I noted how beautiful the almond blossoms were. They are bright orange. This family member said, Where? I thought there was some leg-pulling going on as the blossoms were everywhere and virtually unavoidable. But it was not joke. To some color-blind people, the orange blossoms simply are indistinguishable from the surrounding green leaves unless they are right up on them and can see the difference in the texture and shape of each in contrast. There are a few variations to color-blindness. It need not be a handicaps even in situations requiring close matches--as long as one is aware they have the condition and how to compensate for it. So although some major perception differences certainly do exist--White Balance will not correct such differences for these people.
Different animals see different colors in different ways. Mammals for the most part are able to see the range of the colors that humans do, then some. They are said to be able to perceive the ultraviolet spectrum that humans cannot see as well. This is beyond blues and purples. Most researchers believe that except for the higher primates, animals see colors much less distinguishable from one another than do humans. Maybe they see in black and white or more likely in several hues of grays and pastels. Cats and dogs are much better equipped to see in levels of darkness that humans find too dark to see well. My sixteen-year old virtually blind and deaf pooch, for most purposes cannot see in daylight. He seems to get around better on our walks after dark, when I have to use a flashlight.
ISO should be chosen, in most instances, just high enough to provide the kind of shutter speed and f/stop combinations that you can get by with--but no higher--in order to maintain the maximum image quality.
Speaking of birds, birds are thought to be able to see a much wider spectrum of colors than humans. I have had personal experiences with wildlife while stalking them in the dark with night vision aided by an infra-red beam. Humans cannot detect this infra-red 450 watt beam at all without the use of special night-vision scopes and devices. Through these devices, the otherwise invisible beams of infra-red light look like intense beams cast by high-beam car headlights. Mammals, at least most mammals, cannot see this infrared beam of light either--even when it is aimed right at them. Raccoons and possums and other mammalian critters seem oblivious to infrared.
But if you cast a beam on an owl or whippoorwill or other bird in the wild--at night--these birds take note and are immediately spooked. This is consistent with the the scientists theories. I have heard stories that Afghanistani tribesmen keep domestic birds such as guineas and they have learned that by observing these birds at night, they can detect approaching troops using infrared to enable their night-vision optics approaching from a very long way, and become agitated and noisy. These are all examples of both the different types of light and the different ways of seeing or perceiving light. Of course there is no color without light.Color is a function or a subset of light.
Any printer craftsman who produces high-quality four-color (know also as full-color) images such as brochures of furniture and food and other exacting subjects--realizes that the appearance of such hard-copy images differs when viewed under different kinds of light. Mercury vapor, tungsten, florescent, daylight with clouds, daylight without clouds in open shade, direct sunlight--are a few of the readily-identifiable differences in illumination sources that can affect how reflected four-color (CMYK) images appear to the human eye. You can look at a color printed color image inside under florescent or tungsten and carry it outside and watch the variances in hues and tint. When color copiers and color computer printers first came out, many end-users had a hard time understanding why their color output did not look as they felt it should. Often a phone call telling them to walk outside and view the color print in daylight helped convince them that color was not as far off as they first believed while viewed under a mix of inside light. Sometimes it corrected the color entirely. They often expressed astonishment at this phenomenon.
I must admit that back in the seventies, when I was first learning to print color images in the darkroom, learning to see colors that made up a mix of three colors in combination--to see which one or ones were dominating the others in order to make subtle corrections to the filters in the darkroom--required a steep learning curve. I will also note that no electronic color analyzer can compete with an experienced color technician in subtle color diferences. The human eye is capable of extraordinary precision in distinguishing subtle color differences. Computers and digital color printers generally work with 16.7 million theoretical colors--but the human eye can actually distinguish far more colors than this.
Camera angle and vantage point can make a huge difference in the perspective one has for any given scene. Several variations of essentially the same scene are presented here, as I encountered and captured in during a recent outing. The choice of lens focal length or zoom setting can also make a huge difference. Telephoto lenses enlarge distant objects proportionately more that close objects. This is how photographers can make an antelope appear very small outlined against a setting sun--by using an extremely long lens. Of course the setting sun is much closer to the photographer than is the antelope, so the telephoto lens magnifies the farther sun exponentially more than it does the closer antelope. The converse is true of wide-angle lenses. For my birder friend, knowledge of this gem of lens knowledge has the makings for many extraordinary photographs.
You get into a whole different discussion when viewing transmitted light versus reflected light. This is the difference between viewing your images on one or several different computer monitors, which use RGB (Reg, Green, Blue) color models and hard-copy printed images, which use CMYK (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and Black) color models. These are by no means the only color models used, but these are the most common. If ever you have viewed a particular image on your computer screen and then been sorely disappointed that the colors don't look the same when printed--you have experienced firsthand the problem of color-matching that faces professional photographers and printers throughout the production process. And while you may feel that the photofinishing is way out of whack, it may be that your monitor is out of whack, or both are, or neither are. Gamut is the word used to describe a particular ability of any model to reproduce colors. Color gamuts such as RGB and CMYK overlap one another in some areas, but not in others. If you place your one open hand randomly over the other open hand n front of you (go ahead and do it now), those areas where the two hands do not overlap in such a casual exercise, without attempt to align them exactly, easily demonstrate those colors from one gamut to another, that simply do not cross-over from one gamut to the other. RGB and CMYK models do not overlap very well. So there will always simply be colors viewed on your computer monitor that don't look the same when viewed as color prints. They will look even different when produced by different types of printers such as offset printers, versus silver-halide photofinishing output or as a laser print or your ink-jet printer. Sometimes special dye-sublimation printers are used for very accurate archival printing.
Technology is rapidly changing all of these processes for closer matching--but nothing will ever make one gamut match all the colors of another gamut. To make things even more variable--the color, type, and finish of the paper or other substrate color images are printed on makes even more difference--even within the same types of output. If you varied the substrates while using just one color output method, such as your home ink-jet printer, you would find vast differences in the output.
Years ago, privy to a special industrial showing in NYC, I observed experimental color printers devised by Canon, which were printing at high-speeds with extremely close color fidelity. These printers were considered top-secret and were secured behind thick plexiglass. The prediction at the time was that some variation of ink-jet printers would ultimately become the output standard. This actually now appears to be coming to pass, but who knows? As a photographer, even just a decade ago, I could never have predicted the technological breakthroughs that we now enjoy. Digital photography has, as with other facets of life, have provided a paradigm that no one ever anticipated. However, I can personally testify as to how far color photography in general and the ability to match color has come in my lifetime. Simple White Balance adjustments on even inexpensive digital cameras amaze me personally. Though viewed with marvel and mystery, such adjustments need not confuse, but should be viewed as just another tool in a photographer's bag of tricks (skills). The automatic White Balance adjustments available on most new digital cameras will very likely provide the precision a photographer needs until such a time that he or she feels ready to undertake manual adjustments. My advice is to not worry about it.
When lighting is from mixed sources, the manual White Balance setting is what is called for in order to deliver images with "normal" lighting. The term normal is suspect, as it is loaded with all kinds of questions regarding the subjective perception of color. But this setting is very simple to use--requiring only a few seconds and a piece of white paper such as a napkin.
Mine has only been a very basic and unscientific discussion of color-matching--which is itself a very complex science--but it at least provides a basis for understanding and appreciating exactly what a digital camera is trying to accomplish when it uses its automatic or manual color-balancing or White-Balance adjustments. It is incredible exactly how well such features actually do work when it comes to practical application in delivering acceptable images for you whether viewed on a computer monitor, a HD TV, or as color prints from Walgreen's or WalMart, or from a more precise and expensive photo-finished print blown up for exhibition or for a simple wall-hanging.
To use the White-Balance feature of your digital camera, assuming that you are merely wanting to closely adjust your images so that they appear to you and most other people, more-or-less the way you are seeing them under the light where you are taking them, it is very simple. Virtually all digital cameras work essentially the same way, but you will certainly want to consult your manual or on-board instructions as to the exact procedures for yours.
Sometime you have no idea what types of lighting is overhead or it may be a mix of several types of lighting. These conditions are when the manual or custom White-Balance setting become most useful.
Most digital cameras have automatic White Balance settings that try to judge how you want to view things. They are pretty good, but of course they work on algorithms and averages and will not cover every condition--nor can they read your mind (yet). Then there are usually attempts to allow you to select what kind of light sources you are using. These may include Daylight variants such as Cloudy and Full Sun; Indoor variants such as Fluorescent (often several types or choices, and often displayed as long skinny light-bulb icons), Tungsten, and Mixed.
Sometime you have no idea what types of lighting is overhead or it may be a mix of several types of lighting. These conditions are when the manual or custom White-Balance setting become most useful. Back in the day, a Neutral Gray Card was the standard, and every serious photographer had one to take light meter readings from and to place in trial shots with bracketed exposure bad other adjustments. To make it simpler, any old white sheet of paper or white napkin will work with-your digital camera.
Each manufacturer may have recommendations as to what type of white paper will render the closest matches, but any clean white piece of paper or white sack or napkin will work well enough for most cases. I like to use a sheet of copier paper. Just plain white paper in 8.5x11 bond paper. You could carry a pieces folded up in your pocket for that matter or placed inside your camera bag if you carry one. The fold won't make much of a difference if you smooth it out sufficiently. Even a blue-line spiral notebook page works pretty well and you don't have to tear the sheet out to use it.
Once you select the White Balance Set mode, you take a reading of it by pointing it in such a way that no shadow is cast--as illuminated from the light you are in from a distance that does not allow the reading to fall off the page--in other words that fills up the frame. The reading is saved and a message appears on screen that says so. If you are in doubt that it worked do it a couple of times. There is nothing to it. Some cameras allow you to save manually taken White Balance settings for different conditions, but if you practice it a few times, you will see that it is so simple that you can do it on the fly with very little trouble under any lighting conditions you find yourself in.
Of course you will want to try the setting out and see how the images look to you to make sure that you did it right and/or that it suits you. To bend this process slightly, you can use it creatively by saving or replicating several different settings and then trying them out under other conditions to skew your lighting appearance unnaturally if you desire. Even the simplest cameras that allow a White Balance setting will keep the last reading you took until it is changed or until you select another preset.
So after all the big build-up--it is just that simple. Nothing to it.
Now regarding ISO--I have automatic links that appear at the bottom of my blog as I am composing a post. I can choose whether or not to keep them.There is one that explains ISO at the bottom of this post. But I will give it an off the wall shot here in my own terms. It is not difficult to understand. Maybe only slightly more difficult to explain well. ISO is merely a universally accepted standard that was first used to express the relative sensitivity of film to light. It is now also used to express the sensitivity of the charge-coupled devices used in digital cameras in the same way it was used for film. It is just a way of dealing with increased or decreased sensitivity.
So after all the big build-up--it is just that simple. Nothing to it.
Just as using a film emulsion that is more sensitive to light, enables greater ability to take pictures in lower light levels, using a higher ISO setting on a digital camera accomplishes the same thing. The numbers were made as seamless as possible going from film to digital photography in order to make it easier for film photographers to make the transition. A higher number denotes more sensitivity. Doubling the ISO setting, for instance from ISO 100 to ISO 200, makes a difference of one f-stop or one shutter speed. Going to ISO 400 makes one more f-top or shutter speed setting. If you do not understand the relationship between shutter speed and f/stop (aperture setting), you should take time to gain and understanding of this. You can search my blog posts or the Internet to find explanations of this relationship to to whatever level of understanding you desire, as this is basic to photography.
In this post, it is my intention to simply explain that if you are shooting at lower light levels or if you are taking pictures of objects in motion or if your camera is blurring due to motion, you need a higher ISO setting. So why wouldn't you want to shoot at the highest ISO setting for everything. Two reasons: You can have too much sensitivity for you available shutter speeds, AND the image quality generally falls off with greater sensitivity. With film, the evidence of graininess becomes greater and the color fidelity deteriorates. With digital information--the digital noise increase and the color fidelity decreases. The appearance of both conditions, whether with film or with digital information, actually look very similar.
Use the lowest ISO number that gives you the ability to shoot in the light conditions you find yourself in. This simple. Nothing to it.
Just as film speeds, expressed in ISO, increased over time, digital ISO capabilities are increasing over time. ISO settings that delivered very poor quality digital images ten years ago or even three years ago, now deliver much-improved image quality. This is due to better CCD's for less money in large measure, and to a lessor degree better electronics and computing power within smaller spaces.
Sometimes the gray color of a gray day is exactly what you DO want. White Balance can be manipulated to render such appearances to creative advantage. As a country kid growing up and as an outdoorsman, I have seen old broken down fences like the one pictured. Somehow it just seems fitting that they be viewed under the gray light of a cloudy day such as is so prevalent when hunting.
So, the long and the short of it, whether using film or digital mediums, is real simple. For most circumstances (there are always exceptions), the trick is to use the lowest ISO setting that gives you sufficient motion-stopping ability for any given photographic conditions with the lighting, whether natural or artificial (IE, supplemental or primary flash, or NOT). f-stops and shutter speeds have their own ramifications such as blur and depth of field, so the consequences of these setting have to be taken into consideration. But the issue of ISO is basically as simple as that. Use the lowest ISO number that gives you the ability to shoot in the light conditions you find yourself in. This simple. Nothing to it.
Yes, the discussion can become much more complicated than this. But the net net practical and useful result will never stray from these basic premises. So in summary, use the White Balance presets that your camera offers for most circumstances. Use the manual White Balance reading on a white sheet of paper for precision lighting, mixed lighting, or if you are in doubt of what kind of lighting you have. Use the lowest ISO setting that you can for any given lighting situation. Whether or not this explanation will provide that gleam in the eye of an eagle at long distances will most likely depend upon other considerations--within the perimeters of these maxims for setting ISO and White Balance.
May I also encourage my birder friend to learn about the RAW format and how to use a good image manipulation software program to tweak his images. Photo Shop is the best known and is the industry standard, but a shareware program can be downloaded and used for free that can give you a good start. It is called GIMP. Do a search to find a free download for this program. With such programs, you can put that gleam in an eagles eye if you must.