# Which one is accurate?



## duydaniel (Sep 7, 2013)

I want to achieve accuracy
The first photo is how my eye saw it and the camera captured it.
But the second one is supposed "white balance corrected".

Which one is more accurate then?
Thank you


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 7, 2013)

It depends on how you corrected the balance. I tried the apparently white parts with the tool in LR5 and achieved similarly cool results. However I've seen the colours get really cool like that when the white source you pick is blown. Here's what I got from the auto white balance, but whatever looks good to you is the right setting:


----------



## Valvebounce (Sep 7, 2013)

Hi, do we assume evening sun low and red, if so then the first would be nearer how I would expect it represented with all the whites having a red tinge. If midday with clear blue sky then pure whites would be the correct representation.
For my tuppence the first pic is more pleasing to me, and if that is what it truly looked like then that is how you want to remember the scene, not how some software with white balance settings thinks you should see it. Of course I have been wrong before. :

Cheers Graham.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2013)

If you're doing copy reproduction of art, the color must be accurate. If you're taking a picture, set the WB as it pleases you.


----------



## duydaniel (Sep 7, 2013)

The first pic is how it looked.
The second pic is more colored accurate (after subtracted the sun) via WB correction.

color accuracy or staying true to the original scene?


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 7, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> The first pic is how it looked.
> The second pic is more colored accurate (after subtracted the sun) via WB correction.
> 
> color accuracy or staying true to the original scene?



Like Neuro said, if you need the colours to be faithful to the original scene then a grey card or something is necessary; If the photo is your artwork then whatever looks right, is right.

Jim


----------



## duydaniel (Sep 7, 2013)

The reason I asked was because National Geographic says
"National Geographic Photography want to see the world through your eyes, not the tools of Photoshop or setup photography."

So I would assume the first photo is the one.
I don't plan to submit anything but I just want to go with their guideline 

Thank you very much




Jim Saunders said:


> duydaniel said:
> 
> 
> > The first pic is how it looked.
> ...


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 7, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> I want to achieve accuracy
> The first photo is how my eye saw it and the camera captured it.
> But the second one is supposed "white balance corrected".
> 
> ...



The joys of white balance, especially away from the presets.

I am interested in your term "*white balance corrected*"

By what means?

I'm being pedantic, but what did you reference off of in the scene? 

When it comes to sunsets and sunrises you would really need to white balance manually every 10s to be technically correct.

But at sunset and sunrise that would lose the impact of that magic hour light. And besides, if the suns dipped, you aren't colour metering off of the light source, but reflected light source bouncing off of clouds and the sea, or your card is facing the wrong way etc etc.

So whats the answer to your question.

At magic hour there isn't really one.

A preset of daylight up until streetlights kick on will probably be accurate.. to your eyes recollection.
A preset of flouro will probably serve you well enough when lights kick on, until the sky is all indigo.
It's therafter a question of setting for the right source, 2000k for sodium, 3200k for incandescent..

Aesthtically I prefer the colours of the first one. When theres high contrast betraying the position of the sun (i.e. low) I would just set to daylight and roll with the punches. Unless you are shooting scenes of crime.


----------



## duydaniel (Sep 7, 2013)

Thank you!!!

in LR, I used the WB tool and click on one of the roofs to get the 2nd picture.
So it turns out the first one is better



paul13walnut5 said:


> duydaniel said:
> 
> 
> > I want to achieve accuracy
> ...


----------



## Pi (Sep 7, 2013)

Jim Saunders said:


> Like Neuro said, if you need the colours to be faithful to the original scene then a grey card or something is necessary; If the photo is your artwork then whatever looks right, is right.



Actually, a gray card in yellowish light is yellowish. If you use it for WB, you make it look gray, which it is not (in that light). This is based on some absolute notion what gray is. 

To take it to an extreme, if you have a monochrome light (laser), and do WB on a gray card, the algorithm will try to divide by zero somewhere.


----------



## duydaniel (Sep 7, 2013)

Pi said:


> Jim Saunders said:
> 
> 
> > Like Neuro said, if you need the colours to be faithful to the original scene then a grey card or something is necessary; If the photo is your artwork then whatever looks right, is right.
> ...



this is interesting!!!


----------



## Pi (Sep 7, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > To take it to an extreme, if you have a monochrome light (laser), and do WB on a gray card, the algorithm will try to divide by zero somewhere.
> ...



To be more precise, you need no monochrome light (since the CFA filters have broad spectrum) but light with spectrum which is seen as (almost) black by two of the filters. In reality, you divide by small numbers, not zero, and you get strong noise.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2013)

Pi said:


> To take it to an extreme, if you have a monochrome light (laser), and do WB on a gray card, the algorithm will try to divide by zero somewhere.



What if I used my IR laser on the gray card? (Well, actually it's a 3 W laser, so it would set the card on fire, would give an even cooler WB than the second shot...)


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > To take it to an extreme, if you have a monochrome light (laser), and do WB on a gray card, the algorithm will try to divide by zero somewhere.
> ...



Do it! Do it! ;D

Jim


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 7, 2013)

The only way you could get a "true" recreation of the scene is if you made a custom camera profile in the ambient light AND, measured the temperature and spectral characteristics of that ambient light. This is what auto white balance does and is why that is what you consider to be "what you saw", it doesn't simply make white toneless, it attempts to measure the ambient light and adjust toneless white to that temperature. Using the WB tool in post just makes the patch you sample toneless (all three colour channels the same number), which is why it works on white, grey and even black. On the occasions that you sample blown whites the software can't make any corrections as all channels are of equal value.

Profile cards like the X-Rite ColorPassport have a row of several "whites" only one of which is toneless, it is rarely the "correct" WB to actually use.

My first 1D actually has a small window on the front that was part of the ambient light measuring system.


----------



## Pi (Sep 7, 2013)

IMO, assuming ideal CFA filters, and an ideal monitor/print, the accurate WB is the one corresponding to that of your monitor. Of course, such ideal things do not exist. Then the yellowish picture is more accurate, assuming that this was the golden hour. The catch is - you have to stare at it long enough preferably in a dark room until your eyes get used to the yellow color. Then you see what you saw when you took the picture, up to the capabilities of your equipment. Catch No.2: You may not want to see what you saw back then, as Neuro said. Then the right WB is whatever makes you happy.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 7, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> I want to achieve accuracy
> The first photo is how my eye saw it and the camera captured it.
> But the second one is supposed "white balance corrected".
> 
> ...



probably the first one

the problem with using a white balance dropper and/or whibal type stuff is that it really only works for certain types of shots that you want the colors to be perfect for under D65 conditions. But you surely do NOT want your golden hour lighting converted into brilliant light overcast noon daylight. Or your crazy changing red/blue/green club lighting to look daylight (not that it could likely even be converted that far back). Or change your cool blue winter evening lighting into crisp white daylight.

The unfortunate thing is that it also means that unless the camera makes an ideal guess to match how human vision would interpret things (sometimes it does well, sometimes not so much) that you need to remember how everything single shot looked into the field. That is why it would be awesome if they'd make the apps that put liveview onto tablets and such color-managed to you could quickly use manual WB and color adjustments in the field to set it how it should look. Otherwise you need to download images, load in managed browser and then try again and repeat which can waste too much time sometimes or buy a $$$$$$ perfectly calibrated mini-monitor.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 7, 2013)

Jim Saunders said:


> duydaniel said:
> 
> 
> > The first pic is how it looked.
> ...



Actually I don't believe that he quite said that, not the part about needing the gray card in the field to get things to match faithfully to the original scene. In fact the OP's demo proves that using the gray card would make things look nothing at all like the original scene did.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2013)

Some RAW converters allow a multipoint WB, where you sample several 'whites' in the scene and it averages them. It can be helpful in mixed lighting situations.


----------



## surapon (Sep 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you're doing copy reproduction of art, the color must be accurate. If you're taking a picture, set the WB as it pleases you.



+1, Sir

Every Mornitors ( Although Perfected Adjustment) every Hard Prints are Difference in Colors( Difference brand name of the printers).
Every Human's Eyes and Hearts are difference in Perception of the colors and Point of View of the Pictures.
I love Mr. Neuroanatomist's Words " Set the WB as it please you " = Yes, Sir----We love our hobby, Love Our photos that we create in that moment of our life---and never come back again in that mili second of the time that we press the shutter. AND WE DO NOT CARE that Colors/ That Point of views = are right or wrong.
Yes, so many years ago, Every one in that city, in that period, hate the painting of that crazy artist, they say that crazy and trash work----Now, That Paintings cost = many, many Millions US Dollars, and most of the People in this time ( our time) love that masterpiece and think that Crazy Painter are Genius/ Grand Master of Painter/ Super Artist.
Who Right or Who wrong ???
Surapon


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 7, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> I want to achieve accuracy
> The first photo is how my eye saw it and the camera captured it.
> But the second one is supposed "white balance corrected".
> 
> ...



Which one do you like?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 7, 2013)

In the 2nd image, the saturation is overdone, so its not likely accurate. 

Accurate is a difficult concept. If a yellow sun causes a yellow tint, and that's the way it looked to you, its accurately reproduced to match what a viewer would see.

The 2nd image is artificially corrected to match what a computer software thought the white balance should be. Usually that means that it does not match what a person was seeing.

Personally, I found the first image to be the most pleasing of the two.


----------



## duydaniel (Sep 7, 2013)

The funny thing is almost all photography teachers told us to correct WB for accuracy reproduction.
But all people here said the first picture is more accurate because it is closest to what the eye sees.

So can someone give me an example where WB correction gave a closer resemblance of the original
because to me, WB correction always makes things different from the original scene.


----------



## Pi (Sep 7, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> So can someone give me an example where WB correction gave a closer resemblance of the original
> because to me, WB correction always makes things different from the original scene.



The whole point is that the original looks different in different light.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Sep 7, 2013)

The first one is the version, that catched your attention and made you push the button.
The second one is the version under light temperature 5500K.

There is a reason for the term golden hour (is a tag iny bridge BTW).

And yes to Mr. Geek: there is also a scientific approach.


----------



## emag (Sep 7, 2013)

Accurate schmaccurate........2nd photo is horrid. You know it and if you did not know why before posting you do now.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2013)

emag said:


> Accurate schmaccurate........



+1

Given a choice between accurate and not accurate, the latter can mean _not_ having to get up at 4am to catch the pink sunrise lighting...







WB is a useful creative tool.


----------



## Kernuak (Sep 7, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> The funny thing is almost all photography teachers told us to correct WB for accuracy reproduction.
> But all people here said the first picture is more accurate because it is closest to what the eye sees.


But isn't the first the more accurate WB in terms of what your eye saw, isn't that what reproduction is all about? If you were reproducing midday lighting, then the second would be the more accurate WB. Surely reproduction is all about accuracy at the time of the shot, otherwise, what does accuracy mean?


----------



## jrista (Sep 7, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> The reason I asked was because National Geographic says
> "National Geographic Photography want to see the world through your eyes, not the tools of Photoshop or setup photography."
> 
> So I would assume the first photo is the one.
> ...



Accurate to what? What actually was? What your personal artistic vision saw it as? What it would look like when conforming to your own stylism? 

Color balance is really a matter of personal preference when it comes to creative photography. You, the photographer, have to choose what you want, what looks good to you, and what fits your personal style. Style is just as important to photography as literal "this is how IT WAS" kind of accuracy...so long as the goal is to be artistic. So, you have to decide... "Accurate to what?"

If your job is to reproduce reality, then obviously the answer to the question "Accurate to what?" is "Accurate to actual reality." and not some artistic deviation.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 8, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> emag said:
> 
> 
> > Accurate schmaccurate........
> ...



Yep, but it cannot replicate the position of the sun, or the position of the tide, or the morning dew, or the breath of the backlit stag.

A shot at noon for example, of the OP's scene is going to have totally different shadows and sky polarisation than a shot near dusk or just after dawn.


----------



## duydaniel (Sep 8, 2013)

Kernuak said:


> duydaniel said:
> 
> 
> > The funny thing is almost all photography teachers told us to correct WB for accuracy reproduction.
> ...



Well, if the sun hits a white wall, the white wall turns yellow but WB correction "supposed" to turn the wall back to white. What we saw was a yellow wall but we understood it is white. Kinda tricky isn't it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> Kinda tricky isn't it?



Not particularly, no. Unless one is inclined to try and make it so...


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 8, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > emag said:
> ...



And to your piers it demonstrates your ability to slide the temperature bar around in photo shop, and hit the snooze button when the alarm goes off at 3:30am.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 8, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> The reason I asked was because National Geographic says
> "National Geographic Photography want to see the world through your eyes, not the tools of Photoshop or setup photography."
> 
> So I would assume the first photo is the one.
> ...



You answered your own question. The first is the correct one by those guide lines.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 8, 2013)

Here is a situation where the camera didn't get it right, and using the WB tool was the "correct" thing to do. It is a test image for a product shoot where accurate colours were important, the image to left is out of camera, the image to right has had a custom profile made and then the WB dropper was used where I put the red "X".

Now if you look at this on a screen it is going to display at whatever temperature your screen is set to but your WB tool will show even values for all three channels on that white square. Don't forget the dropper tool displays the values in the image file, not what you actually see on screen, the colour and brightness of the image file info are not affected by the temperature/colour or brightness of your screen. If you print it with a good profile for the printer then the square with the red X is going to be toneless and will adopt the temperature of the light you use to view it.


----------



## RGF (Sep 15, 2013)

Does accurate matter? Is someone paying for accuracy? Which do you like better? Sort of like ice cream - which is better chocolate or vanilla?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2013)

RGF said:


> Does accurate matter? Is someone paying for accuracy? Which do you like better? Sort of like ice cream - which is better chocolate or vanilla?



Well, PBD's example was a product shoot. If I was the marketing director responsible for the shoot, and I was given photos where my company's teal logo came out sky blue, the photographer wouldn't get paid until it was correct, and even after that, would not be rehired. So yes, sometimes accuracy matters.


----------

