# What WB to use for the golden hours (sunrise and sunset)?



## Hjalmarg1 (Dec 11, 2013)

I ramdomly get good WB on my pictures taken during the golden hours so I have to post process many of them later. What is a good Kelvin temperature for WB?


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 11, 2013)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> I ramdomly get good WB on my pictures taken during the golden hours so I have to post process many of them later. What is a good Kelvin temperature for WB?



You're doing no postprocessing at all, but only use straight out of camera jpeg? Well, that's tough I have to admit since I find wb changes quickly in these hours, so I cannot give you a direct answer (but others surely will).

My personal approach is to shoot raw with auto-wb and worry about the wb later, more important to put the correct gel on the flash(es): full cto or at least half cto. The other method is to shoot a grey or combined color/grey card and then determine the correct wb in post if your camera auto-wb fails a lot... note that the exact "correct" wb might not look best in a subjective way, and if you do postprocessing you can do local wb adjustments.


----------



## Zv (Dec 11, 2013)

I leave my WB set to Daylight to record the scene almost as you see it. The scene changes of course and you'll get different WB as it does but you can easily change it in post by applying the change to similar photos via sync or copy function in LR. 

I usually find that when the sun has set I prefer cooler tones to bring out the blue and reds in the sky more. It's all down to personal pref though.


----------



## Click (Dec 11, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> My personal approach is to shoot raw with auto-wb and worry about the wb later



+1


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2013)

I vote: Shoot RAW, set WB later.


----------



## eli452 (Dec 11, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> My personal approach is to shoot raw with auto-wb and worry about the wb later



+1 simplest approach


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 11, 2013)

Zv said:


> I leave my WB set to Daylight to record the scene almost as you see it.


+1, I shoot almost exclusively during the golden hour and always leave my cameras set to daylight WB. Auto WB kills the golden glow.

As for Auto WB + RAW, the only harm there is that your histogram isn't going to be as accurate.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 11, 2013)

My general approach is to set WB at a predetermined value, I use 5,500ºK, this takes one inconsistency out of the equation. If you use Auto WB you have to adjust for the cameras idea as well as the actual light, in post processing I find it easier to adjust everything by the same amount than try to even out the inconsistencies Auto WB introduces, then just tweak in groups as the light changed.

As for sunsets, it depends on how you want it to look. Traditionally WB is used to make white toneless, but that probably is not the best way to reproduce a sunset, everybody knows the light is very orange, it has a low temperature of around 3,000ºK or lower. What people seem to miss is that when you put 3,000ºK on your camera WB* it is adding blue* to make the orange light appear white.

It becomes subjective, how orange do you want the orange light to look? If you want it to be "natural" a WB around 5,500ºK will be good, if you want it less orange then go lower, if you want it more orange then take it higher, go to 10,000ºK and it will positively glow orange!.


----------



## dcm (Dec 12, 2013)

Appears that Canon recommends the cloudy setting (6000K) in the 6D Instruction Manual (below). Go for shade if you want a deeper orange.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Dec 12, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> My general approach is to set WB at a predetermined value, I use 5,500ºK, this takes one inconsistency out of the equation. If you use Auto WB you have to adjust for the cameras idea as well as the actual light, in post processing I find it easier to adjust everything by the same amount than try to even out the inconsistencies Auto WB introduces, then just tweak in groups as the light changed.
> 
> As for sunsets, it depends on how you want it to look. Traditionally WB is used to make white toneless, but that probably is not the best way to reproduce a sunset, everybody knows the light is very orange, it has a low temperature of around 3,000ºK or lower. What people seem to miss is that when you put 3,000ºK on your camera WB* it is adding blue* to make the orange light appear white.
> 
> It becomes subjective, how orange do you want the orange light to look? If you want it to be "natural" a WB around 5,500ºK will be good, if you want it less orange then go lower, if you want it more orange then take it higher, go to 10,000ºK and it will positively glow orange!.



Many thanks to all of you for your feedback. It seems that I may try between setting the WB to 5,500K or to use Shade WB so, consistency in WB looks to be very benefitial for later post-processing.


----------



## surapon (Dec 13, 2013)

Dear Hjalmarg1
For me, And I do not want to miss any Colors of the Beautiful Sun rise/ Sunset----If I have time, I just set the camera on the big tripods,( I shoot both High quality Jpg and Raw) and Shoot with all WBs, Include AWB too---That I will get the difference colors of the golden hours, But I shoot at - 0.33 and - 0.66 ( Under Exposure) to get the high contrast of colors, and Re-adjust as I like by Post Processing / Photoshop6.
Good Luck
Surapon.
PS, Just my Lazy habit and my Low Tech brain, Yes, I have Raw files back up, and Just put them in the Hard Drive for back up record--But I let the Camera( Largest Jpg file),take over my Dream/ My Skill----Ha, Ha, Ha.

PS-2, One thing that I never try before, to use Cir. PL Filter at The Golden Hours----I will try next time and report back to you.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 13, 2013)

WB is subjective. I will lie with the true WB and sometimes keep it accurate. I'd always leave that to post now but have the camera on auto when shooting.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 13, 2013)

On more thought on this - don't try to shoot a gray card / manual WB at the very edges of the golden hour (aka the blue hour) or you'll get insane measurements of 11,000k and such that will make your photos look crazy. Yes, I've tried that


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 13, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> On more thought on this - don't try to shoot a gray card / manual WB at the very edges of the golden hour (aka the blue hour) or you'll get insane measurements of 11,000k and such that will make your photos look crazy. Yes, I've tried that



That, I am sure you know, is because the camera is trying to add as much orange as it can to counteract the blue and make your grey card toneless, exactly the same situation but at opposite ends of the spectrum as before the sunset where the light is very orange and the camera, in Auto WB, tries to add as much blue as it can by setting the lowest possible WB.

The key point to remember, and this is irrespective of the actual light source, set your WB low and the picture will be fed more blue, set the WB higher and it will go more orange. 

This kind of knowledge really comes into its own when you start gelling light sources. If you want very blue sky, but it isn't, simply turn WB down to 3,000ºK and gel your flash orange with a 1/2 or full CTO, the subject will be "correct" ie a white shirt will be white, but the sky very blue. Conversely you can get a wonderful warm old film style background, or fake golden hour look and "correct" subject by putting WB up around 8,000ºK and gelling your flash blue with a 1/2 CTB gel.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 13, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> I use 5,500ºK, this takes one inconsistency out of the equation.



I'm using a-wb in camera because if you set a manual value, you're throwing away potentially useful information, I often find it interesting to see why the camera chose what it did, the camera is more objective than my eye. If I want a common base, I can simply add a fixed wb to a LR import preset or copy/past the wb setting in LR.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 13, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I use 5,500ºK, this takes one inconsistency out of the equation.
> ...



I'm sorry I don't understand. My assumption was we were all talking about a RAW workflow, this renders the "As Set" WB largely irrelevant for any individual shot and certainly any in camera WB setting doesn't throw away anything. My reason for setting a base, or manual WB, is for consistency across shots from a similar time and lighting scenario. A-WB will be different by small amounts during a sequence of shots, I have found it easier in post to not have to deal with these small variations, especially when you move to PS and save when the WB ºK and tint sliders are replaced with a +/- scale.

Obviously if you are shooting straight to jpeg then the WB setting does matter, but in these situations the camera will try to adjust the actual light to white, this means in our sunset scenario A-WB will tend to set a WB too low on the ºK scale and the sky won't be as orange as it appears to the eye because of the blue the camera adds to try to overcome the orange.

If you want your camera to reflect what your brain knows as realistic light colours, ie, candle light is orange and midday mountain light is blue, then setting a manual WB at 5,500-6,500ºK will get you there most of the time, if you want white shirts to be toneless then you need to add/subtract blue/orange (and a bit of tint) to do that. Incidentally, tint is the one weakness of the manual ºK in camera setting, auto and custom WB also do a tint calculation that is outside the functionality of direct ºK in camera input.

For a studio scenario custom WB per session/lighting setup is king, especially if you want whites and greys rendered toneless. For everyday shooting and atmospheric scenarios where I want the light to reflect its actual colour I find manual ºK to be "better", assuming a RAW workflow. If you are shooting jpegs then manual ºK to taste as the end image is entirely subjective.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 13, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> I'm sorry I don't understand. My assumption was we were all talking about a RAW workflow, this renders the "As Set" WB largely irrelevant for any individual shot and certainly any in camera WB setting doesn't throw away anything.



Sorry, I should have been more verbose on this: If you shoot fixed wb you don't record the camera's potential a-wb decision, so that information is "lost". Of course with raw, no picture data is lost.



privatebydesign said:


> My reason for setting a base, or manual WB, is for consistency across shots from a similar time and lighting scenario. A-WB will be different by small amounts during a sequence of shots



Correct, this isn't really relevant and can potentially confuse postprocessing. What I find interesting about the camera's a-wb decision is when some outdoor "everyday" shots have a completely different wb because I can then look why that is - usually the light changed or I screwed up something, so I can then process this shot differently while with shots that have about the same camera a-wb you can usually simply bulk copy/paste development settings. 



privatebydesign said:


> I have found it easier in post to not have to deal with these small variations, especially when you move to PS and save when the WB ºK and tint sliders are replaced with a +/- scale.



That's probably the difference between our workflows - I'm almost exclusively using LR, and it's very easy to copy/paste wb.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 13, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Sorry, I should have been more verbose on this: If you shoot fixed wb you don't record the camera's potential a-wb decision, so that information is "lost". Of course with raw, no picture data is lost.



Ah I understand, and agree, but I find the cameras A-WB to be as easily fooled as auto exposure, it certainly doesn't know what "look" I am trying to achieve so I rarely find it of any practical use.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 13, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Ah I understand, and agree, but I find the cameras A-WB to be as easily fooled as auto exposure



But you're using older Canon 1d models, aren't you? From what I've heard awb has decisively improved recently like 5d2->6d/5d3, and on my 60d/6d it's consistent enough to give me hints in postprocessing when the lighting has changed w/o me noticing by looking with my bare eyes. And if awb screwed up, well, then I simply bulk copy/paste a fixed wb (which I usually do anyway).


----------



## tron (Dec 13, 2013)

Too few choices in the poll. Anyway I leave it to Auto White Balance. I know it is not perfect but since I shoot raw I correct later.
In fact I find the Auto results rather pleasing for exterior environments. For interior environments I have to lower the temperature to make it look natural.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 13, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Ah I understand, and agree, but I find the cameras A-WB to be as easily fooled as auto exposure
> ...



Agreed, as always there are many ways to get to the same result, or at least the result each of us actually wants. It just helps if you understand what the camera is doing and why it is doing it combined with our own workflows and anticipated results.


----------



## bholliman (Dec 21, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> My general approach is to set WB at a predetermined value, I use 5,500ºK, this takes one inconsistency out of the equation. If you use Auto WB you have to adjust for the cameras idea as well as the actual light, in post processing I find it easier to adjust everything by the same amount than try to even out the inconsistencies Auto WB introduces, then just tweak in groups as the light changed.



+1. For several years I used AWB but found I was spending a lot of time in LR micro adjusting the WB of each shot from a set to compensate for the white balance the camera selected for individual pictures. Keeping the WB set for Daylight or 5500K alleviates those PP issues.


----------



## tron (Dec 21, 2013)

bholliman said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > My general approach is to set WB at a predetermined value, I use 5,500ºK, this takes one inconsistency out of the equation. If you use Auto WB you have to adjust for the cameras idea as well as the actual light, in post processing I find it easier to adjust everything by the same amount than try to even out the inconsistencies Auto WB introduces, then just tweak in groups as the light changed.
> ...


I can't see how that helps if the light for exterior shooting changes. 5500K will be wrong and you will still have to make changes. Unless you take a lot of pictures at the same external place at exactly the same conditions of course where the changes if any will be applied to more than one photos at the same time.


----------



## WPJ (Dec 21, 2013)

tron said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I think that's the point, you already know the exact k with out having to look it up, make the work flow slightly faster


----------



## tron (Dec 22, 2013)

WPJ said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > bholliman said:
> ...


Even with WB set to auto, you can always correct the WB in ACR for one picture, select it first, then select more in Adobe ACR and synchronize WB. It is simple and fast.


----------



## Zv (Dec 22, 2013)

tron said:


> WPJ said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



Yeah but if you use flash worst thing in the world is Auto WB. Knowing what temp you are shooting at has it's advantages in camera. I think it helps understand color temp better too. 

Also in post you want to see and control the amount of color shift as the sun sinks. For example in shot no 1. lets say you correct WB to 5000k and then sync all. Great but now shot 100 is the wrong color because by that point the sun went down and things got cooler and you wanted to preserve that look. Auto is too inconsistent and you'd have to muck about fixing a lot more shots then resyncing. With a fixed value you know how much or how less you need to move it by. 

It's hard to explain but it does help your workflow by shooting at a constant temp. Auto can be cool one shot and then warm the next. Then you gotta figure out "was it really cool or was it warm at that point?" With Daylight you know exactly how it was!


----------



## WPJ (Dec 22, 2013)

Zv said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > WPJ said:
> ...



Zv, yes that's what I was trying to explain not using auto you have at least a know starting point.


----------



## Zv (Dec 22, 2013)

Shot to shot consistency! That's the words I was trying to say but totally spaced out on!


----------



## WPJ (Dec 22, 2013)

Zv said:


> Shot to shot consistency! That's the words I was trying to say but totally spaced out on!


same here.....


----------



## tron (Dec 22, 2013)

Zv said:


> Also in post you want to see and control the amount of color shift as the sun sinks. *For example in shot no 1. lets say you correct WB to 5000k and then sync all. *Great but now shot 100 is the wrong color because by that point the sun went down and things got cooler and you wanted to preserve that look. Auto is too inconsistent and you'd have to muck about fixing a lot more shots then resyncing. With a fixed value you know how much or how less you need to move it by.


Sorry for removing most of the comments to reply I just wanted to avoid another tunnel thread (there was one where we ended up making fun  ).
I do not disagree in concept too much I think. I just believe it is the same with ACR +1 step.
You just mention an example of a 5000K temperature applied to all via sync. Isn't the same if you have it all at 5000K at the time of shooting?
In both cases you would do either:
1. minor tweeks to some and/or
2. preserve the look of some.

Either starting from 5500K (or 5000) at the time of shooting or from a set temperature from ACR which by the way may also be the same (say 5500K or 5000)...

So I believe it is just a step difference either way (always talking about raw files)

Now, I have observed that my 5D2 and 5D3 are way off (too warm) at tungsten lighting (as was my 40D). In that case a preset value in K would give better results from the start (which seems to be around 2700K at least for many of my latest interior shooting cases). Still it is not big deal to apply at post and I have the advantage of not forgetting the camera to that value. 

It is just the freedom that raw files give us. I believe both ways are acceptable and it actually comes down to personal preference.


----------



## Zv (Dec 23, 2013)

tron said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Also in post you want to see and control the amount of color shift as the sun sinks. *For example in shot no 1. lets say you correct WB to 5000k and then sync all. *Great but now shot 100 is the wrong color because by that point the sun went down and things got cooler and you wanted to preserve that look. Auto is too inconsistent and you'd have to muck about fixing a lot more shots then resyncing. With a fixed value you know how much or how less you need to move it by.
> ...



Ah yes I see what you're saying now. It's just an extra step to level all images in post to the same value. Hmmm yeah I guess that is essentially the same idea. Fair enough. 

Btw what ever happened to that tunnel thread? Did it break the forum? CR was a bit wonky the last few days!


----------



## tron (Dec 23, 2013)

Zv said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...


It did not! We have to try harder next time! ;D ;D ;D ;


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 23, 2013)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> Many thanks to all of you for your feedback. It seems that I may try between setting the WB to 5,500K or to use Shade WB so, consistency in WB looks to be very benefitial for later post-processing.


I don't think you understood the message!

Use RAW. 

WB setting in the camera does not affect the raw image, it just adds a image tag telling DPP to convert it later. 

CHANGING THE WB SETTING IN CAMERA DOES NOTHING TO THR RAW IMAGE. ONLY DPP READS IT (maybe some software guesses)
In lightroom, you can set the white balance equivalent to any of the in-camera settings to what looks good to you, and duplicate it across all your shots. Don't change it in camera unless you are shooting jpegs.

See the Adobe white paper

www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/ps_workflow_sec3.pdf


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 23, 2013)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> I ramdomly get good WB on my pictures taken during the golden hours so I have to post process many of them later. What is a good Kelvin temperature for WB?



This is a question that has no answer.

The white balance for a sunset is not consistant... a lot depends on how much moisture and dust is in the air and how close the sun is to the horizon. There is no right value to set it to.... plus, for artistic reasons, you may wish to enhance colours or you may not.

I STRONGLY recomend shooting in RAW and post-processing the shot. Post-processing is a necessary skill for any photographer, it is not a crutch, it is an integral part of the creative process.


----------



## gbchriste (Dec 23, 2013)

I use a Lastolite EZBalance and do a custom in-camera white balance. During golden hour, the color of the ambient light is changing constantly so I will rebalance the in-camera setting every 10 minutes or so, or any time we move from one lighting condition to another. My goal is to get a raw image with a neutral WB.

Now, in most cases we expect "golden hour" photos to have more warmth in them. And in PP I will adjust the color temp accordingly to get the finished effect I want. But I always want to start those adjustment with a neutral image.


----------



## Zv (Dec 25, 2013)

gbchriste said:


> I use a Lastolite EZBalance and do a custom in-camera white balance. During golden hour, the color of the ambient light is changing constantly so I will rebalance the in-camera setting every 10 minutes or so, or any time we move from one lighting condition to another. My goal is to get a raw image with a neutral WB.
> 
> Now, in most cases we expect "golden hour" photos to have more warmth in them. And in PP I will adjust the color temp accordingly to get the finished effect I want. But I always want to start those adjustment with a neutral image.



You do a custom WB every 10mins? And you shoot RAW? And you adjust it anyway in post? 

Why? Your reason makes no sense. Why does it have to be neutral to begin with? You could set it to Tungsten and it wouldn't matter. You're gonna change it to whatever you like later. 

I feel like we've been over this!!! Come on people it's RAW ffs!!!


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 26, 2013)

I gave up on the white card thing. For me, the nature of "Golden Hour" light changes so much and so quickly, that messing with the white card and setting the custom wb could cause me to loose a shot that may only present itself for a moment. 

In pp, I will adjust the image to be what I want anyway, so I don't bother. I shoot raw.

If I was shooting in a studio or say industrial where absolute color match counts, I would use my Lastolite WB.
Scott


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 26, 2013)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> I ramdomly get good WB on my pictures taken during the golden hours so I have to post process many of them later. What is a good Kelvin temperature for WB?



cloudy preset seems to work best as a quick starting point, autowb removes too much of the glow

white balance cards are no good since they just bring everything back to non-golden hour lighting, they correct AGAINST golden hour tones or any other lighting tones

ideally i'd view liveview in realtime on a calibrated screen and adjust custom wb in field to match what i saw, but i don't have such a setup


----------



## tolusina (Dec 26, 2013)

I've found live view with exposure simulation active to be very useful in any difficult lighting situations.
On a 6D, I switch to live view, adjust exposure to your taste for the scene, hit the Q button, up/down on the pad until I get to WB, SET, left'right on the pad to get to K, INFO, then left'right on the pad to suit, finally, SET.
Since I still far prefer focusing and composing through the finder, I exit live view for the actual shot.
Tweak the result in post as and if needed, SOC should be very close to what you had in mind. 

Takes longer to read this than it does to do it, I've found results gratifying.




.


----------



## gbchriste (Dec 26, 2013)

Zv said:


> gbchriste said:
> 
> 
> > I use a Lastolite EZBalance and do a custom in-camera white balance. During golden hour, the color of the ambient light is changing constantly so I will rebalance the in-camera setting every 10 minutes or so, or any time we move from one lighting condition to another. My goal is to get a raw image with a neutral WB.
> ...



Just because my workflow makes no sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't make perfect sense to me. Your criticism is unfounded and frankly quite rude considering you don't know all the facts.

On a personal level peculiar to me, I have a moderate color vision deficiency that makes dialing in large corrections by eye very difficult. I learned a long time ago that if I just take whatever white balance the RAW file happens to spit out at and then try to "fix" it, I'll screw it up completely. Conversely, if I start with a neutral image, I can easily make small adjustments to the temp and tint sliders to get it looking the way I want. For 99% of the images I shoot, even those during golden hour, that usually means just bumping the temp slider up a bit to get a little more warmth in the image and I'm done. 

On a more technical level, I could just easily say it doesn't make any sense to take a bunch of raw images with a random WB setting and then sit there are try to guess, experiment, or otherwise analyze what adjustments need to be made to take it from whatever it was captured at to whatever it needs to be in the final image. Before I even download my session, I know that for all but the most unusual images I'm going to be bumping the temp up about 300-400. The very few remaining that need something else, I can deal with one at a time, even if that means getting my perfect-color-vision wife to sit with me for a couple of minutes and deal with the 5 or 6 images that need that extra attention.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 26, 2013)

gbchriste, I don't want to wade into the argument but agree that each person should work however they want to work.

I have used the exact same technique as you and got bizarre readings at the edge of the light - things like 11,000k as I said in my prior post. Thinking back (it's been many years) I probably underexposed the reference shots, possibly skewing the results.

One other thought not discussed here is that nature shooters rarely have any reliable white balance references to use in post. You can't click on a door frame, wall, sign, etc. when your photos are of trees, water, or wildlife 

Since upgrading to a wide gamut monitor, I've noticed that I am noticing white balance more and more in my shots and frequently shoot my EZBalance or ColorChecker Passport for later reference in post (not for calibration in camera). The Passport is handy because it's smaller and has 3 levels of Warm and 3 levels of Cool patches you can click on as well if you're not happy with the neutral gray.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Dec 26, 2013)

Click said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > My personal approach is to shoot raw with auto-wb and worry about the wb later
> ...



+1 to the +1


----------



## tolusina (Dec 26, 2013)

gbchriste said:


> .... I have a moderate color vision deficiency .....
> ....... my perfect-color-vision wife......


Don't run yourself down about it, some degree of color blindness is more common among human males that females.
See.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness

If you test, you may find you have better night vision than your wife,


----------



## gbchriste (Dec 26, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> gbchriste, I don't want to wade into the argument but agree that each person should work however they want to work.
> 
> I have used the exact same technique as you and got bizarre readings at the edge of the light - things like 11,000k as I said in my prior post. Thinking back (it's been many years) I probably underexposed the reference shots, possibly skewing the results.
> 
> ...



I agree that the method I describe isn't practical for every situation. I've started doing more nature/scenic work lately and I don't bother with the WB reference card in those situations for exactly the reason you mention. In those cases I do use one of the camera presets and then adjust in PP. 

But the difference that is most pertinent is most of my work is natural light portraits. In those cases, there is a certain expectation as to the range of acceptable colors that the skin tones can fall in to. Any thing too cool or too warm in the skin tones and it ruins the shot. So in using the EZBalance, I have the subject hold it right up to their face when I take my in-camera adjustment. That assures me I have the best possible capture of neutral skin tones, and then I can make the small adjustments I want from there.

In the case of a purely scenic/landscape shot, the range of colors that can be ascribed to the elements in the scene have a lot more flexibility. I can take a sky or mountain range from very cool to very warm, and every where in between and still render a scene that appears within the range of acceptable colors for human perception. But if I do that with a human face and turn them in to a Smurf or Ommpa Loompa, the image just doesn't work.


----------



## gbchriste (Dec 26, 2013)

tolusina said:


> gbchriste said:
> 
> 
> > .... I have a moderate color vision deficiency .....
> ...



No self run down involved. I'm 56 so I've worked around this all my life. It's a running joke between me and her.


----------

