DSLR Photography Forum

Hey everybody,

This is DJ, the new guy. I just got a new tripod and so I set out to capture some of the cool scenes I've always wanted to get. However, I'm having trouble understanding WB and think my photo shows it too. The scene was at night. It's a construction area with numerous flood lamps illuminating the scene mixed in with some flourescent lights that creep into the background and some ambient light. I tried setting the WB to different setting and kept getting some green light for the white flood lamps. I eventually just tried out all the settings and went with the one that looked the most like the scene.

The image is of a huge labrynth of scaffolding that was constructed to build a humongous overpass. The uniformity of the poles rising up seem to make a skeleton for some mammoth body, and the light filtering in gives it an odd, freakish air about it. I tried to get a person in the middle of it all because I think that always enhances photos.

Please comment on this photo. I'm curious as to what it makes you think of, and how you think I can do better.

Here's the stats on the image:

Development: normal
ISO: 1600 (oops!)
WB: Incandescent +/- 0
Size quality: RAW
Sharpness: Auto
Tone: Auto
Color Hue: Mode1a.0
Saturation: normal
metering: matrix
shutter: 3
aperture: f10
mode Exp +/-: N.0.0
Focal length 34 mm

Now, I took the image into photoshop and cropped out some extraneous stuff. Then I got to looking at it and I thought it was missing something. So I played around a bit.



Okay, this is the same picture, with a slightly different crop. To get this effect I went into photo shop and went to image>adjustments>levels and then pushed the shadows to the middle of the histograms peaks, pushed the midtones next to the shadows and then pulled the highlights over to where the histogram ended. This brightened the highlights and made the shadows extremely blocking, and also pushed out most all midtones. While all of this is against what I've ever heard to be right, I felt it gave it a surreal effect. The lights filtering in became more dominant, focusing the attention more on the person and giving it an idea that he is walking into something ominous. At least that's what I think.

What do you think? Please, esp. comment on this one! I really need to know if my effect worked or not.



Thanks for your help

DJ

the top one is HEAPS better... beautiful atmosphere. I would leave it as is.

and does WB matter that much.. ? if it's RAW then you can jump in to Lightroom and have whatever WB you want.

lovely shot, mate.

JB, try to keep the photos that you post less than 800 pixels wide. I know that can seem small, but our members on slower connections will thank you. Also, this forum will automatically squish images to fit the width of a page, so the photo that everyone sees will be different and won't look like the one you created. That said, I am able to see the full-sized image, so that's the one I'm commenting on.

I like the idea and the execution. The figure in the tunnel adds a lot of interest to the photo, and the framing is well done. I'm guessing that this is bamboo scaffolding because of the diagonal lines, but it's a great image of an ominous industrial scene. Technically, you've already noticed that iso1600 isn't the best place to be for long exposures. Bringing this down would let you brighten the exposure with less noise. I do wish that it was just a bit brighter; the swooping line of the bridge adds a nice counterbalance to the skeletal geometry of the building, but it's being lost in the shadows. The image is also a little soft, but it should sharpen up reasonably well in Photoshop.

I can see where you're going with the edited version, and like the direction, but think it's pushed too far for the original exposure. You may be able to get the same ideas across with a more subtle emphasis. I'd probably like it better without the noise.

As you've found, white balance at night is touchy. In an image with so many different sources you'll never get a completely neutral colour, but that can be a strength for night photography. I usually leave my camera set to tungsten or daylight WB to preserve the differences, and then edit later if I need to.

...and from the file name of your photo, I think you'll have something in common with one of our other members.

Bellerby,

Thanks for the input. As for the WB, if you shoot RAW I think it's personal preference if you account for it before or after. I'm trying to learn to get things right the first time. Post production work is great, but my technical skills with a camera a sparse. And like they say, crap in-crap out. So I'm trying to learn how everything balances in the camera and hoping later when I move more into photoshop it will just carry over.

Thanks for your comments too. I'm still not decided about which one I like more (like Matthew I think the first one could still be a little lighter), and I do like the idea the second has. But, like I said, it was an experiment and I think maybe it got a little too exaggerated.

Matthew,

Thanks for your comments, and thanks for taking the time to address all the stuff you did. A wealth of information! Awesome.

Your observation is very close. I thought they were bamboo poles from a distance too. They're actually metal though. But they look very similar.

As for the 1600 I think it got set on that because anything else would have set me shooting in bulb, and I was a little intimidated with timing things on my own. I'm not sure how sensitive exposures get after you've gone past the 30 sec mark (which is where it switches over to bulb on my camera). I did notice the noise though. Chalk it up as experience I guess.

As for sharpening the image in photoshop I'm aware that you can use an unsharp mask, but I'm not sure what a good percentage is to start out with. Would a 5% or 10% or even 25% be too little or too much. Plus, I never really notice a difference. How do you judge?

The overpass can be taken care of easy enough too.

Thanks again. I'm hungry for feedback and knowledge, esp. technical stuff.

And a question for you. Have you submitted anything here I could take a look at?

Thanks,

D.J.

DJ - Welcome to shuttertalk.
This is an amazing scene. I really like it.
Your original image has great atmoshere - its a great shot. I think this atmosphere has been lost in your rework. The biggest lesson I have learn about photoshop is - be gentle.
I looking forward to seeing more of your work.

The green (and orange) color of seemingly white lights at night is a constant problem I encounter, but usually I just roll with it and try to use it for more color.

What's happening is that mercury vapor streetlights only produce light for half of the sine wave, so it's sort of a pulse.
We see it as white just fine, but the actual wavelength is half of what we see, so the color is recorded by digital cameras as green.
Sodium vapor lamps are the same deal, but record as orange.
Trying to white balance them never works very well, and using a custom WB will give you way more noise as the camera's processor ups the gain on the non-offending color channels.

As Matthew said, I use tungsten or daylight WB at night.
Tungsten will ensure that your skies are a very rich blue if you're into that sort of thing.

I prefer the original photo you posted (it's very cool and I wish I had shot it!) and will advise that you could have gotten the 2nd result by using a longer shutter speed.
I always shoot at iso100 at night when using a tripod.
Camera's meters aren't to be trusted at night--a single light source pointing at you will completely fool the meter into thinking you're blowing-out highlights, so you need to crank up the shutter speed until the meter reads +1.0EV or so.
Try for a good (but not necessarily "daytime good") histogram reading, but don't worry about a lot of buildup on the left (black) side, since it is nighttime, afterall.

Also, I have found through extensive night shooting that depth-of-focus isn't very important at night.
Using a nice wide aperture (F5 all the way down to F2) will reduce the need for a freakishly long shutter speed, and therefore give you a better signal to noise ratio by letting in enough light to overpower the random electrons that create noise in a sensor.
Of course your camera will be better than mine in this regard, but it's something to consider.

A well-exposed night photo won't require any extensive photoshopping beyond maybe some color balance work or saturation adjustments, in my experience.

Smarti 77,

Thanks for the welcome and the advice. It has has been duly (sp?) noted.

D.J.

Keith,

Once again, thanks for the advice. Your post was a wealth of information, hope I can return the favor someday.

D.J.

The first one looks better to me as the second has too much noise. But it would seem it is in Toad's territory regards the what and wherefore.
DJ1234 you won't know what I am on about, as you haven't been around long enough, but it is a compliment.

DJ, we can be a handy bunch to have around some times.

I don't post many photos myself, but you'll find one or two in just about every one.

I love your first image DJ. You have already had good advice. I would like to echo Bellerby that shooting RAW will really help you with learning your craft and in nailing things like white balance.

Hi DJ - welcome to Shuttertalk.

I prefer #1 for its more naturalistic treatment of the light - I love silhouettes, and for me the figure in the doorway is the focal point of the shot. Well done. I also like the *Close Encounters* look of #2 - the blown highlights add a mystery and atmosphere that you could never get from a more natural photo. I often experiment with multiple takes of a single shot - trying for specific effects and iterating on a theme. it is not written in law anywhere that you can have only one version of a photo. I admire someone that takes the time to attempt variations on a theme.

Once again - welcome to ST.

#1 is an excellent picture. I like it a lot as it is!

#2 is a nice try with the picture. I like the colors you have used on it and your work with lights...

I like also to see different interpretations of the same picture, and I do it myself too.

The first version is great. I really like the subtle tones in the shadows and the brighter areas. You nailed the exposure perfectly.

Don't fret the WB. It is fine. On my monitor (calibrated) the brightest highlights are neutral (255/255/255) and the deep shadows are near neutral with red & blue being only slightly higher than green. I used TakeColor to check them. TakeColor is a free utility that you can download from the web. I keep it on my desktop.

Like others I like the original version better than the rework. I'm not sure where you were trying to go with the rework. It loses subtlety and there is color noise in the brightened shadows. Digital manipulation is a lot like painting in that you have to know when to quit. It is easy to push things too far. If the photo were mine and I wanted to play with it I think I'd try converting it to B&W and making a duotone or tritone version (under modes in Photoshop). I find that a duotone where you overlay a lighter color on black is a great way to bring out shadow detail and you can even apply curevs independently to each color.

Addendum RE: Sharpening

Try a defog sharpening with unsharp mask using between 5 & 20% with a 60 pixel radius and 0 threshhold. That's almost the opposite of what most people recommend which is higher %, very small radius and threshold of 5-10, but I find it works well to brighten the image and create definition.

Another good way to sharpen is to duplicate the layer and apply a high pass filter set between .5 and 3 pixels to the duplicate layer, then set the blend mode to overlay, soft light or hard light. Both of these methods will avoid the halos you often get with usual sharpening methods.

Hi DJ,

Like most others here, I just love shot #1. I'd be very proud of that shot. Without seeing the scene and knowing what the light was really like I can't really think of ways to improve it - the exposure, composition and white balance actually seem fantastic to me. The silhoetted figure tops it all off.
I'm not a big fan of #2 I'm afraid though - the blotchy colours and harsh shadows lose all the subtlety of the original.

I'm sure many people can understand your frustration with white balance when you have a scene lit by a number of different types of light sources. While experience and experimentation will certainly help you in many situations, the simple fact is that there are times when you simply cannot get one single "correct" white balance for the whole scene.
With this in mind, here are a couple of things you might want to consider with similar shots in the future.

1) Try it in b/w!
When it's tough to get the colour the way you like it, or when the colour is distracting, try removing it altogether. Black and white is hip! Experiment with different monochrome conversions (ie channel mixing in photoshop).

2) Try dual WB RAW conversions.
If you have 2 light sources with quite different colour temperatures, you could try performing 2 seperate RAW conversions of the same image with different WB settings and then combining the 2 images together in photoshop as layers, using a layer mask to hide/reveal that parts you want of each image.

3) Forget what's real, go for what works.
Shot #1 is a great example of a shot that really works. Does it matter if it accurately represents the scene or not? When a writer writes a book, does it matter if it is fact or fiction? Sometimes yes, but often no.

4) When you can't escape the noise, go with it instead of fighting it.
You obviously realise shooting at 1600iso caused the noise in your image (tsk tsk ).
Using a good noise-reduction program such as Noise Ninja can really help minimise this noise from a shot, but in situations like this if I can't get a result I like then I will often add even more noise in photoshop and make it a feature rather than trying to hide it. You can also add other textured effects and/or blur and soften for additional effects. This kind of thing tends to work particularly well with shots like the one you have here (atmospheric, moody, nearly monochrome).

Welcome DJ; you've noticed what a warm and knowledgeable lot hang out here!
My tuppenceworth: I too think it's a stunner of a shot, given a wee bit of drift away from horizontal.
+1 for all comments re starting in raw...really allows lots of texture and subtleties: number 1 works for me too, though I see no reason why the other one shouldn't be considered either. One thing I would suggest: maybe avoid the automatic tendency to treat noise as a "noli me tangere"(I always speak Latin at this time of the morning by the way)...play about with it in the pp stage too to see what difference in feel/atmosphere it makes.

Sorry, I've been away from the computer for a while. I took a trip to a small town in China and saw some incredible fields of rice being harvested. Great opportunity.

Anyway, to NT73, Matthew, Wedding Shooter, Toad, Irma, ADK_Jim, Kombisaurus, and Zig thanks for all the encouragement and advice. I'm going to try to soak it in, then go out and apply it. Thanks again.

D.J.