# i think this turned out pretty good.



## dannylightning




----------



## The_Traveler

The odds of you getting honest critique drop dramatically when you declare how much you like a picture.
No one wants to take the chance of hurting your feelings by mentioning any shortcomings.
You learn much more from your mistakes than your successes.


----------



## jsecordphoto

The_Traveler said:


> The odds of you getting honest critique drop dramatically when you declare how much you like a picture.
> No one wants to take the chance of hurting your feelings by mentioning any shortcomings.
> You learn much more from your mistakes than your successes.



I'll bite. It's really nothing more than a snapshot man. What is your main subject? If it's the sign, you've put a lot of dead space in the upper left which does nothing for the image.


----------



## Dillard

I agree. It seems like it could have just as easily been an iPhone image you took while walking up to a neighbors house.

It doesn't really tell a story, or excite me at all. Also, it feels crooked to me.


----------



## Parker219

This is an image that gets LIKES on Facebook but not in a photography forum.


----------



## limr

I think it's a pretty enough detail to take a picture of - the lamp is in good shape, the leaves are arranged nicely. Apart from it being a tiny bit underexposed, it seems technically fine - good focus, good depth of field to isolate the subject. And the composition is not bad - there are some interesting shapes going on in the frame.

But...and you knew there would be one  ... it's also the kind of mundane object that doesn't make for an interesting picture unless there's something else to make it interesting. And that "something else" is light. Yes, light is important in every kind of shot, but when the subject is such an every-day unexciting thing, the light is absolutely critical. Unfortunately, the absence of good light in this picture flattens it and makes it less interesting, despite its other technical or compositional merits.

Edit: If you can, try this same shot at a different time of day when it gets some more direct light.


----------



## The_Traveler

I find it almost impossible not to look at the watermark.
The text of the sign is the brightest piece of content - and viewers look at text - and then right next to it is that big, blocky white watermark.


----------



## jcdeboever

Nice shot. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## dannylightning

i was not expecting to hear such harshness out of this photo..   i know its nothing special but i though it was pretty descent.   

thanks for the honesty. i am trying to get better at landscape type photos..


----------



## tecboy

Add some jingle bells and Christmas light.  That should works.


----------



## Dillard

IMO, I think it would benefit by a more shallow depth of field. Shooting it at 2.8, or even 1.8, would separate the post from the tree in the background, and isolate your subject better.


----------



## dannylightning

more bokah would have been nice.   my lens was wide open when i shot it.


----------



## PropilotBW

dannylightning said:


> i was not expecting to hear such harshness out of this photo..   i know its nothing special but i though it was pretty descent.
> 
> thanks for the honesty. i am trying to get better at landscape type photos..



Let's ask you a question.  What is decent about the photo that you like?  What did you see in this photo that made you take the picture?


I guess there's just nothing special about the picture.  
Whatever you saw is just not "decent" to other viewers.  It's just a boring subject.
You did attempt a shallow depth of field, but the trees in the background are a bit distracting.  If you took from a different angle, would there be more basic background that wouldn't detract from the subject?


----------



## dannylightning

from any angle there will be trees or a house in the background.

i like the leaves,  not many of those around at this time of year.


----------



## bogeyguy

dannylightning said:


> View attachment 112084


Ha, ha, no one here is worried about feelings, pro or con. That's what C&C is about, right? Even if you don't request it.


----------



## tecboy

Looks like you shot this one under the cloudy day.  Not the right time of the day especially during this season.


----------



## dannylightning

I guess i have different taste than allot of people on here,   i see allot of  landscape and people photography photos on here that i do not care for at all yet other people post about how nice they are.   now a shot like this i really like.   when i post a landscape or something similar here no one seems to care for it.


----------



## jaomul

If you want c +c to get better that's great. If someone is harsh it can be hard to read but I don't see the point of arguing someone else's opinion when you ask for it.

However, if you take a shot of a pile of dog pooh, and you yourself like it, what others think is really quite irrelevant


----------



## tecboy

dannylightning said:


> I guess i have different taste than allot of people on here,   i see allot of  landscape and people photography photos on here that i do not care for at all yet other people post about how nice they are.   now a shot like this i really like.   when i post a landscape or something similar here no one seems to care for it.



Get over it.  I'm not a good photographer, but when I post pictures in this forum, I ask for critique, not commendation.


----------



## SCraig

dannylightning said:


> I guess i have different taste than allot of people on here,   i see allot of  landscape and people photography photos on here that i do not care for at all yet other people post about how nice they are.   now a shot like this i really like.   when i post a landscape or something similar here no one seems to care for it.


The old mantra of "Shoot what you like, like what you shoot" comes to mind.  But at the same time listening to others' advice can help you like what you shoot even more.

You said that the leaves are the subject you prefer however those are background elements in this photograph.  Look at it.  I mean just pop it up and look at it, then notice what is the FIRST thing you see.  It will likely be 1) The light-colored glass on the light fixture, 2) The number "730", or 3) Your watermark.  By then most people are moving on to another photograph because what you perceive as the subject is actually part of the background and all they see is a light pole with a house number on it.

Make your subject stand out from the background.  Eliminate the elements that aren't part of what you want people to see in the photo.  How you present a photograph is just as important as how you shoot a photograph, and in fact how you present it should be part of your thought process when you shoot it.  It's called "Composition".


----------



## dannylightning

i think the leaves make the light post look nice.   so the light post is the subject i just think the leaves make the photo,  without them i would not have cared for the photo..

usually i do not like landscape type shots that i get,  this is something i actually liked,   kind of figured other people might actually like this one.   not trying to argue anything,  i like it, other people dont, other people like stuff i dont,    just stating how i see it.


----------



## PropilotBW

dannylightning said:


> more bokah would have been nice.   my lens was wide open when i shot it.



May I suggest a much closer shot?  Get WAY in there and get those leaves, since that's what you liked.  Do something semi-macro.  Make the leaves comprise of 3/4 or more of the entire shot.   The bokeh will be much much creamier at f/1.8!!(on your 35mm).  
I assume this is your house?  Go out and try that and post an update.


----------



## Peeb

dannylightning said:


> i was not expecting to hear such harshness out of this photo..   i know its nothing special but i though it was pretty descent.
> 
> thanks for the honesty. i am trying to get better at landscape type photos..


Totally agree.  This board can be snooty to the point of toxic at times!

I liked it.


----------



## Derrel

It's reasonably good, but it is a bit off-balance in total. For example, there's a fairly substantial, visually "weighty" amount of space to the left hand side of the frame witrh the sky, the tree, and the OOF neighborhood behind; the pole and the cross-bar that suspends the address sign is very close to the right hand edge of the frame; the large 730 white lettering PLUS your extremely heavy, bold typed logo in the lower right corner, all cause a lot of visual weight to be in the lower right hand corner. Overall, I think the size and proportion of the elements, meaning the tree on the left, the big tree on the right, and the post,lamp,and address sign are all mostly okay, and that comes down to focal length and f/stop used, but the thing that makes this not quite up to snuff is the lack of a harmonious balance within the frame...it's okay...reasonably good, but might have been better with a little less space on the left and top left, and a little bit more space for the cross-bar to "point into". And....this is an instance where your massive, white, heavy-fonted logo's typopgraphy is just killing the shot.

The way the address sign is rendered in good focus, and the solid, massive, upright tree trunk behind is rendered out of focus, yet recognizable, is very pleasing in a visual sense. That's a really good use of foreground/background juxtaposition. Nice use of selective focus. THe little bits of the neighborhood that are visible, way out of focus, is also good.


----------



## dannylightning

the watermark is distracting,  on my wildlife photos i barley notice it but on photos like this it does seem to stick out allot.   i will make a more transparent version of my water mark for these kind of shots.

i guess i crop it like you do bird photos,  have the bid off center and more room on the side that the bird is facing.    would a crop like this be better for this type of thing, i took some off the side 

none had said anything about the other thread i made yet,


----------



## dannylightning

i just sold off some lenses and a camera body today,   i no longer have the 35mm 1.8,   just have my big lens and the 18-200 right now,  i think i am going to pick up a sigma 18-35mm 1.8.  i have been wanting that since i heard about it and started checking out the reviews.


----------



## Ysarex

Not every photo can be a show stopper. There's a place for, and we need, photos that are OK and that only make it to the level of nice. This is a nice photo. We all take them and we should. There's lots of little details that work together to dampen the impact of this image and throw it off from what you intended. The watermark -- don't try and improve it -- lose it. It detracts from all your photos. The color: stop it with the auto white balance and get that under control. That's also hurting all your photos. You like the leaves on the lamppost? Their color and impact has been badly dampened down by the AWB failure of your camera and your failure to correct it. Derrel noted some good composition points. Here's the photo with 1/2 a dozen mostly small changes -- better?

Joe


----------



## Rick58

I'm in Joe's camp here. It's a "nice" photo. If it happens to be your house number, take another after a fresh snowfall and use it as a Christmas Card. Oh yeah, and I'd definitely lose the watermark.


----------



## dannylightning

the embossed looking watermark on the sign is kind of neat,  i think i like the house number on the sing better though.  that version looks a bit darker and a bit too saturated. not sure i like how the glass looks in that.   my eyes are drawn to the bright spot on the bottom left corner,   the poles its self looks to be a deeper black which i do like.  over all if you look past the watermark i like how it looked the way i had it better.

what is wrong with auto white balance,   not sure how you even set up your own white balance,  i know you can get a card or what not but i am not sure you can always use a white balance card in every situation.

thinking about it that tree is directly behind the pole so i am not sure how much that is gonna blur out even at 1.8


----------



## Dillard

that's the wonderful thing about photography. It's subjective.

Since you don't have a lens capable of better isolating the subject, you could always do so in post.


----------



## tecboy

Seriously, you don't know anything about white balance?


----------



## Ysarex

dannylightning said:


> the embossed looking watermark on the sign is kind of neat,  i think i like the house number on the sing better though.  that version looks a bit darker and a bit too saturated. not sure i like how the glass looks in that.   my eyes are drawn to the bright spot on the bottom left corner,   the poles its self looks to be a deeper black which i do like.  over all if you look past the watermark i like how it looked the way i had it better.
> 
> what is wrong with auto white balance,   not sure how you even set up your own white balance,  i know you can get a card or what not but i am not sure you can always use a white balance card in every situation.
> 
> thinking about it that tree is directly behind the pole so i am not sure how much that is gonna blur out even at 1.8








See the color difference? A white balance value is required for all digital cameras. A measurement of the light color allows us to  render the color of objects accurately. The problem is that the color of the light is changed by reflecting off a colored object. So to measure the light color we need to either 1. measure it directly before it reflects from an object or 2. measure from a know reference target that is spectrally neutral (doesn't change the light color). Your camera can't do 1. and if you don't want to do 2. the camera has an option to guess -- auto white balance. In fairness it is an educated guess, but it's a guess and it will be wrong to some degree varying with the lighting conditions. In your photo the camera AWB guess gave you a photo with a pretty obvious cyan/blue color cast.

To do better than AWB you can either set a custom WB on the camera or shoot a reference target to use with raw files when you process them. The second option is best if you are going to process raw files.

Joe

edit: How do you calibrate your display?


----------



## jcdeboever

Danny, if you want to dial in, listen to Derrel in this thread. He is an expert and offers objective analysis and direction. He broke it down and it was favorable with fine tuning. You are a fine artist and are feeling your way into other subjects. I applaud you for wanting to get better. You are awesome in my mind. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## dannylightning

Derrel always has good advice,  I already know this..  

I guess I should say only way I know to set custom white balance is to shoot a  a white balance card before you shoot in each location,  .  the  preset white balance settings look funky most of the time,   auto usually looks descent so I have always used that,  quite. A few good photogropher seem to use auto 

Sent from my XT1028 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tim Tucker

White balance and correct colour:

As long as there is no defect in your eyesight, we all see colour in much the same way. There is no real difference in how you see a shade of green to how others see the same shade. There is however a difference in what we perceive to be a pleasing colour balance, the way we remember or recall the colours of a scene and our emotional response to certain colours and combinations. So a visually accurate rendition of colours is not an artistic or subjective approach because it is very certain that if you did reproduce the colours accurately it would turn out differently to the way you _remember _it.
The colour of an object is very dependant on the light that's reflected and the surface it reflects from. So the colour balance of the illuminated light and the texture of the paper you print on both affect the visual colours of your print as well, and it goes without saying that the colours generated by the additive colour system of your computer screen will look different again.
However if you had a product that you had to display across a number of different media, where correct colour rendition was important then you would use a reference chart so you could manage the colours and produce accuracy over that variety of media and printing processes. This is called _colour management_, and to be honest it won't really help your development. Quite the opposite really because if you _want_ accurate colour then you have to _maintain_ accurate colour. You can't be tweaking saturation, vibrance, or colour contrast for any pleasing effect because it will destroy your goal of accurate colour, the whole point of using a reference chart.
Instead learn about _colour theory_, how we see and perceive colour.
I use auto white balance on raw files because it is fully correctable later.

Your actual image again contains elements of a good photo. In this one you have a sharp subject separated from the background by focus. It is good and well executed. It is also good that you are progressing as you will start to combine these different elements.

The image is shot in un-interesting light, and is unbalanced as Derrel says. It is also a mundane subject being a modern house number/outside light decorated with some plastic leaves. But carry on shooting them because once you start to recognise and shoot the "interesting and dramatic light" you'll spend far more time hiking to remote locations and leaning on fenceposts waiting for the moment that never comes than you do now. 

A bit more balance as directed by Derrel:




And loose the logo.


----------



## jsecordphoto

I know you made another thread about selling prints, the discussion here just goes to show that you are not ready at all. There seems to be a lot of coddling here on the forum lately rather than giving realistic advice. Not to discourage you from shooting, it's great that you're asking questions and everything, but you're getting waaay ahead of yourself thinking about offering images for sale when you don't even understand basic things like fine tuning WB


----------



## tecboy

Here you will understand more about white balance. 

Understanding White Balance


----------



## Ysarex

dannylightning said:


> Derrel always has good advice,  I already know this..
> 
> I guess I should say only way I know to set custom white balance is to shoot a  a white balance card before you shoot in each location,  .  the  preset white balance settings look funky most of the time,   auto usually looks descent so I have always used that,  quite. A few good photogropher seem to use auto
> 
> Sent from my XT1028 using Tapatalk



I agree the preset white balance settings aren't very useful. Shoot a white balance reference card. The card is free and easy to carry with your camera. You simply need a piece of white Styrofoam. Take a moment to shoot the card in the lighting condition you plan to work and then take photos. When you go to process the raw files open the photo of the card and read the values for temp and tint from the card using LR's WB dropper. Transfer those values to the photos taken in that light. That gives you an accurate starting position. Here's an example that shows the difference using my camera.





I shot the card (always with my cameras) before I took some photos. Otherwise I had the camera set to AWB as I don't care about the camera JPEGs. The camera AWB rendered the scene with a blue/cyan cast. My hand is so severely blue you'd think I was a fashion model or a corpse. The RGB values for the card show the problem: that 26 point difference between Red and Blue is major. In the raw file that's a full 1000 degree K difference. The card (white Styrofoam food container) reflects back the light with the color unchanged and that allows us to use the card as a white balance reference. It's easy to get into the habit of using it.

There's no rule that says you have to use accurate color -- you can change it to what you like, but it's really helpful to have a consistent starting place from which to do that.

Joe


----------



## Peeb

jsecordphoto said:


> I know you made another thread about selling prints, the discussion here just goes to show that you are not ready at all. *There seems to be a lot of coddling here on the forum lately rather than giving realistic advice.* Not to discourage you from shooting, it's great that you're asking questions and everything, but you're getting waaay ahead of yourself thinking about offering images for sale when you don't even understand basic things like fine tuning WB


Ha ha!  I read this thread to start with a bunch of toxic slaps to an enthusiastic OP- no constructive criticism, just criticism.  Later, a few superstars (like Derrel, who is awesome) gave some technical advice without issuing a beat-down, but overall, I see VERY LITTLE 'coddling' going on in this forum.  In this thread in particular, the OP has been a very good sport about the raft of condescending dismissals of his work.  I doubt he feels 'coddled'.

My opinion.


----------



## jcdeboever

Peeb said:


> jsecordphoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you made another thread about selling prints, the discussion here just goes to show that you are not ready at all. *There seems to be a lot of coddling here on the forum lately rather than giving realistic advice.* Not to discourage you from shooting, it's great that you're asking questions and everything, but you're getting waaay ahead of yourself thinking about offering images for sale when you don't even understand basic things like fine tuning WB
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha!  I read this thread to start with a bunch of toxic slaps to an enthusiastic OP- no constructive criticism, just criticism.  Later, a few superstars (like Derrel, who is awesome) gave some technical advice without issuing a beat-down, but overall, I see VERY LITTLE 'coddling' going on in this forum.  In this thread in particular, the OP has been a very good sport about the raft of condescending dismissals of his work.  I doubt he feels 'coddled'.
> 
> My opinion.
Click to expand...

Well said. Danny is a good egg. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## dannylightning

what if you shoot the card but what you are shooting is far away,  will that throw it off.

i rarely change my white balance in lightroom,  i just played with it on a few of those landscape shots i took and warming it up a little does seem to make things look better.

there is also a dropper on lightroom to change the white balance,  i assume you need to click that on something that is white for it to work correctly?  not all shots have something pure white in them.

i shoot raw..  that export to jpeg.


----------



## tecboy

It is all good.  I remember Danny at Helifreak.  He learned fast, and he will learn fast in this forum.


----------



## Ysarex

dannylightning said:


> what if you shoot the card but what you are shooting is far away,  will that throw it off.



The key is to use the card in the same light. If the sun is shinning and you hold the card in the sun then that's the same light for anything you see that's in the sun. If the day is overcast and you hold the card in overcast light then that's the same light for anything else you see in that same overcast light doesn't matter if it's right in front of you or 200 yards away. The mistake would be to hold the card in the shade when you want to photograph something in the sun.



dannylightning said:


> i rarely change my white balance in lightroom,  i just played with it on a few of those landscape shots i took and warming it up a little does seem to make things look better.
> 
> there is also a dropper on lightroom to change the white balance,  i assume you need to click that on something that is white for it to work correctly?  not all shots have something pure white in them.



That's the point of the card. Even things that seem to be white usually aren't really white -- Styrofoam is. If you have the card photo as one in a set, then you use that LR WB dropper to read the card -- remember the temp and tint numbers you get from reading the card and just type them in to the other photos. That get's you as close as possible to accurate WB. It's really helpful to always start there. If you begin from a known point of standardization you'll more quickly and consistently determine what you personally like as a final result.

I'm a realist personally and I work carefully to make the colors in my photo be the colors that were really there. There's no rule that you or anyone else should do the same, but if you're going to finally adjust the color one way or the other from what point are you making that personal shift? AWB in your camera is erratic -- that's a bad platform to try and work from.

Joe



dannylightning said:


> i shoot raw..  that export to jpeg.


----------



## dannylightning

i mainly do the bird/wildlife photos,   i never know if i will be pointing the lens into the light, shade, a dark tree, a hole in a log,  and when i do snap a shot often its a need to shoot now before its gone situation  so i am not sure a card is going to be helpful for what i usually shoot.   most wildlife guys i have talked to seem to use auto white balance and that is probably why.

for landscapes i might try to start using one, ill see if i can find some laying around ,   i guess my main concern at the moment is just getting a well composed photo when it comes to landscapes.


----------



## Ysarex

dannylightning said:


> i mainly do the bird/wildlife photos,   i never know if i will be pointing the lens into the light, shade, a dark tree, a hole in a log,  and when i do snap a shot often its a need to shoot now before its gone situation  so i am not sure a card is going to be helpful for what i usually shoot.   most wildlife guys i have talked to seem to use auto white balance and that is probably why.
> 
> for landscapes i might try to start using one, ill see if i can find some laying around ,   i guess my main concern at the moment is just getting a well composed photo when it comes to landscapes.



Direction doesn't change the light color so into the light or not doesn't matter. Assume you're out on a sunny day looking for wildlife. You have two basic options at that time: the wildlife is in the sun or in the shade. Take two card shots: sun and shade.

Joe


----------



## Scatterbrained

dannylightning said:


> what if you shoot the card but what you are shooting is far away,  will that throw it off.
> 
> i rarely change my white balance in lightroom,  i just played with it on a few of those landscape shots i took and warming it up a little does seem to make things look better.
> 
> there is also a dropper on lightroom to change the white balance,  i assume you need to click that on something that is white for it to work correctly?  not all shots have something pure white in them.
> 
> i shoot raw..  that export to jpeg.


White, grey or black will work.  You could actually use the lamppost itself to set WB in your image.


----------



## dannylightning

Ysarex said:


> dannylightning said:
> 
> 
> 
> i mainly do the bird/wildlife photos,   i never know if i will be pointing the lens into the light, shade, a dark tree, a hole in a log,  and when i do snap a shot often its a need to shoot now before its gone situation  so i am not sure a card is going to be helpful for what i usually shoot.   most wildlife guys i have talked to seem to use auto white balance and that is probably why.
> 
> for landscapes i might try to start using one, ill see if i can find some laying around ,   i guess my main concern at the moment is just getting a well composed photo when it comes to landscapes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Direction doesn't change the light color so into the light or not doesn't matter. Assume you're out on a sunny day looking for wildlife. You have two basic options at that time: the wildlife is in the sun or in the shade. Take two card shots: sun and shade.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


the problem is sometimes i see something and its gone before the camera can focus on it,   or i get off one shot and there it goes.   there is not always time for that,   i mean you got the shoot the card and than shoot the subject and that is going to waist time when there is not always time to waist.


----------



## Scatterbrained

dannylightning said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannylightning said:
> 
> 
> 
> i mainly do the bird/wildlife photos,   i never know if i will be pointing the lens into the light, shade, a dark tree, a hole in a log,  and when i do snap a shot often its a need to shoot now before its gone situation  so i am not sure a card is going to be helpful for what i usually shoot.   most wildlife guys i have talked to seem to use auto white balance and that is probably why.
> 
> for landscapes i might try to start using one, ill see if i can find some laying around ,   i guess my main concern at the moment is just getting a well composed photo when it comes to landscapes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Direction doesn't change the light color so into the light or not doesn't matter. Assume you're out on a sunny day looking for wildlife. You have two basic options at that time: the wildlife is in the sun or in the shade. Take two card shots: sun and shade.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the problem is sometimes i see something and its gone before the camera can focus on it,   or i get off one shot and there it goes.   there is not always time for that,   i mean you got the shoot the card and than shoot the subject and that is going to waist time when there is not always time to waist.
Click to expand...

You don't have to shoot the card first.


----------



## Ysarex

dannylightning said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannylightning said:
> 
> 
> 
> i mainly do the bird/wildlife photos,   i never know if i will be pointing the lens into the light, shade, a dark tree, a hole in a log,  and when i do snap a shot often its a need to shoot now before its gone situation  so i am not sure a card is going to be helpful for what i usually shoot.   most wildlife guys i have talked to seem to use auto white balance and that is probably why.
> 
> for landscapes i might try to start using one, ill see if i can find some laying around ,   i guess my main concern at the moment is just getting a well composed photo when it comes to landscapes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Direction doesn't change the light color so into the light or not doesn't matter. Assume you're out on a sunny day looking for wildlife. You have two basic options at that time: the wildlife is in the sun or in the shade. Take two card shots: sun and shade.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the problem is sometimes i see something and its gone before the camera can focus on it,   or i get off one shot and there it goes.   there is not always time for that,   i mean you got the shoot the card and than shoot the subject and that is going to waist time when there is not always time to waist.
Click to expand...


You're heading out to take some photos. It's 11:00 am and "sunny." Shoot the card at 11:05 and the values you get will be good for "sunny" till at least 2:00 pm. You don't shoot the card before every photo. You shoot the card once for a session in that lighting and if you take 1000 photos in the next 2 hours in the same basic lighting condition the one card shot is good for all.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex

Scatterbrained said:


> dannylightning said:
> 
> 
> 
> what if you shoot the card but what you are shooting is far away,  will that throw it off.
> 
> i rarely change my white balance in lightroom,  i just played with it on a few of those landscape shots i took and warming it up a little does seem to make things look better.
> 
> there is also a dropper on lightroom to change the white balance,  i assume you need to click that on something that is white for it to work correctly?  not all shots have something pure white in them.
> 
> i shoot raw..  that export to jpeg.
> 
> 
> 
> White, grey or black will work.  You could actually use the lamppost itself to set WB in your image.
Click to expand...


That's what I did to adjust it earlier -- then I double checked that with the white numbers and the difference was slight and I went for the middle.

Joe


----------



## dannylightning

i thought you had to make a custom white balance setting in the camera by shooting the card.

so i shoot the card,   see where the white balance is on that,  and change the rest of the photos to that white balance in lightroom ?


----------



## Ysarex

dannylightning said:


> i thought you had to make a custom white balance setting in the camera by shooting the card.



No. That's actually not much value if you're processing raw files. That camera WB setting only applies to the JPEGs the camera generates and not to raw files.



dannylightning said:


> so i shoot the card,   see where the white balance is on that,  and change the rest of the photos to that white balance in lightroom ?



Right, you just need a quick reference shot of the card. Scaterbrained nailed that one -- shoot the card after you shoot the wildlife! You transfer the card values during raw processing. Put the camera on whatever white balance you want it it doesn't matter. I often shoot with a white balance setting on my camera that makes my JPEGs look like this:




 

Has no effect on the raw file whatsoever and I still just read a card shot and transfer the values. For the above photo even though the JPEG was green I transferred card values of temp = 5600, tint = 7 to the raw file and got this:



 

Joe


----------



## tecboy

In Lightroom, you can sync all the photos you selected to the same WB.


----------



## dannylightning

thanks for the the info on the white balance,  i did not realize it was that easy.


----------



## killerseaguls

As a new guy, the leaves on the light seem to be something to focus on. You said you liked the leaves, but they aren't blowing my mind in the picture.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

