# sky washout and saturation of colors with the Canon t3i



## chris.paget (Jul 24, 2012)

Hello all,

I've recently purchased a t3i, and have been using it while touring Japan this summer. I'm relatively new to DSLR photography and the operations of the camera. I've noticed that in many of the daytime outdoor pictures I've taken, there is little definition in the sky and that it basically appears very pale, bright, almost white. "Washed out" would maybe be the best term. It's almost as if the entire picture is a little too bright/washed out/exposed, including the buildings and landscapes (possibly due to the brightness of the sky?).

I have recently equipped a circular polarizing filter, but the problem continued on some pictures, although the skies were bluer and not overcast on this particular day (clouds being a common thing this time of year in Japan). Are there any adjustments I should make within the camera that might affect brightness or contrast? Would this be an issue with exposure time being too long? Or are there other filters/gear that might help? 

Thanks!


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 25, 2012)

Can you show us some examples?

My first guess, is that the scenes you are photographing, are simply exceeding the 'dynamic range' of the camera.  
Digital cameras (and film as well) has what we call a dynamic range.  This is the range of tones that it can record in a single exposure.  So what is happening, is likely that your camera is giving you exposure settings that work well with the foreground/subject of your scene...but because the sky is so much brighter, it ends up looking washed out in the photo.  
You could adjust the exposure settings so that the sky looks good, but then the foreground/subject would be very dark.  
So as the photographer, it up to you to make a choice.  What is the more important part of your photo?  And what should the exposure be for that subject?  

This brings up the topic of metering.  Which involved understanding how the camera's light meter works (and why it's designed to get exposures wrong)...and how to compensate for it.  

There are ways/methods of trying to get around this issue.  One way is to use graduated filters.  It's a filter that is partially dark and paritally clear.  The dark part is placed over the sky (as seen by the camera) and this darkens the sky in the photo, without darkening the foreground.

Another way is to take multiple exposures with different settings, then use software to combine the good parts.


----------



## Herm99 (Jul 25, 2012)

Change your WHITE BALANCE SETTING! (Yes i'm yelling) Get rid of the filter until you have mastered the camera's controls. I can't stress how dramatic the change is on Rebel's white balance selection. You're most likely shooing auto WB, which sucks, try different WB settings when you're outside and prepare to be amazed.


----------



## belial (Jul 26, 2012)

Herm99 said:
			
		

> Change your WHITE BALANCE SETTING! (Yes i'm yelling) Get rid of the filter until you have mastered the camera's controls. I can't stress how dramatic the change is on Rebel's white balance selection. You're most likely shooing auto WB, which sucks, try different WB settings when you're outside and prepare to be amazed.



Or just shoot in raw in which case Wb isn't set.


----------



## Herm99 (Jul 26, 2012)

belial said:


> Herm99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's all fine and dandy if you know how to post process, judging by the OP's thread I'm assuming he isn't post-processing anything yet.


----------



## belial (Jul 26, 2012)

Herm99 said:
			
		

> That's all fine and dandy if you know how to post process, judging by the OP's thread I'm assuming he isn't post-processing anything yet.



But also looking at the op it sounds more like an exposure problem than a wb problem anyways. It's to be expected since he's Probably shooting in auto


----------



## chris.paget (Jul 26, 2012)

Thanks for the great suggestions. I am shooting mostly using auto settings given its ease and having to take pictures on the go, and have not gotten into any post-production (although I have an unboxed photoshop package waiting back in the states, which I am looking forward to, less for the zanier filters and more for the subtle light/color correction stuff). However, I'd like to get to understanding more about the inner workings of the camera as this seems the best place to start.


----------



## chris.paget (Jul 26, 2012)

Big Mike said:


> This brings up the topic of metering.  Which involved understanding how the camera's light meter works (and why it's designed to get exposures wrong)...and how to compensate for it.
> 
> There are ways/methods of trying to get around this issue.  One way is to use graduated filters.  It's a filter that is partially dark and paritally clear.  The dark part is placed over the sky (as seen by the camera) and this darkens the sky in the photo, without darkening the foreground.
> 
> Another way is to take multiple exposures with different settings, then use software to combine the good parts.



I'd like to understand the light settings/exposures part for this, also because I'm interested in doing some HDR stuff and being able to manually do this in order to get the best range. 

I have also considered the graduated filters as a simple fix to this, as the cloudy white sky seems to be the main factor in whitening the foreground, as you mentioned. I had one a few years ago with an analog camera and it worked pretty well.


----------



## chris.paget (Jul 26, 2012)

Herm99 said:


> Change your WHITE BALANCE SETTING! (Yes i'm yelling) Get rid of the filter until you have mastered the camera's controls. I can't stress how dramatic the change is on Rebel's white balance selection. You're most likely shooing auto WB, which sucks, try different WB settings when you're outside and prepare to be amazed.



I just started using the manual white balance adjustments this weekend, although my current understanding is it seems to be more about adjusting from red-green-magenta-blue scales and I don't quite have a grasp on the "white balance" part.. What would be the best way to use this to enhance the subject and decrease the "white" of the sky?


----------



## KmH (Jul 26, 2012)

White balance won't accomplish any of that. Understanding White Balance

Like Mike mentioned it's a dynamic range and metering mode issue. Understanding Dynamic Range in Digital Photography
Understanding Camera Metering and Exposure

The camera's image sensor cannot record the dynamic range you eyes can see. 

The image sensor has a linear gamma, while your eyes have a non-linear gamma.


----------



## Herm99 (Jul 27, 2012)

KmH said:


> White balance won't accomplish any of that. Understanding White Balance



I can provide a couple of samples that say otherwise. He is shooting in auto mode, that's the first mistake. As a fellow t2i shooter I've noticed enormous differences with simple WB adjustments. He is going to notice a huge difference once he learns his camera other shooting modes, sure a better camera would have a better dynamic range, but he needs to get out of auto mode. 

Here is a shot I took about an hour ago, these are both shot at the exact same settings within about 3 seconds apart, the only thing that was changed was the WB. The first one was shot with SUN wb, and the 2nd one was shot with CLOUD WB. 
F9.0, 1/100, 100 iso. Tamron 17-50mm. Literally zero post processing besides the crop into one frame, ONLY the wb was changed. If you can't see the color difference then I know a good eye doctor that needs clients. 




WB test by Luke Hermann, on Flickr


----------



## Buckster (Jul 27, 2012)

Herm99 said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > White balance won't accomplish any of that. Understanding White Balance
> ...


Neither of them is a washed out sky, so they don't show you solving OP's actual problem with white balance settings.  As others have stated: the washed out sky is a dynamic range problem, not a white balance problem.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Jul 27, 2012)

Herm99 said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > White balance won't accomplish any of that. Understanding White Balance
> ...



Nice pictures, but they prove nothing. Both picture look at be exposed the same (though it is a bit hard to tell in the small pictures). The blue skies LOOK darker because you cooled the white balance which makes things look more blue and less orange, which, IMO improves the picture. However, it did ZERO for the exposure and did not change anything in the slightly blown out sun.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Jul 27, 2012)

Herm99 said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > White balance won't accomplish any of that. Understanding White Balance
> ...



To better illustrate the point, I separated the two pictures and opened them to grab a screenshot of the histogram for each picture.
You will notice that the histograms are nearly identical especially at the clipping ends. The mid-tones in the center changed slightly because the color casts changed when the white balance was changed.

Original Picture







Associated Histogram







Picture with corrected White Balance







Associated Histogram







Moral:  Altering White Balance does NOT change the exposure and will not affect blown out highlights or lowlights, though sometimes, do to color shifts it can appear to change the overall exposure, especially when there are a lot of blues, such as when a blue sky is in the picture.


----------



## willis_927 (Jul 27, 2012)

Herm99 said:


> Change your WHITE BALANCE SETTING! (Yes i'm yelling) Get rid of the filter until you have mastered the camera's controls. I can't stress how dramatic the change is on Rebel's white balance selection. You're most likely shooing auto WB, which sucks, try different WB settings when you're outside and prepare to be amazed.



Ya as others have said this issue has nothing to do with white balance, so stop yelling.


----------

