# White balance issues with continuous lighting studio



## luvmyfamily (Feb 16, 2012)

I use manual white balance with natural outdoor light, however, seems like no matter what setting I put it on for indoor studio shots, I get a blueish tint. Is it considered cheating using auto white balance, lol....

*




*



Exposure time, sec:* 1/125
*Aperture (F):* 6.70
*ISO speed rating:* 800
*Lens focal length, mm:* 32.0
*Shutter speed (APEX):* 0.0078 (1/128)
*Exposure mode:* Manual exposure
*White balance:* Auto white balance
*


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 16, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> I use manual white balance with natural outdoor light, however, seems like no matter what setting I put it on for indoor studio shots, I get a blueish tint. Is it considered cheating using auto white balance, lol....
> *
> **
> *


Why don't you post one of the ones with the WB issues.. so we can check it out?


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 16, 2012)

Have you tried using a grey card.  That'll clear your problem right up.  BTW, it doesn't look like you have here, but keep in mind that any other ambient lights in the room may be of different color than your 'studio lights' and can cause real white balance issues since you can only adjust to one color temp.


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 16, 2012)

Ok, but it's really, really bad.....and I threw a bunch of different colored stuff in there...props, no people.....hang on....


----------



## tirediron (Feb 16, 2012)

I always shoot AutoWB unless I know that the lighting is 100% controlled (eg indoors, with no windows).  BTW, grey-cards are primarily for exposure, if you want to set WB from a card, use a white card (a dog with white fur works well too).


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 16, 2012)

This was playing around with the white balance in my studio under continuous tungsten light. This is WHY I switched to auto white balance...it didn't do this anymore.  I had it set to manual white balance tungsten light because that is what light I was using.  





  Exposure time, sec:* 1/60
*Aperture (F):* 19.00
*ISO speed rating:* 800
*Lens focal length, mm:* 34.0
*Aperture (APEX):* 19.0
*Shutter speed (APEX):* 0.0156 (1/64)
*Exposure mode:* Manual exposure
*White balance:* Manual white balance
*


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 16, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> Have you tried using a grey card. That'll clear your problem right up. BTW, it doesn't look like you have here, but keep in mind that any other ambient lights in the room may be of different color than your 'studio lights' and can cause real white balance issues since you can only adjust to one color temp.



I hope I don't sound ignorant, but what is a grey card?  Anyway, as you can see from the 1st photo, I didn't get the bluish tint....


----------



## MTVision (Feb 16, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:
			
		

> I hope I don't sound ignorant, but what is a grey card?  Anyway, as you can see from the 1st photo, I didn't get the bluish tint....



A grey card! 
LOL!!

It's just a grey colored card which is around 12 to 18% gray. You can buy grey cards and white cards. You probably have an option to set your own white balance by taking a picture of the card under the lighting used.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 16, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > Have you tried using a grey card. That'll clear your problem right up. BTW, it doesn't look like you have here, but keep in mind that any other ambient lights in the room may be of different color than your 'studio lights' and can cause real white balance issues since you can only adjust to one color temp.
> ...



Gray card - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Understanding White Balance

http://www.amazon.com/Kodak-Gray-Ca...R7B0/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1329450042&sr=8-3

http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-Pocket...4VJO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329450042&sr=8-1


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 16, 2012)

I hope you don't mind, your tag says 'OK' to edit your photos: 





I dont know how accurate this is since I wasn't there, but this is why I suggest using a grey card (or white card).  If your camera doesn't support custom WB by shooting a card, what you can do is take one photo with your reference card large in the frame under the light you'll be shooting.  Then shoot as you normally would.  Then when you get back to the computer, you open your photo with reference white/grey card and remove the color cast in PS (or whatever PP tool you use).  You can usually save this adjustment and apply to all other photos in the shoot.  For this photo, I just used the white block on the rubix cube as the white reference.


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 16, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> I hope you don't mind, your tag says 'OK' to edit your photos:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was reading Cgibsons links, grey & white card...new to me.  I think I like tiredirons idea better, just use auto white balance, however I really would like to perfect manual WB for indoor studio photo's.  I do manual WB outdoors with ease, but indoors....ugg.  The color is still off with the edit.  The hat is white with light pink ribbon, the backdrop is black and still looks a little blue-ish. Maybe auto WB for indoor, manual for outdoor, solved!  LOL!


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 16, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > I hope you don't mind, your tag says 'OK' to edit your photos:
> ...




And if you run into a situation that AUTO WB won't handle? What are  you going to do then.. just not shoot? And you will... trust me!  Buy a  grey card.. learn to use it..


----------



## NebraskaNewGirl (Feb 16, 2012)

Someone recommended an Expodisc to me. Since I have gotten one I feel a tremendous improvement in my white balance. I highly recommend getting one.  But I don't know if they work the same with studio lighting.


----------



## Bossy (Feb 16, 2012)

Your onboard flash is firing for one, thats a different color temp than your continuous lights are.  ​


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 16, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > I hope you don't mind, your tag says 'OK' to edit your photos:
> ...



AWB is certainly easier, but can be inaccurate and restrictive.  AWB also will not work when you have multiple light sources of varying color.


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 16, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...



You speak true words.......yep, cheap enough, sounds easy to learn.


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 16, 2012)

Bossy said:


> Your onboard flash is firing for one, thats a different color temp than your continuous lights are.



And even after I warned her about that! 



mjhoward said:


> keep in mind that any other ambient lights in the room may be of different color than your 'studio lights' and can cause real white balance issues since you can only adjust to one color temp.


----------



## KmH (Feb 16, 2012)

Not all cameras are good at doing auto white balance.

What is the type and color temperature of the bulbs in your constant studio lights? That is what you need to manually set your camera white balance to.

If you don't have the same bulbs in all the lights you're hosed.


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 16, 2012)

Bossy said:


> Your onboard flash is firing for one, thats a different color temp than your continuous lights are.



Yes, I need to get brighter bulbs for the studio, so I did use a flash.  Expodisc??  I'll google that after I'm done with my homework cgibson gave me on understanding WB....


----------



## Bossy (Feb 16, 2012)

How to Set Your White Balance Indoors

You can't use flash (blue) and continuous (orange) together. When you use a flash, your continuous are nothing more than ambient lighting, out to ruin your WB. By setting your WB to match the continuous, you're completely ignoring the fact that thats not what is lighting your subject, and your subjects are turning blue.​


----------



## MTVision (Feb 16, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:
			
		

> Yes, I need to get brighter bulbs for the studio, so I did use a flash.  Expodisc??  I'll google that after I'm done with my homework cgibson gave me on understanding WB....



You need to buy a speedlight!! It's great for inside photos (bouncing it - not straight on) and for outdoors as fill light! 

But yeah your WB is going to be off if you have 2 light sources.


----------



## MTVision (Feb 16, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:
			
		

> This was playing around with the white balance in my studio under continuous tungsten light. This is WHY I switched to auto white balance...it didn't do this anymore.  I had it set to manual white balance tungsten light because that is what light I was using.
> 
> Exposure time, sec: 1/60
> Aperture (F): 19.00
> ...



If your lights aren't strong enough - use a larger aperture instead of the flash if you can. F/19 is a pretty small opening. I think I'm the one who told you about using smaller apertures for studio shots - but if your lights aren't strong enough then try something a little bigger like f/5.6....


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 16, 2012)

Duh, just figured out my problem.  This is the lighting studio I have...it's fluorescent bulbs, not tungsten, where the hell I got that.  Megan, Speedlite on my wish list 
CowboyStudio Photography Lighting | Studio Equipment | Studio Accessories


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 16, 2012)

I am going to try again setting the WB to fluorescent....


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 16, 2012)

Yea BTW, what is the power of the bulbs you're using? (60W, 100W) and how many are you using?  A 1/60 shutter speed, you'd have to have about (50) 60W bulbs (1Ws @ 1/60s) to get the same power output as a single speedlight (~50Ws).

EDIT:  Just checked your link and you're using 30W CFL's which are equivalent to about 120W bulb... so basically you'd need about 25 of those to get the same power output as a speedlight @ 1/60s.  Ideally, you should shoot higher shutter speeds than that in a studio.


----------



## Scuba (Feb 16, 2012)

I hate it when that happens. Hopefully that will fix the problem. A grey card would have fixed it too


----------



## Derrel (Feb 16, 2012)

Auto WB will not work right when a pop-up or shoe-mount flash fires and there's a heavy mix of continuous tungsten/halogen/incandescent/sodium vapor/fluorescent light making up a substantial part of the exposure...


----------



## Bossy (Feb 16, 2012)

Wow, you're trying to shoot with 90 watts?? "Three (3) 30 Watt 5000K Compact Fluorescent Daylight Light Bulbs" 
Thats not enough for pretty much anything. Go to the store and buy as high as wattage as your sockets can stand. I use 1000 watts for my still lifes and my shutter speeds are still about 1/40 at 5.6. And they're hell to work under. But thats continuous for you.​


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 16, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> Yea BTW, what is the power of the bulbs you're using? (60W, 100W) and how many are you using? A 1/60 shutter speed, you'd have to have about (50) 60W bulbs (1Ws @ 1/60s) to get the same power output as a single speedlight (~50Ws).
> 
> EDIT: Just checked your link and you're using 30W CFL's which are equivalent to about 120W bulb... so basically you'd need about 25 of those to get the same power output as a speedlight @ 1/60s. Ideally, you should shoot higher shutter speeds than that in a studio.



I posted the link to the exact studio I have, however I have one of the bulb boxes right in front of me, says: *Photography Lighting, 45W*......they blind me...I can't imagine higher.  Not sure why the link is saying 30W....I have 45W, but really want a speedlite...any sales going on??


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 16, 2012)

Bossy said:


> Wow, you're trying to shoot with 90 watts?? "Three (3) 30 Watt 5000K Compact Fluorescent Daylight Light Bulbs"
> Thats not enough for pretty much anything. Go to the store and buy as high as wattage as your sockets can stand. I use 1000 watts for my still lifes and my shutter speeds are still about 1/40 at 5.6. And they're hell to work under. But thats continuous for you.



No, I just posted that for some reason....maybe Cowboy studio changed my studio a bit since I purchased one, but I have three 45W.  Like I just said, I want a speedlite.


----------



## Bossy (Feb 16, 2012)

Whether they blind you or not, 135 watts isn't nearly enough for any sort of photography. Except on a tripod. For life. (<---Minor exaggeration). I'll be honest, I'm a little surprised you forked over money for something you have very little understanding about. I mean, its your money and life, obvs, but I guess if nothing else you're learning photography isn't just about picking up a camera, right?
There's about 3 threads about multiple speedlights under 100 bucks. Return your cowboy kit, and buy one of those ​


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 16, 2012)

It says on the box:  45W=225W....Oh, and to Bossy, FYI, it says 30W=150W...you were close though...


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 16, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > Yea BTW, what is the power of the bulbs you're using? (60W, 100W) and how many are you using? A 1/60 shutter speed, you'd have to have about (50) 60W bulbs (1Ws @ 1/60s) to get the same power output as a single speedlight (~50Ws).
> ...



They may "blind" you.. but your camera NEEDS more light! Go to Home Depot.. and buy 300 Watt Florescents (daylight balanced)...  still not as powerful as they could be, but much better than what you have! Get the biggest most powerful bulb you can find...


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 16, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> *Photography Lighting, 45W*......they blind me...I can't imagine higher.



45W is nothing for studio lighting.  Even a 1000W is very low for continuous lighting.  If you were to shoot at the standard 1/200-1/250s, you'd be getting the equivalent of *0.2*Ws with a 45W bulb.  Studio strobes generally start at 200Ws... 1000 TIMES the power output!  Even with 225W equivalent power... you're still only around 1Ws shooting at 1/200-1/250.


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 16, 2012)

Bossy said:


> Whether they blind you or not, 135 watts isn't nearly enough for any sort of photography. Except on a tripod. For life. (<---Minor exaggeration). I'll be honest, I'm a little surprised you forked over money for something you have very little understanding about. I mean, its your money and life, obvs, but I guess if nothing else you're learning photography isn't just about picking up a camera, right?
> There's about 3 threads about multiple speedlights under 100 bucks. Return your cowboy kit, and buy one of those



I still like having the backdrops, and the backdrop stand.  I bought this right after Christmas...past return date, but I'll check out some speedlites.


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 16, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...



Our basement is being finished, hubby always at Lowes or home depot, I'll send him...I get delirious in there, lol.  Maybe I'll use those for the time being until I get a speedlite and my house will look like the Griswalds Christmas house...........lol


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 16, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> They may "blind" you.. but your camera NEEDS more light! Go to Home Depot.. and buy 300 Watt Florescents (daylight balanced)...  still not as powerful as they could be, but much better than what you have! Get the biggest most powerful bulb you can find...



And then provide plenty of time for editing out all the sweat that will be pouring from your clients heads


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 16, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> Bossy said:
> 
> 
> > Whether they blind you or not, 135 watts isn't nearly enough for any sort of photography. Except on a tripod. For life. (<---Minor exaggeration). I'll be honest, I'm a little surprised you forked over money for something you have very little understanding about. I mean, its your money and life, obvs, but I guess if nothing else you're learning photography isn't just about picking up a camera, right?
> ...



You can buy flashpoint monolights for about the same as a decent third party flash.. and they are nice! And much easier to work with. Plus you can add all sort of modifiers....

http://www.amazon.com/Flashpoint-32...ectronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1329453820&sr=1-2-spell


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 16, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> Our basement is being finished, hubby always at Lowes or home depot, I'll send him...I get delirious in there, lol.  Maybe I'll use those for the time being until I get a speedlite and my house will look like the Griswalds Christmas house...........lol



Are studio portraits what you eventually want to do?  If so, and if you don't need the portability, skip the speedlights and save up for some real strobes with modeling lights and light modifiers.  Putting out light is only half the problem... modifiying it is a whole 'nother animal.


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 16, 2012)

Cgipson... you keep creeping in RIGHT before me with the same advice... you keep reading my mind man!


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 16, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> > Bossy said:
> ...



K, another idea.  You are giving me way too much homework this evening....I'm still reading the links you posted first, lol.


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 16, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> > Our basement is being finished, hubby always at Lowes or home depot, I'll send him...I get delirious in there, lol. Maybe I'll use those for the time being until I get a speedlite and my house will look like the Griswalds Christmas house...........lol
> ...



Only in the winter, like now.  Can't exactly photograph a baby in the snow or cold.  I prefer outdoor photography and when spring gets here, I am packing up the studio not to be seen again until next winter.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 16, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> Cgipson... you keep creeping in RIGHT before me with the same advice... you keep reading my mind man!



Nooooooo.. .. you keep copying me, Loser!       lol!      <j/k>!


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 16, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > luvmyfamily said:
> ...



are you saying that you are a "Natural (Ambient) Light Photographer"? lol!


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 16, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...



I wouldn't dare admit that here....lol.....actually I am a: "iprefernaturallightphotographer."  Big difference, ya know...and at least I get an E for effort trying this indoor crap.


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 16, 2012)

Why f19 on the hat picture?


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 16, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> Why f19 on the hat picture?


I believe I was corrected on that earlier


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 16, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > Why f19 on the hat picture?
> ...



Maybe I missed it but someone stated f19 is a small opening, but I didn't see your reason to pick f19.


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 16, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...



I know, I was simply playing around with this indoor photography.  I do not normally use A that small.


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 16, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> I know, I was simply playing around with this indoor photography.  I do not normally use A that small.



I've shot at f22 may times before before.  Why f19 over f22 or f16 / 8 / 5.6 ... etc?  What were you looking to achieve with a small aperture vs a larger one?


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 17, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> > I know, I was simply playing around with this indoor photography. I do not normally use A that small.
> ...



You aren't letting up  I understand quite clearly it was a mistake, oops setting.


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 17, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> You aren't letting up  I understand quite clearly it was a mistake, oops setting.




No, I'm not sure why it was a mistake.   I got the same answer from you the last time I asked you that exact question in another thread.


----------



## MLeeK (Feb 17, 2012)

You'd still need about 20 of those to put out enough light to even begin to help you. I see a LOT of people get sucked into buying those "studio in a box" deals and they are worthless. You are better off using the stands and  umbrellas you have and buying 2 Yongnuo flashes to mount on them You'll then also need speedlite mounts which will run you another few bucks, but what you have isn't worth even fighting with to take a shot with it. Sorry!


I have a bunch of speedlights that I use as my lighting MUCH of the time. I can use them anywhere. I can stick one of those little suckers just about anywhere by using a justin clamp or a gorilla pod and it lets me do darned near anything with my lighting. 
I do have a full studio setup, but when you are shooting outdoors, on location, weddings, etc you can't beat having an arsenal of speedlites. 

I also have speedlites that I cannot put on my cameras. They either aren't even compatible or they would fry my hotshoe's. I can use them off camera though!!! CHEAP as hell on ebay!!!


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 17, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> > You aren't letting up I understand quite clearly it was a mistake, oops setting.
> ...


I'm a rookie, and should be slapped silly for this.  I should never use such a small A for studio work.  I'm such a dum-dum. What was I thinking, especially after you already told me this!  It take 2 times for it to sink in.  I GET IT NOW, got it?!


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 17, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> You'd still need about 20 of those to put out enough light to even begin to help you. I see a LOT of people get sucked into buying those "studio in a box" deals and they are worthless. You are better off using the stands and umbrellas you have and buying 2 Yongnuo flashes to mount on them You'll then also need speedlite mounts which will run you another few bucks, but what you have isn't worth even fighting with to take a shot with it. Sorry!
> 
> 
> I have a bunch of speedlights that I use as my lighting MUCH of the time. I can use them anywhere. I can stick one of those little suckers just about anywhere by using a justin clamp or a gorilla pod and it lets me do darned near anything with my lighting.
> ...



I am all about a great deal...love ebay.  I really do love my studio, I just need to get brighter lights.  I have gotten some decent shots with the white backdrop.  Once again, I really want a speedlite and it's on my wish list or should I say "to-do list."


----------



## DiskoJoe (Feb 17, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > I hope you don't mind, your tag says 'OK' to edit your photos:
> ...



You can change the white balance to any temperature you like with your camera.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 17, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> Bossy said:
> 
> 
> > Your onboard flash is firing for one, thats a different color temp than your continuous lights are.
> ...



No you need to get studio flash, continuous are a waste of money they are ok for still life


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 17, 2012)

gsgary said:
			
		

> No you need to get studio flash, continuous are a waste of money they are ok for still life



They're not a waste if you intend on using them for video as well as photos. You can do the same things with continuous as you can with strobes, except for stopping motion, which isn't a usual studio scenario anyways.


----------



## Bossy (Feb 17, 2012)

But light for video is a whole other animal. And not particularly relevant to what the OP is doing. ​


----------



## gsgary (Feb 17, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > luvmyfamily said:
> ...




With continuous you don;t have enough light to shoot F19 unless it is stationary or you pay thousands for top quality lights


----------



## gsgary (Feb 17, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not with the cheap **** you get on Ebay, you would have to buy something like this ARRI Group: Lighting Americas


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 17, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> I'm a rookie, and should be slapped silly for this.  I should never use such a small A for studio work.  I'm such a dum-dum. What was I thinking, especially after you already told me this!  It take 2 times for it to sink in.  I GET IT NOW, got it?!



Well I didn't really tell you anything, I was just wondering why you chose the settings.  Your DSLR has a lot of settings and IMHO you need to learn how to use those settings, what they are, why they are set that way.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 17, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I take it you don't shoot in the studio much  because we see loads of blurred family photos where they have used continuous lights


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 17, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe if you are using the non-Fluorescent type bulb (Halogen, for instance)... but FL's do NOT put out enough light for anything but marginal use. Even a bank of spider lights barely cut it and they use five bulbs each!


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 17, 2012)

gsgary said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



I suppose you all get a kick out being sarcastic to make yourself look good and get "likes," from ur buds on here....


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 17, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



Thank you, I have gotten enough info from this thread to last me a lifetime.  NEXT......:er:


----------



## gsgary (Feb 17, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...



That was not aimed at you, i couldn't care less about like or if anyone likes me, i tell it how it is


----------



## Bossy (Feb 17, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> Thank you, I have gotten enough info from this thread to last me a lifetime.  NEXT......:er:




When people are having a conversation, its really childish to butt in and interrupt. Rude, even. There will never be a time you (ok, maybe not you, *I*) get too much information. When you post a thread, its not just for yourself, but anyone else reading as well. If you don't want to learn anymore, then don't reopen the thread. If its too much at one time, subscribe and come back later. ​


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 17, 2012)

Bossy said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you, I have gotten enough info from this thread to last me a lifetime. NEXT......:er:
> ...



"Helpful" info is good, but the topic got way off subject from my WB issue with studio.


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 17, 2012)

Bossy said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you, I have gotten enough info from this thread to last me a lifetime. NEXT......:er:
> ...



And WHO was interrupting....was defending myself while gary was having a ball trying to make me look like a dumazz


----------



## gsgary (Feb 17, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> Bossy said:
> 
> 
> > luvmyfamily said:
> ...




I thought i said it was not aimed at you, your doing that yourself


----------



## Bossy (Feb 17, 2012)

Noone was even talking to you luvmyfam. You've made it pretty clear you don't listen to anyones advice here. You popping in and saying "NEXT" is dumb. Unless your a mod, and closing a thread, you just make yourself look bad, because everyone knows you don't have the authority to move along a thread. 

AND, the info was relevant, seeing as you thought 3 45 watt bulbs was enough to light a set. ​


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 17, 2012)

Bossy said:


> Noone was even talking to you luvmyfam. You've made it pretty clear you don't listen to anyones advice here. You popping in and saying "NEXT" is dumb. Unless your a mod, and closing a thread, you just make yourself look bad, because everyone knows you don't have the authority to move along a thread.
> 
> AND, the info was relevant, seeing as you thought 3 45 watt bulbs was enough to light a set.



First of all, I didn't interrupt, was saying NEXT meaning I was done and had gotten all I needed about WB in a studio along with everyone's different opinions about lighting.  Where did I say I thought three 45W bulbs were great????  Speaking for me??  I have gotten a LOT of helpful info from here and I do listen so please do not speak for me or patronize me, thank you.


----------



## Bossy (Feb 17, 2012)

Ok  I'm glad your absorbing the info. ​


----------



## gsgary (Feb 17, 2012)

I'm off to the pub for some real ale, i think you will have trouble getting help from now on


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 17, 2012)

gsgary said:


> I'm off to the pub for some real ale, i think you will have trouble getting help from now on



Thanks Gary....you obviously didn't read what I just said above.  Drink a few for me too....


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 17, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> Thank you, I have gotten enough info from this thread to last me a lifetime.  NEXT......:er:



Doesn't work that way (even for Lightspeed or Photoguy)... once you create the thread, it goes where it will. It can be educational, sarcastic, rude, kind, BS, etc.... any one of those, or any combination thereof!


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 17, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> Bossy said:
> 
> 
> > luvmyfamily said:
> ...



Still on the same general topic...studio lighting!


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 17, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you, I have gotten enough info from this thread to last me a lifetime. NEXT......:er:
> ...



I can handle all but rude and sarcastic.  I was about to post the pics of the old one room schoolhouse I took this morning that dated back to the 1800's....which is what I originally logged on here for and saw this thread was still going on.  My "NEXT" comment was taken way too serious, I was just shocked at the the thread still going on  and the sarcastic remarks about my blurry photos.  And now I'm told I won't get any help on here anymore......TGIF....


----------



## jwbryson1 (Feb 17, 2012)

I always shoot auto WB and I also use a grey card 99% of the time.  There's no "cheating" at that.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 17, 2012)

Off to see my mate,  there are 38 micro brewers in Derbyshire   Members of Derbyshire Brewers Collective


----------



## gsgary (Feb 17, 2012)

Might even have a bottle, from the other side of the pond


----------



## Ronaldo (Feb 17, 2012)

gsgary said:


> Off to see my mate,  there are 38 micro brewers in Derbyshire   Members of Derbyshire Brewers Collective



Ah, second from the left: I see he shoots RAW!


----------



## Ronaldo (Feb 17, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > I'm off to the pub for some real ale, i think you will have trouble getting help from now on
> ...



Ms Family: You never did take the time to understand the aperture question/point.  Trust me, this is your loss.


----------



## MTVision (Feb 17, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:
			
		

> I can handle all but rude and sarcastic.  I was about to post the pics of the old one room schoolhouse I took this morning that dated back to the 1800's....which is what I originally logged on here for and saw this thread was still going on.  My "NEXT" comment was taken way too serious, I was just shocked at the the thread still going on  and the sarcastic remarks about my blurry photos.  And now I'm told I won't get any help on here anymore......TGIF....



But...if you had read all the comment leading up to the blurry photo comment you would've realized it wasn't aimed at you. It was in reply to something else that was said. I don't think we've seen a bunch of blurry studio photos from you!


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 17, 2012)

MTVision said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And if they would have read and put 2 & 2 together, would have seen that the photo I posted that was blueish tint was a TEST photo...that i took a bunch of times trying to stop using auto white balance, getting frustrated, changed the settings trying to get rid of the blue tint.  But was made out to be someone who doesn't understand aperture?? So sorry megan, they didn't read CLOSELY what I said either.  A bit discouraging on here sometimes, other times I get a lot of great info.


----------



## Bossy (Feb 17, 2012)

Why would you post a test photo? Why are you reading into it so much? ​


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 17, 2012)

Ronaldo said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



My loss??  I was misunderstood that I didn't understand aperture when in deed I do.  As I just told megan, they didn't read my comments closely either.  If they had, they would have known that I was practicing studio manual WB, took several shots and changed the setting each time.  So the one I posted on here i get ripped on because of the aperture???  Then I am told I won't get any more help on here.


----------



## MTVision (Feb 17, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:
			
		

> And if they would have read and put 2 & 2 together, would have seen that the photo I posted that was blueish tint was a TEST photo...that i took a bunch of times trying to stop using auto white balance, getting frustrated, changed the settings trying to get rid of the blue tint.  But was made out to be someone who doesn't understand aperture?? So sorry megan, they didn't read CLOSELY what I said either.  A bit discouraging on here sometimes, other times I get a lot of great info.



Well then you are all at fault. They didn't read what you wrote and you obviously didn't read the conversation going on in the thread. Just because it's your thread does not mean that everything said is about you! 

Who said you didn't understand aperture? Maybe somebody did and I just don't remember but....VTech did ask why you chose that aperture. It's a valid question. He wasn't being rude or implying that you don't know what you are doing. Usually people choose a certain aperture (or shutter speed) for a specific effect - that's what he wanted to know. If it was just a test shot and you chose it randomly - that's all you had to say.  

Stop getting so defensive - even if someone says something rude - just ignore it. Not that big of a deal.


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 17, 2012)

MTVision said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As I just said above:  "*they didn't read my comments closely either. If they had, they would have known that I was practicing studio manual WB, took several shots and changed the setting each time. So the one I posted on here i get ripped on because of the aperture??? Then I am told I won't get any more help on here."   

*Stop getting so defensive????????????


----------



## MTVision (Feb 17, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:
			
		

> I'm a rookie, and should be slapped silly for this.  I should never use such a small A for studio work.  I'm such a dum-dum. What was I thinking, especially after you already told me this!  It take 2 times for it to sink in.  I GET IT NOW, got it?!



Defensive much? 

He wanted to know the reasoning behind it. Is that so hard to get? You obviously set it to 19 for a reason - just because I said you didn't need it that small doesn't mean you can't use that aperture. It was too small for that situation because you had to use your pop up flash. There is usually always a reason why you choose a specific aperture/SS. 

And actually smallish apertures are used in a studio - your lights aren't powerful enough.


----------



## Bossy (Feb 17, 2012)

​


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 17, 2012)

geez


----------



## mishele (Feb 17, 2012)




----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 17, 2012)

Hey, i love that song!


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 17, 2012)

Bossy said:


>



You're so bossy, Bossy, lol


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 17, 2012)

MTVision said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I could be wrong and I am NOT saying anything either way on how I feel about the debate or whatever is going on here, but I think Luv said she just picked a random setting. From what she said there was no reason for setting. She wasn't worried about creating a complete photograph, just solely focused on working with ther WB issue so she set her aparture to whatever. That's the impression I got anyway. I'm out


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 17, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > luvmyfamily said:
> ...



Someone who gets it......


----------



## MTVision (Feb 17, 2012)

blackrose89 said:
			
		

> I could be wrong and I am NOT saying anything either way on how I feel about the debate or whatever is going on here, but I think Luv said she just picked a random setting. She wasn't worried about creating a complete photograph, just solely focused on working with ther WB issue so she set her aparture to whatever. That's the impression I got anyway. I'm out





			
				MTVision said:
			
		

> . If it was just a test shot and you chose it randomly - that's all you had to say.
> 
> Stop getting so defensive - even if someone says something rude - just ignore it. Not that big of a deal.



Nobody said she didn't know what aperture was - she just jumped to conclusions. How hard is it to say you chose something randomly? So IMO - she is being defensive. Anything said that she doesn't like - or she reads into - is somebody being rude or sarcastic or whatever.


----------



## MTVision (Feb 17, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:
			
		

> This was playing around with the white balance in my studio under continuous tungsten light. This is WHY I switched to auto white balance...it didn't do this anymore.  I had it set to manual white balance tungsten light because that is what light I was using.
> 
> Exposure time, sec: 1/60
> Aperture (F): 19.00
> ...



People aren't mind readers either. So maybe next time tell people you just randomly chose settings with no thought process instead of just saying you were playing around with white balance. Then maybe people won't ask questions that offend you.......


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 17, 2012)

MTVision said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not getting involved either way  I was just saying what I think she was trying to articulate. Not saying I feel she is in the right here


----------



## Bossy (Feb 17, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > blackrose89 said:
> ...



Speaking for another person is kinda the definition of getting involved ​


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 17, 2012)

Bossy said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> > MTVision said:
> ...



I wasn't really speaking for another person more stating a fact. It's like if there was a car accident and someone in the accident was trying to describe a car color, someone comes and better articulates the car color, that person articulating is not saying either way who they feel caused the car accident, just a fact being explained better.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 17, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> I'm not getting involved either way  I was just saying *what I think she was trying to articulate.* Not saying I feel she is in the right here





blackrose89 said:


> i wasn't really speaking for another person* more stating a fact*. It's like if there was a car accident and someone in the accident was trying to describe a car color, someone comes and better articulates the car color, that person articulating is not saying either way who they feel caused the car accident, just a fact being explained better.



So what you think she was trying to articulate, is now a fact?  lol!   :greenpbl:


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 17, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not getting involved either way  I was just saying *what I think she was trying to articulate.* Not saying I feel she is in the right here
> ...



By fact I meant stating MY fact not hers. My fact being that fact I had an assumption of what she was saying. Ok I was helping her articulate her statement. IS that better?


----------



## mishele (Feb 17, 2012)

If you didn't want to get involved........you wouldn't have....lol


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 17, 2012)

mishele said:


> If you didn't want to get involved........you wouldn't have....lol



Actually I'm still neutral with no sides chosen! I was simply just explaining what she was trying to say (or what I thought) I gave no indication how I felt on the siutation either way. I didn't say she was right. WHy does wether or not I flubbed on getting involved or not matter to anyone anyways?

As they say don't kill the messenger, or the translator in this situation


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 17, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > blackrose89 said:
> ...



No.. since when is an assumption a fact? lol! :hug::


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 17, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> > If you didn't want to get involved........you wouldn't have....lol
> ...



It is not against the rules to give you Shiz... as E.Rose would say!


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 17, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...




No not that the assumption!!! The fact is the FACT that I had a thought!!!! The physical activity that I had a thought was the fact. Like saying "that guy crossed the street" is a fact because that guy crossed a street. Me saying "Angel had a thought" is the fact because I did had a thought. I was referring to. I wasn't saying that what she said or what I assumed was a fact. I meant my actual phyical action of having a thought was fact.


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 17, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> > mishele said:
> ...



and I know you're trying to up your game as you were dissapointed that I didn't get mad the other day :LOL:


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 17, 2012)

One bourbon, one scotch...one beeeerrrrr!!!


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 17, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> The fact is the FACT that I had a thought!!!!



Well.. first time for everything!     Congratulations!    ROTFLMAO!


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 17, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > blackrose89 said:
> ...



Just because you only had fourteen orgasms... that was no reason to get mad! Most women would be more than happy with that! Sheez... I almost killed myself!  










   <j/k!>


----------



## Bossy (Feb 17, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> > If you didn't want to get involved........you wouldn't have....lol
> ...



You're not really being a messenger. Nor do I feel luvmyfamily needs a translator. What she does need to do is slow the h down and learn what the "exposure triangle" is and how it works rather than diving straight in and trying to work on white balance.  She also needs to just fess up when she doesn't know something, like aperture. Getting defensive about not knowing something whether your just starting out or have been shooting for years is just crazyness. ​


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 17, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...





*WTF??????? 

Um NO NO NO NO NO NO NNONONONONONO 

:lmao:*


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 17, 2012)

Ok.. I am going to go and crawl back under my rock now!


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 17, 2012)

Bossy said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> > mishele said:
> ...



This is bash ME day i suppose.  No messengers?  I'm here for about 1 more minute then off to enjoy my Fri night. I don't think anyone gets it.  I wasn't worried about aperture, or composition.  I was trying to get manual white balance in my studio and i took the same photo over and over again, getting frustrated trying to get the right manual WB.  I posted that pic trying to show the blue tint.  I do fess up when I don't know something, which is why I asked about manual WB in a studio.  You can think what you wish, that I am a dum-dum and know nothing about aperture????  I really don't understand where you get that. I know a lot more than you think and I DO ask when I don't understand.  I appreciate all that gave great advice on WB in a studio and lighting, the gray card, but really, I was playing around.  I understand ISO, Aperture..etc....I was simply trying to understand indoor WB.  Period.  if you don't like what I have to say, hit the ignore button and leave me alone. you all can have at it....I am not viewing this thread any longer.  Thank you again to those that were kind, the private messages I received and the great advice on WB.  OH BTW, Bossy.....I am ready to learn WB.  You shouldn't assume what people know and don't know by reading "between the lines."  TGIF, bye now Y'all!!!!


----------



## Bossy (Feb 17, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> This is bash ME day i suppose.  No messengers?  I'm here for about 1 more minute then off to enjoy my Fri night. I don't think anyone gets it.*  I wasn't worried about aperture, or composition.*  blahblahblahblahblah



There's nothing bashing about not knowing things. I'm assuming what you know based off what I've seen in your images and exif, not from reading between the lines. Those bolded, above, are the things you don't need to mess around with once you understand them. They just Are, used differently to get the look you desire. Vtec asked multiple times not to berate you, but to see if you had a thought process behind it, and proving you knew "Aperture" as you keep calling it. 

Anywoo. Best of luck 


​


----------



## gsgary (Feb 17, 2012)

I'm back 9 pints of lovely  beer  later did i miss anything


----------



## Bossy (Feb 17, 2012)

gsgary said:


> I'm back 9 pints of lovely  beer  later did i miss anything



Where the pics!!

And no, you didn't miss anything in particular. :er:​


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 17, 2012)

Bossy said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > I'm back 9 pints of lovely  beer  later did i miss anything
> ...



I resent that!  :greenpbl:


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 17, 2012)

hey.. got her to shut up, didn't I?  lol!


----------



## gsgary (Feb 17, 2012)

Bossy said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > I'm back 9 pints of lovely  beer  later did i miss anything
> ...



Didn't take camera got to concentrate on drinking


----------



## gsgary (Feb 17, 2012)

Just like having Sabrina back


----------



## MLeeK (Feb 17, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sure, if you want to invest in 10 more kits like that one.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 17, 2012)

Just poured myself a nice glass of Zabrowka and apple juice


----------



## MLeeK (Feb 17, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> Bossy said:
> 
> 
> > blackrose89 said:
> ...



Just give up now... it's not possible to keep the peace in here. I learned that the hard way. Just sit back with the popcorn and a good glass of wine and enjoy.


----------



## mishele (Feb 17, 2012)

gsgary said:


> I'm back 9 pints of lovely  beer  later did i miss anything


LOL I wish I was w/ you!!!


----------



## mishele (Feb 17, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> > If you didn't want to get involved........you wouldn't have....lol
> ...



You pretend to walk this line of innocence, when you really start more drama. The "I have no opinion" stuff I don't buy anymore....lol


----------



## Dominantly (Feb 17, 2012)

dysfunctional bastads


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 17, 2012)

Oh well time to make a drink and watch friday night fights.
In this corner we have BlackRose........Alias : The Black Bomber.
And in this corner we have Mishele , Bossy,..... Alias: the buttkiss twins.

Shake hands and come out fighting ladies.

hahaha


----------



## mishele (Feb 17, 2012)

Hmmmmm....who is talking about butt kissing?


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 17, 2012)

mishele said:


> Hmmmmm....who is talking about butt kissing?




here let me change this


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 17, 2012)

Mishele, all fighters have alias's.
I could change yours and Bossy's, if you like.

How about the fighting knowitalls?
Would that work better?

PS keep in mind , I have nothing to do with this.
And bossy I'm not spoeaking for anyone. Except me.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 17, 2012)

You are trying to get yourself banned again, aren't you? What is up with that, Lightspeed? It isn't necessary, you know!


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 17, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> You are trying to get yourself banned again, aren't you? What is up with that, Lightspeed? It isn't necessary, you know!



What man?
Boxing terms.
Hey a fight busted out on friday night.
What's wrong with callin it?

geez.

I'm innocent in this.
I don't have any dog in this fight dude.


----------



## MTVision (Feb 17, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> You are trying to get yourself banned again, aren't you? What is up with that, Lightspeed? It isn't necessary, you know!



I wonder what your "alias" is Charlie.......


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 17, 2012)

MTVision said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The Leopard hat Kid


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 17, 2012)

LightSpeed said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > You are trying to get yourself banned again, aren't you? What is up with that, Lightspeed? It isn't necessary, you know!
> ...



You are seldom rude to the ladies.. and you were being rude! I just assumed that it was intentional, and in line with some the frustrations you have voiced. The "fun" Lightspeed is a great guy.. hope to see him back here again!


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 17, 2012)

LightSpeed said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



I can live with that!


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 17, 2012)

MTVision said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



lol! ... how is that lens working out?


----------



## MTVision (Feb 17, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> lol! ... how is that lens working out?



I really like it but TBH - I've only played with it a couple times. I've barely touched my camera. This 1st trimester of being preggo is really kicking my ass this time....


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 17, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> LightSpeed said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Gipson, dude, I like you.  You know that.
Rude aint my thing. Reality is my thing.
The reality is , it's a pile on. 
I mean I don't see anything wrong with callin it what it is.
Who's right or wrong? Probably nobody.

That doesn't change anything. It's still a pile on.


Look bro, everyone knows what goes on.
One side's just bigger than the other side.
lol


----------



## MTVision (Feb 17, 2012)

LightSpeed said:
			
		

> Gipson, dude, I like you.  You know that.
> Rude aint my thing. Reality is my thing.
> The reality is , it's a pile on.
> I mean I don't see anything wrong with callin it what it is.
> ...



How was it a pile on? Against Angel? 

I guess Charlie must be guilty too since he wrote more then anyone else - no offense Charlie.


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 17, 2012)

MTVision said:


> I guess Charlie must be guilty too since he wrote more then anyone else - no offense Charlie.



I aint gonna get into that. But yeah, you're right.
lol

See I do call it the way I see it.


----------



## Overread (Feb 17, 2012)

Guys I'm seeing the same names having the same fights over and over recently and its derailing way too many threads into these personal arguments/issues. Seriously you're all adults either sort them out in private or just ignore each other and move on - I (and the rest of the mods) do not like having to lock threads, sift through drama and issue out punishments (seriously we don't!).


----------

