My glasses

Tools of the trade

As the header already says, I was not planning to talk about the glasses I need to wear for driving my car. I sincerely doubt there would be much interest in them, just as I would not really know what to tell about them.

Okay, I will tell you one thing. The picture here is totally wrong. First of all I checked and noticed I was not a girl and second: my glasses seem to be a bit smaller. I have not checked that last in the mirror, so that meant I had the glasses in my hand as I looked at them. They definitely seemed smaller than the one this picture, but perhaps my eyes fooled me, as I was not wearing my glasses.
Apparently when you're a photographer, you do not talk about your lenses, but about your "glass". Luckily I am just a noob, so can call it whatever I want. But should I below mention the term "glass", it is certainly about lenses and not the thing to wear on your face.

We need the best!

Like so many people I have looked at all the available lenses for my camera, and there really are many. In fact, for a newbie I would say there is way too much choice. In an earlier post (wearing glasses) I already said a bit about lenses. Just as I mentioned that bigger is not always needed. I will add immediately that "the best" is also not always needed. Besides that the best is hard to define, as it is mostly depending on what you will do with it, I would advise any beginner to stay away from "the best". Simply because the best tends to be the most expensive.
What you need to do is determine what kind of photo you want to make and where you want to show it. As I am a newbie myself, I cannot give the pro advice, but what I can do is tell about my lenses, and how satisfied I am with them.

The kit lens

My first set was two kit lenses that came with the camera I bought. The camera was a Nikon D3200 and the lenses were 18-55mm and 55-300mm. These lenses are said to be of a poor quality. Nonetheless I think they should perfectly fine photos, especially if you mostly post on the web. Being new, and sometimes looking at my photos, I knew I could make better photos. All I needed were better lenses.
Yes, I did think that. Not long, but I really did. And if you do too, let me correct you. Better photos are made by better photographers. The lens quality helps, but a good photo is not made by the quality. It is made by what you have photographed.
So, yes, I was wrong and if you mainly post on the web I think these lenses are great quality for their price.  I did replace them though.

The telezoom

The first lens I bought was a Sigma 150-600mm. Although I was ill prepared to decide which I needed, I knew I did want a telezoom. This was bought shortly before going three weeks on safari in Uganda. I wanted to be able to really zoom in.
Here you can see I for once followed my own advice and first thought about my needs. On a safari you cannot always simply walk up to your subject and this telezoom was indeed used very, very much during that trip.
After that trip? Not much at all. It is big, it is heavy and it will need a tripod or other support to get sharp photos. Some people seem to be able to shoot sharply without support, but I am not one of them. It's maximum aperture is f/5 - f/6.3. This means in lower light conditions, you need to raise shutter speed or ISO pretty fast. Would I buy it again? Yes, as it really is awesome to have such a beauty with you on safari. I was and am pretty happy with it. But you really need to know what you will use it for, or I would not bother with it.

The macro

After I could take photos far away, I was certain that I needed a lens to shoot close up. After all, how else could I get better photos? You guessed it: of I went to the shop. And back I came as the proud owner of a Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro lens. With that I would be shooting awesome shots of flowers and insects and whatever else I wanted.

The photo next to this text was actually shot with that lens. I think it's a nice shot. Will it win a photography prize? I think not. Again, the lens did not make my photos suddenly much better.
In fact, I only then learned a big problem with macro photography. If you are very close to your subject, the depth of field is very narrow. The photo shows this already, when you look - well whatever those pointy ends are called in English - you can see that some of them are pretty sharp. But the ones further away are already out of focus. trust me, this thing was only a few centimeters long.
Okay, I mostly wanted to do a bit of macro photography, so the lens delivered as promised. But unless you use focus stacking (Brenda Hoffman posted a link to a guide in one of my Google communities recently), you can quickly find yourself having problems with focus. Taking shots of flowers real close up? It better be inside, or a day with very little wind. Wind is an absolute horror for getting sharp close-ups outside.
Would I advise people to buy a macro lens? If you want to do macro photography: yes. Otherwise: no. It's that simple.
Note that there is also a cheaper way to get likewise closeups. You can buy a reverse ring and put your normal lens on the other way. You can read a bit about it on this article.

Jack of all trades

I mentioned earlier that I did replace my kit lenses. I like to take my camera along when I go out, I do not want to carry a lot of lenses. Especially not when I am going abroad for work. I already need to carry a laptop then, so reducing the amount of lenses helps. Just as it helps when you are lazy and do not like swapping them. I admit being guilty of that as well.
The replacement is a Nikon 18-300mm covering exactly what the two kit lenses did. I really love this lens, it can basically do almost anything. I doubt it's the most sharp lens and I am certain a pro would not touch it. But keep in mind that most of my photos end up on the web. I put most of them in original size, but most people will only see the smaller version. My photos do not need to be that sharp, so for me this lens is perfect. It did cost more than the two kit lenses, and it gives no better performance. If you are lazy like me, or travel a lot and want to reduce on lenses, this is a nice one. In other cases, you might simply stick with the kit lenses.

Wide angle

I was still not done with getting different lenses. Knowing that my camera had an APS-C sensor, which meant an 18mm on it, would equal about 27mm on a full frame camera, I felt the need to have a really wide angle lens as well. I bought myself a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 lens. I shot the photo in my previous blog with it, just as the photo next to this text.
The lens delivers, you can make pretty wide shots with it. And due to its aperture I also used it a few times in museums. These places are usually poorly lit and do not allow flash, so a wide aperture is a real advantage there.
As with the previous purchases, I am happy with the lens. It is pretty nice to bring on holidays, where you can expect to shoot some landscapes as well. Or shoot a hotel room and have it look bigger than it is. On the other hand, with already 18mm available on the kit lens (or my jack of all trades), it is definitely not a need. This is like the telezoom, it surely warrants thinking before buying.

Fast glass

I did it. I meant lenses and called them "glass". In this case on purpose, because fast glass has a meaning. In general it is meant that the lens has a wide aperture and is therefore able to catch more light, allowing it to (auto-) focus faster. That is at least how I understood the term. And this would surely be the stuff I need, right? This is where the pro's go. Fast glass, yes.
For once I did not run to the shop, but thought about it. In the end I got myself a Nikon 35mm and a Nikon 50mm. Both are f/1.8 and thus have the widest aperture of all my lenses. As they are prime lenses they are cheaper than zoom lenses. They are also supposed to make sharper photos. I believe that, although for my purpose (web content) it is not noticeable.
Anyway, they are - compared to the other lenses - pretty inexpensive, so you could pick them up. Everyone talks about the nifty fifty and that this is the lens closest to what we really see. That is - as far as I know - true. On a full frame camera. So on an APS-C sensor like my camera has, that would be the 35mm. It works great for what I bought it for, shooting in lower light conditions. The photo of the starfish was shot at the local aquarium and that has very little light. I don't mean dusk or so, but really dark. Having the wide aperture allows the ISO to be acceptable, while still having a bit of shutter speed to prevent blurry photos.
If you shoot in low light conditions, I would definitely advise getting one of these lovelies.

Finishing thoughts

Let's start with a disclaimer. I am not a pro, I am a newbie and tell you what I think/experienced. So keep that in mind when following my "advice". To put a bit perspective in it, I can tell you how much I used each lens in 2018. I did buy the two prime lenses in 2018, so their usage is lower than could be. But I think it gives an idea about how much I use each lens.
Total photos: 4665
Nikon 18-300mm: 3893
Tokina 11-16: 643
Nikon 35mm: 55
Nikon 50mm: 48
Sigma macro: 23
Sigma 150-600mm: 3

Which tells me I need to make more macro photos, and will probably tell you what lens tends to be on my camera.
Now, did these lenses make me a better photographer? No. I think over the years I have made a few nice pictures and made much less crap photos. But that was because I tend to look better and by looking better, you also throw away more.
Do I regret buying these lenses? Definitely not. Most of them have their specific use and by having them, I can actually do these things. That's not to say it is impossible to do with the kit lens. You can go very, very far with just kit lenses. But sometimes it is nice to have tools better suited for the job. And lenses are the tools of our trade. But don't buy them with the idea that they make you a better photographer. I fear practice, listening to advice and all the stuff that works for all other professions are what can make you better. I also believe that you do not need to be a pro, to have a fun hobby. And that last can definitely be done without many expensive lenses.
Happy shooting!

Processing a photo

Click and done

Or perhaps not. When you shoot in JPG format, you might be done indeed, as the camera will process the photo for you. In RAW format this does not happen and you're on your own. I do like post processing, so shoot almost always in RAW format.
In this post I would like to go over a photo that I did process to show what I did and tell why I did that. It will be specific to Lightroom, because that is the tool I use.

The start

This is the original photo. My eyes were caught by the rope holding the ship moored and how it would make a nice leading line. I also found the photo had some kind of geometry in it. The water and air would divide it in half vertically. Then the clouds in the air plus the two ships would occupy the right half of the photo. While the left half would have no clouds and the two buildings. The ship that came into the photo from the left was not planned for, but it added a feeling of movement to the static picture.

The basics

My first action was to straighten the buildings on the left, using a guided upright perspective in Lightroom. I felt that buildings should not look like they fall over. The original photo also had a cool tone, which changed to much warmer when I changed the white balance.
I always start with these things. Cropping and straightening the photo and then the white balance. These two can have a huge impact on the overall mood of the photo. I did not really crop here, but the straightening did modify the photo a bit, so there are some parts cropped away.

My second step is a global adjustment. here I would definitely want to open up the shadows more. I ended up with a +54 on that slider. As I also wanted to add a lot more punch to the photo, I raised clarity to +48. The photo was quite light and although not foggy, it had a little of that same feeling of being smoothed out. So I actually used the dehaze slider to get it a bit darker and more contrast in (mostly) the sky You can read about dehaze on The Lightroom Queen's forum.

Local adjustments

I mostly want to emphasize the two moored ships and therefore thought of darkening the left side of the photo. Because of the ship that sailed in from the left, I thought of making it like coming from the dark to the light. So I added a radial filter that would lower exposure a lot. As I only wanted that effect on the left, I used the brush to remove the right side of the photo from the filter. The left corners being as dark as they are now, gave me the feeling of "opening up" for the ship on the left. Here you do not need to look very well to immediately see this photo is processed, as there is little chance of finding this in reality. But to me a photo does not need to be 100% real. In that case I should have kept the original raw photo. However, be aware that others might not like over edited photos and this one is pretty obvious now.

While I am happy with the quay being on the photo, as it holds the base of my leading line (the rope), I do not want it to hold attention for long. So I dimmed it a little, by using a gradient filter that just covers the quay. Here I lowered exposure (-0.35), whites (-24) and mostly highlights (-78). The part holding the rope is very dark, so I opened the shadows in it (+54).
I do not think these settings are too obviously noticeable, unless you have the before and after next to each other. Still, they do improve to what I would like to get.

To me, the white text on the back of the right ship was an eye catcher. This had to stand out a bit more. For this I added a new radial filter, around the text. Here I mostly raised whites (+63) and highlights (+22) to have the text stand out more. I also added clarity and sharpness here.
Like the previous adjustment, I think it is step that one will not immediately see, but it definitely contributes a lot. The text stands out better and is more of a point to attract attention now.
If you look at the image, you can see that in the previous step the text was a bit toned down, like the white of the bridge on the ship. It now jumps out, so for the careful watcher you can surely see that has been edited.

The last step

My final step was a slight alteration to the air. Here I used a gradual filter where I lowered the temperature (-15). This gives a more blue tint to the air. Using the brush I made sure the ships were not altered by this filter.
Like the previous adjustment, I think this one is not attracting much attention. Unless looking at the top of the sky, I think the effect is very minor. But it changes the sky to less gray, for which I am happy.

Looking at the result, it surely changed a lot from the original one. The leading line and radial filter that darkens the left corners do immediately pull the eyes towards the center of the photo. The ship on the left and the buildings there do give a bit of context, but do not divert attention. From the center the eyes go to the right, where the ships - the topic of the photo - are moored. The text on the back of the right ship keeps attention for a bit due to how it jumps out. From there the eyes can look around at the ships, go to the quay and finally one would look around and glance more at the buildings and the sailing ship.

The photo is much to my liking, the edits make my eyes go as I described above. Of course, I cannot say how others look and whether they will perceive things as I do.  But to me that is less important. Of course, I hope others like my photo and feel I made good edits. Yet, given that I do this for fun, I mostly strive for photos and edits that please me. Which I think should be the case for all us beginning photographers.
Do the things you like, make photos that please you. And then enjoy your hobby.

Back to the eyes

Lenses again

In this post I am going to talk about lenses again. I know I did this before in an earlier blog post, but I think I should get back at that again. The reason is quite simple: last week a friend asked about lenses he would need. Now, I am a noob, but I do happen to have DSLR with three different lenses. And I have actually read a bunch of articles. He was not at that stage yet. So we spoke about what he wanted to do and then I told him what I would buy.

The funny part is: it is the exact same advice as I gave in that earlier post. During that talk however, we also came to a topic that is not mentioned in the previous post. But it is an important one, so I will talk about that part in this post.

F-stops

In case you think every guy loves the Formula 1 and this is about pit stops in the Formula 1, you're mistaken. We're still talking photography, and it's about a thing you can see on your lens.

Nikon 18-300mm F3.5-5.6

In the image you can see the mention about the F-stop. Of course, they do not make it very clear, as the letter F is not mentioned there. But it is the part with 3.5-5.6 in it. There are also lenses with only one number there. Every prime lens, which has a fixed focal length, always has only one number. But a zoom lens can have either one number, or a range. The F-stop means your widest aperture. If you have a lens with one number, it has that widest aperture on every focal length (zoom level). If you have a range, the lowest number is the widest aperture when not zoomed in at all. The higher number is the widest aperture at full zoom. In general you can say that the lower the number, the better. And that means also more expensive. Just as lenses with a fixed aperture on all focal lengths are more expensive.

I can see that the question would then be: why would you want these lower numbers? What does this F-stop thing do?

Light and focus

And this heading here is the answer to the question in the previous paragraph. An F-stop can be seen as a number telling the wideness of aperture. A low number means a wide aperture. A wide aperture allows more light into the camera. And that means you can shoot in darker situations, or raise the shutter speed to freeze motion. Being able to do so, is of course nice. And that is why you should like a lens with the lowest possible F-stop value you want to pay for. However aperture has another effect, namely the Depth of Field (DoF).

Hello birdie!

The photo here demonstrates this effect. Now, I do not have lenses with really wide aperture like F1.4 or F2.8, but I suppose this example suffices. The photo shows the bird sharp. It's focused on it. You can see the branch it's sitting on is also quite sharp. The branches further away are... well... I guess we know they should be branches, but it's definitely not very sharp. In photography this is often a desirable effect. In this case I want you to look at the bird, not the branches in the back. If you want to show a landscape, it is often not what you want. A wide aperture gives a small depth of field, so with a wide aperture (so: low F-stop), we have a shallow depth of field and get blur sooner. With an F-stop of 1.4 and taking a close-up of a person, you might notice that when you focus on the tip of the nose, the eyes are already not sharp anymore.

Distance

That last remark brings us to the second ingredient that makes up the Depth of Field: distance. The closer the object is that you focus on, the shallower your DoF will be. So if the previously mentioned person would be not close by, but say 30 meter away, then with the F1.4 he would still be fully in focus. So, there are two things to consider, the F-stop and the distance to the object to focus on.

Wide aperture

Small aperture

 And then we go to the last part about this, and that is the difference before and after the object in focus. It would be easy if we could focus on an object and then by setting aperture wider we would make the plane we focus on larger, both before and after the subject. Well, that is not how it works. The depth at the front is half of the depth behind the focus point.
The images here represent you: the photographer on the left. Your subject, the princess model in the middle and some background: a forest. The first image uses a wide aperture and makes sure your princess is in focus. The green around her shows what's in focus and what is not. And as you can see behind her is clearly more. Everything in the white area would be blurred.
The second image shows a much smaller aperture. And while the forest is getting into focus, the area right in front of you is still mostly out of focus. Rule of thumb is: 1/3 in front of the subject and 2/3 behind the subject is the focus area. With changing aperture, you can set the depth, but always in these proportions.The other way to set the depth would be walking closer or further from the subject.

What F-stop do you need?

So, you want those nice blurry backgrounds? Then you need an F1.4 lens, obviously. Or... no. You don't. The previous examples already showed you can get that also with higher F-stops (so, a narrow aperture). If you are close to your subject, you already make the DoF shallower. And a shallow DoF means your background gets blurry sooner. The other trick would be to move your subject further away from the background. And this is also demonstrated with removing parts in front of the subject.

A bear looking at a snack?

I took this photo in the zoo, and I can assure they do not let you go near the bears. Nor do they allow the bears to go to you, it might mistake you for a snack, after all.

So, there are fences, like you can see in the background. Such a fence is also in front of the bear, yet you don't see it on the photo. This is also an effect of Depth of Field. The distance between me and the bear was quite some meters and with an F5.6 it has a reasonably small DoF. The distance between me and the fence was pretty small, so all it gave was a tiny blurry line. Which I mostly removed in post processing. So, do you really need that F1.4? I cannot decide that for you, but I would at least say: unless you want to go the path of a professional photographer - in which case you should not read this blog, but write it - you probably don't. Simply start playing with your aperture, look at the effects and don't forget to try out small apertures and wide apertures, both close by and at a distance. And then, after having seen what your current camera and lens can do, you can decide whether you need that. And in case you happen to have a spare one fitting my Nikon D3200: I would be a happy receiver, even if I think I do not need it, nor feel willing to pay the price for it.

Now, please go make great pictures with blurry backgrounds and perhaps we will next time talk about bokeh.

The other kind of exposure

Attention seeking

As some of you might know, I have a few of my photos on ViewBug. I came across that site as I was looking for a place to put my photos online, after Google made their site badly working together with Lightroom, which I use for editing and as a catalog of my photos. Recently I was asked how I feel about ViewBug and that made me think about social media in general. Why are we actually uploading our photos to all kinds of media? The word popping up in my mind is exposure. And this time not the technical part of exposure using the exposure triangle. But the social exposure. And from there it becomes a blurred line. Do we show our photos to let others enjoy them? Or do we show them, so others can compliment us?

Fishing for other things than fish

The term attention whore seemed to become appropriate. This has a very negative and sexual connotation, but if take the definition from the Urban Dictionary, I think it could be suitable:

"Label given to any person who craves attention to such an extent that they will do anything to receive it. The type of attention (negative or positive) does not matter."

Because the more I think about it, the more I feel it's that we seek exposure, we seek attention. Preferably from like minded people or people that can give advice. But I think that getting "likes" or whatever they are called on that specific media would be good enough.

I mean, just look at some of the photos posted on social media. I am not going to say my photos are art (they most definitely are not), but compared to some of the things I have seen posted around, some of my photos look like masterpieces. Now, if these are just fun photos shared with friends or as a reminder/memory, that is of course to be expected. But some of these photos are actually posted on groups/communities about photography. And often enough many of these people do not respond to comments, or only to comments that say things like: "Great picture!" Comments which really make me look like a totally confused monkey wondering what's great about it. In case you are waiting for examples here, I have to disappoint you. It's not hard to find them, but it is rude to single one, or some, of them out and in a way mock them. So I will refrain from that and you'll have to go look for the examples yourself.

The fact remains though, that while I might see these photos as merely fishing for attention, I do basically the same. I post some of my photos on SmugMug and Flickr. A few on 500px. And I have some of them on ViewBug. Some of my photos on SmugMug are not visible to others, these are just my photos, kept there as a kind of back-up and a way for me to see them even if I am not at my computer. But many are publicly visible. As that is not needed to see them myself, I must conclude that I actually want others to look at them. And thus, I am fishing for attention, just like the lady on the photo above. Except that she looks much better while doing it. 😀

Good? Or bad?

Of course, there are some good things about this behavior. If nobody shared anything, we would not be able to see some of the very good shots that have been taken. And, if you never show your photos, nobody can point out to you how you might make better ones. And by showing photos, we can also share interests and get to talk about those interests. And that's awesome, right?
However, I feel there are also negative parts about it. The first and foremost is that you might actually forget what this was about. I'll explain. Given my age (50 in three weeks time) I consider myself at a point that I will not feel devastated if I do not get many likes. Just as I can survive writing a blog that has only a few readers. If you're curious, I would say that there are about 10 - 15 people reading the blog. Not that much, if you consider the blogs having thousands and thousands of followers. But at my age, you can see that in another perspective. There are a dozen people out there that take some of their precious time, to read my ramblings. Which I do consider not bad at all. In fact, it makes me happy. But anyway, even having the advantage of not needing those amounts of likes, I do recall that
I had a point where I was wondering: How do I get more people to watch my stuff and like it? Without realizing it at that moment, I had crossed a line. I was no longer concerned with my reason to make photos, I was concerned with what other people would think and how I could get more attention. Yup, at that point I was most definitely an attention whore.
Luckily for me, that didn't take too long. I never got to the point where I was thinking hard about how to get more attention. As I almost immediately realized what that thought was, and that it would mean I would be losing my hobby. You see: I make photos for myself. It gives me a reason to take my time at places like a museum or a zoo. And then, I get to spend my time editing them. Showing a few of them online, without much care whether they are thought of as great by others. It's my hobby, I like spending my time that way and as such it gives me happiness.
Going hunting for likes would be the same as becoming a professional. In the latter case you work directly for people who tell you what they want, and they give you money. But if you hunt for likes, you're indirectly working for others, to give them the photos they like. You, are merely a tool at that point. That does not mean I say to avoid exposing your photos. In fact, to share them with like minded people is great. If you can exchange your thoughts about your photos with others, that is very great. But if you are there waiting for random people to press a button called 'like' or '+1' or 'fav', you are wasting your time. Not getting them will make you unhappy. And getting some, will only bring out the urge to get more.
So my conclusion would be: social media are neither good nor bad. They offer possibilities. Use them as you like, and if well used they can bring lots of pleasure. But beware of the trap there and just keep your mind on what you actually want. If making photos is your passion: be out there and make photos. Share your interesting ones to let others enjoy, but don't wait for their "approval". Discuss your photos. Discuss the photos of others, every honest comment is much appreciated by most photographers. But keep your focus on your photos, do not let the social media dictate what you should do.

Viewbug

Now, as this all started with ViewBug, I think it should also end with ViewBug. I answered the question with telling that in my humble opinion ViewBug is mostly about contests. And that I do not expect to ever get a real high ranking in one of them, let alone win one. That perhaps one day I might feel disappointed for never making that. And perhaps stop participating. But I would have to wait and see until that time.

Still, I have some photos there, and I have entered some contests. I so far have a photo that is in the top 50%. This might not seem much, but given that all members of ViewBug can vote, it actually means that my photo at that point is generally considered better than half of all photos in that contest. It states: we, the voters and frequenters of this site consider your photo to be in the top half. It is really not a bad position.

Even if you would be the last - which is quite an achievement by itself, as there can only be one - it does not make the photo bad. That is the problem with contests: for every winner, there is a loser. Except, in this case you don't really lose anything. All it tells you is that the people voting liked other photos more.

Now, to help you a bit on that site: people can 'like' photos. I regularly check the new ones and 'like' the photos that catch my eye. it gives me some time to enjoy watching pretty photos. And I hope someone else will be having a little smile when that 'like' pops up. There is also the 'Peer Award'. I give that when I think a photo has something special. Of course, what that special exactly is, I don't know. Those are the ones I think are standing above the crowd.

If you feel like entering contests, hop over to ViewBug and give it a try. it doesn't need to cost you money. With a free account you can participate in about 25 contests and have one submission in each of them. I am not going to say it will be easy to win, but you can only win when you participate.

If you look for people enthusiastic about photography, I would say: find an online community. Not a place to dump photos, but look around for a place where you might get a comment that goes beyond: "Nice", or "Cool". Or simply look for a local photography club. :)

Anyway, I did share a bit of my view on social media and photography. And I would really love to hear your views on this. As mine are the views of an old guy. More modern people might see this totally different and I would like to hear those views too.

White on scales

White evenly distributed

Funny that we have this thing called white balance, as it in most cases is not necessarily about white. So, what is white balance exactly then? It is more the balance of colors and one would change it, to make a photo look more natural. Now, you might ask: if I see it a certain way, then the camera will take the photo also like that, right? By now, everybody who has read a few of my previous posts knows I will answer that with a no. And it is indeed no. Basically all lights are not pure white. They have a different temperature. And temperature is indeed the term here as it is expressed in Kelvin. An object would be called white, if it reflects all wavelengths. And black, if absorbs everything and reflects nothing at all. However, white light is not always reflecting all wavelengths with the same strength. And here is where that temperature comes in.

If you have a low temperature, say 1500 Kelvin, as from a candle, it will be more intense with the higher wavelengths, like red and orange. A high temperature 9000 Kelvin, as one would have from a heavy overcast sky, would be more intense with the magenta and blue wavelengths. Funnily enough, we call the high temperature cool and the low temperature are the warm colors.

The difference between us and a camera, is that we, or our brain to be more specific, partly compensates for this difference. And as such we will perceive people with a normal skin color during sunset, which has light with a temperature of around 3000 Kelvin, but also when standing in the office, where the fluorescent lamps will have a temperature of 5000 Kelvin. That's pretty cool from our brain, right? And for the people thinking I would once again say no: you're wrong. This is pretty cool.

The camera has no brain and does not compensate. Therefore a photo from one person in the sunset and one in the office will give different skin colors. And here comes the part about white balance. By setting the white balance on the camera, you tell your camera to compensate for the different light sources.

Changing this delicate balance

Now we know that different light conditions will show our photos with different tones. How important is that? If you look at the photo in the previous paragraph, you'll probably get a complete different feeling than from the photo below.

It is the obviously the same photo. But the first one is much warmer. I admit this is not just the white balance, though. But it has a part in it. The photo in this paragraph is the one with a white balance as shot by the camera. You can argue which one has the more natural colors and I suppose most people will point at this second one. Even if it is a little too cool (or in other words has a small too blue tint), The one at the top has too much orange. As it should be, as I - besides changing the white balance - overlaid the photo with an orange tint.

You are by now probably frowning and wondering why I gave that example then? Well, two reasons. The first is a form of vanity. I edited this way, because I like it that way. And therefore I also like to show it that way. The second is that it, just by its exaggerated warmth, shows the effects white balance can have. The top one approaches the effect one could have from a nice orange sunset. It also shows that one might change the white balance to get a bit away from the original colors.

Setting white balance

If one would be shooting RAW, one would not care much about it. The camera will keep all color information and then you can adjust it in your post processing software. After all, when shooting RAW, post processing is not really an option, but a must. If you have a camera that cannot shoot RAW, or you do not want to shoot RAW, you need to set the correct value, if possible. If you have it on auto, or no option at all, the camera will examine your photo and using its programmed algorithms to set the white balance. If I recall correctly, for my Nikon it would like to see around 18% of neutral colors. A neutral color is a color which has the same amount of red, green and blue in it. Making it a perfect gray. That is surely not always what you want, but I have to say that quite often this turns out reasonably well.

What to do if you cannot set your white balance in your camera? Can't you edit it if you do not shoot RAW? Sure you can. The reason why it is said that you can easily change white balance in a RAW, but not a JPG is simply: on the JPG, the camera has already applied a white balance correction. Then it saves in JPG, loosing the original sensor data. The resulting file has less information and has less "bandwidth" of altering the white balance, before it starts to look wrong. As we also do not know what the camera applied as white balance correction, we cannot go back to the real state. With RAW, you get that real state and the original sensor data. But you can most certainly still change the white balance of a JPG photo.

The photo in this paragraph actually is the same photo again, but this has a modified white balance to resemble a photo taken during the day. You can clearly see it is warmer than the previous one. The green leaves have lost their blue-ish tint and seem to have a bit more yellow in them. I personally liked this one more than the previous one. But I felt this was still not warm enough and altered it to look like the top one.

Which one would you prefer?