File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
hey /p/. just took this a few minutes earlier. discount the fact that I hit the tripod while I was taking the picture.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelFinePix S6000fdCamera SoftwareFinePixViewer Ver.5.3Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaMaker Note Version0130Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:08:04 22:48:56Exposure Time20 secF-Numberf/3.6Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/3.6Brightness-4.4 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length14.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1280Image Height960RenderingCustomExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownSharpnessNormalWhite BalanceAutoChroma SaturationNormalFlash ModeOffMacro ModeOffFocus ModeAutoSlow Synchro ModeOffPicture ModeManual ExposureContinuous/Bracketing ModeOffBlur StatusBlur WarningFocus StatusOKAuto Exposure StatusOK
>> Anonymous
it wouldn't hurt you to retake the photo if you hit the tripod. however the photo doesn't say anything so i wouldn't bother.
>> Anonymous
Looks like there is a pole or something in the middle. Shoot from a better vantage point, just off the side of the street or something, so that the driveway and junk won't be in th photo.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
reminds me of this one I took

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareDigital Photo ProfessionalImage-Specific Properties:Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution350 dpiVertical Resolution350 dpiImage Created2007:07:24 23:32:30Exposure Time2 secF-Numberf/5.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/5.0Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length88.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1200Image Height800RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
White balance needs adjustment.
>> Anonymous
A) no it doesn't, B) post a photo with that crit you fag
>> Anonymous
how exactly is this technique done?
>> Anonymous
take a picture of a sulfer street lamp or a scene lit with a sulfer street lamp. they cast an orange light.
>> Anonymous
>>67117
no i mean, the light trail technique?
>> Anonymous
long exposure, high shutter speed.
>> Anonymous
>>67269

Side effect of my effing lens. If I could get it to stop happening I'd be extatic. It's just reflections bouncing around inside the lens mechanics. Apature can effect it, and other aspects of how direct light sources fuck up, but pretty much any time I shoot into a light source I get it.
>> Anonymous
>>67270

?
>> Anonymous
>>67271
>>67269

oh, the stupid headlights trailing. long exposure. any moving light source makes your photo 50 times gayer when you have a slow shutter speed.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>67273
I guess i'm into Pictures + (Gay * 50)

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareVer.1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.4Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern824Focal Length (35mm Equiv)51 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2006:01:09 17:11:22Exposure Time5 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length34.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3008Image Height2000RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownISO Speed Used200Image QualityNORMALWhite BalanceAUTOImage SharpeningAUTOFocus ModeAF-AFlash SettingNORMALFlash Compensation0.0 EVISO Speed Requested200Flash Bracket Compensation0.0 EVAE Bracket Compensation0.0 EVTone CompensationAUTOLens TypeNikon D SeriesLens Range18.0 - 55.0 mm; f/3.5 - f/5.6Auto FocusSingle Area, Center Selected, Top FocusedShooting/Bracketing ModeSingle Frame/OffColor ModeLandscape sRGBLighting TypeNATURALNoise ReductionOFFCamera Actuations117Image OptimizationNORMALSaturation 2NORMAL
>> Anonymous
>>67264

A. Yes it does. B. gb2/b/
>> >>67353 here Anonymous
>>67264


Regarding:>>67117
To elaborate: The steet lights would make the ground orange to a certain degree yes. However they would not make the entire sky orange. Also I'm pretty sure the house on the left isn't using high pressure sodium as a porch light. ;)
>> Anonymous
>>67354
Street lights actually do make the sky orange if it's an overcast or cloudy night. Still, the OP should have used Tungsten white balance to bring down the orange a bit and that would at least make the porch light white.
>> Anonymous
>>67354
>>67355
fwiw, my old house actually DID have a high pressure sodium porch light. the bulbs last almost forever and you can get a kit with the fixture+bulb for like $29 at home depot now.

i think i have some pictures on my laptop taken in the light of it, too.
>> Anonymous
>>67252
Where was this taken?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
white balance is one of the most irritating parts of digital photography I'm finding. with film I never see people complaining that white balance filters or different kinds of film should've been used, it's just accepted that what gets to the daylight balanced film is acceptable because it can't be changed. the white balance doesn't really decide what the real image is, it just makes a more or less arbitrary frame of reference for the photo.
>> Anonymous
>>67573
White balance is actually a big fucking deal with professionals who use film. A lot of work goes in to using the right filters for lenses, strobes and even slippers for fluorescent bulbs. The reason amateur film users don't care is because they use film for the exact reason that it gives strange and interesting results.
>> Anonymous
mmm
>> Anonymous
naic pic yo
>> Anonymous
yeah I rob
>> Anonymous
>>67573
Why? It's as simple as sliding two sliders in Camera Raw, and, as the other post replying to you said, is much more simple than getting it right in film. What, do you WANT to give up and say, "fuck it," to something very important in determing what you art looks like? That's like saying you'd buy a camera with a 10% viewfinder that only does autoexposure.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
hey /p/. just took this a few minutes earlier. discount the fact that I hit the tripod while I was taking the picture.
>> Anonymous
>>67607

assuming he's shooting raw.
>> Anonymous
>>67635
>What, do you WANT to give up and say, "fuck it," to a great many things that are important in determing what you art looks like?

Also, JPEG artifacts are icky.
>> Anonymous
>>67607
>>67635
>>67637
>>67593

Mine was the second photo posted. The photo was white balanced to the point that it resembled, to me, how the scene looked. I could've white-balanced the photo to the street lamps, since they're the only light source, to normalize the entire scene as if the primary light source were white. White balance is just that, normalizing a scene so that a particular light source is considered white. That's why it’s arbitrary and irritating. All you're doing is picking a reference light source. If you're shooting with more than one light source or you're shooting somewhere artificial it's arbitrary and subjective which light source you want to consider white. In my room, for shits and giggles, I have two CFLs in one fixture. One it closer to 9000k and one is closer to 6000k. If I used just one of the bulbs the room would always look white. As it is, all I have to do is look from one side of the room to the other and nothing looks white at all. That's my point about white balance. I'm sorry if I offended /p/ and its faggots who I'm sure don't actually shoot in film or struggle with filters. I shoot in raw with no in-camera modifications to the data, but that doesn't even matter anyhow. I don't have to prove myself based on the decisions I make in a subjective venture, especially when I'm confidant I'm a better photographer than 80 to 90% of the people here. That is, if the quality of the people actually posting and the lack of photographs from the critics is any indication.
>> Anonymous
>>67674

Wow way to be a cocky idiot. You made a white balance error whether it was your intention or not. BTW: If the photo you posted is any indication of your abilities you should not be speaking the way you do.
>> Anonymous
>>67746

I posted the picture because it was terribly similar to the OP, which I would agree has a WB issue (among other issues) - not because it was representative of a personal best. I am curious, though, about what you would consider to be the proper way to set the WB on that picture.

http://www.media.hut.fi/GTTS/GAiF/GAiF_PDF/GAiF2001_1-1.pdf
>> Anonymous
>>67774
Either

A) Find something white and set the white balance on it, preferably a dedicated card for this purpose, but most anything will do, really

or

B) Shoot RAW and adjust it in Camera Raw or Capture One or whatever.

or, preferably,

C) Both.
>> Anonymous
>>67263
>>67674
>>67746

while i think>>67674was being a rather cocky bastard, i do think their choice of white balance was fine. if the point of the photo was to photograph the surfaces how they would look in pure white light, then i think it would be justified to adjust the white balance so the street lights appear as pure white (whatever your definition of that is). on the other hand, if the purpose was to photograph the scene as it appeared to their eyes, i think the way they represented it accurately does so, as tungsten or NA-arc lamps both definitely have a yellow tint. sure, your brain adjusts appropriately so you can figure out what colors are under certain lighting conditions, but that doesn't mean that the lights aren't yellow.

i think it all depends on the photographers intention and that it isn't "incorrect" to have the white balance adjusted the way it is. if i were shooting a scene lit by blue lights, i could either remove the blue tint by adjusting the white balance and show the objects how they would appear in white light, or leave the white balance alone and everything would appear blue how my eyes saw it.
>> Anonymous
>>67785

That's the point I did a terrible job of trying to make. Also, yes, that was way too cocky. The reason I'm pissed off, though, is because I did exactly what>>67782said. That photo, along with every photo I've shot with this camera, was shot in raw and processed in canon's software to set the white balance by a white point. There are elements in that photo that are white because of its current balance. For shits and giggles I went back to the raw and tried using three other objects in the shot that are white under normal daytime light and got three very different results. I chose the one that it is now based on what the software's auto white balance algorithm produced and by what most accurately conveyed the feel of the scene when I was there. White balancing to make the majority of neutrals a daytime neutral turns several objects that are recognizeable (street lamp light, road paint, the brick surfaces) bizzare shades of bizzare colors.