>> |
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 its 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.
|