WB setting for night photos

[Fireball]

Last night I tried to get some fading lightning south of us, but it was too far distant by the time I got outside. I did get a neat night photo but am wondering how to set my white balance.

As you can see, everything was very green and no matter what WB I set it looked the same. There's a security light to the right. I had my camera set at ISO 200, 30 sec. at f/2.8 to try and capture lightning (that's the distant red). I thought it was cool getting the passing car and a few stars though.

[Dobick]

"no matter what WB I set it looked the same"

Can you start by telling what WB you used on this shot.

and if you are having huge green in the scene -- then you need to add in a whole bunch of magenta.

you can also go find something white and put it into the light source, get close to it, and then do a custom white balance.

Keep in mind, that colors get more saturated in lower lights, and the stuff that you are saying is "very green" happens to be the trees and grass, so naturally at lower light, that color is going to saturate more, as well as dominate the scene with reflectance from it's color.

[Fireball]

Oh, I see. Didn't know that colors get more saturated in low light. I used every WB my camera has, you know...sunny, shade, cloudy, tungsten, fluorescent, etc. This one was taken with auto. I wasn't sure how to do a custom since it was actually quite dark out there except under the security light and again, I figured that would "taint" the color.

[duronboy]

I experiment. My taste depends on if there's any ground level stuff exposed, or if it's just sky. If it's all sky, go nuts. If you have some landscape in the shot, choose a white balance that compliments it.

One shot I took last night with different white balance settings:

for the first one, here, I chose a custom white balance by clicking around in the image in 'click' mode in digital photo professional. Then, in CS5, I duplicated the layer, created a black and white layer, and adjusted the opacity of the black and white layer until I brought the saturation down to something reasonable.



For this one, I chose the color temperature option and dialed in 10,000 kelvin.



This one is set to the 'daylight' setting. It's the most boring, but the most accurate to what I thought I saw in real life.



Tungsten:



If you're experimenting with shutter speed, and letting different levels of ambient affect your image, there's no telling what you'll get. Personally, I like all of the exposure to come from a lightning flash.

[Fireball]

I like the tungsten the best. Very nice. I didn't have any lightning close so I guess the security light is all I got. Thanks for sharing your examples.

[auddii]

The tungsten is a pretty blue, but keep in mind that if you're in a storm, the sky is almost never that color. So, a lot of people may look at it and think it was photoshopped or it's "artistic interpretation". Just depends on if you're going for pretty or what you actually saw.

[crbeveri]

I dig the 1st one. The purple sky is just cool and pretty.

[cfortner]

It really depends upon what types of ambient light you have, but for most night shots I usually start with a WB around 4200K and adjust from there.

[Fireball]

I would really like to capture exactly what I see so I'll try tweaking the kelvin next time. Thanks for the tips everybody.

[SilvaSurfer]

These are some awesome tips... Thanks everyone for your input... I think I have found the right place to learn what I need to learn....

[smalltrees]

this may cause some negative reaction... but, try to use your LCD for composition only... trying to judge... exposure, focus, WB, or in the worse case, the "Histogram" on the LCD... one, is less than accurate, due to ever changing viewing conditions, the brightness settings... certainly too small to make accurate choices compared to your monitor at home... first, trust your meter for exposure... when in doubt, just bracket... then choose/adjust later... if you are new and still learning, set your camera to auto-bracket... then study the differences later...

you have your camera in your hands... keep shooting... stay creative... then process and adjust later, and devote the same amount of time/creativity to processing your images, as you took creating them... in most all cases, when you are looking at your LCD, making adjustments, thinking about adjustments... you are missing images... wink/smile...

as far as WB goes, the camera settings beyond "Daylight" and "Auto" are in most cases too extreme... you will not find Tungsten/fluorescent lighting these days, that are this blue or green... much closer to daylight balanced now...

today's cameras have far too many bells and whistles... yes... they can do many things for you... "nothing of course" that could not be done later... spend more time shooting, and less time "playing" with the buttons... your photography will improve faster, by composing and exposing... and adjusting later...

[duronboy]

I'm tired of hearing people say not to use the histogram. Learn what it shows, then use it. It's there FOR A REASON. And definitely try to get a correct white balance while you're taking images. Not that there's always a 'correct' white balance. But the thing is, you never know who's looking over your shoulder at your LCD, and you never know when they might be judging you for future hiring purposes. If they take a quick peek and your just-taken shots and they look no better to them than what they get with their point and shoot, respect=gone. Now, if you're just doing this for pure fun, then you CERTAINLY have time to get a correct white balance! I'm going to be honest though, I threw the 24-70 on the camera and RAN out the door. I made sure I was shooting RAW and went to town on that lightning. For all but the last few shots I was actually dialed in that 10,000k white balance. I knew I could fix it later, and that the most important thing was getting the few lightning shots I could get. But when you're shooting anything but run-out-the-door-as-fast-as-you-can shots, take the time to make it look right then and there.

[smalltrees]

the Histogram... might be the most confusing feature on your camera... and is definitely more of a gee-wiz... sales tool... than function... I can show you 30, completely different looking Histograms, even some with clipped data... that are all correct exposures...

the funny thing about histograms, and this debate... if you really understand exposure needed for the scene, you really do not "need" the histogram... if you are not sure of the exposure for the scene, the histogram will most likely confuse you, or cause you to expose incorrectly, because it does not "look" like you think it should...

as far as someone looking over my shoulder... wink/smile...
that would be the first time in thirty+ years, that someone hired me in that way...

[SilvaSurfer]

Originally Posted by smalltrees

this may cause some negative reaction... but, try to use your LCD for composition only... trying to judge... exposure, focus, WB, or in the worse case, the "Histogram" on the LCD... one, is less than accurate, due to ever changing viewing conditions, the brightness settings... certainly too small to make accurate choices compared to your monitor at home... first, trust your meter for exposure... when in doubt, just bracket... then choose/adjust later... if you are new and still learning, set your camera to auto-bracket... then study the differences later...

you have your camera in your hands... keep shooting... stay creative... then process and adjust later, and devote the same amount of time/creativity to processing your images, as you took creating them... in most all cases, when you are looking at your LCD, making adjustments, thinking about adjustments... you are missing images... wink/smile...

as far as WB goes, the camera settings beyond "Daylight" and "Auto" are in most cases too extreme... you will not find Tungsten/fluorescent lighting these days, that are this blue or green... much closer to daylight balanced now...

today's cameras have far too many bells and whistles... yes... they can do many things for you... "nothing of course" that could not be done later... spend more time shooting, and less time "playing" with the buttons... your photography will improve faster, by composing and exposing... and adjusting later...

Originally Posted by duronboy

I'm tired of hearing people say not to use the histogram. Learn what it shows, then use it. It's there FOR A REASON. And definitely try to get a correct white balance while you're taking images. Not that there's always a 'correct' white balance. But the thing is, you never know who's looking over your shoulder at your LCD, and you never know when they might be judging you for future hiring purposes. If they take a quick peek and your just-taken shots and they look no better to them than what they get with their point and shoot, respect=gone. Now, if you're just doing this for pure fun, then you CERTAINLY have time to get a correct white balance! I'm going to be honest though, I threw the 24-70 on the camera and RAN out the door. I made sure I was shooting RAW and went to town on that lightning. For all but the last few shots I was actually dialed in that 10,000k white balance. I knew I could fix it later, and that the most important thing was getting the few lightning shots I could get. But when you're shooting anything but run-out-the-door-as-fast-as-you-can shots, take the time to make it look right then and there.

Both of you are bringing out great points... I will use both of these to try a produce great quality photos.... Both of you must be awesome photographers....

[lhdvies]

I'm tired of hearing people say not to use the histogram. Learn what it shows, then use it. It's there FOR A REASON.


Ditto, about a dozen times!

I nearly always us the visual scene to start & the meter to set my exposures, but the histogram shape & location is valueable in confirming my intentions. It has never mislead me in thata process.