How Important Is White Balance (WB)?

marcgrantphoto

New member
If you're shooting digital, and I'm sure most of you are, white balance is extremely important part of the photo taking process to render life-like images.

We have numerous kinds of film and filters to give us the desired results when taking pictures. There were films to make images cooler, film for warmer images, film for incandescent light, film for florescent light and so on. With digital, we can just tell the camera what white is. It need to know that in order to render true to life colors. When you stick a white plastic card inside a tank full of corals and light from the ultraviolet and blue spectrum, the card becomes blue. We trick the camera with CUSTOM WB and tell it that the card is WHITE. The camera will then synchronize all colors based on the tiny bit of info.

Because blue light is the last in the light spectrum to be filtered out by water it gives the reef an overall blue appearance. Red and yellow are filtered out in the first couple of feet. Same thing happens in our tanks and if they were deep enough, and some of the larger reef tanks are, you would be able to see this. That's why the blue spectrum is so important to certain corals so when underwater photographers dive down to a reef, they have to use bright strobes for lighting the reef to expose it's "true" colors and if deep enough, to also provide extra light for proper exposure.

The blue images can be color corrected in Photoshop or with a RAW converter software that is supplied with DSLR's that shoot in RAW mode but it's much easier to fix it before you shoot and that's by custom setting the WB.

There are several options for custom setting of WB. One is the use of a product, and there are several on the market, that clips over your lens. The piece is usually a white plastic that gathers light. You take a photo with it in place and then push the SET WB button on your camera which tells the camera that the photo you just took is WHITE. Another way would be to place a saltwater safe white plastic card inside the tank so the same light is hitting it that is also falling on the reef. You take a photo of the card so that it completely fills the frame and again, press the SET WB button. The third way is to set your camera to where you can tweak the color by using the Kelvin scale, either adding or subtracting blue or yellow depending on whether you want the image to be cooler or warmer. About 99% of the photos I see on here are way too cool. On the color scale, blue cancels out yellow (cool vs. warm) and yellow cancels out blue (warm vs. cool).

I hope this explains everything clearly. I have no photography school under my belt and am completely self taught so I hope you all can grasp what I've laid out here.

I'd be glad to answer any questions. Below is one of several photos that belong to RC Member, Franciso "Franky" Rivera, that I color corrected for him and sent to him to use. These do not belong to me and are being used merely for demonstration purposes only, which is allowed by the Library of Congress Copyright.


picture.php
 
How Important Is White Balance (WB)?

You sure that's Frankys? Looks like my image you've posted and manipulated.


SPS by --Aaron--, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Just to add, the way you have changed the appearance of my picture is not a true representation of how the coral looked at that point in time in my tank. The original I posted is how it looked under my tank lighting at that moment in time. It looks nothing like that, I'm not one for tweaking images just so they look better, I'd rather a true representation was seen.

Using a WB preset has it's issues, different areas of the aquarium will have different intensities of blue. You can set the WB in one area of the tank and shooting in another will give you different results. IMO RAW is the way to go. Especially now with the full spectrum LED lighting a lot of people use, myself included, which complicates shooting under tank lighting more than T5 or Halide did.
 
Last edited:
My apologies, Aaron. The photo was edited to illustrate the true colors and not light induced colors. If you like everything to look blue when it's not, that's your right. I'm here to help those who want it.

RAW has nothing to do with WB. RAW only allows you to change the WB and/or exposure after the shot was taken. That can also be done with a JPEG but with less latitude.

The reason the WB changes in the tank is because the light changes depending on depth, angle, outside light, etc.

If you want me to delete the photo, I'd be happy to do so. I don't really need a reef image to demonstrate WB but it's certainly handy since that's what this forum is about.
 
On my screen it doesn't look blue, in the original image which I posted from Flickr I can see green and pink. Surely if people wanted to see true colours of corals everyone would be using 6500k lighting?

You don't have to delete it, happy for it to remain.

So if WB changes in the tank then surely RAW has an edge over a preset WB, which will change at depth and angle etc? So if you're getting varied results with a WB preset is it not better to use RAW to change after taking the picture? Everyone I know advocates shooting in RAW, as it has an edge over JPG.

Just curious, what lighting do you shoot under your tank?
 
Last edited:
On my screen it doesn't look blue, in the original image which I posted from Flickr I can see green and pink. Surely if people wanted to see true colours of corals everyone would be using 6500k lighting?

People use blue lighting, not to see blue corals but to make them be able to keep them alive. Photographers who publish books on the reef and it's occupants shoot to show the true colors and beauty of the reef, not a totally blue environment. That would be pretty boring to pick up a book on Coral Reefs by Jacques Cousteau and have every shot in the book shot without correct lighting looking blue. That being said, if you prefer the blue cast, that's fine by me.

You don't have to delete it, happy for it to remain.?

It's already gone.

So if WB changes in the tank then surely RAW has an edge over a preset WB, which will change at depth and angle etc? So if you're getting varied results with a WB preset is it not better to use RAW to change after taking the picture? Everyone I know advocates shooting in RAW, as it has an edge over JPG.

RAW means that the image recorded still retains all data used to render the image. It has nothing to do with color, exposure, sharpness, contrast, etc. It merely means that you can go back after the fact and edit those features within reason. If you're photo is 3 or 4 stops under or over exposed, you're out of luck.

This should illustrate my point. I shot a bikini catalog a few years ago in the Bahamas. I shot all chromes (slide film) and ended up with over 800 slides of 12 models and numerous outfits. Do you think it would have been better to get the white balance correct, if it were shot digitally, when shooting or go back and edit 800 RAW images?

Just curious, what lighting do you shoot under your tank?

I don't have a tank or I would be using my own photos. My last tank was a 75 gallon reef tank back in the middle 80's to early 90's. I'm just now getting back into it. My first saltwater aquarium was back in 1966. My reef had MH and blue actinic so the color rendition was natural.
 
Last edited:
The blue in lighting fluoresces the corals, the thread you took my picture from, further on shows the corals fluorescing under blue lighting and using a yellow filter to capture this. This is why people use a spectrum with a higher Kelvin, for aesthetics. Corals will survive and thrive under 6500K lighting no problems, which is closer to natural daylight.

With all due respect, you have had no tank for the last 20 years and you're criticising peoples tank images on here and how to shoot tanks after just joining up?

I'll leave it at that. Good luck with the new tank. :)
 
Last edited:
With all due respect, you have had no tank for the last 20 years and you're criticising peoples tank images on here and how to shoot tanks after just joining up?

I'll leave it at that. Good luck with the new tank. :)

Photographing an aquarium doesn't require the knowledge of keeping a reef tank but even if it did, I don't see that a whole lot has changed in 20 years, Aaron. I still see the acrylic vs. glass arguments, MH, T5's, VHO, HO, refugiums, sumps, carbon reactors, oxygen reactors, ozone generators, UV sterilization, protein skimmers (they even had venturi skimmers 20 years ago), dosing pumps, live rock, base rock, coral frags and on.

I dealt with it all, bud. In fact, why don't you ask around and see how many reef tanks were being kept by hobbyists back in the early to mid 80's. There was a handful so don't doubt my capabilities regarding reef keeping.

Once again, if you like all blue photos then by all means, go for it. I'll stand behind your decision but let's let it go.
 
FWIW, batch processing for WB can be done in Lightroom.

We both know that batch processing is an option but as a photographer yourself, don't you prefer to shoot it right and not have to spend a lot of time in post. It may be automatic but with the larger files these days, it can easily tie up a computer to where it's difficult to do anything else on it while actions or batch processing is running.

The only reason for this thread is because I've seen in other threads on here people wondering why their images are so blue and other threads people telling them that their photos are too blue. I only offered some advice as how to correct it. I mistakenly grabbed one of Aaron's photos by mistake thinking they were Franky's. I offered to correct Franky's for him to illustrate better color rendition and he took me up on it. I sent him the photos and he said he loved them and thanked me. What I didn't realize at the time was that the image I selected to post was Aaron's. My mistake! I admitted it as well as deleted the photo. It's cached now so it's probably going to continue to show up in the post.
 
This is what I do, and it won't work for everyone, but it does for me. It's rare for me to have anything but a 105 or 50mm macro on my camera. It's what I shoot and when I'm out shooting, I don't have the ability to carry my good stuff beyond that. I "always" have my flashes. I'm not a tank shooter because I have a bowfront tank that causes problems. I will once and a while, but I will normally still use a flash. This in itself gets the WB closer than normally possible with a custom WB. Just moving a small amount can change the light drastically. I do also shoot everything in RAW. I would rather make adjustments in the RAW rather than the jpeg as it tends to do less damage to the original image.

I can understand what you say about not having to do alot in post, but I can make judgments prior to taking a shot, that many wouldn't see or think to make. I do very little in post, but I've also always shot my tank with on or off camera flashes. This does come with knowing your equipment and it's limitations. Because 90% of what I shoot is with a macro lens, light is something I've learned to play with. When you're trying to get a caterpillar's teeth, and you're 3 inches from him, with an ap of 9.5, you end up with a 16th of an inch DOF and the light still isn't enough, you find other ways. My camera has problems at anything beyond 400 ISO. Hence, I'm a flasher.
 
This is what I do, and it won't work for everyone, but it does for me. It's rare for me to have anything but a 105 or 50mm macro on my camera. It's what I shoot and when I'm out shooting, I don't have the ability to carry my good stuff beyond that. I "always" have my flashes. I'm not a tank shooter because I have a bowfront tank that causes problems. I will once and a while, but I will normally still use a flash. This in itself gets the WB closer than normally possible with a custom WB. Just moving a small amount can change the light drastically. I do also shoot everything in RAW. I would rather make adjustments in the RAW rather than the jpeg as it tends to do less damage to the original image.

I can understand what you say about not having to do alot in post, but I can make judgments prior to taking a shot, that many wouldn't see or think to make. I do very little in post, but I've also always shot my tank with on or off camera flashes. This does come with knowing your equipment and it's limitations. Because 90% of what I shoot is with a macro lens, light is something I've learned to play with. When you're trying to get a caterpillar's teeth, and you're 3 inches from him, with an ap of 9.5, you end up with a 16th of an inch DOF and the light still isn't enough, you find other ways. My camera has problems at anything beyond 400 ISO. Hence, I'm a flasher.

Hey Jesse...... Since you shoot bugs, here's a friend of mine in Charleston, South Carolina that is also heavy into shooting bugs. She's an accomplished photographer but also a model and actress, having appeared in the hit film, THE NOTEBOOK. Her name is Sasha Azevedo. Check out her work and tell her I sent ya! ;)


Her Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/sasha.azevedo?fref=ts

Sasha Azevedo
1016314_10151810590222033_55048217_n.jpg
 
Where have you been???? It's been hard trying to keep this place from running amock.

I also miss you're pics!!!! :)
 
Thanks. You are kind.

There are these other things like work and kids that pull at me and keep me from taking pictures. And I moved. And I changed jobs.

If only just one of these darn lottery tickets would have the right numbers on it...

Love your avatar btw.
 
Back
Top