White balance and cropping (Canon, 50mm, lens, adjustment)

[Brill]

Couple questions on white balance and cropping. Two pictures attached that I took this morning with my 40d(first one is the original, second one has WB modified and is cropped). On white balance, first picture has "shade" WB, second one has "daylight" Which one is the correct WB? I run into this with a lot of my landscape shots. WB looks right in both of them in it's own way and I can never decide which one to go with.

Second thing, cropping. The 2nd shot is the cropped version of the first. This was taken from my apartment balcony. As you can see there are posts and parts of buildings creeping in from the left side and the bottom right. Looking at the 2nd shot, the bottom seems like too much was cut off. Kind of like cutting off arms in a portrait. Is it just me or would there be a better spot to crop at? Also, is it best to use a "free" crop or to use a ratio?


ISO 100, shutter 1/25, 50mm, f/14

http://lh5.ggpht.com/cross.ken/SP8rDNxBtEI/AAAAAAAAHJ4/C5On364ERrU/s576/DPP_0005.JPG (broken link)





http://lh6.ggpht.com/cross.ken/SP_7Ouzk3lI/AAAAAAAAHLY/tu4Xt5v-9S0/s640/IMG_8131%20cropped.JPG (broken link)

[RayinAK]

I would suggest you set your 40D to take RAW photos, and then use Photoshop Elements 6 or 7 to edit the photos. When you do that with Elements, you can change the WB until you like what you see. You can do that on the preview photo you see in the window, and then click on OPEN. That's when the photo opens on the screen. Remember to calibrate your monitor, first. You can remove whatever you don't want in the photo with some of the tools PSE6 has, and without cropping the photo if you like.

40D settings:
-Av (aperture priority)
-ISO 100 to 200 (for the photos above)
-Aperture much wider than f/14 (open the lens with the wheel by your index fingertip). Maybe f/8 or a little wider. If you open it too much, then you won't get as much depth-of-field.
-----------

[Bulldawgfan]

Brill,

I can offer no help on the cropping question. I suck at it. But I follow RayinAK's suggestion in regards to white balance to a tee. As a very hack beginner I am sure I am making some big mistake by saying this but.... in the picture you referenced there is no true white in the shot. Pure white may be a better phrase. In my opinion, when there is no 'pure white' in a shot, it gives you freedom to set the temperature to whatever you like. Cooler or warmer it is up to you... as you have no limit set by the shot. The cropped shot appears 'cooler' (with the addition of the blue hue... or less red) and the original seems warmer. Both of which work. In this example I think it is your choice as to what you like... what 'feel' to you want to portray?

I take my shots in auto white balance and adjust it in RAW... but I am only making small adjustments unless I have some 'pure white' in the shot. When that happens I am careful not to adjust anything (temperature, tint, brightness, ect.) too much... as there is a 'standard' already set in the shot.

[Brill]

I did shoot in RAW. I was changing white balance on my computer, but just couldn't decide. It seems I was looking for a right answer in the case where there isn't one. I don't have photoshop, elements 7 is on my christmas All I really have to work with for now is the software that came with the camera.

[ShuttrBug]

Originally Posted by Brill

Second thing, cropping. The 2nd shot is the cropped version of the first. This was taken from my apartment balcony. As you can see there are posts and parts of buildings creeping in from the left side and the bottom right. Looking at the 2nd shot, the bottom seems like too much was cut off. Kind of like cutting off arms in a portrait. Is it just me or would there be a better spot to crop at? Also, is it best to use a "free" crop or to use a ratio?

Ok, I'm no expert like the folks here... but have done quite some cropping. Often just a little bit at the edges makes a photo purrrrfect. I personally prefer to drag the outlines about and select what to crop out. I think that's what you mean by free-crop. If it's an actual term- I didn't know it.

In the cropped photo, leaving the mountains at the bottom would have helped give the photo some depth. It had that in the first pic, lost it when cropped. Now it just looks plain... if you get my drift.

Cropping the building on the left is fine... though you could have included that to frame the shot, give it more perspective... if you wanted to. Hope this was of some help.

[FedupWNY]

Brill, I'm not an expert in W/B (I usually leave that to "auto" ). I do see a difference between the two shots, but I feel both are good. As per cropping, I don't see much of a difference.

[Matt Angry]

This might help:
RawWorkflow.com - Digital Photography Products and Education - WhiBal Certified Gray Card for White Balance (http://www.rawworkflow.com/whibal/ - broken link)

I picked one of these up last year, amazing! It doesn't leave my camera bag.

[Brill]

Originally Posted by ShuttrBug

Ok, I'm no expert like the folks here... but have done quite some cropping. Often just a little bit at the edges makes a photo purrrrfect. I personally prefer to drag the outlines about and select what to crop out. I think that's what you mean by free-crop. If it's an actual term- I didn't know it.

I don't know if it's a term either. As I said above I don't have photoshop yet. I've just been using hte software that came with the camera to get my feet wet. In this case, digital photo professional. It's cropping tool as options for the aspect ratio such as 1:1, 3:2, 2:3 etc There is also a option for "free" which allows me to customize the crop.

In the cropped photo, leaving the mountains at the bottom would have helped give the photo some depth. It had that in the first pic, lost it when cropped. Now it just looks plain... if you get my drift.

I see what you mean about it being plain. In fact, thats the word I was looking for to describe it. The only thing is those are not mountains in the bottom, they are the tops of buildings. But if you can't tell, maybe I'll leave them in there

[Nomadicus]

Originally Posted by Brill

I did shoot in RAW. I was changing white balance on my computer, but just couldn't decide. It seems I was looking for a right answer in the case where there isn't one. I don't have photoshop, elements 7 is on my christmas All I really have to work with for now is the software that came with the camera.

That software that came with your 40D is not shabby if you dig in a learn how to use its power. Not many months back a Canon rep explained to me the fact that Canon software knows more about the raw image file than even Photoshop understands. His recommendation was to use the Canon software to workup the RAW file and then save as tif or jpg depending on the need for data. Then whatever advanced edits that are needed can be done in Photoshop. I tried it and it works. I'm not sure I get any better image but I know it is not any less of an image. There are settings with in the camera's parameters than can be set to render the closest image capture to the image as seen. You may want to tinker some by shooting a gray card with a white and black panel. From these images you may can tweak a few of the setting to get out of the camera images that require less editing. I always shoot the auto WB. I've tried to use the others but the camera seems to be smarter than I am at figuring this one setting out. When shooting in low artificial light adjusting the white balance on a RAW file can work to your advantage much of the time.

[I LOVE NORTH CAROLINA]

Experiment with white balance, sometimes the "right" one is the "wrong". I once shot a swan using tungsten and and got an amazing shot. And by the way I like photo number two best.