Pink stuff on c-5050 pics

[ReyeR]

Here's the original and the EXIF
ExposureTime : 1/160Sec
FNumber : F2.6
ExposureProgram : Aperture Priority
ISOSpeedRatings : 64
ExposureBiasValue : EV0.0
MaxApertureValue : F2.6
ExposureMode : Auto
WhiteBalance : Manual
SceneCaptureType : Standard

Thanks Dee. I had a look at it. The shift towards red is definitely there in the original picture, it's just enhanced more when you enhance the colours in Photoshop or the like.

TBH I'm not quite sure on why this happens. I haven't come across this as I don't use manual white balance much - if I need to I shoot in RAW. It's almost like the camera's WB processing becomes very sensitive to tiny light path differences.

 

[Dee]

Something Lisa said made me go back and look through the one's with pink in them. The pink is on the side of ambient light. And it's not in every one with MWB, just some of them. I can't find any connection to them but the only thing that comes to mind is maybe I didn't calibrate the WB as often as I should have and the pics show the starting of the color shift, as if I had shot those a slightly shallower depths than others.

I'll be paying closer attention....

 

[ReyeR]

The other thing is where you place the white balance card is very important too. You not only have to take depth into consideration but also the distance between the subject or white card and the camera. This is the total distance the light has to travel. As red diminishes through more water it travels, at a constant depth of say 36ft, the amount of red present at a distance of 1ft from the camera will be different at say 5ft from the camera.
Ofcourse, the white card should fill the entire frame.

 

[justleesa]

Let me see If I have this right. If I am taking closeup pictures and calibrate close up it should work? But how do I calibrate for the stuff that is further away?

 

[SeaYoda]

Let me see If I have this right. If I am taking closeup pictures and calibrate close up it should work? But how do I calibrate for the stuff that is further away?

I've been trying to figure that out myself. I have trouble holding the slate and pressing the right buttons. I usually get frustrated and cheat by using the white sand we have here. It is not pure white but close. May be I could get a buddy to hold up a large white sheet during the dive .

 

[lukeROB]

I'm pretty sure the pink shift in Dee's photo is for exactly the same reason you get the colourshift in PS.

ReyeR I think is totally correct when manually white balancing you may have changed subject distance or move up in the water column. Also remember that the MWB is not a perfect system. Often the camera overcompensates and adds to much red this is why I get annoyed with it and usually do not use it. The camera colour spectrum is different to ours so this probably also has something to do with it. I find a picture with too much red it harder to 'fix' than one that it overly blue. Since we are underwater a prefer the bluer tone.

Digicams have less red pixels than blue or green, so when boosting red so much you are likely to introduce higher 'noise' (I'm probably incorrect just guessing - but ccd's are probably no-linear devices and when pushing them to saturation you are likely to get unexpected results). MWB is highly boosting red.

A simple fix is to shoot raw if possible - the in camera processing to achieve the white balance is probably a lot worse than 'superpowerful' computers and 'super advanced' software.

Sorry for the long rant - but always interested in shoving my thoughts out and then people like ReyeR (if you would please) can correct some of my misconceptions and I learn.

 

[Dee]

The other thing is where you place the white balance card is very important too. You not only have to take depth into consideration but also the distance between the subject or white card and the camera. This is the total distance the light has to travel. As red diminishes through more water it travels, at a constant depth of say 36ft, the amount of red present at a distance of 1ft from the camera will be different at say 5ft from the camera.
Ofcourse, the white card should fill the entire frame.

This is the first I've heard this. Makes sense, tho. I was instructed to face the slate (white card) so that it gets full available light, ie. no shadows, etc. and to fill the frame with it. Or if I'm on the bottom and there's a patch of light sand I could use that. Nothing was said about distance between the subject and the camera, that the slate should be the same distance. That would be easy enough to do on some shots but certainly not all.

Some of my best wreck photos, posted in last weeks theme, were WA shots where the WB certainly wasn't taken at the same distance, and there was no pink in them.

 

[ReyeR]

Well, for one you'll need a huge white card because it must fill the whole frame to be accurate. Second you'll need a buddy to hold it up. This is when you whip the filter out and shoot in RAW

 

[SeaYoda]

Well, for one you'll need a huge white card because it must fill the whole frame to be accurate. Second you'll need a buddy to hold it up. This is when you whip the filter out and shoot in RAW

Can you edit RAW with PS7? What filter do you whip out?

 

[Dee]

Well, for one you'll need a huge white card because it must fill the whole frame to be accurate. Second you'll need a buddy to hold it up. This is when you whip the filter out and shoot in RAW

Somehow I was expecting you to get around to that!

Speaking of large cards, I bet the reason the pics taken after calibrating using the sand was better is because it was such a large area!