[creative69]

Can anyone here shed some light on this problem I'm having with my 645Z? I noticed this before but thought it may have been a one-off. I'm hoping that someone will tell me I need to turn off/ on such and such. Look at the image, the dancers are all wearing white tops!! According to my 645Z the tops are gold in the shadows! This must be a joke? Someone please help these are a clients photos I don't think the wardrobe person will be too happy with my customisations.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[stillshot2]

My guess is that the lighting was different at that part of the stage and the light balance chose to make the front dancers tops white which resulted in the rear dancers to appear more warm or "gold." I would try to fix it with post processing.

[Steve.Ledger]

I'd not use Auto WB for a scene like that. I would set it manually.
But if you shot RAW you should be able to fix it in post.

[clicksworth]

The blue legs are worse. The wardrobe person and the stage lighting guy need to talk.

[Ole]

The lighting was not of a uniform color. Perhaps various spot lights each their color, or LED lighting, which is notoriously difficult to capture.

The 645Z has a multi auto white balance setting (see page 53 in the manual) which is supposed to help in a scenario like this, where the color temperature is all over the map.

Would it be an option to provide the images to your client in monochrome?

[dms]

The tops in the shadows are being illuminated by reflections of other gold skirts. Perfectly normal (but yes rather extreme).

[itshimitis]

I suspect it is what is likely to happen if the costume person decides it is a good idea to use shiny gold skirts...

[Digitalis]

This must be a joke? Someone please help these are a clients photos I don't think the wardrobe person will be too happy with my customisations.

It never ceases to amuse me that people think that white should always look white regardless of what mix of lighting it is shot under, human eyes are able to adjust white balance without us even being aware of it. If the wardrobe people are upset: they should be annoyed with the lighting technicians - not you. All the camera did was what it is designed to do. If your client wanted photographs of the outfits, they should have gotten you to take the images in the green room* - at least the lighting would have been more uniform there.

The only questionable thing you did there was use automatic white balance, I prefer to work with a fixed white balance of 5000 Kelvin with all my cameras. I shoot raw all the time so it is a non issue to alter the WB in post if necessary.


* Green room - a misnomer if there ever was one, because they are never green.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

There's a reason the screen for my home theater projector is white...it's a great reflector of whatever light hits it.

I don't see a problem with how the camera captured the scene. If somebody doesn't like it, then they need to change lighting and/or costumes.

[sherrvonne]

The one girl to the left back has the shiny gold reflected onto her shirt and her tights. Why is it in photography that white must appear white no matter what and in art class we are told to paint all the reflected light on a surface that is white or glass or shiny?

[Murfy]

like everyone said, it's the lighting, they use gels and colored lighting, you won't get an even white. I just shot a few photos of my daughter during rehearsals and the costume color sometimes changes as they move across the stage. Your eyes don't notice the extreme change. I have photos where black costumes look blue.

[Sagitta]

There was definitely LED lighting at play as well.

LEDs aren't just difficult to capture, they're impossible (especially if there is no other lighting to run interference). The reasoning is that a CMOS sensor will be basically 'overwelmed' by LEDs since LED is 'pure' (ie, one or maybe 2 colors), where the sensor is looking for three colors to combine together in verious degrees. You basically wind up with a green-screening effect from whatever the LED is illuminating. This is especially apparent in some stage lightings and whatnot where you'll see a distictive 'hypersaturation' effect.

The only real work around (that I know of at least) is to not use a modern camera (ie, someting without a CMOS sensor in it). CCD sensors interpret light differently and will actually handle LEDs better, despite being an older technology.

[Digitalis]

The reasoning is that a CMOS sensor will be basically 'overwelmed' by LEDs since LED is 'pure'

"monochromatic" is the word you're looking for, and the proliferation of LED lighting it has caused considerable irritation for me when photographing stage shows too. Even the CCD based Leica monochrom* suffers from this "hyper-saturation" effect

*Colleagues who use the Sigma FOVEON based cameras ( which are also CCD based) also have this problem. Film handles it better than digital due to its inherent exposure curve with handling highlights, rather than the digital linear 0 to 255.

[creative69]

Thanks for the replies. The photo was shot in raw but I'm not quite sure how I would go about removing the gold coloured shadows. I would have expected the shadows to be black or grey maybe. Could the auto shadow correction have anything to do with this? I was set to auto I have noticed. Besides this shoot I noticed the same phenomenon with other photos. Here is another example. This edited shot has reduced the effect but look at the shadow cast by her nose. It has the appearance of a large birth mark rather than a shadow. This was shot using studio lighting so all should be well. I'm sure it must be a setting so if anyone knows do tell. It's not really a matter of opinion using a canon 5 d never gave me those effects under similar lighting conditions.

[Digitalis]

Could the auto shadow correction have anything to do with this?

If you are shooting raw, this will have no effect.