Rebel XT Long Exposure Processing...

[John Hudson]

The shot turned out silly pink (white balance went crazy on me....another topic for discussion), but that can be fixed in post processing.

Gene

Gene,

If you want an easy solution to the white balance issue, I'd suggest using the WB bracketing function to capture multiple exposures of the same image.

As long as you've got an adequate memory card, turn on the bracketing and just snap away. Then, all you've got left to do is pick out your favorites


John
www.skywatch7.com

 

[Gene Moore]

Gene, If you want an easy solution to the white balance issue, I'd suggest using the WB bracketing function to capture multiple exposures of the same image. As long as you've got an adequate memory card, turn on the bracketing and just snap away. Then, all you've got left to do is pick out your favorites John www.skywatch7.com

Yep John agree on that. I practiced this spring on getting fast with my camera, but I have a ways to go. Especially setting all the different functions like three shot bracket while moving or in the dark. And, there are some settings it holds when turned off, some like the bracket settings it does not. Certainly the bigger (faster) CF card will help when shooting raw. As for white balance, I swear the XTi tends to the blue on cloud bases. My old Canon 300d was dead on with correct grey to black, not blue to purple. Getting this right is a challange for sure.

Gene

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Gene,

If you want an easy solution to the white balance issue, I'd suggest using the WB bracketing function to capture multiple exposures of the same image.

As long as you've got an adequate memory card, turn on the bracketing and just snap away. Then, all you've got left to do is pick out your favorites


John
www.skywatch7.com

Or just shoot in RAW. In conversion you can set the white balance however you wish. Zero need to do any bracketing for it then.

 

[Gene Moore]

Or just shoot in RAW. In conversion you can set the white balance however you wish. Zero need to do any bracketing for it then.

Mike, thanks for the suggestion but you say "in conversion" meaning post processing I assume. If so I would rather not do that. My intent is to do all the image settings possible within the camera so I don't have to do a bunch of post processing in Photoshop, or other programs. For example, the other night when I did the meteor shoot I didn't want star trails so I shot about every 30-60 seconds depending on the lens setting. I would never want to post process that many images, bet there were 500+, it's enough work just to wade through them to see what I might have missed. I believe my latest ZoomBrowser EX upgrade from Canon does have white balance included in batch processing, but I didn't like it. Reason, all one has to do is shift the camera about 45 degrees, especially at night and the white balance may drastically change. So I tend not to accept a blanket fix for the problem. Much of the reason for this is the difference in lighting temperature, incandescent, halogen and ambiant. That's why I feel, at least for me, this is best left as a "real time" camera function.

Also, when we have these discussions nothing I say is in concrete, it's just the best way I've found (so far) to approach these issues.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Well I was mostly commenting on the idea of doing brackets for white balance to get it and how that wasn't at all needed if using RAW. As for doing it in conversion to many files, I guess if I am shooting a scene like you mention that requires a ton of exposures...that I probably wouldn't have the need to mess with 99% of the shots anyway. If I'm shooting a scene that any camera movement throws the white balance off, I'd rather make the simple and fast adjustment after the fact, than slow myself down and perhaps miss things changing that white balance setting(at least if we are talking custom and not just one of the general setting options).

 

[Dick McGowan]

I always shoot in auto, especially at night, because all I have to do with Canon's zoombrowser, is right click the photo and hit "Process Raw Image." Then it gives me a variety of options, not just one that I selected before I shot it. For instance, auto at night in the city, it looks like this.......
Click to enlarge..



By adding tungsten, it sort of filters out the city lights and gives it a more realistic look to it....



Lightning.....auto....




Tungsten.....


I almost always use the auto, because it usually is pretty close to what I'm seeing anyways, so no need for me to screw it up by selecting just one. And processing a RAW image with Canon's software takes me about 20 seconds max on each, because it's simple to do, and gives me the results I want, before processing in photoshop. (Photoshops RAW processor throws colors off, so I never use it.)

 

[Gene Moore]

I always shoot in auto, especially at night, because all I have to do with Canon's zoombrowser, is right click the photo and hit "Process Raw Image." Then it gives me a variety of options, not just one that I selected before I shot it. For instance, auto at night in the city, it looks like this.......
I almost always use the auto, because it usually is pretty close to what I'm seeing anyways, so no need for me to screw it up by selecting just one. And processing a RAW image with Canon's software takes me about 20 seconds max on each, because it's simple to do, and gives me the results I want, before processing in photoshop. (Photoshops RAW processor throws colors off, so I never use it.)

Good advice, looking at the updated Zoombrowser I can pick and choose the RAW images I need to fix even in batch processing. That combined with suggestions on bracketing will help. And as Mike recommends, if it's an important shot then get it while you can. I'm certainly not going to nitpick color temperature on a tornado.

The "street scenes" Mike shot at night could be easily fixed within the camera real time though, especially with the street light adding light to see the camera controls. It's just a matter of choice and he prefers Photoshop. That said, some of the unusual lighting may be good... like in Mike's shots, it does add a unique "mood" to the scene. Also, one of the lightning examples you showed might be better left orange.

All this talk of shooting is making me storm hungry. The tropical storm that moved through here with only one tornado went to Oklahoma and kicked ass yesterday. I'm amazed at how long it held together as a surface circulation.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

When it comes to night and long exposures near cities, wouldn't you be considered "wrong" changing scenes away from the color of the city lights?

 

[Gene Moore]

When it comes to night and long exposures near cities, wouldn't you be considered "wrong" changing scenes away from the color of the city lights?

Well, the worst that could happen is the viewer would know the image was color shifted. It's a matter of taste, but I like to keep the lights natural if possible, be it white or blue. As for complete color shift, I think this is most common in astronomy photographs when all the stars are red. As for your shots, it appears even with the color cast that there is some latitude in color shift before the white lights turn orange. This cast doesn't look much different than the evening light we get after 5PM that shifts the cloud bases from very warm to brownish-orange. The act of adding a color cast to sunset images for example has been done for so long no one questions the practice. That said, most storm chasers wish to keep the image as natural as possible, it's sorta in the culture....but it may be more marketable with outrageous or unusual colors.

 

[Dick McGowan]

IMO, when capturing a 30 second exposure with city lights at night, your camera is capturing all of the light within that 30 second frame, and is absorbing more city light than necessary. Go outside tonight and look at what it looks like, then shoot a 30 second exposure, and you'll notice there is more "dirty" light than what you were seeing. That's one of the reason's I use tungsten, to sort of "filter" out the unnecessary city lights. They are still there, just not completely gone. Before digital, using tungsten film at night was big with photographers.

http://www.wireheadarts.com/blog6.html