Pinkish color

[Psyclop]

Can someone explain to me, why did I get that pinkish color in the second picture. At the time of those picture I did not realize the importance of white balance, I have to go back there
with a little more knowledge of white balance. when weather gets warmer, must be around
-35 to -40 celcius by that river in the morning.
Or was it just the different exposure ? the camera is a Pentax Kx with an 18-55 lens

55.0 mm \ 1/6 sec \ f 5.6 \ 800 iso \ wb aut

[wulf]

I suspect white balance is what you need to play with. In the UK, most streetlights give an orange glow but it looks like the ones in that location make everything pinky purple.

Try learning how to create a custom WB setting before you head back, as that will probably be the solution.

Wulf

[SwissJon]

Not sure how this translates into colour temperature in Photoshop, but in Lightroom I adjusted the Temperature to +47 and tint to -63 and got a reasonably good result. It's defintely your white balance.. Shoot in RAW and play with the white balance afterwards in Postprocessing, you'll get much better results.

I always recon that my quad core computer with photoshop does a much better job at converting RAW files than the titchy processor in the camera that has only a few settings. Especially since the computer has me making the choices, not some random presets set by some guy in a lab with a sodium light in Japan.

Vieuxmoulin-3.jpg

[Psyclop]

So it is white balance.
Thanks for the comment, and yes since about a week my camera is set to raw. I now have
to switch cs5, cs2 does not like raw.
I agree it can be easily fix in photoshop, but right now I want to get the best result with the camera with the least post proccesing.

[SwissJon]

Originally Posted by Psyclop

I agree it can be easily fix in photoshop, but right now I want to get the best result with the camera with the least post proccesing.

Shooting JPEG files in you camera works like this: You camera receives data on its sensor, this data is in RAW format (hence the name) which the camera then applies the whie balance to, converts to JPEG and saves it to your data card. You LOSE a lot of the data captured by the sensor, including any data that was present that got wiped by either the white balance filter or the conversion process.. You CANNOT get this data back. For example, in your picture, there might be a lot of detail hidden in the dark shadows that you could recover from the RAW file that is lost in the JPEG.

Shooting RAW works like this. Your camera receives data on its sensor. This data is in RAW format and then saved to the data card. You lose nothing that was was available to the camera at the time of shooting.

Therefore, it you want to get it right in your camera (we all do) you should be shooting RAW. Shooting JPEG is just like any other automated process (Speed, Aperture, focus and so on).. It's not nearly as good as doing the thing yourself because the camera doesn't understand what you're looking at, it just works with averages.

By all means grab some filters and put them in front of your lens.. That's exactly what people did before digital cameras, and it works very well at "getting it right in the box"..

I totally agree that the less post processing you have to do the better, but conversion to JPEG in the camera IS a form of post-processing, and not a very good one at that.

I shoot RAW+JPEG myself, on the basis that my wife is impatient to see the photos, otherwise I'd shoot RAW only (or rather ARW, since my camera is a Sony)

Your camera should have come with its own RAW conversion software, if you don't have it, download it from the Pentax website. use it to convert your file in TIFF format (Another lossless format) and open that in Photoshop.

[Psyclop]

Originally Posted by SwissJon

I shoot RAW+JPEG myself, on the basis that my wife is impatient to see the photos, otherwise I'd shoot RAW only (or rather ARW, since my camera is a Sony)

I've already started shooting raw, which was not the case when I took those pic. also I was wondering what was raw+Yes I do have the pentax software, right now because photoshopcs2 can't open raw file, I changed it in jpg file,to work in photoshop cs2 is it better in tiff ?

PS: YES I will accept, 1 cream 1 sugar please ty

[EOBeav]

Originally Posted by SwissJon

I always recon that my quad core computer with photoshop does a much better job at converting RAW files than the titchy processor in the camera that has only a few settings. Especially since the computer has me making the choices, not some random presets set by some guy in a lab with a sodium light in Japan.

Excellent!

[mwanafunzi]

If you are not satisfied with your current RAW converter, you can also try adobe camera raw. That way you dont have to worry about getting cs5.

[Preeb]

Originally Posted by mwanafunzi

If you are not satisfied with your current RAW converter, you can also try adobe camera raw. That way you dont have to worry about getting cs5.

Can also get PS Elements 9 which includes Camera Raw, and does a lot of the adjustments that cs5 can do, for a much smaller investment.