Night airport lighting/color balance philosophy?

[Darren Howie]

G'day guys
I havn't seen this as much of a problem due to the more open minded screening here but it does raise a few issues such as digitally altering photographs for websites.
A quick look at the a.net form yesterday showed some great shots that were rejected for having not adjusted the image for being taken under the mercury/sodium lamps at Singapore.
Raises a pretty big issue in my mind on digitally altering of light in photographs.
In my mind color balance adjustments should be being done so that your finished photo represents the light conditions the photo was taken under.
Not to adjust them so that the aircraft would look as it should under a natural white light.
IE Correcting out the yellow cast of sodium airport lights is clearly "digitally altering" a photograph away from the conditions under which it was taken.
Color balance i there to allow for abberations in the taking of the photo and not to alter the conditions under which the photo was taken.
IE after color correction you should have an image that reflects what the human eye would see at the stime the photo was taken.
The airport lights ceate there own distinct environment that are a part of airports around the world and they should be part of our photography as well.
What do yo guys think is correcting out the yellow these lights produce a digital alteration and hence should not be happening?
Idea's anyone?
Take care
Darren Howie

[JeffinDEN]

What does your eye see? Yellow or white?

If done properly with film, you would use the right film and filter for the type of light you were shooting under. Altering the image before it was taken.

This is no different with digital, it's just done with white balance and digital filters. I for one am tired of yellow planes.

[Glenn]

I agree with Jeff.

This bullshit about capturing an image that is not real is taken way to far sometimes.
Those that complain that the colours aren't right are often the first to applaud the compression effect of a telephoto lense. certainly, never heard one complain about it.
(50mm side on shooters exempted from said comment, as they can't think laterally)

[JeffinDEN]

Those that complain that the colours aren't right are often the first to applaud the compression effect of a telephoto lense. certainly, never heard one complain about it.

Excellent ! Forgot about that, but I do like the compression effect of a long lens!

[Darren Howie]

G'day guys
But why would a photo be rejected then for capturing a photo in its natural environment with the correct yellow lighting?.
In this situation the photo is rejected for being an accurate representation of what it looks like in its real environment if you know what i mean.
I am happy for people to do whatever they like but when the dudes over the road reject a photo which is accurate per the lighting conditions he is being asked to alter the photo digitally away from its true environment.
What your eye see's is what the camera should see but for various reasons doesn't.
Thats why we use white balance adjustment as you know.
To correct it back to the way it should be seen via the eye.
I am happy for guys to correct away the yellow lighting but it is clearly a digital alteration of the photo.
Agree?

[JeffinDEN]

No, I don't. When I used to shoot film, I had to buy film that matched the light, or put a filter on the lens to make white, white. Not yellow, or green.

In the example I "corrected" for that guy at A.net, I was just answering his question on ways to do it. The program is variable, and his image was extremely yellow.

[Darren Howie]

G'day Jeff
I know what you mean buy using appropriate equipment etc to overcome the problem(if it is a problem) of the yellow light ie filters etc.
My real question then i guess is how can we tell people not to remove tree's and poles etc from a photo if its ok to completely adjust the lighting to create a photograph which is nothing like the original scene.
As i said i am cool with people going whichever way they like but for a screener to reject a photo based on the fact the original light was NOT corrected away(ie to create a fictional photo) has me amazed.
One of the pics of a 777 was simply a great high quality photo with from my viewpoint spot on in the lighting dept in terms of how it really looks at the airport.
Digital creativity is a pretty wonderful thing but just where is the boundary lie?

[JeffinDEN]

My real question then i guess is how can we tell people not to remove tree's and poles etc from a photo if its ok to completely adjust the lighting to create a photograph which is nothing like the original scene.

why do you continue to say it's not the original scene? I don't see yellow planes, not perfectly white, but never like the majority of stuff we see on these sites..

how can we tell people not to remove tree's and poles etc from a photo .

I remove junk like that all the time. I'm the photographer, it is my work, no one else tells me what to include or remove.

Simple.

[LX-A343]

Good question here. I was on a night tour last saturday. During postprecessing, I simply didn't know what to do, so I uploaded two pics in different settings, one with more yellowish light, another with more blueish colors:
[photoid=203421] [photoid=203837]

Which one is better, colorwise? To be honest: I don't know.

Regards
Gerardo

[Skymonster]

You know what, if you actually changed the color balance settings on your camera before you shot the pictures, you wouldn't have to do so much correction in photoshop. The human brain doesn't "see" as much yellow in those night shots as is seen in the results because it automatically applies compensation - when you see a white aeroplane at night, your brain tells you its white even though you actually see yellow. The only problem the brain has is when there's actually a yellow airplane under yellow light (like the new DHL colors). When I shot slides at night using daylight balanced film, I used to use a filter to correct the cast. There's no difference correcting a digital image, either pre- or post-processing.

We all know an airplane's white, so why not exhibit it as white? In practical terms, I think a limited cast is OK but some of the very heavy casts look horrible.

Andy

[JeffinDEN]

Thank God Andy! Someone is getting my drift... :P

[Darren Howie]

G'day
"why do you continue to say it's not the original scene? I don't see yellow planes, not perfectly white, but never like the majority of stuff we see on these sites.. "
Jeff i don't know what airports your hanging and what lighting they have around but the airport i work at and fly aircraft out of every day it is not only yellow but very yellow.
In fact the guys 777 pic from Singapore was pretty close to reality compared to the lights we have at Sydney.
As Skymonster said we all know an aircraft is white.
Very true but if viewed under yellow light its yellow!
My original point still stands and that is why should the original photo be rejected when it is a pic of the original conditions and is a very accurate reflection of such?
IE This photo would be rejected out of hand as the Dash in it is not white.

Disregarding the fact that the pic is a little soft as i was handholding on a concrete pillar for a 6 sec exposure it represents what i could "SEE" with my own eye's at that point in time.
Given that yes i can use filters etc to remove the yellow light but it is my choice not to.
I prefer to have photo at least resenble the coditions under which it was taken.
My point here as all along is why would it be rejected for having a yellow cast when that represents the conditons that were present when the photo was taken.
I really don't care if the screener doesn't like yellow airoplanes thats his/her problem.
You clearly should have the choice to either filter/adjust or not as Gerado said and not being railroaded by screeners personal preference's.
And both should be as acceptable as the other.
As for long lenses i am sorry but that is what they see.You are not post processing in the long lens effect it comes at the expense of using the equipment.
I don't think there's a plug in yet for PS which allows you to add the 800mm compression effect!!
Anyway its certainly an interesting discussion!!
Hope everyone has a great New Year.
Take care

Darren

[LX-A343]

Interesting shot, Darren. I wouldn't like the idea, that this one only can be accepted, if the colors are corrected in an unnatural way.

In my shots above, to be honest, I don't remember, how the light conditions really were. My camera saw the scenery more yellowish/redish. The aircraft was definitely not white, that's for sure.

However, happy new year to everybody!!

Gerardo

[Skymonster]

IE This photo would be rejected out of hand as the Dash in it is not white.

Where would that photo be rejected for a colour cast? Not sure about here, but I doubt it'd be rejected here for colour. And not at the other site either - check out their "night" section and you'll see plenty yellower than that. Its true that there's a trend towards night white balance correction, and its something I like to see. Please do consider that a daylight film, or a digital set with the incorrect colour balance, will actually produce colour errors that you don't see at night, simply because of the way they're specified and set up - a daylight film used at night WILL NOT produce the same effects as you actually see but some further colour errors will be introduced. But like I said earlier, in my own personal opinion a limited cast looks OK but some of the real heavy casts look horrible.

Andy

[FlyingPhotog]

I'm not against adjusting the lighting of a photo. First it's not always easy to do without messing up the contrast levels. Second if you're adjusting it to how you remember seeing it, that's just being honest. If I have a pic that comes out hazy I will try to eliminate it. I don't see it wrong to try and achieve the utmost clarity.