White Balance - Why bother?

Question

White balance was the least of my worries. I worked it out "okay" with levels and saturation and came up with this result for a promotional shot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/2095012002/
Here's what ran in the paper over the copy: http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/2095011822/

I tried to show as much of the diversity of this exhibit as possible in one frame. You can expect the image to be cropped to suit column width, but it would be nice if it was cropped level. Talk about white balance issues? This barely looks like the same picture. It doesn't help that the page were printed so far off index that it looks like you need those 3-D glasses to view it! I'm glad I don't do this for a living...

DRAAGON, this is indeed a "nothing special" shot. It was simply to accompany a press release about a gallery opening that features various works of arts and crafts for sale. I wanted to show a diverse sample of what will be available. The accompanying text was more important than the photo itself. It couldn't be "too creative" or it would have defeated the purpose. Although, the rendition that was published is kind of abstract by comparison to my original...

Ace Man, I use AWB outdoors most of the time and it's fine. As far as workflow, I agree. That's why I asked about a good approach for mixing these three different types of light. I have a filter to match my SB-800 to the fluorescent overheads, so I will try that next month. I'll set the WB to fluorescent and hope that it is sufficient to override the halogen flood lights.

Vienna, if I don't convert this sheet to energy, my parrot will utilize it for a suitable purpose.

Vance, I usually send them two versions of any photos of this nature: one column and two column widths. I was feeling kind of certain that this would merit two columns and I should have stuck to my usual course of action and sent two versions. I would have cropped it pretty much the same for the one column version, though, except for the out-of-level thing.

Piano Man, maybe it's me who is wrong in the definition of "index." I certainly know the term "registration" or "off register" in a print. I picked up "off index" from my sister, the graphic artist, but maybe her use of the term is purely her own or colloquial. Sorry.

AGK and all who mentioned this, I have to accept that a newspaper print is not held to the same standards as pretty much anything else in the publishing business. There may have been only 1,000 copies printed off register and 20,000 that were just fine.

Also to all who are explaining the importance of WB to me. Thank you for your concern. This question was actually rhetorical and just a way for me to vent some frustration. I agree that you always have to submit your best and then hope for the best!

Answer 1

You can shoot a great picture and make it look perfect on your computer screen, and easily end up with that same newspaper look every time, depending on several factors:

Pre-press -
Depending on who preps the photos for the print version of the paper, your photo might get three seconds of work or three minutes. It probably needs something in between those two, just so it reproduces correctly in the CMYK process. That perfectly white-balanced, perfectly saturated shot you sent them? It could be half a stop-1.5 stops underexposed compared to ideal reproduction level, and the saturation could cause the cyan, magenta or yellow inks to oversaturate when the press starts running.

Layout -
You're at the mercy of whoever's laying out the section or page or entire paper; no matter what you do, they have the ultimate say in everything. If your photo has a dominant element, it's harder for a seemingly random crop like that to happen, but even then, you can't count on it. Newspaper design usually focuses on building around a centerpiece, and if your photo isn't that piece, it could be expendable.

Press -
Chances are, the machine actually responsible for the final product isn't brand-new, is probably overtaxed and isn't just printing the paper, and has to be checked and re-checked and reset and occasionally jerry-rigged to make sure it's getting something close to ideal reproduction. Even still, the papers from the start of the run and end of the run can be drastically different as the press gets up to and down from speed.

And that's just the major stuff.

Answer 2

Welcome to the wonderful world of photojournalism.

Why white balance? Your work needs to be clean and as high a quality as possible. Believe it or not, at least for the publications I work for, a bad image will get rejected and if you habitually turn in bad to mediocre quality images they hire someone else. That they will turn your pictures into into cr_p later isn't something you can control.

Here's a trick if you are going to do this again (and it can be a lot of fun shooting for local papers): Shoot and compose to the shape the publication will publish it in. This holds for newspapers, magazines and other publications. I may not be sure which image an editor will pick to use, but it is very rare that any of my images are ever cropped more than slightly cropped. I don't mind getting credited with a shot that's badly printed but otherwise good. Viewers sort that out themselves very well. What I hate is getting blamed for ham fisted cropping. Shooting very 'tightly' produces an image that won't take much cropping and doesn't need it.

If someone didn't explain it to you beforehand, nice perception on the role the image is to play and what you have to shoot to.

Vance

Answer 3

God! It looks like they tried to get heat energy from your photo before publishing it. As some people have stated, the original picture wasn't anything special but it was a good picture. After they had a go at it, it was most certainly special, it was especially crap. You would think the person incharge would atleast that the picture was properly cropped and that the tree was in the centre.

Answer 4

It would depend on the purpose of the photograph. I have to agree with photoace that for a photo I intended to sell, all those would bother me. But for a photo for my own personal use-like snapshots of my daughter, I think the blurriness would bother me the most because the others can be adjusted to my own acceptance in editing. But there isn't much you can do with a pic where the subject is out of focus.

Answer 5

The registration is out on that print. So much so that it shouldn't have even left the pressroom. Thought I'd point that out :-)

edit: HAHA Antoni is trying to convince himself he's being stalked! Hahahahahahaha

... don't mind me, carry on.

edit: oops I just read the rest of your question and you already mentioned the registration (which I have now learned American's call index???)

Answer 6

Dr Sam where is the bird? Where is the snow. I dont see much white in the pictures. Some is white with yellow on it.
If you are saying the paper made your picture look bad then I answer yes they did.

Answer 7

I suggest you get the maximum benefit out of that tear sheet by converting it to heat energy.

:0)

Answer 8

Dr due to a y/a stalker I will answer you in email, flickr

EDIT: its done

a

Answer 9

Eeeek!
A total disaster.
The original was nothing special (for me) but the repro was abysmal. Such a pity that your name was attached - major disaster!