Can someone explain to me what the difference between these 2 pictures is?

[purbeast0]

so i just took these with my SL1.

the first picture i took in the sports mode.

the second picture i took in Av mode with ISO at like 3200 or something, f1.8.

there is no flash in either of them.

i'm just curious why the first picture actually looks to have better color. the second picture looks to have an orangish hue to it.

what are the settings and things i have to play around with to get my pictures in Av mode to have the colors of the first picture?

or am i totally off, and the second picture has "correct" colors?

 

[Spoooon]

I don't know, you were there, what did the colors look like? It maybe that you had auto white balance going and it just adjusted based on different things in each picture.

 

[purbeast0]

I don't know, you were there, what did the colors look like? It maybe that you had auto white balance going and it just adjusted based on different things in each picture.

okay so it's the white balance i would have to adjust to get rid of the orangish hue? that is kinda what i thought but wasn't sure and there are so many damn settings on this thing, still learning lol.

 

[Syborg1211]

Spoooon is right. Auto white balance is trying to figure out what is white in the photo and make it white, but it's not always right - just like every other automatic feature of the camera. This is why so many people on this forum advocate using as many manual settings as possible, but you're doing it the right way. Find the things that mess up and figure out why and how to overcome it.

You could have used manual white balance to set it right in camera, but the other option is to use RAW file capture. White balance is something that is decided after processing the raw data from the sensor. Since a raw file contains all the sensor data, the white balance can be adjusted on your computer to any color without any loss of data. A JPEG already has the white balance selected and dumps all the data it doesn't think it needs anymore.

 

[CuriousMike]

A couple of suggestions:
1. Download "Google Picasa", a free basic photo editor. It'll allow you to make modifications to the photo, including the aforementioned white-balance.
2. Your focus is off in both photos - you said you shot at f/1.8, which has a very very narrow range of what'll be in focus. Think 1" or less.
3. Learn how to use a focus mode other than auto - your camera will have a focus mode where YOU pick the focus spot, moving it around with your d-pad. You put the focus spot on the babies eye, and BINGO the baby will be in focus. In these shots, it's hard to say, but it looks like the forward edge of the baby-seat was the focus point.
4. Composition suggestion: Get down lower when taking this photo - the "shot from above" is a common composition "issue" when photographing pets and small babies. The photo will look more interesting if you're lower and closer.

 

[purbeast0]

A couple of suggestions:
1. Download "Google Picasa", a free basic photo editor. It'll allow you to make modifications to the photo, including the aforementioned white-balance.
2. Your focus is off in both photos - you said you shot at f/1.8, which has a very very narrow range of what'll be in focus. Think 1" or less.
3. Learn how to use a focus mode other than auto - your camera will have a focus mode where YOU pick the focus spot, moving it around with your d-pad. You put the focus spot on the babies eye, and BINGO the baby will be in focus. In these shots, it's hard to say, but it looks like the forward edge of the baby-seat was the focus point.
4. Composition suggestion: Get down lower when taking this photo - the "shot from above" is a common composition "issue" when photographing pets and small babies. The photo will look more interesting if you're lower and closer.

yeah the sports mode doesn't let you pick the focus spot, but the Av mode does. i wasn't really taking any specific care to get a really good picture and had the focus point in the center when taking it in Av mode, so yeah i know it's off a bit.

i've used the "auto white balance" thing on photoshop before which i'm guessing would correct the color issues in general?

i was playing around with the white balance options and wow, it kind of was hieroglyphics to me lol.

 

[Imp]

White balance was a big one when I started using manual mode. I always hated how colors would go from yellow to white when I was shooting the same thing over the course of a minute. Most of my photos are indoors so it's either tungsten or daylight -- not knowing what I'm doing, I use whatever looks right to me or how I want it. I'm using a mirrorless camera though, so the LCD preview might be different

Once you start screwing with white balance, may as well go full manual! I only started half a year ago and it's so easy and fun now.

 

[Syborg1211]

In a batch editing software like lightroom, setting your white balance to a set value in camera makes batch editing simple. Fix the white balance in one photo and then sync the settings to the rest of the photos by the touch of a button. If you're using auto WB, the white balance is slightly different from photo to photo so the batch editing software won't support that as easily because I believe it does it all relatively (like +1000K color temp across all instead of doing it absolutely like set all to 5500 color temp).

 

[blastingcap]

Spoooon is right. Auto white balance is trying to figure out what is white in the photo and make it white, but it's not always right - just like every other automatic feature of the camera. This is why so many people on this forum advocate using as many manual settings as possible, but you're doing it the right way. Find the things that mess up and figure out why and how to overcome it.

You could have used manual white balance to set it right in camera, but the other option is to use RAW file capture. White balance is something that is decided after processing the raw data from the sensor. Since a raw file contains all the sensor data, the white balance can be adjusted on your computer to any color without any loss of data. A JPEG already has the white balance selected and dumps all the data it doesn't think it needs anymore.

What Syborg said.

If you want to do it the lazy way, just shoot RAW everything. It won't always work if you don't have anything to match white with in the photo or if you have mixed lighting (e.g., flash AND artificial light source shining on the subject). But when it does, it's literally a 1-second fix in Lightroom to adjust white balance. To assist further, get a gray card or dome and have it in a test shot, then remove it for the duration of the shoot and just adjust WB via that test shot.

Manual WB if you want to actual spend time doing that.

 

[estarkey7]

What was your white balance set at in each? That seems to be the culprit to me.

 

[estarkey7]

What Syborg said.

If you want to do it the lazy way, just shoot RAW everything. It won't always work if you don't have anything to match white with in the photo or if you have mixed lighting (e.g., flash AND artificial light source shining on the subject). But when it does, it's literally a 1-second fix in Lightroom to adjust white balance. To assist further, get a gray card or dome and have it in a test shot, then remove it for the duration of the shoot and just adjust WB via that test shot.

Manual WB if you want to actual spend time doing that.

Amen to always shooting RAW! The only time I worry about white balance on my Panasonic GH4 is when I'm shooting video.