What is the difference between "wrong white balance" and color grading?

I'm not picking on this guy or trying to make a point about leaving analog colors untouched. But you can clearly see that him fixing the white balance of 800T ruined all the mood. On the other hand you can clearly see that picleft does not look like one of these insanely well colorgraded pics?

So what gives?

>>4417170 (OP)
There's no wrong or right way of doing it when it's your stuff, it's your own personal style
You should in theory do it right in photojournalism and product

>>4417170 (OP)
that doesn't even look like medium format

>>4417170 (OP)
looks better on the left

>>4417170 (OP)
>the mood
you mean the fake-nostalgia? kill yourself

>>4417170 (OP)
There's mixed light there, he fucked up by not acknowledging that. He seems to have applied a global white balance adjustment.

>>4417178
wdym nostalgia. Greenish/blueish color grading looks futuristic. Nostalgic color grading is warm tones

>>4417175
Equivalence is everything. You can have the so-called medium format look by shooting at equivalent settings on lesser formats as long as your optics allow it.

>>4417179
How can you tell? Genuine question. Teach me how sensei.

>>4417180
Her skin being greenish required an adjustment, the background did not.
>>4417182
Seems like he used some sort of flash, one dead giveaway is the column on the right edge. On the left you get what's likely its natural color, on the right a blueish mess. Cinestill is supposed to give you a blue shift when not under tungsten but trying to fix the green on her he applied the same correction across the frame. A more pictorialist approach helps here, grading different areas differently. Even split toning would be an improvement. Or shooting the flash with a warm filter. Look at Michael Mann's Thief to get an idea of how it's done right. There's greens everywhere from the fluorescent lighting but the talent always has a natural tone.

>>4417180
i mean filmfags love to masturbate over shit, uncorrected colors

>>4417179
>>4417184
dunning kruger as fuck. no flash was used here, it's just the fluorescent tubes.

>>4417170 (OP)
cinestill is vision 3 which means its literally film that was specifically fucking designed to be scanned and then color graded. all cinestill films, all vision 3 kodak films and all of kodak's professional line filmstocks were specifically designed to be scanned into a computer and edited with some form of editing program

>>4417175
>no muh bokeh
there are a lot of slow medium format lenses

>>4417180
the uncorrected greenish blue colors looks like movies from the late 90s early 2000s like the matrix or the ring

>>4417170 (OP)
White balance can be a part of color grading, but color grading can involve much more
White balance is literally how do your whites render

>>4417181
>Equivalence is everything
This stance basically sums up why you're /p/'s biggest basedlord

>>4417198
It doesn't look like the Matrix. It looks like incorrect whitebalance of analog film. Incorrect whitebalance != good color grading

>>4417181
Equivalence is meaningless

>>4417175
At that size the difference is sharpness, tonality, and grain is erased
>35mm vs 645 with 2x2 prints test GO
It actually looks like digital rather than film.

Dont use real photography kit if you arent a real photographer. If you only care how things look on social media and phones, you’re not a real photographer because you’re not marketing to real people and might not be a reap person yourself. Sorry.

>>4417172
>You should in theory do it right in photojournalism and product
Reminds me how the local jew-media showed photos from refugee camps where they had toned down the colors a lot making it seem more depressing than it really was.
Personally I think we should aim for reality or as close to it as possible.

>>4417184
>Her skin being greenish required an adjustment,
Or the use of a Sony camera.

>>4417172
This is true, but also I agree with OP, I think it looks worse after the edit

>>4417194
No flash is used at full power yet you can see the flash reflection on the column

>>4417201
No, it's what you render as white (neutral) and alters every other color.

>>4417211
Or the capitol fire in January 6

>>4417209
I didn't sat it was a correct white balance. I was saying why people would think it is nostalgic

>>4417222
tripfag retard doubling down, as usual.

>>4417225
Yes, you choose how the whites render, and that affects everything out
That's why it's called white balance, and not alter every other color balance

>>4417170 (OP)
when you shoot film under fluorescent light magneta filter cc10m or cc20m should be used.

>>4417283
to prevent greenish cast

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution100 dpiVertical Resolution100 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width952Image Height500Scene Capture TypeStandard

>>4417170 (OP)
fixed

>>4417283
>>4417284
For neutral colors yes, but it ruins the look if the fluorescent aesthetic is what you seek. Look up Thief cinematography on your favorite search engine. All the colors of the night, without green skin. Warmed up flash would achieve that.
People ought to stop treating film as a canned look and learn to work with it.

>>4417292
Kek, a bit overdone with the full swap but almost better than what the original guy did. Blending both a bit would probably work best, he overshot the warm tones.

>>4417197
It's not the DOF it just looks like dogshit quality with too course grain

>>4417210
>you're not a real photographer if-
Pseud

>>4417170 (OP)
>What is the difference between "wrong white balance" and colour grading?
Colour grading is just adding a colour cast to specific tones. Most people just do it by choosing one colour for highlights, one for midtones, and one for shadows, but those three are arbitrary and you can to it do any section of a tone curve so long as your software supports it. That's just the easiest way of doing it in lightroom so that's what most people go with. You also don't need to add a cast to all sections of your tone curve if you don't want to. Wrong white balance changes the temp of your whole image, not just tonal sections. So this limits you to only making your colours warmer or colder, rather than adding a cast like in colour grading. It also applies to the whole image automatically, rather than just sections, unless you mask it I guess. Generally making your white balance off on purpose looks ugly, but then so does colour grading.

>>4417304
you're not even a real person if your "works" only "matter" on social media... you literally do not exist, and might as well be an AI bot. only real person to person connections that occur outside of the internet actually matter. not a real person definitely means not a real photographer because you wouldn't be a real anything.

>>4417170 (OP)
"wrong white balance" is step one of "color grading"
step two is a broad color transform to stylize the image, usually to limit the overall palette to a few colors

in the end it doesnt matter what you do with color as long as it's not grossly unnatural (like un-graded panasonic/sony/fuji/vision3 is) because subject is king and if your best model is uggo your photo is automatically shit to everyone but you, them, and their mother

>>4417211
Velvia in New York or other big urban cities when it reality they look soulless
>>4417217
I vastly enjoy the one of the right but mostly because i like blacks being crushed

>>4417304
>I'm a photographer, get over it

>>4417311


>>4375672
so you're just some asshole.

>>4417543
>but mostly because i like blacks being crushed
Jesus christ anon, they are humans too

>>4417180
The nostalgia aspect isn't only related to colours but mostly tones, it's the diminished contrast by not having deep blacks or bright whites. Add any random colour cast and you have your average nostalgia pleb filter.

>>4417170 (OP)
problem is that is a shitty subject in a shitty location, thus anything left to discuss about is how much blacks are capped or not...shitty photo and garbage exercise desu imho

>>4421086
Wrong.

>>4421776
keks were heard

>>4417209
>It doesn't look like the Matrix.

as for me, the blue tint of that film just werks

>>4417170 (OP)
To my hobbyist eyes looks like the edit is just "Remove green cast from tubes, which is fine and then add too much saturation, which is not."

>>4417198
>late 90s early 2000s movies had uncorrected greenish blue colors
but that's wrong you fucking retard

>>4417196
This. Every other reply is peak brainlet itt.

>>4421781
The Matrix didn't look like that.

>>4424824
Dangerously retarded and yet bold take.

>>4424880
They changed the color grading for the DVD release. It didn't originally have that green tint.

>>4424883
>Okay it did look like that but only if you watch it on a TV instead of looking at the film reel through a microscope

>>4417283
Don't some films have specific layers to deal with color casts from fluorescent lighting? IIRC Superia does (or used to).

>>4417283
>>4417170 (OP)
since cinestill is tungsten balanced he could have used an FL-W filter, right?

>>4417170 (OP)


THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU ARE PARTING FROM A FALLACIOUS PREMISE: «MOOD» IS NOT A TECHNICAL FACTOR, NOR AN ARTISTIC ONE; YOU SUFFER FROM Z00MER BRAINROT.

>>4427948
Did you get lost on the way to >>>/bant/ bro?
Chill the fuck out.

But uhhh, yeah this guy is right.

>>4417170 (OP)
Unpopular opinion but the raw 500T look or the "Twilight-Look" go hard. Especially in a collage/set of 4+ photo.

Fuck whatever nerds call "correct".

>>4417170 (OP)
>shoot film
>Remove all filmic quality and make it look like a modern photo
what was the point?

>>4417170 (OP)
white balance cannot adjust hue ranges separately, but a good base white balance does matter

color grading is more micromanagement

>>4424883
majority of posters didn't see the matrix in a theater on a film projector, not relevant

>>4437742
weird. Not saying above poster is wrong, but I distinctly remember seeing The Matrix at the drive in theater when I was a little kid. (That shit fucked me up seeing it at that age).
I vividly remember there being distinct colors for when they were in the matrix or in the real world.
I then remember seeing it on DVD later and thinking of it was TOO green and greener than I remembered it being.
Either 1) my brain retroactively changed the memory to make it line up with expectations, or 2) there was consideration of color in the theatrical release in set/costume design/lighting/etc, but they pushed the color even further in the DVD release, or 3) I actually saw The Matrix at a later date then its original theatrical release once they've changed the colors.