Fluorescent or Halogen? Help Needed.

[JonathanRyan]

Whole bunch of random stuff......

1. "What colour space have you got your camera set to?" - you can tell from the file name it's 1998 (if you'e a Nikon nerd). Somebody techie will say whether that's a good idea or not. For posting to the web it's generally bad. Consider flipping your camera to "Mode I" (it's in the manual)

2. "The exposure compensation is set to +5" - that shouldn't make any difference. You might want to set it to zero to avoid confusion.

3. "At the moment, I'm not using any reflectors." - you know they sell these in the pound shop? This time of year you can get extra wide reflectors intended for turkey....

4. "Not to worry about the clips, I've attached it firmly with corsage magnets." I knew there had to be another use for them

But mostly....right now people are suggesting ways to "improve" the picture without knowing what you want it to look like. Some suggestions will increase shadows and some decrease them. Both are good but I bet you don't want both. Is there something on the web you are trying to emulate?

 

[arad85]

1. "What colour space have you got your camera set to?" - you can tell from the file name it's 1998 (if you'e a Nikon nerd). Somebody techie will say whether that's a good idea or not. For posting to the web it's generally bad. Consider flipping your camera to "Mode I" (it's in the manual)

How from the filename? Or do you mean from the EXIF

Looking at the EXIF data, I think you're right, but it's not obvious:

Color Space                     : Uncalibrated
Interoperability Index          : R03 - DCF option file (Adobe RGB)
Interoperability Version        : 0100

This is what it looks like converted to sRGB (if I've done it correctly)

This may or may not look different in your browser - depends on what is in the file and whether your browser is colour managed. It looks WAY better in mine.

But mostly....right now people are suggesting ways to "improve" the picture without knowing what you want it to look like. Some suggestions will increase shadows and some decrease them. Both are good but I bet you don't want both. Is there something on the web you are trying to emulate?

Good point. Well made

 

[arad85]

At the moment, I'm not using any reflectors.

Actually, you are. The back and side wall

 

[JonathanRyan]

No. The actual file name.

Nikons start filenames with an underscore to show they are in 1998. So DSC_1234.jpg is in sRGB _DSC1234.jpg is 1998.

Looks the same in my browser because I'm using Safari

 

[arad85]

Nikons start filenames with an underscore to show they are in 1998. So DSC_1234.jpg is in sRGB _DSC1234.jpg is 1998.

Oh cool. Will have to remember that.

Looks the same in my browser because I'm using Safari

Important point though. Not all browsers are colour managed. This is what it looks like in a non-managed browser (again, if I've done it correctly) Edit: yup, done correctly as far as I can tell... This should look washed out compared to the others...

 

[Garry Edwards]

This is all very interesting - I can't believe the thread count

Yes, I meant that the beauty dish PROBABLY needs to go lower. Not low enough for any light from it to accidentally catch the base, but the honeycomb makes it easy to control that - but I could be wrong, you need to experiment.

How far away? As far as you can. The way that the inverse square law works, the further away the light is, the less the light falls off over the distance of one side of the subject to the other. Also, the further it travels, the harder the light becomes. If 'as far as you can' ends up with the lighting too hard then you may need to experiment. In fact, you need to experiment anyway, small changes make big differences.

All the other points that I was going to make - the unwanted reflector in the corner, the effect of having a separate reflector and how to make it more or less effective by making the light travel further or not so far (which makes a massive difference) and the question of 'what is actually good or bad' (what you want to achieve) have all been covered very well by other people - andy was in exactly the same position as you just a few weeks ago and is now getting to grips with light - and his subjects are more difficult than yours!

 

[silkblooms]

Well, I've been experimenting all day and as you say it's all about the objective. What I'd like to achieve. I've moved the beauty dish dozens of times, subtle angle changes and height adjustments and I'm definitely getting a lot closer to what I'd perceive as perfection.

Andy, I get your point about the colour profiles and monitor calibrations but we have eight or nine PC's here and the colour on all of them is accurate to what's on screen. I don't think this is the problem, it's a lighting problem which we're slowly but surely improving. Take a look at these:

The bouquet above is much nicer to photograph and the shadows are really nice. The colours are precise too.

The other bouquet I've been using is much harder to photograph as the colours are wintery and dark and moody, but the same settings are still an improvement:

The trouble seems to be that different bouquets with different textures and different colours require different settings and tweaks. In an ideal world I'd like to find one setting that's universal for all of our products so there's no messing around when we need to churn out a few hundred shots.

Definitely getting there though. The beauty dish seems to cast nicer shadows when it's up high and pointing down. Moving it as far from the subject as possible makes the shadows disipate completely but I seem to have found a setting that's casting 'some' shadows. The beauty dish is not pointede directly at the subject, it's pointed about 30 degrees skimming past the side of the flowers.

I don't feel the images are professional quality yet. I can't quite put my finger on it though. It's as though the shadows are a bit light. Maybe they need to be a touch darker but I don't know how to achieve this.

Put it this way though. The photos I'm getting just now with the settings as they are make a huge difference to what we were getting before. Some of the shots look like they've been taken on a summers day! I'm very happy with the progress but welcome any suggestions on how to improve still further

I'm finding that f14 at ISO 100 with shutter speed 1/100th is working best. Beauty dish flash on full power, overhead flash on 1/4 power.

Not sure if too much light is bouncing back off the walls?

I'm thinking of just buying a proper shooting table but I'm not sure if this will be wide enough for our table displays and long-low arrangemetns. I've never used one but I see from the product photos that it has a curved back and no side upstands. How do these work? Does the angle of the back adjust? What if you have 'long' products that are wider than the 'width' of the table?

 

[Garry Edwards]

The trouble seems to be that different bouquets with different textures and different colours require different settings and tweaks. In an ideal world I'd like to find one setting that's universal for all of our products so there's no messing around when we need to churn out a few hundred shots.

Short of having several different setups for different variations of subject, that just isn't going to happen. What you need to do is to work on a batch production basis, e.g. shoot all of your type A products, first, then tweak to shoot type B etc.

The beauty dish seems to cast nicer shadows when it's up high and pointing down.

I'm slightly surprised at that, but if it works for you...

Moving it as far from the subject as possible makes the shadows disipate completely

This indicates that you've run out of power. Beauty dishes (or anything else) fitted with honeycombs get through a lot of power.

The beauty dish is not pointede directly at the subject, it's pointed about 30 degrees skimming past the side of the flowers.

That doesn't surprise me at all, that's normal usage in this type of situation, and why I helped you to spend your money on a beauty dish in the first place - it's the only tool I know of that can do that really well.

Not sure if too much light is bouncing back off the walls?

Any amount of light bouncing back from the walls is too much. Yes, I'm a control freak, but control is what lighting is all about

I'm thinking of just buying a proper shooting table but I'm not sure if this will be wide enough for our table displays and long-low arrangemetns.

You don't need one, so don't buy one. If you really insist on getting one you'll need a pretty big one. The Lencarta product shooting table I use has a width of 1 metre. In theory, that may be just enough for your needs but in fact I don't think it will be, because of perspective distortion. Yes, the back is adjustable for angle, but even so, don't buy it for this job.

and no side upstands

. If it did have bits at the side it would be yet another revolting light tent - which is what I've spent the last couple of weeks trying to wean you away from.

 

[silkblooms]

That all makes sense. Do you think I'd benefit from a more powerful flash head for the beauty dish? It's a 500W that's in there just now.

Meant to say, the best images come when the deflector is removed from the equation. When the deflector is covering the bulb, the results are much darker and the shadows are less visible.

I'll try some more settings tomorrow. I'll try the deflector back over the bulb again but I think maybe I need a much more powerful flash head. What sort of Wattage do the Elinchroms go up to?

 

[Garry Edwards]

That all makes sense. Do you think I'd benefit from a more powerful flash head for the beauty dish? It's a 500W that's in there just now.

Well, if you increase the ISO from 100 to 200 you'll effectively have 1000 Ws instead of 500Ws...
The real problem is the lack of power adjustment on those heads, not the lack of power per se You may need to add another layer of ND gel to the softbox light.

Meant to say, the best images come when the deflector is removed from the equation. When the deflector is covering the bulb, the results are much darker and the shadows are less visible.

Are you using that plug in Elinchrom diffuser with the beauty dish? If so, don't the beauty dish has its own deflector and it doesn't need two. In fact, with the honeycomb fitted and for your particular application, it may not even need the one supplied.

What sort of Wattage do the Elinchroms go up to?

Don't know, but I used to have a 6000Ws pack... But you don't need more power so don't worry about it.

 

[silkblooms]

Ahhhhhhh, so that explains why everything was totally burned out when I went back to try the D70. That doesn't go to ISO 100.

The D70's always given us much better colours than the D300. I've never been able to fault the D70's colour settings but the D300 has far too many settings that affect saturation and 'vividness'. If I could revert back to the D70 then I'd definitely do that.

So basically I just need to put the camera on ISO 200, move the beauty dish back to twice the distance it's at now, then add another layer of .9ND gel to the softbox?

The D300 goes from ISO 100 to ISO 125, ISO 150, ISO 175.... I'll probably try ISO 125 tomorrow.

 

[arad85]

Andy, I get your point about the colour profiles and monitor calibrations but we have eight or nine PC's here and the colour on all of them is accurate to what's on screen. I don't think this is the problem, it's a lighting problem which we're slowly but surely improving. Take a look at these:

Your problem is definitely about using the wrong colour space. Some web browsers are not colour managed - they make your photos look washed out. Just download chrome (you don't need to use it as your main browser) and view this thread and you'll see what I mean. You may say that it's a browser problem (and you'd be right) but that doesn't mean 20% (and growing) of your customers would be seeing a washed out picture. You need to save as sRGB - again, the image you posted of the pink roses is washed out.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Ahhhhhhh, so that explains why everything was totally burned out when I went back to try the D70. That doesn't go to ISO 100.

The D70's always given us much better colours than the D300. I've never been able to fault the D70's colour settings but the D300 has far too many settings that affect saturation and 'vividness'. If I could revert back to the D70 then I'd definitely do that.

So basically I just need to put the camera on ISO 200, move the beauty dish back to twice the distance it's at now, then add another layer of .9ND gel to the softbox?

I can't help you with the settings for the D300. I've only got the D3 and the D700 myself, and don't know the D300 well. But I'm pretty sure that it's better than the D70s and well worth persevering with. I'm sure that there are people on here who can advise you on this...

So basically I just need to put the camera on ISO 200, move the beauty dish back to twice the distance it's at now, then add another layer of .9ND gel to the softbox?

The way the inverse square law works, if you double the distance you'll only get a quarter of the effective power (because, in theory at least, the light will cover 4x the area) - but you're on the right track.

The D300 goes from ISO 100 to ISO 125, ISO 150, ISO 175.... I'll probably try ISO 125 tomorrow.

That difference isn't worth trying.

 

[arad85]

PS. the Scottish flowers are a bit subdued as well. You may not see it on your system, but it is washed out and it's because of the colour space you are using. I'd suggest what Jonathan has said:

Consider flipping your camera to "Mode I"

 

[silkblooms]

Looking at the image in Chrome, Firefox and Adobe Photoshop and it looks the same in all of them. I'm on my laptop just now but I'm sure it'd be the same on our 24" monitors as well. Will check tomorrow though.

When we batch process our images in Photoshop for optimal web performance, the batch file always saves them as sRGB. The images I've uploaded are just straight off the camera so you can see the MetaData.

They look the same in all browsers from this end though.

I don't think I have enough 0.9ND gel to layer the softbox again. Not fully. So, I've ordered more and I'll go to ISO 200 so I can move the beauty dish back one and a quarter times the distance it's at now (inverse square law)?

 

[silkblooms]

PS. the Scottish flowers are a bit subdued as well. You may not see it on your system, but it is washed out and it's because of the colour space you are using. I'd suggest what Jonathan has said:

What is 'Mode I'?

 

[silkblooms]

Ahhh ok, I remember reading about Mode 1 when I first got the camera but couldn't figure out how to set Mode 1 on the D300 back then. I've Googled it again and still can't seem to figure it out. I think you're onto something though.

 

[silkblooms]

Alright, I remember this now.....

http://nikonimglib.com/opc/manual/en/opc_win_en_ABF.html

Last time I tried to get the D2X mode 1, 2 and 3 onto the D300 it somehow put a new picture contol called Vivid+ (or something like that - don't have camera here). I was expecting it to put D2X picture controls on there but it didn't. I'll look into this much more thoroughly tomorrow.

 

[arad85]

Looking at the image in Chrome, Firefox and Adobe Photoshop and it looks the same in all of them. I'm on my laptop just now but I'm sure it'd be the same on our 24" monitors as well. Will check tomorrow though.

It's not here. It's subtle, but definitely washed out...

When we batch process our images in Photoshop for optimal web performance, the batch file always saves them as sRGB. The images I've uploaded are just straight off the camera so you can see the MetaData.

That's probably OK then - if they're saved as sRGB you should be fine...

I don't think I have enough 0.9ND gel to layer the softbox again. Not fully. So, I've ordered more and I'll go to ISO 200 so I can move the beauty dish back one and a quarter times the distance it's at now (inverse square law)?

If you put another 0.9ND on, that's another 3 stops... That's the equivalent of going from ISO 100 to ISO 800. Or doubling the distance 3x so 2x2x2 - i.e. 8x the distance. You will have to turn the power up to 100% (from 1/4) and move it to 1/2 the distance to maintain the same exposure...

The confusing thing is the log scale used by some for ND filters! 1 stop is 0.3, 2 stops is 0.6 etc.. and a 3ND filter is actually 10 stops and allows ~0.1% of the light through!! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_density_filter#ND_filter_types

Ahhh ok, I remember reading about Mode 1 when I first got the camera but couldn't figure out how to set Mode 1 on the D300 back then. I've Googled it again and still can't seem to figure it out. I think you're onto something though.

Yup... You want to get you camera into sRGB... Mode 1/Mode I sounds like it will do that for you from what Jonathan has said. I'm a Canon man so know nothing about Nikon...

 

[Garry Edwards]

If you put another 0.9ND on, that's another 3 stops... That's the equivalent of going from ISO 100 to ISO 800. Or doubling the distance 3x so 2x2x2 - i.e. 8x the distance. You will have to turn the power up to 100% (from 1/4) and move it to 1/2 the distance to maintain the same exposure...

That's right. You need a 0.3, not a 0.9. Or you could try just raising the softbox a bit, although doing that will also create a harder light and more clearly defined shadows under the subject - but worth trying.

Yup... You want to get you camera into sRGB... Mode 1/Mode I sounds like it will do that for you from what Jonathan has said. I'm a Canon man so know nothing about photographyNikon...

 

[arad85]

There's always one...

 

[Garry Edwards]

There's always one...

I don't really mean it, but I once knew a total **** who thought that Canon was the best thing since sliced bread, and Lencarta's MD has a Canon camera so based on those two things I just can't resist taking the P

 

[arad85]

I don't really mean it, but I once knew a total **** who thought that Canon was the best thing since sliced bread, and Lencarta's MD has a Canon camera so based on those two things I just can't resist taking the P

Well... at least on a Canon the menu setting is "colour space: sRGB" and not Mode 1 (or is it I???)

 

[Steve T]

I am surprised no one has mentioned all the different light sources in your studio. That orangi'sh craplight seeping through the doorway straight towards the camera. The massive amount of constantly varying daylight coming through that window and it's net curtain. Is there any other ceiling mounted light source with ordinary light bulbs switched on??

If you want good consistent colour the you really must practice good light hygiene.

If I were you, I would...

Keep that door shut, black out that window light completely, paint those walls a neutral grey and the ceiling a good matt white. Next I would get lots of good quality daylight fluorescent switchable light sources around the room to create consistent but adjustable ambient lighting.

Now you have good, clean, predictable baseline lighting to start from.

One thing I do find bloody useful is a light pendant on a stick with a daylight bulb on the end, (one of the thin long ones) wrap an A4 white paper tube around the light and you have a sort of softbox/light wand effect to move around your object. Very quickly shows you what reflected light will look like.

Good fun

 

[arad85]

I am surprised no one has mentioned all the different light sources in your studio.

I've not tried it (my studio is in my garage so doesn't have much light) but isn't 1/100th at F14 going to basically kill all ambient light anyway?

 

[arad85]

Last time I tried to get the D2X mode 1, 2 and 3 onto the D300 it somehow put a new picture contol called Vivid+ (or something like that - don't have camera here). I was expecting it to put D2X picture controls on there but it didn't. I'll look into this much more thoroughly tomorrow.

Have a look from page 56 onwards of http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/dslr/D70_en.pdf

I suspect you are in Custom mode and your Colour Mode is set to II (p 59 of the manual). You might also want to check what the other settings are in there.

D300 seems to be different. The manual is here: http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/dslr/D300_en.pdf. Take a look at P167 in the shooting menu. It has a sensible sRGB/Adobe setting

What isn't clear is how this applies to RAW images or even if you use RAW capture. Certainly if you want to start playing with things like the XRite ColorChecker, you'll want to be shooting RAW.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I am surprised no one has mentioned all the different light sources in your studio. That orangi'sh craplight seeping through the doorway straight towards the camera. The massive amount of constantly varying daylight coming through that window and it's net curtain. Is there any other ceiling mounted light source with ordinary light bulbs switched on??

If you want good consistent colour the you really must practice good light hygiene.

If I were you, I would...

Keep that door shut, black out that window light completely, paint those walls a neutral grey and the ceiling a good matt white. Next I would get lots of good quality daylight fluorescent switchable light sources around the room to create consistent but adjustable ambient lighting.

Now you have good, clean, predictable baseline lighting to start from.

One thing I do find bloody useful is a light pendant on a stick with a daylight bulb on the end, (one of the thin long ones) wrap an A4 white paper tube around the light and you have a sort of softbox/light wand effect to move around your object. Very quickly shows you what reflected light will look like.

Good fun

painting the walls a neutral grey and painting the ceiling black (not white) is something I can agree with, also you should avoid having say a blue carpet or a red settee that can reflect light, but other than that, no.

I've not tried it (my studio is in my garage so doesn't have much light) but isn't 1/100th at F14 going to basically kill all ambient light anyway?

Yes. The simple test is to take a shot without the flash firing and see what you get. If it's basically a black screen then there's nothing to worry about.

 

[silkblooms]

If small changes can make a huge difference, then I presume that huge changes might make a small difference Painting the walls grey and the ceiling black. Would this make a massive difference?

I've changed my order to 0.3ND gel but I will try ISO 200, raising the softbox to a higher level and moving the beauty dish back (to 1 and 1/4 the distance it's at now(?))

I'll have a tinker with the DX2 Mode 1/I and the sRGB setting but I'm sure it's a firmware upgrade. I'll give it a whirl.

My problem is with the room layout. It's a dedicated room for photography but it's white walls, white ceiling, grey carpet and it's smallish. So, I can't move the subject out into the centre of the room as I'd then be unable to get a long distance to the beauty dish. I'll remove the shiny white foamex board I've attached to the side wall and I'll move the sujbect away from the wall by two or three feet help to minimise the bounced light.

I'll post the results soon.

 

[Garry Edwards]

So, I can't move the subject out into the centre of the room as I'd then be unable to get a long distance to the beauty dish. I'll remove the shiny white foamex board I've attached to the side wall and I'll move the sujbect away from the wall by two or three feet help to minimise the bounced light.

That's a very positive thing to do and it will definitely give you much more control. Painting that area of the wall grey or black would give you even more control.

Painting the walls grey and the ceiling black. Would this make a massive difference?

It would help, rather than make a massive difference. I'm really preaching a counsel of perfection here. My own studio ceiling is black, I have some completely black areas and where I do have white walls, they are far enough away from the subject not to be a problem. The smaller the studio, the bigger the potential problem

 

[arad85]

I'll have a tinker with the DX2 Mode 1/I and the sRGB setting but I'm sure it's a firmware upgrade. I'll give it a whirl.

Cool. I should be able to tell the difference if you post two. Here is a cutout of the same area of the images. One on the left is saved "properly" (i.e. sRGB) one on the right is with Adobe RGB and saved as is (but without the colour space information so managed browsers don't know to apply the Adobe 1998 conversion so it looks incorrect)

You should be able to see the colour difference there (the one on the right is washed out in comparison to the one on the left). Absolutely NO processing applied to these apart from colour space settings.

 

[arad85]

Painting the walls grey and the ceiling black. Would this make a massive difference?

It's quite simple if you think inverse square law... All the walls and ceiling are doing is acting as reflectors. A black wall reflects very little light, a grey wall more and a white wall more still. If you have the table a long way from the walls and lights quite close to the object being photographed, you will notice very little effect even if the walls were painted bright orange. The closer to the walls the object is relative to the distance the lights are away from the object, the more important it becomes how you manage the reflections back off the wall. An extreme extreme example is your original layout in the corner and putting the beauty dished flash the other side of the room. Any light hitting the flowers would also go into the card/foamex and just get reflected back in the other side at near enough the same power. Pull the table away from the wall and now the light has further to travel...

 

[arad85]

BTW... the difference between the two images above, whilst still apparent, is not as large on my calibrated works laptop screen as it is on my calibrated Dell 24" IPS panel. The difference is there though...

 

[silkblooms]

Well, I must have taken a few hundred test shots today with a range of different light positions, f-stops, shutter speeds and ISO settings. It's true when they say that the first 90% of progress is achieved in 10% of the time. The last 10% of progress is taking the rest. I just can't seem to get the pictures the way I want them (like this):

OK, so I've not painted the walls grey yet or the ceiling black but I did install the DX2 mode 1/I and the results were a little weird. Over saturated and dark:

I played with the sRGB and Adobe colour settings but I couldn't get a nice shot in DX2 Mode 1 so I reverted back to the Neutral colour profile on the camera. The best shot of the day was this one (helped along I'd say by the natural light that was in the room:

Even with ISO 200 and the beauty dish as far away as possible, we're just not getting the right results:

I know it's impossible to get the effect of a bright sunshining day but I'd hoped for better results than we're getting. I think I need a bigger photo studio so I can push the subject out into the centre of the room and walk round it for the different angles. Unfortunately, we don't have a bigger room for photos :nono:

As always, keen to hear your responses and advice.

 

[arad85]

Did you try upping the power on the overhead flash? They still look underexposed (although they look right colours to me now).

 

[arad85]

And what do you have the colour balance set to. The second shot you have looks warmer (redder) than the first. If you are on auto colour balance, it may be this that's causing the problem.

Do you shoot RAW at all so you can play with the colour balance to see what it looks like?

As to getting the beauty dished flash further away, how long is the corridor/room you can see to the left of the table? Could you put it outside there?

 

[Garry Edwards]

Did you try upping the power on the overhead flash? They still look underexposed (although they look right colours to me now).

Other way round.

Forget about the exposure for now, it's the ratio that's wrong, you need more light from the beauty dish or less light from overhead, which is why I suggested moving the overhead softbox further away, to effectively reduce its power. Once you've got more 'kick' from the beauty dish (relative to the overhead light, which is in effect just an off-axis fill light, you'll get more local contrast and therefore more 'sparkle'

And then you adjust the exposure (aperture) until you get the effect you want.

You're still getting too much unwanted reflected light, which is mitigating the effect of the hard light from the beauty dish.

BTW, although I can advise on the lighting side, just about everyone else on this forum knows more about the camera/colour space aspects than me

 

[arad85]

Forget about the exposure for now, it's the ratio that's wrong, you need more light from the beauty dish or less light from overhead, which is why I suggested moving the overhead softbox further away, to effectively reduce its power.

Ahh.. Your saying that one of the reasons it's lacking is because it's too evenly lit then?

 

[silkblooms]

I used to shoot in RAW but it's far too much effort to batch them and process them when we've chosen the best ones. JPG's are preferred, by far.

The corridor's not an option but I can honestly say I haven't come across a 'colour balance' menu. I really should read the D300 manual!! It's probably on manual. What setting do you recommend?

It's funny you should talk about ratio. I have noticed this but I've practically exhausted the feasible combinations. However, this morning when I started off I had been shooting a few test pictures not realising that the overhead flash had been switched off. The results were very interesting to me, lots of shadows and depth and texture but the whiteboards beneath the bouquet and to the back of the bouquet were grey and dark. The beauty dish was about 4m away from the subject at the time. When I turned on the overhead flash I moved the boom up as high as it'd go and it cured it. I don't have the pictures here on my laptop but I'm sure the results were similar to the 2nd picture in my last post.

I'm going to try this again in the morning with the boom angled up much higher and the flash head angled back down so it's higher and farther away still. I purchased one of those heavy duty Lencarta booms. It's fantastic! I might need to get another one for the beauty dish as it can be quite top heavy on the lightweight tripod I'm using.

 

[silkblooms]

I just read the manual on colour balance. It sounds like some sort of on camera, post exposure editing tool as opposed to a pre-exposure setting?

 

[arad85]

BTW: the two flat images are _SRGxxxx.jpg files (i.e. Adobe 1998), the one nice one (middle photo) is an SRG_xxxx.jpg file (i.e. sRGB). I really should look at the colour space first... I can see what Garry means now about ratios.

Colour balance should be fixed as that way, it will be consistent across every photo. The problem with shooting JPEG is that if the system is on auto, the colour will change between photos as the camera will try to balance the colours for "average" every shot. Whilst this may be OK with the same object, when you move to a different bouquet, colour balance may subtly change. You may be very, very close, but you may be far enough out that it causes you problems. I'd suggest getting the exposure and shadows right, then worrying about colour.

If you did want to look at it however , P125 of the manual I linked to, you should be on either Flash, K @ about 5500 or take something mid grey under the flashes and set the custom white balance under PRE (P126-127 of the D300 manual).