There is a standard example in theories of truth, which reads, “The statement ‘snow is white’ is true, if and only if, snow is white”.
I was out early this morning looking for a good sunrise (didn’t happen, complete cloud cover). However, I did get this shot. The lights at the end of the bridge are old-fashioned sodium ones. The question is, should I correct the lighting to make the snow a blue-white colour, or should I leave it as it was illuminated?
All the light that hits the flakes bounces back in all directions. There is no part of the light that is absorbed. So, in the same way that the light arrives, with the color of…, it leaves the flake with the same characteristics.
For me it is more or less a question of your artistic intent. In such situations I would go for a rendition that fits best the context of what I would like to transport as the “message” of the picture. By the way, a really nice shot
My eyes just couldn’t come to embrace the “orange” versions…maybe my screen not being calibrated but even in a strong light it just didn’t “speak to me”
Funny I just auto wb and added a little exposure and I actually found that pleasing…I guess its not accurate but I prefer it to the alternative…
My Bad,
I must remember to make a smaller screen/internet friendly JPG file next time. I also did not like the orange look, so I white balanced on the snow and use tone equalizer to brighten the snow itself. Lets test out this 25% size JPG for posting here.
a blue and gold version could look nice? the background in blue like the corrected versions here combined with the snow and bridge lit by the sodium lamps as golden
Yeah, you can white balance this to make the bridge look “normal”, but the background goes rather blue. So, given I wanted a portrait crop that made the background more evident, I stuck with “as-shot” WB:
