Measuring the Color of Light

If you've been using a camera for a while, you may have run into the fact that different kinds of white light are actually composed of differing amounts of the colors of the spectrum. The light emitted by an incandescent tungsten bulb is composed of more yellows and reds than blues while the light emitted by the sun is composed of more nearly equal parts of the color spectrum. Unless you've worked with different kinds of light for a while, however, it's something that you may never have noticed to any substantial degree. Our human visual cortex is extremely good at processing out the image data it receives so that we don't normally perceive these differences much unless we train ourselves to notice them.

Unfortunately, the digital sensors in our cameras don't have the same level of visual latitude as our brains and the software that interprets the sensor data needs to know the color composition of the light illuminating the subject in order to produce an accurate image. This can be done either manually or automatically, with varying levels of success. If this value is way off—say you create a photograph outdoors with your camera set to a tungsten color temperature setting—your images will have a massive color shift to them and appear ultra-blue toned. Vice versa, if you make a photograph indoors at night on fully automatic mode and your camera doesn't dial in a correct setting for the light used, which happens more often than we'd like, everything will appear orange-tinted.

To talk about the color composition of light, we use what seems at first to be an odd term: color temperature. And, since we're talking about temperature, we use the SI unit of the Kelvin as a unit of measurement. I know the first few times I delved into this subject, I thought this was rather strange. After all, light itself doesn't have a temperature. Since it's radiation, when it hits a surface, it can cause that surface to heat up. But the light itself is neither hot nor cold. So, why the heck do we use temperature to describe the color composition of light?

You can thank science for this. Science defines things in terms of other things. A meter is defined by how far light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458th of a second. A second is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of Cesium 133. So, it should come as no surprise that the color composition of light is measured by comparing it to something. That something happens to be the light radiated by a theoretical black body when heated.

"Cesium say wha? Black body? What the heck is a black body?", you ask. Good question.

A black body is an object that absorbs all light that falls on it. It doesn't reflect any light, so when it's cold, it appears as black as black can be. Because it is non-reflective, any light it emits when it is heated up is strictly the result of thermal radiation. The properties of a black body are fundamental to Planck's Law of black-body radiation and are part of the foundation that supports quantum electrodynamics.

"Um, yah, you're losing me with that quantum talk. Don't you dare start throwing equations around!"

You're not alone. I don't follow it all either, especially when the equations really start flowing. But, it's important to note that a black body is a theoretical construct. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has one in their pocket that they can pull out and show the class. Instead, lets use a proxy that you've at least seen on television. Think of a chunk of iron for a moment.

When you heat up a chunk of iron in a furnace, at some point it gets so hot that it starts to glow a dull red. Heat it up some more, and its glow turns a bright red and then starts to turn orange. At some point the iron melts, but keep heating it up even more and its glow will continue to change color. The change in the color that the iron glows corresponds to its temperature. This correspondence works so well, that you can actually perform the reverse and derive the temperature of hot iron by measuring the color it is glowing. This is especially handy if you are measuring the temperature of things that are hot enough to melt a traditional contact thermometer.

Back to black bodies. Imagine you have a handy pocket-sized theoretical black body at your disposal, along with a nicely efficient pocket torch. When you fire up your torch and heat up the black body, it will start to glow at some point. When it reaches a temperature of 2900K, or about 4800ºF, the color composition of its glow will roughly match the that of light emitted by your typical 100W tungsten lightbulb, with a strong bias towards the red and orange part of the spectrum. Keep on going to 3200K, or 5300ºF, and the glow will match most photoflood lights. Now, crank it up to 5500K, or about 9300ºF, and your black body is now glowing with roughly the same color composition as the light from the sun as it appears at noon in the summer.

 Color Spectrums of Light Sources

The graph to the right shows the relative composition of colors of the light emitted by our handy portable black body at various temperatures. As you can see, the light emitted by a 3200K source contains more reds and oranges than blues, which closely matches the spectrum emitted by a photoflood tungsten light. The light emitted at 5500K contains a more even set of colors, typical of daylight. And the light emitted at 9000K, typical of the light illuminating shady areas or that you may find on extremely overcast days, contains more blues than reds and oranges.

Of course, long before you heat up your black body to the point where you can compare it to sunlight, almost ten-thousand degrees Fahrenheit and close to the temperature of the surface of the sun, you've most likely burned your fingers, dropped the black body on the floor, and set your house on fire. Please only attempt this in a properly equipped laboratory setting.

All fun aside, a black body, or even a decent approximation of one, that can operate at all the temperatures that we're talking about isn't something that you or I can probably play around with. You can apparently buy a black body simulator, but the most of the ones that I have found online, such as the SBIR 4100 Cavity Blackbody, max out at around 1000C (1273K), which is a bit wimpy for comparing to the color composition of light. As well, there's not a price listed, which means it's expensive.

Probably the best approximation of a black body for our purposes, and one that we have actually do easy access to, is the common household lightbulb. When turned on, the tungsten filament of a lightbulb is heated by electricity to between 2000K and 3000K, depending on the design of the bulb and how much current is used, and emits light with a color temperature of about the same value. This works, of course, because the filament is protected from oxygen by either a vacuum in older designs, or by a mix of inert gases.

Really, all of this is a bit academic. In the real world outside of the lab, people don't think about the details of how meters and seconds are defined and photographers don't think about light in terms of black body radiators. You know from experience that a meter is about that long, while holding out your arms. Well, some of us that are stuck with a system of archaic units know it as being about a yard long, or 3 feet. Similarly, there's no real reason to worry about heating up black body radiators, or comprehending Planck's law of black body radiation, when dealing with the color of light.

Instead, you can just use the values of color temperature and keep it in your head that daylight has a color temperature of around 5500K, standard photo tungsten lights is 3200K, and a 100W lightbulb comes in at around 2900K. When you set your camera to use the daylight or tungsten preset, you're using one of these values. Once you get the feel for the various color temperature values, you'll be able to master setting of the color temperature value for the making or processing of a photograph. More importantly, you'll have control over the fourth variable of photography along with exposure time, aperture, and sensor sensitivity. It's like knowing that you need an exposure of 1/1000th of a second, er, I mean 9,192,632 periods of Cesium 133 radiation, in order to freeze the some kinds of movement.

Related Posts:

Related Links:

Updated 4/9 to add a graphic of the composition of colors in light at various color temperatures.

This is one of 142 blog posts on duncandavidson.com. If you care to read more, two posts I recommend are Dear Speakers, a set of thoughts for public speakers that I pulled together in March, 2009 and Tilting at the Windmill, One Last Time, a call to Flickr to include important EXIF and ITPC metadata in the photographs they provide to the public.

18 Comments

Well written... and THANK YOU! Where were you when I took my photography class in high school?

Thanks,
Sean

user-pic

Very nicely written!

user-pic

You might want to append this with a discussion of the different ways of producing artificial light and the vastly different spectrum distributions associated with each.

While blackbody radiators (tungsten lightbulbs, the sun, etc.) have a pretty even distribution, lights that rely on electron excitation (fluorescent, LED) usually have a pretty boring background noise with one or two huge spikes at certain points (depending on the excited element). For instance, mercury bulbs (fluorescent) have a certain hue because of this spike.

I suppose this is now breaching the topic of color rendering index (CRI), a not-yet-in-widespread-use measurement of how many colors a certain light will render (the aforementioned spiked lighting don't color things as well as blackbodies, which are essentially perfect, and LEDs are entirely monochromatic (those with a single diode at least), meaning they render exactly one color.

user-pic

Or you could just shoot in raw and defer all color temperature interpretations and gamma encodings so they happen outside the camera at conversion time--when you've got a full sized image on the screen in front of you and can more accurately judge what constitutes an appropriate color balance for that particular image under its intended output conditions non-destructively. You only have to worry about the color temperature when you're shooting film or camera rendered JPEGs (two things nobody does much of these days).

user-pic

Great information, and entertaining as well. Thanks!

user-pic

LEDs are not quite so monochromatic. Carpooled with a physicist to a camping trip, got to discussing lights. The basic mechanism behind a fluorescent light is very monochromatic (an actual single frequency), LEDs not quite so much. He described the phosphors used in white fluorescent and white LEDs as being wavelength multipliers, and hence a white LED, which starts less spiky in its original color, is less spiky in its wavelength-converted "white".

It's also possible to obtain LEDs in a variety of colors (more easily than fluorescent bulbs) that allow you to fill-in your spectrum, if that floats your boat. There's a guy at MIT (http://web.mit.edu/neltnerb/www/artwork/index.html) who's been playing just these games.

user-pic

Jason: Indeed, there's a whole discussion around the color spectrums that are associated with the various light sources. I'm actually plotting a discussion around those bits right now, or at least one that starts to covers some of that area. If you get too deep into this, you can end up writing a book on it :)

Nathan: I agree, RAW is the only way to shoot digitally if you have the choice. But, no matter whether you set your color temperature in camera, or do it later in your RAW processing software, it's still a factor in the interpretation of the sensor data into an image. In fact, the color temperature slider is the first thing I make sure is right (for whatever definition of right that I want to use for a particular image) when I start tweaking an image in Aperture or Lightroom.

user-pic

Graphs make things easier. This one shows a few different light sources and their outputs:
http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/lightandcolor/images/lightsourcesfigure3.jpg

I've seen a graph which compares the sensitivity of the human eye to the daytime spectrum from our sun (they line up quite well, a testament to our evolution), but I can't find one online.

user-pic

So how do these color temperature values correspond to computer monitor configurations? My monitor has three presets: 5500K (labeled "photo retouch"), 6500K ("DTP") and 9300K ("CAD/CAM"). The higher values are more bluish, while the lower values are more reddish. But all of them are much higher than the values you cited.

Does this simply mean that "white" on a computer monitor is a shade that is hot enough to never occur in nature? Or do these numbers mean something different when applied to monitors (instead of cameras)?

user-pic

Great simple explanation!

Just to add a footnote, I'd like to mention that using a dimmer on incandescents will LOWER the color temperature.

user-pic

MIT: Thanks for the link to the graphs. And yes, the human eye's response does correspond well to daylight, thanks to that being our natural environment. :)

Shamino: The color temperatures you're seeing in your monitor configurations correspond to the bias that the display will display colors with. At 9300K, the display shows colors using a much larger blue component than it does at 6500K or 5500K. I stopped in my example at 5500K because I wasn't trying to describe the various spectrums associated with color temperature values, but instead trying to talk about the units involved and where they come from.

Even though 5500K is the "accepted" value for daylight, it actually varies quite a bit in effect thanks to atmospheric effects, etc. 6500K is daylight in some conditions. And, when you measure light in the shade from open sky, it can go as high as 9000K.

user-pic

Thanks for the article! Some clarification:

Color temperature is not a measure of "light's color" in the same way as number of meters is a measure of length: The latter is a measurement, whereas the former is an assumed model. It's more like saying that "this shape has a surface of x square feet": It gives me an idea of the expanse of the shape, but it doesn't really tell me what the shape is, and in some cases that shape could still be quite unexpected (it could be extremely long and thin).

Still, for many practical light environments (including various "daylight" scenarios), the blackbody model works quite well. So when I set a color temperature of X Kelvin in Lightroom or Aperture (or even the camera's custom white balance setting), I'm telling the software "assume the image data was collected with light from a blackbody at X Kelvin, and transform that data so that it matches your (the software's) understanding of the rendering device (e.g., the screen)". I.e., it's a request to compensate for light, not to simulate light. That's why lower temperature settings produces more bluish tints, even though blackbody radiation shifts bluer as the temperature rises.

The fact that the blackbody model is imperfect, is reflected in the presence of an additional "tint" setting (in Lightroom and other software). Two parameters (like temperature and tint) are sufficient to fully compensate a specific color (e.g., the "white point"), but even that can leave other colors off if the light at capture time had characteristics that deviate sufficiently from the blackbody model.

user-pic

You only have to worry about the color temperature when you're shooting film or camera rendered JPEGs (two things nobody does much of these days).

Woah! I'll agree that if you ignore "disposable cameras" almost nobody shoots film anymore. I'm not sure that there are so few disposables that you can say "nobody does much" though. A decade ago more people shot disposables then anything else. The age of digital photography may have chaged that, but I'm unconvinced of that at the moment.

I also think most people acually shoot camera rendered JPEG. Heck, I bet most _cameras_ don't do anything else (well other then movies), and almost no cameras default to RAW images. (does anything other then rare Kodak SLRs and maybe stuff that "replaces" large format film backs?)

In fact I only personally know one other non-pro photographer that shoots RAW as a matter of habbit. (in fact technically my wife is a pro-photog, and she doesn't own a camera that can do RAWs, but while she gets payed to shoot houses that isn't her main job, her job is to help people buy and sell houses, sometimes she gets payed by other realtors to take photos for them because she is really good at it...and she takes far less time then I do so she can undercut my prices)

user-pic

Beginning of 3rd paragraph:

"To talk about the color composition of light, we use a what seems at first to be an odd term:"

Remove 'a' for great justice!

Or proper grammar, at least.

"We use what seems at first to be" is proper.

user-pic

MIT: I decided that you're right and added a graph to the post to try to help show what's going on.

Daveed: Thanks for the input. I've made some updates to refer to the "color composition" of light as well as gone through to make sure that I say that the comparisons between black body radiation and are just that and not assignments.

I'll be looking to address the compensation angle in a later post.

Hybrid: Oops. Thanks!

user-pic

Interesting and well written explanation.

However, when it comes to taking interesting photographs, I still struggle with the question of whether it is always correct to exactly match the camera's colour temperature to the light of the scene.

If I'm taking a photograph of people in a room at night, under tungsten lighting, then I often want some of that orange warmth to the light to create the correct atmosphere - if I correctly match the colour temperature, the image can look very cold and sterile. Similarly, if I'm taking a picture at sunset, should I adjust the colour temperature for the very warm light - if so, I'll lose the atmosphere of the picture completely.

Thus, whilst it is important to get the colour temperature correctly matched if you are trying to correctly capture the colours of an object (for a brochure, for instance) in many situations I think you actually also need to apply some creative thought and decide whether you want to leave some of the colour temperature in the image.

user-pic

Thanks for the helpful article. Photographers have a difficult enough time understanding that their sensors/films only record, at the image plane, radiant energy that is only radiated or reflected from the world. Your article introduces and amplifies, nicely, on the content at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature
and you've aced the second test in a first-year class in the Materials and Processes of Photography at the Rochester Institute of Technology!

user-pic

Paul: Indeed, there are many times when you don't want to nail the color temperature of the illuminating light correctly. Using warmth in a scene is often very effective. And, when you want things to be cold, that can be effective too. And the sunset example is a big one, if you correct for the light exactly, you'll loose the magic of the scene. I agree totally that it's an important variable that should be exercised creatively.

Walter: Thanks! I'll put a related link for the Wikipedia color temperature article—I should have done that in the first place. Now I'm wondering what the rest of the tests are in the class. :)

user-pic

Leave a comment