Caveman meets "white balance"
Discussion
Hi all, I'm a newbie to PH and to the subject and I have two questions about white balance I'd be really grateful to get your advice on.
Say I'm at a sunny beach sitting in the shade of a parasol or veranda filming the kids playing in the sand by the sea, for best results do I white balance the camcorder in the shade where the camera is, or out in the sunshine where the subject is?
Secondly, if i use a polarising filter to remove the reflections on the sea, do I white balance before or after I connect the filter?
(Thanks in advance guys - I did a search on white balance before I posted, apologies if I missed its already been covered)
Say I'm at a sunny beach sitting in the shade of a parasol or veranda filming the kids playing in the sand by the sea, for best results do I white balance the camcorder in the shade where the camera is, or out in the sunshine where the subject is?
Secondly, if i use a polarising filter to remove the reflections on the sea, do I white balance before or after I connect the filter?
(Thanks in advance guys - I did a search on white balance before I posted, apologies if I missed its already been covered)
sorryRobDickinson said:
markmullen said:
Or shoot in raw and sort it out afterwards!
Its always better to get the correct WB at the time , if you can, using a wb card or colour checker.mattdaniels said:
Pardon the thread drift, but if you are shooting RAW why is it better to get the correct WB at the time? The RAW file will ignore any white balance set on the camera and save exactly what light hit the sensor.
Because it makes your preview on the back of the camera closer to the finished picture, and it is one less thing to correct in post. tog said:
and it is one less thing to correct in post.
...but one more thing to set correctly before taking the image. If you're shooting RAW, the preview image is mostly meaningless for showing how the final image will look, because the image is processed outside of the camera, so the camera processing settings are irrelevant.Edited by mattdaniels on Friday 19th August 13:42
mattdaniels said:
If you're shooting RAW, the preview image is mostly meaningless for showing how the final image will look, because the image is processed outside of the camera, so the camera processing settings are irrelevant.
Yes, but it does make imagining the final image easier than if it has a horrible colour cast over it. I admit I tend to simply leave it in auto WB so it's vaguely right, and set the correct colour later. Also useful if you're shooting RAW and jpeg pairs (v rarely in my case).mattdaniels said:
RobDickinson said:
markmullen said:
Or shoot in raw and sort it out afterwards!
Its always better to get the correct WB at the time , if you can, using a wb card or colour checker.You can guess later, you can hope you can find something truly neutral in the frame. Or you can shoot a greycard or swatch (or colourchecker) and know.
Hmm, I not sure you're right about RAW and WB guys. I thought in camera setting of WB was important when shooting RAW and LR et al read the embedded WB setting/info and render the image accordingly. That's certainly how it appears to work as for me. I had terrible trouble with colour casts before I set a WB of 5000k for all my studio work. I use Nikon's, LR and PS CS5.
Anyway, doing a quick google I found this which confirms my thinking...
"I often hear that you don’t need to choose a white balance setting when shooting if you are shooting RAW, so I am coming back to white balance once again. I see so much poor and compromised color from this that I would like to help digital photographers better understand and use white balance.
White balance is something I have worked with for nearly 30 years. How can that be when digital photography is not that old? White balance started with video and I first started shooting video in about 1979 — video was always white balanced. We always did it manually (actually white balancing off of a white card — which still works), even though it could be changed later in the edit suite. It was a workflow issue. Set white balance correctly in the first place, and there is less work later (plus it meant concentrating on other things than white balance).
It is important to understand that all images have a white balance setting attached to them, including RAW. If you are not choosing a specific white balance, you are using AWB regardless if you are shooting RAW or not. AWB will be the color setting that comes into Adobe Camera Raw, Lightroom or any other RAW conversion program with the “as shot” default. Camera Raw, Lightroom, etc., recognize whatever white balance the camera set (whether AWB or one you chose). When you choose a white balance setting from that drop down list, you are not getting the camera manufacturer’s white balance controls, even though they have similar names. You are getting Adobe color interpretations of the data in your image file.
By not setting white balance on site, you are adding an extra step to your workflow. I do very little adjustment of white balance in the computer (I shoot RAW) because I usually have the right white balance from the start. In addition, I so very, very often see a color bias in student shots that I cannot recommend AWB for serious shooting outdoors, regardless if you shoot RAW or not. What happens is that you are now adjusting based on a “standard” that is already biased (i.e., all of your images from a shoot).
AWB is inconsistent and generally gives a compromised color compared to choosing a specific white balance setting. While this can be adjusted in RAW, so very often I see this is not done so I know people are adjusting “blindly”, i.e., not based on the scene, but on what they see on screen. When AWB is inconsistent, then which photo do you choose as correct? And if the only reference you have to what is correct is the AWB “as shot”, and it is inconsistent and with poor color, you cannot expect to get the best color in the end."
Tomo I will set different WB temps and import into LR and see if they get imported too. My money is on they will be!
Anyway, doing a quick google I found this which confirms my thinking...
"I often hear that you don’t need to choose a white balance setting when shooting if you are shooting RAW, so I am coming back to white balance once again. I see so much poor and compromised color from this that I would like to help digital photographers better understand and use white balance.
White balance is something I have worked with for nearly 30 years. How can that be when digital photography is not that old? White balance started with video and I first started shooting video in about 1979 — video was always white balanced. We always did it manually (actually white balancing off of a white card — which still works), even though it could be changed later in the edit suite. It was a workflow issue. Set white balance correctly in the first place, and there is less work later (plus it meant concentrating on other things than white balance).
It is important to understand that all images have a white balance setting attached to them, including RAW. If you are not choosing a specific white balance, you are using AWB regardless if you are shooting RAW or not. AWB will be the color setting that comes into Adobe Camera Raw, Lightroom or any other RAW conversion program with the “as shot” default. Camera Raw, Lightroom, etc., recognize whatever white balance the camera set (whether AWB or one you chose). When you choose a white balance setting from that drop down list, you are not getting the camera manufacturer’s white balance controls, even though they have similar names. You are getting Adobe color interpretations of the data in your image file.
By not setting white balance on site, you are adding an extra step to your workflow. I do very little adjustment of white balance in the computer (I shoot RAW) because I usually have the right white balance from the start. In addition, I so very, very often see a color bias in student shots that I cannot recommend AWB for serious shooting outdoors, regardless if you shoot RAW or not. What happens is that you are now adjusting based on a “standard” that is already biased (i.e., all of your images from a shoot).
AWB is inconsistent and generally gives a compromised color compared to choosing a specific white balance setting. While this can be adjusted in RAW, so very often I see this is not done so I know people are adjusting “blindly”, i.e., not based on the scene, but on what they see on screen. When AWB is inconsistent, then which photo do you choose as correct? And if the only reference you have to what is correct is the AWB “as shot”, and it is inconsistent and with poor color, you cannot expect to get the best color in the end."
Tomo I will set different WB temps and import into LR and see if they get imported too. My money is on they will be!
ACR has 'As shot' and also auto. Or you can use the wb picker tool, or manually adjust.
Non of which is as good as getting it right at the time of shooting, so yes I agree.
Also your histogram is based on the WB you shoot with right then. If its off you can be presented with an incorrect view of the exposure!
Non of which is as good as getting it right at the time of shooting, so yes I agree.
Also your histogram is based on the WB you shoot with right then. If its off you can be presented with an incorrect view of the exposure!
I've just checked
Shot 4 frames with the body cap on and WB manually set to different temperatures on a D700.
Imporing into LR the WB set in camera is the same temp shown on the WB slider for each and every shot. No difference whether the Adobe Std or ACR profiles were used. Actually the temp shown on LR is 200deg lower than that set on camera but I knew that 'error' was present anyway.
That backs up my hunch, the quote above and why I use a fixed temp in studio.
Shot 4 frames with the body cap on and WB manually set to different temperatures on a D700.
Imporing into LR the WB set in camera is the same temp shown on the WB slider for each and every shot. No difference whether the Adobe Std or ACR profiles were used. Actually the temp shown on LR is 200deg lower than that set on camera but I knew that 'error' was present anyway.
That backs up my hunch, the quote above and why I use a fixed temp in studio.
Edited by ian in lancs on Friday 19th August 22:33
Yes, the software will use the WB settings when the image was taken, whether it was auto WB or preset by the user.
But then you can change them if you want.
I don't see the problem.
I certainly can't go round presetting WB for every shot at a wedding - got enough to worry about - so I use Auto WB and tweak afterwards. If you're in a studio there is more rationale to preset. But even then, it is sometimes nicer to view them on a proper screen at your leisure and batch-adjust if preferred.
So I guess the answer is - do it the way you like
But then you can change them if you want.
I don't see the problem.
I certainly can't go round presetting WB for every shot at a wedding - got enough to worry about - so I use Auto WB and tweak afterwards. If you're in a studio there is more rationale to preset. But even then, it is sometimes nicer to view them on a proper screen at your leisure and batch-adjust if preferred.
So I guess the answer is - do it the way you like
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff