Custom white balance, do you use this often and if so why?

[Andrea1]

Hi again,

I've just been doing some reading about custom white balance and am wanting to give it a go.

Is this something that is done all the time or just for particular type of photos depending on the lighting? Just not sure how often this is done as i have never seen this done when i've been out and about.

Thanks

[sufran]

I have used custom white balance for indoor shots - but you may need to set up several custom white balances for this to be effective if colour conditions are changing. For example, when taking shots of an indoor sporting event, some competitors were on red mats while others were on blue mats. Despite the action occurring in the same hall, same overall lighting at the same time, I still needed two different cwb to deal with the different reflected colours.

Often, if your picture has white in it, it is just as effective to use the AWB dropper in your post-processing soft ware.

These days, for variable indoor light, I use a Spyder colour checkr in post.

[ricktas]

I have used it as well. It is helpful when the camera's auto-white balance feature is giving results that are not accurate. Remember though if you shoot RAW, you can change the white balance during editing as well.

[patrickv]

I recommend to shoot raw and put white balance on auto, this way it's just not a concern. You already have all the other technical things that distract you from composition / seizing the instant when you're taking pictures, having one less is very nice.

Imagine if you could just put any ISO to suit your composition needs (DOF, light, movement, ...) instead of having to worry about not generating too much noise, or if you didn't have to slightly close the f-stop to get rid of either lens faults or slightly imprecise focus. Wouldn't it be awesome?
You can do that with white balance, so why bother?

Cheers

[fess67]

+1 for AWB and RAW. Then you can do what you like in post processing, from choosing a preset to setting the colour temp to a preferred value.

[Andrea1]

Thanks guys,

Just seems like one more thing to worry about, and what i really want to do is just capture a shot!!

A

[ricstew]

If you are shooting in variable lighting conditions...........does the auto white balance become variable as well? Does it change along with the ambient light colour? If it does........would it be correct to use say a cloudy setting to keep the colour changes stable?..........so that when it comes to PP everything is at the same light colour and it ( in theory ) should be simple to keep the series the same colour?
cheers
Jan

[ricktas]

If you are shooting in variable lighting conditions...........does the auto white balance become variable as well? Does it change along with the ambient light colour? If it does........would it be correct to use say a cloudy setting to keep the colour changes stable?..........so that when it comes to PP everything is at the same light colour and it ( in theory ) should be simple to keep the series the same colour?
cheers
Jan

White balance is determined as a Kelvin temperature (google it to find out more). Basically AWB uses a detection system within the camera to determine what the white balance should be. But a Kelvin of 5200 is the same, no matter what the scene looks like. Cloudy etc, are just preset kelvin values, nothing more.

So, yes you can use the cloudy setting, or AWB, or (on some cameras) you can dial in the actual kelvin value you want. But all of these are changeable to any other kelvin value in post processing, as long as you shoot RAW.

If you want to test it out, get your camera out, set it up and take one shot on AWB, one on Cloudy, one on Tungsten, one on sunny etc, then get on the computer and compare them. You will find if you change the white balance in post, to the same value, each photo will look basically the same.

[ricstew]

Thank you Rick.....I get that but does the Auto w/b change in changing light conditions? If I started shooting in a room with tungsten and then turned on a fluro lamp and then used a flash............would the auto w/b change from what it thought was right.........from one condition to the next when the lighting changed? so that the three shots in the same room had different colour auto w/b?

[Kym]

Shoot raw, leave it on either auto or cloudy :D

[ricktas]

Thank you Rick.....I get that but does the Auto w/b change in changing light conditions? If I started shooting in a room with tungsten and then turned on a fluro lamp and then used a flash............would the auto w/b change from what it thought was right.........from one condition to the next when the lighting changed? so that the three shots in the same room had different colour auto w/b?

Yes! AWB is just that, it automatically chooses an appropriate white balance for EACH shot.

[ricstew]

AHAH! Thats what I thought :) Thank you for confirming it :) So Kym tell me please what the difference would be and why I would choose either........... Auto ( will change ) to cloudy ( wont change ) ?

[William]

Yep , But both are changeable if shot in RAW in PP , If you shoot in RAW , Just set the camera to AWB

[Andrea1]

Mmmm, just wondering why some photographers use those 18% grey cards or lens covers? Are these things then not necessary if it all gets fixed with pp?

[rodw]

Mmmm, just wondering why some photographers use those 18% grey cards or lens covers? Are these things then not necessary if it all gets fixed with pp?

I would recommend you give it a go as seeing the difference Using custom white balance was a big learning from me years after I gave up film. I thing AWB works well out doors for me, but indoors, this is often not the case and the menu choices are not always spot on either.

After learning this, I bought some white lens caps but really found them pretty useless as the cap clips onto a screw on ring which is plastic and prevented me from using my Cokin filters as it is hard to unscrew because the plastic squashes. I just carry one now and will just hold it in front of the lens when required.

Just be careful about the grey cards. From recent reading, it seems 18% is not the right standard for digital. I think the right tint for digital is 12% but I have yet to play with one.

[kiwi]

If you want the right wb I would recommend a grey card for sure.....even if you shoot in raw you can spend a lot of time and tears in pp getting the correct wb, especially on people.

99% of time outdoors I uses the cloud wb as most often a warmer result is good.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[FallingHorse]

I mostly shoot in RAW and AWB. I tend to use Cloudy setting during the wet season when it is ... well cloudy and overcast. I find that the cloudy setting is overly warm for dry season when the sun is shining every day. I tend to only use the other settings or custom white balance when indoors or when I purposely want to use White Balance for a creative effect

[arthurking83]

Mmmm, just wondering why some photographers use those 18% grey cards or lens covers? Are these things then not necessary if it all gets fixed with pp?

I can't see how those 'lens covers' can work properly to be honest .. I think the assumption is that you and/or the camera are within the lighting arrangement that is going to cause the issue.



.....

Just be careful about the grey cards. From recent reading, it seems 18% is not the right standard for digital. I think the right tint for digital is 12% but I have yet to play with one.

Unless you want the grey card to help you determine exposure, the percentage rating is irrelevant.
The 18% rating is the shade of grey that will give you a neutral RGB rendering(128, 128, 128)

Most grey cards will be 18%, as this is the most common. Handy device for determining exposure if using film(and a light meter is some kind).

If determining an accurate WB is you objective then a grey card is a grey card, as long as it is grey(and not tainted or stained with other markings and so forth)
Note you can also use a piece of (very)white paper, as long as the white paper is clean.

CFL lighting is difficult to balance properly, but mixed lighting is also a challenge to get colour balance right.

Mix CFLs and standard fluoros and daytime ambient, and you have a hard time finding a good balance.


Are these Grey Cards neccesary .. nope!
Handy .... yes for sure ... but not necessary.

My large fold up grey card thing cost about $20. Handy when it's needed, but it's not needed that often.
It folds in on itself down from 56cm to about 20 or 15cm and is easily transported in most camera bags .. so I thought it was worthwhile having.
And I've used it on many occasions too.

[kiwi]

The lens caps work because to set a white balance you only need to fill the frame with a neutral colour

But yes, the light had to be the same from where you are to where the subject is

[patrickv]

If you know ahead of time that you are going to shoot many photos in the same location with somewhat stable light, it does make sense to set WB before rather than in post processing.
My answer (just shoot raw and put it on auto) was more generic.
Still shoot raw!

[MissionMan]

I can't see how those 'lens covers' can work properly to be honest .. I think the assumption is that you and/or the camera are within the lighting arrangement that is going to cause the issue.




Unless you want the grey card to help you determine exposure, the percentage rating is irrelevant.
The 18% rating is the shade of grey that will give you a neutral RGB rendering(128, 128, 128)

Most grey cards will be 18%, as this is the most common. Handy device for determining exposure if using film(and a light meter is some kind).

If determining an accurate WB is you objective then a grey card is a grey card, as long as it is grey(and not tainted or stained with other markings and so forth)
Note you can also use a piece of (very)white paper, as long as the white paper is clean.

CFL lighting is difficult to balance properly, but mixed lighting is also a challenge to get colour balance right.

Mix CFLs and standard fluoros and daytime ambient, and you have a hard time finding a good balance.


Are these Grey Cards neccesary .. nope!
Handy .... yes for sure ... but not necessary.

My large fold up grey card thing cost about $20. Handy when it's needed, but it's not needed that often.
It folds in on itself down from 56cm to about 20 or 15cm and is easily transported in most camera bags .. so I thought it was worthwhile having.
And I've used it on many occasions too.

I think the lens covers are supposed to be taken off the camera and used in the frame just like a grey card. I think they are just put on the camera for convenience of carrying around so you don't have one extra item to carry.

I agree with what you have said here. Another thing to add is that not all grey cards are 18% grey anyway, even when they claim to be. I have 3 different grey cards (2 fold up and 1 credit card) and they are all different shades of grey. I don't actually mind the different shades as the one I find provides perfect exposure for product reviews photography I do for a Mac website and the other is better for sports so sometimes its worth experimenting with the different cards to see whether one provides better skin tones. You can see the two of the shades, supposed both 18% grey. If you download and save the picture here, you can test the white balance impact by clicking on each.

http://www.mactalk.com.au/content/attachments/1551d1334669185-20120417-phd6sfagahjybjf724d5t7k4aq.png/

I tend to use the grey card whether I need to or not under certain conditions (artificial light) as I have learnt through trial and error which ones the camera is likely to get horribly wrong. Sometimes I'll put all 3 in frame to test the output to see if I prefer a particular look.

[Eberbachl]

AWB for me.

:D

At the moment I shoot RAW+, and mostly use the jpegs from the camera, however having the RAW files there also have saved me a few times with WB or Exposure compensation. I use the RAW files as insurance in a way in case I have to save an otherwise good image I can't recover in jpeg.

[rodw]

I think the lens covers are supposed to be taken off the camera and used in the frame just like a grey card. I think they are just put on the camera for convenience of carrying around so you don't have one extra item to carry.



No that's not right, they are designed so you take a photo into the light source with the lens cap on. That gives you a white picture which is loaded into the camera as a custom white balance.

I think that is a different workflow to what you are doing where you place a target in the frame and adjust it back to its known value in post processing.

[arthurking83]

......
I agree with what you have said here. Another thing to add is that not all grey cards are 18% grey anyway, even when they claim to be. I have 3 different grey cards (2 fold up and 1 credit card) and they are all different shades of grey. I don't actually mind the different shades as the one I find provides perfect exposure for product reviews photography I do for a Mac website and the other is better for sports so sometimes its worth experimenting with the different cards to see whether one provides better skin tones. You can see the two of the shades, supposed both 18% grey. If you download and save the picture here, you can test the white balance impact by clicking on each.

.....


As long as the grey is pure grey, the shade of grey is not of importance to the OP's concern here.

The percentage rating is only for exposure purposes.

If there is any colour cast to the grey, then it will affect it's ability to perform an accurate WB setting.
The WB aspect of the grey card has little to do with the percentage rating of the grey point. Just as long as it's grey and not tainted with any other colour bias.

Also note, in some conditions(eg that I know of landscapes at low light!) sometimes you don't want to pinpoint an exact white point.

Remembering that WB is an attempt to make white look white, sometimes this is not actually desirable.

if you look at a white piece of paper with a setting sun casting it's light upon it, the white piece of paper will have a yellowy/orange.
if it's perfect colour accuracy that you want, then a WB adjustment will help to make the yellowy/orange white paper to look white.. but the reality is that it's really a yellowy orange and, for example with a landscape image you probably want that yellowy orange tint anyhow.

[Mark L]

Another reason for RAW (unless you have a specific need to use Jpeg).
I hawe WB permanently set on daylight, with Raw it can be adjusted later.
Why daylight? http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?30175-White-balance-for-mugs

[ricktas]

Remembering that WB is an attempt to make white look white, sometimes this is not actually desirable.



I agree with this 100%. A slightly warmer Kelvin Temperature (white balance) for sunsets and sunrises, and even on portraiture can create a better result. On portraiture, especially with 'pale-faces', a slightly warmer white balance gives the person a slight glow.

[arthurking83]

Technically speaking the best WB value to use .. even on a raw file, is what's known as UniWB.

It's a hard(convoluted) process to get it onto your camera, but the reason it's the best WB value to use is for the purpose of exposure of the image.

it's looks dreadful and each and every image then needs to be WB processed later on the PC.
UniWB makes your images look very green, but the idea behind it is to get a proper RGB channel readout on exposure.

I trialled it for a while and found that the pedantic level of exposure accuracy wasn't worth the effort.

Basically it was supposed to help gauge an accurate red channel luminance level relative to the green and blue channel.

[William W]

Is [Custom White Balance] something that is done all the time or just for particular type of photos depending on the lighting? Just not sure how often this is done as i have never seen this done when i've been out and about.

I will often use CWB in the following situations:

When making images in a controlled lighting condition – such as Studio Flash.
When making images under indoor or outdoor (Sports Arena) Floodlights.
When making Available Light images in Low EV and Very Low °K Temperature Lights, such as Incandescent Room Lights.
When making images where there is a strong or significant light source (usually in the background) which is NOT the illuminating Key Light on the Subject and which will potentially stuff up the AWB, variously and differently within a series of shots.


Just seems like one more thing to worry about, and what i really want to do is just capture a shot!!

Then if you need to just capture the shot then do so; but if you have time to control the shot and CWB will benefit, then do so, also.


Mmmm, just wondering why some photographers use those 18% grey cards or lens covers? Are these things then not necessary if it all gets fixed with pp?

Because I already have the 18% Grey Cards – and (as already mentioned) the fact that they are 18% (or 12%) is irrelevant for CWB. A Photograhic Grey Card is a Standard and is Accurate.

I would not use a lens cover. I would use a White Bounce Card or an A4 white sheet of paper, if I did not have a PGC with me and I needed to make a CWB.

***

If you want to get the WB, (colour balance) correct:

Then arguably you will need to shoot, A Photographic Grey Card and also Standard Colour Grid - e.g. the “Gretagmacbeth colorchecker” in the first frame of each lighting situation and then you will need to have a standard studio monitor which is calibrated and then you will Post Produce your files to suit your Printer’s Colour Standards and then you will ask the Lab Tech to “Print WITHOUT any enhancements.

This is very seldom done by amateurs and hobbyists and getting the WB "correct" is not always necessary for professional work, either; as "how it looks" is often more important.

But correct WB might be necessary for many applications such as forensics, just as one example.

WW

[agb]

Forget the rest,what you need is a CBL, search for colour balance lens.

[kenlip]

Mmmm, just wondering why some photographers use those 18% grey cards or lens covers? Are these things then not necessary if it all gets fixed with pp?


In tricky light conditions or for critical images, it can be handy to have one shot that includes a grey card.

This can allow for more accurate (or at least, easier) establishment of the correct colour temperature in the post processing. Of course, all the images would have to be taken in the identical light conditions as the image that contains the grey card, for this to be of help.

[patrickv]

I know some action photographers who, in non controlled weird light, will set WB with the grey card. They still shoot raw, but it saves time in post processing since you don't have to reset it.

[Lantern]

I use AWB and if I'm indoors or in one place. Having a polystyrene cup in one of your shots you can use the colour picker in post to set that for white balance.

[OzzieTraveller]

G'day Andrea

While all the above answers are quite 'correct' in their way, they are all 'boringly conservative'
I am going to suggest something 100% different

Go down to your local newsagent or paper shop and buy a dozen or so coloured sheets of paper to create a rainbow of colours
One day when you feel like having a bit of fun, choose one of the coloured sheets, custom white balance it as tho it was white, and off you go and do some picture taking

I can guarantee the results will be 'different' and definately 'fun'
Regards, Phil

[arthurking83]

.....

While all the above answers are quite 'correct' in their way, they are all 'boringly conservative'
I am going to suggest something 100% different

Go down to your local newsagent or paper shop and buy a dozen or so coloured sheets of paper to create a rainbow of colours
One day when you feel like having a bit of fun, choose one of the coloured sheets, custom white balance it as tho it was white, and off you go and do some picture taking

.....

A couple of points to note tho:

You don't need to use coloured cards to generate wild and funky colour casts over your images.

All you need to do is to reset WB via the software of your choosing.
Almost all good software has the ability to set a WB value that doesn't necessarily have to correspond to the most accurate value at the time of exposure.
I also question real usefulness of doing so in PS/Lightroom on a jpg or tiff file too.
WB should be adjusted on a raw file before any other adjustment is made, as WB affects exposure values.

There is the possibility that your camera may not accept the coloured card easily as the basis for a custom WB setting.
Because WB takes into account exposure in it's calculations, some colours are hard to use as the basis for a WB value.
As an example reds or blues may be hard to use and the camera may simply throw out a No Good error message during WB presetting.

The other alternative you could try is that some cameras have a graph based custom WB setting tool within their menu system.
That is, you would simply mimic this colour card method by using a standard reference point, and then fine tune via the WB graphic and set your desired colour balance preference.

[William W]

I suggest that this:



While all the above answers are quite 'correct' in their way, they are all 'boringly conservative'
I am going to suggest something 100% different . . . etc . . .



is similar to this:


. . . getting the WB "correct" is not always necessary for professional work, either; as "how it looks" is often more important.
But correct WB might be necessary for many applications such as forensics, just as one example.


WW

[Kym]

I shoot raw and Auto WB.
When birding I'll set cloudy and that seems to mean I don't need to adjust in PP as the conditions generally work out for that.

If shooting indoors I'll sometimes set fluro or tungsten if I think about it

[gje38752]

If you are using Canon and expect accurate W/B indoors using auto, you should think again, custom W/B or grey cards both work well, unless of course you are talking about the very later models that seem to work OK.

[William]

Just shoot RAW on Auto White balance, Easily fixible in RAW PP , No drama's , Thats what it is there for :D

Everybody gets to carried away with the technicalities , Keep it "KISS" Keep it simple stupid :th3:

[Tjfrnds]

I'm another shooting RAW and using auto WB. Only time I use custom is when using welding glass as a filter (which I'm still trying to perfect!)

[patrickv]

I'd like to add something to my original post.
- Now that I have bought myself a grey card, it stays in my camera bag, and if I remember I'll set custom WB, which happens now and then, it only takes like 20 sec
- My biggest lesson from playing with WB is not custom WB, it's light consistency. I've had some weird issues when filling in with my flash under tungsten or fluorescent lighting. Since then I have bought some gels, it makes things a lot easier. I've also had some issues with light consistency when shooting indoors without flash where I had two different sources. Now I know to look out for this, and if I can't move my subject, try to mostly overpower it all with the flash to avoid issues.

[dodgyexposure]

+1 on AWB and shoot raw. I find AWB is usually fairly accurate outdoors, but chancy indoros (not surprising, given the higher chance of mixed lighting). Most PP software allow you to make blanket WB adjustments to a batch of photos, which can cut down on processing time for a lengthy shoot.

[poorman]

wow lots of different opinions about the white balance / more for my plate I guess , think ill stay raw and awb

[Mark L]

wow lots of different opinions about the white balance / more for my plate I guess , think ill stay raw and awb
I prefer using daylight. Shows things as they are most of the time (even if the photos not taken in daylight).

[arthurking83]

I prefer using daylight. Shows things as they are most of the time (even if the photos not taken in daylight).

Well kind'a!(but not really!)

If you're shooting under man made lighting .. then daylight will be off by a few orders of magnitude!
If you're shooting in the shade on a cloudy day .. same as above.

etc. etc.

BUT! To be sure here: If you're shooting in your cameras raw format, it makes no difference what WB you shoot with in camera. You're software has the ability to reset WB(if needed) to whatever the camera is capable of setting it too.

[John King]

I always shoot RAW + LSF JPEGs (LSF = 2.7:1 compression rather than the far more common LF = 4:1 compression). Almost always use AWB except for sunrises/sunsets.

It helps to remember that a RAW file has a far greater amount of data than any JPEG file. Other than that, a RAW file does not have 1) bit depth; 2) colour space; or 3) white balance assigned in the camera, so these can all be modified with no data loss in post processing (other than changing the bit depth to a smaller bit depth ... ) .

All JPEG and TIFF files produced in-camera have the bit depth, WB and colour space "baked" into the image file, and these can only be altered later with potentially massive data loss. Certainly with significant data loss (mostly ... ).

I always post process using a 16 bit, ProPhotoRGB colour space using either PSD or TIFF files as the target file type. If this needs to be used on the web, I then convert the file to 8 bit, sRGB colour space and save as a .JPG with a modified filename.

It helps if you work in a fully colour managed environment and have a monitor that can display an aRGB colour space with a greater bit depth than 8 bits ...

After this, it rapidly becomes a can of worms ... :D.

[poorman]

Have got my daughters wedding this sat / so taken my camera along for some quick snaps ...ill do a wide range of photos all in raw and awb .

[aussirose]

I use the K setting alot. I especially like wacking it up to 7300 or more for sunset shots. Makes the red more vivid.

[stephendean]

The only time I would use custom WB is if I was only shooting JPG. It will make no difference with RAW files.

[William W]

The only time I would use custom WB is if I was only shooting JPG. It will make no difference with RAW files.

No difference to the raw files per se: often using a CWB can make a big difference to the workflow processing of the the raw files, though.

WW

[Tannin]

Set indoor work with artificial light aside. That is a whole different can of worms and, thankfully, I hardly ever need to do it.

For everything else, I set it to daylight and leave it there. This is the only way to get consistent natural colour when you photograph the natural world.

(I sometimes adjust it later in a raw converter, of course, but only in unusual circumstances, and I wash my hands carefully afterwards.)

[Geoff79]

My problem is that every single time I manually set the custom white balance I forget about it.

It's very rare it happens, but sometimes on overcast days I can get an unpleasant overly blue/cold cast to my images, not representative of what I'm seeing. So I'll set cwb to 5200, is my default for this. Those images come out well but then invariably, I'll take photos later either inside or in the sun and they'll come out drenched in yellow, because I've forgotten to go back to awb.

Thankfully it's usually pretty obvious and I rectify it the first time I review my images. But it's still annoying and probably has cost me shots in the past... Shooting in JPEG when it can't be as easily undone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nick Cliff]

The collapsible grey/white cards are useful for me photographing plants if I need to have the colour correct.
The WB card can be used as a shade over flowers or insects in bright light or can be used as a light reflector in low light or on rainy days even as an umbrella for your camera:)

cheers Nick

[ameerat42]

...My problem is that every single time I manually set the custom white balance I forget about it.

It's very rare it happens, but sometimes on overcast days I can get an unpleasant overly blue/cold cast to my images, not representative of what I'm seeing....

Not only the post quoted above, but also others...

WB is not important at all if you are recording in raw format. If you also or only record in jpeg and want to use the latter, then
set a suitable WB. It is also useful for the in-cam image preview. But you can select the WB later in raw conversion, so it doasn't
really matter.

For all my shots (raw only) I leave WB set to Daylight. When converting raws I change it to Auto. (I must remember to just
leave it on Auto in camera.:cool:)

So to recap: it doesn't really matter if you shoot in raw.

According to avid "full spectrum shooter" acquaintance of mine, WB is important for that, as there are no pre-set values for FS.

[William W]

. . . For all my shots (raw only) I leave WB set to Daylight. When converting raws I change it to Auto. (I must remember to just leave it on Auto in camera.) .

There is a difference in the functionality and outcomes of those two procedures: that difference can make a difference. That was part of the point in Post #49.

For example, if you are shooting a series of shots where the Subject has much the same lighting on them, but the Background lighting occasions subtle changes, it can be very useful (for the Post Production workflow) to set a White Balance, rather than use AWB. One reason being that once set then every file will open at that set WB and the corrections of CT and Tint may be calculated with a comparative of all the shots with the same base CT and TINT: both the correction and subsequent (batch) processing can be easier/more efficient from that base.

Also (for the same reason above) it can be useful to set a WB when shooting under Cyclic Lighting when the Tv is faster than the electricity's cyclic rate.

The WB, to a lesser degree, also drives the Histogram and "Blinkies" as well as the in-camera preview.

WW

[William W]

The collapsible grey/white cards are useful for me photographing plants if I need to have the colour correct. . . "

Acknowledging that the OP was made in 2012 and also that the thread resurrected in 2016.

Now again the thread is revisited with a slightly different conversation, so maybe worthwhile re-making the opinion that "colour correct" is very rarely required. (Please see Posts #24 #26 and #28)

Absolutes and Blanket Statements are easily made factoids and it is worthwhile addressing these, sometimes.

That's neither being pedantic concerning the phrased used, nor a trivial photographic point.

It's understood that the grey/white cards are a good tool to use for Flower Photography and also its understood why they are a good tool to use, I concur, but in reality, when in the Digital Darkroom, I'd bet a Mars Bar that the Image is subtly tweaked to make it "look good" and it would be rare that a Colour Patch is shot on the first frame; rare that the lighting is held consistent on the Subjects; rare that the Studio Monitor's Calibration is correlated to the Test Shot containing the Colour Patch before editing any of the image files; rare that the Studio Monitor is situated in a room with controlled lighting; and rare that the end print (or screen image) is always viewed under controlled lighting conditions.

That's a detailed explanation of why Colour Balance & White Balance are, in reality, Subjective and Interpretive.

For nearly every shot that we will ever make, even when we desire "accuracy" and "correct", that accuracy and correctness is very so much in the eye of the beholder.

In the context of the more detailed and targeted discussion that this thread has taken, is also worthwhile addressing another blanket statement which has made factoid status - "If you shoot raw, then it makes no difference what WB you use."

I think that posts #49 and #54 address that one.

WW

[arthurking83]

Post #49
No difference to the raw files per se: often using a CWB can make a big difference to the workflow processing of the the raw files, though.

WW

Post #54
There is a difference in the functionality and outcomes of those two procedures: that difference can make a difference. That was part of the point in Post #49.

The WB, to a lesser degree, also drives the Histogram and "Blinkies" as well as the in-camera preview.

WW


.....

In the context of the more detailed and targeted discussion that this thread has taken, is also worthwhile addressing another blanket statement which has made factoid status - "If you shoot raw, then it makes no difference what WB you use."

I think that posts #49 and #54 address that one.

WW


With respect to post #49 I agree that it can make a difference, but more specifically I think that difference is attributable to the raw processing software used.
ie. that it makes a difference to the workflow is due to the software being used, not so much the choice of using a certain white balance value, or mode used in camera.

What I mean by that is: I use the camera manufacturers raw processing software for 99.99999% of my images(all raw).
When I use the Nikon software the appreciable difference to workflow is acknowledged, but is so insignificant that this lack of appreciable difference could still easily be described as 'no difference'.
The difference described here as insignificant is a simple two or three step batch processing of the images to the same


Note that my preference is to always use AutoWB, and I can count on one finger the number of times I've used any other WB value or feature seriously(ie. not in testing).
ps. I totally disagree with Tannins assertion that sticking to daylight gives the most consistent natural colour rendering too tho. But as the saying goes, each to their own!

With respect to Post #54, the WB is a major factor in driving the histogram, and possibly the blinkies(if that's how One chooses to shoot).
But with that, that is one of the major reasonings for the common theory that the WB chosen in camera when shooting raw .. "makes no difference".
ie. if you're going to choose a WB in camera simply based on the histogram(and hence blinkies), but then tweak that WB tint/warmth setting later on in PP ... then all you've done is waste your time setting WB in camera!


I've found over the years that thirdparty software gives me 'unpleasant' colours in PP that I'm simply not used too, and 'have to work' to get right.
When I use the Nikon software for Nikon raw files, all camera settings translate exactly the same way in the Nikon raw file software.

So,as a quick example, If I shoot a scene and the WB comes out as 5200K and 0 tint as the recorded WB value(from camera to Nikon raw software), in all thirdparty raw software, using those same WB values gives a completely different colour rendering(from memory, usually stronger magenta). Even allowing the same thirdparty software to calculate what it thinks the cameras WB values were, while the image may not look bad, it's not the same colour rendering. All thirdparty software render Nikon raw files differently to how the camera records it, and Nikon raw software also render it.
pps. I reckon I've tried them all, on Windows.

"One reason being that once set then every file will open at that set WB and the corrections of CT and Tint may be calculated with a comparative of all the shots with the same base CT and TINT: both the correction and subsequent (batch) processing can be easier/more efficient from that base"
I've never seen software that calculate the WB value for an image based on the WB of all the other images.
To me it makes no sense at all to do so either. The assumption would be that all images are or have to be shot in exactly the same light conditions for ever more .. and we all know that's not really an option.
So for software to have this ability seems like a silly feature only complicating already complicated programming .. and with that my guess would be a good reason to avoid such software! :p

with raw files the base WB value recorded in the file has no bearing on the final WB value chosen on that file either. So to have a more accurate WB as a starting point to make is easier/efficient to tweak the WB value in the final image is not an issue in a raw file.
You can easily change the WB value in software from a recorded 2500K(I think about the lowest value most cameras will allow) to 10000K(or 9999K) as the maximum value that most camera also allow.
Doing so on a jpg file is an exercise in 'wild creative license' :D. On a raw file tho, that massive change in WB is no problem. The 10000K file will render exactly as per a camera generated raw file set to 10000K.
ppps. I've done the tests.


So for all intents and purposes the common acknowledgement that WB set on an in camera raw file "makes no difference" still holds.
and for a by the way: that reference is more specifically targeted at the aility for that raw image to render in a specific manner using a specific WB value .. not really related to any differences in workflow methods.

As for workflow during processing we each have our own methods and they usually don't translate, transfer, transcend or transpose easily or very well from one person to another.
What one may find an annoyance(eg. me any my gripe with thirdparty software and Nikons raw files) may appear to "make no difference" to another.

[Nick Cliff]

William for personal photos granted I will experiment a great deal with the white balance however if I am asked to take a photo for instance of an insect for scientific ID purposes then colour accuracy really does matter as was the case with a newly found and possibly introduced insect in Queensland.
I was interested that sharpness can help with insect ID where I was advised sometimes the number of hairs on an insect can be useful information for the entomologists,

Cheers Nick

[Nick Cliff]

Re the white balance discussion this article on the dress may be worth revisiting,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress

[ameerat42]

The dress?! - Wow! That's old hat!

It finally passed out of human distraction, and now it's back:eek::eek:

[Nick Cliff]

Sorry about that old dress:)

[Tannin]

if I am asked to take a photo for instance of an insect for scientific ID purposes then colour accuracy really does matter

^ A good point well made.

Colour accuracy matters to me too.

But it is a different sort of colour accuracy. For my purposes, I like to see the same colour I saw in real life. If the light is blueish because of fog or overcast, the scene is blueish, and the photograph should be too. Sure, that scene will be a different colour at midday when the sun comes out, and a different colour again when it sets. But it will also look different in the winter as the grasses green up, and different on a windy day when they ripple in the breeze, different when a different bird perches on a different branch. And those differences, the endless variety of nature, is the entire point of photography. (My sort of photography anyway. I recognise that there are other sorts as well.)

Do I stick religiously to these self-imposed colour-accuracy rules? No. I break them as and when I please, just as I break any other photographic rule whenever it seems like a good idea at the time. But mostly I stick to them because they produce a more accurate, more meaningful, more true-to-life picture.

Would my true-to-life white balance suit a scientific paper, or a field guide? Obviously not. This sort of task requires a known, standard white balance just as it requires standard measurements of length and mass. But if we are considering, for example, a book showcasing the natural world, one that is the next best thing to being there, then the natural variation of natural light is important, and one captures this by picking a standard white balance and sticking to it.

(Is it not curious that one produces standard, same-every-time colour by varying the white balance, and one produces varying, true-to-life colour by not varying the white balance.)

[Nick Cliff]

Tony I concur:)

[William W]

. . . a photo for instance of an insect for scientific ID purposes then colour accuracy really does matter as was the case with a newly found and possibly introduced insect in Queensland.


Absolutely. That's a forensic application.

WW

[ameerat42]

So, it matters? - Or you're (general you) saying it does make a difference?

Well, that would be a good development for this thread. For example, how would you ensure the
accuracy of the CWB?