Contemplating White Balance

Okay, I know that if I am contemplating white balance I have either too much time on my hands or am the biggest nerd the world has ever know. Or both.

At any rate, being relatively new to the world of digital photography I am finding that often the white balance setting that would make the most sense is not, in fact, the right setting. For example, when shooting under cloudy skies and using the "Cloudy" setting the photos are often WAY too warm. Photos made in direct shade and later set to "Shade" WB seem to suffer the same problem.

I always photograph in RAW and set the WB after the fact in the RAW converter. This really isn't a major problem as I can easily tweak the settings to look right, but it is something I found interesting and possibly worthy of discussion. Has anyone else experienced similar problems? Am I doing something wrong? Am I really the biggest nerd in the world?

Bret, the presets are rough approximations of color temperature under some generic light conditions. AWB usually does a good job of measuring light temperature more precisely but it is also easily fooled. Your best bet short of using a hand-held color meter is to set it by eye on a calibrated monitor (as you apparently do).

Guy

Bret, you are not alone. I have been expermimenting with setting the WB my self rather than using "auto". Like you said shooting in RAW helps a lot in correcting mistakes later. I also find the standard brackets less than perfect. Perhaps shooting "daylight" all the time then adjusting later would be just as good as "Auto". However, I do believe getting it closer to right in the camera is better. So, I will continue to try to estimae the lighting and adjust as necssary in my RAW converter. It will most likely be closer than just using "Auto" or "Daylight."

Thanks, Guy. I do find that Auto is usually pretty close, perhaps some times a bit too cool. It is amazing to me that the technology can do such a good job on its own of choosing the right setting.

Ed: Are you shooting in RAW *and* adjusting your WB in the field? Just curious. If so, it might be interesting to do an experiment whereby you make one image using Auto and another using your own setting, then compare the results in the computer.

As for that "Cloudy" WB setting, I've found it overly warm when the clouds in the sky are light, but pretty much on the money with heavy overcast. That makes sense, since the real world color temperature is different under these two conditions. "Daylight" WB works well for light cloud cover most of the time. Often it's very close to "Auto" which I regularly use as well. Season to taste, whatever looks the best.

Bret i have been using the Auto WB setting in the camera and then when converting in Pixmantic or the Adobe Camera Raw I do a very minor tweak if it looks a little off to my eye.

One down side to using AWB is if you plan to stitch images, where there's a potential that different exposures will be tagged with diiferent color temperatures. Easy enough to fix in the converter but may be annoying if you realize it after putting a lot of work into stitching (don't ask me how I know).

Guy

I leave my WB setting locked-in at 5500K - just like daylight balance film. Therefore, I already have a pretty good idea of what my results are going to be, based on my years of shooting film - shade on sunny days will be bluish, colors near sunrise and sunset will be warmer. Fine, I have grown to accept that. Minor changes to WB will be made later in the RAW converter, but at least my results are somewhat predictable.

I like your idea of using a fixed WB, Richard. I switched from film to digital and was used to the results of daylight film, too. So, what you suggest might be a logical way to go. Thanks for the post!

Ed: Are you shooting in RAW *and* adjusting your WB in the field? Just curious. If so, it might be interesting to do an experiment whereby you make one image using Auto and another using your own setting, then compare the results in the computer.

Bret, Yes, this is what I have been experimenting with lately. I have not yet done a direct comparison as you suggest. This will be good project for the weekend. Thanks. When done I will post results.

Look forward to seeing the result of your experiment, Ed!

Glad I'm not the only one who's observing this.

Basil

I ignore the WB competely... mine is locked in also, somewhere in the low 5k's. My whole workflow revolves aroudn RAW, so it doesn't really matter too much.


Guy: for what its worth, AutoPano Pro handles shot to shot changes in both WB and exposure. However, when I convert from RAW I just lock sync WB settings thru the images anyway. One less variable to deal with.

I was also planning to use AWB for eveything but Richars you idea seems nice too. I'm also used to 5500K film look. I'm not sure though if it makes any difference as one can manipulate the wb in raw converter easily. I will watch this thread.

At any rate, being relatively new to the world of digital photography>>>
Now now bret! Its almost 2 years!! May be I can write that, just two days.

I do the same as Richard, 5500K and leave it and process in Raw. Never use any other setting. Why would I want the camera to auto-balance out the alpenglow from my photos, or the blue of snow in the shade - yech!