White Balance : In Camera or Post Process, RAW or JPEG?

radhak

My search is not effective on this forum, or maybe this is such a simple question that nobody needed to ask it before!

For White Balancing, which is better - setting the Custom WB in-camera, or using software later? And does shooting JPEGs completely spoil chances of correcting WB?

I was told by a friend to get the WhiBal grey card. Their videos seem to indicate that it is a handy tool for post-processing, but can it be used to custom-set while shooting? Or do I need something else to help do that?

And while on that, is one grey card the same as another? Comparing the WhiBal with a generic one on Amazon - or maybe with the negligible cost differential I should not even bother?

Cornflake

I don't claim to be an expert, but if you're shooting jpegs, I'd get the white balance as close to correct as possible when you shoot. There's less leeway for correcting it than with RAW format.

I use grey cards almost exclusively for getting white balance correct. There are various ways to do it but I take one test shot of the grey card, set the white balance by using the eyedropper on the grey card in the test shot, and then copy that white balance setting to the other images using a Lightroom custom preset.

All grey cards should be 18 percent grey. I use cheap ones and they work fine.

pathfinder

Getting the correct white balance will go a long way in improving the quality of your images.

If shooting RAW, you can shoot a grey card( like the WhiBal ) in a frame under the ambient lighting where you are shooting, and use that for color correction in RAW processing. The WhiBal is shiny at times, and can give a specular reflection however.

If shooting jpgs, the best technique is to create a custom jpg of a white or grey truly neutral target, and use that jpj to create a custom white balance in your camera for your images at that time. Check how in your camera's manual. I really like the Lastolite non specular neutral grey reflector for this

I wrote a bit brief thread about color balance tools here - http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=90438

Most grey cards were designed to be used with a light meter for reflected light readings, and are not always 100% color neutral, though some folks are happy with them.

One thing about jpgs, is that exposure accuracy is quite important for correct color balance. Take a Kodak grey scale, like I used in the above thread, and shoot a jpg and see if you can identify all 20 steps of grey in your image. If you are off by 1/2 stop, you will not be successful..... Raw gives you a bit more leeway, but does require some facility with Adobe Camera Raw or another RAW engine.

Another gadget I like is the Color Passport from X-Rite - http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/photography/colorchecker-passport_1.html

radhak

Thanks, both! Good information there.

Your earlier thread is great too, Pathfinder. Lemme confess that it'll take me some more time to really absorb and understand all of it. Another thread by Icebear linked inside http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=88748 that is well worth the read too.

All this while I've been serendipitously using the Auto WB; guess it's time to move on.

zoomer

Maybe not the best advice for someone just learning, or maybe it will help.
I always use auto WB, but I really do not worry about white balance until I am processing, Raw and Jpeg are the same to me.
Lightroom processing, I group sets of photos per lighting and then on auto sync I click on something white (if nothing white try grey or black) with the eyedropper, instant white balance. Sometimes it requires a bit of tweaking but usually not.
I take and process A LOT of photos, and this is the fastest way for me and it just works.

If I am taking just a few photos and processing them in Photoshop I use the levels box. Click on a black item with the black eyedropper, click on a white item with the white eyedropper. Sometimes I will use the grey dropper as well.

As mentioned exposure plays a big role in your color. Often doing a proper levels adjustment will clean your colors right up.

I should mention I guess that outdoors the Auto WB almost always get it just right. Indoors an adjustment is often required from the auto settings. In Lightroom (jpeg or raw) I choose the entire set of photos (in the same light ) and do the one click adjustment with the eyedropper and it almost always instantly corrects it.

angevin1

zoomer wrote: »

Maybe not the best advice for someone just learning, or maybe it will help.
I always use auto WB, but I really do not worry about white balance until I am processing, Raw and Jpeg are the same to me.

Same here, in RAW. But one thing I have noticed is that my Canon doesn't appear to get the AWB as close as my D700 did. Of course that's no biggie shooting and processing RAW. Only really important if shooting video.

pathfinder

Ultimately, your final color temperature is an artistic decision, not a scientific, impartial decision.

When shooting late afternoon/evening setting sunlight, the last thing you want to do is convert it to noon sunlight.

I usually shoot with AWB also, and correct in RAW conversion. But if I was shooting a wedding for a client, I would use a white balance tool of some sort, especially if I was wanting to shoot jpgs.

With memory so cheap, one can usually shoot Raw + jpg, with a specific color setting chosen for the jpgs. Color settings have no effect on RAW data in the camera, so you can always change your mind later at your computer. But if SHade was really a correct setting, your jpgs should be lovely, and already done.

Pros always know more than just one way to skin a cat.......

AWB settings are better than they were 6-8 years ago, but some cameras are still better at AWB than others. JMO

arodney

If you shoot raw, the WB has zero effect on the data. You can create any WB to a large degree (Kelvin, pun intended) to render the color as you desire. If you shoot JPEG, the camera setting burns the edit for WB (among a lot of other factors) into a low bit, low gamut image. Very difficult to unbake that cake. So shoot raw, set WB to whatever you wish since it doesn’t matter (hence, I’d use Auto). Season to taste in your raw converter.

Grainbelt

arodney wrote: »

So shoot raw, set WB to whatever you wish since it doesn’t matter (hence, I’d use Auto). Season to taste in your raw converter.

My only caveat to the above is that (at least with my camera, not sure of others) if I chimp the histogram after a test shot of the exposure, incorrect white balance can show highlight clipping that may or may not be there once WB is corrected. I find this to be particularly relevant when shooting sunrise/sunset scenes where a warmer white balance will clip the red channel.

arodney

Grainbelt wrote: »

My only caveat to the above is that (at least with my camera, not sure of others) if I chimp the histogram after a test shot of the exposure, incorrect white balance can show highlight clipping that may or may not be there once WB is corrected. I find this to be particularly relevant when shooting sunrise/sunset scenes where a warmer white balance will clip the red channel.

The Histogram on the camera represents the JPEG and has no bearing on the raw data (unfortunately). Very true for exposure. More so than WB. Shooting for optimal raw data will produce a severely clipped JPEG histogram (see:http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/camera-technique/exposing-for-raw.html)

For checking focus, composition, the on-camera chimp is useful. For color, exposure, not a lick if you shoot raw.

pathfinder

arodney wrote: »

The Histogram on the camera represents the JPEG and has no bearing on the raw data (unfortunately). Very true for exposure. More so than WB. Shooting for optimal raw data will produce a severely clipped JPEG histogram (see:http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/camera-technique/exposing-for-raw.html)

For checking focus, composition, the on-camera chimp is useful. For color, exposure, not a lick if you shoot raw.

Folks should read Andrew's link up above, it is a very clear and pertinent discussion of the Expose to the Right technique, which can be quite helpful in decreasing noise in an image.

As always, incident light meters rock, and the ISO your camera is set to, is not necessarily the ISO you may choose to use in your incident meter.

Shooting fast moving wildlife out of doors after sundown does not lend itself easily to expose to the right, but it does encourage one to make certain to expose generously, and NOT to underexpose, especially as you dial up the ISOs. I have numerous shots at ISO 1600 or faster, which look quite acceptable in print, that were shot well after sundown with lenses with a maximum aperture of f5.6. I try to make a strong effort to avoid under exposure if at all possible.