White Balance - What Settings Do You Use?

Jago-ViGJago-ViG Registered Users Posts: 48 Big grins
edited February 27, 2012 in Technique
Hi,

What settings do you all use for white balance? I have everything on the camera set to manual and used to do all the white balance manually too but found that for photography where I am moving around, I really couldn't do this efficiently.

I end up using auto WB and then adjusting later on in PP. I occasionally use a preset if I can see the camera really getting the white balance wrong for certain shots (i.e. I'm indoor at a concert and it is making the images too warm, I might set it to low light preset so that the PP adjustments are more minimal).

Any thoughts or even tips as to whether I am doing the right thing or how I could improve this technique?

Thanks,

Vig

Comments

  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,893 moderator
    edited February 25, 2012
    If you're shooting raw, camera white balance doesn't matter. Adjusting it post is often just a single click. Shoot a gray card if the light is weird and use that as your reference.
  • Jago-ViGJago-ViG Registered Users Posts: 48 Big grins
    edited February 25, 2012
    Richard wrote: »
    If you're shooting raw, camera white balance doesn't matter. Adjusting it post is often just a single click. Shoot a gray card if the light is weird and use that as your reference.

    Good point about the RAW.

    The grey card thing is fine but my issue is that I'm shooting in constantly different light so I'd have to keep shooting the card.
  • Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited February 25, 2012
    shooting Raw...I keep mine set to auto (AWB) and fix in Lightroom...for me it is quick and easy and like Ron Popiel says...set it and forget it ...
    don't know if you shot film, but you could sorta fix white balance (or color temp) withthe use of filters...but with changing temps from scene to scene we could not be changing filters that often...so shoot on your fav film..fix in darkroom ... Pretty much same scenario to day..shoot at your fav iso..fix in Lightroom / AcR or your Fav raw converter...
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited February 25, 2012
    Richard wrote: »
    If you're shooting raw, camera white balance doesn't matter. Adjusting it post is often just a single click. Shoot a gray card if the light is weird and use that as your reference.

    +1 15524779-Ti.gif
    Setting WB in camera is only worth when you know for sure your WB remains stable throughout the shoot (or part of the shoot). E.g. when you shoot with studio strobes it's a fairly safe bet to set WB to "flash" so the jpgs (I shoot RAW + small jpegs ) can serve as decent "proofs".
    Same when shooting an event like wedding, when you may have a need to quickly switch from indoors (tungsten or luminescent with high ISO) to outdoors (sunlit with regular ISO). Custom/User settings on the many modern cameras work wonders in this respect. Again, simply to produce decent looking SOOC jpegs and have a little less work during post.
    However, this only matters if you deal with a high volume shoot. In any other case AWB + later adjustment in ACR/LR save you time and worries while shooting.
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • arodneyarodney Registered Users Posts: 2,005 Major grins
    edited February 25, 2012
    AWB plus raw, no worries.
    Andrew Rodney
    Author "Color Management for Photographers"
    http://www.digitaldog.net/
  • Moving PicturesMoving Pictures Registered Users Posts: 384 Major grins
    edited February 25, 2012
    I would never shoot awb. I have no desire to let the camera do my thinking. And I doubt I will ever use a grey card either. Paper is cheaper. (Oddest mwb source: water fountain in yellow gym.)


    Sent from my MID7016 using Tapatalk
    Newspaper photogs specialize in drive-by shootings.
    Forum for Canadian shooters: www.canphoto.net
  • arodneyarodney Registered Users Posts: 2,005 Major grins
    edited February 25, 2012
    I would never shoot awb. I have no desire to let the camera do my thinking.

    You’re missing the point if shooting raw and thinking we are letting the camera do any thinking that affects the image. WB has zero effect on the raw data. It is only a metadata suggestion one can accept or ignore. You can alter it to your heart’s content in a raw converter, it isn’t at all based on the camera doing any thinking. The beauty here is that since the raw isn’t affected, the initial default preview in a converter with AWB is likely to be pleasing. Especially if you move from one WB situation to another (outdoors, then indoors).

    As for gray, not the right tonality for raw capture (fine for JPEG). White is a better tone considering the distribution of raw data (half of all that data being in the first stop of highlights). As for paper white, well sure, as long as it is spectrally neutral. That is possible but necessarily likely.
    Andrew Rodney
    Author "Color Management for Photographers"
    http://www.digitaldog.net/
  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited February 25, 2012
    arodney wrote: »
    You’re missing the point if shooting raw and thinking we are letting the camera do any thinking that affects the image. WB has zero effect on the raw data. It is only a metadata suggestion one can accept or ignore. You can alter it to your heart’s content in a raw converter, it isn’t at all based on the camera doing any thinking. The beauty here is that since the raw isn’t affected, the initial default preview in a converter with AWB is likely to be pleasing. Especially if you move from one WB situation to another (outdoors, then indoors).

    As for gray, not the right tonality for raw capture (fine for JPEG). White is a better tone considering the distribution of raw data (half of all that data being in the first stop of highlights). As for paper white, well sure, as long as it is spectrally neutral. That is possible but necessarily likely.

    +1 15524779-Ti.gif
    Not using advances of technology is akin to making fire by friction instead of using microwave when all you need is to heat some things up. Surely, can be entertaining, but a tad inefficient.
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • arodneyarodney Registered Users Posts: 2,005 Major grins
    edited February 26, 2012
    When shooting raw, the auto WB has no downside, only possible upsides. If you move from one vastly different illuminant to another and forget to set the WB, no big deal for the raw capture although you’ll have to futz around with the WB tool in the converter to make it look decent. With Auto WB, that might not be at all necessary. At least with a lot of images you are just viewing in say LR’s grid view. Once you find the image(s) you want to tweak, you might want to alter the WB sliders to season to taste. So my take is, Auto might get you close, non Auto might produce default renderings that are a mile off.

    In Adobe raw converters, the WB shown is “as shot” which just means the converter’s current default rendering is based on the metadata seen. But each companies converter will produce a different result. It is only a starting point. In an Adobe converter, you can select something else in the popup besides “as shot” to get closer or just specifically WB one or more images using something you know is white and neutral or use the card you captured on one such image.

    If I shot JPEG’s, I’d be far, far more concerned with WB settings, custom WB etc. For raw, I isn’t anything I need to worry about so I figure, let Auto set the WB, maybe it will be fine and I can just move on.
    Andrew Rodney
    Author "Color Management for Photographers"
    http://www.digitaldog.net/
  • Jago-ViGJago-ViG Registered Users Posts: 48 Big grins
    edited February 26, 2012
    Thanks chaps. Looks like what I'm doing is the way to continue - AWB...

    I do feel that my RAW converter might be doing some work for me which I don't want. I use Aperture FYI...
  • Moving PicturesMoving Pictures Registered Users Posts: 384 Major grins
    edited February 26, 2012
    arodney wrote: »
    You’re missing the point if shooting raw and thinking we are letting the camera do any thinking that affects the image. WB has zero effect on the raw data.

    I'm fully aware of that. However, not everyone shoots raw. I piled off 900 images at the provincial basketball championships: no way in hell I'm shooting those raw. Next week, I'll do some casual engagement pics for a friend. Those I will shoot raw.

    The reason I stated what I did is that not everyone uses all the tools in the toolbox the same way, and I've seen more than a few pics screwed up because AWB didn't work in a specified situation and polluted a jpeg with tones that can't easily be removed. And the OP struck me as someone that might be shooting jpeg images.
    Newspaper photogs specialize in drive-by shootings.
    Forum for Canadian shooters: www.canphoto.net
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,694 moderator
    edited February 26, 2012
    The beauty of shooting jpgs at an indoor basketball arena, is that once you have the white balance sorted, the color temp never changes; unlike when you are shooting a wedding, and moving from room to room with different lighting temps galore.
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • BradfordBennBradfordBenn Registered Users Posts: 2,506 Major grins
    edited February 26, 2012
    pathfinder wrote: »
    The beauty of shooting jpgs at an indoor basketball arena, is that once you have the white balance sorted, the color temp never changes; unlike when you are shooting a wedding, and moving from room to room with different lighting temps galore.

    Actually as I have learned the hard way from Hockey, it depends on which lighting system they use. Some of the older systems use sodium I think that cycles. You can see it if you do burst photos. AKTse and I hit it every so often when shooting hockey. The newer lighting systems don't have the same issue.
    -=Bradford

    Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,694 moderator
    edited February 27, 2012
    Yes, that is true too - color temperature can vary with the alternating current cycle, especially with Sodium halide lighting, but in that case you cannot use fast shutter speeds either, unless shooting with flash and over driving ambient. Great reasons for shooting Raw again, I think.

    But if one is shooting under Sodium halide lighting, it is the same annoyance from wherever in the arena you are shooting, isn't it?
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • zoomerzoomer Registered Users Posts: 3,688 Major grins
    edited February 27, 2012
    I kind of go a different way than most.
    I always shoot Aperture priority and Auto white balance. I let the camera do everything possible that it will do automatically, I just want to shoot pictures. I want the camera to get out of my way and not think about settings, or have to adjust them.
    Auto white balance just works if you are going to be processing the photos in Lightroom.
    In processing simply choose all the photos in a given lighting condition and click on something white....done....why complicate it.

    If you happen to be in one of those rare lighting conditions where Auto white balance shows some variation...then choose any one of the other WB setting (it doesn't matter how wrong it is) That will give you a consistent white balance, then in Lightroom post click on something white, instant correction to them all.
  • Jago-ViGJago-ViG Registered Users Posts: 48 Big grins
    edited February 27, 2012
    So I had a shoot this weekend. Head shots for a model/actress. I was also testing out a new lens - Canon's 35mm 1.4L.

    I used the auto WB - the shoot was mostly outside and it was extremely sunny so finding shade was imperative. I actually could have manually set the white balance but went with auto and the pictures look great. Very little PP will be needed - not sure if it was helped by the lens which I am now in love with. I rented it because I am going to get this or the 50mm (I have a 7D so not full-frame) but right now I am leaning towards the 35mm.
  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited February 27, 2012
    Jago-ViG wrote: »
    So I had a shoot this weekend. Head shots for a model/actress. I was also testing out a new lens - Canon's 35mm 1.4L.

    I used the auto WB - the shoot was mostly outside and it was extremely sunny so finding shade was imperative. I actually could have manually set the white balance but went with auto and the pictures look great. Very little PP will be needed - not sure if it was helped by the lens which I am now in love with. I rented it because I am going to get this or the 50mm (I have a 7D so not full-frame) but right now I am leaning towards the 35mm.

    I understand my comment is not about WB, but... 35mm for headshots? eek7.gif Unless you go for a comic effect, it's a rather strange choice, since you should have gotten a lot of facial distortion, even on the 7D's APC sensor... Don't get me wrong, 35/1.4 is probably a great lens, but just so not for the headshots... You'd be far better off with 50 (and even better with longer focal length).
    Just my 2 cents...
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • Jago-ViGJago-ViG Registered Users Posts: 48 Big grins
    edited February 27, 2012
    Nikolai wrote: »
    I understand my comment is not about WB, but... 35mm for headshots? eek7.gif Unless you go for a comic effect, it's a rather strange choice, since you should have gotten a lot of facial distortion, even on the 7D's APC sensor... Don't get me wrong, 35/1.4 is probably a great lens, but just so not for the headshots... You'd be far better off with 50 (and even better with longer focal length).
    Just my 2 cents...

    Yep - I had an 85mm and a 24-105...my favourite shots were with the 35mm though!
  • arodneyarodney Registered Users Posts: 2,005 Major grins
    edited February 27, 2012
    I've seen more than a few pics screwed up because AWB didn't work in a specified situation and polluted a jpeg with tones that can't easily be removed.

    Yes indeed. One of the principle reasons not to shoot JPEG. Once you bake that cake, if you used salt instead of sugar, it can only taste awful.

    With a product like Lightroom, you should be able to process 900 images quite quickly with raw and not have to worry about a lot of pre and post processing thanks to that raw data. You are correct that the camera is making a huge number of decisions for you when shooting JPEG and if you don't like them, you are kind of stuck with them.
    Andrew Rodney
    Author "Color Management for Photographers"
    http://www.digitaldog.net/
Sign In or Register to comment.