white balance

joshhuntnm

Someone asked about white balance the other day. I thought I would offer this mistake/ fix as an example. I shot my son's concert the other day. The first pic is on AWB, then I remembered to change to tungston

Scott_Quier

The camera does a better job when allowed (i.e., you set the WB to the appropriate setting), but it's still not quite right.

A short trip through ACR and PS and this is what I came up with. I tried to do the same with the more orange one and didn't quite get it there.

If you want me to delete this, let me know....

joshhuntnm

not deleting necessary. I asked this question on another thread, I am not sure where you landed--you think the best thing is to change the cameras white balance AND then adjust it in ACR? Or, just shoot in AWB knowing that you have to fix it any way. On a technical level it doesn't actually matter does it? Either way all the information is recorded in RAW in either case; it is just a matter of letting the camera do part of the changing or doing it all in ACR.

Hamm

I'm not sure if Scott is going to come back to comment... but I'll give my $0.02 anyway.

If you're shooting raw, you're right, all the information is there and the WB setting becomes a first guess at a correct WB. But as Scott's modification showed, the tungsten setting didn't quite get it right. This isn't surprising, given that schools are not often lit by tungsten anyway, and the temperature picked for tungsten WB will probably be off somewhat. (The lighting here may have been warm fluorescents.) Setting the white/gray/black levels in post with the curves tool is better.

Scott_Quier

joshhuntnm wrote:

not deleting necessary. I asked this question on another thread, I am not sure where you landed--you think the best thing is to change the cameras white balance AND then adjust it in ACR? Or, just shoot in AWB knowing that you have to fix it any way. On a technical level it doesn't actually matter does it? Either way all the information is recorded in RAW in either case; it is just a matter of letting the camera do part of the changing or doing it all in ACR.

If you're shooting RAW, where you have the WB set really doesn't matter as far as the final result is concerned. Getting the WB right in ACR (or most/all other RAW converters) is easy stuff. It just may require a little more work in your workflow is all.

However, if you are shooting JPG, all the above goes out the window. As I tried, and failed, to indicate above I couldn't get a decent result starting with the more orange JPG - the data just wasn't there to support it. The one that more closely matched the available light - I was able to get it more "right". The point is, with JPG, you have much less latitude in both WB and exposure - but we all knew that already

Finally, and stating the obvious, one thing that getting the WB right in-camera will get you is a better idea of what your shot looks like when you chimp - especially if you are looking at the RBG histograms. Most camera (all?) use the embedded JPG image to generate the histogram(s). If the WB is off, so too will be the histogram(s) and you won't have a really good idea of whether or not you have blown a channel.

hrsa

Hm, a question just to know...


Why would any owner of a DSLR shoot JPGs anyway?
Having a fast camera with so much information stored in RAW and with software like Lighroom...
why would you shoot in JPG?

Scott_Quier

hrsa wrote:

Hm, a question just to know...


Why would any owner of a DSLR shoot JPGs anyway?
Having a fast camera with so much information stored in RAW and with software like Lighroom...
why would you shoot in JPG?

One reason that comes to mind is ... picture this ....

A sports shooter following a play. He/she knows it's going to be huge. Doesn't know the exact pinnacle moment. But our photog has an idea of the 5 seconds in which it's going to happen. Mash the shutter button down and fire of 20 or 50 images. Even with the size and speed of the buffers on newer cameras, you can't do that when shooting RAW.

There's also the case where the photo has to go to print sooner rather than later. The extra time it take to process a RAW to get the JPG may be a cost that can not be incurred. And, if the final product is B&W newspaper, WB adjustment is not required.

I'm sure there are other examples, but those are two that come to mind.

pathfinder

I shoot RAW, but after working with some of the white balance tools available, I am impressed by just how good 'out of the camera' jpgs can be, if shot with spot on color balance and spot on exposure. And they are available 'instantly'.

But the exposure has to be within 1/3 of a stop, not just close, and the color balance has to be very accurate as well.

SpectraSnap, Exposdisc, BalanceSmarter Grey disc, etc.