Implementing Color Temperature in a digital world

ian408

In the digital world, how is color temperature implemented?

Is the image "post processed" or are the sensitivity/timing of the
sensors changed in some way?

In the film world, you'd use a filter. I was curious how it'd be done
in the digital realm.

ian

Seamaiden

Interesting question. I've only learned how to apply color temperature when attempting to duplicate lighting conditions for photosynthetic animals.

zero-zero

Post processed. In fact, if you shoot RAW you can change the white balance of your images on the computer, after the shoot is over.

pathfinder

zero-zero wrote:

Post processed. In fact, if you shoot RAW you can change the white balance of your images on the computer, after the shoot is over.

It is interesting that when I convert RAW images that they are almost never an average white balance but a different level of Kelvin number for each file even tho they were shot in proximity in time and location.

I was listening to a presentation last night and they suggested NOT using the AWB setting on our cameras but sunny, or cloudy, or overcast or whatever as more specific and limit AWB only to those wierd mixed lighting conditions we sometimes see - like mixed tungsten adnd flourescent? Any comments about this advice Z-Z?

Shay Stephens

pathfinder wrote:

It is interesting that when I convert RAW images that they are almost never an average white balance but a different level of Kelvin number for each file even tho they were shot in proximity in time and location.

I was listening to a presentation last night and they suggested NOT using the AWB setting on our cameras but sunny, or cloudy, or overcast or whatever as more specific and limit AWB only to those wierd mixed lighting conditions we sometimes see - like mixed tungsten adnd flourescent? Any comments about this advice Z-Z?

It depends on the camera I find. Some have better AWB routines. And the presets are not always more accurate than AWB. But if you want the best WB, then using the manual WB setting of the camera will give you the best results if not shooting raw.

I wouldn't discount using any WB setting, but keep them all open as option depending on the lighting situation. Familiarity with the camera and how each WB setting handles different kinds of lights will be your best solution.

rutt

Shay Stephens wrote:

It depends on the camera I find. Some have better AWB routines. And the presets are not always more accurate than AWB. But if you want the best WB, then using the manual WB setting of the camera will give you the best results if not shooting raw.

I wouldn't discount using any WB setting, but keep them all open as option depending on the lighting situation. Familiarity with the camera and how each WB setting handles different kinds of lights will be your best solution.

Even if you don't shoot RAW, the cast from an incorrect WB is usually a very easy color correction. And IMHO, you get the best results this way. But you guys knew I'd say this. And you knew I'd point you to this by Dan Margulis. Wish I weren't so predictible.

pathfinder

Shay Stephens wrote:

It depends on the camera I find. Some have better AWB routines. And the presets are not always more accurate than AWB. But if you want the best WB, then using the manual WB setting of the camera will give you the best results if not shooting raw.

I wouldn't discount using any WB setting, but keep them all open as option depending on the lighting situation. Familiarity with the camera and how each WB setting handles different kinds of lights will be your best solution.

Actually the presentation I was listening to did suggest using the various settings such as "cloudy" or "overcast" or AWB on a sunny day to get a feeling for them which I think is exactly what you are saying Shay. I just did not include that detail in my previous post, but it is worthwhile to emphasize.
I do find that "cloudy" on my 10D gives a better color balance on sunny snowy landscapes than the awb does - AWB is too cool. Just one example and I am sure you are correct, Shay, that this may vary from camera to camera and between manufacturers also.

pathfinder

rutt wrote:

Even if you don't shoot RAW, the cast from an incorrect WB is usually a very easy color correction. And IMHO, you get the best results this way. But you guys knew I'd say this. And you knew I'd point you to this by Dan Margulis. Wish I weren't so predictible.

That is a great link!! - verbatim from his booK? And I agree wholeheartedly - by the numbers is the way to go !! Took me a while to see the wisdom of using numbers instead of monitors but now I have swallowed the green pill and I have entered the matrix also.

But I do shoot RAW usually, but not always - that is why the camera has those switches and knobs on it - right?