Is Auto WB good enough?

Question: is (modern) auto white balance good enough?

There are other threads on how and why to set WB. I'm not asking that; I already know how to do that. My question is: do I even need to bother?

Of course, I shoot everything in raw, and I still adjust color as needed. But it just keeps getting easier (i.e., less frequent) for when I need to do that. And when I know that I'm going to need accurate color, I'll shoot a gray card for using later in post. I've got one in my flash bag, so that's easy enough to do.

Exception: when I'm shooting video (and especially true for multi-camera video), then I'll take the steps to manually set white balance.

But it's so easy to fix WB in post anymore. It takes only a few seconds. And if I have a bunch of shots in the same lighting, I can sync the settings across the whole batch after fixing one.

I used to set a specific color (usually "daylight") so that at least everything would be consistent when going into post. But I've recently relaxed to using auto, and I'm actually apply corrections less frequently.

On a different point, lighting comes in SO many different colors anymore. Even shooting an indoor event the color changes from one fixture to the next. Or the color of overhead lights in a school gym are different for each fixture. It's enough to drive you crazy.

Am I missing something?

I think you mostly answered you own question. Yes, auto WB is better than ever and gets it close enough most of the time. I do shoot daylight when I'm shooing outdoors and don't expect the actual color temperature to change. That keeps shot to shot consistency without having to sync them. For changing light, such as indoor events you described, auto WB is pretty good. The great thing about shooting raw is not having to worry about it either way.

Every source of "Auto WB" will be different. Your camera, Adobe, and other processing software each have their own algorithm. But each follow a common technique. The simply average all the colors in an image and then use a curve-like calculation for force that average to neutral. The difference between different sources comes in how they weight the primaries.

It's amazing how well that works "sometimes." But no surprise that it fails when the image has a dominant color cast. Try to Auto WB an image of a red brick wall.

Take a bad WB image into Photoshop. Dupe the background and do a Filter/Blur/Average. Then add a Curves adjustment layer, select the middle (gray) eyedropper, and click on that averaged layer to force it to neutral gray. Then delete/hide the averaged layer to let the curve apply to the original background. Volia! Auto WB.

If you want "Lottery" WB, by all means use Auto.

I did a test 11 years ago...I aimed at an 18% gray neutral card, to determine the correct WB setting in that light. Then I used AWB and aimed the camera around the scene and took another 16 other JPG images very shortly after the control shot. I then read all the images, and recorded the AWB value for each of the shots. 60% of the shots deviated from the ideal value (determined by gray card shot). Values from 4424K thru 5895K resulted, vs. the 'ideal' 5000K value. https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=12259856

Yes, that test was done with a 7DII. Run a similar test for yourself now, with whatever brand/model camera you have, to get an idea of how good or how flawed AWB is today, even when there are NO strongly colored objects in the frame.
Strongly colored things in the frame wrongly bias AWB even worse. https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=12260029

Absolute WB accuracy is not always needed...there will be times when AWB is simply 'good enough' But there will be times when color fidelity is important, and AWB should not be used.

dasmith232 wrote in post #19464258
Question: is (modern) auto white balance good enough?

There are other threads on how and why to set WB. I'm not asking that; I already know how to do that. My question is: do I even need to bother?

Of course, I shoot everything in raw, and I still adjust color as needed. But it just keeps getting easier (i.e., less frequent) for when I need to do that. And when I know that I'm going to need accurate color, I'll shoot a gray card for using later in post. I've got one in my flash bag, so that's easy enough to do.

Exception: when I'm shooting video (and especially true for multi-camera video), then I'll take the steps to manually set white balance.

But it's so easy to fix WB in post anymore. It takes only a few seconds. And if I have a bunch of shots in the same lighting, I can sync the settings across the whole batch after fixing one.

I used to set a specific color (usually "daylight") so that at least everything would be consistent when going into post. But I've recently relaxed to using auto, and I'm actually apply corrections less frequently.

On a different point, lighting comes in SO many different colors anymore. Even shooting an indoor event the color changes from one fixture to the next. Or the color of overhead lights in a school gym are different for each fixture. It's enough to drive you crazy.

Am I missing something?

I don't do video, but here are my thoughts regarding stills shooting. I have been using auto WB since I switched to shooting RAW in 2005, so I don't think you are missing anything.

Indoors, when I used to do portraits of my kids, I'd take a few shots with a colorchecker near their face to make it easier to get the right WB in post. For casual shooting indoors WB can be tricky with lots of mixed lighting ... so might as well use auto anyway.

Outdoors when it's sunny I just choose the respective images in LR and choose daylight. From sunny to partially cloudy to deep shade there's a lot of variation in WB and the camera presets are typically way off. If I was doing an outdoor portrait I'd use a colorchecker in the scene.

If I shot jpeg, or if I were a pro and shooting in a studio setting I'd probably do things differently.

The only time I don't use auto WB is when I'm using the Infra-Red modified camera.

.
I don't shoot auto white balance with any of my Canon cameras anymore because it is inconsistent.

I mean, if I am spend 10 minutes photographing a Whitetail Deer as it roams about a meadow, and the light does not change at all during that time, the auto white balance will change. . I will get different color casts from one burst of images to the next. . This is a big pain in the butt when editing the images, because I have to figure out what adjustments I need to make to get the colors right again and again and again, due to the fact that the white balance was not the same in every shot. . If I have 200 or 300 shots from that 10 minute session, which is a normal amount, then I will have to figure out the color adjustments several times, which is a hassle.

So what I do is use the K setting. . Kelvin temperature. . I set the Kelvin setting to the level that best fits the light at that time and that place, and then if the light stays the same, all of my shots will have the same color cast. . Or I can just leave it on K 5400 for days at a time and that will give me very close to just right for all but the most extreme cases.


.

Redcrown wrote in post #19464261
Every source of "Auto WB" will be different. Your camera, Adobe, and other processing software each have their own algorithm. But each follow a common technique. The simply average all the colors in an image and then use a curve-like calculation for force that average to neutral. The difference between different sources comes in how they weight the primaries.

It's amazing how well that works "sometimes." But no surprise that it fails when the image has a dominant color cast. Try to Auto WB an image of a red brick wall.

Take a bad WB image into Photoshop. Dupe the background and do a Filter/Blur/Average. Then add a Curves adjustment layer, select the middle (gray) eyedropper, and click on that averaged layer to force it to neutral gray. Then delete/hide the averaged layer to let the curve apply to the original background. Volia! Auto WB.

If you want "Lottery" WB, by all means use Auto.

I'll set up some test cases (with control shots) and post the results. I used to see more variability and now I'm seeing that auto is getting better. Also, (and described above,) I already use a fixed WB and gray card for when it's important. And I'm shooting in raw.

I like your suggestion about blurring the image in PS and will do that too.

I appreciate the lottery analogy. However, in this case, I get to re-pick my numbers after the draw.

Wilt wrote in post #19464263
I did a test 11 years ago...I aimed at an 18% gray neutral card, to determine the correct WB setting in that light. Then I used AWB and aimed the camera around the scene and took another 16 other JPG images very shortly after the control shot. I then read all the images, and recorded the AWB value for each of the shots. 60% of the shots deviated from the ideal value (determined by gray card shot). Values from 4424K thru 5895K resulted, vs. the 'ideal' 5000K value. https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=12259856

Yes, that test was done with a 7DII. Run a similar test for yourself now, with whatever brand/model camera you have, to get an idea of how good or how flawed AWB is today, even when there are NO strongly colored objects in the frame.
Strongly colored things in the frame wrongly bias AWB even worse. https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=12260029

Absolute WB accuracy is not always needed...there will be times when AWB is simply 'good enough' But there will be times when color fidelity is important, and AWB should not be used.

I was already going down the path of running some experiments. The act of asking the question above was a precursor to doing that. And right up to your very last point, I definitely agree and follow that already: When it's critical I don't use auto.

And thank you (all) for taking the time to read and respond.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19464348
.
...10 minutes photographing a Whitetail Deer as it roams about a meadow, and the light does not change at all during that time, the auto white balance will change....

I definitely agree that it can happen and have seen it happen. I just see it happening less these days. And the color shift is grouped like "these 27" and "the next 43" and so on. But I end up culling out most of those anyway and I'm only color correcting the keepers. And if the wildlife was in shade for one of the keepers then I need to fix the blue shift, etc.

And speaking of inconsistency, (I think?) I find that the biggest variable is which body I'm using more than the light. My latest R6 is certainly better than my (much older) T3i. (That's just a theoretical example, because I don't use the T3i anymore...)

I grabbed a couple of backgrounds, pure red and pure green thinking that those would be challenging for the camera to get right. Kind of like the suggestion for a red brick wall, but even worse (with no hints at all). I shot this under tungsten lighting (about 3200K) and then again under daylight (about 5400K). I've attached pictures of one sample and then all of the pictures in strips.

My R6 handled it pretty well. I guess I should try it with another body, just to complete the hypothesis that new cameras do better than old cameras. Maybe for another day...

'handled it pretty well' is subject to the level of color accuracy expected by the viewer.

• If I was professionally photographing something in which accuracy of color was essential (e.g textiles, fashion) 'pretty good' is no good. Too much deviation in the reds and the greens by AWB.
  
• If I was photographing family snapshots, 'pretty good' might well be acceptable.
  

• shoot RAW, take a shot with a gray card to establish WB value during postprocessing, set all the photos in that light to the same WB value as the gray card, or
  
• shoot JPG using custom WB value determined from shot of gray card, or
  
• pick a single WB value estimated to be close for ambient light, set that and shoot (only when WB precision is not essential)
  
  

Wilt wrote in post #19464549
'handled it pretty well' is subject to the level of color accuracy expected by the viewer.

• If I was professionally photographing something in which accuracy of color was essential (e.g textiles, fashion) 'pretty good' is no good. Too much deviation in the reds and the greens by AWB.
  
• If I was photographing family snapshots, 'pretty good' might well be acceptable.
  

Based upon what your experiment shows, I would not be satisfied with AWB even in the newest generation of Canon mirrorless cameras (OK, maybe shooting red things in incandescent lighting looks close). The approach I would take, as a brand new mirrorless user, is not much different as a veteran dSLR shooter...

• shoot RAW, take a shot with a gray card to establish WB value during postprocessing, set all the photos in that light to them same WB value as the gray card, or
  
• shoot JPG using custom WB value determined from shot of gray card, or
  
• pick a single WB value estimated to be close for ambient light, set that and shoot (only when WB precision is not essential)
  
  

I agree with this, looking at post 11.

Please consider the original premise. When color is critical, I (and you or anyone) should use a gray card and/or set the white balance specifically for the lighting. For many other situations (and especially casual photography), auto white balance has come a long way in being more accurate. This was more about recognizing that technology has improved, albeit not perfect.

In this world of AI-generated images (DALL-E) and AI-generated text (ChatGPT), it's interesting to see where technology has come.

I still don’t understand why for any situation setting WB in camera matters when you shoot in RAW and it can be changed in seconds in a RAW converter.

If I have a grey card or Color checker in the scene I can change WB faster in RAW than fiddling with the camera.

If I’m outdoors and I want a huge burst at 5400K I can also select the images and change them all to 5400K faster in LR than in camera (I’m talking about ME … YMMV).

I don’t think anyone uses the results from AWB. It’s just that it doesn’t matter all that much whether you want to set WB in camera or after the fact.

I’m here to learn though. What am I missing?