Is Auto WB good enough?

Bob_A wrote in post #19464696
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).

a bit like sorting your cutlery into a drawer, it's just a process: some folks sort the cutlery going into the dishwasher & some folks sort them as they're coming out.

joeseph wrote in post #19464718
a bit like sorting your cutlery into a drawer, it's just a process: some folks sort the cutlery going into the dishwasher & some folks sort them as they're coming out.

Yup!

Bob_A wrote in post #19464696
.
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.

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?
.

.
I'm not sure how your editing software works, but mine only allows me to adjust white balance so far. . If I miss by more than a couple thousand degrees Kelvin, then there simply isn't any way to get it warm enough, or cool enough, by moving the white balance slider.

Also, there are two aspects to white balance, color temperature and tint. . White balance is a combination of these two properties. . For me and the editing software I use, it is already hard enough to adjust colors (several seconds experimenting with moving the slider around) when the camera picks the tint on its own. . To allow the camera to pick both the color temperature and the tint would compound the problem and then I would be spending 5 or 10 seconds adjusting one and then have to spend another 5 or 10 seconds adjusting the other one.

It's not really even the time required, but rather the fact that I have to focus my attention and force my eyes and my brain to work together to determine what looks best - I only have so many minutes of that level of focus and attention in me each day.

I recently shot a shed deer antler in the snow on a very gloomy overcast day. . I shot it at 6000 K, and the results were still so cool that I had to move the slider all the way up to 10,000 K. . And it was just barely warm enough for my liking. . If I had allowed the camera to auto white balance that, it would have been even cooler, and then even moving the slider all the way up to the max of 10,000 would still not have given me an acceptable result.

For those who shoot "normal" things in fairly normal conditions and want their images to look normal, auto white balance may be good enough for all of your needs. . But if you sometimes try to shoot creatively and shoot in extremely warm or cool conditions, but want results that are the opposite of the ambient light, then you may find that AWB and your editing software do not provide enough leeway to go all the way to the extreme that you are looking to achieve.

I mean if there is a clear blue sky at mid day and you want to take a silhouette shot and have the sky look all yellow and gold and orange like it was sunset, but only want to do very light editing and not have to go into color channels or whatever, then you would do much better by setting your white balance in the camera to Kelvin 10,000. . Then there will probably be enough headroom in your color temperature slider to make the photo look the way you want.

Keep in mind that color temperature is NOT consistent from the camera to the editing program that converts my RAW file. . I mean, if I set the color temperature to 10,000 in the camera, then the image looks the same on my computer, but the number - 10,000 - does NOT transfer over with the file. . So I could very well shoot it at 10,000 but the software will call it something kinda more neutral, like lets say 6,300, so I still have a lot of headroom to crank up the color temperature to 10,000 and make it much warmer, even though I already shot it at 10,000 initially.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19464865
I'm not sure how your editing software works, but mine only allows me to adjust white balance so far. If I miss by more than a couple thousand degrees Kelvin, then there simply isn't any way to get it warm enough, or cool enough, by moving the white balance slider.

And the very first time that someone shoots with an IR or full-spectrum camera, this becomes quite obvious. I know that I'm supposed to be able to tweak LR to give me more range, but I didn't figure out how to do that successfully. Therefore, I must set WB in camera and shoot JPG. This is part of why I'm not yet crazy about IR photography, despite converting a camera for it.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19464865
Also, there are two aspects to white balance, color temperature and tint. White balance is a combination of these two properties. For me and the editing software I use, it is already hard enough to adjust colors (several seconds experimenting with moving the slider around) when the camera picks the tint on its own. . To allow the camera to pick both the color temperature and the tint would compound the problem and then I would be spending 5 or 10 seconds adjusting one and then have to spend another 5 or 10 seconds adjusting the other one. It's not really even the time required, but rather the fact that I have to focus my attention and force my eyes and my brain to work together to determine what looks best - I only have so many minutes of that level of focus and attention in me each day.

YES! I totally agree with this and have experienced the same thing. When I need to adjust color, and if I need to move the temperature slider more than a couple of thousand Kelvin, then I'm going to screw it up (because of the coordination with tint). So I rely on the eye dropper tool and either hopefully or intentionally included something neutral/gray in the frame.

Thinking of Bob's question:

Bob_A wrote in post #19464696
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.

(For stills,) there is a setting in LR for "as shot" which sets or resets the tint and temperature, from which I can adjust things.

For video when I do not have a "log" option in a camera, the initial color rendering is done in-camera (like shooting JPG). And if shooting multiple angles, then forgetting to set one of the cameras makes for a hassle in color grading.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19464865
For those who shoot "normal" things in fairly normal conditions and want their images to look normal, auto white balance may be good enough for all of your needs. But if you sometimes try to shoot creatively and shoot in extremely warm or cool conditions, but want results that are the opposite of the ambient light, then you may find that AWB and your editing software do not provide enough leeway to go all the way to the extreme that you are looking to achieve.

Gray card! Or for extreme cases, gray card and custom K in camera.

My original premise was that my workload is getting simpler thanks to improving technology, but was seeking others' experience for traps or things that I'm missing.

Again, thank you all for the perspectives. I appreciate it.

dasmith232 wrote in post #19464895
.
Gray card! Or for extreme cases, gray card and custom K in camera.
.

.
A grey card works great if one is trying to get "accurate" colors in their final image. . But sometimes with me, that is not the case at all. . I am often trying to make an image that shows the scene in a way that is completely different than the way it appears in real life, so for those situations, a gray card doesn't really help at all because I have no interest in making any of the colors accurate. . These are the times when setting the Kelvin temperature manually becomes a necessity, where AWB or gray cards just won't help. . I mean if the sky is blue on a clear day and I want everything in my image to look warm and orangey, then what good is a grey card going to do me?


.

If you are shooting raw images then auto works fine e as it's a simple adjustment to dial it where you want in post if you want to adjust. The only time wb is critical when you shoot raw is if you are matching flash to existing light, either for accuracy or effect.

It’s very easy to shoot custom wb as well. Just put the two related menu functions into My Menu along with anything else you use often and have it be the first menu that shows when hitting Menu.

I take a quick refocused gray image in the scene, then hit Menu and apply that as my WB. Later during post, I can tweak it a bit more if needed but rarely needed.

The only time this is problematic is in mixed lighting situations. This is one of the first things I do before an event.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19464865
.
I'm not sure how your editing software works, but mine only allows me to adjust white balance so far. . If I miss by more than a couple thousand degrees Kelvin, then there simply isn't any way to get it warm enough, or cool enough, by moving the white balance slider.

Also, there are two aspects to white balance, color temperature and tint. . White balance is a combination of these two properties. . For me and the editing software I use, it is already hard enough to adjust colors (several seconds experimenting with moving the slider around) when the camera picks the tint on its own. . To allow the camera to pick both the color temperature and the tint would compound the problem and then I would be spending 5 or 10 seconds adjusting one and then have to spend another 5 or 10 seconds adjusting the other one.

It's not really even the time required, but rather the fact that I have to focus my attention and force my eyes and my brain to work together to determine what looks best - I only have so many minutes of that level of focus and attention in me each day.

I recently shot a shed deer antler in the snow on a very gloomy overcast day. . I shot it at 6000 K, and the results were still so cool that I had to move the slider all the way up to 10,000 K. . And it was just barely warm enough for my liking. . If I had allowed the camera to auto white balance that, it would have been even cooler, and then even moving the slider all the way up to the max of 10,000 would still not have given me an acceptable result.

For those who shoot "normal" things in fairly normal conditions and want their images to look normal, auto white balance may be good enough for all of your needs. . But if you sometimes try to shoot creatively and shoot in extremely warm or cool conditions, but want results that are the opposite of the ambient light, then you may find that AWB and your editing software do not provide enough leeway to go all the way to the extreme that you are looking to achieve.

I mean if there is a clear blue sky at mid day and you want to take a silhouette shot and have the sky look all yellow and gold and orange like it was sunset, but only want to do very light editing and not have to go into color channels or whatever, then you would do much better by setting your white balance in the camera to Kelvin 10,000. . Then there will probably be enough headroom in your color temperature slider to make the photo look the way you want.

Keep in mind that color temperature is NOT consistent from the camera to the editing program that converts my RAW file. . I mean, if I set the color temperature to 10,000 in the camera, then the image looks the same on my computer, but the number - 10,000 - does NOT transfer over with the file. . So I could very well shoot it at 10,000 but the software will call it something kinda more neutral, like lets say 6,300, so I still have a lot of headroom to crank up the color temperature to 10,000 and make it much warmer, even though I already shot it at 10,000 initially.

.

Thanks Tom. This is an awesome answer.

You are bringing up a good point that LR does not use the in camera WB “setting” but instead uses the in camera “result” and then converts that to a Kelvin and Tint that mimics the result. WB is not baked into a RAW file.

If anyone wants the same K and Tint numbers as set in camera they need to use the software from the manufacturer. This must be confusing for some using lighting set at, say 5600K, the camera is set to 5600, but LR gives a different number for as-shot. Setting 5600 in LR would give the wrong result.

For my Nikon cameras and for most of my shooting there only seems to be a difference of up to 500K from camera setting to what LR interprets, so not a big deal. The range I see requiring is only up to around 6800, so maybe that’s why I’m not having issues. Maybe that difference isn’t linear and for in camera settings around 10,000 K the delta in tint and Kelvin is massive.

You’ve given me a lot to thing about, which is exactly what I was hoping for.

When in the field shooting wildlife, do you interpret Tint, or do you just leave it as a set number for natural light shooting and only adjust K? I know I could estimate K, but my brain hurts thinking of how to estimate the corresponding tint.

Now I’m hoping for some nice weather to go outside and play with this! Thanks again.

When absolute color accuracy is not required (we don't often shoot textiles or fashion, in which the client expectations are for precision, after all) the brain is very forgiving...the WB value changes throughout the day and our brain accepts what it sees, without 'precision'...warnish or coolish in reality of the light, the brain thinks 'white' when it sees certain things. So even if the light varied from 4500K (closer to sunrise/sunset) to 6000k (cloudy overcast), when we see a bride in her gown, we think 'white gown'

• And if we set 5500K, we see the changing light, as it evolves from warmish early morning to neutral mid-day, to coolish light as overcast fills the sky.
  
• But if we set AWB, it turns the entire day into its interpretation of 'neutral', and the changing light gets neutralized to a more consistent 'neutral'.
  

• Given how forgiving our brain is, we might set 5500K and shoot from early morning to late afternoon, and never bother with altering the WB setting...in that case, why bother with AWB during that entire time period?!
  
• Or we go indoors and set 3200K for the predominant incandescent lighting, and take all our shots with that WB value...again, why bother with AWB during that entire time?!
  
• Even if our indoors lighting varies...sometimes a bit of outside light coming in a window, other times some fluorescent from an indoor fixture...we can stick with a single WB setting an alter in postprocessing, so why bother with AWB?!
  

Bob_A wrote in post #19464940
.
Thanks Tom. This is an awesome answer.
.

.
Thanks so much, Bob!
.

Bob_A wrote in post #19464940
.
When in the field shooting wildlife, do you interpret Tint, or do you just leave it as a set number for natural light shooting and only adjust K? I know I could estimate K, but my brain hurts thinking of how to estimate the corresponding tint.
.

.
I have no idea how to adjust tint, so I just move White Balance to the K setting and set that to something in the ballpark of what I want. Results are much more consistent from shot to shot to shot than if I had it on any other WB setting.

As far as tint is concerned, I don't know how to adjust it in camera, so I just live with whatever it gives me and adjust to taste when editing on the computer. . I will note that I really hate a magenta cast to my images, so I almost always adjust the tint toward the greenish end and away from the magenta end. . If this doesn't give me the results I want , or results in something that looks kinda "off", then I just leave the tint slider itself alone and select the magenta color channel and slide the saturation way down, maybe even all the way to zero.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19464865
.
I recently shot a shed deer antler in the snow on a very gloomy overcast day. . I shot it at 6000 K, and the results were still so cool that I had to move the slider all the way up to 10,000 K. . And it was just barely warm enough for my liking. . If I had allowed the camera to auto white balance that, it would have been even cooler, and then even moving the slider all the way up to the max of 10,000 would still not have given me an acceptable result.
.

.
I found the image(s) I was talking about in the quote post (above).

I actually shot it at 6,500 Kelvin, not 6,000 as I had thought.

See how doggone blue it is, even at 6,500 Kelvin?

I shoot sunlight, shade, flash with softboxes, and flash with homemade diffusers. These light sources all give different white balances. With close-in work the color of the subject significantly affects the balance because the light bounces around. So white is different in every shot. Besides that, the composition of the photo plays with perceptions and wants changes to the colors. I can change a background in Photoshop, and now my perfectly balanced model doesn't look right any more. How can this be?

A very skilled photographer that I know likes warm tones in portraits. They look terrific. I don't do that myself because I like a more natural interpretation. Except sometimes I deviate from that.

In short, color balance is not a matter of truth but of interpretation and preference.

What raw processor only goes to 10,000k? One reason I shoot raw over jpg is that I can choose an absolute color temp and tint in post, regardless of the in-camera value. So if I used AWB and the camera chose 5140, 5000, 4950, and 5320, I can set them all to 6000 and they'll look the same. Jpg only has +/- adjustments from whatever starting value you have so matching shots is harder.

I usually leave tint at the default or +5 unless something unusual is going on, like old fluorescent lights or lots of light bouncing off grass. The strangest lights I ever saw were some LED stage lights that balanced at 9300k and -132 tint. So very blue and very magenta lights.

White balance is visualized as an adjustment of color temperature and tint, but in reality it is scaling the exposure of the linear, raw values of the R,G, and B channels. While this might be a little less intuitive at first to think of white balance, once you get the hang of it, it can help with tricky color exposure choices.

Setting an “accurate” white balance for the lighting can help get a more appropriate representation of the (jpeg-based) histogram in camera, especially important for scenes where one or more channels may clip earlier than the others.

If you are just walking around shooting images, AWB is probably perfectly fine. Expose for the jpeg, shoot raw+jpeg, upload the jpeg to instagram or whatever and process the raw file later if you want more from the image.

A lot of times, I will shoot with the camera in daylight WB, or about 5500K, and let the colors fall where they will. If you shoot in tungsten light, the image should be warm, just like it is in real life. If you shoot in shade, the image will be cool, just like it is in real life. If you want to change the look, raw adjustment of WB will get the job done.

Just because you know something is neutral does not mean it appears neutral or needs to be neutral in the prevailing lighting.

Kirk

kirkt wrote in post #19465037
If you shoot in tungsten light, the image should be warm, just like it is in real life. If you shoot in shade, the image will be cool, just like it is in real life. If you want to change the look, raw adjustment of WB will get the job done.

Just because you know something is neutral does not mean it appears neutral or needs to be neutral in the prevailing lighting.

Kirk

Very true, especially for shots in deep shade or right after sunset. The objectively correct white balance is wrong, looking way too yellow. It's as if our brains have an AWB range of maybe 3000-6000k. When the actual color temperature exceeds that range, we see a yellow or blue cast. Fully correcting the white balance just looks wrong because that's not how we saw the scene. The trick, in my experience, is to find the point where you've eliminated most of the color cast, but not so much that it looks weird and unnatural. Of course, that's assuming you're trying to neutralize the image at all, and not using a big color cast to artistic effect.