This probably isn't possible, but I'll ask anyways.

I have a Whibal for when I want accurate color, but what if you want inaccurate color, like pure ambient light? Yes, I've tried AWB for "as shot" but that doesn't work. The thing is, every once in a while it gets really bizarre looking outside, with greenish or orange light. It looks pretty cool but I can never capture it since AWB always corrects it. It's probably not possible, but is there any way to override AWB? I wish the camera had an ambient balance option.

"Ambient" isn't a color temperature. I think you need to read more about the color temperature of light. Fluroescent is about 2000K (I think), Tungsten 3200K, flash/dalight 5500K, cloudy and shade 6500K and 7500K (I forget what order). If you tell the camera the temp of a scene is 3200K and it's really 5500K it'll look too blue, and vice versa too orange (hope I got that the right way around).

Go take some photos under fluroescent light, with WB manually set to 2000K, 4000K, and 6000K. Repeat with tungsten light, and flash. See what happens.

To answer your question, i'd suggest you use the flash WB.

tim wrote in post #5906189
"Ambient" isn't a color temperature. I think you need to read more about the color temperature of light. Fluroescent is about 2000K (I think), Tungsten 3200K, flash/dalight 5500K, cloudy and shade 6500K and 7500K (I forget what order). If you tell the camera the temp of a scene is 3200K and it's really 5500K it'll look too blue, and vice versa too orange (hope I got that the right way around).

I was calling it ambient since I didn't really know what else to call it. Available light? My problem is that the color isn't falling into simple presets, so I can't really reproduce them. How exactly does your camera determine what a scene is? And have you ever experienced this problem? The light outside isn't cloudy and it isn't full daylight either. It's somewheres inbetween and gives off a weird, green or pink-ish color. It's not exactly normal. I have already tried all the outdoor presets and they're too yellow.

tim wrote in post #5906189
Go take some photos under fluroescent light, with WB manually set to 2000K, 4000K, and 6000K. Repeat with tungsten light, and flash. See what happens.

I already know about these things. I guess I want a NO correction, exactly how our eyes see it white balance option.

Our eyes adapt to see white no matter what the color temp of the light is. Even in mixed light if you move a white object between light sources you still see it as white.

What you've asked isn't possible as you've stated it. Your best bet is to use flash WB and see how well it reflects what you're talking about, because I don't really know what you're trying to describe. Or shoot RAW, with a white bal card outside, then balance for that temp, then post the picture to try to show what you mean.

tim wrote in post #5906474
Our eyes adapt to see white no matter what the color temp of the light is. Even in mixed light if you move a white object between light sources you still see it as white.

What you've asked isn't possible as you've stated it. Your best bet is to use flash WB and see how well it reflects what you're talking about, because I don't really know what you're trying to describe. Or shoot RAW, with a white bal card outside, then balance for that temp, then post the picture to try to show what you mean.

I already do shoot RAW and yes, I have a whibal. But I DON'T want accurate color. I guess this is too much to explain. You would just have to see what I mean. "Normal" sunlight looks pretty clear or slightly blue, but other variations can look more green, magenta, or orange. It's keeping those those colors that I want, no correction. The presets won't get you close, and AWB fixes the cast. I've always found the flash white balance hideous too lol. I use a 580ex II so it supposidely has that "auto send color temperature" feature, which the book claims will be activated on AWB or flash wb, but you can still see the flash wb poking through when you use that wb. Oh well.

Can you describe the difference between what happens when you develop using a fixed color temp and what you want? What happens if you move the color temp slider to make it look as close a possible to reality? How is it wrong?

tim wrote in post #5906579
Can you describe the difference between what happens when you develop using a fixed color temp and what you want? What happens if you move the color temp slider to make it look as close a possible to reality? How is it wrong?

It just wanted a better starting point, so that images wouldn't have to be tweaked. By fixed color temps, do you mean the in camera wb's? If so, it looks like they add too much orange. I guess I could tweak them, but then I'll probably be stuck in tweak hell. I just tried again the flash preset too - it's much greener, so maybe I'll use that someday.

The problem is that the camera sees light very differently from the human eye. 'No correction' produces an image with a very strong green cast because that is how the sensor sees. The array is more sensitive to green and 50% of the pixels measure green light while red and blue are seen by 25% each. (If you are interested in this, search for the several threads in which UniWB is discussed. UniWB is a custom WB that prevents white balancing.) But the camera cannot directly know what the ambient light is like. It can only guess (AWB) based on the limited data is has received during the exposure - sometimes well, sometimes poorly - or rely on user input.

Except for the case where UniWB is used, the camera or the converter will always do some WB. The best you can do is to fiddle with the temperature and hope for the proper effect (which you won't get if the original lighting was mixed) or overlay a colored layer later in PS, creating a color that best fits your memory.

Despite the constant debate waged here and on other photograhy forums between 'getting it right in-camera' and 'adding it afterwards', this is a case where the camera can't get it right.

Why not just shoot RAW and then take it from there in processing?

He already shoots RAW. I think you need to show us what you mean with pics.

tim wrote in post #5906840
He already shoots RAW. I think you need to show us what you mean with pics.

Ah my bad, yeah a sample picture would be handy.

blinded wrote in post #5906499
I already do shoot RAW and yes, I have a whibal. But I DON'T want accurate color.

Since you shoot RAW, just move the WB slider around in your software program until you see what you want to see.

I think I answered my own question lol. It can't be done, though I will be hoping for a "human eye" white balance option. The UniWB was really interesting too. I didn't really go into technical side but it looks like you just take a black or white frame and use that as a custom wb? I tried that and got a green image, though I wasn't going to run the images through RawAnalyzer to check if the numbers were all 1.0 (my camera battery was near dead).

If you want a sunset to appear 'warm', I'd start off by using "daylight" WB. Then tweak as needed in the Raw converter...

Personally, since you already shoot RAW, I think you're making this harder than it is.

If you must try to do it incam, do the same things with your "bizarre looking outside,", too.
Get some pastel paper & set a Custom WB & take some shots with those, too. See what you get.