Fuji X-E1 White Balance Concerns

I have been struggling with this for days now. The previous posts regarding color bleeding may be related. The images below were shot at the same time all settings equal with the exception of white balance shift. Film NegS sharpness+2.  The image on the right has a strong yellow cast even in the blue sky. The image on the left is as close a match to my eye after checking and rechecking by looking at the scene outside and then my monitor which is an IPS color calibrated and my prints match my screen.  So in order for white balance to get the proper color, I had to shift the blue to +4. I then tested that setting in different lighting conditions and it also reflected what my eyes were seeing. I hate the fact that this brand new camera has such poor auto white balance on a very clear blue sky day which says somethings not quite right with it.

Left blue +4 WB shift right is AWB  - all other settings being equal and using Neg Film S

The next image of the golf clubs look exactly like what my eye sees. the blue in the white door frame is actually the way it looks with the eye due to natural light only coming through window.

AWB with +4 blue shift ISO4000 1/125  sec

Another image (everyone loves the cat pics!) same AWB with +4 blue shift and again OOC it looks perfect. So are there any others out there with these new cameras that are having to compensate for yellow cast in their images?

Looking forward to comments and feedback
Regards,
David
www.photographybydmichael.com

It might be the AWB. I've never had any luck with that, it changes all the time. Maybe try Sunny during the day.

Have I got this right (your details are confusing - NegS - Neg Std.??) you are using film simulation mode and you wonder why AWB is not delivering pure whites or other 'natural' looking colours?

If the answer is 'yes' ... then reset to default image settings. If you don't want 'colourization' - for want of a better phrase - then why choose a film simulation mode ...???

Fuji states Neg Std = "A soft-toned palette. The range of hues available for skin tones is enhanced, making this a good choice for studio portrait photography."

Or, generally speaking - a 'human', warmer tone ... suited to red/yellow end of spectrum ... not blues or neutral colours.

If by any chance I've misunderstood your dilemma, I'd still suggest a reset to default values ... you may have selected yet another image option inadvertently that is screwing with AWB.

If you are not using continuous default settings - in order to isolate a potential cause - then why are you accusing the camera of screwing things up? Only does what it is told ....

Colors do differ. To some, warmer colors are more pleasing, to other cooler ones are. Some camera manufacturerers prefer colors one way, others prefer something different. Films are like this as well.

Frankly I prefer the yellowish look over the blue. Thing is, if you can correct the camera to where you want it to be, why be upset?

Neg S...STD is the least saturated over processed film emulation.  How can I not choose a film emulation?

What is default?  Provia on my camera is too warm gold yellowish.

If this is normal for this camera then I have made a huge mistake and want to sell it. Not my style

Regards,
David
www.photographybydmichael.com

I'm sorry that my post was confusing.  Basically the camera has unreliable AWB in situations that the camera should not have to struggle.  The top images were taken on a clear sky sunny day. by adjusting wb shift +4blue I was able to get the correct color that matches the eye as it is seen.

When a perfectly blue sky has a yellow hue ....there's a problem.

--
Regards,
David
www.photographybydmichael.com

By all means, you need to have a tool that fits your hand.  If this one doesn't it is not the end of the world.  Simply sell it and buy something that suits you.

another option might be to learn to use the tool you already own, but not everyone is capable of doing that.

--
X100
XPro1; 60mm Macro, 35mm f1.4
XE1; Kit Zoom

Default is no film styles at all - i.e. OFF - or using any other 'adjusted' settings.

If you are choosing colour film simulations then you are yourself skewing colour saturations - colour temperatures - to match those of older film image types. Film could be adjusted to give brighter or more muted overall colour casts - it was also produced to match different lighting sources (tungsten or florescent for example) which meant different colour temperature sensitivity/differing colour dye take-up levels in processing.

I can't quantify the exact overall 'shade' ... but Fuji confirms the Neg Std. as a warmer tone ... which will give yellow/reds more prominence - hence your 'compensatory' blue settings.

Actual film - Astia, Provia, Velvia ... even Kodak Ektachrome ... gave differing results in regard to some colours and the relative warmth/coolness of images.

White balance - colour temperature - is modified by selecting any preset 'look' in camera, choosing one will affect AWB by skewing colour temperature towards it's selected bias. It will attempt to fit a warmer or cooler image set - rather than supplying pure whites - just like it's film predecessor.

The camera should be giving non-whites on default settings - if not you are affecting it's output by fiddling with that preset - or - it is faulty. You will never know if it is the latter if you keep adjusting settings or choosing simulations that rely upon altered colour temperatures.

Have a look at the opening images in this post: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3198612

The OP's dog is presumably not that odd nicotine tinged yellow colour in real life ... the Neg (H) simulate strikes once again ...

(P.S. If you took a RAW - or RAW+JPEG shot it would offer different [adjustable] colour temperatures ... the non-yellow whites/colours you seek would be available)

There is no 'off' for film simulations - Provia Standard is the default.  Do all these people offering advice have a fuji X?  The above reply which stated that the choice of film simulation is what's affecting the warmth is correct, they each have different tonal qualities.

As has been pointed out you're always using a film simulation mode when shooting JPEG — the default is Provia.

This is a great starting point as it delivers a relatively 'normal' look, with open shadows and highlights and the kind of colour punch a lot of Fuji fans like. Its closest brother is Pro Negative Standard, which has the same shadow/highlight signature but the colours are rendered differently — more muted.

What the film simulations don't all do is give images general casts. Their actual film equivalents might have done that, but the simulations don't. The easiest way to think of it is like this:

• Provia, Velvia, and Astia all have the same colour signature (ie: colours are represented the same way). Provia is the least contrasty and retains the most detail in shadows and highlights, Velvia is the opposite and bumps the contrast and saturation right up, and Astia is a halfway point between the two.
• Pro Negative Standard and Pro Negative High both share a different colour signature to the aforementioned three simulations. Reds remain reds and so on and so forth, but they're represented with a different level of intensity and basically just have a different look that goes beyond mere saturation, one you can only appreciate by taking a RAW photo and saving it out twice with both simulations so you can do a direct comparison. Standard has the same contrast as Provia so is essentially its more neutral counterpart, whereas High has the contrast of Astia.

Then of course the monochrome modes are their own kettle of fish, being able to shoot with the three different colour filters is excellent for capturing skin. I like to use these in combination with Lightroom's tone mapping to end up with something like this:

I personally use Pro Negative High with the 'colour' setting pulled because it puts out great, neutral colours with the slightly desaturated but contrasty look that's basically my signature — with great contrast out of the box if I nail the exposure. I'm leaning towards shooting in Pro Negative Standard instead though and manually adjusting the highs/lows in Lightroom, but that's more work.

Try shooting RAW so you avoid the simulations all together.

Exactly what I've been trying to point out to OP ....

It's not an issue of which is the 'standard' profile but why the OP feels the need to select differing options to 'cure' colour shifts - colour shifts introduced by themselves.

Some users seem to think 'white balance' means white/neutral image - no matter what temperature or preset they select - rather than a misnomer. It remains unclear if OP realises ANY preset is going to impact the overall colour of their image ... or that increasing blueness is cancelling the yellow cast seen in Neg settings!

RAW output worth pursuing - if only to isolate what OP believes is a 'faulty' AWB system.

The only problem with this being that we also have a faulty RAW system, in that you get inconsistent results in terms of detail and colour across different software. I've seen some RAW software show images from the X-E1 more contrasty and/or saturated than in other software.

It might be worth someone using the only one we know to be mostly accurate — SilkyPix — and seeing how the unaltered result compares to the different film simulations. Out of sheer curiosity I'd be interested to know which if any matches the RAW output.

Fuji X JPEG colour default is Provia profile - i.e. Std ... no OFF option inferred or implied, simply a turn-of-phrase used in reference to both OP's simulation or any other camera settings.

Actual film versions didn't show overall colour casts in 'normal' use either - dyes were simply added in processing three or more colour layers (a truer white or black was far more achievable) no matter what saturation or colour bias employed in the emulsion/dye packages from the manufacturer. Digital implementation seems a mix of both colour temperature/contrast levels - like in RAW post-processing - since any form of electronic 'emulsion dye substitution' process is clearly impossible.

Fuji also provides it's own clear simulation definitions in the manual:

Velvia - A high-contrast palette of saturated colors, suited to nature photos.

Astia - Enhances the range of hues available for skin tones in portraits while preserving the bright blues of daylight skies. Recommended for outdoor portrait photography.

Quite why the OP is using Neg Std is a mystery - Astia would seem more appropriate in their original outdoor images. I'd be tempted to call the more extreme Neg effects possible (like your own images) to be more analogous to cross-processed transparency film output. Not an ideal choice for someone dealing with suspected AWB 'issues' ...

This fiddling with image settings reminds me of an amateur mechanic changing, or resetting, every component under the bonnet (hood) of a car in an attempt to make it go, but having failed to check the gas tank level initially before doing so ...

EDIT - reply to secondary post. I'd agree there are still user issues with RAW IQ ... but should not prevent basic diagnosis of 'bogus' AWB or colour temperature issues. Even ACR can get the colours roughly right ... I think!

1. There was not made a camera in the world yet, which could correctly interpret colors in every light conditions - green is the tree of life.

2. There will NEVER be made a camera in the world which will be able to interpret precisly the photographer's intention (which often is NOT the precise WYSIWYG).

Only 2 from many good reasons why to shoot RAW and learn postproces and don't rely on OOC jpg.

I agree with the previous poster, each camera gives slightly different colours and indeed every colour 'mode' on each camera gives slightly different colour again.  When you get a new camera you need to fiddle until you are satisfied with the colour output.  Of course, there are times when no amount of fiddling is going to satisfy you and that is when you give in (I struggled with skintones out of the Nikon D7000 and gave up in the end).

I find the AWB of my (yes I have one!) Fuji X-E1 under artificial indoor light a pain but many cameras are the same there so I just manually adjust.  No issues yet at any other time though, my blue skies are generally blue.

At this point I would say that it's absolutely pointless and irresponsible to use software other than Silkypix for conversion of RAW files produced by those cameras, if the user has any expectations of quality and consistency. If someone likes the results he gets with Lightroom, he can use it as much as he wants (and I am not saying that Lightroom won't produce usable results when photos don't trip its failure modes), but it would be stupid to complain about them if he doesn't, as Lightroom conversion procedure is known to break in many perfectly ordinary conditions. If Silkypix also has the problem, then there is a clear cause for complaints, as that's what Fujifilm recommended and supported. There would be half as many threads in this forum if people acknowledged this.

Nevertheless, I can recommend using DCRaw with -w option to evaluate camera's "opinion" on colors -- just don't rely on its output as the actual source for postprocessing, as they are known to be just as flawed as Lightroom.

'pointless and irresponsible'? - That's pure BS

The hysteria around RAW image processing is getting blown out of all proportion, and bears no resemblance to the reality of actually using the camera and tools available from various software houses.

--
http://www.dodkin.com
Chris@1D-Images.com
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

David - Suggest you stop depending on a pre-programmed profiles in JPEG Film Modes - and take control of the post processing by shooting RAW.

This applies to any digital camera.

You can then match your expectations every time regarding color temp/WB

--
http://www.dodkin.com
Chris@1D-Images.com
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

As I said, there is nothing wrong with using Lightroom when Lightroom works. However most people who are complaining here, expect consistent results at full resolution from Lightroom, don't get them, then complain about the camera and get offended when pointed toward Silkypix. That's despite the fact that invariably when anyone posts problematic .RAF file, someone with Silkypix posts it converted to a JPEG that is free of the problems that poster complained about (even if not adjusted to the original poster's tastes and intentions).

Speaking of Silkypix, whatever is bad about its interface, color adjustment is very straightforward, and it defaults to white balance as seen by the camera.

The problem definitely does exist, it just doesn't show up all the time, and is completely absent when processing is done specifically to produce 1/2 or less of the original resolution (because then demosaicing degenerates into scaling), or when resolution is high but printed at sufficiently small size (smaller details, lower contrast of a printed photo).