Can the color temperature be adjusted in post processing, or will I have lost some information by not selecting the right white balance at the moment of taking the picture ? I typically use Auto white balance and frequently have to adjust the color temperature in Lightroom for pictures taken indoors.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
If i'm shooting raw, does picking the right while balance setting matter ?
- Thread starter dustpuppy
- Start date
Sigurthr
Well-known member
This has been my experience. Since I'm reliant on the metering function I have found it important to try and get the WB close to "good enough" in camera, otherwise I have problems getting the exposure I want. The way I see it is get WB good and then not have to worry about exposure in editing, or have to worry about both exposure and WB in editing.
Smopho
Well-known member
If you are relying on the histogram display, then choosing the correct white balance does matter. The histogram comes from the in camera rendered JPEG when you shoot RAW even if you are not saving a JPEG file. So the white balance will affect what is displayed on the RGB histogram display. It does not have to be exact, but getting it close will prevent you from clipping highlights on a channel. This is especially easy to do on the red channel when shooting under Tungsten light as that is the channel that will clip first.
Last edited:
Guy Parsons
Forum Pro
The weirdness of auto white balance (lazy me always uses it, but have the raw files) was strongly demonstrated last holiday. In a big hall, exhibits were lit by a mixture of light types, seemed to be halogen, plus a couple of types of LED spotlights involved, plus some sunlight leaking in so across one exhibit (were sand castles, all same colour sand) I could see on some there were distinct colour zones.
Looking at the camera while framing a shot there was a second or so pause while the auto white balance tried to work out what the heck to do, I could see the LCD image wandering through a wide range of WB until it settled, then of course it was always wrong as the mixed light played hell with the result. It was worrying to see the poor camera trying all the variations, never seen that happen before or since like that. Was the E-P5.
Regards.... Guy
John King
Forum Pro
How very interesting, Guy ... ??
I have never experienced that with any of my brood. However, the E-M1 is my first mFT body. I also almost always shoot AWB. All the Olympus cameras I have used seem fairly good with this.
My E-510 is especially good under mixed tungsten/halogen/fluorescent, but really lousy under straight tungsten - go figure! But I also always shoot RAW + JPEG, so a 1500-2000K shift in WB is no problem.
I have never experienced that with any of my brood. However, the E-M1 is my first mFT body. I also almost always shoot AWB. All the Olympus cameras I have used seem fairly good with this.
My E-510 is especially good under mixed tungsten/halogen/fluorescent, but really lousy under straight tungsten - go figure! But I also always shoot RAW + JPEG, so a 1500-2000K shift in WB is no problem.
Paulmorgan
Veteran Member
No imagine shooting a wedding under those very same conditions 
AWB as good as it is, I would not trust it.
AWB as good as it is, I would not trust it.
Last edited:
ctlow
Leading Member
- Messages
- 651
- Reaction score
- 191
Thank you, and the more answers I see the more questions arise. If they've been answered I haven't seen a synthesis (or I missed it).
So, let's say that I have some camera settings, like auto-enhance, and am shooting RAW/JPEG. It sounds like the RAW file is simply the sensor data, but that the header includes any enhancement data, including white balance. Does that record all of the JPEG settings, or just those programmed into the camera settings (because making a JPEG may - I'm not sure - have more to it than just camera settings - newer JPEG engines seem ... "better" ... than older ones).
So, get a Raw file into Adobe Camera Raw, which has several options, including under the BASIC tab, "Image Settings" and "Camera Raw Defaults". What do those mean? (I think I know.)
Either of those comes with a preset colour temperature and tint, which doesn't change whether one then selects Image Settings or Camera Raw Defaults. Where do those come from?
They also don't seem to change if one then changes from "Default" to "Auto", although that change can have a dramatic effect on the image, and many of the other settings change wildly from neutral.
So, where does "Auto" come from, and does it have anything to do with the OOC image settings?
====
Then, people have been talking about white balance, and how auto-white-balance often works very well but can be a problem for a series of shots which need a consistent look.
So, how then does one choose a white balance for a specific circumstance? Just use one of the presets ("sun, cloud, tungsten ..."), or depend on the RAW files not altering the balance as shot?
I know that's a lot of questions.
Thank you.
Charles
John King
Forum Pro
I have. I've rarely been in a church that had good even lighting ...
The professional shot all JPEGs. Thankfully, I shot RAW + JPEG ...
The professional shot all JPEGs. Thankfully, I shot RAW + JPEG ...
John King
Forum Pro
Gidday. Charles
Search for JPEG on Wikipedia, then follow all the rabbits down their holes. JPEG compression isn't like compressing a TIFF, it's a bucket full of worms!
Search for JPEG on Wikipedia, then follow all the rabbits down their holes. JPEG compression isn't like compressing a TIFF, it's a bucket full of worms!
Sigurthr
Well-known member
Personally, I haven't found a single preset that I like, at least not with my camera. AWB is OK sometimes, but what I've been doing lately that has worked well is using the Capture White Balance function which requires I hold up a white piece of paper (quality of paper seems to matter decently too) at the target location and zoom in to it, then have it work out the right white balance using that data.
Paulmorgan
Veteran Member
White paper is better than nothing but its not always good, white paper is often slightly bleached and a little blue (not that we notice) this results in images that are often a little warmer than they should be.
Last edited:
Sigurthr
Well-known member
You know, that's a damn good point. I forgot about the blue fluorescence in paper. I wonder if there is like a standard white/black calibration card or something one can buy or make for this purpose. At the very least it would let you take a sample photo at the beginning of your shoot which you can use to get the WB just right before you apply it to the important shots.
TN Args
Forum Pro
Assuming you are not joking, search for "grey card" or "gray card"
Paulmorgan
Veteran Member
Yes plenty, the good ones meet very high standards, the cheap Chinese ones are often a bit iffy.
Personally I user a color checker passport but there are cheaper solutions if you just need accurate WB.
JeanPierre Martel
Senior Member
A RAW file is like a gem stone. A gem stone can be cut in many different shapes. A JPEG is like the gem on a ring; it's a definitive way to show that stone.
In a RAW file, its header tells which WB was selected, what was the camera and which lens was used, what was the focal length, was it on manual or automatic autofocus, etc.
In a RAW file, the data section only contains what the sensor (a photon counter) has recorded for each pixel.
In a RAW file, its header tells which WB was selected, what was the camera and which lens was used, what was the focal length, was it on manual or automatic autofocus, etc.
In a RAW file, the data section only contains what the sensor (a photon counter) has recorded for each pixel.
Guy Parsons
Forum Pro
The simplest is this http://www.amazon.com/DSLRKIT-3in1-Digital-Grey-Card/dp/B00B174322 which often can be found on the gadget rack in any photo store.
Better of course is what Paul says and get some colour checking card. I have the old large Macbeth card http://www.filmtools.com/maccol.html but smaller ones are more convenient. By the way "old" is bad as the usual advice is to buy a new one every two years or so if paranoid about accuracy.
Regards..... Guy
Paulmorgan
Veteran Member
The Color checkers are for building profiles, they also include a WB target but there a little expensive if all you want to do is a WB.
If I was a full time Panasonic user I could not live without a colorchecker, Lr still has no profiles for there camera`s, food for thought for you Pany users.
Sigurthr
Well-known member
Thanks! Nope, wasn't joking! I'm new to digital photography, and my film experience is ~20yrs old and very casual/amateur. I had a feeling grey cards existed, but didn't know what they were called.
Paulmorgan
Veteran Member
Ideally a 12% card would be best, the darker 18% cards were generally used for exposure and are not quite so good for WB, there adequate but not always great and you will see more drift.
These from Cameratrax are a little dearer than the basic WB cards but they will give you the advantage of being able to calibrate color as well at a later date and there cheaper than the colorchecker passports.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/CameraTrax-...s_sw_h__5?ie=UTF8&refRID=1XSEDS000W6QXZ3NSANR
Last edited:
Paul De Bra
Forum Pro
But no white balance setting can fix that. What you need to do is process the image for different white balance settings and then selectively mix the parts of the image into one final image. What a pain...
I'm typically too lazy to do it (meaning the images are not that important). It happens quite often in my pics where I have a stage with strong halogen lights and then I add a bit of fill-in (bounced) flash which of course has a much higher color temperature. The resulting image clearly shows where the flash had effect (bluish cast) and where it did not (reddish cast).
I don't know how common it is to process for different white balances and then selectively mixing parts.
Of course the first step is always to get the exposure correct. When there are tungsten lights you have to be conservative as the red channel clips more easily than the other channels (and this is because AWB always uses too high a temperature under tungsten lights, with every camera I had).
I'm typically too lazy to do it (meaning the images are not that important). It happens quite often in my pics where I have a stage with strong halogen lights and then I add a bit of fill-in (bounced) flash which of course has a much higher color temperature. The resulting image clearly shows where the flash had effect (bluish cast) and where it did not (reddish cast).
I don't know how common it is to process for different white balances and then selectively mixing parts.
Of course the first step is always to get the exposure correct. When there are tungsten lights you have to be conservative as the red channel clips more easily than the other channels (and this is because AWB always uses too high a temperature under tungsten lights, with every camera I had).
davidedric
Veteran Member
Don't really understand your last point, Paul. I shoot mostly Panasonic, and live quite happily without a checker. If I were shooting in a studio, especially product photography I guess, it would be different. For wildlife where light changes all the time, and for landscapes, where there are likely many different temperatures in one shot, I really don't see the point. I want an image that pleases me, rather than an attempt to reproduce in camera what I think my eyes saw.
Dave
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum