RAW vs White balance

Started Nov 20, 2006 | Discussions
Jonas B Forum Pro • Posts: 14,596
Re: Curtis, Blende8, Rob, others...

distudio wrote:

Jonas B wrote:

My own conclusion for now is that I can safely leave the WhiBal
setting at Sunshine all the time (as I shoot raw only) and take
care of the colors at home when editng the pictures. The small
differences I have been able to find are really small.

I may be wrong. It's easy to miss something and any comment or
suggestion to look at this from another angle of view is welcome to
me.

The variation is indeed small and could well be attributed to
exposure related factors so my guess is that you are correct. What
I'm keen to see now is the same set of tests performed using RAW
files from a K10D as the source.

Yes. And I hope the result will be the same. There are so many things to learn anyway, having to accept that raw isn't raw as I know it would add to things to have in my mind. And I have limited capability with that.

-- hide signature --

Jonas

ptodd
ptodd Senior Member • Posts: 1,327
Re: Curtis, Blende8, Rob, others...

Jonas B wrote:

Yes. And I hope the result will be the same. There are so many
things to learn anyway, having to accept that raw isn't raw as I
know it would add to things to have in my mind. And I have limited
capability with that.

I think one of the major benefits of raw is that it means less things to think about while you're shooting. Good to see some more results in, this time I'm more convinced that camera WB doesn't affect the raw data.

-- hide signature --

 ptodd's gear list:ptodd's gear list
Pentax K-30 Samsung D-Xenon 50-200 F4-5.6 ED Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Google Nexus 4 +1 more
CurtisR Regular Member • Posts: 263
Unequivocal evidence

Ok, here are two histograms from the same white target in (almost) the same light:

The first is shot with custom WB off the white target itself.

The second is shot with custom WB off a purpleish-pink target.

WB is clearly applied before the raw file.

Whether this is useful to you or not depends on your circumstances, and how much work you want to invest. When shooting in strongly colored light, using custom WB could really improve results vs. fixing the color in post. Additionally, if one makes a habit of shooting strongly colored subjects like flowers or sports jerseys (and has trouble with red-channel clipping), using a lightly colored card to set a custom WB, then applying a compensating color profile in post processing could really improve results - giving you a significant boost in available DR.

For me personally, it's not going to change my life or anything. However, it's nice to have one more trick in the bag for dealing with extraordinary circumstances.

ptodd
ptodd Senior Member • Posts: 1,327
Re: Unequivocal evidence

CurtisR wrote:

Ok, here are two histograms from the same white target in (almost)
the same light:

I'm a little bit concerned about the use of the word 'almost' there, but still, the evidence is strong... So, once again, I'm going to change my stance...

The first is shot with custom WB off the white target itself.

The second is shot with custom WB off a purpleish-pink target.

Setting the WB balance with more extreme targets like this seems like a good idea for these testing purposes. I considered doing something like that, it's the time that would be spent booting into windows to run the software that's stopped me testing for myself.

-- hide signature --

 ptodd's gear list:ptodd's gear list
Pentax K-30 Samsung D-Xenon 50-200 F4-5.6 ED Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Google Nexus 4 +1 more
distudio Veteran Member • Posts: 3,913
Re: Unequivocal evidence

CurtisR wrote:

Ok, here are two histograms from the same white target in (almost)
the same light:

May I ask which model body you used to generate the sample RAW files?

-- hide signature --

Rob

 distudio's gear list:distudio's gear list
Sony RX100 II Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-3 Pentax 645Z Nikon D750 +19 more
Jonas B Forum Pro • Posts: 14,596
Unequivocal evidence - here too now

ptodd wrote:

CurtisR wrote:

Ok, here are two histograms from the same white target in (almost)
the same light:

I'm a little bit concerned about the use of the word 'almost'
there, but still, the evidence is strong... So, once again, I'm
going to change my stance...

Lol - me too...

This is tedious and a little boring, but at the same time also very interesting. It seems as the old axiom about "White balance setting doesn't affect the raw file" in the end is not true.

I had to confirm this: I took a pale pink towel and a pale blue sheet. Lamps on: "Daylight" bulbs. 4 pictures, two of each piece of fabric (that filled the intire picture), the first one with the whibal setting on the camera (*ist DS) to "Tungsten", and the second picture with a manually performed white balance. Shutter time and aperture and ISO are unchanged al the way. Here are the resulting histograms:

So, something now clearly happens. What went wrong with the first test I did? I tried fixed positions for the white balance setting on the camera only. In the later tests (ptodd) and the first test (unknown) there was one fixed and one manually performed white balance for the pictures respectively.

So, the latest conclusion is that "making a manual white balance on the DS results in a raw file differing from the same exact target but shot with a fixed white balance setting".

"Never say never" as vortout should have said...!

Now I have to think for a while about this. In what situations can one benefit from this? NB: The metering doesn't change. With the pink towel exposed with a manual white balance the red channel is clearly held back.

That corresponds with the what somebody (sorry, don't remember, a post in this thread) said about a possibility to make good use from manual white balancing using a pink card. "The new grey is pink!" Good news for people shooting red roses.

I know somebody in another forum have made some experiments with a weak blue filter on either the flash or the lens and that way managed to improve the DR for reds.

Somebody with an open mind and more knowledge about this?

Thank you Curtins for trying again and finding the key.

-- hide signature --

regards all,

Jonas

CurtisR Regular Member • Posts: 263
Re: Unequivocal evidence

distudio wrote:

CurtisR wrote:

Ok, here are two histograms from the same white target in (almost)
the same light:

May I ask which model body you used to generate the sample RAW files?

Ds with latest firmware.

ptodd
ptodd Senior Member • Posts: 1,327
Re: Unequivocal evidence - here too now

Jonas B wrote:

ptodd wrote:

CurtisR wrote:

Ok, here are two histograms from the same white target in (almost)
the same light:

.......
In the later tests (ptodd)

Not important, but I should point out that the later tests were by CurtisR.
--

 ptodd's gear list:ptodd's gear list
Pentax K-30 Samsung D-Xenon 50-200 F4-5.6 ED Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Google Nexus 4 +1 more
GordonBGood Veteran Member • Posts: 6,308
Re: Unequivocal evidence - here too now

Jonas B wrote:

Now I have to think for a while about this. In what situations can
one benefit from this? NB: The metering doesn't change. With the
pink towel exposed with a manual white balance the red channel is
clearly held back.

This does confirm what was stated in the Russian article that WB does change the relative gains of the colour channels, but as per your earlier tests and with these, only manual white balance affects the gains. There is an advantage in this in that using manual WB will avoid clipping of the red channel in cases with extremely warm light, as in tungsten or candlelight. One might assume it might also avoid blue clipping in cases with extremely cool light as in extreme shade, etc., although this would be less often a problem. Not bad, just interesting.

The second part of the observations by the OP was that there is a discrepency in gain for all channels between ISO 200 and ISO 400. As per your earlier post with the multitude of charts, it looks like this is true in every setting for WB (I would assume for Custom WB as well). With my knowledge of the Pentax raw format for the K100D, I assume that there is the same offset on all channels in raw of about 128 counts, so what we seem to be seeing here is that the ISO 400 charts are just reduced by a factor of 2 which is just another form of bit clipping - not using the upper half of the range. I'm sure that if one looks in the raw file, they will find that the stated maximum range reflects that the gain has been reduced. In other range, there is just one ISO sensitivity setting that is the real gain of the pre-amplifier and ADC: ISO 200. It looks like all of the others are just software manipulated, first just amplified by the maximum range setting for ISO 400, then just bit shifted for each subsequent increase in ISO by a factor of two.

I suppose this is done for every "D" model, and very likely the K100/110D, but it would be interesting to confirm. It doesn't appear to be done that way for the K10D from what I see in the DNG samples, but then they have that huge range of the 22 bit ADC to play with so it wouldn't be necessary to do it in the same way.

Regards, GordonBGood

CurtisR Regular Member • Posts: 263
Re: Unequivocal evidence - here too now

GordonBGood wrote:

Jonas B wrote:

Now I have to think for a while about this. In what situations can
one benefit from this? NB: The metering doesn't change. With the
pink towel exposed with a manual white balance the red channel is
clearly held back.

This does confirm what was stated in the Russian article that WB
does change the relative gains of the colour channels, but as per
your earlier tests and with these, only manual white balance
affects the gains. There is an advantage in this in that using
manual WB will avoid clipping of the red channel in cases with
extremely warm light, as in tungsten or candlelight. One might
assume it might also avoid blue clipping in cases with extremely
cool light as in extreme shade, etc., although this would be less
often a problem. Not bad, just interesting.

Um.. no. The WB is done pre-raw for preset WB as well. Go back and look again. I just did it with manual to show it very clearly (and demonstrate one potential practical use.) If you test with a brightly exposed target, the difference in preset WBs is clear as well - the russian guys show it well (and if you look closely at JonasB's shots it's clear too.)

The second part of the observations by the OP was that there is a
discrepency in gain for all channels between ISO 200 and ISO 400.
As per your earlier post with the multitude of charts, it looks
like this is true in every setting for WB (I would assume for
Custom WB as well). With my knowledge of the Pentax raw format for
the K100D, I assume that there is the same offset on all channels
in raw of about 128 counts, so what we seem to be seeing here is
that the ISO 400 charts are just reduced by a factor of 2 which is
just another form of bit clipping - not using the upper half of the
range. I'm sure that if one looks in the raw file, they will find
that the stated maximum range reflects that the gain has been
reduced. In other range, there is just one ISO sensitivity setting
that is the real gain of the pre-amplifier and ADC: ISO 200. It
looks like all of the others are just software manipulated,
first just amplified by the maximum range setting for ISO 400, then
just bit shifted for each subsequent increase in ISO by a factor of
two.

I'm not sure what you're saying, but it seems clear to me that sensitivity up to, and including 800 are done without bit shifting (or you'd see black stripes in the histograms as you do at 1600 and 3200). I think you're misreading something here. And the "offset" that it seems you're talking about are just that there's no black in the target, and with the lack of a log function on the horizontal axis, its consistency gets exagerated when viewing these histograms. It does appear that whatever is done to achieve ISO 400 and above changes the response curve somewhat, but it's hard to say exactly how it is changed with only this data - something with two sets of peaks would be more informative.

I'm glad to see you using "counts" instead of "bits" as you did in your thread on the K10D sensor, but you keep posting this stuff that's a combination of true, incomprehensible, and materially incorrect. It's really a disservice to people trying to learn the facts.

Jonas B Forum Pro • Posts: 14,596
Re: Unequivocal evidence - here too now

ptodd wrote:

Not important, but I should point out that the later tests were by
CurtisR.

Thank you. Yes they were. I at least got it right in the last part of my post above. I think we should get it right, yes.

regards,

Jonas

Jonas B Forum Pro • Posts: 14,596
Re: Unequivocal evidence - here too now

In a reply to Gordon CurtisR wrote:

-snip
Um.. no. The WB is done pre-raw for preset WB as well. Go back
and look again. I just did it with manual to show it very clearly
(and demonstrate one potential practical use.) If you test with a
brightly exposed target, the difference in preset WBs is clear as
well - the russian guys show it well (and if you look closely at
JonasB's shots it's clear too.)

I missed that. I was a little sloppy and didn't take the linear x-axis into account, at least not as much as I should have done. Looking at the first 15 pictures I just assumed that my shytter isn't exact, causing minor exposure shifts.

In my second try with two different targets I overexposed 1 stop to make the x values more spread out. I probably could have increased the exposure even more.

Again: Curtis directing himself to Gordon:

I'm not sure what you're saying, but it seems clear to me that
sensitivity up to, and including 800 are done without bit shifting
(or you'd see black stripes in the histograms as you do at 1600 and
3200).

In my first set of 3*5 pictures I got black stripes also in the ISO800 pictures.

Again, I'm grateful that you showed us the last three pictures Curtis. They made me look again and make that second try.

To get a final and clear picture of what is going on at the pre AD stages I guess one would have to make some different series of at least two different targets, at all white balance presets and with manual balancing, at all ISO values. (No, I'm not prepared to do that.)

What does it all matter with regards to real photos? That is the important question to me. Sometimes I get very good colors, sometimes not. As I have my own profile for ACR it works fine. I have the white balance set to sunshine all the time except for some times when I have choosen to make a manual balance. I never thought of the possibly need for another profile at those occassions. Then I sometimes got colors a bit off but I think I just blamed the light for this.

As pictures files in raw format have to be converted to something else to let us look at them the raw converter is very important. This make for another tedious set of tests: We don't know if ACR, Capture One and Silkypix takes this into account. Heck, we even don't know if the Pentax software handles the files correctly.

Suddenly there are several questions.

Very interesting. It was easier when I still believed that raw was raw. That is until yesterday... New knowledge is good though and just being aware of this will help to get "critical" pictures better in the future.

-- hide signature --

regards,

Jonas

GordonBGood Veteran Member • Posts: 6,308
Re: Unequivocal evidence - here too now

CurtisR wrote:

GordonBGood wrote:

Jonas B wrote:

Now I have to think for a while about this. In what situations can
one benefit from this? NB: The metering doesn't change. With the
pink towel exposed with a manual white balance the red channel is
clearly held back.

This does confirm what was stated in the Russian article that WB
does change the relative gains of the colour channels, but as per
your earlier tests and with these, only manual white balance
affects the gains. There is an advantage in this in that using
manual WB will avoid clipping of the red channel in cases with
extremely warm light, as in tungsten or candlelight. One might
assume it might also avoid blue clipping in cases with extremely
cool light as in extreme shade, etc., although this would be less
often a problem. Not bad, just interesting.

Um.. no. The WB is done pre-raw for preset WB as well. Go back
and look again. I just did it with manual to show it very clearly
(and demonstrate one potential practical use.) If you test with a
brightly exposed target, the difference in preset WBs is clear as
well - the russian guys show it well (and if you look closely at
JonasB's shots it's clear too.)

Sorry, I missed that, as Jonas himself did. Well, maybe that's good in that at least the camera is consistent, and it does avoid the chance of clipping the blue and red channels when the WB is extremely warm or cool if the preset is set close to being right. It would be a switch in thinking for those who just leave it set to Sunny all the time, I guess.

The second part of the observations by the OP was that there is a
discrepency in gain for all channels between ISO 200 and ISO 400.
As per your earlier post with the multitude of charts, it looks
like this is true in every setting for WB (I would assume for
Custom WB as well). With my knowledge of the Pentax raw format for
the K100D, I assume that there is the same offset on all channels
in raw of about 128 counts, so what we seem to be seeing here is
that the ISO 400 charts are just reduced by a factor of 2 which is
just another form of bit clipping - not using the upper half of the
range. I'm sure that if one looks in the raw file, they will find
that the stated maximum range reflects that the gain has been
reduced. In other range, there is just one ISO sensitivity setting
that is the real gain of the pre-amplifier and ADC: ISO 200. It
looks like all of the others are just software manipulated,
first just amplified by the maximum range setting for ISO 400, then
just bit shifted for each subsequent increase in ISO by a factor of
two.

I'm not sure what you're saying, but it seems clear to me that
sensitivity up to, and including 800 are done without bit shifting
(or you'd see black stripes in the histograms as you do at 1600 and
3200). I think you're misreading something here. And the "offset"
that it seems you're talking about are just that there's no black
in the target, and with the lack of a log function on the
horizontal axis, its consistency gets exagerated when viewing these
histograms. It does appear that whatever is done to achieve ISO
400 and above changes the response curve somewhat, but it's hard to
say exactly how it is changed with only this data - something with
two sets of peaks would be more informative.

I'm not looking at the missing codes, which are clear indications of bit shifting for ISO 800 and above, including ISO 800 as Jonas B himself sees, too. I'm referring to the double width of the ISO 200 histogram as compared to all of the other histograms even though the exposure values were changed to compensate for the higher differences in ISO by using half/double the shutter speed with a fixed aperture. This was also the one of the observations in the OP. It looks like ISO 400 may be accomplished as compared to ISO 200 not by using a bit shift but merely be keeping the same gain and changing the maximum white point value so that the raw values will be scaled by a factor of two in the raw convertor (which is basically the same effect as a bit shift).

The offset in the data by 128 counts is real, at least if the DS works like the K100D, which is likely.

Regards, GordonBGood

GordonBGood Veteran Member • Posts: 6,308
Re: Unequivocal evidence - here too now

Jonas B wrote:

What does it all matter with regards to real photos? That is the
important question to me. Sometimes I get very good colors,
sometimes not. As I have my own profile for ACR it works fine. I
have the white balance set to sunshine all the time except for some
times when I have choosen to make a manual balance. I never thought
of the possibly need for another profile at those occassions. Then
I sometimes got colors a bit off but I think I just blamed the
light for this.

I can't see that most raw convertor's that give an accurate as shot white balance wouldn't take the varying gains in the RGB channels into account, as otherwise one would have to do a manual WB for every image. Usually raw files record the actual relative gains of the individual RGB channels in order to get a neutral grey or white. The the case where the pre-amplifiers can be set with various gains, the recorded required extra gain would be (1,1,1).

I think that the main thing learned is that there is an advantage to guessing at the proper WB preset or use Custom WB where the white point is very warm or very cool in order to help avoid clipping the red or blue channels, respectively.

Perhaps the times when you get less accurate colours with your standard workflow is the times when one of the raw colour channels is clipping due to extreme WB situations? If you previously just left WB to Sunny, you must have done a manual WB for evey image, or let you convertor do an automatic (redetermined) WB? If the second case, clipped raw channels might affect the determination.

As pictures files in raw format have to be converted to something
else to let us look at them the raw converter is very important.
This make for another tedious set of tests: We don't know if ACR,
Capture One and Silkypix takes this into account. Heck, we even
don't know if the Pentax software handles the files correctly.

As I said, it would be hard to believe that Pentax software wouldn't handle the WB correctly, and newer versions of Silkypix likely do given the co-operation between them and Pentax, but other convertors would have to be tested to see how the convertor WB compares to that of the embedded JPEG.

Again, thanks for all your work in showing that this is real in the 'D' series and likely in the K100D.

Regards, GordonBGood

philzucker
philzucker Veteran Member • Posts: 8,715
Re: Unequivocal evidence - here too now

GordonBGood wrote:

I think that the main thing learned is that there is an advantage
to guessing at the proper WB preset or use Custom WB where the
white point is very warm or very cool in order to help avoid
clipping the red or blue channels, respectively.

Hmm, not that I'm not willing to accept the fact that WB influences analog gain for single color channels previous to A/D operation - even if that is surprising news to me - but what I'd really like to see are real world examples - real pictures! - that demonstrate tangible advantages of Custon WB or preset WB over Auto WB if shooting in RAW.

I always use Auto WB, shoot only in RAW, and honestly never was conscious of any WB problems in PP.

If I find time I'll try some real world tests myself, but unless those results shows convincing advantages (or someone else can demonstrate convincing results) I'll stay with Auto WB and RAW for the time being.

Second thing I wonder is why Nikon advertises its color channel gain control as advantage of their technology - and Pentax, implementing that in their rather old "Ds" model, does not talk about it at all ...

-- hide signature --

Phil

GMT +1

Jonas B Forum Pro • Posts: 14,596
Re: Unequivocal evidence - here too now

philzucker wrote:

GordonBGood wrote:

I think that the main thing learned is that there is an advantage
to guessing at the proper WB preset or use Custom WB where the
white point is very warm or very cool in order to help avoid
clipping the red or blue channels, respectively.

Hmm, not that I'm not willing to accept the fact that WB influences
analog gain for single color channels previous to A/D operation -
even if that is surprising news to me - but what I'd really like to
see are real world examples - real pictures! - that demonstrate
tangible advantages of Custon WB or preset WB over Auto WB if
shooting in RAW.

I always use Auto WB, shoot only in RAW, and honestly never was
conscious of any WB problems in PP.

Not for panos... do you?

If I find time I'll try some real world tests myself, but unless
those results shows convincing advantages (or someone else can
demonstrate convincing results) I'll stay with Auto WB and RAW for
the time being.

This is the real question, isn't it? What can we do withthis new knowledge (except of stop saying that the WB setting doesn't affect the raw file)?

Second thing I wonder is why Nikon advertises its color channel
gain control as advantage of their technology - and Pentax,
implementing that in their rather old "Ds" model, does not talk
about it at all ...

One consider it a good thing, one consider it something that would confuse their entry level customers?

-- hide signature --

Jonas

Jonas B Forum Pro • Posts: 14,596
Re: Unequivocal evidence - here too now

GordonBGood wrote:

Jonas B wrote:

What does it all matter with regards to real photos? That is the
important question to me. Sometimes I get very good colors,
sometimes not. As I have my own profile for ACR it works fine. I
have the white balance set to sunshine all the time except for some
times when I have choosen to make a manual balance. I never thought
of the possibly need for another profile at those occassions. Then
I sometimes got colors a bit off but I think I just blamed the
light for this.

I can't see that most raw convertor's that give an accurate as shot
white balance wouldn't take the varying gains in the RGB channels
into account, as otherwise one would have to do a manual WB for
every image. Usually raw files record the actual relative gains of
the individual RGB channels in order to get a neutral grey or
white. The the case where the pre-amplifiers can be set with
various gains, the recorded required extra gain would be (1,1,1).

So what are we thinking now? With the whibal set to manual the amplification needed should be close to (1,1,1)? When it is set to Tungsten the correct values might be (1,1.2,0.9)? I'm just making up the figures of course.

If the Pentax software has been aware of this all the time maybe that explains the good colors people have reported getting from it (never even installed it myself)? And in what way do the other raw converters handle this? I remember that Adobe changed the DS profile in ACR when updating to v3 (I think it was then at least). But noone ever commented on different profiles depending on WB settings.

A big Hmmm here...!! What on earth says that I get the correct profile when manually dragging the raw converter WB slider?

I think that the main thing learned is that there is an advantage
to guessing at the proper WB preset or use Custom WB where the
white point is very warm or very cool in order to help avoid
clipping the red or blue channels, respectively.

Perhaps the times when you get less accurate colours with your
standard workflow is the times when one of the raw colour channels
is clipping due to extreme WB situations? If you previously just
left WB to Sunny, you must have done a manual WB for evey image, or
let you convertor do an automatic (redetermined) WB? If the second
case, clipped raw channels might affect the determination.

I always have done it manually for every picture. Sometimes I use the Photoshop plug-in InCamera from Pictocolor, but not very often. It's only ocassionally I bring a Gretag ColorChecker chart with me. A grey card is always in the bag though, next to the notebook.

As pictures files in raw format have to be converted to something
else to let us look at them the raw converter is very important.
This make for another tedious set of tests: We don't know if ACR,
Capture One and Silkypix takes this into account. Heck, we even
don't know if the Pentax software handles the files correctly.

As I said, it would be hard to believe that Pentax software
wouldn't handle the WB correctly, and newer versions of Silkypix
likely do given the co-operation between them and Pentax, but other
convertors would have to be tested to see how the convertor WB
compares to that of the embedded JPEG.

Again, thanks for all your work in showing that this is real in the
'D' series and likely in the K100D.

We have to thank vortout and Curtis here. Or curse them...

For now I just neglect all this, hoping somebody will show any possible effect to real world pictures. Maybe the difference is small enough to just make me go from Sunshine to Tungsten and make a new ACR calibration.

regards,

Jonas

richardplondon
richardplondon Forum Pro • Posts: 10,852
Re: Unequivocal evidence - here too now

Jonas B wrote:

I always use Auto WB, shoot only in RAW, and honestly never was
conscious of any WB problems in PP.

Not for panos... do you?

Yes, I constantly forget to set fixed WB for this... a major pain.

Pilot error once again - not the camera's fault.

I generally shoot pano shots in JPG, often at reduced resolution if doing a 360. RAW seems like overkill, in terms of filesize and conversion load. But you do need to give close attention to exposure and WB up front.

If I find time I'll try some real world tests myself, but unless
those results shows convincing advantages (or someone else can
demonstrate convincing results) I'll stay with Auto WB and RAW for
the time being.

This is the real question, isn't it? What can we do withthis new
knowledge (except of stop saying that the WB setting doesn't affect
the raw file)?

I guess, as RAW users, set AutoWB instead of leaving WB on some arbitrary preset - at least RAW data will always in the right ballpark "as-shot", for WB.

RP

 richardplondon's gear list:richardplondon's gear list
Pentax K-5 Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 35mm F2.8 Macro Limited +6 more
philzucker
philzucker Veteran Member • Posts: 8,715
Panos and WB

Jonas B wrote:

I always use Auto WB, shoot only in RAW, and honestly never was
conscious of any WB problems in PP.

Not for panos... do you?

But I do, yes! I always use Auto WB and RAW, and routinely do WB adjustment for all pics belonging to a pano swiftly while looking at them in ACR. It's just two mouse clicks you need to assign the same WB to them all - after I have selected a WB based upon one or two "most important" pics of the group.

Never had any probs with that. At least I didn't consciously note any color shifts, blending problems etc.

-- hide signature --

Phil

GMT +1

Jonas B Forum Pro • Posts: 14,596
Re: Panos and WB

philzucker wrote:

Jonas B wrote:

I always use Auto WB, shoot only in RAW, and honestly never was
conscious of any WB problems in PP.

Not for panos... do you?

But I do, yes! I always use Auto WB and RAW, and routinely do WB
adjustment for all pics belonging to a pano swiftly while looking
at them in ACR. It's just two mouse clicks you need to assign the
same WB to them all - after I have selected a WB based upon one
or two "most important" pics of the group.

Never had any probs with that. At least I didn't consciously note
any color shifts, blending problems etc.

So, in a sense you have allready tested what happens with a picture taken with different white balance settings and then adjusted the whibal in Photoshop. If some colors had been muted or otherwise different in the different parts of a pano I guess you would have seen it. At least I consider this as one example where this "new" behaviour of the raw file obviously didn't matter (assuming that automatic white balance in fact works and also changes the white balance between the pictures in at least some of your panos).

I have been carefull not to switch my WB from sunshine, ever. Partly because I prefer sunshine, partly as I have done quick "previews" of my panos wanting to see if I want to work with them. A tedious workflow and not really necessary - it's just the way I do it since the first experiments.

hey hoo,

Jonas

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads