Question About White Balance...

[John Retsal]

I've normally just left my Z6 II set at Auto1 but then I started to notice that outdoor greenery wasn't quite like I saw it with my eyes. It looked a bit too cool. Having read about grey cards, I picked one up and proceeded to set a preset (PRE1) setting outside in full sun. I then took a shot using Auto1 and then another with the PRE1 setting.

The look from the one taken with the preset is pretty much dead on with what I see with my eyes.

I then had a look at all the camera's standard presets to see if there was one that would match the grey card preset but there isn't one. Even the Direct Sunlight wasn't quite warm enough. It's at 5200K whereas my grey card preset recorded 5875K.

I'm thinking therefore that before I start shooting at a location, I should set a preset and then use it for all my shots until either my location changes or the lighting does (clouds, twilight, etc.).

Is this essentially how the preset concept is meant to be used?

 

[tomnorth]

If the light is warmer I use the Cloudy white balance. Cloudy WB on my Z6 gives me a reading of 5700. You could also try the Auto 2 setting, which makes things a bit warmer.

 

[ghostfox_1]

This might be a dumb question, but why not just fix it in post when you're working on your raws anyway? I'd find it much more tedious to do anything else, especially with the odds of lighting and location changes.

 

[Kaj E]

Shoot raw, and adjust WB in PP as you see fit.

I use Auto 2 (Z7II), with quite good results for a decent start

 

[tomnorth]

I prefer to get my images as close as possible to the actual colors and exposure when in the field. That reduces the amount of time I spend in post and makes pose easier since I'm not trying to remember what things looked like. It's not a big deal for me to change the white balance setting to cloudy.

 

[John Retsal]

This might be a dumb question, but why not just fix it in post when you're working on your raws anyway? I'd find it much more tedious to do anything else, especially with the odds of lighting and location changes.

I could but, after several days of travel, with many locations, once I get home I'm not sure I'll accurately remember how things actually looked and after all, I want my photos to as accurately as possible reflect the scenes as they were when I was there.

 

[John Retsal]

I prefer to get my images as close as possible to the actual colors and exposure when in the field. That reduces the amount of time I spend in post and makes pose easier since I'm not trying to remember what things looked like. It's not a big deal for me to change the white balance setting to cloudy.

Exactly,

 

[michaeladawson]

This might be a dumb question, but why not just fix it in post when you're working on your raws anyway? I'd find it much more tedious to do anything else, especially with the odds of lighting and location changes.

Getting it right in the camera is better than getting it right in post.

Just one example... if your WB is wrong and you then set the exposure to not clip highlights when you take the shot, you may find you have clipping when you set the WB in post.

 

[ghostfox_1]

This might be a dumb question, but why not just fix it in post when you're working on your raws anyway? I'd find it much more tedious to do anything else, especially with the odds of lighting and location changes.

Getting it right in the camera is better than getting it right in post.

Just one example... if your WB is wrong and you then set the exposure to not clip highlights when you take the shot, you may find you have clipping when you set the WB in post.

 

[John Retsal]

Shoot raw, and adjust WB in PP as you see fit.

I could but, after several days of travel, with many locations, once I get home I'm not sure I'll accurately remember how things actually looked and, after all, I want my photos to as accurately as possible reflect the scenes as they were when I was there.

 

[Kaj E]

Shoot raw, and adjust WB in PP as you see fit.

I could but, after several days of travel, with many locations, once I get home I'm not sure I'll accurately remember how things actually looked and, after all, I want my photos to as accurately as possible reflect the scenes as they were when I was there.

What matters is what the photo looks like, not that is an exact replica of the scene as it was. You need to bring out the essence of the scene as you want it to appear. The masters have always done some darkroom work. Example; Ansel Adams.

--
Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member #13
It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby.- Elliott Erwitt

 

[John Retsal]

Shoot raw, and adjust WB in PP as you see fit.

I could but, after several days of travel, with many locations, once I get home I'm not sure I'll accurately remember how things actually looked and, after all, I want my photos to as accurately as possible reflect the scenes as they were when I was there.

What matters is what the photo looks like, not that is an exact replica of the scene as it was. You need to bring out the essence of the scene as you want it to appear. The masters have always done some darkroom work. Example; Ansel Adams.

Yeah, well, I'm not at artist. I'm not trying to create something that doesn't reflect reality. I want to document the world as it is, seen by my eyes. In today's culture, truth is in short supply. In my life I strive for truth in all areas.

I noticed also that Ansel Adams shot a lot in black and white. I see in color so...

 

[PHXAZCRAIG]

Shoot raw, and adjust WB in PP as you see fit.

I could but, after several days of travel, with many locations, once I get home I'm not sure I'll accurately remember how things actually looked and, after all, I want my photos to as accurately as possible reflect the scenes as they were when I was there.

I do underwater photography. Not only is it hard to set the 'correct' white balance sometimes when you are diving (conditions may favor fast shooting), there is plenty of room to interpret just what the correct colors actually are. And they are rarely what you see with the eye underwater.

Accordingly, you learn how to white balance in post, and at least for underwater, that is often a matter of finding a bit of bleached coral and using the eyedropper tool. Once you have one scene balanced the way you want/need/remember/can, you can look at the temp and hue values and have a decent idea of what similar shots will take.

Video is much different as you have much less flexibility to adjust WB in post. When I'm shooting video underwater, I'm having to do lots of preset changes - every 7-10 foot of depth changing.

 

[NickZ2016]

I then had a look at all the camera's standard presets to see if there was one that would match the grey card preset but there isn't one. Even the Direct Sunlight wasn't quite warm enough. It's at 5200K whereas my grey card preset recorded 5875K.

5900 is cooler than 5200. White hot is a higher temperature than red hot. Think tungsten 2800. I know it seems strange to say a higher temperature is cooler but there you go. Warm lights 2800/3200. Cool lights 6500.

Using a gray card is safer but the light changes during the course of the day. Blue hour to golden to more or less "daylight" back to golden to blue . Clouds can shift things. Reflections can.

Daylight is a made up number that Kodak came up with decades ago. It's close enough for most things but everything from time of day,season and even latitude can shift it.

 

[john isaacs]

I've normally just left my Z6 II set at Auto1 but then I started to notice that outdoor greenery wasn't quite like I saw it with my eyes. It looked a bit too cool. Having read about grey cards, I picked one up and proceeded to set a preset (PRE1) setting outside in full sun. I then took a shot using Auto1 and then another with the PRE1 setting.

The look from the one taken with the preset is pretty much dead on with what I see with my eyes.

I then had a look at all the camera's standard presets to see if there was one that would match the grey card preset but there isn't one. Even the Direct Sunlight wasn't quite warm enough. It's at 5200K whereas my grey card preset recorded 5875K.

I'm thinking therefore that before I start shooting at a location, I should set a preset and then use it for all my shots until either my location changes or the lighting does (clouds, twilight, etc.).

Is this essentially how the preset concept is meant to be used?

Rather than use a custom WB, I just shoot the WB card. Then I have both Auto WB and the WB card (which I can pull WB from). Two data points are better than one.

 

[Gary Barnett]

When changing the white balance, it is better to use a white balance button (can be programmed to a button if you don't have it) so that you can view how the scene look in varying white balance on live in the viewfinder.

A good staring point would be sunny, so that the scene can be either cold or warm. Also try natural white balance.

 

[Sagittarius]

... Also try natural white balance.

Which is what?

 

[michaeladawson]

... Also try natural white balance.

Which is what?

I think he means Natural Auto WB.

 

[Models By Day]

That is why I use the ColorChecker passport from Calibrite to create a color profile for the camera/lens , You can make a dual illumination profile as well (2 photos one in sun the other in shade) and use that to adjust photo to match





Also the 2 rows of white squares can be used to change white balance (1 is for people and other is for landscape)

NOTE: to us these to create profiles you need to shoot in RAW.

 

[michaeladawson]

For years I used a ColorChecker Passport and their software to create custom profiles for ALL my photos. It seemed super easy. Take a shot under the relevant light and use the X-Rite software (at the time) to create a custom profile that I used in place of the Adobe or Camera profiles in ACR/LR.

And I was happy for quite awhile. But I finally grew dissatisfied with the profiles created. The contrast and tone curves that resulted often made a mess of some of my difficult scenes. So I switched from the X-Rite software to Adobe's Profile Editor. Same process. Use the ColorChecker and the Adobe PE would create a custom profile. These seemed much better than the profiles from X-Rite. So I was happy again for a while longer.

A finally gave up three years ago. I gave up my left-brained belief that because the profile was created from actual measurements off a calibrated reference that it was "better". I've now returned to using the supplied Adobe and Camera Matching profiles.

I'll still use the ColorChecker occasionally to have a "grey" reference point in a shot. But for now I've discarded the practice of making my own camera profiles.