Setting the White Balance

Mac1398

Active member
Messages
54
Reaction score
8
I'm basically trying to figure out what exactly to set my white balance to on my Canon when shooting indoors. Hoping someone can explain WB to me in a nutshell. Usually I have left it on the "Flash" setting (lightning arrow) as I tend to use my flash a lot, but I've recently noticed that setting it to "AMB" (when indoors) might be better as it takes away that orange glow that we all tend to want to avoid. Below are two photos, the first under Flash WB setting and the second under the AMB WB setting. Speedlight was fired for both of them.

b2328caa71e74539874c70d752f7f1d6.jpg

e124045b8bc04587a9e7cf55729b7e67.jpg







Settings menu:



649980fe39f54773988450fe8f848003.jpg.png
 
Last edited:
I shoot raw and use a grey card. I adjust white balance in post based upon my grey card reading.

9c069a3f9a3c4d188f460b394494251b.jpg

~ Bill
 
I use AWB and shoot RAW. I use the eye dropper tool in my raw editor and click on a white area close to the subject. Then I look at the image and make sure I’m satisfied with the balance. Then I can copy and paste that setting to the other photos shot in the same conditions.
 
Flash white balance on Canon is something very specific. There’s an orange filter that comes with Canon speed lights that is designed to work with flash white balance.

Without that filter, it just sets flash white balance to 6000k.

cdd77af8d5c849f8bad329761183a725.jpg

AWB-Ambience Priority is auto white balance with a bias toward warmer colors.

AWB-White Priority is an auto white balance with a bias toward more accurate whites.

Both work with flash. Neither is right. It’s just preference.

As others are saying, easiest way get get white balance to your liking is to shoot raw and adjust in post.
 
Last edited:
Hoping someone can explain WB to me in a nutshell.
All light is not equal. Light from the sun is a very slightly different color than light from an old incandescent light bulb, which might be different from LED lights, or fluorescent lights. Your eyes can compensate for this so you don't notice the difference but the camera records the colors as it sees them. (If you have a lamp in your house with an incandescent bulb then set it near a window and see if the light from the lamp starts to look orange compared to light coming in from the window.) If you set the white balance setting on your camera it will make adjustments in the recorded file. So if you are using sunlight you set the WB to sunlight, if you are indoors with incandescent bulbs the light will look way too orange unless you change the WB setting to incandescent bulbs. If your camera has an automatic white balance setting then it is sometimes good enough to determine what the light source is and compensate for it. If you shoot in RAW then you can make white balance adjustments in post processing. If you shoot JPG files then you can make small corrections in post processing but not large corrections.
 
I'm basically trying to figure out what exactly to set my white balance to on my Canon when shooting indoors. Hoping someone can explain WB to me in a nutshell. Usually I have left it on the "Flash" setting (lightning arrow) as I tend to use my flash a lot, but I've recently noticed that setting it to "AMB" (when indoors) might be better as it takes away that orange glow that we all tend to want to avoid. Below are two photos, the first under Flash WB setting and the second under the AMB WB setting. Speedlight was fired for both of them.

b2328caa71e74539874c70d752f7f1d6.jpg

e124045b8bc04587a9e7cf55729b7e67.jpg

Settings menu:

649980fe39f54773988450fe8f848003.jpg.png
Mac0908,

White Balance is a function of the Kelvin temperature scale.

These will range anywhere from 3000K or so, up to 8000 or 9000K or so.

Lower numbers are cool. Higher numbers are warm.

The Daylight WB on my camera is 5200K and the Cloudy WB is 6000K.

As you go lower in the numbers, the more cooler blue you will introduce into your pictures.

As you go higher in the Kelvin numbers, the more orange and red (warmer) you will introduce into your pictures.

As justUs7 said, if you choose the Flash white balance, the camera will automatically set a white balance of 6000K. (At least that's what my camera sets).

You can see this reflected in your two pictures. In the first one, you chose the Flash WB, and the camera set a warmer WB, introducing a warmer orangeish tint.

In the second photo, you chose Auto WB, and the camera selected a cooler Kelvin temperature, introducing a bluish tint.

You can set your WB on the fly and see what effect it will have ahead of time by going into Live View, hit your Q button and, and choosing the K white balance.

You can adjust your Kelvin temperature up or down (lower numbers or higher numbers) and see what effect it will have before you take your shot. Choose your Kelvin number and hit your Set button to lock it in.

Just as an aside, if you want to emphasize the cooler blues and whites in your outdoor photos, choose the Daylight WB. If you want to emphasize the warmer greens and reds, choose the Cloudy WB.

Steve Thomas
 
Last edited:
You don't say if you shoot raw or sooc jpeg.

In case you are not aware, if shooting raw it doesn't matter what the white balance setting is in camera because it is not applied at all to the raw data. The camera white balance setting is stored in the raw file's exif data which raw converters can optionally use for the initial rendering of the raw data. You then actually set the white balance in the raw converter.

If you shoot sooc jpegs then the camera's white balance setting is baked into camera's creation of the jpeg and so white balance can be much more problematic to fix in post than with raw data.

Personally I shoot raw only, set the camera to auto white balance and then set the white balance to suit in the raw converter.
 
Mac0908

I wanted to experiment a little and take a picture in a setting I don't usually work with. I took this interior shot in aperture priority at the really wide aperture of f/4 from about 3 feet away at 27mm. Because the lighting was so dim, the camera slowed the shutter speed down to 1/10th and kicked the Auto ISO to the maximum I have set of 12800.

The colors are true with the green foot stool and the orange electric heater. I had to play with the Kelvin temperature a little to down around 3000.

414fae2ea41340dba0ebbc5c770df4d6.jpg

Steve Thomas
 
As others have explained, different light sources have different colour temperatures, so if you shoot in a mix of for instance incandescent and flash, you won't always be able to adjust WB to render everything to your liking. Either what is lit primarily by incandescent will be too orange, or what is lit by flash will be too blue.

The filter mentioned by JustUs7 tweaks the colour temperature of the flash to look more like incandescent. It's commonly available as a gel that can be taped to the front of your flash., going by the name of CTO (Color Temperature Orange), and it comes in several densities. When you use it, you set the WB on camera to incandescent, and the two light sources will match — perhaps. With LED and flourescent light bulbs in the mix, there are all kinds of pitfalls in mixed lighting.

Good luck and good light.
 
You don't say if you shoot raw or sooc jpeg.

In case you are not aware, if shooting raw it doesn't matter what the white balance setting is in camera because it is not applied at all to the raw data. The camera white balance setting is stored in the raw file's exif data which raw converters can optionally use for the initial rendering of the raw data. You then actually set the white balance in the raw converter.

If you shoot sooc jpegs then the camera's white balance setting is baked into camera's creation of the jpeg and so white balance can be much more problematic to fix in post than with raw data.

Personally I shoot raw only, set the camera to auto white balance and then set the white balance to suit in the raw converter.
I shoot raw only, keep the camera set to Daylight WB, and then set the white balance to suit in the raw converter. If you use Auto WB, almost every image needs a different adjustment.

It's certainly good to have a grey card or a Color Checker in one of the photos when working indoors.

Don
 
Last edited:
You don't say if you shoot raw or sooc jpeg.

In case you are not aware, if shooting raw it doesn't matter what the white balance setting is in camera because it is not applied at all to the raw data. The camera white balance setting is stored in the raw file's exif data which raw converters can optionally use for the initial rendering of the raw data. You then actually set the white balance in the raw converter.
I typically like to shoot JPEG but have been more open to shooting Raw. That being said, maybe its something I'm doing wrong(?) but when I shoot Raw the photo ends up looking the same as when its on the L setting.

I'm still curious to know based on the setting and subject with my sample photos, which do you think is more anesthetically pleasing to the eye?
 
Flash white balance on Canon is something very specific. There’s an orange filter that comes with Canon speed lights that is designed to work with flash white balance.
What flashes come with the filter? None of my Canon flashes have ever had it.
 
Last edited:
Flash white balance on Canon is something very specific. There’s an orange filter that comes with Canon speed lights that is designed to work with flash white balance.
What flashes come with the filter? None of my Canon flashes have ever had it.
Our 430 ex iii rt came with the orange filter and a bounce adapter. We bought it brand new from the local camera store.

There are a couple buttons I guess, not sure how to describe them. But they tell the flash and camera when the filters are on. The flash and came know when that filter is on and flash white balance behaves differently.

Had the flash for years before I read the manual and found what that filter did. Glad we hadn’t lost it by then. Still don’t use it much. I suspect with LED’s being so prevalent, it probably doesn’t matter as much these days

When the bounce adapter is on, the flash won’t show the focal length of the lens in ETTL. It adjusts the power for bounce. The only thing I adjust is flash exposure compensation.
 
I shoot raw and use a grey card. I adjust white balance in post based upon my grey card reading.
I do this with jpeg and without any cards. My vintage Corel PhotoImpact software lets me completely alter the color temperature of the shot including by choosing a reference point in the frame(have no idea what they call this).

But then again, wouldn't it be nice to get it right in camera, since it is possible and it doesn't require turning on a computer?
 
Last edited:
In a nutshell, white balance sets a reference the camera uses when rendering the hue of the scene in a photo. Of course, as with any communication medium, there's a two-way street. The image made by the camera is the output. The viewers response to that image is, in a sense, the input. As the photographer, you're first in line to see the image and decide of you like or dislike how colors in the scene are rendered.

Let's take a closer look at the question of how to set white balance so the photo renders hues to one's liking. We'll start by asking a basic question: what's your goal? How do you want the colors to look?

Broadly speaking, there are three possible responses to that question. One, is that you want the colors to appear as they do to your eye at the moment the photo is being made. A second, is that you want colors to appear as they would under a specific kind of lighting; lighting that may or may not match the light illuminating the scene at the time of the photo. A third, is that you want to manipulate the appearance of color in the frame to suit your artistic goals for the image.

Suppose your goal is to render hues as they appear to the eye at the time of the photo. How do we achieve that? We could set the camera to auto white balance (AWB) and trust it to choose a setting that will deliver the goods. Often, it will. But almost certainly, there will come a time when the camera chooses a white balance that results in hues you don't like. How do we intervene and choose a setting that will deliver the goods.

I'd recommend changing from AWB to one of the scene settings - daylight, cloudy, open shade, etc - making a test photo and using the setting that comes closest to what you want. This approach can be effective in that it results in a photo you like. However, it doesn't do much to help the photographer understand why a certain white balance setting produces a specific outcome.

Before reading further, be aware that we're heading down the white balance rabbit hole. Enter at your own risk.

Human vision has evolved so that we're most sensitive to light of a certain wavelength. That wavelength is 555 nanometers, which corresponds to what a person having normal vision would describe as being slightly yellow-green. While light has a wavelength that can be measured, color is about perception. In that context, there is always a subjective element to color identification. Ten people can use a device to measure the wavelength of light and all can get the same result. At the same time, all ten can perceive and describe the color of that light differently.

Science has developed a color temperature system which describes both the color (as perceived by a person having normal vision) and temperature of the light. The color temperature of sunlight is around 5800K or 5,800 kelvins. That color temperature corresponds to - you guessed it - yellow-green.

Cameras are designed so that when you're out in midday light, the AWB or daylight scene white balance setting will result in a color temperature of 5200-5600 as a reference. The result will be a photo that renders hues as they appear to your eye. Reds will look red, greens green, and blues will look blue.

We describe this as looking realistic because the colors look similar to how we see them. We're the reference. As conditions change and the color temperature of the light illuminating a scene changes, we see the scene as having different hues.

For example, the same grassy field that looked green at Noon on a sunny day may have a decidedly warm or reddish hue at 20-30 minutes before sunset. Late in the day, the sun is much lower in the sky. Sunlight travels through more air before reaching the ground. The atmosphere scatters shorter wavelengths more effectively so that longer wavelengths of light are now illuminating the landscape. Longer wavelengths are typically seen as warmer or redder in hue.

On the Kelvin scale temperatures lower than 5000 appear more red as the color temperature drops. Sunset light typically has a color temperature of about 4000K. Our eyes, which are tuned to be most sensitive to a cooler temperature in the 5600-5800K range, see lower color temperature light as warmer. This is why we see so much red in a landscape scene at sunset or sunrise.

By contrast, clouds are more effective at scattering longer wavelengths of light. Shorter wavelengths can make it through thick clouds. The shorter the wavelength of light, the cooler or bluer it looks to us. Blue light also has a higher color temperature. So, under heavy overcast, the color temperature of light illuminating a scene may be 7000K. The scene will look cooler or bluer to our eyes.

The camera works the same way. If we set white balance to sunlight or to a specific color temperature of 5600K, a landscape in midday light will have colors similar to what we see. At sunrise or sunset when the same landscape is illuminated with 4000K light, a camera with a sunlight or 5600K white balance setting will render the scene with warmer, redder hues. On a day with heavy clouds when the scene is illuminated by 7000K light, the camera will render it cooler or more blue if white balance is set to daylight or 5600K.

Keeping the camera's white balance at a daylight setting will simulate how our eyes see a scene. The accuracy of that rendering will be influenced by the custom settings a photographer chooses. If a person shoots JPEG and increases color saturation to the maximum in-camera setting, hues will look unnaturally rich. That's not to say it's wrong to use those settings. If you like horsey color hues, set the camera to render the scene to your liking. However, don't blame the camera for making photos that aren't realistic in their presentation of hues in a scene. Those colors are the result of choices made by the photographer.

Suppose your goal is to render a scene as it would appear under a certain kind of lighting; as if we were seeing everything under midday light. Why, you might ask? Well, if you enjoy nature photography, you may like to render flowers, bird plumage, or animal fur as it appears under "normal" (midday) light. You want the whites to look white, blacks to look black, and so on.

If that's your goal, you can achieve this by matching the camera's white balance setting to the color temperature of the light illuminating the scene. For example, selecting a cloudy scene white balance on a cloudy day will result on the camera choosing a higher color temperature (i.e. 7000K) that more closely matches the color temperature of the light illuminating the scene. The closer the two match, the more the scene will look as it does in midday light.

At sunrise or sunset, a white balance setting in the range of 4000-4500K will produce images looking as if the scene were lit by a midday Sun. After sunset the cooler temperature of the light may be much higher (8000-9000K). Setting the camera's white balance to match will render the scene so that colors look as they would at midday.

Finally, you may want to render color - not as it looks to you at that moment or as it would look at midday - as it pleases your aesthetic sensibility. You may like the warmth of sunset light but have a preference for taming it a bit. Similarly, you may like the cool of a scene's appearance during a storm but you don't want an intense blue in your photos.

Here's the general rule: if you set a white balance color temperature that's lower than the actual color temperature of the light illuminating the scene, you'll make photos having a cooler or bluish hue. If you set a white balance that's higher than the cooler temperature of the light in the scene, you'll make photos having a warm or reddish hue.

For example, if you want to calm the deep reds of a sunset scene, lower the white balance from daylight (5600K) to about 5000K. The scene, which is lit by 4000-4500K light will still look warm in hue but the reds won't be as horsey. They'll be calmed a bit. If you like the cool hue of twilight light but don't want the scene looking deep blue, set white balance in the 6500-7000K range. It'll still be below the 8000K temperature of the light in the scene but the difference - and blue tinge - will be more subtle.

I hope this helps or, at the very least, gives folks a better understanding of how white balance can be used in an intentional manner to render color in a scene to your liking.

--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ
http://www.billferris.photoshelter.com
 
Last edited:
I'm still curious to know based on the setting and subject with my sample photos, which do you think is more anesthetically pleasing to the eye?
The number of cones, photoreceptors, in the human retina is not constant. For example in some tests researchers found what some people pick as their best example of red, is what others pick as their best example of orange.

The researchers only tested for individual differences. But I understand variations may be the result of differences in gender, national origin, ethnicity, geographical location, or native language spoken according to this Psychology Today article:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...ch has found that,in how we experience colors.

I mention this because even when you think you are setting WB properly in post, and trying to adjust colors accurately in post using a Passport Colorchecker, you see the result through your eyes. However others may see it differently.

On my shoot this past Friday night, where I shoot tethered so my client could see progress of the shoot, I was doing some quick editing of my raw files in Lightroom Classic when two of her staff got into a discussion that the top they saw in an image on my display was orange not red, while the other corrected her and said no, no it is red.

Long story short it's perfectly fine to ask a client which image edit, if you make more than one for an image, they find more favorable. However I only produce one set for client review based upon my tools and eyes but remain open to the reality my client may see things differently which will increase the time I spend on post processing.

Nice guitar! Here is an image of my guitar:

549e0edb928c47b091bf8e9fa8eddca9.jpg

~ Bill
 
Last edited:
You don't say if you shoot raw or sooc jpeg.

In case you are not aware, if shooting raw it doesn't matter what the white balance setting is in camera because it is not applied at all to the raw data. The camera white balance setting is stored in the raw file's exif data which raw converters can optionally use for the initial rendering of the raw data. You then actually set the white balance in the raw converter.
I typically like to shoot JPEG but have been more open to shooting Raw. That being said, maybe its something I'm doing wrong(?) but when I shoot Raw the photo ends up looking the same as when its on the L setting.
The raw data is independent of the WB setting, but the picture you see when you open the raw file is processed to the same settings as the jpeg, so unless you have a raw processor that ignores those settings, the pictures will be identical. What you don't see is all the data that the jpeg compression algorithm has thrown away. If you need to change image lightness a lot, you will see that the raw file holds far more data in the shadows and in the highlights than the jpeg.

Shoot the same scene in both raw and jpeg, with +3, 0, and -3 EC, and then try to normalize the results in your raw processor. You'll see the exposure headroom is far greater in the raw files.
I'm still curious to know based on the setting and subject with my sample photos, which do you think is more anesthetically pleasing to the eye?
Both are valid representations of the scene. I don't know the colour of the wall behind the guitar, so I can't judge.

Good luck and good light.
 
Last edited:
You don't say if you shoot raw or sooc jpeg.

In case you are not aware, if shooting raw it doesn't matter what the white balance setting is in camera because it is not applied at all to the raw data. The camera white balance setting is stored in the raw file's exif data which raw converters can optionally use for the initial rendering of the raw data. You then actually set the white balance in the raw converter.
I typically like to shoot JPEG but have been more open to shooting Raw. That being said, maybe its something I'm doing wrong(?) but when I shoot Raw the photo ends up looking the same as when its on the L setting.

I'm still curious to know based on the setting and subject with my sample photos, which do you think is more anesthetically pleasing to the eye?
The first one looks better to me although on my screen there seems to be a slight red colour cast.
 
Wow did you write all of that for this thread?

I'll have to read it all, when I have time to properly take it in, to see if there is something I don't know.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top