A little help from everyone please: UniWB


Been spending a lot of time on here!
Nov 27, 2011
Reaction score
St. Louis
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Posting this where it will get the most views:

Need some help with some "poll data."

Three simple questions:

1. UniWB -- familiar with it?

2. UniWB -- do you use it regualrly?

3. Do you typically shoot RAW?


Really appreciate as many responses as possible -- thank you so very much.

I have never come across uniWB before. I had to google this to learn what you were talking about. So, I have not yet tried to make a uniWB exposure. I always shoot raw.

So, I'm interested in your experience now.
1. No

2. No

3. What, do I look like a noob or something? :lmao:
Yes, No, Yes.

Uni White Balance or "Near-Uni White Balance" is an advance technique not commonly discussed except among very serious shooters. On the last forum I was at, Bob got pretty argumentative in a couple of threads about this topic, and insisted that Uni White Balance was, well, non-existent, BS, whatever you wanna' call it...

Here's a thread I was involved in back in 2009, with some links to some Uni White Balance threads. Uni White Balance information sources?
For anyone who ETTR I see the value. It's not "non-existant" and I think that this sentiment goes back to this huge misconception that a raw file does not reflect a specific native white point because there is not specific white point correction.

UniWhite balance should be, in theory, the white balance of the sensor itself without any compensation for light qualities. It is kind of hard a lot of times to see what the RAW processor is actually doing, because the controls are obnoxiously hidden behind "user friendly" controls that automate RGB translations behind your back - and do so destructively. This dirty secret allows you to shoot in any lighting scenario without compensating for exposure - but may result in noise.

If there was a RAW processor that allows you to manipulate RGB data off the sensor without this predetermined and automated means, then you could adjust white balance subtractively. Fortunately for me, I use RPP which permits this; notice all the zeros:


But then why do this digitally at all? Why not just use CC filters instead? A nice strong magenta CC filter should counter the emerald green which I suspect to be the native white balance of the sensor - provided that there isn't even more shenanigans I'm unaware of. Correcting optically would be the best case scenario as RGB elements are being compensated through increased exposure, rather than by decreasing or increasing compensation after the fact - more real data from the scene means better information for the image.

Unfortunately, my camera does not permit an extreme enough WB correction to make any use of UniWB, and thus, my crazy-tacos subtractive color compensation theory will have to wait and see another day.

BUT As far as I can tell UniWB is real - and why not? If Daylight and Tungsten WB is compensating from some specific value, that specific value must be as real as these compensations. However much effect it has is another question entirely.
UniWB is real...Bob just didn't recognize something he had never heard of before...he was always very mainstream.


Iliah Borg is a big proponent of UniWB...he is also the man who I told you about who suggests that a magenta gelatin filter is necessary (cc 30 Magenta I think, IMMSMC) to bring the D2x's sensor into shall we say "perfect balance" for use with his own Raw Converter software, Rawmagick, linked to above.
^ I can't tell you how exciting this is. So many people have looked at me like I'm totally off the wall. Do you think Mr. Borg would mind me contacting him regarding this?
Not yet
No can't recall ever hearing of it before
Yes all the time
Thank you all -- very helpful.

Any more responses I'd really appreciate it.

Derrel & unpopular -- happy to have the added info -- for the record I'm not trying to start up a discussion on the topic right now.


Most reactions