As Shot vs Auto

[EchoingWhisper]

According to one site, the white balance becomes accurate when the histogram of different channels become similar. If this were true, then the Lightroom is correct. But the in camera auto white balance seems to look more accurate to me because the sky is normally red-ish not blue-ish in the city here.

 

[clanthar]

According to one site, the white balance becomes accurate when the histogram of different channels become similar. If this were true, then the Lightroom is correct. But the in camera auto white balance seems to look more accurate to me because the sky is normally red-ish not blue-ish in the city here.

That site is very wrong.

Joe

 

[EchoingWhisper]

According to one site, the white balance becomes accurate when the histogram of different channels become similar. If this were true, then the Lightroom is correct. But the in camera auto white balance seems to look more accurate to me because the sky is normally red-ish not blue-ish in the city here.

That site is very wrong.

Joe

I'm still struggling really badly with white balance.

 

[unpopular]

White balance refers to compensation of the color of light, such that a white object will appear white, regardless that the light illuminating it is some other color. Because very few lighting sources are truly "balanced" across the spectrum of light, white point becomes important. The issue is that our brains usually are pretty good at converting this information for us in a way that we don't notice it.

Obviously, though, if the image is of green grass the histogram ought to be weighted towered green, and you'll get a huge spike in the green channel towered the right and a huge spike the left in the red channel. This is because a large number of the green pixels are in the higher values, while in the red channel a large number of pixels are in the lower values. If you tried to get them to line up, you'd have a lot of red where only green should be, and you'd strip the grass from all it's cyan hue.

This doesn't mean that their is no specific white balance, even if there is no white point to measure. Under such monochromatic circumstances, "auto" is not going to be accurate, and it will try to correct based on what is available, pushing the image towered magenta to compensate for what it sees as "green light" since there must be a white point in there somewhere.

Very persnickety photographers will use some kind of white point reference for a given lighting scenario, such as special frosty lens caps that are horribly overpriced, or grey cards in order to use a cameras built-in "custom" white balance. Though these don't work so well in mixed light situations, such as night photography.

In this image specifically, you could set the white balance from any of the light sources, and any of them would be "correct" for that area, but would be incorrect for areas illuminated by some other source. In this case, I would choose one of the mercury lamps since those have the broadest spectrum, and are thus closest to "white". Because they tend to be a bit bluish, this will make the sodium vapor lamps more yellow. But i since we render sodium vapor as yellowish, that shouldn't be a problem.

Overall, there is no specific white balance because what is illuminated is illuminated by a variety of color temperatures and hues.

The website may be correct if it is saying that the histogram over some specific neutral reference should line up. This is correct, but not the entire image.

Let me know if you have any questions. I'm not always the best at explaining stuff.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

White balance refers to compensation of the color of light, such that a white object will appear white, regardless that the light illuminating it is some other color. Because very few lighting sources are truly "balanced" across the spectrum of light, white point becomes important. The issue is that our brains usually are pretty good at converting this information for us in a way that we don't notice it.

Obviously, though, if the image is of green grass the histogram ought to be weighted towered green, and you'll get a huge spike in the green channel towered the right and a huge spike the left in the red channel. This is because a large number of the green pixels are in the higher values, while in the red channel a large number of pixels are in the lower values. If you tried to get them to line up, you'd have a lot of red where only green should be, and you'd strip the grass from all it's cyan hue.

This doesn't mean that their is no specific white balance, even if there is no white point to measure. Under such monochromatic circumstances, "auto" is not going to be accurate, and it will try to correct based on what is available, pushing the image towered magenta to compensate for what it sees as "green light" since there must be a white point in there somewhere.

Very persnickety photographers will use some kind of white point reference for a given lighting scenario, such as special frosty lens caps that are horribly overpriced, or grey cards in order to use a cameras built-in "custom" white balance. Though these don't work so well in mixed light situations, such as night photography.

In this image specifically, you could set the white balance from any of the light sources, and any of them would be "correct" for that area, but would be incorrect for areas illuminated by some other source. In this case, I would choose one of the mercury lamps since those have the broadest spectrum, and are thus closest to "white". Because they tend to be a bit bluish, this will make the sodium vapor lamps more yellow. But i since we render sodium vapor as yellowish, that shouldn't be a problem.

Overall, there is no specific white balance because what is illuminated is illuminated by a variety of color temperatures and hues.

The website may be correct if it is saying that the histogram over some specific neutral reference should line up. This is correct, but not the entire image.

Let me know if you have any questions. I'm not always the best at explaining stuff.

Thanks. How does these work?
The White Balance Lens Cap at The Photojojo Store

 

[MTVision]

White-Balance Lens Cap. Possibly Pointless? | Gadget Lab | Wired.com ---- it got the Pointless Gadget Award (whatever that is

You could just buy a gray card for a couple dollars. You could probably make one yourself - not too sure about that though...

 

[unpopular]

I agree they are totally pointless. I just use a white piece of copy paper.

Just hold it up directly over the lens somewhere towered the light source (or not, whatever) and then go into "custom white balance" and use that setting unless the color of the light significantly changes, like if I start shooing in the shade or something. Use "as shot" in the raw processor of choice.

Your camera should have some way to measure white balance from a neutral source, such as this, a lens cap such as the one you're interested in, or a grey card. Functionally they all pretty much work the same, go into this mode, point the metering spot towered the reference and press the shutter.

Are these methods going to be 100% accurate? No. But your digital camera isn't a $1000 Gossen Color-Pro meter either.

 

[bleeblu]

Not sure, I'm too distracted by the tilted horizon.

This.

 

[unpopular]

"Very good Johnny, now who can tell me about the white balance?"

Are you people seriously so nit picky that you can't provide an answer to a question about white balance because the horizon is off? No wonder it seems like critiques here are more like laundry lists of why the image isn't on the pages of Popular Photography.

It's like you're a bunch of little kids shaking your hand at the teacher yelling "I KNOW, I KNOW! THE HORIZON IS OFF!"

 

[EchoingWhisper]

You guys have no idea what I placed my camera on. That thing is tilted and wobbly. I was at the balcony placing my camera on a own made tripod aka the drying rack with some shoe laces. Lol.

 

[unpopular]

There is no need to justify yourself, Echoing. You never claimed this was some kind of masterpiece, people should realize that you just posted it as an example.

They're just showing off.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

My tripod -

 

[MTVision]

"Very good Johnny, now who can tell me about the white balance?"

Are you people seriously so nit picky that you can't provide an answer to a question about white balance because the horizon is off? No wonder it seems like critiques here are more like laundry lists of why the image isn't on the pages of Popular Photography.

It's like you're a bunch of little kids shaking your hand at the teacher yelling "I KNOW, I KNOW! THE HORIZON IS OFF!"

You didn't know that when people post a question about white balance they are secretly asking for compositional critique?

 

[Garbz]

Are you people seriously so nit picky that you can't provide an answer to a question about white balance because the horizon is off?

GIVE US SOMETHING MAN!

The problem with your image isn't that the horizon is wrong, it's what people have already said, a night shot is a horrendous example to use in whitebalance. The reason is simple, firstly everything is dark. Shadow discolouration is much harder to discern than highlight discolouration. You've provided a picture to critique on white balance with no idea of what white is.
The second problem with night time photography is what you actually want to be white? Night photos are a horrendous mixture of sodium vapour lamps of a wide variety of different colour balances. Any attempt to make the scene appear "neutral" will likely not be matched by what your eyes see in the field.


Now for your second picture. What do you want to hear? The picture looks neutral. That in the end doesn't mean much. White balance is a tool for you to use for conveying a meaning. The picture looks fine, but I wouldn't submit a picture that "cool" for a wedding photo, and I wouldn't take a picture that "hot" of a blues band.

You want accurate white balance then take a grey card. Otherwise you set the white balance for what you think LOOKS right for the picture, not for what some formula tells you the "white" colour is supposed to be. It's an art, not a science.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Are you people seriously so nit picky that you can't provide an answer to a question about white balance because the horizon is off?

GIVE US SOMETHING MAN!

The problem with your image isn't that the horizon is wrong, it's what people have already said, a night shot is a horrendous example to use in whitebalance. The reason is simple, firstly everything is dark. Shadow discolouration is much harder to discern than highlight discolouration. You've provided a picture to critique on white balance with no idea of what white is.
The second problem with night time photography is what you actually want to be white? Night photos are a horrendous mixture of sodium vapour lamps of a wide variety of different colour balances. Any attempt to make the scene appear "neutral" will likely not be matched by what your eyes see in the field.


Now for your second picture. What do you want to hear? The picture looks neutral. That in the end doesn't mean much. White balance is a tool for you to use for conveying a meaning. The picture looks fine, but I wouldn't submit a picture that "cool" for a wedding photo, and I wouldn't take a picture that "hot" of a blues band.

You want accurate white balance then take a grey card. Otherwise you set the white balance for what you think LOOKS right for the picture, not for what some formula tells you the "white" colour is supposed to be. It's an art, not a science.

Yes, I notice that, but the picture on the second page is not me asking for white balance correction, just showing you how my 'tripod' looks like.