Could use some white balance advice

[tirediron]

IMO, the BEST white-balance solution on the market (and I've tried a LOT of different ones).

A better way: shoot in B&W.

Why... why that's so crazy it just might work!

 

[Newtricks]

I do custom WB off a grey/white card or the subject every time I'm shooting. What time, press the WB button twice, hold until PRE flashes, take a shot and your done.

 

[hirejn]

Set the white balance to match the light and you'll get better results. Auto is not a light source. It's just the camera's way of guessing, and not only is it unnecessary most of the time but it's usually several hundred degrees Kelvin off. Even if there's white in the scene, it usually contains some color cast, from the sky if nothing else, and therefore is unreliable as a WB target in auto or post. I can't advise auto as a solution when you know the light source. If the barn is lit by the sun, set the WB to sun. If it's lit by a tungsten light bulb, set it to light bulb. If you want to be more accurate, place a white card in the same light as the barn. Then you can use it for a custom WB or simply select it in post for accurate WB (which works better in RAW). However, note that if you're shooting sunrise or sunset, you don't want to do custom WB because that will neutralize the golden hue of the light. You want to leave WB at daylight during those hours to preserve the natural colors.

Guessing actually adds difficulty in processing. Yes, if you shoot RAW you can select any WB in post, but that's just guessing. Without a known color-neutral target in the frame, you'll struggle with sliders and trying to remember what the scene looked like, which is even worse if your monitor isn't calibrated. With custom, you know it's correct without guessing. When using a white card, it should be something like the ColorChecker from X-Rite. Some exposure gray cards actually have a color cast that won't help with WB.

Auto WB is neither exact, consistent, organized nor repeatable. Even under the same light, auto can change depending on where you point the camera, and so you could have 100 images under the same light each with a slightly different WB, making it even harder to figure out which is correct in post. Auto can be a handy tool, as sometimes there's no other way to estimate the light temperature. That still means more work in post. However, if you compare a series of different scenes shot in auto to the same scenes shot in custom or preset, the custom or preset will look better to most people. Auto appears to be OK in the viewfinder and when not compared to anything else, but when you put it against custom or preset, it's rarely as accurate. If you have the time, try to match the WB exactly to the source.

 

[pixmedic]

Set the white balance to match the light and you'll get better results. Auto is not a light source. It's just the camera's way of guessing, and not only is it unnecessary most of the time but it's usually several hundred degrees Kelvin off. Even if there's white in the scene, it usually contains some color cast, from the sky if nothing else, and therefore is unreliable as a WB target in auto or post. I can't advise auto as a solution when you know the light source. If the barn is lit by the sun, set the WB to sun. If it's lit by a tungsten light bulb, set it to light bulb. If you want to be more accurate, place a white card in the same light as the barn. Then you can use it for a custom WB or simply select it in post for accurate WB (which works better in RAW). However, note that if you're shooting sunrise or sunset, you don't want to do custom WB because that will neutralize the golden hue of the light. You want to leave WB at daylight during those hours to preserve the natural colors.

Guessing actually adds difficulty in processing. Yes, if you shoot RAW you can select any WB in post, but that's just guessing. Without a known color-neutral target in the frame, you'll struggle with sliders and trying to remember what the scene looked like, which is even worse if your monitor isn't calibrated. With custom, you know it's correct without guessing. When using a white card, it should be something like the ColorChecker from X-Rite. Some exposure gray cards actually have a color cast that won't help with WB.

Hallmarks of professional photography include being exact, consistent, organized and making things repeatable. Auto WB qualifies as none of those things. Even under the same light, auto can change depending on where you point the camera, and so you could have 100 images under the same light each with a slightly different WB, making it even harder to figure out which is correct in post. Auto can be a handy tool, as sometimes there's no other way to pinpoint the light temperature. That still means more work in post. However, if you compare a series of different scenes shot in auto to the same scenes shot in custom or preset, the custom or preset will look better to most people. Auto appears to be OK in the viewfinder and when not compared to anything else, but when you put it against custom or preset, it's rarely as accurate. If you have the time, try to match the WB exactly to the source.

Which is all well and good until you have to start moving around different locations in a short period of time. Or multiple people in different clothing against different backgrounds.

Auto WB does perfectly fine. I rarely need more than miniscule adjustments. Cameras are pretty smart nowadays.
It's like telling someone to take the time to manually focus all the time because it's more accurate than the cameras autofocus. AF works pretty darn good too.

If your shooting raw anyway, which I always do, it's not really taking much extra time to check the WB while your in there.

As for 100 images with different WB...
Shoot raw, auto WB, tweak, and batch edit the WB if they are the same thing. OR....make 100 custom wb settings.

The hallmark of professional photography is delivering a quality product, by whatever means works.

 

[harmonica]

To the OP, you said you have a Nikon lens, so I am guessing you have a Nikon camera. A lot of Nikon's have the ability to dial in the Kelvin temperature manually. Can you do that? I like it better than a grey card, as it's just easier, and you don't have to get a card.

 

[480sparky41 40]

To the OP, you said you have a Nikon lens, so I am guessing you have a Nikon camera. A lot of Nikon's have the ability to dial in the Kelvin temperature manually. Can you do that? I like it better than a grey card, as it's just easier, and you don't have to get a card.

Being able to dial a K setting kind of implies one knows the number to being with. Color temp meters are rather pricey.

 

[Gavjenks]

Add a vote from me for "RAW + auto white balance"

Auto balance is always close enough to be WELL within the editing range of RAW converters. So you'll always be okay.




The exception is if you're doing a prolonged photoshoot with consistent lighting. In which case you still don't need a gray card, or custom balance, for any reason I can think of. BUT you do want to have something other than auto white balance, because whatever it is you want it to not change shot to shot. So I pick the closest preset to the situation and just use that. This way, I can adjust WB perfectly in post for one photo, and then just do "apply to all in the folder" the same way to fix all of them, since the WB was consistent.

 

[Dao]

I recently read a book from Bryan Peterson at a book store. In one of the page he need to shoot a white brick house or light house with blue sky. He used his palm when he did not have a gray card with him.

 

[Derrel]

I usually pick a white balance and set it in degrees Kelvin. Start at 5000 degrees and go up higher as the day fades away.The last half hour of the day, you might easily be well above 7,000 degrees.

If you want the color to be "accurate" WB is set one way; if you want pleasing color, set the WB to make it please your sense of aesthetics.

What Is White Balance? | White Balance in Photography Explained from Nikon

 

[harmonica]

To the OP, you said you have a Nikon lens, so I am guessing you have a Nikon camera. A lot of Nikon's have the ability to dial in the Kelvin temperature manually. Can you do that? I like it better than a grey card, as it's just easier, and you don't have to get a card.

Being able to dial a K setting kind of implies one knows the number to being with. Color temp meters are rather pricey.

Not necessarily. You can tell by looking at the monitor or viewscreen, if the light is white or not. Or you can dial it until you get a satisfactory looking result. I always dial it until it looks the most white, and go with that. Or if I want a cool or warm tone, I will go with a different temperature. You also don't need a color temperature meter if you can memorize a good amount of color temperatures throughout the day, as well as looking at the color in camera. Is this a bad way of doing it?

 

[Gavjenks]

I don't understand what the point of any of these strategies are regarding palms or cards or meters, when walking around. They all just slow you down and make it less likely for you to get the shot before your light changes. That's a liability.

RAW converters have a latitude of THOUSANDS of Kelvin in either direction from what you shot at. The auto white balance is never that far off, unless you're shooting through the bottom of a coke bottle. So you can always fix it later and get the shot now. And in most cases, AWB is good enough that you're even within the range of a JPEG to make a tiny adjustment, and you don't even have to bother with the RAW (if you shot RAW + jpeg and have a choice).

Why waste time in the field, where conditions and light are fleeting and special, instead of spending the same or even less time at your computer, after the moment has passed and when there is no pressure (AND where you have better viewing equipment and easier controls)?

 

[weepete]

If you want an accurate white balance then go for it. If you are going to edit it later and tint it a bit then just shoot it on AWB

 

[Gavjenks]

Right, to clarify: if you want "true" white balance then you need to make some effort in the field to establish a reference frame.

However, all that requires is including anything in one frame per lighting condition that you will have available to photograph later by your computer as well. For example your camera bag or whatever. Still doesn't require fiddling with any settings in the field, though, is the point. Just snap the object, then move on, worry about aligning it later. And if you always use the same object like a tan camera bag (or the red lettering on my Canon neck strap) in all circumstances, then you will soon just learn what the color ratio is supposed to be for that item without having to recalibrate each time, and it only adds seconds to your workflow for the entire shoot later on to adjust for it.

That's all assuming that you care about perfect accuracy in the first place, as opposed to what looks prettiest to your eye (in which case you don't need a reference). And also assumes that the light is hitting you as well as your subject (if not you are forced to wing it anyway)

 

[480sparky41 40]

Not necessarily. You can tell by looking at the monitor or viewscreen, if the light is white or not. Or you can dial it until you get a satisfactory looking result. I always dial it until it looks the most white, and go with that. Or if I want a cool or warm tone, I will go with a different temperature. You also don't need a color temperature meter if you can memorize a good amount of color temperatures throughout the day, as well as looking at the color in camera. Is this a bad way of doing it?

Looking at the monitor on the camera is about the worst way to set white balance.

 

[runnah]

Add a vote from me for "RAW + auto white balance"

Auto balance is always close enough to be WELL within the editing range of RAW converters. So you'll always be okay.

Very much agree. I set custom WB when doing video but photos, meh AWB and raw tweaking get me to where I want to be.