Could use some white balance advice

[harmonica]

Why is it the worst way?

There's been documented cases of monitors being 'off-color' right from the factory. If they can start off bad, who'se to say it's providing an accurate color rendition.

I use the image in my monitor to check the following: Composition, focus,........ Hmmmm. That's about it.

Agreed. Using a camera LCD or EVF to judge anything other than composition and focus is sloppy practice that leads to sloppy photos. In addition to the near assurance that the color is off the changing ambient light conditions makes trying to judge exposure a big mistake.

Joe

Yeah that's true. How do you judge white balance then? What do you do, if you can't go by the screen? Even a white or grey card can be incorrectly customized and you wouldn't be able to tell if the screen is unreliable.

 

[tecboy]

This thread looks like it going in cycle. I don't always rely the LCD screen on my dslr for determining the white balance. I shoot in raw and import in Lightroom. Adjust the white balance from there and not worry about getting wrong after using a grey card.

 

[Ysarex86 80]

There's been documented cases of monitors being 'off-color' right from the factory. If they can start off bad, who'se to say it's providing an accurate color rendition.

I use the image in my monitor to check the following: Composition, focus,........ Hmmmm. That's about it.

Agreed. Using a camera LCD or EVF to judge anything other than composition and focus is sloppy practice that leads to sloppy photos. In addition to the near assurance that the color is off the changing ambient light conditions makes trying to judge exposure a big mistake.

Joe

Yeah that's true. How do you judge white balance then? What do you do, if you can't go by the screen? Even a white or grey card can be incorrectly customized and you wouldn't be able to tell if the screen is unreliable.

That answer has been given in this thread many times now. Assuming you want accurate white balance you use a known, trusted target. You can use that target to set a custom WB for the benefit of the camera JPEG processor or you can use that target as a reference for post processing the raw file. That gives you the best result and the greatest flexibility. You can buy a target for between $25.00 to $100.00 or you can just get a white Styrofoam food container which will work as well or better than any target you can buy -- cut a rectangle out of the lid and stick it in your camera bag. When it wears out get another one.

In lieu of the above you can use the camera presets which won't be strictly accurate but will at least be consistent. You need to select the right one.

If you don't set a custom WB and you're relying on the JPEG processing software in the camera you will incur a higher rate of damaged JPEGs from the camera. AWB often encourages the camera software to damage the JPEGs which would otherwise be OK if a custom WB had been set.

AWB in theory can't work and so in practice it doesn't work.

If you go back to the beginning of this thread you'll see Sparky give the first answer and say use AWB shooting raw and then adjust in post. Then he suggests using that target. Sparky's first answer was the best answer -- here's why:

1. Shoot raw. White balance isn't set in a raw file and any white balance setting on the camera has no effect on the raw file. Shooting raw gives you the best possible IQ -- best possible is a good thing and anything else isn't best.

Since the camera WB setting doesn't effect the raw file:

2. Take the easy way out and leave it on AWB. The camera will guess wrong but as Sparky noted it'll be close enough most of the time and when it isn't, so what. It doesn't effect the raw file.

3. Listen to Sparky and shoot the target as a reference. Use the target as a reference when you demosaic the raw file and you'll have accurate white balance with the least amount of effort. The target is free at your local grocery store or Quickie Mart -- you may have to buy some salad or chicken wings.

It's really so simple and easy to do. Sparky nailed it first response. He was also correct to point out that the worst thing you can do is try, at the time you're shooting, to visually judge WB (or exposure) from any kind of LCD or EVF on the camera. That's especially true if you are shooting raw files which you should be if you want the best possible IQ.

Joe

 

[Gavjenks]

AWB in theory can't work and so in practice it doesn't work.

?

Of course it can work in theory. If AWB were "theoretically impossible," then YOU and your brain couldn't achieve proper white balance either. It just doesn't work because it's not very good compared to brains... yet.

There's no reason why future cameras, however, couldn't do some basic object identification in typical sorts of scenes, and adjust to expected coloration values for those objects.

Or, perhaps much simpler: use GPS to know your location and look up weather conditions from charts or an online service to judge outdoor lighting color and then counter it. We had a dude on this forum working on a project that promised to do exactly that a few months ago, in fact.

Things like that.

 

[tecboy]

My LCD is pretty accurate, but still I don't rely on colors and white balance. Post processing in raw file is the best option!

 

[480sparky41 40]

Yeah that's true. How do you judge white balance then? What do you do, if you can't go by the screen? Even a white or grey card can be incorrectly customized and you wouldn't be able to tell if the screen is unreliable.

I use the power of a desktop PC and a couple of 27" monitors............ that's what. Much more controlled environment here at the desk than out in the field. And no rush either.

I've already revealed my method...... shoot AWB and raw. Covers all the bases. I can adjust WB in post between 2000 K and 12000 K. That's far more than the camera's 2500 - 10000 K choices.

And if I wanna get really technical, I am shooting with UniWB, which shows an ugly yellow-green image on the monitor.

 

[480sparky41 40]

......AWB in theory can't work and so in practice it doesn't work......

Neither does fixed-wing heavier-than-air flight. But it seems lots of folks get around on planes just fine.

 

[Ysarex86 80]

AWB in theory can't work and so in practice it doesn't work.

?

Of course it can work in theory. If AWB were "theoretically impossible," then YOU and your brain couldn't achieve proper white balance either. It just doesn't work because it's not very good compared to brains... yet.

There's no reason why future cameras, however, couldn't do some basic object identification in typical sorts of scenes, and adjust to expected coloration values for those objects.

Or, perhaps much simpler: use GPS to know your location and look up weather conditions from charts or an online service to judge outdoor lighting color and then counter it. We had a dude on this forum working on a project that promised to do exactly that a few months ago, in fact.

Things like that.

For accurate WB it's necessary to know the color temperature of the light source.

Here's a photo taken with the camera set to AWB:



Please explain how the camera was able to accurately measure the color temperature of the light source.

Joe

 

[Braineack]

This thread is stupid.

 

[paigew]

SOOC 5d Markiii : taken in shade

Auto


"shade"


"custom" (expodisc)

 

[tecboy]

The only times when I use target grey card are for portrait and still life photography. If I screw up the custom white balance, I'll correct the wb through pp. It is not a big issue.

 

[pixmedic]

This thread is stupid.

yea...most of us shoot raw anyway.

 

[71M]

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.

I generally set my camera to fireworks, or children's party, but I admit I'm new to all this.

 

[AndyQI]

Great, Learned a lot!

 

[JerryLove]

For accurate WB it's necessary to know the color temperature of the light source.

Here's a photo taken with the camera set to AWB:

View attachment 68494

Please explain how the camera was able to accurately measure the color temperature of the light source.

Joe

How do you think measurement of any color temperature is possible? How do you think we measure the color of stars?

For that matter, how is any whitebalance the "right one" or the "wrong one" if the only way to tell is to look at a known white source which, itself, is given an arbitrary "correct temperature"?

No. There's clearly a flaw in your factual claims somewhere.