Do you ever use a custom white balance?

[4rum]

I agree with the idea that if your camera has the capability, settings should be set to optimum when possible. That goes for sharpness, exposure, shutter and every thing that you have control over the moment the shutter clicks. I would think that the better the quality of the photo the less editing it would need regardless of the format. If it does need editing you will have the very best product to work with.

 

[TCampbell]

White balance (and other image altering settings) are applied to JPEG... but not to RAW. If you shoot RAW then white balance is never applied to the image -- not for any camera model. If it is applied... then the image isn't really RAW. To qualify as "RAW" the camera isn't allowed to apply any changes that would result in a loss of original data (and white balance would violate that rule.)

However... many (possibly even most) cameras will record the white balance in the image meta-data even though the white balance is actually applied to the image. This makes it possible for some image processing apps to automatically apply your selected white balance setting as you import the image to your software. It can do this non-destructively because RAW image processing apps generally keep the original file separate from the adjustments so that original data is never destroyed.

To white balance a RAW image, you just need an image that contains a neutral gray in the same light as your subject... and that adjustment can usually be copied (most RAW processing apps support this) to all the other images you shot in the same lighting.

 

[JacaRanda]

One of the most amazing things in photography is that you never stop learning. Always other viewpoints that have merit.

As long as ego and testosterone don't get in the way.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[bratkinson]

It took me several YEARS after going from film to digital to even know there WAS such a thing as white balance. I should have known from the start. After all, I had too many filters to handle this kind of lighting with daylight film, or that lighting with slide film, etc.

So then I started to learn about WB, on this website, mostly. I 'discovered' that auto white balance worked 'pretty good' for most common lighting situations...sunlight, cloudy, indoor tungsten lights, and so on. But throw in florescent lights and their 60 cycles per second, it gets nasty. Add in daylight coming through the windows with florescent or even incandescent lighting, the WB changes every 12" or so.

So, I learned how to set custom WB in the camera and started with an Expodisk. Worked great...as long as I had the same lighting. I had a small family party a couple years back to shoot and due to indoor lighting and a wall of windows, and a brick wall opposite the windows, I took Expodisk shots in each of the 4 directions and then set WB to the Expodisk frames I shot 'up front'. After 50 or 60 shots, having to manually search backward to get the correct Expodisk frame to set the WB became time consuming. I should have re-shot the Expodisk shots to reduce the going-back time.

So then I tried an X-Rite Color Checker a couple shoots later. The color matching was superior to Expodisk. But once I encountered a slightly different mixed lighting combination - aiming 3 or 4 feet left or right of the earlier subject, the colors were 'off'.

OK...grey card time. Similar results. Good colors, but have to have a different shot for every lighting situation.

Fortunately, sometime after I tried Expodisk on a few shoots, I decided to 'try this RAW thing". Unfortunately, I was still using an 'antique' version of Photoshop "Lite Edition" (Win 98 freebie that came with my Canon G3), and I don't think I ever found the white balance adjustment, if there ever was one. So I ended up screwing with individual colors, one at a time, until I was pleased.

Fortunately, I had migrated to Lightroom shortly thereafter and starting using the Color Checker add-in for LR and the Color Checker device. But that got rather tedious having to have several Color Checker shots depending on lighting conditions.

So, I tried CWB using the grey card for JPGs from the camera, and ultimately gave up with CWB completely. I tried using the grey card shots in Lightroom to set WB at that point, and still, having to scroll backward to get the shot to set to became problematic.

Let me digress for a moment to state that I take most of my photographs these days as 'candid' shots, typically in availble light, without flash, and usually at indoor, non-wedding church events with all sorts of lighting conditions. Perhaps 15-20% of my shots are outdoor daylight shots. So for me, I may take 2-3 shots aiming one direction in a room with mixed lights, then turn 180 and take a couple more shots. In short, a WB nightmare.

So these days, I set my camera to AWB and shoot RAW + JPG. IF I'm shooting for my own personal work, I may shoot JPG only. I use the JPGs primarily to get a preview on the computer as a means to delete corresponding RAW images before I import into Lightroom. Most often, there's something white in a picture or series of shots I can set the WB to. Then I make minor adjustments to the WB as needed, and use the synchronize function to set WB in the rest of the series.

My thinking these days is that if I have consistent lighting for most of the shoot, then, by all means get the best in-camera WB as possible. If I had a studio, that's exactly what I'd do. But for the amateur that I am, close-enough WB is generally good enough WB. AWB is also getting 'smarter' with each newer camera.

And one more thing...I got an X-Rite Color Munki with a gift card I received last Christmas. NOW my colors are near perfect!

 

[paigew]

Could you further expand on why it is "absolutely necessary, especially if you shoot people." The absolute thing makes no sense to me. I was always under the impression that it isn't necessary if shot in raw. I could understand if the lighting was constant and the WB didn't change but otherwise it would seem to me like it would be a PIA to constantly have to adjust a WB with a card in a constantly changing situation. Say sunset.

of course, I am happy to expand. I use custom white balance pretty much all the time (I photograph people). Mostly I use my expodisc, if I don't have that around I will use kelvin, and lastly...in a pinch/rush I will use a preset wb (shade,cloudy, or sunny). Since I use the CWB function so much it takes literally two seconds to snap a photo of my expodisc and set the wb. I primarily shoot at golden hour and yes, I use cwb...taking new readings when needed.

I shoot raw, but as tirediron mentioned I try to get my exposures and wb perfect in camera...why...because it SAVES time...like a TON of time. I have used AWB too many times and spent way too long trying to "fix" wb issues. The thing is, skin is tough...the tones are so hard to match and a lot of times it never looks quite right. I shoot backlit pretty often and that is one of the absolute worst situations to use AWB. Another thing to consider is reflected color, the expodisc corrects that. So if your subject is standing in a field of green grass or standing in front of a bright red sign, those color will reflect on their skin and cause a wb nightmare. The expodisc eliminates those color casts (if you use it right) and saves hours in processing.

So can it be fixed if you shoot raw? Yes of course. Will it add on hours to your processing time? Yes. And if you shoot as much as I shoot you do not want anything taking extra time

 

[fotomonkey]

Perhaps exposure was a poor choice for an example. My point was simply that it makes sense, in my mind, to minimize post.

 

[shefjr]

Could you further expand on why it is "absolutely necessary, especially if you shoot people." The absolute thing makes no sense to me. I was always under the impression that it isn't necessary if shot in raw. I could understand if the lighting was constant and the WB didn't change but otherwise it would seem to me like it would be a PIA to constantly have to adjust a WB with a card in a constantly changing situation. Say sunset.

of course, I am happy to expand. I use custom white balance pretty much all the time (I photograph people). Mostly I use my expodisc, if I don't have that around I will use kelvin, and lastly...in a pinch/rush I will use a preset wb (shade,cloudy, or sunny). Since I use the CWB function so much it takes literally two seconds to snap a photo of my expodisc and set the wb. I primarily shoot at golden hour and yes, I use cwb...taking new readings when needed.

I shoot raw, but as tirediron mentioned I try to get my exposures and wb perfect in camera...why...because it SAVES time...like a TON of time. I have used AWB too many times and spent way too long trying to "fix" wb issues. The thing is, skin is tough...the tones are so hard to match and a lot of times it never looks quite right. I shoot backlit pretty often and that is one of the absolute worst situations to use AWB. Another thing to consider is reflected color, the expodisc corrects that. So if your subject is standing in a field of green grass or standing in front of a bright red sign, those color will reflect on their skin and cause a wb nightmare. The expodisc eliminates those color casts (if you use it right) and saves hours in processing.

So can it be fixed if you shoot raw? Yes of course. Will it add on hours to your processing time? Yes. And if you shoot as much as I shoot you do not want anything taking extra time

Hmmm, thanks for the response. It makes much more sense to me now. Especially after I looked up what an expodisc is. I had imagined using a gray card which to me seemed like it could be a PIA but, the expodisc looks like it really would be quick, simple, and error proof.

 

[tirediron]

...the expodisc looks like it really would be quick, simple, and error proof.

Error-resistant perhaps.

 

[JustJazzie]

So weird! I replied to this yesterday, but I don't see it. Perhaps my phone glitches.

I always do a custom wb for "serious" shoots. I Hate having to eyeball and figure out what looks right because I never can get it right.

For snap shots I set it to auto and tweak if I need to.

 

[JerryVenz]

In the world of professional photography where we are doing hundreds of images on a portrait session and thousands of images on a wedding getting color and exposure right-on is crucial--so yes custom white balance is our norm.

The most important reason we MUST nail color and exposure in-camera is for SALES. We are always selling DURING THE SESSION when we show the client the back-of-the-camera screen the image had better be dialed-in! We want them to go, "WOW!"

The more WOW's we hear the better the sale!

 

[D-B-J]

Aren't you only supposed to shoot in Kelvin?! [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

 

[fotomonkey]

Aren't you only supposed to shoot in Kelvin?! [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

I don't use Kelvin. It's an overrated scale.

 

[Vautrin]

It's so easy, why you wouldn't do it?

On my D700, you hold up a grey card to camera, press the buttons for "custom white balance" and take a picture of the grey card.

That's it. And no matter what the lighting, the white balance is spot on, each and every time, and I never waste any time on white balance in post.

Repeat as often as needed.

 

[480sparky]

It's so easy, why you wouldn't do it?

On my D700, you hold up a grey card to camera, press the buttons for "custom white balance" and take a picture of the grey card.

That's it. And no matter what the lighting, the white balance is spot on, each and every time, and I never waste any time on white balance in post.

Repeat as often as needed.

A lot of people have a serious misconception about the process. I think they believe it's a long, drawn-out extracted affair.

 

[tecboy]

If you photograph the landscape in the morning or evening, will custom white balance eliminates the golden cast? I prefer to adjust the color temperature in pp.