Independent White Balance Control In LR

[smoke665]

It also set's a global WB for the entire image. But if you mask an area on a layer C1 will allow you to replace the global WB values for the masked area and apply a new WB for just the masked area. It doesn't make adjustments on top of the existing global WB but removes that global WB (masked area) and replaces it.

A raw file is a grayscale it has no white balance. The white point is a note/instruction in the Metadata sidecar placed there by the camera. To remain nondestructive, editing requires the software to create a JPEG "preview" using all the data from the raw file including Metadata sidecars. Global absolute values are set for this JPEG preview. All further software adjustments (including WB) are stacked, those adjustments whether set as a +/- slider or a targeted Kelvin number they aren't replacements to the underlying global settings, they are shifts to the absolute values set globally. The differences come in the proprietary algorithms used to define those shifts.

The idea that C1 would replace targeted underlying global values is illogical. Without further confirmation/verification from C1 on how they go about applying WB changes I'll stand with the above.

 

[Ysarex95 89]

A raw file is a grayscale it has no white balance. The white point is a note/instruction in the Metadata sidecar placed there by the camera. To remain nondestructive, editing requires the software to create a JPEG "preview" using all the data from the raw file including Metadata sidecars. Global absolute values are set for this JPEG preview. All further software adjustments (including WB) are stacked, those adjustments whether set as a +/- slider or a targeted Kelvin number they aren't replacements to the underlying global settings, they are shifts to the absolute values set globally. The differences come in the proprietary algorithms used to define those shifts.

The idea that C1 would replace targeted underlying global values is illogical. Without further confirmation/verification from C1 on how they go about applying WB changes I'll stand with the above.

C1 isn't going to tell us precisely how they do it -- they tell us they do it: No more White Balance compromises! - Photo Editing Tutorials, Tips & Tricks - Capture One Blog

The paragraph you quote above describes what Adobe does.

I understand that it would be pretty extreme for C1 to literally go back pre-demossicing to make a local change. If they don't do that then they've managed to emulate it perfectly. So for those of us who use the apps to get results the fact remains this simple; Whatever is going on under the hood, C1 makes it work and Adobe doesn't. What C1 accomplishes you can not replicate in LR or PS. What I did here: Independent White Balance Control In LR is impossible to accomplish with Adobe apps.

 

[smoke665]

C1 isn't going to tell us precisely how they do it -- they tell us they do it: No more White Balance compromises! - Photo Editing Tutorials, Tips & Tricks - Capture One Blog

The paragraph you quote above describes what Adobe does.

I understand that it would be pretty extreme for C1 to literally go back pre-demossicing to make a local change. If they don't do that then they've managed to emulate it perfectly. So for those of us who use the apps to get results the fact remains this simple; Whatever is going on under the hood, C1 makes it work and Adobe doesn't. What C1 accomplishes you can not replicate in LR or PS. What I did here: Independent White Balance Control In LR is impossible to accomplish with Adobe apps.

I have already read the link you posted previously in my research. To be clear nowhere in the article does it say that it actually "changes" the global value of the underlying WB. I also found it supsiously interesting that they actually referred to the WB tool in the adjustments as the Kelvin slider. In the end it looks to me like they stack color shift adjustments on an absolute values just like Adobe.

Your statement "independent white balance control in LR is impossible" is grossly incorrect as I've already noted from previous examples and from the folks at Adobe. Now whether the results are different, that would be correct, as there are differences in algorithms from the initial global settings to adjustments that follow as have been illustrated by example herein. Finally it's also already been conceded that the difference likely wouldn't be a big deal for most users.

 

[Ysarex95 89]

I have already read the link you posted previously in my research. To be clear nowhere in the article does it say that it actually "changes" the global value of the underlying WB. I also found it supsiously interesting that they actually referred to the WB tool in the adjustments as the Kelvin slider. In the end it looks to me like they stack color shift adjustments on an absolute values just like Adobe.

Your statement "independent white balance control in LR is impossible" is grossly incorrect

What I said was that it's impossible to do in Adobe what C1 can do (easily) and that is accurate.

as I've already noted from previous examples and from the folks at Adobe. Now whether the results are different, that would be correct, as there are differences in algorithms from the initial global settings to adjustments that follow as have been illustrated by example herein. Finally it's also already been conceded that the difference likely wouldn't be a big deal for most users.