White Balance

<p>I was a second shooter in a wedding here a couple of weeks ago and we got into the discussion about "White Balance" Now when I am being paid by the main Photographer I do as they wish, I want to say that right up front.<br />My questions is and we discussed this just before the wedding and that is use "Auto White Balance" or set one on the "K" scale and leave it alone.<br />MY thoughts are as one moves around the church/reception hall the lighting changes and so does the white balance. When near a window, then near the overhead lighting it changes.<br /> There was no flash allowed in the church so everything was dependent on the Church's lighting which was mixed in ceiling and wall fixtures and of course ambient light from windows and doors.<br /> Is there any hard fast opinions out there. We were both shooting Nikons, my friend a D610 and myself a D800 and ALL shots were raw then would be developed in LR & PS CC.<br />I say "THANK YOU" to all in advance for taking your time to read and give a response should you have one.<br>

philb<br>

benton, ky</p>

<p>In shooting raw, the white balance is merely a 'suggestion' and not cooked into the image. So, your processing in PS/LR can adjust to your hearts content</p>

<p>Phil,</p>

<p>No, there are no hard and fast opinions about this. Well, no, that's not correct. There are a few hard and fast opinions — but they aren't in agreement with one another. In seminars with a lot of the world's greatest photographers, I've found that there's almost no universal agreement about anything except that good lenses are worth the money. But best approach to white balance? best shooting mode? best camera? best focal length? Call out one of those topics in a crowd of serious photographers and then step back before the fists start flying.</p>

<p>• </p>

<p>There are lots of ways to do this. I think I've done every one of them.</p>

<ol>

<li>Set white balance to a fixed temp (usually 5000K) and leave it there, on theory that you at least know where you started. Got that tip from one very famous photographer (who by now is probably doing something different).</li>

<li>Set custom white balance in camera for the shooting scene.</li>

<li>Shoot a WhiBal or similar card for reference and adjust later.</li>

<li>Put it on Auto White Balance and forget about it. Correct in post if necessary.</li>

</ol>

<p>Mostly, I go with #4. I'll add #3 when I remember: I always have a white balance card in my bag and getting a reference shot of the card is definitely a good idea — but it's a bit difficult to get all the reference shots you need if you are moving around, say, at a reception, switching between flash and no-flash, light from windows, light from incandescent or fluorescent lights, into the shade, into open sunlight, etc. I <em>do</em> almost always take a reference shot with the WhiBal card when doing portraits. I almost never do #2 (set custom white balance in camera) although I've known serious photographers who do. And while I did shoot at 5000K for a year or so, and it worked, I decided that Auto WB is easier and required me to fix fewer photos in post. </p>

<p>Nailing the white balance when shooting is supposed to make a difference to the camera's exposure calculations — but in my experience, that difference is trivially small.</p>

<p>•<br>

<br>

The key thing is — whatever you decide about white balance — ALWAYS SHOOT RAW. </p>

<p>The main reason that white balance is a problem is that you want the bride's face to be the same color in all the shots. I will confess that I have more than once delivered images processed in different ways to the bride and realized afterwards that the colors were <em>not</em> consistent. One of the reasons I'm not one of the world's truly great wedding photographers. (I think that's reason #27.) When you're shooting with multiple cameras (as I almost always am) it's valuable to have reference shots that can be used to sync white balance, but in my experience anyway that's mainly a problem if you're shooting with more than one <em>brand</em> of camera and less of a problem if you're shooting with two models from the same brand.</p>

<p>A well-calibrated computer monitor is more important than your choice of white-balance setting in camera. My advice: SHOOT RAW, on Auto WB, and put more effort into things like basic exposure, composition and focus. But the real truth is: do what you feel comfortable with and what you find works for you.</p>

<p>My two cents, anyway. Good luck,</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>p.s. I'm only thinking here about wedding photography and wedding portraiture and similar types of shooting, say, real photojournalism. If you're doing studio work, or commercial or product work, then you have the time to nail the white balance while shooting and it's probably worth the trouble.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Auto White Balance" or set one on the "K" scale and leave it alone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The problem with Auto WB is that it doesn't work. It gets thrown off by colored things. It's also way too warm at low settings. And if you gel your speedlights or uses strobes it sets the WB completely wrong.<br>

<br>

The problem with setting the WB manually is that light changes. If you set it to 5000K for instance it will only be "right" part of the day. It will be completely wrong when you shoot inside in the evening.<br>

<br>

When you talk about warm lighting fixtures and daylight through the windows you are talking about mixed lighting temperatures. In this case no one WB is going to be right. This is why they gel all the windows in cinematography - to get the same color temperature. So we never see the blue windows in the background of any movie.<br>

<br>

My approach is to set the WB manually but to change it during the day. Just to get it close to right. I want previews and histogram to look right.<br>

<br>

When in mixed lighting I set it for the dominant source. If the light is tricky, for instance some low energy fixtures produce a lot of green, I do a custom WB or shoot a white balance target. I gel my speedlights to match ambient. <br>

<br>

I would like to own a real color meter (similar to a light meter) just for fun but they are just too expensive. I'd also wish that auto WB and custom WB would show in-camera what color temperature they think it is.<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>William cover that very well.<br>

i think a mix of all the above is the answer. I will use my past week as example. <br>

Much of my wb decisions are best on the end use, and how fast things need delivered. I did everything from internet news outlet to photo for a printed ad and a wedding.</p>

 

<p>soccer daylight fading into dark. had to shoot jpg players going into and out of shadows Auto WB<br>

later same game under the lights looked slightly green so i did a custom wb off a players white uniform this looked much better than auto. <br>

next day 5 k race shot auto wb and auto exposure jpg as per the photo companies request.<br>

later that day auto wb and raw at a wedding helping a friend. <br>

Monday head shots for a commercial business. Custom preset made months ago for my moonlights. Shooting raw plus jpg. I used to give them jpg as proofs and then worked raw later but realizing they wanted srgb for internet display final project i increased jpg quality to highest and now use the jpg and raw is back up. 30 minutes later outdoor portrait for same company auto white balance and raw + jpg used a color checker card for reference later if i want it. <br>

What a fun week of shooting it was. Different challenge every day. </p>

 

<p>Pete S. says, "The problem with Auto WB is that it doesn't work," and he goes on to explain why it doesn't. And then, quite correctly, he proceeds to explain the problem with setting the white balance manually. In the end, his approach differs from mine but obviously works for him, and that's what matters. Everybody has to struggle through this issue and find their own peace with it.</p>

<p>The ultimate problem is that <em>color in photography is an enormous pain in the</em> neck. It doesn't work generally. I mean, I can use two different brand cameras both set to same white balance preset (say, 5000K), take the same shot with the same exposure, and then find that the color is not quite the same when the raw file is converted to my computer monitor. OR, I can load <em>the very same image</em> into two different programs — say, Lightroom and DxO Optics Pro — and the colors won't be quite the same. OR I can get an image to look just about perfect on my calibrated monitor and then look at it on another display and see subtle changes in color. And as we all know, even if you eliminate the digital problem by printing the image, the image will look a little different in different lighting. I know that product photographers who are working for publication in magazines go to a lot of trouble to make sure that the output in the magazine displays the product's real-life colors. But again, in what light? And I don't even like to think about the fact that not everybody perceives color the same way. This is an absurdly complicated problem.</p>

<p>On my iMac, I have just spent a couple of minutes tabbing back and forth between Lightroom and DxO Optics Pro 10.5, comparing each program's rendition of the very same raw file with the other's. The photo is a picture of my red pickup truck. The differences are very subtle: my wife (who is normally pretty sensitive to colors) might not notice them even if I tried to point them out. But to my eyes, anyway, the DxO OP colors are very slightly more accurate, while the Lightroom colors are very slightly more appealing. Lightroom's blue sky is a little bluer, and the red truck is a little redder; DxO OP's sky is a more realistic pale blue and the truck clearly has a tinge of orange in its red paint. I'm talking about the default conversions here: I could make both renderings (nearly) identical with just a few adjustments. The photo in question was taken with the DxO ONE, so perhaps it's not surprising that DxO Optics Pro renders it a bit more correctly. I've often had the feeling that one raw converter renders files from a particular camera better or worse that another raw converter I also use. (I used to think that Lightroom rendered Olympus raw files better than Aperture, but that Aperture rendered Sony ARW raw files colors better than Lightroom.)</p>

<p> •</p>

<p>If you shoot raw, you <em>will</em> need to make corrections to images now and then — although in my current day-to-day experience with Lightroom, DxO Optics Pro and ON1 Perfect Photo Suite, rendering color "as shot" looks right to me 90% of the time, if not more often than that. I generally have to fiddle with color balance only when the shot was affected by multiple light sources or some unusual colors in the subject. </p>

<p>If you shoot jpeg, you can use one of those thingies to create custom white balance settings. I can't remember the product name although I've got one lying around here in my office somewhere. People used to mimic them by use the plastic translucent top from a Pringles potato chip tube. Years ago, I had that gizmo hanging around my neck and did a lot of custom white balance while shooting. Is that better? Is color from JPEG better than color from RAW? Is sRGB better than AdobeRGB for color? </p>

<p>To me, the amazing thing is that so many cameras seem to produce <em>plausible</em> color output. In other words, it's amazing to me that this stuff works at all.</p>

<p>Will</p>

I use both Canons and Nikon's and always shoot raw.

 

For event work if I use flash as my primary light source that's the WB setting I use in the camera. I have custom WB

presets in Lightroom for different modifiers that I apply as needed.

 

If I can't use flash I use AWB and batch adjust the WB to what pleases most or looks right to my eyes.

 

If you don't shoot raw, especially in situations where you do not have total control over the lighting and contrast ratios, honestly you are as f___ed as the leprechaun Mad Sweeney was after he gave the gold coin to

Shadow. (American Gods reference.)

<p>Thank You all very much for your responses. I have printed all of them and am going to study them hard and fast.<br>

Some really great info here.<br>

Thanks again,<br>

phil b<br>

benton, ky</p>

<p>I use AWB and adjust...if needed...in LR. The AWB is pretty accurate if you set your camera up properly.</p>

A new question on the same topicthat came into my mind while i was doing my event photography project. Any help and insigth appreciated.<br />When shooting in ProRes Film Mode, is there any time I should worry if I shot it in the wrong white balance? Can anything be fixed in the RGB mixer in Davinci Resolve in terms of white balance? Or will some colours be ruined, and hard to get back?

<p>Adding to William Porter ideas:</p>

<p>"There are lots of ways to do this. I think I've done every one of them.</p>

<ol>

<li>Set white balance to a fixed temp (usually 5000K) and leave it there, on theory that you at least know where you started. Got that tip from one very famous photographer (who by now is probably doing something different).</li>

<li>Set custom white balance in camera for the shooting scene.</li>

<li>Shoot a WhiBal or similar card for reference and adjust later.</li>

<li>Put it on Auto White Balance and forget about it. Correct in post if necessary."</li>

</ol>

<p>Suggest doing 3. along with 1. Do not do 3. with 4. because it will confuse you and the camera. Found this out the hard way.</p>