White Balance setting for indoors

Visited my Son, DIL, and our first grandchild last month and had similar color balance issues in mixed light situations with a blend of incandescent, LED, compact fluorescent, and daylight through windows. My Olympus EM-5 III did a decent job with color balance as did the Iphone 12, but I resorted to adjusting WB for all "keepers" using Lightroom. I did not use flash since I wanted a natural, unintrusive look to the images and brought 2 fast primes instead. For this type of photos, it is almost impossible not to resort to color balance adjustment in post processing. Not a big fan of using WB presets in mixed lighting, and to me, setting custom WB is a PITA (IMHO).

 

Flash is another option and it will freeze any movement and generally allow greater DOF, both useful when photographing moving children. If you have reasonably neutral light colored ceilings and/or walls, and you expose so that ambient (artificial) lighting is significantly underexposed (like 2 or more stops underexposed), color balance should not be a problem. This opinion is based on a few decades of shooting with daylight balanced film and DSLRs.

Flash bounced off a ceiling, drowning all ambient room lights, will produce a very unreal looking lighting for such scenes. Something i would avoid whenever possible. It's better, i find, to deal with mixed light. Even when colours are not 'accurate', they will look more natural.

Flash bounced off a ceiling, drowning all ambient room lights, will produce a very unreal looking lighting for such scenes. Something i would avoid whenever possible. It's better, i find, to deal with mixed light. Even when colours are not 'accurate', they will look more natural.

 

With reasonable settings, bounced flash won't drown all ambient light, and unless the room lighting is really off, it can produce very natural colors. I can't post examples because i don't post photos of other people without permission, but I've done a great many shots in that manner. A good setting to start with, if you are using e-TTL flash or the Nikon equivalent, is manual mode on the camera, 1/60, f/5. you can fiddle from there. If people are moving fast, 1/60 may not be enough because of ambient light. I've had cases where eyelashes are blurred at that speed because with some ambient light, the flash isn't completely freezing motion.

 

I'm confident that if you use a setup like the one in my earlier post and settings similar to these, you'll find that the majority of your images are quite acceptable. However, because ambient light has some effect and varies from one part of the house to another, you will get some variation in white balance, so it's worth throwing in a few shots with a whiBal or other spectrally neutral card so that you can get a rough idea of how to adjust WB. And, of course, shoot raw.

Edited June 4, 2021 by paddler4

With reasonable settings, bounced flash won't drown all ambient light, and unless the room lighting is really off, it can produce very natural colors. I can't post examples because i don't post photos of other people without permission, but I've done a great many shots in that manner. A good setting to start with, if you are using e-TTL flash or the Nikon equivalent, is manual mode on the camera, 1/60, f/5. you can fiddle from there. If people are moving fast, 1/60 may not be enough because of ambient light. I've had cases where eyelashes are blurred at that speed because with some ambient light, the flash isn't completely freezing motion.

 

I'm confident that if you use a setup like the one in my earlier post and settings similar to these, you'll find that the majority of your images are quite acceptable. However, because ambient light has some effect and varies from one part of the house to another, you will get some variation in white balance, so it's worth throwing in a few shots with a whiBal or other spectrally neutral card so that you can get a rough idea of how to adjust WB. And, of course, shoot raw.

The premise was to expose so that ambient light is significantly underexposed, i.e., not your reasonable settings. Not good.

 

When using reasonable settings, the 'adding a third colour' problem remains/returns.

Edited June 4, 2021 by q.g._de_bakker

The premise was to expose so that ambient light is significantly underexposed

 

Whose premise? The OP simply asked how to avoid the distorted colors he obtained shooting without flash under LEDs. I gave him a simple solution that usually works very well.

 

When using reasonable settings, the 'adding a third colour' problem remains/returns.

 

I've shot thousands of images this way, and the percentage with serious color problems that were not readily fixed has been very, very small. In fact, it's very rare that I need to do more than a simple WB adjustment, and sometimes I don't even need to do that. Household lighting is rarely so complex that this is a problem. In other settings, say, offices with powerful fluorescent lights, the problems could be worse.

Whose premise? The OP simply asked how to avoid the distorted colors he obtained shooting without flash under LEDs. I gave him a simple solution that usually works very well.

You didn't follow the discussion, then. Ken suggested using a flash, eliminating ambient light by underexposure by at least two stops.

 

I've shot thousands of images this way, and the percentage with serious color problems that were not readily fixed has been very, very small. In fact, it's very rare that I need to do more than a simple WB adjustment, and sometimes I don't even need to do that. Household lighting is rarely so complex that this is a problem. In other settings, say, offices with powerful fluorescent lights, the problems could be worse.

 

Depends on how demanding you are, perhaps.

Using flash and ambient light creates causes colour problems that cannot be fixed by "a simple WB adjustment". You get both parts that were reached by either one of the two light sources but not the other, and shadows that are filled in by one and not the other. Unless you create some intrictate masks before you do a WB adjustment, it's impossible to correct. The best way to add flash wothout adding another problem is, as was also suggested before, putting a gel over the flash to match its colour to that of the other light source.

Using on camera flash in a situation that is lit by other light sources other than 5600 K daylight will perhaps help get enough light, but will also always create images that have colour problems as the one that started this thread (even though that one did not have flash as a cause). And the look of on camera flash is awfull too (bounced off a ceiling or not).

I've used an ExpoDisc to set custom white balances. It's fast and easy. I've also used a WhiBal card to set white balance for processing RAW images. Both work really well. But as several people have mentioned - a sheet of copy paper will be very close to neutral.

 

ExpoDisc 2.0 82mm White Balance Filter V2

 

WhiBal G7 White Balance Pocket Card

You didn't follow the discussion, then. Ken suggested using a flash, eliminating ambient light by underexposure by at least two stops.

 

wrong. I was simply trying to answer the OP's question. Underexposing is unnecessary.

 

Depends on how demanding you are, perhaps.

 

Certainly.

 

Using flash and ambient light creates causes colour problems that cannot be fixed by "a simple WB adjustment". You get both parts that were reached by either one of the two light sources but not the other, and shadows that are filled in by one and not the other. Unless you create some intrictate masks before you do a WB adjustment, it's impossible to correct.

 

If you insert "completely", then I agree. My point, which I have confirmed with huge numbers of candid photos of kids, is that one can correct very well indeed in many practical situations. Well enough, in fact, that it isn't apparent that there are different light sources.

 

PromanWV: sorry that I can't post images to illustrate this; as I mentioned, I never post photos of people without their express permission. However, if you have an e-TTL flash that is capable of bouncing, you can resolve this for yourself. Try a few shots, bouncing off the ceiling and using the settings I recommended above as a starting point. Do this under a few different lighting conditions in different rooms. If you find that it is working well in terms of color balance, then you can spend the small amount for a bounce card.

If you're struggling to 'correct' (correct is a matter of taste) then ones that didn't come out to your liking, here is the result of selecting 'Auto4 white balance in RawTherapee:

(old version running on my laptop) The interface & workflow takes a bit of getting used to, but it is a very powerful tool.

 

 

Or just shoot in (or convert to) monochrome, overexpose to the verge of blowing skin highlights, maybe add a red or orange filter and call it done!

I just looked at the manual for the D700 ...

 

It seems that Auto is supposed to work for 3500K to 8000K, but incandescent

and warm white LED are closer to 2700K.

 

It seems that the incandescent bulb setting (a little picture of a light bulb)

is for 3000K, which might be close enough. A little warmth is usually good,

but a little cooling (blue) is often bad.

 

Then there is the fluorescent setting, which seems to apply to discharge lamps

other than fluorescent, including high-pressure sodium at 2700K.

 

And then there is one were you set the K value directly.

 

Low pressure sodium is close to monochromatic yellow. There is nothing

you can do to fix that. Well, I suppose you can make it white, but no matter

what, there will be only one color.

It seems that the D1X is somewhat different, and according to its manual, different

from the D1.

 

For the D1X, there are selections for daylight, incandescent, fluorescent,

cloudy, shade, and flash. Then each of those has a range of +3 to -3.

For incandescent that gets from 2700K to 3250K, where 2700K is close

to household lamps, and also warm white LEDs.

 

Photoflood lamps (which don't seem so common as they used to be)

are at 3200K or 3400K. Halogen lamps might be about 3200K.

 

As with the D700, the fluorescent setting goes to 2700K (for HPS)

up to 7200K.

 

It seems that Nikon changed how it works for different camera models,

but in general I have had good results with the 2700K incandescent

indoors with incandescent, warm white fluorescent, and warm white LED.

Wow. More complicated than I thought. Thank you all for the good ideas and information. Next time we are there, I will try the different settings first, and then experiment with Photoshop Elements or Corel Paintshop Pro 2019.

 

Like a few of you noted, these are casual family photos mostly for sharing on the web, with a few getting printed. Although I would like them to be as good as possible, it's not like I'm submitting them to be published. If I can get them to 95-98% color accurate, I will be happy.

 

I do have RawTherapee (?) but have only looked at it briefly a couple of times. I always shoot in JPEG for convenience, but maybe I should start exploring RAW.

 

Again - thanks for all of the good suggestions.

Although I would like them to be as good as possible, it's not like I'm submitting them to be published. If I can get them to 95-98% color accurate, I will be happy.

 

Actually, if you could get to 95%+ color accurate (whatever that actually means) the color would almost certainly be gallery quality. (There are formal ways to measure accuracy of color, but you would have to specifically define exactly what a 95% accuracy would mean, so I'm just making up the numbers)

 

I think you would likely be perfectly satisfied with the color if you were to set a custom white balance by photographing a white card per the following, by Rodeo_joe:

 

The answer is to use either the Kelvin white-balance setting, or a custom white-balance (called PRE - short for preset - in the D7500 white-balance menu).

 

Both of these settings are fully described in the pdf D7500 manual on pages 137 and 139.

 

To get the exposure close, take some test shots of the white card and view the histogram (on back of camera). If you can get the spike on the histogram to be about 95% of the way to the right (pixel value about 240 or so, roughly) you'll probably be thrilled to death with how the jpegs look.

 

Assuming that you have a good set of jpeg parameters set in the camera (meaning close to "neutral" or "natural" color, etc.) there will be almost no benefit to using RAW images.

 

I'm saying this on the presumption that the (mostly frontal) lighting is indeed from LEDs. (If it's either CFL or other energy-efficient fluorescent, forget about good quality color.) FWIW I spent a lot of my work life dealing with studio lighting and color issues in labs, so I'm not really guessing about this. Actually I AM guessing a bit about Nikon color - my experience is mainly in two other brands; I'm just presuming that Nikon color rendering is not much different.

 

Best of luck.

I do have RawTherapee (?) but have only looked at it briefly a couple of times. I always shoot in JPEG for convenience, but maybe I should start exploring RAW.

Don't be misled by the name, it can do plenty with jpeg files too, though the real 'power' is unlocked when working with RAW, if you like.

 

(I shoot jpeg + RAW, I use the jpeg at least 50% of the time)

(I shoot jpeg + RAW, I use the jpeg at least 50% of the time)

+1

I really don't see any reason not to shoot RAW+JPEG. Memory cards are cheap, and if the RAW file isn't needed, then so what?

 

WRT bounced flash looking 'unnatural'. How natural is it to have one or more ~3000 Kelvin lightsources hanging 18" below the ceiling? The idea of using bounce flash is to overpower those (unnatural) artificial sources and replace them with another artificial source that more closely resembles any daylight coming through windows.

 

The key (pun intended) thing to remember with bouncing flash, is that the apparent origin of the light changes to the area where the flash is pointed. So it doesn't have to be a ceiling, and it doesn't have to be an area in front of the camera. A window light can be simulated by bouncing flash from a light-coloured wall.

 

This does usually need quite a powerful flash, but those from the likes of YongNuo and Godox are very reasonably priced. Certainly cheaper than Nikon's most feeble accessory flash.

Edited June 6, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

+1 to Rodeo Joe's comment about lighting from bounced flash. One interesting technique--providing that the walls are relatively light and neutral--is to aim the flash diagonally backwards over one shoulder. This can produce a very appealing light, similar to having a high window in that location. It's similar to lighting used in some paintings.I don't do this with candids of kids--they move too fast for me to think about what walls are where--but I've used it with adults, and it's worked well.

 

In general, I think a number of the postings in this thread overcomplicated matters for the OP. The fact is that in many indoor situations, simply bouncing an e-TTL flash--ideally with a bounce card--can produce excellent results with mininum fuss and bother. Are they studio-quality? Often not. Are they close enough that people looking at them as family photos won't notice any failings? Yes. I've noticed many times that when I say that I am dissatisfied with one of my candids, I'm the ONLY ONE who is concerned. Unless something is seriously wrong, most people look at family photos for the situation and the memory.

Edited June 6, 2021 by paddler4

Indeed, how natural is it to have flash bounced off a ceiling, overpowering the light sources that you are accustomed to, so it looks more like you arranged your furniture under a glass roof?

Bouncing off walls may work as well, but you get unexpected shadows and light from strange directions. Not for casual snap-shots.

Just leave the lighting as found as it is, use that without complicating things further, and correct to taste afterwards.

Edited June 6, 2021 by q.g._de_bakker

Just leave the lighting as found as it is, use that without complicating things further

Which means you end up with exactly the result the OP is trying to avoid!

and correct to taste afterwards.

Which requires fairly advanced image-editing skills, and could take many times longer than simply clipping a flash into a hotshoe and pointing it upward.

 

I'm not suggesting that the OP just wade in with flash attached and start shooting in a 'spray and pray' style. Because using bounce flash can teach one a lot about lighting.

 

It costs nothing to experiment using a digital camera. So just practising to see what works is a valuable exercise, and those lighting skills so gained can then be put into practise later. Photography is all about light, and the more you know about it, and more importantly can have control over it, the better.

Here's a simple example. The flower was indoors and lit by bounced flash; while the background was a garden seen through a window behind the flower. Without using flash I'd have either got a silhouette of the flower, or an overexposed background.

Edited June 7, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

Which means you end up with exactly the result the OP is trying to avoid!

 

Which requires fairly advanced image-editing skills, and could take many times longer than simply clipping a flash into a hotshoe and pointing it upward.

 

No. Trying to change colour balance so that it is 'correct' in all parts of the scene requires advanced editing. Correcting so that the main part of the scene is acceptable (no need to be accurate) is not a lot of work nor difficult.

All the other options, including adding another light source with its own colour, and what to do to make matters better and not worse, is more difficult, requires a lot of time, and advanced editing skills. All make things more complicated than they need be, because trying to get as close as possible to an overall 'correct' result.

 

A flower as an example is a good example of what i meant. You flower is lit as if under a bright, overcast sky. There are not many bright overcast skies indoors. The light there is never that even, is always directional, almost never from straight above., has a distinct fall off with distance, etc.

Silhouettes of things against the light coming in through a window is the norm. Not good for a photo of a flower in a window, but quite o.k. for an interior in which you are not really interested in what is in the window in the background.

Greetings. Although I have been taking photos for many years, I feel like a beginner trying to find an answer to this one. I would appreciate any advice.

 

My Nikon D-7500 has an Auto White Balance setting, which is where I usually leave it. Almost all of my photography is outdoors, and that works fine for me.

 

However, last week we went to visit our Son, D-I-L, and new grandson (our first!!!). I took a LOT of photos, but the ones without flash came out an awful orange color. The kids have LED lights throughout the house. Luckily, I caught it early on and only had a couple dozen "orange shots" before switching to flash. The ones with flash came out OK.

 

The camera does not have an LED setting, and I thought the "Auto" setting would compensate. The available settings are: Automatic, Incandescent, Fluorescent, Direct Sunlight, Flash, Cloudy, Shade, and Choose Color Temp.

 

I am attaching a photo so you can get an idea how bad they were. Thanks for any suggestions.

 

[ATTACH=full]1390218[/ATTACH]

I use photoshop 7 to adjust this image. I lightened the whole image in curves, made selections of the guy's faces and adjusted the RGB values in curves to approximate the proper skin tones. Sometimes setting the color temp in camera is a useful thing but if you forget to put it back on auto and step outside those pics will be blue. If auto exposure/ auto color balance gave you the result you posted you might be ahead of the game by learning (teaching yourself) about the range of RGB numbers associated with various skin tones (and other objects as well). Learning the logic of color can be a bit complex in the beginning but eventually very satisfying as you build your understanding.

I use photoshop 7 to adjust this image. I lightened the whole image in curves, made selections of the guy's faces and adjusted the RGB values in curves to approximate the proper skin tones. Sometimes setting the color temp in camera is a useful thing but if you forget to put it back on auto and step outside those pics will be blue. If auto exposure/ auto color balance gave you the result you posted you might be ahead of the game by learning (teaching yourself) about the range of RGB numbers associated with various skin tones (and other objects as well). Learning the logic of color can be a bit complex in the beginning but eventually very satisfying as you build your understanding.

 

Oh tell me about forgetting to switch the WB.

Been there, done that :(

 

For the average person, or even me, it can be difficult to deal with a situation with different types of light and significantly different light levels.

I find it much easier to fix the shooting environment, than having to try to fix it in the photo editor. My photo editing skills are way behind yours.

My film classes (before digital) admonished the shooter to get it right at the time of exposure. Good advice for commercial shooters but not practical most of the time for wedding photographers or news photographers. Knowing the purpose of an exposure can give you leeway to ball-park the technical so as to stay tuned into and ready for the precise moment. In my opinion, knowing what you want in the finished print, and how to get it in post production, is the most important.

an awful orange color

 

well, that's pretty much the 'real' color from incandescent lamps. The background is also a factor.

Here is a simple adjustment of only two first steps - touch white tool to what you want to be white -- black tool to black.

 

Of course you can diddle on further as much as you please, but this is sort of in the ballpark

well, that's pretty much the 'real' color from incandescent lamps. The background is also a factor.

Here is a simple adjustment of only two first steps - touch white tool to what you want to be white -- black tool to black.

[ATTACH=full]1414036[/ATTACH]

 

Of course you can diddle on further as much as you please, but this is sort of in the ballpark

 

Thanks. I recently purchased a Nikon SB-700 flash and a Flashbender 2 small bounce flash/reflector. The photos at the last visit were much better (or at least I think so). See below.....