RAW file white balance

[george_doumani]

I am relatively new to shooting in RAW format. I have read a ton of info concerning white balance

as a post processing step but so much of it is contradictory. These are a few of my concerns.

 

1) Given that most experienced photographers will agree that even with the best monitor calibration

system available, ouput via print is never 100% what one sees on screen. If that is true, which I

know it is, than how can one accurately balance colour whilst post processing? It is simply too

expensive to output an image via your printer each time as to see what one has actually done with

each adjustment.

 

2) Using the mid tone eye dropper tool to achieve a correct white balance? If I do not go to the

enormous hassle of shooting a grey card into each frame, as lighting conditions change, than many

tutorials speak of simply choosing an area that looks like a mid tone grey? I have 2 problems with

that, is that "area" referring to luminosity or is it refering actually to a true area of mid tone grey

(18% grey). If it isthe later of these than how can anyone expect to find it accurately within an

image? Even if one did manage to find it than how can one accurately sample those few pixels that

may or may not contain such a tone? This has to be a myth?!

 

Can anyone suggest a real life workable workflow for this process please?

 

It seems that I live in a world of theory but find that theory difficult to apply to reality.

 

thanks for any of your comments in advance

 

btw. I am just about to going to download the Phase One software "capture 4" as my raw converter

of choice.

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

I use the eye one match 3 to color balance my screen. It was recommended by the

lab I use.

 

Color can vary quite a lot because there are circumstances beyond our control. For

example the final print can look different depending on the light when viewing. As

you suggest color can vary from computer to computer. It can sometimes vary

depending on where the prints are made and who did the processing.

 

I find, this is a general rule from my experience, that people like to skin skin tones

that are on the warm side. Therefore I always go for the warm side of the color

balance when in the process stage.

 

You don't have to be concerned with white balance during the capture stage when

utilizing RAW but if you do then it can save time in the process stage. With that

said if you have several (more than one) temperatures (light sources) present during

capture that should be solved during capture as it can be difficult to achieve color

balance during process.

 

I will sometimes use a device marketed by Ed Pierce that is a reflector on one side

and on the other it is divided into thirds, one is a bar of white, the middle bar is grey,

the other third is a bar of black. When an exposure is made three spikes should be

present on the histogram. This can help when say, a group of images are created in

one situation then you move to another with different lighting.

 

It is not an exact science from the standpoint of humans viewing because of so

many variables when each of us looks at an image. Do what appeals to you and to

your clients.

 

Hope this helps you.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

There's really no mystery or theory about color temp/whtie balance correction. Your

monitor should be a neutral looking editing environment and that's all. Just because

display calibration standards to make this come about happen to be a color temp

number doesn't mean it's the most neutral to YOUR eyes.

</p>

 

<p>

Besides this is the least of your problems. Perception of color temp on a display is

greatly influenced by how bright your display is compared to your ambient light

surroundings. IOW you'll notice far more quickly the yellowish amber color of your low

luminance living room lighting before you'll notice bluishness of bright midday outdoor

sunlight. This is why 6500K (approx. midday color temp) is chosen as a standard for

achieving a neutral display. It just looks neutral and that's all you need. There's no

mystery or theory here. IOW don't sweat it in this department.

</p>

 

<p>

As for white balance workflow within your images, this is going to be a matter of taste

more than accuracy. When I shoot shaded tree foliage lit by a sunbeam low on the

horizon I don't want R=G=B by clicking with an eyedropper, but my incamera WBaL

when shooting jpegs will find it, but render the rest of the image in two different ways

depending if I choose Daylight over Auto. Both are suppose to be correcting for a

5000K reference color temp for a scene with mixed neutrality as seen in the sample

below. One I like and happens to be more accurate, the other keeps renders shaded

dirt a maroonish tint which I don't like. Note the white in the background is 250R=G=B

on both.

</p>

 

<p>

Check out the two series of video tutorials on this very subject, one for WhiBaL and

the other implementing it as a workflow within Lightroom.

</p>

 

<p>

<a href="http://www.rawworkflow.com/index.html">White balancing within a Raw

workflow</a><div></div>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

Let try to upload the image a second time. It's probably because of the new servers

they're breaking in here on this site.<div></div>

[george_doumani]

thankyou both Bill and Tim for your posts

 

I think my biggest battle is actually getting a neutral colour environment in my monitor.

I am using a G4 powerbook (calibrated with an X-rite display one 2) but from previous

posts I have read many people seem to think it is nearly impossible to achieve this on

a laptop SO i must fork out for a decent monitor. Is this another money pit? I'm sure

you both know how many 1000's I have thrown at equipment, much of it not living up to

it's expectation!

[Tim_Lookingbill]

Read my bio and you'll see how much I coughed up for what turned out to be an

expensive hobby. And that was nearly ten years ago.

 

A good monitor is definately not a money pit. It's where the rubber meets the road

when it comes to a reference for the exact meaning of color as well as a decent

device for editing color reliably.

 

There's NEC, Eizo, some Dell models that are excellent displays that calibrate well

enough for image editing. My 2004 iMac which has an S-IPS LCD panel pictured in my

bio pic is right up there with my 21" Samsung CRT which I nolonger use because all

my images look the same on both after calibration.

[george_doumani]

thanks Tim

 

In your opinion, seeing I am soon due for a computer upgrade (my powerbook G4 is

getting a little long in the tooth and thus is too slow) I have 2 options.

 

1) Buy a new Imac. I have read a lot of stuff though about the screen being too

bright and glossy and therefore difficult to calibrate? Your Imac is the older model

which i heard was much more accurate for post production work. What have you

heard about this?

 

2) Buy an Eizo/NEC and get a newer mac book pro in a while?

 

I prefer option 1 because it seems the cheapest

[lluisripoll]

Do you think that for B&W is better a matte monitor than the IMAC 24"?

 

Lluis

[Tim_Lookingbill]

I have no idea, Luis. I haven't seen what one looks like calibrated or uncalibrated.

 

Observing one at Apple store or any authorized reseller would be the only way of knowing for sure. Otherwise you'll have to

search on the web for other's experience with this model.