White Balance. White vs Real

[ivan_grynov]

<p>Simple question.<br>

Do you set WB to match real colors or white to be white? I like both and cannot decide.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Meaning, if you're shooting in light that's very clearly cast to a particular temperature (say, dimmed incandescent lights that are giving off a noticeably orange/red light), is it better to wind up with a shot that <em>looks</em> like that... with an orange cast to it? It all depends on what you're trying to <em>say</em> with the photograph.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I don't trust my eyes to determine neutral white. And I know that none of my digital cameras can render all colors with absolute accuracy in all circumstances. (In that sense it's no different from using color film.) So I use a variety of techniques to achieve colors that are either accurate or pleasing to me - but accurate colors aren't always necessarily pleasing to me. Sometimes setting the camera white balance works well, sometimes adjustments are necessary in editing.</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>IMHO, if you shoot JPEG (not RAW) or uses a non-DSLR small sensor (aka: most digcam) best set WB first (white into white) and then decide to warm it or cool it a bit later. If not, you could run out of bits (color resolution) needed to correct it later. JPEG is 8 bits only and not 12 or 14 bits like raw files. You can run out of color resolution fast if you don't at least try to put it near the ball park first.</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>I go for pleasing rather than technically correct.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>Except for those times when a job really requires absolute correction and fidelity, let your eyes be your guide -- but work on a well calibrated and profiled display</p>

[josephbraun]

<p>If you're shooting products it's important to nail the color, but otherwise, lie lie lie :)</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>The general idea is to white balance so that white comes out as white. But obviously you don't want to "correct" the white balance to the point that golden evening glow and other looks you're after get filtered out back to a pure white. In principal, this is the same problem you get when shooting in beautiful golden light, fire light, bluish winter light, etc., then the one-hour lab "corrects" your prints to get rid of the "color cast." Personally, I don't usually run around doing a white balance. In the film days there were basically two choices: 5500/5600 (plus or minus) "daylight" film for daylight and flash, and 3200/3400 "tungsten" or "Type A" film for tungsten/photoflood. So with digital, my default is 5600 for daylight and flash and I switch to 3200 for tungsten lights. If you stick to those settings, golden light/cool light etc will photograph the way you see it. I usually do a custom white balance only under fluorescents, sodium vapor/mercury or mixed light situations.</p>

[ivan_grynov]

<p>Thanks for your responses.</p>

<p>I'm experimenting a little bit with WB and come to conclusion that I have to pick something in the middle. Like last party shoot indoors without flash w/tungsten lights - camera's AWB set WB to 3550k, Lightroom's AWB set WB to 2850k (and white looks almost like white), "Tungsten" preset is 2600k (and white looks really whie) and I was satisfied with WB set somewhere between 3000-3100 - colder than in real life, but warmer than "pure white" WB.</p>