Do You Fix the White Balance?

[joshuasigar]

<p>I went to an office party in a restaurant/bar with tungsten lighting and I took some pictures with setting daylight WB, RAW, and no-flash.</p>

<p>And now in Lightroom, I'm staring at the BEFORE (warm tone from tungsten) photo and AFTER (neutral tone after tungsten WB is applied). I feel I need to adjust the WB so that I won't be considered a rookie for not knowing how to select proper WB setting. But on the other hand, I want keep it as it is because otherwise I feel as if I stole the soul (what?) of the scene.</p>

<p>So I was wondering if you always feel the need to correct the WB?</p>

<p> </p>

[chris_d11]

<p >Jushua:</p>

<p >I am far from an expert, but I don’t think there is any rule that says you must correct for white balance. I normally correct white balance and exposure for all my pictures as a starting point. However, what is technically correct is not always visual pleasing, or at least does not represent the scene as I remember it. So, my final images more often than not deviate somewhat from what is technically right. In short, I think it is fine to leave white balance alone, just know why you are leaving it.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>This is really a business issue. You have to make the photos look <em>good</em> . Customers care far more about <em>good</em> than about <em>accuracy</em> , unless there are legal issues. If WB makes the photos look better, then use it.</p>

[pbarnes]

<p>Joshua, my understanding is that raw files do not have a set white balance, so it doesn't matter what the camera was set to when you took the photos. This from <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml">Luminous Landscape</a> :</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Raw files have not had while balance set. They are tagged with whatever the camera's setting was, (<em>either that which was manually set or via auto-white-balance),</em> but the actual data has not been changed. This allows one to set any colour temperature and white balance one wishes <em>after the fact</em> with no image degradation. It should be understood that once the file has been converted from the linear space and has had a gamma curve applied (such as in a JPG) white balance can no longer be properly done.</p>

</blockquote>

[link]

<p>Joshua,</p>

<p>Not to worry. Just set the WB in your RAW converter how ever you like the photo to look. That's 1/2 the reason to shoot RAW...so you can set it however you like...and even change your mind.</p>

<p>Happy holidays!</p>

[kevin_b.2]

<p>I set my white balance right away. But just end up changing the colors to whatever I want in PS anyway. When is all said and done the white balance is usually not accurate.</p>

[benbangerter]

<p>I shoot raw, use automatic white balance, and in Camera Raw or Lightroom, virtually always adjust white balance. Your choice is to use what the raw converter's software designers (whether in-camera or in say Lightroom) have decided is "correct," or use what your eyes and brain prefer. The white balance choices in the pull-down menu are for the most part very approximate. For example, "Daylight" illumination varies greatly with time of day, time of the year, latitude, and other factors (such as green grass or other foliage reflecting some of the light on the subject). Shooting a grey card or color-checker chart can be very helpful. The big problem is mixed, non-uniform lighting. Good luck with that...</p>

[brian_ellis19]

<p>I almost always make some adjustment to the white balance, either a gross adjustment in CR or local adjustments in PS or both. </p>

[alan_goldhammer]

<p>I bought the <a href="http://www.xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?id=1257&tab=videos">Passport</a> by X-Rite right after it was released. It has the color table and a white ballance card built into it. I've made camera profiles for different lighting conditions and use it to measure the white ballance for shooting series where the light is pretty much the same. It's easy to use and you can see a video on their website about the utility. I wouldn't be without it.</p>

[joshuasigar]

<p>So I decided not to adjust the WB for these photos, just like I wouldn't neutralize the WB of my sunset shots.</p>

<p>I guess I'm one of those people who couldn't stand manipulating photos. The irony is I just bought ExpoDisc a few days ago. Now I don't know if I'm gonna be using it that much.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>So you have decided that the computer should do the manipulating of the photos whether it is right or wrong. That's an interesting decision...</p>

[joshuasigar]

<blockquote>

<p>So you have decided that the computer should do the manipulating of the photos whether it is right or wrong. That's an interesting decision...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure what you tried to say there. I set the WB to Daylight when taking the pictures, so the resulting pictures are close to how I saw the scene (which means a white paper will not always appear as white).</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>It's never completely accurate. It can be close, but WB is rarely perfectly accurate. And your initial statement was about adjusting WB issues with tungsten light, not daylight. It's especially important when shooting for other people, which it sounds like this may have been, to adjust it to what works, not to what the camera uses.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Joshua, I can understand what you're saying about "stealing the soul" of the image by neutralizing the warmth of the tungsten lights. I don't know whether photographers perceive light differently from most poeple, but like you, I do perceive tungsten light as yellowish, not white, when I'm standing in the room. So if I were to shoot with a tungsten WB, the result would be whiter and "colder" than what I experienced with my eyes. That said, a daylight WB yields results that are far more yellowish than what I would have perceived. My approach, when trying to keep some of the original ambiance, has been to correct out most, but not all, of the tungsten color. In the end, it comes down to "what looks right." If it doesn't look right to your eyes, then it's not right.</p>

[ray_dockrey]

<p>I always adjust the white balance in post processing. Anymore I am usually not far off but usually a little tweaking is needed. That is why I shoot Raw. If I was going to leave it all as it was coming out of the camera then I would tweak the settings in camera and shoot in jpeg. But then again, isn't that the same thing as tweaking in post processing?</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>You might want to approach white balancing non-daylight influenced color casts like tungsten from a color designer's perspective. There are many beautiful colors of tungsten amber that aren't just straight oranges, reds, yellows just as there are different shades of blues for night scenes, shading under trees and shadow sides of buildings including concrete and asphalt. This is where you can be creative from a color designer sense.</p>

<p>Saturation levels should be your guide when deciding if there's too much orange, yellow magenta or green when adjusting the color temp sliders as in Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw. Luminance will increase or decrease depending on which way the sliders are moved so this will have to be compensated for as well.</p>

<p>Skintones will change in hue so that should influence your color cast decision as well. Clicking for R=G=B for neutralizing tungsten can often render Caucasian skin with a slight magenta hue from the increased blue channel. The cobalt blue of RGB actually has some magenta in it.</p>

<p>Below is an example of the variety of designer style amber colors that can be achieved balancing for tungsten or for this demo warm fluorescent which can give off a greenish hue due to the green spike in its spectral color response. Tungsten will most likely be a bit on the red side.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[cooltpmd]

<blockquote>

<p>So I was wondering if you always feel the need to correct the WB?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, but I almost always experiment with differing tint/temperature to settle on selection, it is one of my 1st steps and a big part of why I shoot in RAW. </p>

<p>Most of the time I ... like my whites white and my blacks black.</p>

[link]

<blockquote>

<p>So I was wondering if you always feel the need to correct the WB?<br /><br /><br /><br />No, but I almost always experiment with differing tint/temperature to settle on<br />selection, it is one of my 1st steps and a big part of why I shoot in RAW. <br /><br />Most of the time I ... like my whites white and my blacks black.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Changing the tint/temperature IS correcting the white balance. I think what you're trying to say is that you correct the white balance until it is neutral. Ie. r=g=b.</p>

 

[dbcooper]

<blockquote>

<p>"I feel I need to adjust the WB so that I won't be considered a rookie for not knowing how to select proper WB setting"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why? Who cares? Really. They're <em>your</em> photographs. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. Remember, you're shooting RAW - setting the WB in the camera isn't important. The LDC display on the back of the camera is making a mini-jpg based on the camera settings you've selected, but that information isn't applied to a RAW file as far as Lightroom is concerned (it is available in the file, however, for progs like NX2).</p>

<p>What really matters is getting the image to look the way you want it to look. It doesn't really matter how you get there. BTW, it's not an accident that the WB controls are at or near the top of the image adjustment controls. Imaging software manufacturers expect tweaking the WB is among the first things you'll do with a RAW file in post. IMO, it's perfectly fine to do that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"But on the other hand, I want keep it as it is because otherwise I feel as if I stole the soul (what?) of the scene."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's completely up to what <em>you</em> envision for the scene, and no one else, <em>unless</em> you have a client who wants the images to look a certain way. I shoot RAW and just leave the camera's WB set to auto (remembering that WB isn't really applied to a RAW file). It's one less thing to worry about while I'm shooting. If I want to change it in post, I do that. If I don't want to change it, I don't.</p>

<p>If I have a series of images I need to change the WB on in post, I'll work on one until I like it, then apply that setting to them all (very simple to do in Lightroom). That works out well, especially if I'm shooting in mixed lighting. Remember, you're shooting RAW because you want adjustability in post and/or you don't want the camera's settings applied so you can 'roll our own' in post.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"So I was wondering if you always feel the need to correct the WB?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For RAW, I usually tweak it some, but not always. If I shoot RAW + jpg, I'll chimp and adjust basic WB in the camera if I need to. I often warm up daylight shots a little bit in post. In general, I try to get the image to convey what I felt, saw, or want to communicate. Sometimes I'll shoot test frames with white cards and/or color charts to help me to get the color accurate later, in post, if I need to, but that's rare.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>I shoot RAW and just leave the camera's WB set to auto (remembering that WB isn't really applied to a RAW file).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The white balance whether Auto, Custom or Preset is the ONLY incamera setting that you can change incamera when shooting Raw and show these changes in the Raw preview of third party Raw converters.</p>

<p>It's the definition of the Kelvin numbers to their corresponding appearance that is interpreted by third party Raw converters that makes their appearance unpredictable. Just want to make that clear.</p>

[peano]

<blockquote>

<p>I feel I need to adjust the WB so that I won't be considered a rookie for not knowing how to select <em><strong>proper</strong> </em> WB setting. But on the other hand, I want keep it as it is because otherwise I feel as if I stole the soul (what?) of the scene. So I was wondering if you always feel the need to <strong><em>correct</em> </strong> the WB?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In some cases you can say pretty definitely that white balance is "correct" or "proper." In other cases -- many, I would say -- it is a matter of judgment what is proper or correct. Obvious example: When a golden sunset turns white shirts orange, is the white balance improper? Does it need "correcting"? Don't get hung up on what others consider to be proper and correct. Develop your own sense of aesthetic judgment and go with it.</p>

 

[photom]

<p>As you probably know, all photo files that have been converted from raw (whether in the camera or on your computer) HAVE white balance done on the them. The important question is, do you want the camera and/or the raw converter to guess what the white balance should be, or do you want to have control of the white balance based on what you saw at the scene and how YOU or the CLIENT would like the output to appear? It is up to you to decide if the software did an okay job.</p>

[photom]

<p>

 

<p>EDITED: As you probably know, all photo files that have been converted from raw (whether in the camera or on your computer) HAVE white balance done on the them. The important question is, do you want the camera and/or the raw converter to guess what the white balance should be, or do you want to have control of the white balance based on what you saw at the scene and how YOU or the CLIENT would like the output to appear? It is up to you to decide if the software did a good enough job guessing. If you manually set the WB for the scene in the camera, the results should be very close if you convert using "as shot" option.</p>

<p>By the way, one of the easiest and most effective ways to fine tune color balance in PS is to drag the individual R,G,B white points up or down in a curves layer. Even better, make 3 separate labeled layers for each color then move the opacity slider to taste for each layer at the end.</p>

 

</p>

[michael_young3]

<p>The obvious answer is to *always* shoot a known color reference in every lighting situation. ColorChecker Passport is the among best $100 I ever spent. Click once to sample a neutral color chip, and sync that white balance to all other shots made in that lighting. Plain ordinary white printer paper will do in a pinch. When all else fails, I shoot my left hand and later fiddle the sliders manually; the reference object is always close at hand. If the location is not far, just go back and shoot a few lighting reference shots to make the cleanup easier.</p>

<p>And, Yes! WB is as important as good exposure. "Photo" comes from the Greek for "light". What else distinguishes a "pro" aside from a minimal understanding of his materials, media, and tools? But never mind the labels. If your intent was to render everything orange'ish, you wouldn't have bothered to ask.</p>