Auto White Balance is an Abomination!

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

11/18/2007 11:57:50 AM · #1

Auto White Balance is an Abomination!

There. I said it. At least as far as portraits are concerned. Avoid AWB like the plague - even if you're shooting raw and fixing the WB later. At least take the time to set the white balance to a "fixed" setting (even if it isn't quite right) so that all of the images have a consistent look to them when you're done.

The problem? You're letting the camera decide the white balance!

Example: Let's say you're doing a photo shoot with a girl who is wearing an orange sweater and a brown skirt. What white balance do you think the camera will pick when you zoom out and get her against a mostly white background? It'll probably be okay ... or close ... because the white background dominates. Now zoom in tight and get her upper body and face with very little background. Now what white balance is the camera going to pick? It's going to calculate that there is an orange cast and subtract the orange ... leaving her face what? BLUE!

When your camera is on auto white balance EVERY SINGLE PHOTO you take can have a different color temperature based on how much of a given color is in the frame at the time you take the picture. A family wearing mostly blue? The camera will see the blue and subtract blue out of the image. A person wearing white, but standing in front of a grove of trees (but not "in" the trees), the camera will see the dominate green behind the person and subtract out the green turning the white clothes a reddish color.

So whatever you do ... if you're doing portraits, pick a WB setting. Even if it's wrong, pick a fixed setting and leave it there. If you're shooting raw, fixing the WB is a piece of cake. If you're shooting jpegs, at least you'll need to apply the same "fix" across all of the jpegs.

Discussion?

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

11/18/2007 12:00:27 PM · #2

Not much to be discussed... you speak the truth!

idnic

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

11/18/2007 12:10:00 PM · #3

Originally posted by kirbic:

Not much to be discussed... you speak the truth!

I concur.

Apple iPhone 5

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

11/18/2007 12:10:57 PM · #4

Yup, I was just thinking about this today. And shooting with a 'fixed' wb makes things much easier in post-processing.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

11/18/2007 12:12:48 PM · #5

I'd love to show some images illustrating what happens with AWB as you zoom in on a person but haven't the time right now. Anyone care to volunteer?

Using a neutral background, start zoomed out, getting an image of the full person and whatever (bold) colors they've chosen. Then take several images, gradually zooming in on them. See what happens to the color temperature of the image.

11/18/2007 12:16:04 PM · #6

This is totally the truth. Works that way for scenics also. I usually use "cloudy" wb for landscape work, especially sunsets. Shooting AWB on sunsets with a zoom lens makes every damned image in the zoom range come out slightly different, a PITA in the RAW processing.

R.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

11/18/2007 12:19:18 PM · #7

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I have to ask (as I'm stupid) why this makes such a difference in RAW. I would have thought that one could white balance the first of a batch and then synchronise the settings, so that they are all the same. It looks as though I've missed the point, though. I could do with a little help to educate me, it appears.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

11/18/2007 12:21:00 PM · #8

Originally posted by Mr_Pants:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This is totally the truth. Works that way for scenics also. I usually use "cloudy" wb for landscape work, especially sunsets. Shooting AWB on sunsets with a zoom lens makes every damned image in the zoom range come out slightly different, a PITA in the RAW processing.

R.

I have to ask (as I'm stupid) why this makes such a difference in RAW. I would have thought that one could white balance the first of a batch and then synchronise the settings, so that they are all the same. It looks as though I've missed the point, though. I could do with a little help to educate me, it appears.

Yes you could do that but why not avoid the problem in the first place. Also, the same exact temperature may not be right for all images in the series.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

11/18/2007 12:21:45 PM · #9

So if we "shout" this message loud enough ... do ya think we can convince everyone to turn off AWB? :-)

I did find one time where AWB came in handy. Bride wearing white dress sitting in a room with mixed lighting. No flash. Needed to get the dress white and wanted to do it "in camera" but tungsten and fluorescent settings just didn't get it right. Set the camera to AWB and took the shot (filling the frame with the bride and her dress). ViolÃ¡ - white dress!

But ... zoom out, get more of the surroundings and things will start to change. So I'm not reversing my plea to turn off AWB. I'm just suggesting there are times and places when it may work better than a fixed setting.

11/18/2007 12:28:48 PM · #10

Originally posted by Mr_Pants:

The problem is, when using AWB to shoot sunsets (imagine masses of clouds in the sky, ranging from bright yellow near the horizon to heavy and blue at the top of the frame, in wide angle) depending on how much you zoom in to the sun or out to include the overlayers, the actual colors in the scene vary dramatically.

Now suppose you want a CONSTANT appearance of the horizon zone in all your images.

The trouble is, with AWB the wide-angle shots have a MUCH different WB than the zoomed-in shots, and all the shots in between fall somewhere on the spectrum. So each shot in the series has to be color-corrected to different paramaters to attain consistency in a single area of the image.

It's MUCH easier, even with RAW, to use a single WB setting, and then you can adjust all the images in the series globally to whatever color temperature best suits you, and any given area of the scene will be rendered the same regardless of how much of the image area it dominates.

R.

11/18/2007 12:35:06 PM · #11

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Also, the same exact temperature may not be right for all images in the series.

As a basic workflow, you want all the images in the series recorded to the same exact WB. Then you can gang-process the entire series to a specific appearance of a critical zone. From that point on, you have the option of varying the settings for particular, individual images, but you have a constant against which you are making your comparisons.

With AWB there IS no constant, and you have to individually color-correct every image in the series either to attain the constant, or to best advantage. By using set WB, you start with a constant from the get-go, and the option for individual corrections still exists.

R.

11/18/2007 12:37:24 PM · #12

Originally posted by dwterry:

I did find one time where AWB came in handy. Bride wearing white dress sitting in a room with mixed lighting. No flash. Needed to get the dress white and wanted to do it "in camera" but tungsten and fluorescent settings just didn't get it right. Set the camera to AWB and took the shot (filling the frame with the bride and her dress). ViolÃ¡ - white dress!

But ... zoom out, get more of the surroundings and things will start to change. So I'm not reversing my plea to turn off AWB. I'm just suggesting there are times and places when it may work better than a fixed setting.

That's where Custom WB comes in handy; zoom in on the dress only, shoot a frame, have cam set CWB off that exposure, and it becomes the default CWB setting until you change it. So you can use this WB for all shots under those lighting conditions.

R.

MikeJ

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

11/18/2007 01:05:33 PM · #13

I've found that the Canon 10D and the Canon 1DMKII do AWB very well under controlled and consistantly the same lighting. Setting a custom white balance is just more work and another step... and you have to remember to change it when you change lighting, lenses, backgrounds, cloths or anything else that will change the way the lighting is viewed by the camera. So I let my camera do it's job. Maybe other brands or models don't do AWB as well, but I've been happy with mine.

Also, color is very subjective to each person. Our eyes see color differently not to mention our tastes in color.

Custom white balance has it's time and place, just like AWB has it's time and place. They are both just another set of tools to use. While some only use one tool and think that is the only right way, others use another tool and think it's the only way. Some of us think that all of the tools have their place and will use them as needed.

Mike

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/18/2007 01:27:54 PM · #14

Originally posted by MikeJ:

Custom white balance has it's time and place, just like AWB has it's time and place. They are both just another set of tools to use. While some only use one tool and think that is the only right way, others use another tool and think it's the only way. Some of us think that all of the tools have their place and will use them as needed.

Absolutely. AWB is terrific in changing lighting conditions. We are discussing the benefits of NOT using AWB in constant lighting conditions with varying colors dominating different images.

It's an apples and oranges thing.

R.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

11/18/2007 01:56:33 PM · #15

I hate that the setting is buried way down in a menu -- on my camera it is a bit of a pain to set. The ISO setting has a dedicated button; if WB did as well I'd use it more often. As it is, since I'm often just grabbing the camera and shooting something interesting, I leave it on AWB most of the time.

One shortcut I can take is to go into Stitch-Assist mode, which locks in the exposure settings for a series based on the first image -- that setting uses the dial on top.

11/18/2007 02:10:43 PM · #16

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I hate that the setting is buried way down in a menu -- on my camera it is a bit of a pain to set. The ISO setting has a dedicated button; if WB did as well I'd use it more often.

Upgrade to a Canon dSLR :-) On my 20D I push a top-deck button and spin a wheel to change WB. It's a piece of cake. Of course, if I want to do CUSTOM for the WB, I have to navigate the menu to set it. On the plus side, I have my defaults set so when I turn the menu ON it defaults to the last menu used, so if I am doing a lot of custom WB I can get it in one click basically. But I can go in and out of custom WB on the top deck; it's just if I want to CHANGE the custom settings that I have to go into the menu.

My custom WB is currently set for a particular mix of fluorescent and diffused daylight that prevails in my neighbor's workroom, where I shoot rare books for them every couple of days. I need to deliver the product as JPG to them, so I need this WB to be right. I don't even process these images, just shoot 'em and upload 'em onto their 'puter.

R.

11/18/2007 02:42:25 PM · #17

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It's MUCH easier, even with RAW, to use a single WB setting, and then you can adjust all the images in the series globally to whatever color temperature best suits you, and any given area of the scene will be rendered the same regardless of how much of the image area it dominates.

R.

I repeat my question. Why is it easier to use a set white balance in camera when using RAW, when there is no white balance applied to the file leaving the camera? It is, after all, the raw data from the sensor. Why does applying white balance to one image and then synchronising the settings not work? If the lighting is the same, then the same parameters applied post-shot would surely give the same ( correct, if you like) outcome. Please explain the basis for your assertion. I have no problem seeing how white balance problems can arise in jpeg.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

11/18/2007 02:45:49 PM · #18

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Mr_Pants:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This is totally the truth. Works that way for scenics also. I usually use "cloudy" wb for landscape work, especially sunsets. Shooting AWB on sunsets with a zoom lens makes every damned image in the zoom range come out slightly different, a PITA in the RAW processing.

R.

I have to ask (as I'm stupid) why this makes such a difference in RAW. I would have thought that one could white balance the first of a batch and then synchronise the settings, so that they are all the same. It looks as though I've missed the point, though. I could do with a little help to educate me, it appears.

Yes you could do that but why not avoid the problem in the first place.

..because 'avoiding the problem' could end up with me taking ages mucking around to get the shot.

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Also, the same exact temperature may not be right for all images in the series.

Wouldn't applying a fixed white balance be effectively the same as setting the same temperature for the whole series as well?

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

11/18/2007 02:47:35 PM · #19

Originally posted by Mr_Pants:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Also, the same exact temperature may not be right for all images in the series.

Wouldn't applying a fixed white balance be effectively the same as setting the same temperature for the whole series as well?

No. I've set the WB to shade and pretty much left it there. The actual temperature value is different depending on the shot.

Message edited by author 2007-11-18 14:47:59.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

11/18/2007 02:51:12 PM · #20

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Mr_Pants:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Also, the same exact temperature may not be right for all images in the series.

Wouldn't applying a fixed white balance be effectively the same as setting the same temperature for the whole series as well?

No. I've set the WB to shade and pretty much left it there. The actual temperature value is different depending on the shot.

I repeat my assertion that setting a white balance in camera and then using it for a series of shots is the same as applying the same white balance to a series of shots in the RAW converter, or do you know better?

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

11/18/2007 02:53:51 PM · #21

Originally posted by Mr_Pants:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Mr_Pants:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Also, the same exact temperature may not be right for all images in the series.

Wouldn't applying a fixed white balance be effectively the same as setting the same temperature for the whole series as well?

No. I've set the WB to shade and pretty much left it there. The actual temperature value is different depending on the shot.

I repeat my assertion that setting a white balance in camera and then using it for a series of shots is the same as applying the same white balance to a series of shots in the RAW converter, or do you know better?

From what I've seen in the RAW converter, when you do that, the temperature is in fact the same.

To each their own how they deal with the situation.