Author | Thread |
|
11/18/2007 06:21:56 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k: ...Sports on cloudy days where the sun pops out from time to time and the cloud density is always changing is the hardest situation for it, and even on a preset WB it won't look consistent. |
You've pointed out a scenario where it's actually useful. If you're shooting JPEG and you won't have time to do detailed post on each image, so you need the out-of-camera images to be as close as possible to reality, then AWB (on some cameras) may well be a good way to go.
Also, as someone pointed out above, shooting RAW it's really of less concern, especially if converting with a 3rd party converter. The 3rd-party converters don't understand the camera WB setting anyhow, so the in-camera WB setting is of no consequence whatsoever. |
|
|
11/18/2007 06:24:11 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by kirbic: The 3rd-party converters don't understand the camera WB setting anyhow, so the in-camera WB setting is of no consequence whatsoever. |
Ah, does that apply to all models? I thought it was just Nikon that third party converters had that problem with. |
|
|
11/18/2007 06:29:34 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Mr_Pants:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
From what I've seen in the RAW converter, when you do that, the temperature is in fact the same.
|
... if the lighting is the same in the first place. |
Actually no. When copying settings from one image to another the actual numbers are copied.
Message edited by author 2007-11-18 18:29:48. |
|
|
11/18/2007 06:33:49 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by jhonan: Originally posted by kirbic: The 3rd-party converters don't understand the camera WB setting anyhow, so the in-camera WB setting is of no consequence whatsoever. |
Ah, does that apply to all models? I thought it was just Nikon that third party converters had that problem with. |
It rather depends on the converter. There are a couple conversion engines that apparently understand some of the in-camera WB settings. But AFAIK, most of the mainstream converters make guesses. They have data to make guesses on because the camera records a JPEG image that gets embedded in the RAW file, and all in-camera settings including WB affect the look of this JPEG. |
|
|
11/18/2007 07:03:52 PM · #30 |
I didn't read all the posts just want to say:
YOU ARE 100% RIGHT. Auto WB = Evil |
|
|
11/18/2007 09:21:48 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever: I leave the WB on auto all the time. No reason for me to worry about that setting shooting RAW and using LR to process them.
Add a WhiBal or a good grey card shot and you're good to go. |
Agreed. And besides, the D200 has such a great AWB, that I rarely have to worry about it. |
|
|
11/18/2007 11:24:52 PM · #32 |
Totally agree! Your observation has been exactly the issue I have had anytime, especially when shooting outdoors in summer with a lot of green around.
Originally posted by dwterry: 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!
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 11:32:32 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by geoffb: And besides, the D200 has such a great AWB, that I rarely have to worry about it. |
See... that's what worries me. People who think AWB is actually a good thing. Go ahead, try the experience I suggested. Pick a person who has bold colors on. I suggest a bright solid orange shirt to make things obvious.
Step back a ways. Take a shot. Move in closer (or zoom in). Take another shot. Move in until all you have is head and torso, take another shot. All of this in the same light. All of this in AWB mode. You will be DISMAYED at just how *bad* your white balance really is. Every one of the shots will have a different white balance. And the final shot (with so much orange in it) will have a very noticeable blue cast to your model's face.
Not good.
It'd be better to pick a white balance and stick to it.
|
|
|
11/18/2007 11:40:09 PM · #34 |
10-4 OVER!
If I could delete it out of my rig I would. Of course I've never USED it on the D200 either. :)
For the most part I keep it on cloudy; if I need to adjust while shooting then I go from there..
|
|
|
11/18/2007 11:47:06 PM · #35 |
Maybe I don't know what the heck I'm doing, but I *always* have AWB on, and that's one of the first things that I do in processing in RAW at the same time that I'm setting hues, saturation, shadows, and curves.
And all of those adjustments change what I do with the white balance 'til I get the image the way I want it. I do most of my color work in RAW *because* of being able to adjust the WB.
|
|
|
11/18/2007 11:58:23 PM · #36 |
I almost never use AWB. Typically set it for whatever situation I'm on, or just dial in a Kelvin value. I shoot RAW, but still dislike AWB. Spoils the previews if nothing else. Nasty.
Particularly heinous is shooting in the sweet light at the edges of the day, using AWB. |
|
|
11/18/2007 11:58:25 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by kirbic: You've pointed out a scenario where it's actually useful. If you're shooting JPEG and you won't have time to do detailed post on each image, so you need the out-of-camera images to be as close as possible to reality, then AWB (on some cameras) may well be a good way to go.
|
Theoretically, sure. But in certain days (cloudy changing to more cloudy) the differences are usually not significant, just enough to make the camera think it should compensate for the different light. If you leave it on a preset WB, the changing light will only change the images a little bit, but in AWB it seems to be more obvious. I usually pick daylight WB if it's intermittant sun, because film is balanced for daylight and it manages to look pretty natural in other light. |
|
|
11/19/2007 12:01:34 AM · #38 |
Same here. I have noticed my skin tones are always red... not just to warm but red red! It made for a LOT of post processing of over 600 wedding shots and a few hundred shots of a play (I have yet to do)
I am starting to realize I may need to take wb into my own hands...
Originally posted by NikonJeb: Maybe I don't know what the heck I'm doing, but I *always* have AWB on, and that's one of the first things that I do in processing in RAW at the same time that I'm setting hues, saturation, shadows, and curves.
And all of those adjustments change what I do with the white balance 'til I get the image the way I want it. I do most of my color work in RAW *because* of being able to adjust the WB. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 12:25:25 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti: Originally posted by Mr_Pants:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
From what I've seen in the RAW converter, when you do that, the temperature is in fact the same.
|
... if the lighting is the same in the first place. |
Actually no. When copying settings from one image to another the actual numbers are copied. |
That's the same as using a fixed white balance setting in the first place.
|
|
|
11/19/2007 12:36:57 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Mr_Pants: Originally posted by cpanaioti: Originally posted by Mr_Pants:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
From what I've seen in the RAW converter, when you do that, the temperature is in fact the same.
|
... if the lighting is the same in the first place. |
Actually no. When copying settings from one image to another the actual numbers are copied. |
That's the same as using a fixed white balance setting in the first place. |
If you set it by temperature, but not by name. If you set it by name (in camera) then the temperature value will be different depending on the scene.
I'm done here.
Believe what you want. Process how you want. |
|
|
11/19/2007 01:10:34 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by Tlemetry: Same here. I have noticed my skin tones are always red... not just to warm but red red! It made for a LOT of post processing of over 600 wedding shots and a few hundred shots of a play (I have yet to do)
I am starting to realize I may need to take wb into my own hands...
|
Well, I use AWB on camera and adjust in RAW conversion, whether it be to a preset (flash, daylight, etc) or using a set neutral point, such as the WhiBal then I set the other params (shadows, curves, etc). In a Lightroom workflow, I can process 400-500 image wedding in about 3-4 hours. I seriously doubt setting a WB setting in-camera would change that much.
Now, as far as the reds go, watch your monitor calibration, that is often the culprit. I also suggest getting a WhiBal(or a neutral gray card) too. It's REALLY gonna help with those formal shots, as far as consistency and speed of processing go.
Message edited by author 2007-11-19 01:10:58.
|
|
|
11/19/2007 01:32:58 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by dwterry: So if we "shout" this message loud enough ... do ya think we can convince everyone to turn off AWB? :-) |
I think you've convinced me - I'm not everyone, but I believe I am someone! I have been lazy in this regard even though I think Canon's AWB is awful. |
|
|
11/19/2007 04:25:34 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by dwterry: Auto White Balance is an Abomination! |
Add auto-aperture and auto focus as well.
Anything thats prefixed with the word "auto" is prone to failure.
bazz. |
|
|
11/19/2007 04:43:47 AM · #44 |
Dupe post- ignore
Message edited by author 2007-11-19 04:44:43. |
|
|
11/19/2007 04:44:22 AM · #45 |
I used a setting OTHER than AWB once, then a couple of days later, I was out shooting again and forgot to switch it back to AWB and had a lovely set of blue tinted photos!
AWB works for me and then correcting in LR - I guess in a studio situation its good to lock your WB down, but otherwise I am happy `fixing` (not that its broken) it in Post-processing.
Its no biggy to me to be honest and calling it an "Abomination" is being slightly hysterical. |
|
|
11/19/2007 04:57:52 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by sir_bazz: Originally posted by dwterry: Auto White Balance is an Abomination! |
Add auto-aperture and auto focus as well.
Anything thats prefixed with the word "auto" is prone to failure.
bazz. |
Hey don't diss the AF, not all of us have 20/20 vision. "Auto" only fails when the operator fails to know when not to trust the equipment's judgment.
AE for example is just as accurate as manual exposure, if the operator knows where in the scene to get the exposure reading from. It's as accurate as the built-in light meter.
AF is deadly accurate on all but faulty equipment, if you keep an eye on your focus points and make sure you get AF lock.
MOST photojournalist run their cameras in aperture or shutter priority and with AF and AWB on. Why, because it can get the shot most of the time. Just got to be smarter than the equipment*.
*Not saying that you're not or that I am:-)
|
|
|
11/19/2007 05:02:25 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by sir_bazz: Originally posted by dwterry: Auto White Balance is an Abomination! |
Add auto-aperture and auto focus as well.
Anything thats prefixed with the word "auto" is prone to failure.
bazz. |
So when manually focussing on a moving object you have a better hit ratio than the auto-focus.. nah, dont believe it. I trust my AF 100% to hit at least ~95% of all shots. |
|
|
11/19/2007 05:55:02 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by Mr_Pants: 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. |
The RAW converters (or the ones I use, anyway) by default display the images with whatever WB is set in camera at the time of shooting. If you use AWB when shooting different zooms of the hypothetical sunset scene, for example, this will give you a series of images of the same scene that are rendered in various tonalities depending on the balance between the bright areas and the dark areas, which (in the hypothetical instance) are very differently colored.
Now, you COULD select all images in the series and apply a global WB change at the outset to get them synchronized, then choose one of them to fine tune, then apply THOSE settings to the remainder of the images in the series so they all are fine-tuned to the same value, but that just involves an extra step.
You are correct that you can take the extra step to synchronize them before fine-tuning, and you are also correct that you can pick ONE image of the group, fine-tune it, and apply the settings to the rest of the group.
However, there's more than white balance at work here; there's also the question of EXPOSURE, whether the image is an over or an under in the bracketing sequence. And it's true that optimum white balance may well vary depending on the exposure level of the image. So I prefer to have all of the given series set tot he same WB before I do any fine-tuning.
It's just easier to evaluate the images from the outset if they are shot to a fixed WB. It's just the way I do it.
R.
Message edited by author 2007-11-19 05:55:20.
|
|
|
11/19/2007 06:34:53 AM · #49 |
To be honest, if I am shooting at a wedding, I havent got time for faffing about with WB and all that nonsense.. I'd much rather sit down in front of LR with a glass of vino worrying about white-balance, than bouncing around in front of a B+G worrying about that (and a hundred other things).. Granted if shooting landscapes you can afford that few extra minutes to sort out WB issues. But most of the time AWB is good for me. |
|
|
11/19/2007 06:38:55 AM · #50 |
All of the photogs in the company I work for use AWB but the photos are corrected if need be in the lab.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 06:37:41 PM EDT.