AWB still OWB

[Kent10D]

That's "Occasional White Balance."

Really, it doesn't bother me that much because I shoot RAW and adjust important shots in PP anyway, but this one really surprised me. Today, shooting in daylight under an almost cloudless sky, I got the variation seen below. I've seen this type of thing in mixed lighting, but this was a few seconds apart with essentially no variation in framing or lighting at all.

I straightened these a bit, but no other PP has been applied (I didn't even spot out the nasty dust spots in the sky ... time to clean the sensor). Using firmware 1.110.

Like I said, no biggie really, and it's a throw-away shot, but it does confirm the current status of the firmware with regard to AWB.

I can wait ...

[jaapv]

Leica claims no changes to AWB in the latest firmware. Just set WB to daylight and pretend you have a roll of Kodachrome in your camera

[Kent10D]

Originally Posted by jaapv

Leica claims no changes to AWB in the latest firmware. Just set WB to daylight and pretend you have a roll of Kodachrome in your camera

Hyuck ... thanks Jaap.
For some reason I was under the impression that some AWB tweaks had been made, but I guess I was wrong. I really haven't seen this problem much at all, so I've just left the camera set to Auto WB most of the time, but I think I'll probably follow your advice from now on.

[j. borger]

Pictures with "correct" WB are not always the most pleasing ones and often very boring.
How warm and cold you want the colors to look is part of the photographers' creative toolbox ..........
Which of the 2 you posted is the correct one? I do not care....
Which is the most pleasing? I like to control/ decide that myself...
So there is realy only one correct way to handle WB and that is to shoot raw and decide for yourself in post.......like you already seem to do

[jaapv]

Hyuck

[Kent10D]

Originally Posted by jaapv

Hyuck

Whoops, sorry Jaap. Not exactly a universal expression is it ...
It's just a chuckle, laugh, chortle, or all of the above. No deep meaning at all.
I really must learn to use more widely-accepted forms of expression. Sorry for the confusion.

And Han,
You're right, and I often tweak the WB to create a warmer or cooler image, according to the atmosphere I'm trying to convey. I was just surprised by the very wide discrepancy between the images I posted. I hadn't seen that big a difference in images taken in daylight before.
(and just for the record, the second, warmer version is closest to what I was seeing.)

Thanks for the feedback.

[hdrmd]

I agree with observation about AWB. Many times I have noticed a difference in consecutive shots. Not just a small diffeerence, but I have had the one shot at 3800K and the next one at 7400. But, as you say, if you shoot in Raw it makes very little difference. DR

[pelikan1931]

to say shooting RAW will save the day is just like saying to someone whose auto focus camera has just broken down that he can always focus manually. how can you be sure you will get color temperature as well as the tint right in post production? if WB does not matter, then the same should apply to metering too, right? because "if you shoot RAW, you can adjust it later".

[hdrmd]

I think of the proper White Balance as the one that suits me, that is to say, the one that looks right. I don't think of it as a set number. Anyway, that is what I mean about shooting Raw: you can set it after the fact. However, I do think the AWB could a lot more consistent than it is. DR

[Alberti]

Originally Posted by hdrmd

I agree with observation about AWB. Many times I have noticed a difference in consecutive shots. Not just a small diffeerence, but I have had the one shot at 3800K and the next one at 7400. But, as you say, if you shoot in Raw it makes very little difference. DR

I have this effect when I take a shot from another angle. More than half of my pictures are standing; I found out that even with the same subject in the center the one with the bottom plate to the right or left differ dramatically. But of course this is because the sensor area is just off center.
albert

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by pelikan1931

to say shooting RAW will save the day is just like saying to someone whose auto focus camera has just broken down that he can always focus manually. how can you be sure you will get color temperature as well as the tint right in post production? if WB does not matter, then the same should apply to metering too, right? because "if you shoot RAW, you can adjust it later".

As it happens a camera with a broken autofocus would be my favorite...
Seriously: this question is moot. The colour balance is a decision the photographer must make in the light of his/her interpretation of the subject. Just as there is no "correct" exposure, there is no "correct" white balance either. You make the call and judge whether temperature and tint are right in the end, not some goblin in your camera. That is something totally different from "does not matter". However,when developing raw, there is more latitude in adjusting whitebalance than there is in adjusting exposure regarding dynamic range, so in that sense it "matters less"

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by pelikan1931

.... how can you be sure you will get color temperature as well as the tint right in post production? .....

Because [or so I have always thought] that's part of being a photographer; using the tools of our trade with skill, talent, direction, and experience. It's certainly less difficult than darkroom printing colour negatives was.

.................. Chris

[Alberti]

Originally Posted by jaapv

Leica claims no changes to AWB in the latest firmware. Just set WB to daylight and pretend you have a roll of Kodachrome in your camera

Jaap, I do indeed sometimes select a 'film type' (but do not use profiles.) This way I overcome the most dramatic shifts - which are with pictures based on greens in the background that I habitually choose for the metering (often a part that is the right grey-tone in B/W) while forgetting that the AWB is also set.
But even then, the outcome (tint/hue) is not always fantastic. Changing everything in post processing is OK but my screen becomes part of the problem (rendering).

My observation: the resetting of the colour balance also seems to need a larger file: i.e. the extra 6 bits are added again -with interpolation- it seems, thus changing the picture quality. (Sandy 'Cornerfix' mentions this too, as the effect of de-cyanising).
So if this is the way we should go then the files should not be compressed to haldf the bit depth.
Thát should be a simple improvement of a next firmware!
alberti

[jaapv]

Chris, I still use my set of complementary colour filters by Kodak (you know, the ones one used to hold over the test strip to judge filtering) from time to time in front of my monitor to judge colour. Shows my age I suppose.

[stephengilbert]

Don't get angry now, but while I agree that AWB isn't a big deal, I think there is a value in having a captured image that reflects what the subject looked like in the light that existed when shot. Even if one might rarely use that unadjusted WB, it would be nice to be able to see it when processing later. No?

I often use a WhiBal card or ExpoDisk because I'd like to get a "true" WB. I may change it later, but I usually don't. It may be that AWB will never be perfect (and I never use it) but it would be nice if the camera could do what the ExpoDisk does.

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by Alberti

Jaap, I do indeed sometimes select a 'film type' (but do not use profiles.) This way I overcome the most dramatic shifts - which are with pictures based on greens in the background that I habitually choose for the metering (often a part that is the right grey-tone in B/W) while forgetting that the AWB is also set.
But even then, the outcome (tint/hue) is not always fantastic. Changing everything in post processing is OK but my screen becomes part of the problem (rendering).

My observation: the resetting of the colour balance also seems to need a larger file: i.e. the extra 6 bits are added again -with interpolation- it seems, thus changing the picture quality. (Sandy 'Cornerfix' mentions this too, as the effect of de-cyanising).
So if this is the way we should go then the files should not be compressed to haldf the bit depth.
Thát should be a simple improvement of a next firmware!
alberti

Sorry Alberti, I don't get this. Afaik the DNG file is always 10.3 Mb, and I have never observed any difference in the 16 bit TIFF file I output from C1 after shifting colour balance. I would be interested if you could elaborate.

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by stephengilbert

Don't get angry now, but while I agree that AWB isn't a big deal, I think there is a value in having a captured image that reflects what the subject looked like in the light that existed when shot. Even if one might rarely use that unadjusted WB, it would be nice to be able to see it when processing later. No?

I often use a WhiBal card or ExpoDisk because I'd like to get a "true" WB. I may change it later, but I usually don't. It may be that AWB will never be perfect (and I never use it) but it would be nice if the camera could do what the ExpoDisk does.

Angry about a legitimate opinion? Never It may be that I have been shooting - and printing- slides and film for so long that this is wasted on me. After all, a film has just one colour balance.

[Alberti]

Originally Posted by jaapv

Sorry Alberti, I don't get this. Afaik the DNG file is always 10.3 Mb, and I have never observed any difference in the 16 bit TIFF file I output from C1 after shifting colour balance. I would be interested if you could elaborate.

Jaap, Agree about the DNG, stays the same, but the JPEG sizes do seem to change from e.g. 3.5 Mb to sometimed 7-8 Mb after some tweking. The only way I can think this happens is by stuffing extra bits in the process somewhere (in Phase One)
The extra bits (as I see them) are needed in the rendering of the new tonal image.
I have not used a TIFF file as output.
alberti

[mjh]