manual white balance

[Overgaard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For RAW images (dng) - doing something in the camera has an effect on the image? Not my understanding of how RAW works....

 

It would be quite simple to do an experiment.

 

Shoot three images of the same scenery at 200 ISO. One where you set the camera to 3200K, one where you set it to 7000K and then one where you use manual white balance.

 

Then do the same where you have the camera set at 800 ISO.

 

Now, see in Lightroom how those images will look when adjusted to proper white balance.

 

You will see that the one with manual doesn't require any work, unless you want to change the actual look into something warmer or colder.

 

But what you will notice is that your colors will not be as correct and clear in the ones adjusted from 3200K or 7000K - or you might have trouble.

 

In daylight and with a well-lit scenery at 200 ISO (close to base ISO of the camera) you can get away with it. As soon as you start climbing ISO it will be harder and harder. And if the scenery is dark, it will be increasingly tough to get the colors and tonality right (because the less light, the less information).

 

There's been great commercial interests in selling the idea that RAW solves everything.

 

Simply said, the reason Leica lenses are great is that they capture the true image. They manage to control light rays and colors (to a large degree) without alteration or degradation.

 

But in fact you could do with less expensive lenses and fix colors, sharpness and all in PS.

 

For great many images you can get away with shooting RAW and "fix it later" - a lot of photojournalists does this every day - but if you get the WB and exposure right so you make the image in the camera, you save a lot of time and don't have to wonder where in the adjustment you hit how it actually looked in real life. This becomes particular true when you work with a series of images where the auto WB picks up different light sources and thus goes up and down. Then every image becomes a question of "which way should this be adjusted"

 

This is from a 1250 ISO series I did a late night in Copenhagen on the streets where I had set the white balance to begin with. Most of them are ready, some are influenced to some degree from incoming light from yellow street light, blue neon and such. But the majority was final pictures, ready to use without further work. The first one is lit from a shop window.

 

Now, the second Before/After is shot at 3000 K originally, then adjusted in Lightroom to 2150 K. The light sources are mixed with actual yellow street light from above, front lights from cars, tungsten and halogen lights from around, neon lights and all, so that alone makes it tough to get clear and clean colors even there is PLENTY of grey material to adjust from. But moving from 3000K ... where do you go? When is it right, and then you get into graphic images because it could look great with a tint of bluish, or we could turn those dials on contrast and all get get something cool looking. I saw a lot of Nikon shooters doing that with concert photos at the recent Roskilde Festival; turning them into graphic representations (because they can't get the true colors anyways). Looks cool if you like it, but it's not how it looked. And when the stage light changes all the time from tungsten to blue to red and yellow, your auto WB will go many interesting places ;-)

 

In any case: the experiment above will show the limitations in RAW. And that was the point. You can't get as clean and true colors in Lightroom as in the camea.

 

Adjustments should be a tool not to arrive at the starting point, but a tool to depart from the original.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Overgaard]

No, this is not true ;-)

Pls watch eg.: Digital Photography - How to Shoot Raw

 

 

No.

Grey card should be used how it was designed - for exposure metering.

White wall - I really congratulate - if you will find exactly white wall in a church, room, hall, etc. If you want to use such approach (which I use quite often):

- or use designed for WB metering pattern (eg. CBL Lends)

- or white, not developed photograhic paper

Then you can measure light reflected from a subject.

 

Another option is using Expodisc or ViviCap - by pointing against source of light.

 

Anyway, it works only if you have stable, similar lighting condition. Imagine wedding: in one minute - you can start outside, then mix of day and artificial, ending with mostly artificial. On top on that, on some pictures you will see light coming from videographer too, probably different than halogens from church ceiling.

 

 

No :-)

Pls buy any LR video training. Quick and easy way to become more familiar with both: RAW and LR itself.

Or watch Digital Photography - How to Shoot Raw - there is a lot of information of LR too.

 

Best Regards,

Jerry

 

I feel we're arguing on words here. The "grey card" exist both as 18% grey for light metering (and I'll stay away from the controversary if it should really be 12% because I use external lightmeter anyways and never grey cards for exposure metering), and then as grey cards for white balance, as the WhiBal.

 

For the record, the WhiBal is neither 18% or 12% because I asked the other day. And it's none of them but just a neutral greyish card.

 

And neutral is really the word too look for when doing manual WB. You point the camera towards a neutral surface so as to measure the light so the camera can adjust it to daylight white.

 

ExpoDisc and other measures work just as well (capturing the light on the disc in front of the lens), so does white paper, white walls and grey surfaces to the degree they're neutral. White paper and white walls are never neutral, but if it's all you got, it's the best you got.

 

It's all about giving the camera information about the color of the light so as to adjust to daylight white.

 

As for the wedding problem, I've tried that. Having a wedding reception in one room with tungsten and candlelight, having a portrait shoot of all the guests next door with daylight lamps. Now, it happens so that when you do the portraits, the married couple decides to cut the wedding cake, and what do you do with your daylight set camera you're going to use again in a moment for more daylight (and you want to keep the daylight setting consistent so you can work all the portraits as one batch in Lightroom)? My solution was to use another camera for the tungsten so they daylight setting could stay the same.

 

But if you gotta go, you gotta go. And then deal with it in Lightroom after. It's better having the shot of the couple cutting the cake than an image of a greycard

 

As for Lightroom and individual work on each picture: If you have a continuos series of pictures with the same lighting conditions (like I had with the above portrait shoot of 80 couples), you can adjust the whole series in one go. And even I had actually used greycard for manual WB adjusting to the daylight lamps, I did decide to adjust both exposure and white balance a bit, but I did so for the full series in one go.

 

Had I shot that same series on auto WB the camera might have gone up and down in kelvin depending depending if the couple in the picture wore a yellow, red, black or blue dress. Or picked up some of the tungsten or halogen light in the image. Because the camera couldn't "see" the strong daylight light sources. And then you get into what I call individual work and decisionmaking on each pictures.

 

 

Now, for 80 couples in the exact same light, even if shot on auto WB I could actually adjust all of them into the same white balance from different white balances and get a decent result. If you get one adjusted to the exact look, you can apply that look to the whole series as you point out. And as there was plenty of light, it would look ok.

 

But I did choose to shoot with manual WB setting, correct exposure and low ISO on all of them. Because I could, and because it's the optimum result with less work.

 

In all types of manual WB one will have to decide which is the key light, and how to measure it in a way so the camera can "see" it and adjust. If you shoot people around a table with tungsten light and there's big windows with daylight coming in; which is the correct white balance. If you are focusing the the people around the table and their face, the WB has to be set based on the light that hit their faces (majority of tungsten with some daylight cooling it down). But if its the room with some people around tables, it's the daylight with some smaller amount of tungsten warming it up and you would manual WB somewhere inside the room where the light hitting the grey card, disc or whatever represents that mix.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Jerry_R]

It would be quite simple to do an experiment.

Very interesting, I did exactly such test about month ago with Panasonic GH1 and earlier with 5D II. Also on high ISO. Results were exactly opposite to yours.

No matter what WB was set - after alligning in LR results were similar. Maybe M9 produces RAWs differently? Did you use compression?

 

Anyway, I will try to repeat it tonight and let you know.

[Overgaard]

Very interesting, I did exactly such test about month ago with Panasonic GH1 and earlier with 5D II. Also on high ISO. Results were exactly opposite to yours.

No matter what WB was set - after alligning in LR results were similar. Maybe M9 produces RAWs differently? Did you use compression?

 

Anyway, I will try to repeat it tonight and let you know.

 

Would be interesting. Particular weak lighting (dark places) with high ISO should cause you trouble. Interesting if it doesn't.

[Ro1and]

I know this is the M9 forum, but does anyone know how to set the white balance using a expodisc on a M8?

Thanks

Roland

[Jerry_R]

Sorry for delay. I have tested the behaviour with M9, DNG uncompressed.

 

ISO 1000. Room with tungsten light. I made 3 shots with manual WB setting in Kelvin in camera as:

- 2000

- 5000

- 10100

 

I opened 3 DNGs in LR and alligned all to the same WB: 2200. All LOOK THE SAME.

Including darker areas, where noice appeared. I did repeat that with ISO 2000, the same behaviour.

 

I must say - as I mentioned I did similar test with another camera, exactly because I heard from someone else, that WB affects RAWs and noise. It is possible, that it occured in past, with earlier cameras. But now - at least with GH1 and M9 - it isn't.

 

If you want - I can send you RAWs.

 

Best Regards,

Jerry_R

[rob_w]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I must say I like the idea of the Expodisc but I am concerned about needing to take incident light readings all the time. It does seem like it would be a hassle to walk over to the subject, take a light reading, then walk back to the shooting position, every time a variation in lighting makes it necessary.

 

I can see doing this in a studio setting, but not in general circumstances.

 

Could someone who uses the Expodisc comment -- how do you blend it into your photographic approach?

 

Thanks

 

Robert

[lars_bergquist]

I must say I like the idea of the Expodisc but I am concerned about needing to take incident light readings all the time. It does seem like it would be a hassle to walk over to the subject, take a light reading, then walk back to the shooting position, every time a variation in lighting makes it necessary.

 

I can see doing this in a studio setting, but not in general circumstances.

 

Could someone who uses the Expodisc comment -- how do you blend it into your photographic approach?

 

Thanks

 

Robert

 

The only time neither auto WB or any camera pre-set works, is with energy saving bulbs, and other non-standard light sources. I do not yet know the range of the new bulbs -- they could well be all over the place, as different manuifacturers can use different mixes of phosphors -- but up to know I have had good success with balancing from my Osram bulbs, and incorporating that WB into a user profile. It is simple to call up that profile whe the main lighting comes from these infernal bulbs, and it does at least put you into the ballpark, where PP adjustments are possible.

 

So I do NOT WB all shots manually. The ExpoDisc simply travels unobtrusively in a nook in my bag, in case of need. It does also make it unnecessary to carry a hand meter with incident capability, as the disc can be used to set exposure level too. Measuring incident light is sometimes the only way to ensure that your highlights won't be blown. It frees you completely from the complication of backgrounds with wildly varying reflectances -- the famous 'baker in a snowdrift' syndrome, and its opposite, 'black cat in the coal-hole'. We have lots of snowdrifts here in Sweden just now.

 

The old man from the Age of Selenium Meters

[xtoph]

It would be quite simple to do an experiment.

 

[...]

 

In any case: the experiment above will show the limitations in RAW. And that was the point. You can't get as clean and true colors in Lightroom as in the camea.

 

Adjustments should be a tool not to arrive at the starting point, but a tool to depart from the original.

 

okay, i did your experiment with my new m9. it shows the opposite result from what you describe. that is, using a raw file (compressed) egregiously incorrectly white balanced under dim artificial light at iso1250, compared with a file shot with a manually set white balance, there is no difficulty getting precisely the same result in lightroom by adjusting the white balance of the first shot after the fact.

 

this is how raw works on the other cameras i have used, and i'd have been surprised if leica was doing it differently.

 

what you are saying here seems to represent a pretty basic misunderstanding of what raw is afaik. the raw file contains the same data that the camera uses to adjust white balance when you set it in the camera. adjusting it later in lr or aperture or cap1 or whatever is not a compromise--unless you shoot jpg. (there might be situations where the compressed dng is slightly less malleable than the uncompressed one, but i haven't done enough experiments yet to see if there is any practical difference.)

 

i still find whibal cards useful in tricky situations, but i don't bother to set the camera white balance with them; i just snap a reference frame whenever i remember to, so that i can use the eyedropper tool later and stamp the adjustment on as many other raw frames as were made in the same light.

 

there may be an advantage to setting white balance in camera if you need to judge a very tricky exposure accurately. otherwise, adjusting raw white balance in post is not a kludge or workaround; on the contrary it is a preferable approach when quality is paramount. you simply don't have the tools to fine-tune the white balance in camera the way you do on a computer with a decent monitor. for people standing in the same spot under mixed light for example, a different white balance may be optimal when they turn their head left, as when they turn to the right. raw lets you make that call when you have ample time and resources, leaving you to concentrate on more important things you cannot change after the fact while you are shooting.

[Overgaard]

Seem I am wrong and have some homework to do.

 

I'll have a look on how ISO an WB separately and together influence quality. I might mix up the effect of adjusting WB with adjusting exposure because and I wonder how they work together. Basically then the image is un-processed in the RAW, which means a base ISO image (160 ISO or whatever the cameras base ISO is) and hen recording of the light by default. And then it's up to the RAW processor (Lightroom, Aperture etc) how well the interpolation of ISO goes ... and basically also how the colors are 'translated' (in general and in each color temperature).

 

And if shooting color or B&W JPGs it's the camera that determines how it looks, of course.

 

Will be interesting to experiment with.

 

Shooting a reference frame without setting the WB is an interesting approach, which would give the same result then.

 

However, not shooting a reference frame would imply work finding out what the actual WB should be.

[xtoph]

I'll have a look on how ISO an WB separately and together influence quality. I might mix up the effect of adjusting WB with adjusting exposure because and I wonder how they work together. Basically then the image is un-processed in the RAW, which means a base ISO image (160 ISO or whatever the cameras base ISO is) and hen recording of the light by default. And then it's up to the RAW processor (Lightroom, Aperture etc) how well the interpolation of ISO goes ... and basically also how the colors are 'translated' (in general and in each color temperature).

[...]

Shooting a reference frame without setting the WB is an interesting approach, which would give the same result then.

 

However, not shooting a reference frame would imply work finding out what the actual WB should be.

 

since i almost always shoot manual exposure, setting the white balance in camera will not generally affect my exposure (though as i said above, in extreme cases i may set wb just to have a better histogram to go on). if shooting in aperture priority, then setting wb could indeed have an effect on exposure, possibly resulting in a change between clipping or not clipping some color channels, which in turn would affect the ability to adjust wb later in raw.

 

btw, i don't believe that the raw file is simply a base iso exposure (at least, it isn't in the canons i am used to). in general, some hardware signal processing and amplification goes into different sensitivity settings, so raw files at different iso settings will be different.

 

otoh, i used to read how some people would underexpose the m8 files by two stops at base iso and then raise them back up in cap1--alleged to be a good way to extend/preserve highlight detail, w/o affecting shadow noise. i can't vouch for that, but if true it might imply that at least with the m8, the first two stops of increased sensitivity were achieved purely by post-processing, rather than hardware amplification and processing. or not.

[Jerry_R]

We can differentiate at least 3 sets of ISOs, no matter what camera, simply some cameras do not use all 3:

- artificially downsized (eg. 80 or 100 in some cameras - Olympus, Leica, Nikon)

- normal sensor output (most often from 100 - Canon or 160 - Leica or 200 - Olympus, Nikon) till ... 400, 800, 1600 - depends on manufacturer

- artificially pumped up (most often 3200, 6400, but sometimes even 1600)

 

When shooting JPGs - doesn't matter. When shooting RAW's - if only possible - makes sense to use only normal sensor output. All other are fakes.

Some producers inform about artificial ISOs, like Canon about TOP ISOs of 5D II, or Olympus and Leica of LOW ISOs.

 

It was broadly discussed on DP Review few times.

 

Eg. ISO 100 on Olympus, Nikon or 80 on Leica - is still using sensor at start native ISO (200 Olympus and Nikon, 160 Leica) but:

1) applying proper TONE CURVE

2) applying EXPOSURE alligning

by compliant RAW developer.

 

Another words - when you set 80 or 100 - camera still uses 160 or 200 but underexposes picture. It was proved several times, when such RAWs were opened by DCRAW with AUTO turned off and appeared dark.

And on the other side - using top ISOs (eg. 3200, 6400) - camera still amplifies sensor only to its maximum, which can be eg. 1600. And picture is brightened and has proper tone curve applied in compliant RAW developer.

 

So as you see - you can do this all by yourself, probably better, under full control - during RAW developing. But sometimes - you can observe your results are worse. It happens - when you only use EXPOSURE slider. Do not forget about TONE CURVE too. And in some cases about noise removing (which different manufacturers do with RAWs too, but often do not admit officially).