Another WB question…….

[lepremier]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There seems to be more discussions regarding white balance than any other topic. I must admit that since I’ve had my M8, about two months now, I have learnt more about this subject than ever before thanks to all you smart and informative guys out there.

I see that there was a new download from Leica in the last couple of days, v 1.091 and a few of you have reported an improvement on certain issues, including WB. I’m on the beach in Thailand at the moment, greetings from Khaolak… shooting like crazy. Finally to the point……yesterday I found that with a group of shots (post v 1.091) no two, of the same subject, seemed to be the same regarding the WB and the light was not changing that quickly. I don’t ever remember having such problems with my D200, can anyone explain this? Or am even I becoming more discerning!

Being a recent convert to Leica, I can sympathise with the person who wrote on the forum yesterday….”anyone want to buy my M8” !! I really love the camera, it’s ease of use (apart from missing my zoomers) and quality BUT it seems to be a highly frustrating learning curve…thank goodness for the Leica Digital Forum.

[Advertisement]

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

[barjohn]

I haven't seen this but there is a difference betwen using IR cut filters and not using them and whether you are using the JPGs or the RAW files.

[lars_bergquist]

Life is getting more and more complicated. I remember when there were only two white balances: Kodachrome Daylight and Kodachrome Tungsten. How the devil did we cope?

 

I tend to use preset WBs: Daylight and Cloudy. For tungsten, I set manually to 3000 K because I don't want lighted interiors to look like daylight -- normally. We also have lots of low sun illumination (60°N, you know) and my Minolta Color Meter II says 3500 K or so. No experience with fluorescents so far. Flash looks OK with either Flash or Daylight -- that was what we used with flash way back in the analog days, remember?

 

Sometimes I think that this WB thing amounts to a neurosis. We did live with some variation when we shot reversal film. Only commercial photogs did lug three-channel color meters and a trunk full of CC filters. I don't mean to say that we should accept wildly discoloured pictures of course, only that we should be reasonable in our expectations.

 

Think of when the public thought the impressionist painters were crazy because the painted shadows blue? Everybody knew that proper bourgeois shadows were grey! Now we have proper modern shadows -- and they're BLUE!

 

The old man from the Age of Oil Paint

[Jamie Roberts]

I haven't seen this but there is a difference betwen using IR cut filters and not using them and whether you are using the JPGs or the RAW files.

 

John, is this true when using a custom white balance? And only for 1.091, right (still under development?)

 

I suspect the RAW / JPEG difference is, at least partly, just the camera settings; RAWs never look much like the JPEG out of the camera (because they're developed, after all), though there shouldn't be that much difference from a custom WB.

[Jamie Roberts]

Life is getting more and more complicated. I remember when there were only two white balances: Kodachrome Daylight and Kodachrome Tungsten. How the devil did we cope?

 

I tend to use preset WBs: Daylight and Cloudy. For tungsten, I set manually to 3000 K because I don't want lighted interiors to look like daylight -- normally. We also have lots of low sun illumination (60°N, you know) and my Minolta Color Meter II says 3500 K or so. No experience with fluorescents so far. Flash looks OK with either Flash or Daylight -- that was what we used with flash way back in the analog days, remember?

 

{snipped}

 

Great post! And of course the way we coped was with CC filters or black and white film

 

So true about WB and presetting; AWB is almost always wrong--wrong technically (not the right colour temperature) and artistically (don't always want 100% neutral WB, like in a sunset).

 

Flourescents, BTW, seem to be fabulous lights for digital (there's even starting to be lines of flourescent studio lights). They run cool, they're energy efficient, and can be stabilised nicely, and with custom WB they look great. Doesn't seem to be much IR either.

 

Finally, natural black and grey is almost never actually neutral black and grey--there's usually some colour imparted by surroundings or by reflections or by light or even--yes--by sensor design (and I'm not talking the M8 magenta either).

 

Unless, of course, you grey balance to something in the scene that appears black, or grey (which is a great idea for neutral custom WB, but not, as mentioned above, always what you want).

[jaapv]

I see what Peter means, even the more stable whitebalance in 1.091 makes the shooting of DNG's nearly mandatory. AWB is of course influenced by what the camera thinks it sees and will thus vary per shot. I have taken now to shooting a grey/white/black card in my first shot when I have the chance. That makes life at the keyboard a lot easier.

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey Jaap--

 

Wow--I just saw your post change before my eyes! And without an edited mark

 

Anyway, right now, Peter, the only way to shoot JPEGs consistently--in order of preference--is by just shooting a custom white balance, by setting the color temperature or by selecting the preset (eg. "daylight").

 

Shoot a custom WB and as long as the light doesn't change a lot you'll get consistent results.

 

Having said that, using a non-approved version of the firmware means You Mileage May Vary--a lot.

[jaapv]

Jamie, I removed the screw on my flash shoe, just like Guy to create a black hole