Auto White Balance - poor performance

[Tim B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I haven't notice this in the Q forum yet - apologies if I've missed.

 

Of all my digital cameras I find the Q the worst by far in Auto White Balance. Daylight is fine, tungsten light is too warm, fluorescent varies but is usually too green.

 

Of course I can do manual adjustments and settings, but with most of my other cameras AWB is good enough for a start in most conditions and is much quicker to use than having to reset white balance all the time.

 

Otherwise I'm loving my Q, even with the loose LCD.

 

Anyone else find the same with AWB?

 

Tim

[thighslapper]

Not really ....... just looked through all my images in LR and the DNG's with default LR processing all look fine to me. I've had to tinker with no more than I would usually expect. Indoor lit AWB is certainly better than the M240..... but there again Leica have hardly been leaders in this field in the past .....

 

Some interior church shots in very overcast natural light possibly a bit cold ...... but the Q generally has a very similar AWB profile as the M240, X-Vario and T ..... and they have the same tendencies/traits ........ so I may be locked into a Leica view of the world which I think is fine through habituation  ........ 

 

I have a large past portfolio of old Nikon shots ..... and they all look rather strange colour-wise now compared to Leica output.

 

Despite what no doubt will be said I am not convinced that there is absolutely 'correct' colour balance and palette as far as photography goes ...... there are just too many variables (from lens right through to print/monitor) and subjective factors to be dogmatic about this subject.

[viramati]

Have to say that I am find AWB to almost be above average in it's accuracy. At the end to the day it is an 'auto' setting so 100% accuracy is not going to be there

[Adalsteinn S.H.]

Actually have to disagree here. I really think the WB of the Q is among the best ones I've seen as I nearly ever need to correct the WB in pp. But of course, as with everything else, this might be a question of personal preference.

[jaapv]

AWB on fluorescent is always awful on all cameras - not because of the cameras, but because of the light, which is not only discontinuous, but cycles as well. Tungsten - compare only under real tungsten light. Not halogen, not LED.

[Tim B]

Thanks all for your responses. It is interesting to hear your experiences.

 

I'm aware of the points made about fluorescent lights and that AWB is only approximate. That's usually good enough for me for a start.

 

Tungsten is the big one for me as I shoot a lot indoors and I find the adjustment insufficient for my taste, the light is still quite warm. Perhaps I've got used to my OMD which gives the further option to remove the yellow cast over and above the standard Tungsten balance when using AWB.

 

The Q's excellent high ISO performance makes flash even less necessary - hence my increased awareness of AWB effects.

 

What I have noticed is that when there is something like a window in an otherwise indoor scene with artificial lighting AWB struggles to make a choice - or at least my choice. I know, I should choose a setting other than Auto and not be lazy. I notice this more with the Q than my other cameras.

 

Still getting used to the Q so further observations required, but I did have some good results photographing family in a Sea Life Centre yesterday with very mixed lighting! (BTW the family weren't in the tanks   )

 

Thanks again,

 

Tim

[kkonkkrete]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

AWB on the M9 was also crazily different than other cameras.  But actually a really nice look.  Sometimes better, sometimes worse.  IMO, for tough lighting conditions, go manual, it's almost always more reliable than AWB.

[azuled]

AWB on the M9 was also crazily different than other cameras.  But actually a really nice look.  Sometimes better, sometimes worse.  IMO, for tough lighting conditions, go manual, it's almost always more reliable than AWB.

 

I found the M9 AWB to be so preposterous that I just set it to 5600k and left it at that for the year and a half I owned it.  I haven't tried the Q, but Leica has at least made serious strides, the M240 seems to at least pick AWB settings that look good (to me).

[jaapv]

Being a photographer from the film era I tend to set WB to daylight and leave it there. AWB is an utter irrelevancy as one needs to adjust the colours to the subject, subject to the photographer's preferences. In things like product photography etc. it is obvious that colours must be as exact as possible, hence the existence of colour cards like the Gretag-Macbeth, but otherwise it is an artistic choice anyway.

[mjh]

AWB isn’t designed to neutralise tungsten, halogen, or fluorescent lighting. But then, no AWB from any vendor is. Never expect to get perfect results from AWB outside its intended range.

[AndrewDD]

I don't use AWB as I am producing sets of images and I want them to be consistant. I mostly use greycard, and have found that to be very poor on the Q, almost to the point of giving up on the camera. The results seem to vary wildly, and as it doesn't give a nice reassuring "colour balance set" message like the M, I don't really know if it has done it half the time.

 

To be fair, for quick snaps when I have used AWB it does seem to be reasonable, but not like the M.

[jaapv]

If you want images to be consistent in colour there is only one option: Set the camera to a fixed colour balance like daylight and make a dedicated colour profile by shooting a Gretag-Macbeth card in the first shot of a given light situation.

[AndrewDD]

I think we're at cross-purposes. I meant consistant within the set, which are all shot at the same time.

[Tim B]

Thanks for all your contributions.

 

I too come from (and still exist in) the film era and I certainly don't expect perfect neutrality from AWB in all circumstances.

 

I'm comparing the Q to my other digital cameras and as I mentioned in my last post above it is probably the inconsistency that is the most challenging thing.

 

I've always expected to have to tweak colour balance in post when it really matters, but I'm finding I have to do a lot more of it with my Q whether set to AWB or specific generic settings. I've never tried setting to Daylight for everything, but I might give it a try.

 

Tim

[rombanana]

I agree. I tested Leica Q and Leca M + 35 1.4 in the store. AWB from Leica Q really needs some improvement. 

[wda]

Why rely on AWB in mixed source lighting? Use a grey card intelligently, having decided the colour balance you want. A profile for your camera also makes for more consistent results.

[low325]

AWB on fluorescent is always awful on all cameras - not because of the cameras, but because of the light, which is not only discontinuous, but cycles as well. Tungsten - compare only under real tungsten light. Not halogen, not LED.

This right here.

[prk60091]

I  find it odd/coincidental that questions are now arising on AWB almost 3 years after the camera is introduced.  Even more so in that I have been dissatisfied of late on the colors coming from the Q w/AWB enabled.

 

Has something changed somewhere? or have my post-processing skills gotten better so that i am now noticing color differences more?

 

I intensely dislike post processing  (i never liked to develop my own B&W or even try color in the analog days)...so the more i can do in camera the better i like it....

 

i just ordered a grey card and will have to experiment some....