thoughts on AWB

[innerimager]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There has and continues to be much concern about the inconsistent auto white balance of the M8. It strikes me that while, in general, we appreciate the relative lack of auto anything on the M8 as compared to DSLRs, many want the camera to do this job automatically. I don't know about P&S cameras, but all the pro level f-mount DSLRs I ever work with have unreliable AWB. I learned early on that it is far better to select an actual color temp, either with a setting such as "cloudy" , a K temp dialed in by guess or a colormeter value, or, best, a custom temp. As long as you remember to change it when lighting conditions change, you will always get consistent white balances, that even can be creatively selected toward warmth or coolness as desired. For instance, using a "cloudy" setting will create warmer images in sunlight, and vice versa. My preferred method is setting a custom balance from the predominant light source (incident) using an expodisc, and in mixed lighting off the subject (reflective). Having the same exact color temp is a big plus when it comes time to process. If it's close enough to how you want it, those images will look the same and need no adjustment. If AWB is used, the variation will make this hard. If you do click balance in post, it's still better to be close in camera, so no channels will be saturated, (also helps with noise control when the blue channel is kept right).

 

Bottom line is it's best technique to select a color temp, preferably custom, over AWB, and I suspect it always will be. And, it's more in the spirit of taking control away from the camera and putting it in our brains, the spirit of M shooting! best....Peter

[Advertisement]

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

[marknorton]

I think the problem with the camera trying to figure out AWB is always that it is working on the image content which by definition is a reflected light reading off arbitrarily coloured objects where actually you want to meter the light source.

 

I use a Gossen colour meter and it requires you to meter the incident light, a bit like you used to with the Invercone on a Weston Master V. Metering off a white card works too because you are metering relected light off a known surface. As for ExpoDisks, I have no experience, where are you meant to point the lens when using them?

 

The D2x has a sensor in the pentaprism which in many shots will be a meter reading off the sky, just one more input into what is in essence a guessing game.

 

WB presets are, at best, a compromise. Today it's cloudy here and a cloudy WB preset would typically be 6000K where my meter reads 5400K.

 

I think we should accept that the M8 is not going to get it right all of the time but what is not acceptable is the wild variation from shot to shot we've seen in the past. WB is more important for JPEG users, for sure, but I expect even the most hardened DNG users would like the camera to get it close, most of the time,

[innerimager]

As for ExpoDisks, I have no experience, where are you meant to point the lens when using them?

Hi Mark- You point the lens toward the light source when one predominates for an incident reading, or toward the subject in mixed lighting for a reflective reading. works quite well. best....Peter

[Guest tummydoc]

all the pro level f-mount DSLRs I ever work with have unreliable AWB.

 

All the pros I know who work with pro-level DSLRs say that as well. However, what they're referring to are slight off-colour results across all images shot under a specific lighting, which can normally be corrected as a batch, even in JPEG format. What the M8's AWB (=Atrocious White Balance) does is apply kaliedoscopic day-glo colours indiscriminately even when the light is unchanging, and in such a severity that correcting in JPEG is all but impossible. (Note to the pedants who would otherwise seize the opportunity to point out that "real photographers don't shoot JPEG", a)I bring up the point mainly to illustrate the relative difference in severity between other cameras' AWB and that of the M8, and b)many pros do shoot JPEG either singly or in tandem with RAW.)

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}(Note to the pedants who would otherwise seize the opportunity to point out that "real photographers don't shoot JPEG", a)I bring up the point mainly to illustrate the relative difference in severity between other cameras' AWB and that of the M8, and b)many pros do shoot JPEG either singly or in tandem with RAW.)

 

Vinay, your post is wrong. Yes, lots of pros shoot JPEGs. None of them I know use AWB when doing that.

 

If you're a pro who shoots JPEG, then the you're NOT adjusting white balance in POST. You'd have to be a MORON to try (and a pedant to try to explain it this way). Adjusting WB from an average reading of a JPEG in post--from any camera--is a formula for bad photography.

 

If you shoot JPEG as a pro, you do custom WB or set the WB beforehand. No pro I've ever met shooting JPEG uses Average Wrong Balance on any system.

 

Now, I'm sure there are some, and they're shooting Canons, no doubt. They don't care about rangefinders.

 

Secondly, your comment about RAW shows you don't understand a pro workflow.

 

Even if all the RAWs have wildly different WB, if the LIGHT is the same, they can all be corrected at once.

 

@ Mark--I personally couldn't care less if the camera mostly gets it right or wrong, except for previewing purposes, where the presets are much better than most people think. Of course, it depends what you're doing with colour, but IMO using a colour meter--given the vicissitudes of printing--is just wayyyy overkill

[Shootist]

I mainly use AWB and find the M8 much easier to adjust then my Nikon D200 in post.

With the Nikon the WB is encrypted and in a format that even with a Nikon image editing program, like Cpature 4.xx or NX, you can only go so far adjusting the WB before the image starts to degrade.

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Recently, I decided simply NOT TO USE AWB : set daylight (of course, when outside) and adjust, if necessary, in LR : personally, I find this way much less prone to some strange surprises I had with AWB.

[marknorton]

@ Mark--I personally couldn't care less if the camera mostly gets it right or wrong, except for previewing purposes, where the presets are much better than most people think. Of course, it depends what you're doing with colour, but IMO using a colour meter--given the vicissitudes of printing--is just wayyyy overkill

 

I like to measure the available light - in terms of both intensity and colour - as part of capturing the image. The M8 has a tolerably accurate light intensity meter which I supplement with a spot meter and I either show the M8 what a white object looks like in the prevailing light with manual WB or dial in a measured colour temperature.

 

Yes, it might be overkill, but that's me to a tee!

[Shootist]

Recently, I decided simply NOT TO USE AWB : set daylight (of course, when outside) and adjust, if necessary, in LR : personally, I find this way much less prone to some strange surprises I had with AWB.

You are correct Luigi. If I know what lighting I'm going to be in I do set it and then sometimes I do use a Expodisc. But AWB ain't that bad.

[innerimager]

Mark- When the D2H came out allowing K to be set directly, I splurged on a used minolta colormeter, and I agree it is a great tool to have in the bag. I don't use it as often as you do, but in mixed artificial light conditions that are critical, (wedding dress for instance) I like having it, especially as most cameras don't have any preset as low as we often see in these conditions. including the M8. On the other hand, since I usually correct the raw files anyway in batches, it may indeed be "overkill". best...Peter

[Jamie Roberts]

I like to measure the available light - in terms of both intensity and colour - as part of capturing the image. The M8 has a tolerably accurate light intensity meter which I supplement with a spot meter and I either show the M8 what a white object looks like in the prevailing light with manual WB or dial in a measured colour temperature.

 

Yes, it might be overkill, but that's me to a tee!

 

Mark--and thank heaven for that! Otherwise, we'd never have had the benefit of your careful analysis and dissection of the M8

 

Heck, I still use an incident meter too... but have never shelled out for the colour meter simply because accurate white balance is not always correct white balance; it all depends on the downstream colour you want and what the subject is.

 

I know you know this, but for the benefit of those reading, your eyes and actual print measurements are the best guarantees of colour; no camera in the world sees a sunset or a moonlit night the way you do

[Maggie_O]

I'm with Jamie; I was genuinely shocked to read that anyone with a Leica uses AWB. In the photographic circles I ran in, leaving your camera in AWB mode was like putting on a dunce cap or a "HEY I'M THE ROOKIE HERE" sign on your back.

 

Oh, and a lot of newspaper shooters use JPEG, because the folks who do the layouts can be arsed to deal with a RAW file and there's no time for the shooter to tweak stuff in post. Much like film, you have to get it right and you have to get it fast. (I used to have to throw rolls of film at a darkroom tech between assignments- there were lots of times I didn't see my photos until the paper came out.)

 

I suppose studio hounds and more deliberate shooters have a substantially different culture. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[pelikan1931]

there are no excuses nowadays for a high end digital camera with an random WB, whatever virtues it might possess elsewhere. when the auto WB works, it is more accurate than those I obtain from expodisc/grey card etc, and second guessing WB in Capture One is not that fun.

[innerimager]

I'm with Jamie

Hey, didn't I start this thread? I feel, so...invisable. ;>) best...Peter

[Maggie_O]

Hey, didn't I start this thread? I feel, so...invisable. ;>) best...Peter

 

WHOOPS!

 

Guess it's time for me to get out my dunce cap and rookie sign.

[hankg]

there are no excuses nowadays for a high end digital camera with an random WB, whatever virtues it might possess elsewhere. when the auto WB works, it is more accurate than those I obtain from expodisc/grey card etc, and second guessing WB in Capture One is not that fun.

 

I don't get this at all. I set the WB in post to match the look I want, to match the mood, the subject, etc., if I was a PJ and couldn't control post I'd dial in the WB in camera that would get me the warm glow or neutral balance or cold look that was appropriate to the session. There is no auto system that can tell you what you want in the way of WB -the reading that will give you an average neutral may or may not be best for the final image.

 

Guessing in C1? it's called taking creative control of what your image looks like and what you decide can be applied to the whole shoot in seconds. Controlling exposure, WB and focus is something I want to be deciding.

[KM-25]

Call me crazy, but ever since I did the last firmware upgrade, my AWB is a lot better. It was really bad before, you know, 3-4 frames looking close then one outrageous bomb of color that did not make sense.

 

Now it is pretty close most of the time. Fluorescent is still a bit too green for my tastes but everything else is looking much better.

 

 

Dunno...call me crazy I guess.

[carstenw]

I have to learn to dummy down and stop thinking

 

I think you've already got that down pat.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[stunsworth]

Hmm, 'Dummydoc' has a ring to it don't you think?

[carstenw]

Dummy-toc?