There's no benefit to manually setting white balance when editing only DNGs, right?

[hellobrandonscott]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've always ALWAYS left cameras in AWB since I only edit raw files. A photographer friend of mine edits the same way but sets his white balance manually depending on the scene. Who's right? 

[Advertisement]

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

[Joshi_H]

The one with the better results....

I am very happy with the AWB on my SL2-S in comparison to my former Sony gear. I had only 2 or 3 images with wrong AWB since I use the camera and that was cause by very difficult light conditions and long-time exposure using a ND filter.

[frame-it]

3 hours ago, hellobrandonscott said:

I've always ALWAYS left cameras in AWB since I only edit raw files. A photographer friend of mine edits the same way but sets his white balance manually depending on the scene. Who's right? 

i've noticed if shooting outdoors at night around those orange/yellowish street lights its definitely better to set it manually, as setting it later seems to make the image more "noisy" where the orange colors are

[LocalHero1953]

I always set AWB. When I take large numbers of photos for editing (e.g. several hundred for drama rehearsals and stage performance with the SL2-S), AWB is good enough for most of the shots and it saves editing time, a point of importance when I want to send them to those who need them ASAP. When I take a small number of photos for personal use (e.g. travel, family, 'art', with the Q2) it takes little time to adjust them precisely.

The only time I do it differently is for video of stage production with professional lighting, when I normally set WB 4000K; stage lighting can play havoc with AWB, and 4000K is a good starting point for acceptable colours. I prefer this approach whether I'm shooting ALL-I or CinemaDNG.

[Ken Abrahams]

I know a guy who runs around with his grey card and balancing that way. I use the AWB and find the SL's (all of them) to work very well, even in mixed lighting conditions it tries to balance out the colour temperatures. If one gets fussy masking in different colour temps can be achieved. It used to be a problem back in the filim days. 

[Anbaric]

I don't know about the SL cameras specifically, but one issue is that white balance settings can in some cases affect metering, so you might end up with a sub-optimal exposure:

https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/29703/if-shooting-raw-is-the-white-balance-selected-in-camera-irrelevant-for-exposure

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, hellobrandonscott said:

A photographer friend of mine edits the same way but sets his white balance manually depending on the scene. Who's right? 

Setting the white balance manually will save you some time in post-processing if you need to deliver a large set of matching images. It's also useful in video when you want to match several shots of the same scene.

On the other hand, if your end-goal is to pick one "keeper" to print/publish, a manual white balance won't do much for you. AWB is generally close enough, and you'll need to fine-tune the colour response anyway.

[jaapv]

Well, given that white balance is always set during DNG conversion and can be always be adjusted, there is no need to set it to anything but AWB. However having a neutral starting point can save a lot of time and effort. For instance LED light can produce a nasty yellow cast, difficult to correct satisfactory but a grey card reading will provide a good starting point. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Metering is done assuming the shot white balance so it can have a minor effect on exposure changing the WB in post. I've never seen any real world improvements over using AWB.

To me the only advantage is that if you see a certain scene you may not be able to guess the white balance a day or so later when at your computer.

Gordon

[hellobrandonscott]

Gotcha, thanks for all the replies! I don't use the metering and just adjust everything manually, so sounds like I'll stick with my trusty ol' AWB.

[lx1713]

I think the only reason I do not use AWB is when I'm using flash(w color correction filters). Similar rationale to Paul's use of 4000K setting. Bernard's explanation covers both our use case. 

[evikne]

When I migrated from Apple Aperture to Lightroom back in the day, I wanted to "re-master" some of the old RAW files. For the Aperture images, I had used a WhiBal white balance card to get the correct white balance. But in LR, the white balance was reset, and I felt I could never quite get back to the nice colors from Aperture. I regretted deleting the original reference images of the WhiBal card. 

But for some images I had used the card to manually set the white balance in the camera beforehand. Here, all I had to do was select WB "As Shot" and the original colors were back! So in case you ever need to change imaging software, manual white balance can save you a lot of extra work.

Edited November 14, 2023 by evikne

[Jeff S]

I set WB outdoors to daylight. Indoors, I choose a different, fixed temp. I prefer a consistent starting point, from which to adjust as desired in PP.

Jeff

[Richardgb]

Although AWB is termed 'Auto White Balance' it helps to regard it as 'Average White Balance' since the camera is 'averaging' the scene colour and approximating what that would be as an equivalent colour temperature.

For most of my photography I leave the camera on AWB and make any (usually) small adjustments in post, in other words the camera usually makes a fair approximation of a pleasing colour as a starting point on a 'typical' outdoor daylight scene. (This is no different to the camera expoure meter thinking that all scenes average to 18% grey, which results in anything shot against a light or dark background being incorrectly exposed. Any experienced photogapher will know to add a compensation to the exposure to correct it).

However, if you're shooting something against a strongly-coloured background, i.e. which dominates the scene, it's likely that the camera will 'correct' for the stong colour: the background will tend to be less saturated or even almost a neutral grey, with the subject taking on the opposite hue. I have, for example, found this in the studio, and varying the proportion of subject to background in the frame results in quite different colour balance across the resulting images. In such circumstances, I now set the camera to its 'flash' white balance which fixes the colour temperature at about 5900K for all the images and hence much easier to correct in post (note that some minor correction may still be needed if the flash colour isn't 5900K. There are many factors which affect this, e.g. the flash tube and its age, the power setting, the type of reflector / diffuser or other modifier and so on.

[jaapv]

Not only flash, but also LED or Fluorescent light. As I wrote above, a gray card setting (a white surface will do as well) can be quite helpful. Normally the image will be too cool in this procedure and will need a bit different Kelvin setting.

[Jean-Michel]

Hi,

AWB is fine is most cases. After all, the colours printed will be the photographer's creative interpretation and not necessarily the so-called 'accurate' ones.  When documenting art exhibitions or for art catalogue work I include shots of my ColorChecker in order to come close to what the art on display is, in film days it was an 18% gray card and Kodak Colour Patches. 

[AZN]

As others have noted, shoot AWB, but also take a shot of a test card as a reference. I bought the following years ago and am amazed how expensive it has become!

GENUINE WhiBal G7 Certified Neutral White Balance Card - Pocket Card (5.3cm x8.5cm ) https://amzn.asia/d/gLxjA8O

FWIW, YMMV

 

[algrove]

I shot daylight for consistent results for landscape and tungsten if indoors with that lighting.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount