Should I bother with WB?

hyakuhei

hyakuhei

Messages
1,732
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
I shoot RAW pretty much all the time, is there any advantage to setting the WB in camera rather than editing the WB for the RAW in something like Lightroom?
 
Time ultimately, get it right in camera and you spend less time processing afterwards. I also think there is something to be said for less processing is more in terms of IQ, if you have had to adjust the WB in pp, then that may leave you less room for other processing, but its only a loose theory, ultimately its just the old time thing.
 
I never spend time in PP although taking laods of RAWS

I always aim to get it right in camera and just resize for web later

I would say more in camera and less PP
 
In raw it does not make any real difference... raws are not processed in camera anyway.. it just adds a note for your raw processor to use at the processing stage.

I often tweak the result in processing to taste. There is rarely a "correct" setting just a preferred one.

If you are happy with what the camera gives, it will save a moment of time.
 
It would depend on what you were shooting I guess. If you are in a pretty static environment (such as a church/function) then setting one white balance at the beginning of the function would save you time, however if you were moving around a lot (such as landscapes) then the time taken to get the card/filter out, adjusting the WB and setting it would be a lot longer than just using the dipper tool/adjusting the sliders to suit when you get back in ACR.
 
I can't back this up with science, but I accidentally made an exposure last week with the WB set to tungsten bulb setting, but I was standing in the shade of a building on an overcast morning. The result was so blue that when I pushed the "warmth" slider up in Nikon Capture NX2, it wouldn't go far enough to normalize the image and I had to start a new working step and do it again!

What's more, after I'd got the sky to look about the right colour, I couldn't get the whites to look right at all. I'm beginning to suspect that not all WB settings work on a linear temperature scale, or there would be no problem to get the correct WB just by pushing up on slider :shrug:. Perhaps I'm wrong though!?
 
Naboo32 said:
I can't back this up with science, but I accidentally made an exposure last week with the WB set to tungsten bulb setting, but I was standing in the shade of a building on an overcast morning. The result was so blue that when I pushed the "warmth" slider up in Nikon Capture NX2, it wouldn't go far enough to normalize the image and I had to start a new working step and do it again!

What's more, after I'd got the sky to look about the right colour, I couldn't get the whites to look right at all. I'm beginning to suspect that not all WB settings work on a linear temperature scale, or there would be no problem to get the correct WB just by pushing up on slider :shrug:. Perhaps I'm wrong though!?
Click to expand...

If you were shooting raw then there is an option in the NX2 Edit list under Camera Settings to change the WB, look for New WB and click on the arrow by Recorded Value. You can then change the WB to Daylight, with a further drop down list to select Direct Sunlight, Cloudy or Shade, there is also a fine adjustment slider.
If you were shooting JPEG you cannot alter the Camera Settings
 
If your white balance is miles out, it can affect exposure. And you won't be able to tell because the histogram is generated off the JPEG tagged to the Raw, and it will probably look fine. But when you come to adjust the channels to correct colour in post processing, it has the same effect on noise as altering ISO.

For example, in tungsten light the blue channel needs pumping up, and the best time to do that is in the original exposure. Do it in post, and you can quickly run in to a lot of noise as there is not enough blue channel data to work on.

Does that make sense?
 
Suvv said:
If you were shooting raw then there is an option in the NX2 Edit list under Camera Settings to change the WB, look for New WB and click on the arrow by Recorded Value. You can then change the WB to Daylight, with a further drop down list to select Direct Sunlight, Cloudy or Shade, there is also a fine adjustment slider.
If you were shooting JPEG you cannot alter the Camera Settings
Click to expand...

Cheers Suvv :thumbs:! I didn't know about that option in NX2, but it certainly came in handy.

Just to illustrate the differences, shot 1 is the raw data file with the WB set to tungsten bulb. Shot 2 is what happens when you use the "warmth" slider in NX2 to increase the colour temperature (pretty horrible, I think you'd agree) and shot 3 is what the original file looks like just by simply changing the WB setting to daylight (as Suvv has explained).

1.
AJH_3797.jpg


2.
AJH_3797c.jpg


3.
AJH_3797b.jpg


OK, so it's not a great picture, but I'm glad that I posted in this thread, as I've learnt something very useful here :).
 
You're absolutely right there, Chaz, the "rescued" version was still slightly off on the WB. I simply posted it exactly as it appeared after changing the WB mode in PPing, to demonstrate the difference between using that function and the "warmth" slider :|.

As it goes, it's a bit of a "nothing" image anyway, so I won't be using it for anything.

Thanks for tidying it up for me though :thumbs:.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, I thought it didn't make a scrap of difference what you set your WB settings to, if you shoot RAW? Because RAW is RAW.

Pete.
 
Pete Gl said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, I thought it didn't make a scrap of difference what you set your WB settings to, if you shoot RAW? Because RAW is RAW.

Pete.
Click to expand...

Yes, except when you're miles out, as I stated above. What effectively happens with colour balance correction is that one channel is amplified more than the others, and this can generate excessive noise if you don't have enough headroom. Since the histogram is generated from an uncorrected JPEG, it will not show the need for any extra exposure - it's proably the only time when the histogram lies.

If you get the colour balance right in shooting, then the camera will indicate slightly more exposure is neceesary in some situations, eg dim tungsten light or candle light.

In practise, it's not a big deal but it's there nevertheless ;)
 
HoppyUK said:
Yes, except when you're miles out, as I stated above. What effectively happens with colour balance correction is that one channel is amplified more than the others, and this can generate excessive noise if you don't have enough headroom. Since the histogram is generated from an uncorrected JPEG, it will not show the need for any extra exposure - it's proably the only time when the histogram lies.

If you get the colour balance right in shooting, then the camera will indicate slightly more exposure is neceesary in some situations, eg dim tungsten light or candle light.

In practise, it's not a big deal but it's there nevertheless ;)
Click to expand...

I don't believe that setting the white balance influences the exposure settings or amplification of channels on the processor, some info for those interested here and more here.

I went outside earlier and tried as hard as I could with extreme values set to the WB but couldn't generate a situation such as you described.

With regards to my original post, thank you to everyone for your replies. They highlighted that while it may technically not matter to shoot with incorrect WB if using RAW you can save a lot of time by setting the WB correctly when your shooting - particularly if your shooting high volumes.

Thanks again :wave:
 
hyakuhei said:
They highlighted that while it may technically not matter to shoot with incorrect WB if using RAW you can save a lot of time by setting the WB correctly when your shooting - particularly if your shooting high volumes.
Click to expand...

...or just leave your camera on Auto WB?

Pete
 
hyakuhei said:
I don't believe that setting the white balance influences the exposure settings or amplification of channels on the processor, some info for those interested here and more here.

I went outside earlier and tried as hard as I could with extreme values set to the WB but couldn't generate a situation such as you described.

With regards to my original post, thank you to everyone for your replies. They highlighted that while it may technically not matter to shoot with incorrect WB if using RAW you can save a lot of time by setting the WB correctly when your shooting - particularly if your shooting high volumes.

Thanks again :wave:
Click to expand...

Shoot three identical frames at the same exposure, one with the white balance at max, one at daylight, and one with it at min. On my Canon 40D, that is 10000K, 5200K, and 2500K.

When you view the frames, each time the full colour histogram will show an identical lump in the middle, but if you switch to the Red, Green and Blue histrograms, the Green channel will remain in the middle, but at 10000K Red will be high and Blue will be low. At 2500K, Red and Blue are reversed.

In other words, when colour temperature set is low such as in tungsten light, the blue channel is boosted. I believe this modified file is the saved Raw, which I think means that if you don't adjust white balance at the time of exposure you are likely to have less than optimum data to work with in post processing, resulting in excessive noise.

This state of affairs is not apparent when you view the normal full colour histogram; it is only revealed when you switch to RGB.
 
Pete Gl said:
...or just leave your camera on Auto WB?

Pete
Click to expand...

i think AWB is a bad idea in raw personally.

and AWB is a tool of the devil in Jpeg

i have shot a football match on a sunny day in AWB and jpeg and received photos with 4 different shades of grass from the same pitch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top