White Balance - Getting the Light Right in the Camera

[JimDun]

I'm having trouble finding a way to put this succinctly, so maybe an example would be better.

So this morning I was awake at about 5:30am and peeped out of the bedroom curtains; the early morning light put a beautiful red cast on the back garden that I would like to have a go at capturing sometime as I've noticed the same thing a few times (this morning I went back to bed instead of course).

I'm not sure how to go about it in terms of dealing with white balance in the camera - my suspicion is that if I use auto white balance the camera will compensate for the red light & give me a 'normal-looking' picture. Is that right? And if so, how would I go about capturing the way the light actually looked to my eyes?

 

[TimHughes]

Right, auto white balance will try and show white as pure white.

To deliberately show the warmth in your picture in camera try setting the white balance to normal daylight (5600K) and adjust from there, lower setting should reduce the warm look and higher setting increase it.

https://SPAM/the-coffeelicious/a-photographers-guide-to-color-temperature-6bbc882d1524

 

[JimDun]

Thanks Tim, that makes sense. I'll try that next time the conditions look right.

Nice link as well.

 

[LeeRatters]

I'm not sure which camera you use, but if it's mirrorless then flicking through the WB 'presets' will show you their effect on the scene before you take the image. Typically though you may want to go warmer with a touch of magenta.

Or shoot RAW and adjust to your liking in PP

 

[JimDun]

Lee, it's an M50 Mk II mirrorless.

Just tried playing with the WB for a couple of test shots, and even though the light looks normal to the eye now, you can see the difference in the pics. First one is AWB, second is 5600K.

 

[swanseamale47]

I'm not sure which camera you use, but if it's mirrorless then flicking through the WB 'presets' will show you their effect on the scene before you take the image. Typically though you may want to go warmer with a touch of magenta.

Or shoot RAW and adjust to your liking in PP

Lots of DSLR's will do the same in live view.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I would agree that shooting raw is usually the best option. As it lets you change the colour balance to anything you like in post processing, using presets or by using the sliders and or the picking tool. Even in perfectly normal every day shots, auto white balance is rarely the best option. And needs tweeking to bring out the best in an image.

You can successfully make small adjustments to jpegs but rarely sufficient to capture sunrise or sunsets at their best.

 

[woof woof]

Many cameras have a K setting or similar in which you can adjust the WB with the cameras dials while you look at the VF or back screen. I never bother and just try and adjust from memory or for artistic licence but it'll be useful to see if your camera has this feature and if so how to select and use it for those tricky situations.

Good luck with it Jim.

 

[JimDun]

I'll have a look at that live view thing; it'll have to go on the list though, as I've only just got the camera and there's lots to learn.

As far as post-processing is concerned, I know it's a lot easier with digital photography but presumably the less you have to do in post the easier it is to get the look you were after in the first place.

I have GIMP (free) for jpg and a programme called Digital Photo Professional that came free with the camera for RAW images (but it looks really complicated). If Photoshop didn't have that irritating monthly fee I might be tempted, but I really don't like to have to lease software for a hobby.

 

[AgentOrange76]

Cloudy WB preset gives a warmer look over sunny.
Post processing wise it’s a simple slider to warm or cool an image so not horrendous on time.

 

[LeeRatters]

Lots of DSLR's will do the same in live view.

Cool. I wasn't sure It's been quite a while.

 

[LeeRatters]

I'll have a look at that live view thing; it'll have to go on the list though, as I've only just got the camera and there's lots to learn.

As far as post-processing is concerned, I know it's a lot easier with digital photography but presumably the less you have to do in post the easier it is to get the look you were after in the first place.

I have GIMP (free) for jpg and a programme called Digital Photo Professional that came free with the camera for RAW images (but it looks really complicated). If Photoshop didn't have that irritating monthly fee I might be tempted, but I really don't like to have to lease software for a hobby.

I shoot with an old Sony A7. I shoot RAW, but I still like to take my time and get things right in camera - I also don't shoot lots of images on a morning out for example - so getting those things as best I can isn't an issue for me and is actually part of the whole relaxing process. I have WB set up on a rear button so I just press and scroll through to change it.

Secondly, Affinity is certainly worth the £50 (I think) I now use Lightroom Classic and PS2022 or whatever it is (previously LR5 and CS6) but I did buy Affinity 6 months ago when on offer for £24!

I do prefer the catalogue style of Lightroom though personally. I don't think LR5 etc will work with your camera unless you shoot RAW and then convert to DNG on import. I think Alan @woof woof has worked in that way before. DNG isn't bad though, my drone produces DNG files.

 

[JimDun]

Thanks Lee, I'll have a look at those software packages.

 

[woof woof]

I do indeed convert to DNG as just about every processing package will read them. Another little advantage of DNG is that some raw converters create a separate file recording the changes you make to the file and you then end up with three files for every picture, a DNG, a JPEG (or Tiff or whatever you save as) and the changes file. With DNG the changers are within the file so you don't need this additional third "changes" file.

A cheap option I mentioned in another thread recently is Photoshop Elements which seems to be available on e bay for just a few £. I'm not sure if all versions can process raw files though so this would need investigating.

 

[Gav.]

I do everything with Affinity photo, from RAW Development to edits after conversion.

They have a free trial you can download, I think it gives you 30 days, that may take you into their next sale, full software can be had between £25-33. Depending on their offer

 

[Micro-four-thirds]

I do everything with Affinity photo, from RAW Development to edits after conversion.

They have a free trial you can download, I think it gives you 30 days, that may take you into their next sale, full software can be had between £25-33. Depending on their offer

Hi, same here, I only use affinity photo and have found it more than useful for my needs editing raw images.

 

[JimDun]

Thanks for all the suggestions.

Of course I already have the software that came free with the camera (digital photo professional 4) and I've played a bit with it - it's probably fine for anything I'll ever want to do with RAW images, so really I'd just be looking for a jpg editor that's better than GIMP.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

White balance in landscape, particularly at or past so called "unsociable" hours by the general public is very much down to artistic merit.

"Boring" daytime images, particularly sunny daytime images are best left to "Daylight" ie. Y-B 5500K +/- 300, G-M 0..10

Even if you bring a white balance reference card, it may give dramatically different readings in shade vs open light, and any coloured objects like trees will seriously tint the card output. These are best left for portraiture with flash and product photography.

 

[Kell]

I had DPP when I got my first Canon. and sort of dismissed it after being sold on the idea of Lightroom.

But actually, in terms of adjustments, there's not really much you can't do in it that LR offer over and above.

Not sure about the geometric adjustments, but after not using it for years, I fired it up the other day and was surprised at how comprehensive it is.

I'd certainly use that first until you find out what it's preventing you from achieving.

 

[KIPAX]

Or shoot RAW and adjust to your liking in PP

I get the impression the OP is trying to take a good picture.. not a bad one and fix later

 

[JimDun]

@Kell Yeah I'm getting into it now and finding it very useful for tweaking my best shots.

I haven't managed to capture the original lighting I was after as it hasn't happened again (or if it did I was still in bed)!

 

[woof woof]

I get the impression the OP is trying to take a good picture.. not a bad one and fix later

Maybe it's just me that gets tired of reading this in thread after thread.

Maybe instead of cutting and pasting this for all eternity you could help by making a reasoned and persuasive argument in support of your views? Just a thought.

 

[LeeRatters]

I get the impression the OP is trying to take a good picture.. not a bad one and fix later

If you quote the full post of mine and my other posts in this thread you'll see I was trying to be pretty polite and helpful and informative.

Try it yourself sometime

 

[Kell]

Maybe it's just me that gets tired of reading this in thread after thread.

Maybe instead of cutting and pasting this for all eternity you could help by making a reasoned and persuasive argument in support of your views? Just a thought.

I must admit, I'm always surprised to read it..

I'm not a pro-photographer. Not by a long way. But in my capacity as an advertising creative I have, over the years, worked with dozens.

Not a single one of them would produce an image and hand it over SOOC. Each one will, of course, take the time to get as much correct in camera as possible to reduce additional workflow afterwards, but everyone does it.

And not only that, but they've done it pretty much since the invention of photography.

The Great Lengths Taken to Make Abraham Lincoln Look Good in Portraits

One famous image of the president features a body that isn't his.

www.atlasobscura.com

Personally, I'd draw the line at replacing skies and the like (as featured in the latest Photoshop social ads) for my own work, but totally buy in to light retouching and level adjustment after the fact.

After all, most of the Lightroom tools are only digital equivalents of their Darkroom counterparts.

 

[TimHughes]

I must admit, I'm always surprised to read it..

I'm not a pro-photographer. Not by a long way. But in my capacity as an advertising creative I have, over the years, worked with dozens.

Not a single one of them would produce an image and hand it over SOOC. Each one will, of course, take the time to get as much correct in camera as possible to reduce additional workflow afterwards, but everyone does it.

And not only that, but they've done it pretty much since the invention of photography.

The Great Lengths Taken to Make Abraham Lincoln Look Good in Portraits

One famous image of the president features a body that isn't his.

www.atlasobscura.com

Personally, I'd draw the line at replacing skies and the like (as featured in the latest Photoshop social ads) for my own work, but totally buy in to light retouching and level adjustment after the fact.

After all, most of the Lightroom tools are only digital equivalents of their Darkroom counterparts.

There are some jobs where I need to deliver SOOC direct to an ftp server in real time, so it's essential to get everything right first time in camera including WB. Personally, I enjoy the challenge and the time saved is a bonus.

 

[realspeed]

Rough guide to Kelvin scale if this is of any help

 

[Kell]

There are some jobs where I need to deliver SOOC direct to an ftp server in real time, so it's essential to get everything right first time in camera including WB. Personally, I enjoy the challenge and the time saved is a bonus.

I'd be interested to find out which jobs (generically, if not specifically) and what happens to them once you've supplied.

Even the Olympics and similar events go through a Real Time selection and retouch/adjustment process.

How Getty's Olympics Photos are Shot, Edited, and Sent into the World in Just Two Minutes

How Getty prepares for and photographs the Olympics

www.popphoto.com

As mentioned above, all will try and get as much in camera as possible, but no one I've worked with has done it exclusively. And that's across portraits, food photography, cars, studio, table top and exterior buildings.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I'd be interested to find out which jobs (generically, if not specifically) and what happens to them once you've supplied.
Huh
Even the Olympics and similar events go through a Real Time selection and retouch/adjustment process.

How Getty's Olympics Photos are Shot, Edited, and Sent into the World in Just Two Minutes

How Getty prepares for and photographs the Olympics

www.popphoto.com

As mentioned above, all will try and get as much in camera as possible, but no one I've worked with has done it exclusively. And that's across portraits, food photography, cars, studio, table top and exterior buildings.

There are people who need instant everything, to earn a living in a very competitive world.

However even they tweak their images later to get the best out of them.

If time is not of the essence, it is far better to take the holistic approach and capture everything in raw.
You can still make settings to the best of your ability in camera, and that is how that they wil open in your raw processor.
At that stage you may find that you do not need to change anything, and the result will be pretty much exactly the same as if you had made the same settings as for a jpeg.

However the camera will have captured everything, and you have the opportunity to make just about any adjustment that you care to make. It is as if it had taken thousands of different jpegs each with its own unique adjustments.
It is a win win situation.
If you accept the first option, it is as if you had just taken a jpeg, and processing time is measured in seconds. And it takes no longer to make crops and minor tweaks on a raw file than it does on a jpeg.

You can set Photoshop to open jpegs directly in ACR, to make those tweaks. You can also apply them to multiple files at once, to save time. Raw processing can be exceedingly quick and easy.

 

[woof woof]

I must admit, I'm always surprised to read it..

There is the argument that WB affects exposure and it's therefore better to get it right in camera but... the light can change from second to second and the performance of some modern kit is arguably so good that small or even quite large adjustments to global or local exposure or fill light levels don't make an awful lot of difference. There's also the hassle of checking and potentially adjusting WB shot to shot. The extra kit fiddling with time may be something that makes no odd for some people, a take your time landscape shot for example but in other situations those seconds spent pushing buttons and twiddling dials might be better spent taking the picture before the moment or the light is gone.

 

[TimHughes]

I'd be interested to find out which jobs (generically, if not specifically) and what happens to them once you've supplied.

Even the Olympics and similar events go through a Real Time selection and retouch/adjustment process.

How Getty's Olympics Photos are Shot, Edited, and Sent into the World in Just Two Minutes

How Getty prepares for and photographs the Olympics

www.popphoto.com

As mentioned above, all will try and get as much in camera as possible, but no one I've worked with has done it exclusively. And that's across portraits, food photography, cars, studio, table top and exterior buildings.

It's a series of sporting events where the pictures are included in a customized video for the participant. A template video for the event is prepared in advance. On the day an automated process picks up the images and video clips as they are delivered, finds the participants, adds their content to the template and renders a customized video for that person before sending them a link to their phone to download and view.

I work closely with Getty for an event once a year and it's very impressive how that works. It's much as described in the link except in this case time pressure is less so one editor is doing the three roles detailed. The photographers only deliver jpgs and any edits or crops are minimal if at all.

 

[TimHughes]

Coming back to White Balance specifically, has anyone tried the WB filters that go on the camera? I guess you take a pic and use that image for the custom WB setting?

 

[ancient_mariner]

I guess the way this thread has gone was predictable.

For me, little has changed since film days, where the negative was just the starting point, though at least digital offers a bit more control than getting your prints at Boots. Doing colour balance is such a minor part of processing that I don't see the point in using anything but auto - there's no way it's not going to be changed if the camera didn't guess correctly. Sure it would be different if I had to present unprocessed pictures, but that's not how it is for most of us. I am not 'fixing a failure', much more doing it properly in comfortable surroundings where I'm not trying to guess what will look ok.

To the guys who DO have to get it pretty much right and do so regularly, I salute you. Live and let live.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There is the argument that WB affects exposure and it's therefore better to get it right in camera but... the light can change from second to second and the performance of some modern kit is arguably so good that small or even quite large adjustments to global or local exposure or fill light levels don't make an awful lot of difference. There's also the hassle of checking and potentially adjusting WB shot to shot. The extra kit fiddling with time may be something that makes no odd for some people, a take your time landscape shot for example but in other situations those seconds spent pushing buttons and twiddling dials might be better spent taking the picture before the moment or the light is gone.

White balance like exposure depends on the light incident on to the subject.

Unfortunately the majority of cameras and some lightmeters can only measure the reflected light.
This can introduce major errors especially as to colour balance. As cameras and reflected meters no nothing about the light illuminating the subject. The algorithms that camera makers use to estimate these factors are amazingly good. But they all fall far short.

In most situations, it is better to set colour balance to one of the set values, especially when shooting sets of images.

If you do not, the colour balance is influenced by the colour of objects in the individual image. So that an individual object will show as different hues, image to image. This can become very obvious, even more so when filming.

 

[woof woof]

White balance like exposure depends on the light incident on to the subject.

Unfortunately the majority of cameras and some lightmeters can only measure the reflected light.
This can introduce major errors especially as to colour balance. As cameras and reflected meters no nothing about the light illuminating the subject. The algorithms that camera makers use to estimate these factors are amazingly good. But they all fall far short.

In most situations, it is better to set colour balance to one of the set values, especially when shooting sets of images.

If you do not, the colour balance is influenced by the colour of objects in the individual image. So that an individual object will show as different hues, image to image. This can become very obvious, even more so when filming.

All valid points but I'd argue that the exposure may or may not depend on the incident light on the subject depending upon the area the subject takes up in the frame. Sometimes the subject or the significant part of it (a face maybe?) will be a fraction of the frame and its effect on WB or exposure therefore limited or maybe completely unnoticeable unless the photographer does something that the camera wouldn't normally do such as meter off the subject or examine the colour accuracy with the magnified view and then we have the issue of how accurate the camera EVF or display is.

It could be argued that setting the WB and exposure for the subject rather than the overall frame is the correct approach but the points I made above may still need to be factored in, namely the time it takes to do all this, any changing conditions and if not setting the WB before taking the shot and instead setting it later on the pc will have any significant effect on the final image.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

All valid points but I'd argue that the exposure may or may not depend on the incident light on the subject depending upon the area the subject takes up in the frame. Sometimes the subject or the significant part of it (a face maybe?) will be a fraction of the frame and its effect on WB or exposure therefore limited or maybe completely unnoticeable unless the photographer does something that the camera wouldn't normally do such as meter off the subject or examine the colour accuracy with the magnified view and then we have the issue of how accurate the camera EVF or display is.

It could be argued that setting the WB and exposure for the subject rather than the overall frame is the correct approach but the points I made above may still need to be factored in, namely the time it takes to do all this, any changing conditions and if not setting the WB before taking the shot and instead setting it later on the pc will have any significant effect on the final image.

An incident light reading always places the subject tones correctly in the captured image.

However you may choose to do something different.

Modern sensors are often invariant over a wide range. So the concept of correct exposure becomes relatively irrelevant.

An incident meter is not concerned about the relative size of objects with in an image or their brightness. This is why an incident reading of the light illuminating a scene is so accurate. An incident reading is taken with the meter facing the camera not the subject.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Coming back to White Balance specifically, has anyone tried the WB filters that go on the camera? I guess you take a pic and use that image for the custom WB setting?

Actually it works even better if you take it from the subject towards the camera. You can use the globe from a LED room light( they just pull apart.) And hold that over the lens. I played around with one a couple of years ago, to set colour balance, and it worked very well, but perhaps no better than you would expect a camera could set for itself.

 

[woof woof]

An incident light reading always places the subject tones correctly in the captured image.

However you may choose to do something different.

Modern sensors are often invariant over a wide range. So the concept of correct exposure becomes relatively irrelevant.

An incident meter is not concerned about the relative size of objects with in an image or their brightness. This is why an incident reading of the light illuminating a scene is so accurate. An incident reading is taken with the meter facing the camera not the subject.

An external meter could make my comments about time fiddling with kit, changing conditions and the subject getting bored more relevant although these may not be worries in a studio or other setting. Certainly for me an external meter of any kind will be 100% out of the question. I'm just a happy snapper.

I could be interested in comparing two pictures, one taken with whatever care and meters are necessary to get the exposure and WB "right" and one taken with the camera on auto everything and the WB being set later in the raw on a pc.

Anyway, assuming no one will post those two pictures I think this has run its course for me and I'll just carry on as normal. Good luck to those who go a different route.

 

[TimHughes]

Actually it works even better if you take it from the subject towards the camera. You can use the globe from a LED room light( they just pull apart.) And hold that over the lens. I played around with one a couple of years ago, to set colour balance, and it worked very well, but perhaps no better than you would expect a camera could set for itself.

thanks, I'm going to give it a try.

An external meter could make my comments about time fiddling with kit, changing conditions and the subject getting bored more relevant although these may not be worries in a studio or other setting. Certainly for me an external meter of any kind will be 100% out of the question. I'm just a happy snapper.

I could be interested in comparing two pictures, one taken with whatever care and meters are necessary to get the exposure and WB "right" and one taken with the camera on auto everything and the WB being set later in the raw on a pc.

Anyway, assuming no one will post those two pictures I think this has run its course for me and I'll just carry on as normal. Good luck to those who go a different route.

as above, I'm going to check it out likely next week and share results

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

An external meter could make my comments about time fiddling with kit, changing conditions and the subject getting bored more relevant although these may not be worries in a studio or other setting. Certainly for me an external meter of any kind will be 100% out of the question. I'm just a happy snapper.

I could be interested in comparing two pictures, one taken with whatever care and meters are necessary to get the exposure and WB "right" and one taken with the camera on auto everything and the WB being set later in the raw on a pc.

Anyway, assuming no one will post those two pictures I think this has run its course for me and I'll just carry on as normal. Good luck to those who go a different route.

I am sure a vast majority of camera users will agree with you. The modern digital camera gives superb results most of the time.

However understanding the theory and technology behind it all, like all knowledge, helps when you meet that 1/4% of situations where the camera is no help.

In nearly every case using the camera's basic functions and with the aid of the Histogram, or with the help of exposure fusion, almost any exposure problem can be resolved.

I have a wide variety of exposure meters both old and new. From time to time I compare them with the functionality of digital camera exposure systems. And in every case, except for balancing flash, hi I have found them unnecessary.
Even though they can be useful in creating a set of equally balanced exposures, something digital cameras have not yet addressed.
But as I now rarely ever find it necessary to use flash, even that use is mostly redundant for me.

I have compared camera exposures with those from various exposure meters. The results from reflected light meters is variable and depends on experience and technique. Where as using an incident meter is highly accurate, and is less often fooled in difficult lighting conditions, than using the camera alone. But never beyond that available with an adjustment during raw processing.

I would suggest that for some people having an incident ambient/flash meter is still a useful option especially for outdoor and studio portraiture.

 

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

Coming back to White Balance specifically, has anyone tried the WB filters that go on the camera? I guess you take a pic and use that image for the custom WB setting?

as in

ExpoDisc Professional White Balance Filter: Save Time Editing Color

The ExpoDisc v3 Professional White Balance Filter is a fast, easy-to-use tool to set an accurate custom white balance. Every ExpoDisc is assembled and tested in the USA.

www.expodisc.com