White balance setting work in raw?

[shane1980]

Hi,


Just curious, is there any point in setting the White balance to the desired setting eg for cloudy skies to it's appropiate setting or is it pointless cause I am gonna b from now taking images in raw, and I know *** will say u can set to auto in raw and tweak after but I wanna do many settings I can in camera

 

[StewartR]

The WB setting that you dial in on your camera won't make any difference to the RAW file. So in that sense it doesn't matter what you set. But it will have a couple of small effects:
- the preview image you see on the camera LCD is a JPG which the camera creates using the WB setting, so if the WB setting is wrong then the preview will look wrong;
- your RAW processing software will read and apply the WB setting from the camera, so if that's wrong then you'll have to fix it yourself (which you can, of course) but if it's right then you won't need to touch it.

 

[u8myufo]

The WB setting that you dial in on your camera won't make any difference to the RAW file. So in that sense it doesn't matter what you set. But it will have a couple of small effects:
- the preview image you see on the camera LCD is a JPG which the camera creates using the WB setting, so if the WB setting is wrong then the preview will look wrong;
- your RAW processing software will read and apply the WB setting from the camera, so if that's wrong then you'll have to fix it yourself (which you can, of course) but if it's right then you won't need to touch it.

Apologies if I am reading your reply wrong Stewart, but to me it seems like you are contradicting yourself. " It makes no diffrence ".
" But you can correct it if it is wrong " I know others say differently but I set a custom WB and shoot in RAW and imo there is obviously a difference. If it is set right in camera the WB does not have to be touched in PP.

 

[hollis_f]

If it is set right in camera the WB does not have to be touched in PP.

This assumes that you can set it right in-camera. But there are only half-a-dozen, or fewer, WB settings available in-camera. Lightroom has over 14 million settings, so it should be possible to get an WB that is more accurate in LR than in-camera. Even if the WB is close in-camera, LR can get it closer.

 

[specialman]

Apologies if I am reading your reply wrong Stewart, but to me it seems like you are contradicting yourself. " It makes no diffrence ".
" But you can correct it if it is wrong " I know others say differently but I set a custom WB and shoot in RAW and imo there is obviously a difference. If it is set right in camera the WB does not have to be touched in PP.

In effect, with raw you can set the WB to whatever you want because you can, in PP, adjust it to what is deemed 'normal'. So if you shoot all day outdoors in the fluorescent setting, when the images are in software (like LR etc) you can change the WB settings and bring it back to a daylight look. It means extra work back at base but it can rescue a shot that on the camera's LCD looks unimaginably bad

Personally, I shoot in AWB because A) my D2x is pretty reliable, and B) I know if it's a bit off from what I require I can adjust it in PP to make it look as I want...

 

[u8myufo]

This assumes that you can set it right in-camera. But there are only half-a-dozen, or fewer, WB settings available in-camera. Lightroom has over 14 million settings, so it should be possible to get an WB that is more accurate in LR than in-camera. Even if the WB is close in-camera, LR can get it closer.

How can I put this Frank Imo even if LR had 15 million settings I would like to know how for example you could take a few pictures in Raw, convert them two days later and replicate what the WB would have been on the day. Like I say, I find that if I do a custom WB then there is no need to alter it after.

In effect, with raw you can set the WB to whatever you want because you can, in PP, adjust it to what is deemed 'normal'. So if you shoot all day outdoors in the fluorescent setting, when the images are in software (like LR etc) you can change the WB settings and bring it back to a daylight look. It means extra work back at base but it can rescue a shot that on the camera's LCD looks unimaginably bad

Personally, I shoot in AWB because A) my D2x is pretty reliable, and B) I know if it's a bit off from what I require I can adjust it in PP to make it look as I want...

Well Pat shooting on a completely wrong WB like flourescent during daylight is stating the obvious, but the OP asked about getting it right in camera. And doing a custom WB is the way to do it imo. On the other hand you are right in a way when you say you can adjust it in PP to how you want it to look. We all have our own methods of doing things I suppose, and so long as the end results are not a million miles out then we do not really need to be too hung up about it.

 

[specialman]

.... And doing a custom WB is the way to do it imo.....

That's probably right to make sure thing are close to 'perfect' 100 per cent of the time, for sure. I just mainly rely on the camera though, simply because custom WB or pre-set, I can still adjust the image fully at the other end. I know what you're saying though; try to get it as best as you can SOOC and it saves you time....

 

[shane1980]

Anybody reccommend the best way to do a custom White balance as I know there's a few ways

What do *** find convenient

 

[HoppyUK]

Anybody reccommend the best way to do a custom White balance as I know there's a few ways

What do *** find convenient

There's only one way, explained in the handbook.

That is, you shoot a 'neutral' target in the same light as the subject, and use that as your white balance reference. The camera then makes sure it appears neutral, and all other colour then fall naturally into place.

Neutral means equal quantities of red, green and blue - which can be white (easiest) or any shade of grey. So long as the target isn't over-exposed and blown, or too dark and full of noise, it will be spot on.

White paper makes a pretty good neutral target, or a certified white balance card if you prefer. Be aware that not all 18% grey cards are neutral (they're really intened for exposure measurement).

 

[roseway]

Everyone seems to be talking about accuracy here, but that isn't necessarily the only consideration. Even if you get the WB exactly right in the camera, you may well find later that an adjustment of the WB makes the picture look better. It's probably worth trying to get it right in the camera, but I wouldn't expend a lot of effort on it.

 

[u8myufo]

Everyone seems to be talking about accuracy here, but that isn't necessarily the only consideration. Even if you get the WB exactly right in the camera, you may well find later that an adjustment of the WB makes the picture look better. It's probably worth trying to get it right in the camera, but I wouldn't expend a lot of effort on it.

It is the only consideration as far as I am concerned Eric :shrug: As mentioned the thread was about getting it right to start with. Sure you can adjust the WB to how you want it in PP, I myself do not.

 

[hollis_f]

How can I put this Frank Imo even if LR had 15 million settings I would like to know how for example you could take a few pictures in Raw, convert them two days later and replicate what the WB would have been on the day. Like I say, I find that if I do a custom WB then there is no need to alter it after.

Sorry, yes doing a custom WB at the time will be just as accurate as doing a WB, preferably from a standard target, during PP. I was thinking about the people who just use the inbuilt settings like 'cloudy'.

 

[HoppyUK]

It is the only consideration as far as I am concerned Eric :shrug: As mentioned the thread was about getting it right to start with. Sure you can adjust the WB to how you want it in PP, I myself do not.

The concept of correct white balance is interesting, because techncially the colour of an object is the colour of the light reflected from it at any given time - which varies. In that sense, the 'uncorrected' Raw is always the truly accurate one, but of course it doesn't look like it.

What we usually mean by correct white balance is the colour as seen in clear noon daylight, about 5500K, which our eyes have a good knack of replicating even under quite different conditions. But not always, and sometimes technically incorrect white balance actually looks better (unless you're shooting something technical). Candle light for example, or a bit of extra warmth in portraits gives more attractive skin tones (avoid green though ).

In practise, our eyes are quite tolerant of slightly incorrect colour, but are very intolerant of inconsistent colour shot to shot.