White Balance Confusion!

[Nicks Pics]

Hello Folks,

Recently I was doing a photography project with another photographer which was photographing domestic rabbits of different colors against a light blue background. (Look in People and Pets, maybe I'll post a few soon)
While post processing them I got into some white balance confusion, which I don't usually run into because I don't usually do artificial lighting photography. I kept changing the white balance while shooting because I didn't get around to setting it to something white and keep it that way. ( which I should probably do next time)

So in post I have been setting each image's temp and tint to how I feel it looks good for the particular image, but then I started to think that maybe there was a more technically accurate way to do it.

Here are 3 thoughts, which is right?

1: Set each image how I like it/ feel it looks nice in PP individually, ( as I had been doing)

2: Do some experimenting ( possibly using the WB picker tool ) on the white rabbits to find an average best temp (for instance, 5400) and set all to that

3: Find out what temperature the speed lights' light was ( say it was a 6500 bulb/filter) and set all the images to that number

If you've got any thought about which of these ideas is the correct way to do it , or any other thoughts let me know, that would be really appreciated!

[pnodrog]

Unless you are trying to match colours accurately to how they would appear under midday natural light I think your option !: is perfect.... but it is well worth experimenting with the other approaches. I would certainly not recommend changing the WB setting on the camera every few shots.

The options (unsophisticated options) are:-

1. leave it on Auto WB
2. leave it set at a fixed colour temperature say 5000
3. set it at the start of a shoot to match the dominant light source.

If you shoot RAW you can easily change the WB in PP as the camera WB setting is only part of the metadata and has not been applied to the RAW data.

[Stagecoach]

Another thing to consider Nick is that if you used the same lighting and background throughout the shoot, do you want the backgrounds to be the same in each image on the finished products?

If so, keep all at the same WB during the shoot and in PP decide the WB you want, possibly set it off a white rabbit and then set all others to that temp.

[Nicks Pics]

L. Paul, and Grahame,
Thanks for your suggestions. What I would like to do is to have a "correct" WB throughout, (so white looks white). Not so much because I care that the BG looks the same, but mainly because with so many different colors of fur, I want to get all of them accurate. If I had set the camera to a white object at the time and not changed it, I could trust that the colors were right, but now I'm trying to decide what to do in post.

If you shoot RAW you can easily change the WB in PP as the camera WB setting is only part of the metadata and has not been applied to the RAW data.

I was shooting RAW, so I can work with WB.

in PP decide the WB you want, possibly set it off a white rabbit and then set all others to that temp.

This is about what I've decided to do, I did some testing on white rabbits, and decided on 5452, and set all of them to that, hoping that it is an accurate color temperature so that I can trust that the fur is a realistic color, (for a neutral light) in all of them. It seems to look good on most of them.

Thanks again

[george013]

L. Paul, and Grahame,
Thanks for your suggestions. What I would like to do is to have a "correct" WB throughout, (so white looks white). Not so much because I care that the BG looks the same, but mainly because with so many different colors of fur, I want to get all of them accurate. If I had set the camera to a white object at the time and not changed it, I could trust that the colors were right, but now I'm trying to decide what to do in post. I was shooting RAW, so I can work with WB.


This is about what I've decided to do, I did some testing on white rabbits, and decided on 5452, and set all of them to that, hoping that it is an accurate color temperature so that I can trust that the fur is a realistic color, (for a neutral light) in all of them. It seems to look good on most of them.

Thanks again

I don't know the circumstances, but you could also experiment with a WB preset, made on basis of the lightsource, not being a flash. If your camera has that ability.
George

[ajohnw]

Flash is usually 6500K or close. Some tinting was popular once but I see no real signs of it now. I reckon this was aimed at giving westerners a bit of a tan and might still go on. When things are close to the normal daylight range auto white balance usually copes unless the lighting is mixed and spot balancing on various greys will usually tidy things up if needed. Flash should give a good daylight simulation.

I haven't used custom in camera white balance much where a test shot is taken to get the readings. Artificial lighting often puts out an odd spectrum compared with daylight and incandescent light sources so an odd rgb balance can be needed to correct colours that isn't entirely just a matter of colour temperature. Might be better to explain another situation where it can crop up.

Some pp packages have balances for a number of different light sources. If the right one is there these can fix a raw shot quickly and easily. or at least get it near. If auto white balance is set I find that use camera setting is way way better these days than it used to be and is generally sufficient. It wasn't on a basket ball player some one posted recently but a certain type of daylight fluorescent setting was a lot closer.

Curious things can happen even in daylight. Taking a shot I took - a gent seated dressed in a white shirt, black trousers and a black pull over. Also well tanned. No single colour balance could suit all especially the black trousers and pull over when the shirt was white - different materials and dyes. This relates to why artificial light can need more than some r g b balance that results in a straight forwards colour temperature. The reason in this case is the spectrum coming out of the light. That can change the appearance of colours all on it's own. Mentioned because if you do go somewhere and set up a custom white balance it's still possible to have problems in this area.

John
-

[Downrigger]

Certainly a major argument for shooting RAW, here. I've begun to feel that I should be carrying a reference gray around more often and using it to set WB for groups of shots at the same time/same light. It's harder to get white to be white than set WB with a neutral gray. I wonder too, does anyone ever use a color checker for landscape/nature/wildlife shooting, or is that too OCD and fussy and best saved for the studio?

[DanK]

Nick,

I suggest you keep it simple. Buy yourself one of these: http://michaeltapesdesign.com/whibal.html. I use one of the pocket sized ones. Take a shot in the same lighting, use that to find a color temperature to get a true white, adjust to taste, and then sync that temperature to the other photos. The process of setting the temperature on the first and synching to the others is a matter of seconds in Lightroom. Add a minute or two to see if you want to adjust it (I often go a tad warmer), and you are done.

Dan

[xpatUSA]

. . . I wonder too, does anyone ever use a color checker for landscape/nature/wildlife shooting, or is that too OCD and fussy and best saved for the studio?

I use a Macbeth mini-card for flower shots outside in natural lighting. I also carry a small Kodak gray card because I sometime forget the Macbeth or it's been left elsewhere. Not too fussy from my POV.

[PhotomanJohn]

I wonder too, does anyone ever use a color checker for landscape/nature/wildlife shooting, or is that too OCD and fussy and best saved for the studio?

I do carry and use a Color Checker Passport outdoors but not much for landscape/nature/wildlife shooting where a white balance adjustment is generally all that is needed. I do use it outdoors when I have a variety of colors from clothing, buildings, flowers and the like. I follow the recommended process of setting a custom white balance then shooting the color chart so I can create a camera/lens profile during PP. I find that correcting the images with the profile does a very good job of tweeting the various colors to be more natural and vibrant. Give it a try in colorful situations and see what you think.

John

[ajohnw]

Certainly a major argument for shooting RAW, here. I've begun to feel that I should be carrying a reference gray around more often and using it to set WB for groups of shots at the same time/same light. It's harder to get white to be white than set WB with a neutral gray. I wonder too, does anyone ever use a color checker for landscape/nature/wildlife shooting, or is that too OCD and fussy and best saved for the studio?

I reckon OTT because cameras generally don't record colours that accurately anyway. Some makes even seem to have their own style. I did find a review site that showed a shot of a test card with smaller squares in it so that what went in could be compared with what came out. I'd say that the difference was more than people would tolerate on a monitor. There is a site that shows the sort of thing that can be used to show the accuracy of a monitor but not so clearly. Just found it again so can look more closely

http://www.photoreview.com.au

Glad I did - some usable lens tests as well. Even on the Oly 75-300mm at last so I can get some idea if a 150-600mm on crop will really be much better. Three cheers for Oz. Christmas is coming and I usually buy myself a present as well as some for others..

John
-

[xpatUSA]

Flash is usually 6500K or close.

Flash should give a good daylight simulation.

John
-

Some sources can vary from the above. Many quote the flash CCT as quite a bit less than 6500K, more like 5500-6000K. And daylight (i.e. cloudless day and not "up North") is about 5450K, therefore is less than flash, although not by a lot. 6500K, on the other hand, is more like 'overcast', IMHO.

For example, http://www.schorsch.com/en/kbase/glossary/cct.html

My Sigma SD9 manual quotes:

Sunlight (i.e. cloudless daylight): approx 5400K
Flash: approx 5850K (for Sigma EF-500 DG).

Not wishing to go to war on this, John I'm just quoting what I believe to be the consensus from the literature.

[ajohnw]

Some sources can vary from the above. Many quote the flash CCT as quite a bit less than 6500K, more like 5500-6000K. And daylight (i.e. cloudless day and not "up North") is about 5450K, therefore is less than flash, although not by a lot. 6500K, on the other hand, is more like 'overcast', IMHO.

For example, http://www.schorsch.com/en/kbase/glossary/cct.html

My Sigma SD9 manual quotes:

Sunlight (i.e. cloudless daylight): approx 5400K
Flash: approx 5850K (for Sigma EF-500 DG).

Not wishing to go to war on this, John I'm just quoting what I believe to be the consensus from the literature.

I don't mind Ted. I was just quoting generally and maybe should have said good simulation of daylight. Checking Olympus they state 5500 but mention that it will vary so set around that. They also suggest using auto white balance.

Seems I have gained a 1000 no idea how. thanks for correcting.

Had to wonder where that figure came from out of my head. It varies according to flash duration Metz where they give it quote 5500-6000K on a studio flash. I used to own a sledge hammer head. Might be the reason.

John
-

[HaseebM]

I use a grey or white card to set CWB for fabric for colour accuracy or as close to as possible. For rest I just use AWB and PS later to my liking. Isn't there expolight or something which is supposed to be quicker?

[NorthernFocus]

Another thing to consider Nick is that if you used the same lighting and background throughout the shoot, do you want the backgrounds to be the same in each image on the finished products?

If so, keep all at the same WB during the shoot and in PP decide the WB you want, possibly set it off a white rabbit and then set all others to that temp.

This is one key question. Will the pics show up together in some format? If so, then it's best to pick a WB (by whatever method) and stick with it. If the photos will be used individually, then optimizing the look of each one for the intended purpose makes most sense. IMO unless the photos are for scientific research the one that makes the least sense it trying to figure out technically accurate WB.

[Nicks Pics]

Hi
Thank you all folks for participating in the conversation. Thanks for your ideas. In regard to the intent of finding the "right" WB, what that would be for me is to find out what the approximate temperature of the light was at the time of shooting, (Speed light flashes + whatever indoor lighting there was ) so that if I set my images to that temp it will mean that the colors should be somewhat accurate. Probably should have used a WB card for that at the time, and set my camera to that temp, would have been simpler anyway, but since I didn't what I have decided to do is to pick a white balance based off some of the white rabbits, and sync that temp ( 5452) to all of the images. The purpose was to avoid the guess work of trying to get the colors right, and so that they would all have uniform WB and it seemed to give fairly true-looking colors in most of them.

I wonder too, does anyone ever use a color checker for landscape/nature/wildlife shooting, or is that too OCD and fussy and best saved for the studio?

Regarding whether to use a WB card outdoors, I would say it is rarely useful, I usually shoot outdoors, so that is why I'm having to figure out what to do now with this artificial light situation. Setting a neutral light for nature photography would make sense in very few situations in my thinking. Say you were shooting a snowy mountain in sunset, you set your WB so that the snow is neutral white, then it doesn't look like a sunset anymore. I would think it is the same with most cases of outdoor photography.

[xpatUSA]

Hi
Thank you all folks for participating in the conversation. Thanks for your ideas.

Regarding whether to use a WB card outdoors, I would say it is rarely useful, I usually shoot outdoors, so that is why I'm having to figure out what to do now with this artificial light situation. Setting a neutral light for nature photography would make sense in very few situations in my thinking. Say you were shooting a snowy mountain in sunset, [if] you set your WB so that the snow is neutral white, then it doesn't look like a sunset anymore. I would think it is the same with most cases of outdoor photography.

Sorry, Nick, but I must disagree with the last sentence. There are too many different cases of outdoor photography to be able to apply the single scenario of 'a snowy mountain at sunset' to most cases.

[NorthernFocus]

...Say you were shooting a snowy mountain in sunset, you set your WB so that the snow is neutral white, then it doesn't look like a sunset anymore. I would think it is the same with most cases of outdoor photography.

This is one of my pet peeves, people "correcting" snow to white. Sometimes we forget that photography is all about capturing light. What better reflector of light than snow? When I correct scenes with snow in them, I correct them to what I remember seeing, not to make the snow white. Golden tones under some conditions and blue shadows on clear, sunny days. That's what snow looks like in my world. I do seem to recall some rosy tones in my youth that I haven't seen for years

[chauncey]

Ya might want to take a gander at this video as an alternative method ...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWaFDKrNrwc

[loosecanon]

I use Colour Checker Passport when shooting under controlled lighting conditions - ie studio flash.

Firstly it enables one to calibrate the sensor response to colour for the camera profile in lightroom.

Then when shooting one can include it in the trial image and set a white point.

Outdoor lighting varies - indeed surely it is one of the wonders how a sceen changes with different lighting, colour temperature, intensity, diffusion. and direction. So outdoors I set it to look right,for my personal preference, but with any series of the same place with the same lighting keep to the same colour temperature.

Personally I prefer a warmer than natural image, I just feel the warmth makes itmore welcoming as an image.