Time clock from Anheuser-Busch's Beermaster Tour for C&C

[Inkanyezi]

I had tried to correct the WB via software and that is exactly what I did to this image. I have to get used to using the auto white balance...I just cannot connect using auto WB having use the manual one for years...I must have used the wrong black and white points. But I had already explained that one to Bryan above...what I used in Photoshop, I mean...

Again, I appreciate your comments and feedback...

It might be a bit easier if you think of "Auto WB" as snake oil, as there is no such feature in the perceptible world.

Black point and white point are in no way whatsoever related to white balance. They are entirely different creatures. If you take a look at the little rose I show in another thread here, its "white point" is intensely red. White point is only the point where the histogram ends at the right side, it has no relation at all to colour. If you pick a point in the image to become your white point, it is a decision to put it at the 255 value (or close), not any colour designation.

And automatic white balance is a myth that should be forgotten as soon as possible. It does not exist! Some cameras try to set one automatically by evaluating what is in front of the lens, and some computer programs do the same, but neither can hit a correct white balance. The more advanced cameras will not try to set WB to make the image generally "grey", but choose one of the presets after evaluating what is in front of the lens. It will be correct sometimes, particularly in daylight and sometimes under incandescent light, but never with fluorescents or other light sources as LED or energy saving bulbs.

You can use a white or neutral grey area in an image to set white balance, but to do that you need a neutral object in the image. We may suppose that some white object will be sufficiently neutral for the task and use it for white balance, but I don't know whether Photoshop can do it. The Photoshop I once had couldn't, even though there was an eyedropper for it (PSE 3.0). The problem probably was that the size of the area could not be chosen. All RAW converters can be used for setting white balance, ACR or Lightroom can do it, or Raw Therapee. You choose an area that is supposedly neutral and receives the same light as your main subject, and use that area for white balance. Preferably its brightness should not be too close to the white point. A RAW converter is a better tool for white balance setting than Photoshop or Gimp, but if the image is jpeg, not all RAW converters can open them.

[Shadowman]

Oh God! at last someone commented about the lens...thanks John...I decided to use my 50mm for the trip because I forgot my 18mm. After that trip I am thinking of an 11-70 or a 12mm zoom for better coverage of small confined areas...maybe next month...have to pay the credit card first... I really think I had the wrong lens...if I can have a 10mm I would be more than delighted! Thanks for the feedback and your comment...appreciate it very much.

Izzie,

Based on this particular composition, the 50mm served you well, perhaps you wanted more of the clock base in the image?

[Mike Buckley]

I just cannot connect using auto WB having use the manual one for years

Just change the setting to Auto and use it for a couple of weeks in a variety of situations such as indoors and outdoors in bright light or cloudy skies. If you find that you experience more white balance issues than before, revert to the Manual setting. If you find that you experience fewer white balance issues than before, leave it set on Auto except for the rare situation that you would expect it not to work well.

[Nat]

Beautiful image, nice and sharp! I agree that the label is in an unfortunate spot. I don't mind the color, as it seems to "age" the effect, and that might not be bad for an antique like this one.

[deetheturk]

Izzie, can you honestly expect a sensible comment from me if there's no bugs in the frame!!!

[IzzieK]

Very interesting Izzie, thanks for sharing.

Thanks, Ziggy...I am glad you like it...appreciate your comments.

[IzzieK]

Gotyah...thanks for the lengthy explanation. I have copied and saved your response here so I can pick it out when I am studying my notes...I do appreciate your comment and feedback. You've always been a good help...

It might be a bit easier if you think of "Auto WB" as snake oil, as there is no such feature in the perceptible world.

Black point and white point are in no way whatsoever related to white balance. They are entirely different creatures. If you take a look at the little rose I show in another thread here, its "white point" is intensely red. White point is only the point where the histogram ends at the right side, it has no relation at all to colour. If you pick a point in the image to become your white point, it is a decision to put it at the 255 value (or close), not any colour designation.

And automatic white balance is a myth that should be forgotten as soon as possible. It does not exist! Some cameras try to set one automatically by evaluating what is in front of the lens, and some computer programs do the same, but neither can hit a correct white balance. The more advanced cameras will not try to set WB to make the image generally "grey", but choose one of the presets after evaluating what is in front of the lens. It will be correct sometimes, particularly in daylight and sometimes under incandescent light, but never with fluorescents or other light sources as LED or energy saving bulbs.

You can use a white or neutral grey area in an image to set white balance, but to do that you need a neutral object in the image. We may suppose that some white object will be sufficiently neutral for the task and use it for white balance, but I don't know whether Photoshop can do it. The Photoshop I once had couldn't, even though there was an eyedropper for it (PSE 3.0). The problem probably was that the size of the area could not be chosen. All RAW converters can be used for setting white balance, ACR or Lightroom can do it, or Raw Therapee. You choose an area that is supposedly neutral and receives the same light as your main subject, and use that area for white balance. Preferably its brightness should not be too close to the white point. A RAW converter is a better tool for white balance setting than Photoshop or Gimp, but if the image is jpeg, not all RAW converters can open them.

[IzzieK]

Izzie,

Based on this particular composition, the 50mm served you well, perhaps you wanted more of the clock base in the image?

No, John...I want more of the other places like the bottling and labelling plants and some tighter spaces at the curing tanks and the buildings outside...a lot of place I missed because we are moving and moving from place to place and if I have a 10 or 11mm or even the 12-24mm I can shoot in a single shot without missing the beat...I was actually not listening to my earphones anymore because I got busy shooting...I did some pano but I do not know yet how it turned out...single shots of historical buildings would have been nice...especially at the old schoolhouse...and that little room there inside...I was so frustrated...anyway I am ordering the 10-70mm befor this weekend to use in tours and other shooting incidentals. It might even end up as my walk-about lens...

[IzzieK]

Just change the setting to Auto and use it for a couple of weeks in a variety of situations such as indoors and outdoors in bright light or cloudy skies. If you find that you experience more white balance issues than before, revert to the Manual setting. If you find that you experience fewer white balance issues than before, leave it set on Auto except for the rare situation that you would expect it not to work well.

I guess there is no harm in trying...since I shoot everyday no matter what it is. I might even get used to it, but if you had read Urban's response, since I am shooting in RAW anyway, I really do not need it because I can change the WB even in ACR...which is what I really do if I do not forget...but I will try it ...I might even be surprised...thanks for the insisting...

[IzzieK]

Beautiful image, nice and sharp! I agree that the label is in an unfortunate spot. I don't mind the color, as it seems to "age" the effect, and that might not be bad for an antique like this one.

I will upload another version soon....thank you for the feedback, Nat...'truly appreciate it very much...

[IzzieK]

Izzie, can you honestly expect a sensible comment from me if there's no bugs in the frame!!!

Oh no, not really...I know you are just amusing me anyway, so I will upload you a bug tomorrow, OK??? 'Might keep you quiet....as if...I might even put it on top on one of my tour shots...yes! that is a good idea...!! Watch me, pal...

[Mike Buckley]

And automatic white balance is a myth that should be forgotten as soon as possible. It does not exist! Some cameras try to set one automatically by evaluating what is in front of the lens, and some computer programs do the same, but neither can hit a correct white balance.

Sorry, but I completely disagree. That's because there is no "correct" white balance; there is only a desirable white balance. Moreover, automatic white balance is not remotely a myth because Nikon cameras (and I suspect all manufacturers' cameras) have that setting. You may not like to use it for whatever reason you prefer but to say that it is a myth is patently untrue. At the very worst, it is an attempt by the camera to automatically determine an acceptable white balance. Thus, it is appropriately called Auto white balance.

[IzzieK]

Here is an edited version...keep you folks happy...now can I expect a comment or two??? Thanks...



What I did here is change the WB in ACR to Auto, then tested one after the other to see which makes it more presentable. I can't believe Flourescent is more nearer to Auto...but here it is. After a few adjustments in temperature and tint and of course the rest of the sliders, plus pinpointing the black, white then grey options, I find it reasonably good...Now it is all up to you to judge if this is better...

Waiting for further responses...and thanks for any that will oblige me...

[Mike Buckley]

but if you had read Urban's response, since I am shooting in RAW anyway, I really do not need it because I can change the WB even in ACR

First: I completely disagree with most of Urban's response. I take his statements to be made as if they are fact rather than opinion. Example: "...automatic white balance is a myth..."

Second: You have argued that there is no need to use Auto white balance because you are shooting raw files and can change the white balance during post-processing. Using that argument, it also doesn't matter what white balance you use including the Manual white balance that you tend to use.

Third: The reason I suggest that you try using Auto white balance for awhile is to determine if it seems to be a better fit with you. Notice that unlike Urban, I'm not arguing that Auto white balance is good or bad; I'm only arguing that trying it for awhile to determine whether it's a good fit for you might be a good idea.

Fourth: Though you mention that you can always change the white balance during post-processing, my anecdotal observations are that you're struggling with doing that effectively. That leads to the recommendation that you try using Auto white balance with the hope that you won't have to make so many changes during post-processing, which doesn't seem to be your strength. We all have issues in photography that aren't our strength, so that's an observation about your success rate rather than a criticism.

[Mike Buckley]

You posted your most recent version while I was typing my most recent post. That version is so much more pleasing to me than your previous version.

I can't help but notice that you used the Auto white balance in your software to make that version. That leads me to wonder how much you and others would have been more satisfied with your photo if you had used the Auto white balance in your camera.

[Stagecoach]

Waiting for further responses...and thanks for any that will oblige me...

Hi Izzie, I'm lurking during a tea break (seem to be taking lots today) so will respond

I will not be drawn into the WB discussion other than to say when you looked at that image on the computer you should have said to yourself the builder made those little number discs white, so if I plop my WB tool picker on that I should get it somewhere near right. And if it was too bright to do that ACR would have told you

And secondly and far more significant what's happened to that excellent noise control you achieved in the first image.

Grahame (keeping an eye on you)

[Loose Canon]

Wow!

No such feature as auto WB?

No such thing as “correct” WB?

“…statements to be made as if they are fact rather than opinion”?

Really?

Doesn’t even deserve a response on the Planet I’m living on! Even if anyone had enough time to give both of these non-fact opinions serious consideration! Certainly for this shot you have posted (which it is easy to tell the areas that should be white) and in the lighting available.

So Mizz Izz (the actual OP)?

Your last is very nicely corrected and well done. Whites should look their whitest. Blacks should look good. They tell the story. Colors (which are in between) will be much more accurately rendered. Aside from sounding like a laundry soap advertisement that is what WB is about! Its really not so complicated as long as you can recognize the issue when it appears.

[IzzieK]

I can understand what you meant, it is just that I have always been fiddling with my WB not knowing what to do in actual shooting so following the advice of Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson, it had stuck in my mind to use Cloudy outside and Daylight in dark conditions or something similar...most of the time I leave it in Cloudy even inside but forget to change/trial the WB in ACR. I am careless like that...weird. Now because of this discussion I will not forget as I had put it in my note...

Somehow, Urban's argument matters too as I have read that comment before in some articles about WB but at the time, it went over my head...

You are both right...in your own way. Since I am in the "Shoot More" stage, I will give each of you credit for waking me up and getting me past this WB stage of my photography life...

Thank you both for your contribution to my knowledge...I truly appreciate it very much.

First: I completely disagree with most of Urban's response. I take his statements to be made as if they are fact rather than opinion. Example: "...automatic white balance is a myth..."

Second: You have argued that there is no need to use Auto white balance because you are shooting raw files and can change the white balance during post-processing. Using that argument, it also doesn't matter what white balance you use including the Manual white balance that you tend to use.

Third: The reason I suggest that you try using Auto white balance for awhile is to determine if it seems to be a better fit with you. Notice that unlike Urban, I'm not arguing that Auto white balance is good or bad; I'm only arguing that trying it for awhile to determine whether it's a good fit for you might be a good idea.

Fourth: Though you mention that you can always change the white balance during post-processing, my anecdotal observations are that you're struggling with doing that effectively. That leads to the recommendation that you try using Auto white balance with the hope that you won't have to make so many changes during post-processing, which doesn't seem to be your strength. We all have issues in photography that aren't our strength, so that's an observation about your success rate rather than a criticism.

[IzzieK]

You posted your most recent version while I was typing my most recent post. That version is so much more pleasing to me than your previous version.

Thank you...I thought so too...

I can't help but notice that you used the Auto white balance in your software to make that version. That leads me to wonder how much you and others would have been more satisfied with your photo if you had used the Auto white balance in your camera.

I seem to have a lot of bugs outside on sunny days, I will shoot some tomorrow for David in Auto WB mode in my camera...if I am not happy then the software can do it for me anyway...we'll see...

Thank you for your added comments...and insisting that I use Auto-WB... It will be done tomorrow. I am hoping to get a good grip on it first to see if I like it. If I do, then it will be a plus that I do not have to worry about...just like my auto-ISO mode. I just forget I have it since it is on auto. Thanks again...

[IzzieK]

Hi Izzie, I'm lurking during a tea break (seem to be taking lots today) so will respond

Thanks...am expecting you will...

I will not be drawn into the WB discussion other than to say when you looked at that image on the computer you should have said to yourself the builder made those little number discs white, so if I plop my WB tool picker on that I should get it somewhere near right. And if it was too bright to do that ACR would have told you

Good point...better as without the technicalities, it is easier to sink in. Aw...you know what I mean...

And secondly and far more significant what's happened to that excellent noise control you achieved in the first image.

oOOOPPsss...I forgot to turn on the Luminance slider...sorry...not correcting it anymore but I will correct my file after I load the psd back...

Grahame (keeping an eye on you)

Yes I know...and thank you very much again...appreciate it.