WB Adjustment in LR

[NorthernFocus]

One thing that I'm finding particularly helpful in LR is the WB tool. In AK we rarely get a chance to shoot in clear sunlight and even then the angle is low and the blue sky has a big influence. But usually we shoot in varying degrees of overcast. So I've always adjusted WB subjectively and often look at an image a few days later and can't believe how bad I missed. I tried the auto WB "eyedropper" in LR and don't like the results, mainly because there is almost never anything that is truly neutral in most of my photos. But I found a way to use the WB tool that is still subjective but with feedback other than simply visual.

When you click on the little WB eyedropper the cursor turns into an eyedropper with a little panel attached to it. At the bottom of the little panel is shows a percentage number for each of the R,G,B channels. What the exact value is doesn't matter but in theory if you place the eyedropper on a neutral pixel, the three numbers will be exactly the same. If you click with the eyedropper, that's what LR does. It adjusts WB temperature and tone to match up the three channels. But for one thing, in a lot of images it's hard to actually find something that is truly neutral. So rather than clicking on a spot you can use the channel values to tweak WB manually.

With the eyedropper selected, click on the value beside the WB slider as if you are going to type in a value. Then with the value still highlighted as if it's waiting for you to enter a value, place the eyedropper over what you determine to be as neutral as you can find in the image. Now use the arrow keys to change the WB temperature as needed to match up the R and B values in the tool panel. I've been re-processing some bald eagle shots and use the white on their heads. Since the white feather will almost always have a slight yellow tone I make sure the B is no greater and trending on the low side relative to the R channel. Once you're satisfied with the R/B split, you can adjust the G channel the same way but with the tone value.

This is still somewhat subjective but has been yielding much more consistent results for me. Now I rarely go back to the image a couple of days later and wonder what hallucinogenic drug I was on when I adjusted WB

[PhotomanJohn]

Dan,

You are right in that white (color) balance is very subjective. I'm not sure if you have a Color Checker Passport or not. When I really care about the color, I take the time to do a custom white balance using the neutral panel of the Checker then shoot the multi-colored panel and then generate and use the profile created during PP. I end up with a "technically correct" color balance which I can then stare at for awhile and decide whether I want to deviate for creative reasons. At least I have a consistent starting point. I find it really helps me.

Have you tried doing this and how do the results turn out for you?

John

[Manfred M]

As I don't do commercial photography, especially product shots, I tend to be a bit more footloose with my WB. While I will include a reference if I can, I will often chose a neutral spot in the image (white shirt, eyeball, etc.) to give me an inital setting and I will tweak the image to suit. I go all over the image with the eyedropper to get an inital setting and then take it from there.

I find that I prefer portraits to be slightly warmer than what is technically neutral.

[Downrigger]

Just a question -
I had understood (who knows where some of these things come from?) that the reference point for the eyedropper should be a neutral gray.
Does that include true white?
Understanding of course that the "correct" WB achieved is just a starting point for the post processor, and definitely not always the destination.

[Mike Buckley]

Now I rarely go back to the image a couple of days later and wonder what hallucinogenic drug I was on when I adjusted WB

True, but you should feel good to realize that there are all sorts of adjustments that you can review later for confirmation that you were indeed on those drugs.

[NorthernFocus]

John, I have not used the color card. I do have a grey/white card that I use once in a while, mostly on the rare occasions that I shoot indoors. Also sometimes shooting flowers when I have plenty of time.

...I had understood (who knows where some of these things come from?) that the reference point for the eyedropper should be a neutral gray.
Does that include true white?
...

Yes true white is neutral. As is any shade of grey with the same value of R,G, and B. Don't confuse brightness with neutral. As I understand it the classic 18 percent grey card came to fame as the standard for calibrating camera meters originally for brightness back before WB adjustment was an issue.

Mike, while processing photos I often suffer from the same source of mind altering fermentation that is frequently mentioned here in the forum.

[Manfred M]

Just a question -
I had understood (who knows where some of these things come from?) that the reference point for the eyedropper should be a neutral gray.
Does that include true white?
Understanding of course that the "correct" WB achieved is just a starting point for the post processor, and definitely not always the destination.

As long as the RGB values are equal in the sample, it doesn't matter what the exact value is. ACR does not let you use "pure white" values for WB, as these points could be blown out, therefore not representative of the white balance of the image.

[DanK]

I do have a grey/white card that I use once in a while, mostly on the rare occasions that I shoot indoors.

Why don't you use it outdoors too? Take one shot with the grey card in the relevant lighting, use that to set the WB using the eyedropper, and copy that temperature to the other images that should share it. (In lightroom, just use sync settings.) That would give you a much easier way of doing exactly what you describe, saving you the trouble of hunting for a neutral part of the image, and saving your skin if you don't have a good neutral area. I use the pocket sized whiBal, which is small enough that it is not a nuisance to carry.

Of course, this method and yours give you a neutral WB, which is not always what I want, but I find it easier to adjust from a neutral balance.

[NorthernFocus]

Why don't you use it outdoors too?...

Like I said I do when shooting flowers. But it's more trouble than it's worth when shooting wildlife. Too many variables changing all the time for the card to be of much use. Plus when things get going there is typically too much going on to be fiddling around with a reference card.

[Glenn NK]

Like I said I do when shooting flowers. But it's more trouble than it's worth when shooting wildlife. Too many variables changing all the time for the card to be of much use. Plus when things get going there is typically too much going on to be fiddling around with a reference card.

Dan:

I can just see someone tossing a WhiBal card out towards a deer/moose/bear to ensure white balance is correct.

I rarely worry about WB with flowers, particularly wild flowers as they have quite a large variation in colour.

G

[DanK]

Not to flog a dead horse, but one only needs as many white balance readings as there are lighting conditions. E.g., in a lot of circumstances, one taken in open sunlight and another in shade will be enough to get quite close for any shots within a reasonable time span. You don't need a reading near the moose, just one in lighting similar to the lighting of the moose. Only the color temperature of the light matters; the other settings in the camera don't. It's trivially easy to take those few shots, so nothing much is lost if they aren't sufficient and you are forced to do something like Alaska Dan describes.

On another note, I have never been able to photograph a moose. I spend a good bit of each summer at a cabin in the Adirondacks, and last year, someone who has a camp nearby photographed one swimming across the lake close to our cabin, but before we got there. One advantage of macro photography is that you can almost always find bugs, at least up there.

(Boston) Dan