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

[IzzieK]

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.

You are right Terry...I had put the notes in my digital brain (is my brain digital too?)
Anywho...I am glad you like this last one...after that debacle on WB, I learned a lot too -- next time someone sezs I got the wrong grey point, or no white point or wrong WB, I can just say "no...no...it is a special effect..."

[bnnrcn]

Hi Isabel I just want to say that it is a nice and sharp image and the second version with corrected WB looks much better. I too usually keep the WB setting of my camera at 'day light' but I usually shoot landscapes outside and I think sometimes I get warmer colors at some sunset shots with that setting. But if I shot indoors I think I would try using AWB as the lighting gets tricky because of the bulbs and/or fluorescent light.

In fact whatever setting you use is not realy matters very much as long as you are able to notice that the WB is off when you view it on your computer's screen and as long as you are able to fix it with your software

[Ndukes]

Second version excellent Izzie. For what it's worth I have the white balance set to auto in the camera and my default white balance in ACR set to 5880. Mostly 5880 works well for most of my landscape (probably a reflection of my film days when the film ISO was fixed) but I make minor adjustments from there. Setting the camera to auto allows me to see what the camera 'saw'. Everyone has their own way of doing things but that's what works best for me.
Love the clock. Still waiting for the beer!

[IzzieK]

Hi Isabel I just want to say that it is a nice and sharp image and the second version with corrected WB looks much better. I too usually keep the WB setting of my camera at 'day light' but I usually shoot landscapes outside and I think sometimes I get warmer colors at some sunset shots with that setting. But if I shot indoors I think I would try using AWB as the lighting gets tricky because of the bulbs and/or fluorescent light.

In fact whatever setting you use is not realy matters very much as long as you are able to notice that the WB is off when you view it on your computer's screen and as long as you are able to fix it with your software

Thanks for the advice. I just turned my AWB on when I shot that bug for David (the Scottish guy pretending to be a Turk...) and will stay for a while until I get used to it enough not to change it...anyway, it can always be changed in the software...as Urban said and I tried it on the bug shot...and some other Beermaster tour images...it is good. I like it so far...so thanks to Mike Buckley for that...I always gets confused on indoor lightings so that will be a good help...Thanks again for your comments and advice and preference. Do appreciate it very much.

[IzzieK]

Second version excellent Izzie. For what it's worth I have the white balance set to auto in the camera and my default white balance in ACR set to 5880. Mostly 5880 works well for most of my landscape (probably a reflection of my film days when the film ISO was fixed) but I make minor adjustments from there. Setting the camera to auto allows me to see what the camera 'saw'. Everyone has their own way of doing things but that's what works best for me.
Love the clock. Still waiting for the beer!

5880 will be Kelvin??? I have to get on to my Kelvin study again soon...sometimes I get it, but I shoot too many before I got the real deal so I dropped it for a while...have to shoot in different lighting and circumstances again in my deck...I used to shoot in films to and it was a hard transition for me to digital...but I am getting used to it by this time...now if I can be as good as you and the others here as to composition and artistry, I will be able to call myself a photographer...

Beer will be coming in digital soon...I am waayyy behind in sitting down in front of my 'pooter doing pp...like right now I have to prep dinner...

Thank you for passing by and commenting and the feedback...appreciate it very much...

[Inkanyezi]

5880 will be Kelvin??? I have to get on to my Kelvin study again soon...

I guess that K is what this number represents, but the K scale is not totally relevant for white balancing.

The K number for a light source is a very rough representation of its "whiteness". In the real world, light sources have different spectral curves, and white balancing from a reference object respects this, multiplying the impression on each channel with the correct coefficient for the light to appear white. Daylight has a different spectral curve than most artificial light sources, and it is very different from the light sources for which the K scale is defined, black body radiation. In fact the only light sources that are true K radiators are incandescent lamps.

So LED bulbs, fluorescent lamps of any kind, or discharge lamps (including electronic flash), are not K radiators and do not really cling to the K scale for white balancing.

That is why we need a reference for white in the image as a starting point for white balancing. We need a reference, for setting our three channel coefficients closer to the desired values.

<post edit start>
There's a very informative posting by xpatUSA on the subject of auto white balancing, with links to relevant sources (very technical papers), which explain much of what has been said in this thread about white balance, and maybe to some degree can shed light on my rather rigid opinion on "AWB"
Three questions about white balance
<post edit end>

[IzzieK]

Urban...I appreciate your further help here...I got your note for the WB issue quite pat because as I found out, it was my fault that I did not look at matching the WB in ACR. Trying to use the sliders without correcting the WB was stupid on my part...now that I had taken note of your explanation, I added it to my workflow I will not forget. Thank you.

About the post on AWB, I had read all the responses on that post very early this morning...I still have to read the articles which I will do this afternoon when I have a break. Technical information like these are the sort of thing that I need to read more thoroughly, if possible read it again and again until I understand the logic of the explanations. I have the link in my drafts folder on that post so I can go back anytime this afternoon....

Thank you...thank you...so much for your help. I do appreciate it very, very much....

I guess that K is what this number represents, but the K scale is not totally relevant for white balancing.

The K number for a light source is a very rough representation of its "whiteness". In the real world, light sources have different spectral curves, and white balancing from a reference object respects this, multiplying the impression on each channel with the correct coefficient for the light to appear white. Daylight has a different spectral curve than most artificial light sources, and it is very different from the light sources for which the K scale is defined, black body radiation. In fact the only light sources that are true K radiators are incandescent lamps.

So LED bulbs, fluorescent lamps of any kind, or discharge lamps (including electronic flash), are not K radiators and do not really cling to the K scale for white balancing.

That is why we need a reference for white in the image as a starting point for white balancing. We need a reference, for setting our three channel coefficients closer to the desired values.

<post edit start>
There's a very informative posting by xpatUSA on the subject of auto white balancing, with links to relevant sources (very technical papers), which explain much of what has been said in this thread about white balance, and maybe to some degree can shed light on my rather rigid opinion on "AWB"
Three questions about white balance
<post edit end>