bridget

[Shadowman]

Nice effort, the railing and patterned building kill the effort though, also a bit of foliage in the corner poking through.

[Manfred M]

I agree!

This thread and two other recent ones (including Driftwood Tipi) have reinforced my invariable practice of using auto WB in the camera and then making any colour adjustments while editing.

I know a lot of very skilled photographers that would disagree with you. I know one internationally recognized landscape photographer who always sets his camera to 5500K, regardless of the lighting conditions. This controls the variable of colour temperature for him and he corrects everything when he does his raw conversions.

That being said, AWB is terribly unreliable at very low and very high colour temperatures. My camera's AWB works between 3500K and 8000K. When the sun is at or near the horizon, you are looking at colour temperatures of 2800K and lower. At blue hour or when shooting into the north on a clear, cloudless day at northern latitudes, 10000K - 20000K are definitely realistic colour temperatures.

Add mixed lighting and your simply can't get a proper WB.

(And if it's important to try to reproduce the original colours accurately, to use a Whibalance card when shooting the original.)

A gray card only works when the colour temperature of the light hitting your subject is the same light that is hitting your gray card (or WhitBal card). That works well for portraiture and still life work, but can be quite far off when shooting landscapes. Shoot a gray card near sunset, chances it will read the color temperature of the zenith.

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by Cantab (And if it's important to try to reproduce the original colours accurately, to use a Whibalance card when shooting the original.)

<> A gray card only works when the colour temperature of the light hitting your subject is the same light that is hitting your gray card (or WhitBal card). That works well for portraiture and still life work, but can be quite far off when shooting landscapes. Shoot a gray card near sunset, chances [are that] it will read the color temperature of the zenith.

I suppose it would if one blocked off the rays from the west and pointed the WhiBal card at the sky ...

Isn't there a lens filter with mini-prisms and stuff that averages the scene color, allowing a good Custom WB to be carried out? Wouldn't that work for a landscape?

[Manfred M]

I suppose it would if one blocked off the rays from the west and pointed the card at the sky ...

Isn't there a lens filter with prisms and stuff that averages the scene color, allowing a good Custom WB to be carried out? Wouldn't that work for a landscape?

https://www.expodisc.com/

I have seen one once in someone's camera bag, but he did bother using it.

The problem with mixed light is that working with it is a creative call. I have white balanced mixed light sources in post and then manually blended the resulting images in post. Feathering the transitions worked reasonably well, but it was a lot of work.

[xpatUSA]

https://www.expodisc.com/

I have seen one once in someone's camera bag, but he [didn't] bother using it.

The problem with mixed light is that working with it is a creative call. I have [had] white-balanced mixed-light sources in post and then manually blended the resulting images in post. Feathering the transitions worked reasonably well, but it was a lot of work.

Expodisc, yes, that was it, thanks Manfred.

[dje]

I know one internationally recognized landscape photographer who always sets his camera to 5500K, regardless of the lighting conditions. This controls the variable of colour temperature for him and he corrects everything when he does his raw conversions.

To each his own I guess. Personally i find it hard to fathom the rationale behind this approach. It virtually guarantees that As Shot WB will never be right and that WB will have to be adjusted every time in the RAW processor.

Most of my shooting is done in fairly "ordinary" lighting conditions (ie no extremes) and I find that Auto WB works very well indeed most of the time. I rarely have to adjust it in post.

Of course I'm not an interationally acclaimed photographer.

Dave

[Manfred M]

To each his own I guess. Personally i find it hard to fathom the rationale behind this approach. It virtually guarantees that As Shot WB will never be right and that WB will have to be adjusted every time in the RAW processor.

Most of my shooting is done in fairly "ordinary" lighting conditions (ie no extremes) and I find that Auto WB works very well indeed most of the time. I rarely have to adjust it in post.

Of course I'm not an interationally acclaimed photographer.

Dave

Dave- his workflow is based on how he shot film; daylight film and he continued with the same approach when he went digital. He is a mountain and glacier photographer, so much of his work occurs during the morning blue hour and golden hour, so AWB is not particularly useful.

All I can say it works for him. Here is a link to his website and have been to a couple of his exhibitions. These are under the Exhibition tab; "Who do you say I am?" and "In Patagonia". Jim told me it took him 2 weeks to get that first shot "Monte Fitz Roy in early morning clouds, 2017" and the three shot pano is huge and the detail is incredible, even when pixel peeping.


Here is a link to his website: https://www.jalamont.ca


I use a mixed approach when it comes to using WB settings. I prefer using either a custom value or a preset when working in relatively consistent light conditions but will switch to AWB in highly variable lighting conditions. I find that a fixed WB gives me more consistency across the series and i can nail the colours more quickly than when fighting the variables when using AWB. In the studio I never use AWB and shoot either daylight or flash as the results are really quite close.

[DanK]

My approach is somewhat like Manfred's. I always shoot raw, so the camera WB setting is just a convenience. I assume that I will have to decide on WB in post. I find that the AWB in my Canon bodies is very good under many circumstances, and I can often leave the camera set that way and have minimal adjustments to make in post, sometimes none at all. However, in tricky lighting settings, and in particular, when lighting is inconsistent, I usually set the camera to a fixed value. One reason is the one Manfred gave: in some cases, it makes it a little easier to get consistent WB across a set of images.

I haven't used a custom WB for years.

[rpcrowe]

The problem with the Expodisc (as I understand the concept) is that you do not point your camera at the subject but rather at the light source when establishing a custom white balance. Therefore, you need to be in the same light as the subject. That generally means that you need to be fairly close to the subject. If you are in the same light as the subject, IMO it is easier to do a custom light balance with a light balance reference like the WhiBal Card. As an example, you can get your subject to hold a white balance reference when shooting in a studio and shoot the image establishing the custom white balance from the camera position. Using the Expodisc, you would need to walk up to your subject and point the camera back at the lights...

Some cameras are easier to establish a custom light balance than others because the light balance tool does not have to cover as much area within the frame as with others. Canon cameras can establish a custom light balance with the WhiBal card covering a relatively small area of the frame. Some camera models need the light balance reference to cover a large expanse of the frame in order to establish the custom light balance.

It appears that later Sony mirrorless cameras such as the A6400 and the A9 with firmware 5.0 are some of the easiest cameras to work with custom white balance because you need a very small area of the frame to be filled with the reference target and can also establish up to three custom white balance settings, register each, and choose which will be best for the each shot you are acquiring. I have not done this but I can imagine that it might be useful if you are shooting back and forth in two or three different lighting conditions - such as shooting with the subject in the shade and then in the sun and then in the shade again. On a Sony, you don't have to dive into the menu at all. You can designate one of the many buttons on the camera to setup for custom white balance...

After some recent white balance problems, I purchased a wallet size WhiBal card which I keep with my credit cards in my wallet. Now, I will never be without a WhiBal target as long as I have my wallet with me which I almost always do...

I don't shoot very much video but, I realize the importance of establishing a custom white balance, especially when shooting with two cameas, using them for A and B rolls and expecting to cut in and out between shots from the two cameras...

[William W]

To each his own I guess. Personally i find it hard to fathom the rationale behind this approach. It virtually guarantees that As Shot WB will never be right and that WB will have to be adjusted every time in the RAW processor. . . .

It can be difficult to understand any technique, without an explanation for the technique.

Manfred explained the Landscape Photographer’s reasons and the link Manfred provided is good reading.

From a Portrait Photographer’s experiences, this may also assist as further explanation for choosing to use a Preset WB as a technique.

Within any Events coverage (e.g. Wedding, Birthday, Social, Graduation, Prize Giving etc) the Photographer usually always shoots either in one Lighting Scenario, or a group of shots is made in one lighting scenario and then he moves to another, discrete, Lighting Scenario.

An easy example is a Wedding, below is a list of typical Lighting Scenarios for the day:
1. Bride Home Flash - Interior
2. Bride Home Flash as Fill - Outside
3. Arrive Church (if weather same – the LS is same as 2)
4. Church Interior (No Flash Allowed then Available Light –OR – Flash Allowed then Flash as Key)
5. Church Exterior (if weather same – the LS is same as 2)
6. Location Formal Portraits (if weather same – the LS is same as 2)
7. Reception (inside) depending upon time of day, Flash as Key and/or Flash as Fill window light

Some W&P Photographers (me included) will use a set WB for those different Lighting Scenarios, and that will be done irrespective of how they capture the file. I capture raw + JPEG (L). But I know of some who only capture raw and some who only capture JPEG and these Photographers do use the technique of a Set WB.

The main reason is, when, in Post Production, we have all the files, within any same Lighting Scenario open up at the same beginning. This makes editing so much easier and also makes it easier to keep the Colour Continuity (especially of Bride’s Mum’s and Bridesmaid’s dresses) across the Final Wedding Album.

Additionally, on the point Manfred made about those who have shot with Film - this is exactly how the (professional and experienced) Darkroom Technician would address Printing the negatives from a Wedding and Events shoot and why many Photographers would present the negatives to the Darkroom for printing in specific Lighting Scenario defined “batches”.

For a Wedding Coverage, often the exposure on Neg 1 would be Mum, Dad, Bride and Bridesmaids, Standard Grey Card, Standard Colour Swatch Chart and Neg 1 would be the point of first reference.

***

Nowadays, I still quite often use a Preset WB when I am making a lot of photos in one Lighting Scenario. With Digital I shoot way more than I really need to shoot, that’s my laziness at the shooting, but I have learned to accept that’s OK, most of the time.

Keeping a Set WB allows me to easily shoot 110 frames (albeit that I could have and perhaps should have shot 4 frames). If I later choose frames 1, 19 and 103 as what I want, I can quite quickly PP each from the same starting point.

On the other hand, if I were to use AWB in the above example (and I have many times as an experiment so I could decide which is the better workflow, for me), I have noticed that AWB makes subtle changes to the TINT and Colour Temperature between frames.

Additionally, I agree with Manfred, these changes seem more severe and more often occurring when the Scene CT is above (approx.) 7000°K and below 4000°.

In my experience, AWB is more whacky when there is mixed lighting, especially so, Indoors -Windows and Fluorescent Lights.

One further point, I've had a long period of shooting Sports and I refer to specifically Swimming in this comment: Swimming was mostly always indoors under Three Phase Lighting, but, for the lower ranked events/meets, the lighting was not always Telecast Quality Lighting and ofetn it was actually "mixed lighting" because of the age/decay of the individual lights within the lighting bank being used for junior events.

Obviously Swimming usually always requires a Tv (Shutter Speed), that is faster than the electricity’s Cycle Rate: if you desire ease of Colour Continuity and also desire the greatest Post Production headache possible, then use AWB for that gig.

The above comments regarding the AWB whackiness, refer to Canon DSLRs specifically.

The above comments are predicated on my passion and requirement for Colour Continuity when I intend to keep more than one shot of any Subject, this is especially so for (any genre of) Portraiture I shoot.

On the other hand, if I am out with a camera, simply being ready for what comes along next, as a single item that I want to keep, (but not necessarily made in one shot), I have almost always will have AWB set, because my Post Production would be different: because I only want ONE frame to keep, I would first choose which frame and then work on it independently and exclusively of the others.

WW

[William W]

Re post #30 - Please note that I really REALLY dislike spending time in Post Production, I would much rather be making Photos with my camera; hence my passion for making PP the most simple and the quickest part of my process, without denying me the quality which I desire in the Final Image.

[Manfred M]

Re post #30 - Please note that I really REALLY dislike spending time in Post Production, I would much rather be making Photos with my camera; hence my passion for making PP the most simple and the quickest part of my process, without denying me the quality which I desire in the Final Image.

Bill - had a real chuckle when I read this. In general I find that most photographers tend to have a similar opinion. I've been closely connected to the local photographic community for a number of years and have gotten to know photographers that run from talented amateurs to Wedding & Portrait photographers, real estate photographers, event photographers, commercial advertising photographer and successful fine art photographers.

As a general rule I have found the following "truths" about post-processing to be:

1. Wedding & Portrait, Event and Real Estate photographers - amount of time spent retouching is measured in seconds to minutes;

2. Commercial photographers - advertising and fashion* - minutes to hours of retouching; and

3. Fine Art photographers - hours to weeks of retouching.


* Note - these photographers often engage assistants and commercial retouchers to do their editing / culling and retouching. Some will do the part or all of the retouching themselves, depending on the size of the job and / or client. They also get to deal with Art Director and other such "experts" during their shoots.

[William W]

That's good. I constantly look in the mirror and chuckle.

I think much also has to do with one's experiences: specifically the number of years of those same experiences.

At our Studio's height of output, I'd personally cover three or four reasonably big jobs per week, ("big job" = 6 to 12 hours shooting). We sometimes employ two or occasionally three freelance Photographers on a Saturday. Monday was usually the day I went to the Lab (30 miles away from the Studio) to drop in the negatives for Printing and drop in the exposed rolls from the non-urgent jobs of the previous week's shooting.

Regarding the negatives for printing: we had access to one Lab Tech exclusively on a Monday. I'd sit with her and we'd discuss the Balance and Finish for each set of negatives. An important point is, if I shot each set of negatives (i.e. being each Lighting Set) accurately enough, then the Lab Tech used up only seconds doing her exposure and colour balance run for that set, ergo quicker throughput for my jobs. That meant I was able to contract for a better deal on my printing prices, because my jobs were quicker, in and out, whilst still maintaining high quality.

A second important point is, I'd never had much interest in any Lab work, even in College, though I had to learn it. I occassionaly got a big kick out of a great B&W print I made, I still do: but colour printing was way too much - I just didn't enjoy it.

In 2004 our Studio did about 6 months parallel shooting, prior to our cut over to digital.

The first parallel shoot underscored the Studio’s worst nightmare immediately: Post Production of the Digital Files. I employed a Post Production ‘expert’, with the view to establishing the same workflow as described above for Film – that was the second worst nightmare.

Obviously a solution had to be found - and that solution for us, was firstly I had to learn new stuff, and quickly, and secondly we chose to only employ Freelance Photographers if they had the skills to Post Produce their own shoot and for that PP to be aligned with our theme, style and standards. The latter proved impossible, so, in quick time, the then new owner of the Studio downsized the number of bookings and employed only myself, himself and his wife (as a second) to shoot and his wife to manage all the PP.

Anyway, that’s a long way about explaining why I am not interested in “doing” Post Production.

I think it’s not so much about my being primarily a W&P Photographer, but probably more about the longevity of doing same in a particular manner.

I think that many, perhaps most younger W&P Photographers, especially those who have ONLY used DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY, do spend long hours in Post Production:

Then again that might simply be because a lot of internet gabble tells them that is exactly how they should do it, and then they themselves perpetuate and endorse that workflow as being the best, correct and professional.

WW

[William W]

Anyway...

I want it to be clear that this side discussion doesn't take away from my interest in the photo of bridget and Mike's White Balance techniques: I'm going away for a few days, no mobile phone connections, no internet - bliss - I hope Mike gets back to the thread and we have progressed this White Balance conversation specific for Mike.

WW

[dje]

Anyway...

I want it to be clear that this side discussion doesn't take away from my interest in the photo of bridget and Mike's White Balance techniques: I'm going away for a few days, no mobile phone connections, no internet - bliss - I hope Mike gets back to the thread and we have progressed this White Balance conversation specific for Mike.

WW

Indeed Bill.

Manfred Dan and Bill

Thanks for your comments. It's interesting to see your approaches to WB, particularly in relating to the type of shooting you do.

Dave

[DanK]

I should have added: I use fixed Kelvin values for night photography because the color temperature varies dramatically and quite quickly.

[Manfred M]

Indeed Bill.

Manfred Dan and Bill

Thanks for your comments. I am interested to see your approaches to WB, particularly in relating to the type of shooting you do.

Dave

Based on what Bill has written, it seems we likely have a somewhat similar approach.

In most shooting situations I will generally have a quick look at the overall lighting levels and light quality and will manually set my ISO and typically will use one of the white balance preselects; usually daylight. I then shoot either aperture priority or shutter priority unless I am shooting studio or location lighting, where I will switch to manual exposure.

In situations where I am shooting in variable light conditions, I might switch to auto-ISO and / or AWB, especially if I am not looking at shooting a series of images.

I have used a custom WB and have manually dialled in a specific Kelvin value from time to time, but this is not my usual workflow. I have found that doing a custom white balance by simply using the scene as my "target" rather than shooting a gray card can be effective 90% of the time, if the presets are not working for me.

When I get back home I will often clean up one image (WB, black point, white point, lens correction, CA correction) and apply the same values to the whole series. That saves me lots of time and effort in post as this gives me a really strong starting position.

[xpatUSA]

I remember a page (link long forgotten) which showed that shooting AWB and correcting in post doesn't get you the same color as shooting with the appropriate preset and then correcting in post - in spite of what some of us might think! Which leads to doubt in my mind as to which is "correct". So I tried that today while shooting some clearance work-in-progress:



Definitely NOT the same color! Of course, it's a sample of one scene (statistically meaningless) ... and it's a DP2 Sigma camera unknown to "most of us" and, therefore, highly inscrutable.

No ICC profile in my post but shouldn't matter for the purposes of side-by-side comparison, eh?

So, what does your CaNikOny do?

[DanK]

Away from my equipment, so I can’t test. But this should be true of JPEGs but not raw files.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dje]

Ted it's not clear to me how you made the corrections.
Dave