# Could use some white balance advice



## Tommyk (Mar 11, 2014)

I'm hoping someone could advise on white balance in the field. I want to photograph an old barn that sits a distance back from the road. I will be using an 18mm-200mm Nikon lens. I'd like to capture this barn correctly and was wondering about the white balance settings. Am I better off using one of the preset white balance settings on the Nikon D300s or would I do better using a grey white balance card held in front of me to create a custom white balance even though the card is where I stand and not where the subject is?

I'll basically be in the same light the barn will be in .It does not have any shelter around it and I would be standing in lighting very close to the lighting the subject will be in.

Do you guys think i'm better off with the custom white balance or the presets in this situation. Or should I take the extra time and try presets and custom to play it safe? Any advice or thoughts greatly appreciated. I think for exposure I will be using exposure compensation but the white balance is what I'd really like to hear your thoughts on. What would you guys do?


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 11, 2014)

Use AWB and shoot raw.  Usually AWB is close enough.  And raw files allow you the ability to change WB in post.

Taking a shot of a gray card makes changing it in post an easy thing to do.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 11, 2014)

480sparky said:


> Use AWB and shoot raw.  Usually AWB is close enough.  And raw files allow you the ability to change WB in post.
> 
> Taking a shot of a gray card makes changing it in post an easy thing to do.



Yup. Auto WB FTW.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 11, 2014)

IMO, the BEST white-balance solution on the market (and I've tried a LOT of different ones).


----------



## paigew (Mar 11, 2014)

Yes I would say do a custom wb. Why not? It would only take you a second. You could do one with AWB and one with CWB to see what you like best


----------



## ConradM (Mar 11, 2014)

This is why new photographers should go with Sony. Pre-chimping in the EVF >*. I've pretty much never had to think twice about WB as I can always see exactly how my picture is going to come out before I take it. 





I know this thread isn't about brands but in case someone looking for a first DSLR is reading this....


----------



## KmH (Mar 11, 2014)

ConradM said:


> This is why new photographers should go with Sony . . .


How do you propose they cope with the downsides/limitations to EVF, in camera image stabilization, and Sony's limited selection of lenses?


----------



## ConradM (Mar 11, 2014)

KmH said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> > This is why new photographers should go with Sony . . .
> ...



What downsides and limitations? There's only benefits. IBIS can be turned off and there more than enough lenses for the average hobbiest.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 11, 2014)

ConradM said:


> This is why new photographers should go with Sony. Pre-chimping in the EVF >*. I've pretty much never had to think twice about WB as I can always see exactly how my picture is going to come out before I take it.



Uh...... No. And linking a Flickr page with photos that need the WB corrected doesn't bolster your position.

Joe


----------



## ConradM (Mar 11, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> > This is why new photographers should go with Sony. Pre-chimping in the EVF >*. I've pretty much never had to think twice about WB as I can always see exactly how my picture is going to come out before I take it.
> ...



Great argument.


----------



## Tommyk (Mar 11, 2014)

Thanks everyone I appreciate the help.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 11, 2014)

ConradM said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > ConradM said:
> ...



I thought that pointing out it doesn't seem to work for you was the great argument.

Joe


----------



## Braineack (Mar 11, 2014)

I dont see why this barn is any different to any other subject you'd shoot in terms of selecting the WB.


----------



## ConradM (Mar 11, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



But it does work for me, very well in fact. But that's besides the point. The point is, I see changes in real time.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 11, 2014)

tirediron said:


> IMO, the BEST white-balance solution on the market (and I've tried a LOT of different ones).



A better way: shoot in B&W.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 11, 2014)

480sparky said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > IMO, the BEST white-balance solution on the market (and I've tried a LOT of different ones).
> ...



Why... why that's so crazy it just might work!


----------



## Newtricks (Mar 11, 2014)

I do custom WB off a grey/white card or the subject every time I'm shooting. What time, press the WB button twice, hold until PRE flashes, take a shot and your done.


----------



## hirejn (Mar 11, 2014)

Set the white balance to match the light and you'll get better results. Auto is not a light source. It's just the camera's way of guessing, and not only is it unnecessary most of the time but it's usually several hundred degrees Kelvin off. Even if there's white in the scene, it usually contains some color cast, from the sky if nothing else, and therefore is unreliable as a WB target in auto or post. I can't advise auto as a solution when you know the light source. If the barn is lit by the sun, set the WB to sun. If it's lit by a tungsten light bulb, set it to light bulb. If you want to be more accurate, place a white card in the same light as the barn. Then you can use it for a custom WB or simply select it in post for accurate WB (which works better in RAW). However, note that if you're shooting sunrise or sunset, you don't want to do custom WB because that will neutralize the golden hue of the light. You want to leave WB at daylight during those hours to preserve the natural colors.

Guessing actually adds difficulty in processing. Yes, if you shoot RAW you can select any WB in post, but that's just guessing. Without a known color-neutral target in the frame, you'll struggle with sliders and trying to remember what the scene looked like, which is even worse if your monitor isn't calibrated. With custom, you know it's correct without guessing. When using a white card, it should be something like the ColorChecker from X-Rite. Some exposure gray cards actually have a color cast that won't help with WB.

Auto WB is neither exact, consistent, organized nor repeatable. Even under the same light, auto can change depending on where you point the camera, and so you could have 100 images under the same light each with a slightly different WB, making it even harder to figure out which is correct in post. Auto can be a handy tool, as sometimes there's no other way to estimate the light temperature. That still means more work in post. However, if you compare a series of different scenes shot in auto to the same scenes shot in custom or preset, the custom or preset will look better to most people. Auto appears to be OK in the viewfinder and when not compared to anything else, but when you put it against custom or preset, it's rarely as accurate. If you have the time, try to match the WB exactly to the source.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 11, 2014)

hirejn said:


> Set the white balance to match the light and you'll get better results. Auto is not a light source. It's just the camera's way of guessing, and not only is it unnecessary most of the time but it's usually several hundred degrees Kelvin off. Even if there's white in the scene, it usually contains some color cast, from the sky if nothing else, and therefore is unreliable as a WB target in auto or post. I can't advise auto as a solution when you know the light source. If the barn is lit by the sun, set the WB to sun. If it's lit by a tungsten light bulb, set it to light bulb. If you want to be more accurate, place a white card in the same light as the barn. Then you can use it for a custom WB or simply select it in post for accurate WB (which works better in RAW). However, note that if you're shooting sunrise or sunset, you don't want to do custom WB because that will neutralize the golden hue of the light. You want to leave WB at daylight during those hours to preserve the natural colors.
> 
> Guessing actually adds difficulty in processing. Yes, if you shoot RAW you can select any WB in post, but that's just guessing. Without a known color-neutral target in the frame, you'll struggle with sliders and trying to remember what the scene looked like, which is even worse if your monitor isn't calibrated. With custom, you know it's correct without guessing. When using a white card, it should be something like the ColorChecker from X-Rite. Some exposure gray cards actually have a color cast that won't help with WB.
> 
> Hallmarks of professional photography include being exact, consistent, organized and making things repeatable. Auto WB qualifies as none of those things. Even under the same light, auto can change depending on where you point the camera, and so you could have 100 images under the same light each with a slightly different WB, making it even harder to figure out which is correct in post. Auto can be a handy tool, as sometimes there's no other way to pinpoint the light temperature. That still means more work in post. However, if you compare a series of different scenes shot in auto to the same scenes shot in custom or preset, the custom or preset will look better to most people. Auto appears to be OK in the viewfinder and when not compared to anything else, but when you put it against custom or preset, it's rarely as accurate. If you have the time, try to match the WB exactly to the source.



Which is all well and good until you have to start moving around different locations in a short period of time. Or multiple people in different clothing against different backgrounds.

Auto WB does perfectly fine. I rarely need more than miniscule adjustments. Cameras are pretty smart nowadays. 
It's like telling someone to take the time to manually focus all the time because it's more accurate than the cameras autofocus. AF works pretty darn good too.

If your shooting raw anyway, which I always do, it's not really taking much extra time to check the WB while your in there.

As for 100 images with different WB...
Shoot raw, auto WB, tweak, and batch edit the WB if they are the same thing. OR....make 100 custom wb settings.

The hallmark of professional photography is delivering a quality product, by whatever means works.


----------



## harmonica (Mar 11, 2014)

To the OP, you said you have a Nikon lens, so I am guessing you have a Nikon camera.  A lot of Nikon's have the ability to dial in the Kelvin temperature manually.  Can you do that?  I like it better than a grey card, as it's just easier, and you don't have to get a card.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 11, 2014)

harmonica said:


> To the OP, you said you have a Nikon lens, so I am guessing you have a Nikon camera.  A lot of Nikon's have the ability to dial in the Kelvin temperature manually.  Can you do that?  I like it better than a grey card, as it's just easier, and you don't have to get a card.



Being able to dial a K setting kind of implies one knows the number to being with.  Color temp meters are rather pricey.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 11, 2014)

Add a vote from me for "RAW + auto white balance"

Auto balance is always close enough to be WELL within the editing range of RAW converters. So you'll always be okay.




The exception is if you're doing a prolonged photoshoot with consistent lighting. In which case you still don't need a gray card, or custom balance, for any reason I can think of. BUT you do want to have something other than auto white balance, because whatever it is you want it to not change shot to shot. So I pick the closest preset to the situation and just use that. This way, I can adjust WB perfectly in post for one photo, and then just do "apply to all in the folder" the same way to fix all of them, since the WB was consistent.


----------



## Dao (Mar 11, 2014)

I recently read a book from Bryan Peterson at a book store.  In one of the page he need to shoot a white brick house or light house with blue sky.   He used his palm when he did not have a gray card with him.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 11, 2014)

I usually pick a white balance and set it in degrees Kelvin. Start at 5000 degrees and go up higher as the day fades away.The last half hour of the day, you might easily be well above 7,000 degrees.

If you want the color to be "accurate" WB is set one way; if you want pleasing color, set the WB to make it please your sense of aesthetics.

What Is White Balance? | White Balance in Photography Explained from Nikon


----------



## harmonica (Mar 11, 2014)

480sparky said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > To the OP, you said you have a Nikon lens, so I am guessing you have a Nikon camera.  A lot of Nikon's have the ability to dial in the Kelvin temperature manually.  Can you do that?  I like it better than a grey card, as it's just easier, and you don't have to get a card.
> ...



Not necessarily.  You can tell by looking at the monitor or viewscreen, if the light is white or not.  Or you can dial it until you get a satisfactory looking result. I always dial it until it looks the most white, and go with that.  Or if I want a cool or warm tone, I will go with a different temperature.  You also don't need a color temperature meter if you can memorize a good amount of color temperatures throughout the day, as well as looking at the color in camera.  Is this a bad way of doing it?


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 12, 2014)

I don't understand what the point of any of these strategies are regarding palms or cards or meters, when walking around. They all just slow you down and make it less likely for you to get the shot before your light changes. That's a liability.

RAW converters have a latitude of THOUSANDS of Kelvin in either direction from what you shot at.  The auto white balance is never that far off, unless you're shooting through the bottom of a coke bottle. So you can always fix it later and get the shot now. And in most cases, AWB is good enough that you're even within the range of a JPEG to make a tiny adjustment, and you don't even have to bother with the RAW (if you shot RAW + jpeg and have a choice).

Why waste time in the field, where conditions and light are fleeting and special, instead of spending the same or even less time at your computer, after the moment has passed and when there is no pressure (AND where you have better viewing equipment and easier controls)?


----------



## weepete (Mar 12, 2014)

If you want an accurate white balance then go for it. If you are going to edit it later and tint it a bit then just shoot it on AWB


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 12, 2014)

Right, to clarify: if you want "true" white balance then you need to make some effort in the field to establish a reference frame.

However, all that requires is including anything in one frame per lighting condition that you will have available to photograph later by your computer as well. For example your camera bag or whatever. Still doesn't require fiddling with any settings in the field, though, is the point. Just snap the object, then move on, worry about aligning it later. And if you always use the same object like a tan camera bag (or the red lettering on my Canon neck strap) in all circumstances, then you will soon just learn what the color ratio is supposed to be for that item without having to recalibrate each time, and it only adds seconds to your workflow for the entire shoot later on to adjust for it.

That's all assuming that you care about perfect accuracy in the first place, as opposed to what looks prettiest to your eye (in which case you don't need a reference). And also assumes that the light is hitting you as well as your subject (if not you are forced to wing it anyway)


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 12, 2014)

harmonica said:


> Not necessarily.  You can tell by looking at the monitor or viewscreen, if the light is white or not.  Or you can dial it until you get a satisfactory looking result. I always dial it until it looks the most white, and go with that.  Or if I want a cool or warm tone, I will go with a different temperature.  You also don't need a color temperature meter if you can memorize a good amount of color temperatures throughout the day, as well as looking at the color in camera.  Is this a bad way of doing it?



Looking at the monitor on the camera is about the worst way to set white balance.


----------



## runnah (Mar 12, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> Add a vote from me for "RAW + auto white balance"
> 
> Auto balance is always close enough to be WELL within the editing range of RAW converters. So you'll always be okay.




Very much agree. I set custom WB when doing video but photos, meh AWB and raw tweaking get me to where I want to be.


----------



## TCampbell (Mar 12, 2014)

If you use RAW, white balance is not applied... at which point it doesn't matter what white balance you set (most cameras embed the white balance setting in the image data, but will not actually apply the correction.  Post processing software could read that and either apply it or choose to ignore it.  But the point is, once you have a RAW, what happens to the image as it's being processed is now up to you.)

A gray card is going to provide the most accurate white balance because it provides a subject which is guaranteed to be color neutral (it has a perfectly balanced mix of cyan, blue, and magenta to create "gray").  Consequently, since the camera (or post processing software) is designed to presume the gray subject is, in fact, perfectly color neutral, then any color cast detected in it must have come from the light source and not the material itself.   Assuming that the light illuminating the gray card is the SAME light illuminating everything else in your scene (or at least everything you care about in your scene), it allows the computer to neutralize the color cast.

This assumes that you want a neutral color cast.  The color temperature of the sun at mid day and the color temperature of the sun at sunset are not the same... the atmosphere filters out more blues and the sun becomes more golden/orange.  You may actually WANT to capture the "golden" cast.  It's a key quality of a sunset shot in that everything is warmed by the golden color cast.  If you're shooting a candlelight scene, the same would apply.   So you don't always want to neutralize it.

I do carry a gray card.  I do not always use it.  I also have an incident meter in my bag which, again, I do not always use. 

As Gav says... it can slow you down and sometimes it's not essential.  As indicated above, sometimes the non-neutral color cast created by the light is actually the very thing you WANT to capture and using white balance to neutralize the color cast would ruin the shot.   But... if you're shooting product photography THOU SHALT USE A GRAY CARD and ONLY a gray card.  Thou shalt not use anything else.  Neither shalt thou skip using any color balance and "wing it" by correcting the image on the computer with no objectively measured reference.  I am not merciful when I ordering clothing or other products based on color and the color isn't right.  Anyone in that industry should know better.  The steps necessary to perform a "color managed workflow" are well-understood.


----------



## paigew (Mar 12, 2014)

I think what WB mode you use also has a lot to do with what you shoot. For example wb is going to be a lot easier to adjust in post processing on a landscape shot than say...a backlit portait. I 99% of the time shoot people and AWB just isn't good with skin tones. And there isn't always a neutral color in the frame for you to sample from later.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 12, 2014)

> I think what WB mode you use also has a lot to do with what you shoot. For example wb is going to be a lot easier to adjust in post processing on a landscape shot than say...a backlit portait. I 99% of the time shoot people and AWB just isn't good with skin tones. And there isn't always a neutral color in the frame for you to sample from later.



There aren't just two options, though. It's not just 
A) AWB mode or
B) gray card and custom WB mode

There is a third option
C) gray card in one frame and AWB mode



Then, there _IS _always a neutral color in the frame for you to sample from later. But you still save time and don't miss shots when stuff is happening. (Just snap one per lighting condition change)


----------



## Derrel (Mar 12, 2014)

Set the WB at daylight using the Fine Weather/SUnny/Daylight (depends on the brand of camera), and you'll KEEP that beautiful, golden sunset light, or that lovely pinkish sunrise light. THat way the JPEGs and the image previews with most any software will look beautiful.

OR, let the camera run in AUTO white balance, and watch as it filters out the beautiful "colored light" and makes the sublime sunrise or sunset look like crap.

If you shoot a new, modern Nikon (D2x or newer), keep in mind that *Nikon encrypts all white balance data*, and ONLY Nikon-brand software products can read the actual white balance. ALL, as in ALL OTHER brands of software do a best-guess interpretation, and many s/w apps are 700 to 1,000 degrees Kelvin off from what will be the optimal,  WB value, but can also easily be off by anywhere from 1,000 to 2,000 degrees K from what might look best for a creative look that does NOT "*white balance away*" beautiful light.

One day in 2012, Majeed and I shot at Silver Falls State Park, under cloudy skies in fairly deep canyons lighted by ONLY sky-light,with no sunshine. The verdant springtime greens were amazingly rich. Adobe's Lightroom was about 5,000 degrees below the 10,000K setting that made my D3x NEF files look optimal and which made the greens look "right".

Bottom line: if you shoot a modern Nikon, Lightroom's ability to guess at Nikon's encrypted white balance data is often off, easily, by 1,000 degrees Kelvin, but more-typically, by 600 to 700 degrees.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 12, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Set the WB at daylight using the Fine Weather/SUnny/Daylight (depends on the brand of camera), and you'll KEEP that beautiful, golden sunset light, or that lovely pinkish sunrise light. THat way the JPEGs and the image previews with most any software will look beautiful.
> 
> OR, let the camera run in AUTO white balance, and watch as it filters out the beautiful "colored light" and makes the sublime sunrise or sunset look like crap.
> 
> ...



So....
If LR is off by that amount, can you not just open the raw file in LR and adjust it manually to where you want it? Or is that a problem only if you are shooting in jpeg?


----------



## Braineack (Mar 12, 2014)

I adjust mine in post arbitrarily untill I think it looks good; couldn't give a flying monkey if it was accurate or not, so long at it made it pleasing.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 12, 2014)

> If you shoot a new, modern Nikon (D2x or newer), keep in mind that *Nikon encrypts all white balance data, and ONLY Nikon-brand software products can read the actual white balance. ALL, as in ALL OTHER brands of software do a best-guess interpretation, and many s/w apps are 700 to 1,000 degrees Kelvin off from what will be the optimal, WB value, but can also easily be off by anywhere from 1,000 to 2,000 degrees K from what might look best for a creative look that does NOT "white balance away" beautiful light.*



For a beautiful sunset look, there IS no correct answer, though.

Thus, you're just adjusting by eye anyway, so it shouldn't matter at all if the WB information is encrypted or if it's 700 degrees out of register, or whatever. You would just simply move the slider 700 more degrees before you got to the same point where, by eye, you artistically think the sunset looks the most beautiful.

Same goes for a technical shot where you want perfect color, and have a gray card frame you snapped (in any of the static WB modes). Doesn't matter if the camera lies to you, you just eyedropper it in photoshop and adjust ratios of colors accordingly to make the card gray, or whatever tool you prefer.



It's like saying "OH NO! The grocery store labeled this clear plastic carton of blueberries as strawberries instead. How will we ever get the right fruit for our recipe?!" Well, you can just look at the actual contents still, so the label lying to you doesn't really matter (setting aside the issue that it's probably a pretty sketchy fruit company...)


----------



## paigew (Mar 12, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > I think what WB mode you use also has a lot to do with what you shoot. For example wb is going to be a lot easier to adjust in post processing on a landscape shot than say...a backlit portait. I 99% of the time shoot people and AWB just isn't good with skin tones. And there isn't always a neutral color in the frame for you to sample from later.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well to be fair, there are way more than three options  And I use them all. But if we are talking how you get optimal results it would be to do it right in camera. Anyway, a photo taken with far too cool/warm wb will often have exposure issues and the quality will NOT be the same. 

Also, I don't miss things due to getting a cwb. Practice makes perfect


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 12, 2014)

You have to be pretty far off on wb for it to be affecting exposure to any serious degree.  I almost always shoot AWB and I've never had the WB so far off that it screwed up my exposure.  99% of the time I only need very minimal tweaking in LR. Since I shoot raw all the time, I have to open the file in LR or PS anyway...The time tweaking the WB to where I want it is negligible. 

There's so many different ways to deal with WB...Just find one that works best for you and go for it. Its not like you can tell how someone did their WB by looking at the photo.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 12, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> You have to be pretty far off on wb for it to be affecting exposure to any serious degree.  I almost always shoot AWB and I've never had the WB so far off that it screwed up my exposure.  99% of the time I only need very minimal tweaking in LR. Since I shoot raw all the time, I have to open the file in LR or PS anyway...The time tweaking the WB to where I want it is negligible.
> 
> There's so many different ways to deal with WB...Just find one that works best for you and go for it. Its not like you can tell how someone did their WB by looking at the photo.




The WB setting (auto or not) has no effect on the raw file and so no effect on exposure of the raw file. However it certainly does effect how the camera JPEG engine renders the final RGB photo and AWB is frequently off enough to cause the camera JPEG processing software to clip a color channel or two and render the final JPEG seriously bleeped up.

Until I screamed loud enough and long enough last month I was getting this every week from my students. Nice well exposed sunny day blue sky landscapes with the blue channel in the JPEG clipped because of the AWB screw-up. Trying to repair white balance in a camera JPEG isn't too smart but may be doable. Repairing a clipped color channel is another matter. Camera JPEGs plus AWB is asking for trouble.

Joe


----------



## Derrel (Mar 12, 2014)

pixmedic said:
			
		

> So....
> If LR is off by that amount, can you not just open the raw file in LR and adjust it manually to where you want it? Or is that a problem only if you are shooting in jpeg?



Yeah, you pretty much want to adjust the White Balance to the way you wish the images to look. I shoot RAW + JPEG fine, medium-sized most of the time, and set the WB by hand using the Kelvin button...one press with the left thumb, and a few clicks withe the control wheel, and I can get the WB I WANT, in-camera.

When I shoot with un-coated flashtubes, I set 5,400 degrees Kelvin. When I shoot with my old, yellowed umbrellas, I shoot at 4,800. WIth my newer 202VF flashes that have coated tubes, I dial in 5,000 degrees Kelvin, so the preview JPEG files look good.

To me, the in-camera, sharpened, tone-curved JPEG files are the "proofs". They are ready to go as soon as they are shot.

When shooting a lot of flash photos, I think AUTO white balance is a poor choice.


----------



## harmonica (Mar 12, 2014)

harmonica said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



"Looking at the monitor on the camera is about the worst way to set white balance."

Why is it the worst way?


----------



## weepete (Mar 12, 2014)

Because your LCD screen is not calibrated, it can be well off and you'd never know. It's like using it to judge exposure, totally useless.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 12, 2014)

harmonica said:


> Why is it the worst way?



There's been documented cases of monitors being 'off-color' right from the factory.  If they can start off bad, who'se to say it's providing an accurate color rendition.

I use the image in my monitor to check the following:  Composition, focus,........  Hmmmm. That's about it.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 12, 2014)

480sparky said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it the worst way?
> ...




Agreed. Using a camera LCD or EVF to judge anything other than composition and focus is sloppy practice that leads to sloppy photos. In addition to the near assurance that the color is off the changing ambient light conditions makes trying to judge exposure a big mistake.

Joe


----------



## harmonica (Mar 12, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



Yeah that's true.  How do you judge white balance then?  What do you do, if you can't go by the screen? Even a white or grey card can be incorrectly customized and you wouldn't be able to tell if the screen is unreliable.


----------



## tecboy (Mar 12, 2014)

This thread looks like it going in cycle.  I don't always rely the LCD screen on my dslr for determining the white balance.  I shoot in raw and import in Lightroom.  Adjust the white balance from there and not worry about getting wrong after using a grey card.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 12, 2014)

harmonica said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



That answer has been given in this thread many times now. Assuming you want accurate white balance you use a known, trusted target. You can use that target to set a custom WB for the benefit of the camera JPEG processor or you can use that target as a reference for post processing the raw file. That gives you the best result and the greatest flexibility. You can buy a target for between $25.00 to $100.00 or you can just get a white Styrofoam food container which will work as well or better than any target you can buy -- cut a rectangle out of the lid and stick it in your camera bag. When it wears out get another one.

In lieu of the above you can use the camera presets which won't be strictly accurate but will at least be consistent. You need to select the right one.

If you don't set a custom WB and you're relying on the JPEG processing software in the camera you will incur a higher rate of damaged JPEGs from the camera. AWB often encourages the camera software to damage the JPEGs which would otherwise be OK if a custom WB had been set.

*AWB in theory can't work and so in practice it doesn't work.*

If you go back to the beginning of this thread you'll see Sparky give the first answer and say use AWB shooting raw and then adjust in post. Then he suggests using that target. Sparky's first answer was the best answer -- here's why:

1. Shoot raw. White balance isn't set in a raw file and any white balance setting on the camera has no effect on the raw file. Shooting raw gives you the best possible IQ -- best possible is a good thing and anything else isn't best.

Since the camera WB setting doesn't effect the raw file:

2. Take the easy way out and leave it on AWB. The camera will guess wrong but as Sparky noted it'll be close enough most of the time and when it isn't, so what. It doesn't effect the raw file.

3. Listen to Sparky and shoot the target as a reference. Use the target as a reference when you demosaic the raw file and you'll have accurate white balance with the least amount of effort. The target is free at your local grocery store or Quickie Mart -- you may have to buy some salad or chicken wings.

It's really so simple and easy to do. Sparky nailed it first response. He was also correct to point out that the worst thing you can do is try, at the time you're shooting, to visually judge WB (or exposure) from any kind of LCD or EVF on the camera. That's especially true if you are shooting raw files which you should be if you want the best possible IQ.

Joe


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 12, 2014)

> *AWB in theory can't work and so in practice it doesn't work.*


?

Of course it can work in theory. If AWB were "theoretically impossible," then YOU and your brain couldn't achieve proper white balance either. It just doesn't work because it's not very good compared to brains... yet.

There's no reason why future cameras, however, couldn't do some basic object identification in typical sorts of scenes, and adjust to expected coloration values for those objects.

Or, perhaps much simpler: use GPS to know your location and look up weather conditions from charts or an online service to judge outdoor lighting color and then counter it.  We had a dude on this forum working on a project that promised to do exactly that a few months ago, in fact.

Things like that.


----------



## tecboy (Mar 12, 2014)

My LCD is pretty accurate, but still I don't rely on colors and white balance.  Post processing in raw file is the best option!


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 13, 2014)

harmonica said:


> Yeah that's true.  How do you judge white balance then?  What do you do, if you can't go by the screen? Even a white or grey card can be incorrectly customized and you wouldn't be able to tell if the screen is unreliable.



I use the power of a desktop PC and a couple of 27" monitors............ that's what.  Much more controlled environment here at the desk than out in the field.  And no rush either.

I've already revealed my method...... shoot AWB and raw.  Covers all the bases.  I can adjust WB in post between 2000 K and 12000 K.  That's far more than the camera's 2500 - 10000 K choices.

And if I wanna get really technical, I am shooting with UniWB, which shows an ugly yellow-green image on the monitor.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 13, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> ......*AWB in theory can't work and so in practice it doesn't work.*.....



Neither does fixed-wing heavier-than-air flight.  But it seems lots of folks get around on planes just fine.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 13, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > *AWB in theory can't work and so in practice it doesn't work.*
> 
> 
> ?
> ...



For accurate WB it's necessary to know the color temperature of the light source.

Here's a photo taken with the camera set to AWB:




Please explain how the camera was able to accurately measure the color temperature of the light source.

Joe


----------



## Braineack (Mar 13, 2014)

This thread is stupid.


----------



## paigew (Mar 13, 2014)

SOOC  5d Markiii : taken in shade

Auto


"shade"


"custom" (expodisc)


----------



## tecboy (Mar 13, 2014)

The only times when I use target grey card are for portrait and still life photography.  If I screw up the custom white balance, I'll correct the wb through pp.  It is not a big issue.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 13, 2014)

Braineack said:


> This thread is stupid.



yea...most of us shoot raw anyway.


----------



## 71M (Mar 13, 2014)

Derrel said:


> If you want the color to be "accurate" WB is set one way; if you want pleasing color, set the WB to make it please your sense of aesthetics.


 I generally set my camera to fireworks, or children's party, but I admit I'm new to all this.


----------



## AndyQI (Mar 26, 2014)

Great, Learned a lot!


----------



## JerryLove (Mar 26, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> For accurate WB it's necessary to know the color temperature of the light source.
> 
> Here's a photo taken with the camera set to AWB:
> 
> ...


 How do you think measurement of any color temperature is possible? How do you think we measure the color of stars?

For that matter, how is any whitebalance the "right one" or the "wrong one" if the only way to tell is to look at a known white source which, itself, is given an arbitrary "correct temperature"? 

No. There's clearly a flaw in your factual claims somewhere.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 26, 2014)

> Please explain how the camera was able to accurately measure the color temperature of the light source.


Uh, I already did, in the post you quoted right above that photo. It could do it in the same way your brain does:

1) The camera could have knowledge of what color certain objects in the world are supposed to be. For example, if there's a coca cola bottle, it could identify that it's a coca cola bottle, look up the shade of red it expects from such a bottle in white light, and then adjust to make it so. If it's a photo of a camera like that one, most of which usually would have neutral silver paint, it could know that, locate a section that seems to have no major reflections, and adjust it to neutral gray. Cameras wouldn't necessarily have to store this information inside their bodies. They could use wifi and look it up on company servers, when wifi gains wider coverage in the future (it doesn't have to do this before the shot, it can work on it after the shot with RAW info and then store the profile for you for later when it finds the answer, or just store the area shot and the actual shot and calculate later doing everything at home, although that slows processing time)

2) The camera could have another tiny wide angle camera that looks out of the top and tries to identify the light source by direct identification. Long tubes? Assume fluorescent. Pear bulbs? Assume incandescent. Sky? Use the built in GPS and weather internet services to determine atmospheric conditions and light color for your location in real time, and use that. AND/OR measure the color of the pixels directly covering the brightest light source itself and calculate color.

3) If #1 and #2 fail, just fall back to averaging the scene and other stuff it does currently.



It could potentially even decide whether to try and make it look like it was white light (which is what you normally want) or to keep a cast (like for sunsets you usually don't want to correct it), by being programmed to recognize typical photographer desires and scenes and apply them, etc.


----------



## JerryLove (Mar 26, 2014)

Or. What if we used three filters that transmit light in three different wavelength ranges. Then take the ratio of the intensity of the light that gets through, say, the shortest wavelength filter to the intensity of the light that gets through the medium wavelength filter?

Or what if we split the light through a prism and looked at the spectral absorption lines? Those occur at fixed positions (unless the thing is moving towards or away from you very fast), and comparative analysis of the light through the spectrum would let us compute the overall effect?

Or a spectrometer?


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 26, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > Please explain how the camera was able to accurately measure the color temperature of the light source.
> 
> 
> Uh, I already did, in the post you quoted right above that photo. It could do it in the same way your brain does:



No you did not. It's a simple question. The photo presented is a camera generated JPEG. You can read the EXIF data just like anyone else can; it's fully intact.

In order to set an accurate white balance the color temperature of the light source has to be measured. In the photo presented how did the camera accurately measure the color temperature of the light source?

I'm not asking about future cameras or what some camera you're imagining might or could do. Simple question -- a simple answer is all that's required. This photo:




How did the camera accurately measure the color temperature of the light source?

Joe



Gavjenks said:


> 1) The camera could have knowledge of what color certain objects in the world are supposed to be. For example, if there's a coca cola bottle, it could identify that it's a coca cola bottle, look up the shade of red it expects from such a bottle in white light, and then adjust to make it so. If it's a photo of a camera like that one, most of which usually would have neutral silver paint, it could know that, locate a section that seems to have no major reflections, and adjust it to neutral gray. Cameras wouldn't necessarily have to store this information inside their bodies. They could use wifi and look it up on company servers, when wifi gains wider coverage in the future (it doesn't have to do this before the shot, it can work on it after the shot with RAW info and then store the profile for you for later when it finds the answer, or just store the area shot and the actual shot and calculate later doing everything at home, although that slows processing time)
> 
> 2) The camera could have another tiny wide angle camera that looks out of the top and tries to identify the light source by direct identification. Long tubes? Assume fluorescent. Pear bulbs? Assume incandescent. Sky? Use the built in GPS and weather internet services to determine atmospheric conditions and light color for your location in real time, and use that. AND/OR measure the color of the pixels directly covering the brightest light source itself and calculate color.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 26, 2014)

JerryLove said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > For accurate WB it's necessary to know the color temperature of the light source.
> ...



Clearly it must be there somewhere; when you find it you'll let me know? 

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 26, 2014)

JerryLove said:


> Or. What if we used three filters that transmit light in three different wavelength ranges. Then take the ratio of the intensity of the light that gets through, say, the shortest wavelength filter to the intensity of the light that gets through the medium wavelength filter?
> 
> Or what if we split the light through a prism and looked at the spectral absorption lines? Those occur at fixed positions (unless the thing is moving towards or away from you very fast), and comparative analysis of the light through the spectrum would let us compute the overall effect?
> 
> Or a spectrometer?



You mean a spectrophotometer? I have one of those. They work really well to measure color temperature. That's not the question. How can a camera do it when the camera is measuring the light after it has already bounced off the subject.

Joe


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 27, 2014)

> How did the camera accurately measure the color temperature of the light source?


I'm not sure I'm following you. I don't think it DID accurately measure at all. Looks way too yellow to me, and maybe a skoch green, too.
And the reason I think that is for all of the things I was just describing, happening in my brain.
Show me a lump of gray/black abstract plastic on a yellow plastic table in the exact same tones and I'd be fine with it. But wood and cameras don't feel like they should look quite like this in white light, from my life experience.

(What I'm led to understand it does is roughly look for the brightest spot and adjust it to white, unless nothing stands out in which case it takes the photo average and makes it gray. But it seems unsuccessful here)



Obviously cameras aren't wildly guessing right now. They use heuristics that are based on realistic and usually-reasonably assumptions. But the heuristics are crude compared to what we ourselves use on a daily basis.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 27, 2014)

> I'm not asking about future cameras or what some camera you're imagining might or could do.


Also ysarex, what you said was "*AWB in theory can't work*"

That means ever. Which includes the future. So yes, you are talking about future cameras. Which could do anything our brains can do, and much more. They could even have active sensors, "pinging" the scene with additional light to gauge the reflected spectrum, or any number of things that would solve the problem.

If you'd like to change that to simply "*AWB doesn't work now*" then we are in agreement. But the above statement is simply incorrect in most situations, where there are oodles of solid sources of data that could, with an advanced system, work equally as well as a gray card from just direct scene observation. Indeed they could work even BETTER (in the case of multiply lit scenes or distance light sources that you can't get on your card, etc.)


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 27, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > I'm not asking about future cameras or what some camera you're imagining might or could do.
> 
> 
> Also ysarex, what you said was "*AWB in theory can't work*"
> ...



I am talking about auto white balance in current practice and current theory as implemented in our cameras right now. However I'm inclined to stick with my original statement, but let's save that for an addendum.

So in that photo of the old Retina camera my new digital camera that took the photo was set to AWB and yes, as you noted, it did not accurately measure the color temperature. The white balance in that photo is off.

To achieve accurate white balance it's required that we know the color temperature of the light source. No argument there, right?

Definition of AWB: The camera takes a photograph of a subject and uses various algorithms to set the white balance from an analysis of the photograph taken. No argument there, right?

Set to AWB the camera never get's direct access to the light source and simply can not measure the light source color temperature. The camera can only see the light after it has reflected back from the subject. The spectral reflectance properties of the subject then alter the light "seen" by the camera. In order to measure the color temperature of the light source in this manner it's essential that the subject contain a target with a known spectral reflectance that can be accounted for in the measurement.

Theory: AWB sets the white balance by analyzing the photo taken. That can't produce an accurate result without a prior measurement of the spectral reflectance properties of the subject. There's no way the camera can know the spectral reflectance properties of the subject. Therefore AWB in theory can't work. In practice we know it certainly doesn't work.

In the photo of the old Retina, the camera taking the photo doesn't "know" anything about the subject. It does not have and can not acquire spectral reflectance measurements of the subject (this requires a known light source). *AWB in theory can't work.*






I captured a raw file for this photo and just before taking the photo I placed a target with known spectral reflectance (color checker passport) in the light source and photographed that target. That gave me the ability to measure the light source. AWB can't do that because it can't tell the difference between my old camera and my color checker. The camera is not sentient.

*Addendum:* After Skynet the computers in our cameras may be able to do a better job of AWB. Until then I'm sticking to my initial assertion. AWB is better than nothing and has gotten better. The algorithms that they use have some success because it is possible to make an informed guess. But that's all AWB is -- an informed guess. It can't be accurate without a method to directly measure the light source or indirectly measure the light source using a known target. In the science fiction future who knows.

Joe


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 27, 2014)

> I am talking about auto white balance in current practice and current theory as implemented in our cameras right now.


Okay well then you weren't using "in theory" in the normal sense, and thus miscomunication.




> After Skynet the computers in our cameras


1) Nothing has to be in the camera. It could just take the picture in RAW and let your home desktop do the heavy lifting.
2) All that is required is some object recognition and a big chart of reflectances of objects (or their luminance in the case of recognizing objects that are light sources).  Because if you know the object from previous experience, then you have everything you need to extrapolate the color the light must be. That is on the level of something a fruit fly brain can do, and the technology already has existed for awhile. It's not "skynet" stuff. At this point, that's a matter of commercializing and building up a usefully large enough database, pretty much.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 27, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > I am talking about auto white balance in current practice and current theory as implemented in our cameras right now.
> 
> 
> Okay well then you weren't using "in theory" in the normal sense, and thus miscomunication.




And I just said I'll stick by it as I originally said it.




Gavjenks said:


> > After Skynet the computers in our cameras
> 
> 
> 1) Nothing has to be in the camera. It could just take the picture in RAW and let your home desktop do the heavy lifting.
> 2) All that is required is some object recognition and a big chart of reflectances of objects (or their luminance in the case of recognizing objects that are light sources).  Because if you know the object from previous experience, then you have everything you need to extrapolate the color the light must be. That is on the level of something a fruit fly brain can do, and the technology already has existed for awhile. It's not "skynet" stuff. At this point, that's a matter of commercializing and building up a usefully large enough database, pretty much.



Object recognition and a chart of all the objects the world contains isn't good enough. That still won't be accurate -- it still won't work. None of the generic objects in the world grow or are manufactured under tightly controlled conditions and they all change over time as they age. Their spectral reflectance can't be derived from a database -- *specific measurement is required.* All your database would do is make AWB's guess a better guess. There are very few objects that can wind up in your database that don't either change as they grow, fade as they age or are created with too much variability in the first place.

Joe


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 27, 2014)

> Their spectral reflectance can't be derived from a database


When you and I both said "The image of the camera on the table doesn't seem correctly white balanced," what exactly do you think we were doing?

We were looking up a database in our heads of what cameras and common wood stains and finishes tend to look like in white light, and noticing a disparity, indicating non-white light, allowing us to adjust the WB. 

I.e., Exactly what I just described. It works just fine.


Aging: stuff that ages doesn't just change color. It gets rust and cracks and things. Thus, the shape and texture matching can fit it to its own separate database slot, with its own older object color.

But even that's not super critical, for a couple reasons:
1) It's rare that everything in a scene will be aging all together and changing color in the same way, so usually you can just go with that the majority of objects are telling you and ignore the outliers.
2) Slight imperfections from very slight yellowing of paper or whatever don't' necessarily NEED to be corrected, because we don't NEED perfect white balance. We only need as good as our brains can judge, which are using similarly imperfect methods. As long as it's about as good as we do, it's fine, even if it isn't perfect, because photos are for people to hang on their walls, not for spectrophotometers to hang on their robot walls.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 27, 2014)

"Theory: AWB sets the white balance by analyzing the photo taken. That can't produce an accurate result without a prior measurement of the spectral reflectance properties of the subject. There's no way the camera can know the spectral reflectance properties of the subject. Therefore AWB in theory can't work. In practice we know it certainly doesn't work."

Somebody SERIOUSLY needs to check into the distance-aware, color-aware, reflectance-aware metering and white balance systems Nikon has been using for years now. You seem to be unaware of the newer techynologies involved in "modern" cameras. It is no longer 1969.

The D2 series featured an external white balance sensor, a small, white-colored sensor, located on the front of the pentaprism, which took "external" color temperature readings, and compared those against internal color temperature sensing. As it turned out, Nikon dropped that external sensor in the D3 series.(Because it was not needed!)

Dude...it's pretty damned simple for a modern d-slr to measure color temperature of ambient light. Minolta was doing it way back in the Reagan years, over 30 years ago. Today's modern d-slr cameras have more computing ability than a collection of the crude computers that sent the first Apollo mission ship to the Moon's surface.

And just an added tidbit, related to Gav's comments above: modern d-slrs know the city the camera is in, as well as the time of day, the exact day of the year, and the lat/long coordinates. Along with 100,000+ actual photos, it's pretty easy for a model to be constructed that measures ACTUAL RGB values, and reflectance values, and distances, and it become pretty easy for a camera's computer to measure and analyze scene recognition data (What Nikon calls the scene recognition system, or SRS) and compare the SRS data against actual, measured data, and arrive at a damned close rendering of the white balance.

Let's cut the bullsh!+, okay: If Auto WHite Balance didn't work, then ACTUAL photos made would have WILDLY inaccurate and wildly varying white balance over 100 frames. But that is NOT the case, and AUTO WB is remarkably consistent under almost all natural, outdoor lighting scenarios, and quite good under most indoor lighting scenarios.

And, at least in Nikon's case, there is analysis of 420, to 1005, to literally thousands, of objects and their spectral reflectance, for every single metering and WB assignment the camera does. After 15 years of trying, Canon has finally managed to get around Nikon's intellectual property in this area, and has now come up with its own "four-hue" method of measuring and metering [Canon calls this iFCL metering]. Again; if Auto WB could not work, then there would never be any successes with it, but pretty simply, it works incredibly well, and has incredible consistency and repeatability. So, somehow, somebody didn't get your "memo".


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 27, 2014)

I don't think any cameras USE that GPS type of stuff just yet, Derrel. But I'm sure it's not far away (or maybe a couple of them do, dunno). There was a guy a few months ago on this forum who said he was doing his dissertation on that: weather pattern databases combined with camera clocks and GPS to determine WB for outdoors shots. So it sounds like it's being worked on, but not quite commercialized yet.


----------



## bratkinson (Mar 28, 2014)

Sometimes, regardless of what the camera can or cannot due with AWB, the results come out screwy, no matter what. I've grown accustomed to the AWB capabilities of my 5D mark iii, even without applying the firmware updates yet (too lazy, I guess). But two weeks ago at a church missions event, it did OK, but not it's usual GREAT AWB. There were multi colored lights throughout the front 'stage' area of the temporarily decorated gymnasium and when the speaker moved even 2-3 feet from the podium, the colors were all different. The small spot light perhaps 3 feet in front and 6 feet above shining on his head added to the fun during post processing. Note that I shoot JPG + RAW and use the JPGs only for deciding which pictures to edit the RAWs with LR5 and PSE10.

Here's the before and after of two situations (SOOC and after LR+PSE)...these were shot almost as fast as I could press the shutter button. The projected screen at the right of each image was constant. All we humans saw was the black and white image. Unfortunately, the camera shutter speed and refresh speed of the projector were on different planets.  135mm f2L at f2, 1/640, ISO 2500 on the first one, 1/800 on second shot

 

Dealing with different colored lights from each side was an even bigger challenge. Fortunately, I could 'push process' the under exposure...  135mm f2L at f2, 1/800, ISO 4000


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 28, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > Their spectral reflectance can't be derived from a database
> 
> 
> When you and I both said "The image of the camera on the table doesn't seem correctly white balanced," what exactly do you think we were doing?
> ...



Sorry I had to leave you yesterday -- had to go to campus. (Not making this up) And one of the things I had to do was help Courtney learn to better set a custom WB on her Nikon D5100 since the AWB was causing her too much grief.

All your database can do is provide an average. That's not accurate enough especially when accuracy is available and easily accomplished. If you get sick the doctor assess your symptoms and initially responds by checking a symptom database and prescribing an "auto" treatment. The minute it get's serious your doctor orders a culture. Before I left for campus yesterday I went to the kitchen sink to rinse out my coffee cup. Out the window I saw two male cardinals in the euonymus hedge. One was quite a bit oranger than the other. Your database would have to store an average value for male cardinal. Which of the two I saw would match the value in your database? Would either of them match your database average?

You're accepting an average. If all we could do is apply an average that would be OK. But with a miniscule fraction of the effort it takes you to create and calculate your average I can be accurate.

An average works you. I'm requiring accuracy in my expectation for "works" since it is easily available.

As for how well the database in your head works -- you assessed the camera photo as too yellow and a bit green when in fact the AWB error was too blue/cyan. Let's hope they don't get the cameras working that well.



Gavjenks said:


> Aging: stuff that ages doesn't just change color. It gets rust and cracks and things. Thus, the shape and texture matching can fit it to its own separate database slot, with its own older object color.
> 
> But even that's not super critical, for a couple reasons:
> 1) It's rare that everything in a scene will be aging all together and changing color in the same way, so usually you can just go with that the majority of objects are telling you and ignore the outliers.
> 2) Slight imperfections from very slight yellowing of paper or whatever don't' necessarily NEED to be corrected, because we don't NEED perfect white balance. We only need as good as our brains can judge, which are using similarly imperfect methods. As long as it's about as good as we do, it's fine, even if it isn't perfect, because photos are for people to hang on their walls, not for spectrophotometers to hang on their robot walls.



Oh no, none of this shifting the focus BS: well we don't NEED accurate WB anyway. I'm not talking about that and haven't been talking about that. What you're happy with or can/can't see or the general public is happy with or can/can't see or the army of fauxtogs is happy with or can/can't see isn't the topic. We have simple and straightforward methods for achieving accurate WB by measuring the color of the light source either directly or indirectly with a controlled spectral reflectance target. AWB does not and can not do that and isn't nearly as accurate. Improving AWB by building a database of averages isn't going to make it as accurate. I'm not talking about what reduced level of accuracy meets your or the general public's NEEDS.

Joe


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 28, 2014)

> Out the window I saw two male cardinals in the euonymus hedge. One was quite a bit oranger than the other. Your database would have to store an average value for male cardinal.


Biologicals aren't very good things to rely on for that reason (products and building materials etc. are better due to manufacturing tolerances that are usually almost as good as the ones for your gray card), so ideally it would use neither.

Conveniently, though, when you're shooting cardinals, they are (hopefully!) outdoors, so the GPS coordinates can simply allow the computer to figure out exactly the real light color that existed at that moment independently of the image (as discussed above, this is already in development), making it a moot point.

The two systems mesh almost perfectly. Indoors = almost always consistently manufactured materials in sight that will be as useful as a card usually. Outdoors = just use GPS and the clock and done.

A little 3MP cell phone-ish sensor in the body would assist either to be even more effective (often will be able to direct measure the light indoors making object recognition unnecessary as well, and can help identify outdoors or indoors if ambiguous).




None of this technology is futuristic. It all exists, but is merely uncommercialized for these purposes.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 28, 2014)

Derrel said:


> "Theory: AWB sets the white balance by analyzing the photo taken. That can't produce an accurate result without a prior measurement of the spectral reflectance properties of the subject. There's no way the camera can know the spectral reflectance properties of the subject. Therefore AWB in theory can't work. In practice we know it certainly doesn't work."
> 
> Somebody SERIOUSLY needs to check into the distance-aware, color-aware, reflectance-aware metering and white balance systems Nikon has been using for years now. You seem to be unaware of the newer techynologies involved in "modern" cameras. It is no longer 1969.
> 
> ...



Cutting through all the BS -- we're going to have to disagree. I acknowledged (in this thread) that AWB has improved a lot. Happy to say that again -- it's gotten a lot better. Happy to also acknowledge that Nikon does the best job of the various camera makers. But we must have different standards and expectations. I for example don't like this:




One of my students took that beginning of the semester. That's AWB in a Nikon D5100 crashing and burning. That one's particularly bad, but basically I see Nikon AWB failures all week long in my students' photos.

Agreed: I see a lot of AWB doing a good job as well. Give the camera a nice colorful sunny day scene and AWB will return a good result. Everybody just photograph nice colorful sunny day scenes and we can stop this discussion.

What I have on my side of this discusion is this pesky stuff called evidence. Sure, there's plenty of evidence showing AWB working well. But what the AWB works argument needs is no evidence showing it working poorly, and I've got lots of that. All you have to do is go to DPReview or PixelPeeper and start looking through the sample photos. Are there more AWB successes than failures? Yes. *But there are still too many failures.*

D7100
3Kings Parade | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

inconsistent AWB with same subject
Luna | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Here I Come! | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Our little artist - photographer | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
026 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
DSC_2830 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
DSC_1764 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

same cat same place different AWB
Untitled | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Untitled | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

A pair of Giraffe siblings. | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
_DSC3654 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
_DSC3585 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Pat's Hill Cork | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Ryder | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Rusty | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

D5200
DSC_1311 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
DSC_00461 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
20131119Lime Bay Park032.jpg | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

D800
The River Runs | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

inconsistent birds
_DSC5185 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
_DSC5206 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

D8X_4918 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Splash | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
D8C_6839 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
CWD_6079 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
CWD_6119 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
CWD_6140 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Famille & Surveillance | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Erlebniszoo Hannover | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Could do that all day and list pages of bad Nikon AWB.

So I'm just too fussy and it doesn't matter if pretty models have blue hair. Obviously to a lot of people it doesn't matter or they just can't see it.

_Trifles make perfection, and perfection is no trifle._
-- Michelangelo

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 28, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > Out the window I saw two male cardinals in the euonymus hedge. One was quite a bit oranger than the other. Your database would have to store an average value for male cardinal.
> 
> 
> Biologicals aren't very good things to rely on for that reason (products and building materials etc. are better due to manufacturing tolerances that are usually almost as good as the ones for your gray card), so ideally it would use neither.
> ...



And some of what you're describing like a 3MP sensor is no longer AWB -- that would be taking an actual measurement! A GPS database is also not AWB -- that's analogous to using a camera WB preset.

Joe


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 28, 2014)

Automatic - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


> _of a machine or device_ : having controls that allow something to work or happen without being directly controlled by a person


Understanding White Balance


> White balance (WB) is the process of removing unrealistic color casts, so that objects which appear white in person are rendered white in your photo.



Both top-of-body sensor and GPS weather data are means of removing unrealistic color casts without being directly controlled by a person. Hence, They are "automatic white balance."




If you want to arbitrarily define AWB as some special meta-term that means "only stuff that doesn't work," rather than what the actual words mean, well then yes, I agree that your special Ysarex defined meaning of "AWB" is "impossible" to make work, tautologically. :roll:


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 28, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> Automatic - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> > _of a machine or device_ : having controls that allow something to work or happen without being directly controlled by a person
> ...



No you don't get away with that -- AWB is a well understood methodology: You take the photo without a direct measurement of the light source and without a known spectral reflectance target in the photo. You then determine WB by analysis of the recorded data. My comment referred to AWB, not AWB plus K degree presets and a sensor on the camera. A camera body sensor is a direct measurement of the light source -- it's one of the things I've said all along that does work.  I'll accept your database of averages as a way to improve AWB; you don't get to expand the definition of AWB to include the very things that I say work. The theory behind auto white balance is that you can determine WB by analyzing the data recorded *without a direct measurement of the light source*. :roll::roll:

Joe


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 28, 2014)

> You take the photo without a direct measurement of the light source


_[citation needed] 

_I've never heard that extra stipulation before ever. And basic common sense as well points to the default understanding of a straightforward term like "auto white balance" being defined quite simply as "white balance that is set automatically." A body sensor is automatic. And it sets white balance. So it's automatic white balance... there are no other words there unaccounted for...

By all means though, share some links from photography encyclopedias or authorities like cambridgeincolor that specify otherwise. I'm happy to learn more about experts' word on a term if in fact I've been misusing it.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 28, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > You take the photo without a direct measurement of the light source
> 
> 
> _[citation needed]
> ...



Sorry for the delay -- had to go help out in the garden.

http://www.stanford.edu/~sujason/Co...gorithm using Gray Color Points in Images.pdf

Try and weasel all you want AWB is a well understood function in a modern camera. It is clearly differentiated by the other WB functions of a modern camera which include 1. Taking a measurement and 2. Using a preset value. AWB is neither of those and does neither of those things. If if did then why are those separate features there? :roll::roll::roll:

Joe

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...sg=AFQjCNEYXtPY0kZYvAePOaPaYjcLeBjYrA&cad=rja

This one's from Nikon -- I love this one: "A popular technique of color-balancing, which should generally be  avoided in critical applications, is commonly referred to in consumer  cameras as *automatic white balance adjustment*.  This method is  intended to be applied to the image field as the image is acquired and  functions by evaluating the overall field of view, averaging the light  values present with respect to hue, and attempting to average, or  zero-out, any overall color bias.  The shortcoming of automatic  balancing techniques is that the color values present in any viewfield  represent an "average" distribution of hue, which are combined to  produce a neutral gray or white.  In effect, if the summed pixel  response is not similar to the programmed (expected) overall average,  the white balance adjustment made by the camera will not produce  accurate color rendition." Here's the website: Nikon MicroscopyU | Color Balance in Digital Imaging

You gotta love that last one -- Nikon says it doesn't work!


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 28, 2014)

You two go ahead and keep arguing.  I'm gonna go shoot something.


----------



## midomidi2013 (Apr 6, 2014)

hirejn said:


> Set the white balance to match the light and you'll get &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577;  &#1585;&#1588; &#1605;&#1576;&#1610;&#1583;&#1575;&#1578; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1603;&#1588;&#1601; &#1578;&#1587;&#1585;&#1576;&#1575;&#1578; &#1575;&#1604;&#1605;&#1610;&#1575;&#1607; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1606;&#1602;&#1604; &#1575;&#1579;&#1575;&#1579; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1582;&#1586;&#1610;&#1606; &#1575;&#1579;&#1575;&#1579; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1582;&#1586;&#1610;&#1606; &#1593;&#1601;&#1588; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601; &#1601;&#1604;&#1604; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1578;&#1585;&#1605;&#1610;&#1605; &#1575;&#1604;&#1576;&#1610;&#1578; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601; &#1605;&#1608;&#1603;&#1610;&#1578; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1575;&#1578;  &#1589;&#1610;&#1575;&#1606;&#1577; &#1582;&#1586;&#1575;&#1606;&#1575;&#1578; &#1575;&#1604;&#1605;&#1610;&#1575;&#1607; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601; &#1588;&#1602;&#1602; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601; &#1576;&#1610;&#1608;&#1578; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601; &#1605;&#1587;&#1575;&#1580;&#1583; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577;  &#1605;&#1603;&#1575;&#1601;&#1581;&#1577; &#1581;&#1588;&#1585;&#1575;&#1578; &#1601;&#1610; &#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601; &#1605;&#1606;&#1575;&#1586;&#1604; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1606;&#1602;&#1604; &#1575;&#1579;&#1575;&#1579; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1585;&#1588; &#1605;&#1576;&#1610;&#1583;&#1575;&#1578; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1605;&#1603;&#1575;&#1601;&#1581;&#1577; &#1581;&#1588;&#1585;&#1575;&#1578; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1593;&#1586;&#1604; &#1582;&#1586;&#1575;&#1606;&#1575;&#1578; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1585;&#1588; &#1605;&#1576;&#1610;&#1583;&#1575;&#1578;  &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601; &#1582;&#1586;&#1575;&#1606;&#1575;&#1578; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1605;&#1603;&#1575;&#1601;&#1581;&#1577; &#1575;&#1604;&#1581;&#1588;&#1585;&#1575;&#1578; &#1601;&#1610;  &#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1603;&#1588;&#1601;  &#1578;&#1587;&#1585;&#1576;&#1575;&#1578; &#1575;&#1604;&#1605;&#1610;&#1575;&#1607; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1582;&#1586;&#1610;&#1606; &#1575;&#1579;&#1575;&#1579;  &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1606;&#1602;&#1604; &#1575;&#1579;&#1575;&#1579;  &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601; &#1601;&#1604;&#1604;  &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1582;&#1586;&#1610;&#1606;  &#1593;&#1601;&#1588; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1606;&#1602;&#1604; &#1593;&#1601;&#1588;  &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601;  &#1608;&#1575;&#1580;&#1607;&#1575;&#1578; &#1581;&#1580;&#1585; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1606;&#1592;&#1575;&#1601;&#1577;  &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601; &#1588;&#1602;&#1602;  &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601;  &#1576;&#1610;&#1608;&#1578; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1580;&#1604;&#1610; &#1576;&#1604;&#1575;&#1591;  &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601;  &#1605;&#1587;&#1575;&#1576;&#1581; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577;  &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601; &#1582;&#1586;&#1575;&#1606;&#1575;&#1578; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1593;&#1586;&#1604;  &#1582;&#1586;&#1575;&#1606;&#1575;&#1578; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1587;&#1604;&#1610;&#1603;  &#1605;&#1580;&#1575;&#1585;&#1609; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601;  &#1605;&#1608;&#1603;&#1610;&#1578; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1582;&#1586;&#1610;&#1606;  &#1575;&#1579;&#1575;&#1579; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601; &#1608;&#1575;&#1580;&#1607;&#1575;&#1578;  &#1586;&#1580;&#1575;&#1580; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601;  &#1605;&#1580;&#1575;&#1604;&#1587; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1578;&#1585;&#1605;&#1610;&#1605; &#1575;&#1604;&#1576;&#1610;&#1578; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1588;&#1601;&#1591; &#1576;&#1610;&#1575;&#1585;&#1575;&#1578;  &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601; &#1576;&#1610;&#1608;&#1578;  &#1575;&#1604;&#1588;&#1593;&#1585; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1585;&#1588;  &#1605;&#1576;&#1610;&#1583;&#1575;&#1578; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577;  &#1605;&#1603;&#1575;&#1601;&#1581;&#1577; &#1575;&#1604;&#1581;&#1588;&#1585;&#1575;&#1578; &#1601;&#1610; &#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577;  &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601; &#1608;&#1575;&#1580;&#1607;&#1575;&#1578; &#1581;&#1580;&#1585; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1603;&#1588;&#1601;  &#1578;&#1587;&#1585;&#1576;&#1575;&#1578; &#1575;&#1604;&#1605;&#1610;&#1575;&#1607; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604;  &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1582;&#1586;&#1610;&#1606; &#1575;&#1579;&#1575;&#1579; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577;  &#1606;&#1602;&#1604; &#1575;&#1579;&#1575;&#1579; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577;  &#1606;&#1602;&#1604; &#1575;&#1579;&#1575;&#1579; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604;  &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601; &#1601;&#1604;&#1604; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604;  &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1582;&#1586;&#1610;&#1606; &#1593;&#1601;&#1588; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604;  &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601; &#1588;&#1602;&#1602; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577;  &#1606;&#1602;&#1604; &#1593;&#1601;&#1588; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604;  &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601; &#1605;&#1608;&#1603;&#1610;&#1578; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604;  &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601; &#1605;&#1580;&#1575;&#1604;&#1587; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577;  &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601; &#1605;&#1587;&#1575;&#1576;&#1581; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1575;&#1578;  &#1575;&#1604;&#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601; &#1601;&#1610; &#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577;  &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601; &#1605;&#1587;&#1575;&#1580;&#1583; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577;  &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601; &#1576;&#1610;&#1575;&#1585;&#1575;&#1578; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604;  &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1585;&#1588; &#1605;&#1576;&#1610;&#1583;&#1575;&#1578; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1575;&#1601;&#1590;&#1604;  &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577; &#1605;&#1603;&#1575;&#1601;&#1581;&#1577; &#1575;&#1604;&#1581;&#1588;&#1585;&#1575;&#1578; &#1601;&#1610; &#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577;  &#1593;&#1586;&#1604; &#1575;&#1587;&#1591;&#1581; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577;  &#1606;&#1602;&#1604; &#1575;&#1579;&#1575;&#1579; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1578;&#1587;&#1604;&#1610;&#1603;  &#1575;&#1604;&#1605;&#1580;&#1575;&#1585;&#1609; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1575;&#1578;  &#1575;&#1604;&#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601; &#1601;&#1610; &#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577;  &#1606;&#1602;&#1604; &#1593;&#1601;&#1588; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1605;&#1583;&#1610;&#1606;&#1577; &#1575;&#1604;&#1605;&#1606;&#1608;&#1585;&#1577; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577;  &#1578;&#1606;&#1592;&#1610;&#1601; &#1576;&#1610;&#1608;&#1578; &#1575;&#1604;&#1588;&#1593;&#1585; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590; &#1588;&#1585;&#1603;&#1577;  &#1588;&#1601;&#1591; &#1576;&#1610;&#1575;&#1585;&#1575;&#1578; &#1576;&#1575;&#1604;&#1585;&#1610;&#1575;&#1590;
> better results. Auto is not a light source. It's just the camera's way of guessing, and not only is it unnecessary most of the time but it's usually several hundred degrees Kelvin off. Even if there's white in the scene, it usually contains some color cast, from the sky if nothing else, and therefore is unreliable as a WB target in auto or post. I can't advise auto as a solution when you know the light source. If the barn is lit by the sun, set the WB to sun. If it's lit by a tungsten light bulb, set it to light bulb. If you want to be more accurate, place a white card in the same light as the barn. Then you can use it for a custom WB or simply select it in post for accurate WB (which works better in RAW). However, note that if you're shooting sunrise or sunset, you don't want to do custom WB because that will neutralize the golden hue of the light. You want to leave WB at daylight during those hours to preserve the natural colors.
> 
> Guessing actually adds difficulty in processing. Yes, if you shoot RAW you can select any WB in post, but that's just guessing. Without a known color-neutral target in the frame, you'll struggle with sliders and trying to remember what the scene looked like, which is even worse if your monitor isn't calibrated. With custom, you know it's correct without guessing. When using a white card, it should be something like the ColorChecker from X-Rite. Some exposure gray cards actually have a color cast that won't help with WB.
> ...


I  am disillusioned enough to know that no man's opinion is worth a damn  unless backed up with enough genuine information to make him really know  what he's talking about.    ~  H.P. Lovecraft
​


----------

