p.2 #1 · To Canon Raw Shooters - WB Question - Advice
99% of the time I shoot in AWB, then tweak in LR afterwards if needs be (usually via the dropper tool onto a section I recall / want to be white.
Have tried setting it to the appropriate setting for the condition, but to be honest I usually end up forgetting and then tweaking it in LR anyway! So figured, I may as well let the camera deal with it and I'll sort it later if it needs it.
Only time I use a custom / white balance card on a shoot is if I'm shooting something static at home, like flowers where the conditions are the same and controlled.
p.2 #2 · To Canon Raw Shooters - WB Question - Advice
It seems a majority of responders have never used anything except AWB. Using any single technique for anything makes it difficult to see advantages of doing something differently.
The advantages of AWB is convenience. But it can lull one into the mindset of thinking in terms of the "camera will get it right" or "what the camera captures is the 'correct' color".
The advantages of any pre-set is consistency across the batch of shots. But a photographer using AWB and accustomed to tweeking each file isn't very likey to have ever tried batch correction, where the advantage of using a consistent WB baseline for all shots is realized in the form of less time spent tweeking each file.
The least convenient WB techniques, including a gray card in a test shot and setting Custom WB off a gray card offer the biggest payoffs when combined with batch correction. If there is a known R=G=B object in a photo the eye-dropper tool can be used on it to "snap" adjust the color to neutral (what AWB tries to do automatically based on scene content).
Snapping color to neutral isn't the "best" color it's merely a more objective starting point for evaluation. But after tweeking one file by eye to taste the it's just a matter of copying the metadata to the other files. In less than a minute all the files in a batch will be corrected identically.
Custom WB off a gray card eliminates the "snap color to card" step during PP by making the shots neutral out of the camera. I set Custom WB whenever practical, then shoot the card a second time with Custom WB for comparison.
Here's an example typical of what occurs when shooting under trees if using Daylight WB. The WB setting assumes clear skies and direct sunlight but the light hitting the face under the trees will wind up green or greenish-blue because it is indirect and bouced off the foilage. It will look "normal" by eye because eyes will adapt and cancel the green but the camera, set to Daylight WB, will record the scene and a gray card shot in it with the green bias:
Setting Custom WB off the card image with green cast makes neutral. The actual RAW file is captured identically the Custom WB process simply tells the RAW converter to display it with - green / + magenta when opened and it will appear neutral.
But here's the advantage in the field. I can't see the green by eye because my eyes adjust to the ambient light. That means from the baseline of my adapted perception of color the first shot of the card which is actually green will look neutral! I'd be clueless because of the way my eyes adapt to ambient.
After setting Custom WB I shoot the card a second time. Now toggling between the two frames on the camera display my brain will detect a difference between them. Before shooting the Custom WB shot by brain thought the first frame was "neutral". Comparing the two back and forth the brain recalibrates, trusting the second shot as netural because I know intellectually it is neutral becuase the card is and Custom WB records it R=G=B. After my brain re-adjusts to "trust" the Custom WB frame and I switch back to the first frame taken in Daylight WB I can now see that relative to Daylight WB (5200°K ) the light has a green bias. The card comparison allows me to see what my brain won't let me.
In theory AWB should do the same thing. How well it will in practice will depend on whether or not there is something netural in the shot to evaluate. If the subject is wearing a white shirt the AWB will probably do a good job of getting it and the rest of the content neutral. But if the subject is wearing a blue or yellow shirt? That will confuse the AWB and the results will not be as accurate.
The simplest way to determine how well AWB worked is to put a gray card in the shot as a reference off to the side where it is less likely to affect the AWB setting. Then in PP click on the card with the eye dropper. If the color does not shift it means AWB did a good job. If the color shifts when the card is clicked it will mean AWB didn't guess correctly.
As they say, ignorance is bliss, so if you shoot with AWB and don't use a gray card in the shot to verify the results you have no objective way to measure the results. A basic principle of process control is that a process can only be controlled to the degree results can be measured. For lack of any better avaiable tools the simplest way to verify the WB the camera captured is eyedropper tool readings on the card in the RAW editor. If the readings are identical for RGB the color is neutral.
Even if the camera WB setting does not make the card image R=G=B out of camera having the card in a test shot the info eyedropper allows checking the RGB values to find the bias and click to eliminate it.
Again keep in mind the goal of getting at least one shot in a batch taken in the same light correct is to allow it's settings to be batch copied, resulting in more consistency and less time spent tweeking color. Because I set Custom WB at capture I rarely find the need to "tweek" color at all. When I also manage to record a full range of detail from highlight to shadow the very little correction of any kind is needed at the RAW conversion stage. The Custom WB process "front-loads" the process control making back-end adjustment unnecessary.
p.2 #6 · To Canon Raw Shooters - WB Question - Advice
I tend to shoot RAW exclusively, and thus use AWB without hesitation, as I expect to do WB touch-up in post. (This is quite different than saying I use AWB because I assume the "camera will get it right".)
However, if you ever have to shoot JPEG concurrently with RAW, it is really important to understand how to obtain a pleasing white balance in-camera. ("Pleasing" is not the same as "correct" in many cases).
While I would love to be able to use the careful techniques that Chuck describes, the uncontrolled nature of shooting events, sports and news makes it hard to do this most of the time, so you often have to rely on experience and test frames to dial it in.
Ironically, when shooting JPEG it is really important NOT to use auto-WB in my opinion, because if you do have to make a global correction to WB for a set of images, it is only possible to batch correct if all JPEGs have the basically the same color balance. Unlike RAW, you cannot set WB in post in absolute terms, only be making a correction to the existing color.
p.2 #9 · To Canon Raw Shooters - WB Question - Advice
I use AWB, and if I know I am shooting in certain environments (like one certain venue that uses lighting ~2700K) I will use bracketing on the exposure to avoid blowing out or overexposing the red channel. I also have a blue filter to try to bring things back into balance, but I haven't used that a lot.
I do a lot of video and for that, AWB is only OK if it's in the range were AWB works. Under the decorative lighting or such, it's a big no-no, since having to apply WB-correction to video can farther degrade the quality.
p.2 #10 · To Canon Raw Shooters - WB Question - Advice
FMera wrote:
For those who shoot in Raw do you normally adjust the white balance manually during the shoot or do you adjust it using photo editing software at a later time?
I am currently using the Auto White Balance setting and adjusting it later. I am trying to get the best shots possible. I would like to get some tips and advice from everyone.
Thanks
try to get it close in cam so the histogram and jpg review look more accurate and as a bit more of a guide as to how the shot should look
but whatever you set has zero affect on the actual recorded file, just might influence how you shoot it (exposure) and how you balance it later (memory)
p.2 #12 · To Canon Raw Shooters - WB Question - Advice
In response - again - to some of the business about getting the color to be "accurate," this is not always what you want, frankly.
If you use a gray card, which I will do on rare occasions, to deal with scenes that objectively have very strong color casts (such as shooting under a canopy of leaves, an open sky, various kinds of artificial light, etc), you essentially cancel out the color casts of the scene. The problem is that the color cast is often part of the character of the scene that made it interesting.
For example, incautious use of things like gray cards can turn golden hour light into boring light. To my way of thinking - for my photography - there are two extremes that can be problematic. Imagine that I'm shooting a scene that includes a snow bank in the shade. That snow bank is illuminated by the open sky and will likely appear to be very blue in the photo - much more blue that you recall it being at the time you made the shot. Everyone "knows" that snow is white, right? So you might go for a color balance that would return the snow to its white color. (This is also what the gray card to lead to.) But while we believe that snow is white, snow in shadows that looks pure white seems unnatural. So the ideal subjective "right" coloration for the snow is probably somewhere between pure white and the strong blue that the camera records.
Here a technique that I described earlier can work and create a more believable and potentially effective color balance. For example, you might find an area of the snow that is not quite the brightest and use the gray eyedropper in a curve later to click there and set it to "gray." This will turn the brightest portion of the snow pure white - and make it look phony. However, you can adjust the opacity slider to some appropriate point somewhere between pure white and fake blue. Where is the right point? That is up to you.
Similar problems can happen when shooting under multiple, varied artificial light sources, as may often be the case when doing night photography in urban environments. I've shot scenes in which I had moon light (very close to sun light), ambient glow from nearby cities (often a bit pink), fluorescent light (greenish), sodium vapor lamps (puke yellow). Part of the attraction of these scenes was the wild color combinations from the lightning. How to color balance? Pick one!
To be fair, there are circumstances in which objectively correct color balance is needed, for example with certain kinds of product photography and to some extent with portrait work. But don't presume that this is entirely a logical, objective, left-brained activity.
In much photography, effective or "right" color balance - subjectively determined - is more important and even better than objectively "accurate" balance.
