It is up to you. If you want highly accurate for scientific work, then you need to look at the CFA and also try to control the light source. Metamerism can be an issue.
Most of the time, my cameras AWB is very good and I leave it. Sometimes it looks off and choosing my raw processors daylight or auto is better; and then sometimes droppering something I think should be gray in the image is closer. Finally, sometimes it’s a manually applied split between a couple of the above.
I used to shoot a gray card during a session and dropper it for “accuracy.” But frequently accurate wasn’t pleasant or didn’t convey the right mood. Now for me, the two most important things are accurate skin tones and pleasing sky colors.
Good Point. I had a Leica S007 that I could dial in the images rather quickly and then I was satisfied. I had a Nikon D810 that I would loose my mind trying to get what I wanted. I'm not saying either camera was better or worse at color and light reproduction.
It was probably my own editing limitations that made it this way...
I think that's why I asked the original question. I guess it's just a function of how the camera sees things, how I see things, and how the software manipulates it.
Indeed it is However, unlike others I have found AWB from my Fuji as good or better than most other manufacturers -- YMMV.
Lastly, I assume most people get white balance how they like it before touching and color or vibrance edits (?).
I assume the steps are exposure correction, white balance preference, then color edit...
I actually apply my standard edits on import which include: my desired film curve (C1 film standard, I find it more accurate and balanced than any of the manufacturer profiles, including Sony, Nikon, Canon and Fuji -- but you won't get this from an Adobe product); and then "As Shot" WB plus standard sharpening and NR settings for the specific camera.
My usual steps after this import are in order: Exposure, Levels to fit ends of histo to black and white, HDR (usually to open shadows a bit and/or hold back highlights a bit), Saturation, Contrast, and occasionally Brightness. Given my cameras AWB is so good most of the time out of the gate, it's after those is usually where I evaluate color and will go back and adjust WB if required, which can then mean slight tweaks to the previous -- HOWEVER-BUT! If my camera had crappy AWB or poorly set manual WB, I would absolutely get that aas close as possible FIRST and then do the rest. Hope this helps.
Just curious about other photographer's white balance process. Please let me know if this post is in wrong forum.
I do non-studio, outdoor photography - landscape, street, etc. I have Eizo monitor calibrated correctly.
Over the years I have used several different tools in PS and C1 as well as grey cards. Recently, I have resolved to just doing it manually to taste.
I am curious how others approach white balance adjustments.
Thanks in advance,
Greg
It is never "perfect," nor need it be. But it can be right for what you are trying to do.
I shoot raw, so the camera records the light more or less as it is. I don't wan the camera trying to make automated adjustments to that light based on trying to average out the color content of the scene. (AWB can attempt to cancel the natural color qualities flight and make the subjects. appealing.)
In (extremely) rare cases in which I might actually feel the need to do traditional white balancing, I'll put a gray card in the scene and use it as a frame of reference for adjustments in post. But I almost never do that.
My normal approach is to "wing it." It turns out that, aside from things like product photography where brand color must be maintained, this is what most people doing the sorts of photography you mention do.
If you want to try some tricks to get a closer starting point:
1. Try locating an object in the frame that you think should be neutral gray (or pure white). Using the curves layer, click on it with the gray (or sometimes white) eyedropper tool. You may have to try more than one target to get what you are looking for. (You can adjust the magnitude of the adjustment by editing the opacity of the curve layer.)
2. Another trick is to apply the "average" filter to the entire image. This gives you a layer with one color, the average of all tones in the frame. Now create a curves layer, Click the gray eyedropper tool on this "average" color layer, and the curve should make it turn gray. Now delete the average layer and see if you like the result. Again, you can adjust this curve layer's opacity to modulate the effect.
Be careful about hewing too closely to the supposedly "correct "white balance. The camera does not record color the same what that the eyes see it. For example, if you look at a snow-covered mountain under overcast skies (or where the snow is otherwise in shadow), the snow looks white to you. But the camera records it as blue, and sometimes that blue image can look pretty strange in a photo. You might have to counteract this by shifting the blue/yellow balance or by reducing the saturation of the blue tones.
Bottom line: Don't worry too much about supposedly "accurate" color balance. Worry about getting it to look right or good. Preferably both. ;-)
There is no brand of camera that gives perfect white balance when the scene contains a mixture of different light sources. I will often use the PS white balance eye dropper on what should be a white or grey area. With different light sources in the same images, one could do that for the different lit areas with different layers. I don't have the time or inclination to do that.
Very helpful - thanks for your best practice flow.
I haven't used C1 in awhile, and now I remembering liking that C1 film standard. C1 does have some front end global adjustments I like better than PS.
Another thought is cropping. I like to do it first, if I can, to get rid of colors or shadows that may impact other colors when editing.
Cropping can definitely affect every adjustment choice, so yes do that early.
C1 is not overly intuitive, but is significantly more powerful in many aspects than Adobe; and color is one of them and primarily why I prefer it as my goto raw processor.
I usually ball park WB in camera either by choosing the WB mode of the predominant light source or selecting a custom WB via grey card in camera, of course shooting Raw files. Post production in Nikon NX Studio using the WB eyedropper on a grey card included in one of the shot frames or season to taste by tweaking the WB parameters.
More. I find Adobe's first level "Adobe color" so-so at beast; and then their second level implementations for their versions of "factory colors" vanilla at best. By contrast, C1's "film standard" is excellent out of the box, and better, more real and natural than Adobe color, at least to my eyes. YMMV Finally, C1's tools to adjust color, and especially "Color editor advanced" are top tier, and you can even save them as actual icc profiles. NOTHING I know of competes at the raw adjustment level.
Adobe manages catalogs better, PS's layers is well ahead of C1's, and the newer Adobe AI corrections for wires, people and noise removal are stellar. Thus the reason why I utilize both programs.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Many more quality color options that look great.
Such as?
More. I find Adobe's first level "Adobe color" so-so at beast; and then their second level implementations for their versions of "factory colors" vanilla at best. By contrast, C1's "film standard" is excellent out of the box, and better, more real and natural than Adobe color, at least to my eyes. YMMV Finally, C1's tools to adjust color, and especially "Color editor advanced" are top tier, and you can even save them as actual icc profiles. NOTHING I know of competes at the raw adjustment level.
Those sound like subject preferences rather than evidence of "more powerful" software.
BTW, you can also save user-generated profiles in Adobe software. That's actually fundamental to my workflow.
Specifically, what can you do in C1 that I cannot do with Adobe LR or PS/ACR/Bridge?
Those sound like subject preferences rather than evidence of "more powerful" software.
BTW, you can also save user-generated profiles in Adobe software. That's actually fundamental to my workflow.
Specifically, what can you do in C1 that I cannot do with Adobe LR or PS/ACR/Bridge?
Just look at the advanced color editor tool in C1 - nothing in adobe comes even remotely close. There’s also a toggle for skin tones that is equally impressive. Next play with all the base adjustment color curve options and that will answer that question for you. I know you like to debate minutiae over your preferred tools, but until you actually use and see the pure genius in the advanced color editor and base color profiles for yourself, there’s really nothing more to discuss.
gdanmitchell wrote:
My normal approach is to "wing it." It turns out that, aside from things like product photography where brand color must be maintained, this is what most people doing the sorts of photography you mention do.
I 100% agree. Most often, its likely photographers and others trained to see white balance notice these differences.
And people in general are their own worst critics when it comes to their own work.
However, unlike others I have found AWB from my Fuji as good or better than most other manufacturers -- YMMV. 