Skin tones updates on A7V or A7rV?
p.3 #1Skin tones updates on A7V or A7rV?
ruthenium wrote:
I'm not sure that would that much, as that is just a label (not an absolute numeric value) I think...
But that is what the "there's no color in camera hardware" people are saying 
...WB is a bit of a mystery to me. Until recently, I mistakenly thought that WB should be the same (the same numerical value for color temperature and tint) for the same raw file in different applications. This turned out not be the case. For example, in a recent thread https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1929486/0#16966391
the temperature was as different as follows for the same raw file.
Temperature 5300 K (ACR) - 5051 (DxO) - 4935 (Iridient) - 4871(Affinity) 4732 (C1).
Furthermore, WB can be significantly affected by different lenses on the same camera body, while using the same target. For example, with two lenses on the...Show more →
Yes, I have similar feelings towards WB. Cameras nowadays have a separate WB sensor, but it's external to the sensor/lens. This means that using auto-WB does not take lens' color cast into consideration...
Getting back to your example, I think that if the same target is shot (in the same lighting, etc.) then two shots from different cameras/lenses, even without a color checker, should be possible to normalize, if all the color magic happens on the software side ...
j4nu wrote
ruthenium wrote
It would have been interesting to run this test with WB set to Daylight in every camera.ruthenium wrote
Whether WB "should be possible to normalize it in post" - one can try. ...the temperature was as different as follows for the same raw file.
Temperature 5300 K (ACR) - 5051 (DxO) - 4935 (Iridient) - 4871(Affinity) 4732 (C1).
Furthermore, WB can be significantly affected by different lenses on the same camera body, while using the same target. For example, with two lenses on the...Show more →
Yes, I have similar feelings towards WB. Cameras nowadays have a separate WB sensor, but it's external to the sensor/lens. This means that using auto-WB does not take lens' color cast into consideration...
Getting back to your example, I think that if the same target is shot (in the same lighting, etc.) then two shots from different cameras/lenses, even without a color checker, should be possible to normalize, if all the color magic happens on the software side
...Feb 10, 2026 at 01:56 PM
p.3 #2Skin tones updates on A7V or A7rV?
A74me wrote:
All A7V with the Sigma 28-105/2.8 DG DN Art except the last one (Sigma 35/1.4 Art)
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/3dsc00303portraitc-jpg.4607561/full.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/3dsc03533portrait-jpg.4607563/full.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/3dsc07207portrait-jpg.4607560/full.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/3dsc08940portrait-jpg.4607562/full.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/3dsc02319portrait-2-jpg.4607559/full.jpgI dont know how you can make any conclusion about skin tones with these images.
the skin tones are accurate after wb correction.
https://i.postimg.cc/L8Kt6FS0/3DSC00303portraitc-copy.jpg
Yeah but I didn't correct the WB---those are from my camera setting which is AWB.
jojib wrote
Both Adobe and DXO PL can take their sweet time working on the A7V profiles :-) I've used Sony's raw converter Image Edge Desktop to process these. I always use the Portrait creative setting.All A7V with the Sigma 28-105/2.8 DG DN Art except the last one (Sigma 35/1.4 Art)
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/3dsc00303portraitc-jpg.4607561/full.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/3dsc03533portrait-jpg.4607563/full.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/3dsc07207portrait-jpg.4607560/full.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/3dsc08940portrait-jpg.4607562/full.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/3dsc02319portrait-2-jpg.4607559/full.jpg
the skin tones are accurate after wb correction.
https://i.postimg.cc/L8Kt6FS0/3DSC00303portraitc-copy.jpg
Yeah but I didn't correct the WB---those are from my camera setting which is AWB.
Feb 10, 2026 at 02:08 PM
p.3 #3Skin tones updates on A7V or A7rV?
jojib wrote:
All A7V with the Sigma 28-105/2.8 DG DN Art except the last one (Sigma 35/1.4 Art)
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/3dsc00303portraitc-jpg.4607561/full.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/3dsc03533portrait-jpg.4607563/full.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/3dsc07207portrait-jpg.4607560/full.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/3dsc08940portrait-jpg.4607562/full.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/3dsc02319portrait-2-jpg.4607559/full.jpgI dont know how you can make any conclusion about skin tones with these images.
the skin tones are accurate after wb correction.
https://i.postimg.cc/L8Kt6FS0/3DSC00303portraitc-copy.jpgYeah but I didn't correct the WB---those are from my camera setting which is AWB.
So much for advanced Ai WB 🤔 to be honest you could have wanted goldern hour colours or on the other hand what i have done with WB correction 😊 or clould have gone inbetween.
A74me wrote
jojib wrote
Both Adobe and DXO PL can take their sweet time working on the A7V profiles :-) I've used Sony's raw converter Image Edge Desktop to process these. I always use the Portrait creative setting.All A7V with the Sigma 28-105/2.8 DG DN Art except the last one (Sigma 35/1.4 Art)
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/3dsc00303portraitc-jpg.4607561/full.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/3dsc03533portrait-jpg.4607563/full.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/3dsc07207portrait-jpg.4607560/full.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/3dsc08940portrait-jpg.4607562/full.jpg
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/media/3dsc02319portrait-2-jpg.4607559/full.jpg
the skin tones are accurate after wb correction.
https://i.postimg.cc/L8Kt6FS0/3DSC00303portraitc-copy.jpg
So much for advanced Ai WB 🤔 to be honest you could have wanted goldern hour colours or on the other hand what i have done with WB correction 😊 or clould have gone inbetween.
Feb 10, 2026 at 04:06 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #4Skin tones updates on A7V or A7rV?
The discussion about WB happening here is missing the point to some degree. Set it to Daylight, fine. Shooting outdoors and the light shifted? Well, now your whites are different image to image, despite your WB being the "same" value in all of them.
The only way to get really accurate white balance is to manually CONFIGURE it, not simply pick a prebaked setting. It's the CAST caused by shifting tints that gets you, not the Kelvin, and that's where some cameras meter the worst (Fuji GFX is a prime example). And if you're shooting outside with changing light, you can't very well manually configure your white balance and expect better results in shifting light.
If you're doing studio work, then it's worth the time.
You're best off making custom profiles that shift colors in a consistent way in your post processing software vs fiddling with WB every single time you take the camera out.
The only way to get really accurate white balance is to manually CONFIGURE it, not simply pick a prebaked setting. It's the CAST caused by shifting tints that gets you, not the Kelvin, and that's where some cameras meter the worst (Fuji GFX is a prime example). And if you're shooting outside with changing light, you can't very well manually configure your white balance and expect better results in shifting light.
If you're doing studio work, then it's worth the time.
You're best off making custom profiles that shift colors in a consistent way in your post processing software vs fiddling with WB every single time you take the camera out.
Feb 10, 2026 at 04:13 PM
p.3 #5Skin tones updates on A7V or A7rV?
For me colours and skin tones go hand in hand. Dang, I love Melbourne!!! Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!!!!
More A7V + Sigma 28-105/2.8
Golden hour
Blue hour
More A7V + Sigma 28-105/2.8
Golden hour
Blue hour
Feb 10, 2026 at 04:24 PM
p.3 #6Skin tones updates on A7V or A7rV?
ruthenium wrote:
There's another factor that complicates comparisons - different lenses. In real life, for example, a Sony body with a Sony lens isn't going to produce a raw file truly equivalent to one from a medium format camera system, even when we do our best to satisfy all the technical conditions of photographic equivalence.
Not sure I follow. The lenses may have different coatings, which would require a correspondingly different profile to compensate. But it can be compensated by the profile. So what do you think can't be equalized?
At the end of the above technical exercise, we shall return to the reality of 99% photographers (1) using different lenses, and (2) using the pre-defined color profiles in the applications of their choice for post-processing.
I don't know about the percentage number, but yes, even the above average folks posting on this forum appear to mostly stick with default profiles or use the same profiles for multiple optical configurations. Like you with those "leaf" profiles, where changing the lens or the camera will of course strongly affect the result as the "unspecific" profile doesn't compensate.
The typical common advice is to use custom profiles. But, what is the problem with the profiles available in Lightroom, Capture One, DxO Photolab, etc.?
There a lot of variables affecting a profile:
- target light
- sensor sensitivity (includes the sensor stack)
- lens profile (compensate the coating)
- handling of limitations (e.g. clipping vs degradation near the gamut limits)
- optionally baked in "beautification"
Depending on who produces the profile and for what purpose, the results may vary quite noticeably, even if there is not "beautification". But if a RAW developer (or a photographer) puts in the effort, they can be made produce indistinguishable color results from different cameras and lenses. The isn't usually the case though. Recently there Adobe came up with profiles for the A1ii, which produced very different images from those for the A1i, even though both cameras use identical sensors and RAW formats and the lens used for testing was also the same. That tells you that even within that single RAW developer manufacturer (or at least for this one) there are inconsistencies as to how they generate their profiles.
Perhaps the best practical alternative to custom profiles is to use a relatively flat profile available (when available) from Lightroom, Capture One, etc., as the starting point for post-processing.
In my profession (printing) it is normal and expected that profiles are recombined. So even in the simplest cases your input comes with a profile and you apply another on top of it to match it to process colors, which are specific for the medium you print on. I do not understand why RAW developers do not do the same: so have separate profiles for lenses, sensors and optional ones for any "beautification". That way all your lenses would produce very nearly identical results and your "leaf" thingy would work the same with all of them and with all cameras, too. Anyway, I'm rambling...
The last practical point is about WB. This is of personal interest, and I would be interested in opinions. I have come across this suggestion from professional experienced photographers to avoid Auto-WB, and use Daylight in the settings. Obviously, this is a subject on its own. But, I think there might be something wise about this approach. We cannot really trust Auto-WB, so what's the point of using it, when too often Auto-WB needs to be corrected in post anyways?
The difference is one of convenience. For daytime wildlife stuff I use daytime WB and correct that only when necessary in post. This allows me to see in camera the original colors (sunset produces reddish whites). For artificial light I sometimes use AutoWB for about the same reason, as the uncorrected colors tend to be so far off that you would not wana use them like that. In that scenario I usually capture or adjust WB in post for only one of the images and then apply that to the whole set. Ultimately only the value set in post is relevant for the final result.
There's another factor that complicates comparisons - different lenses. In real life, for example, a Sony body with a Sony lens isn't going to produce a raw file truly equivalent to one from a medium format camera system, even when we do our best to satisfy all the technical conditions of photographic equivalence.
Not sure I follow. The lenses may have different coatings, which would require a correspondingly different profile to compensate. But it can be compensated by the profile. So what do you think can't be equalized?
At the end of the above technical exercise, we shall return to the reality of 99% photographers (1) using different lenses, and (2) using the pre-defined color profiles in the applications of their choice for post-processing.
I don't know about the percentage number, but yes, even the above average folks posting on this forum appear to mostly stick with default profiles or use the same profiles for multiple optical configurations. Like you with those "leaf" profiles, where changing the lens or the camera will of course strongly affect the result as the "unspecific" profile doesn't compensate.
The typical common advice is to use custom profiles. But, what is the problem with the profiles available in Lightroom, Capture One, DxO Photolab, etc.?
There a lot of variables affecting a profile:
- target light
- sensor sensitivity (includes the sensor stack)
- lens profile (compensate the coating)
- handling of limitations (e.g. clipping vs degradation near the gamut limits)
- optionally baked in "beautification"
Depending on who produces the profile and for what purpose, the results may vary quite noticeably, even if there is not "beautification". But if a RAW developer (or a photographer) puts in the effort, they can be made produce indistinguishable color results from different cameras and lenses. The isn't usually the case though. Recently there Adobe came up with profiles for the A1ii, which produced very different images from those for the A1i, even though both cameras use identical sensors and RAW formats and the lens used for testing was also the same. That tells you that even within that single RAW developer manufacturer (or at least for this one) there are inconsistencies as to how they generate their profiles.
Perhaps the best practical alternative to custom profiles is to use a relatively flat profile available (when available) from Lightroom, Capture One, etc., as the starting point for post-processing.
In my profession (printing) it is normal and expected that profiles are recombined. So even in the simplest cases your input comes with a profile and you apply another on top of it to match it to process colors, which are specific for the medium you print on. I do not understand why RAW developers do not do the same: so have separate profiles for lenses, sensors and optional ones for any "beautification". That way all your lenses would produce very nearly identical results and your "leaf" thingy would work the same with all of them and with all cameras, too. Anyway, I'm rambling...
The last practical point is about WB. This is of personal interest, and I would be interested in opinions. I have come across this suggestion from professional experienced photographers to avoid Auto-WB, and use Daylight in the settings. Obviously, this is a subject on its own. But, I think there might be something wise about this approach. We cannot really trust Auto-WB, so what's the point of using it, when too often Auto-WB needs to be corrected in post anyways?
The difference is one of convenience. For daytime wildlife stuff I use daytime WB and correct that only when necessary in post. This allows me to see in camera the original colors (sunset produces reddish whites). For artificial light I sometimes use AutoWB for about the same reason, as the uncorrected colors tend to be so far off that you would not wana use them like that. In that scenario I usually capture or adjust WB in post for only one of the images and then apply that to the whole set. Ultimately only the value set in post is relevant for the final result.
Feb 11, 2026 at 07:45 AM
p.3 #7Skin tones updates on A7V or A7rV?
Daran wrote:
Depending on who produces the profile and for what purpose, the results may vary quite noticeably, even if there is not "beautification". But if a RAW developer (or a photographer) puts in the effort, they can be made produce indistinguishable color results from different cameras and lenses. The isn't usually the case though. Recently there Adobe came up with profiles for the A1ii, which produced very different images from those for the A1i, even though both cameras use identical sensors and RAW formats and the lens used for testing was also the same. That tells you that even within that...Show more →
I'm not sure defective profiles, which were later fixed by Adobe, can be used an example to support what you're saying ...
Depending on who produces the profile and for what purpose, the results may vary quite noticeably, even if there is not "beautification". But if a RAW developer (or a photographer) puts in the effort, they can be made produce indistinguishable color results from different cameras and lenses. The isn't usually the case though. Recently there Adobe came up with profiles for the A1ii, which produced very different images from those for the A1i, even though both cameras use identical sensors and RAW formats and the lens used for testing was also the same. That tells you that even within that...Show more →
I'm not sure defective profiles, which were later fixed by Adobe, can be used an example to support what you're saying
...Feb 11, 2026 at 07:57 AM
p.3 #8Skin tones updates on A7V or A7rV?
j4nu wrote:
Cameras nowadays have a separate WB sensor, but it's external to the sensor/lens. This means that using auto-WB does not take lens' color cast into consideration...
Nor is it supposed to do that. For starters that kind of color cast can't be properly removed by the simple 2-dimensional WB.
Cameras nowadays have a separate WB sensor, but it's external to the sensor/lens. This means that using auto-WB does not take lens' color cast into consideration...
Nor is it supposed to do that. For starters that kind of color cast can't be properly removed by the simple 2-dimensional WB.
Feb 11, 2026 at 08:14 AM
p.3 #9Skin tones updates on A7V or A7rV?
j4nu wrote:
I'm not sure defective profiles, which were later fixed by Adobe, can be used an example to support what you're saying ...
I don't know what exactly went wrong there, but my point still stands: differences between the results of profiles made by different people in different companies with different priorities are often very visible, even where the hardware used to capture the images is identical. Your average photographer is unaware of this and buys a different lens for it's color, when instead he should have looked at the profiles.
Daran wrote
Depending on who produces the profile and for what purpose, the results may vary quite noticeably, even if there is not "beautification". But if a RAW developer (or a photographer) puts in the effort, they can be made produce indistinguishable color results from different cameras and lenses. The isn't usually the case though. Recently there Adobe came up with profiles for the A1ii, which produced very different images from those for the A1i, even though both cameras use identical sensors and RAW formats and the lens used for testing was also the same. That tells you that even within that single RAW developer manufacturer (or at least for this one) there are inconsistencies as to how they generate their profiles. ...I don't know what exactly went wrong there, but my point still stands: differences between the results of profiles made by different people in different companies with different priorities are often very visible, even where the hardware used to capture the images is identical. Your average photographer is unaware of this and buys a different lens for it's color, when instead he should have looked at the profiles.
Feb 11, 2026 at 08:18 AM
p.3 #10Skin tones updates on A7V or A7rV?
Shoot raw and deal with color balance in post. If perfect accuracy is critical — usually it is not — shoot a gray card and work from that. If super accuracy is needed — almost never — you know what to do! ;-)
Feb 11, 2026 at 08:32 AM
|
p.3 #11Skin tones updates on A7V or A7rV?
I went to Sony's A7V's page. So they call the new WB tech as Deep Learning-based light source estimation---sounds good to me :-) It works well with bounce flash too---dang I love this camera!!!
Feb 11, 2026 at 08:44 AM
p.3 #12Skin tones updates on A7V or A7rV?
Daran wrote:
Not sure I follow. The lenses may have different coatings, which would require a correspondingly different profile to compensate. But it can be compensated by the profile. So what do you think can't be equalized?
I don't know about the percentage number, but yes, even the above average folks posting on this forum appear to mostly stick with default profiles or use the same profiles for multiple optical configurations. Like you with those "leaf" profiles, where changing the lens or the camera will of course strongly affect the result as the "unspecific" profile doesn't compensate.
There a lot of variables affecting a...Show more →
Thank you, Daran! I think your post adds nicely to the discussion in this thread - I appreciate it.
ruthenium wrote
There's another factor that complicates comparisons - different lenses. In real life, for example, a Sony body with a Sony lens isn't going to produce a raw file truly equivalent to one from a medium format camera system, even when we do our best to satisfy all the technical conditions of photographic equivalence.Earlier quote
At the end of the above technical exercise, we shall return to the reality of 99% photographers (1) using different lenses, and (2) using the pre-defined color profiles in the applications of their choice for post-processing.Earlier quote
The typical common advice is to use custom profiles. But, what is the problem with the profiles available in Lightroom, Capture One, DxO Photolab, etc.?Earlier quote
Perhaps the best practical alternative to custom profiles is to use a relatively flat profile available (when available) from Lightroom, Capture One, etc., as the starting point for post-processing.Earlier quote
The last practical point is about WB. This is of personal interest, and I would be interested in opinions. I have come across this suggestion from professional experienced photographers to avoid Auto-WB, and use Daylight in the settings. Obviously, this is a subject on its own. But, I think there might be something wise about this approach. We cannot really trust Auto-WB, so what's the point of using it, when too often Auto-WB needs to be corrected in post anyways?Thank you, Daran! I think your post adds nicely to the discussion in this thread - I appreciate it.
Feb 11, 2026 at 11:46 AM
p.3 #13Skin tones updates on A7V or A7rV?
Daran wrote:
Nor is it supposed to do that. For starters that kind of color cast can't be properly removed by the simple 2-dimensional WB.
Well I'm not sure what it *is* supposed to do, but I'd like auto-WB to produce close output regardless of the lens used...
j4nu wrote
Cameras nowadays have a separate WB sensor, but it's external to the sensor/lens. This means that using auto-WB does not take lens' color cast into consideration...Well I'm not sure what it *is* supposed to do, but I'd like auto-WB to produce close output regardless of the lens used...
Feb 11, 2026 at 12:05 PM
p.3 #14Skin tones updates on A7V or A7rV?
j4nu wrote:
Nor is it supposed to do that. For starters that kind of color cast can't be properly removed by the simple 2-dimensional WB.Well I'm not sure what it *is* supposed to do, but I'd like auto-WB to produce close output regardless of the lens used...
My feeling is that in general, with or without a lens, no camera priced under $10K can be trusted to do accurate auto-WB. Occasionally, with a relatively uniform illuminant, this auto-WB can be quite good. Also it may not be that unusual when the wrong auto-WB can be acceptable, or might not be even recognized as wrong because our vision adapts to different color renditions of a scene. In this latter case, the most straightforward way to see the wrong auto-WB is by being presented with two or more jpegs with different WB. Then, it is easier to recognize that one of these is (for example) too warm, whereas this warm WB shift by itself might have not troubled us when looked at in isolation.
My main concern is about auto-WB possibly screwing the colors in a major way in some of the situations such as when trying to capture the colors at sunrise or sunset. I believe this is what Daran referred to in "I use daytime WB and correct that only when necessary in post. This allows me to see in camera the original colors (sunset produces reddish whites)."
Daran wrote
j4nu wrote
Cameras nowadays have a separate WB sensor, but it's external to the sensor/lens. This means that using auto-WB does not take lens' color cast into consideration...My feeling is that in general, with or without a lens, no camera priced under $10K can be trusted to do accurate auto-WB. Occasionally, with a relatively uniform illuminant, this auto-WB can be quite good. Also it may not be that unusual when the wrong auto-WB can be acceptable, or might not be even recognized as wrong because our vision adapts to different color renditions of a scene. In this latter case, the most straightforward way to see the wrong auto-WB is by being presented with two or more jpegs with different WB. Then, it is easier to recognize that one of these is (for example) too warm, whereas this warm WB shift by itself might have not troubled us when looked at in isolation.
My main concern is about auto-WB possibly screwing the colors in a major way in some of the situations such as when trying to capture the colors at sunrise or sunset. I believe this is what Daran referred to in "I use daytime WB and correct that only when necessary in post. This allows me to see in camera the original colors (sunset produces reddish whites)."
Feb 11, 2026 at 01:28 PM
p.3 #15Skin tones updates on A7V or A7rV?
ruthenium wrote:
Nor is it supposed to do that. For starters that kind of color cast can't be properly removed by the simple 2-dimensional WB.Well I'm not sure what it *is* supposed to do, but I'd like auto-WB to produce close output regardless of the lens used...My feeling is that in general, with or without a lens, no camera priced under $10K can be trusted to do accurate auto-WB. Occasionally, with a relatively uniform illuminant, this auto-WB can be quite good. Also it may not be that unusual when the wrong auto-WB can be acceptable, or might not be even recognized as wrong because our vision adapts to different color renditions of a scene. In this latter case, the most straightforward way to see the wrong auto-WB is by being presented with two or more jpegs with different WB. Then, it is easier to recognize that...Show more →
Yes, I think you are right in saying that we can't expect perfect auto-WB in our cameras. However, it would be enough for me if auto-WB produced similar output in non-extreme conditions. I think it was Tamron 17-50, which I noticed a weird effect:
auto-WB produced overly warmish color in typical sunny conditions, but daytime WB produced completely acceptable pictures. I'd expect it to be the other way around, so I can only blame the WB sensor not taking the lens into consideration...
I think the only thing non-auto WB achieves is consistency (in deviation from the perfect WB too). If the light changes, auto-WB should, in theory at least, accommodate that... On the other hand, if I recall correctly how auto-WB works, it gets easily fooled by scenes where one color dominates the others...
Come to think of it, I now wonder why there are no lens profiles that correct lens color to a "perfectly" neutral one.
j4nu wrote
Daran wrote
j4nu wrote
Cameras nowadays have a separate WB sensor, but it's external to the sensor/lens. This means that using auto-WB does not take lens' color cast into consideration...Yes, I think you are right in saying that we can't expect perfect auto-WB in our cameras. However, it would be enough for me if auto-WB produced similar output in non-extreme conditions. I think it was Tamron 17-50, which I noticed a weird effect:
auto-WB produced overly warmish color in typical sunny conditions, but daytime WB produced completely acceptable pictures. I'd expect it to be the other way around, so I can only blame the WB sensor not taking the lens into consideration...
I think the only thing non-auto WB achieves is consistency (in deviation from the perfect WB too). If the light changes, auto-WB should, in theory at least, accommodate that... On the other hand, if I recall correctly how auto-WB works, it gets easily fooled by scenes where one color dominates the others...
Come to think of it, I now wonder why there are no lens profiles that correct lens color to a "perfectly" neutral one.
Feb 11, 2026 at 04:19 PM
p.3 #16Skin tones updates on A7V or A7rV?
Regarding "I think the only thing non-auto WB achieves is consistency" - I wouldn't think of it exactly this way. To me, non-auto WB turns WB into a correction that needs to be considered on top (literally) of all other corrections a raw file may require. We normally don't want the raw files to have camera corrections. Disabling auto-WB is in line with this mentality.
I don't want to be misunderstood. Using Auto-WB or not using it is a rather special personal choice that wouldn't be agreeable to everyone, especially when minimizing the time spent on post-processing is wanted.
I recently watched this video from Andrea Livieri on the subject of WB. I like his unassuming and straightforward presentation style.
https://share.google/Z7V5AdJzsMFv66bYS
I don't want to be misunderstood. Using Auto-WB or not using it is a rather special personal choice that wouldn't be agreeable to everyone, especially when minimizing the time spent on post-processing is wanted.
I recently watched this video from Andrea Livieri on the subject of WB. I like his unassuming and straightforward presentation style.
https://share.google/Z7V5AdJzsMFv66bYS
Feb 11, 2026 at 08:48 PM
p.3 #17Skin tones updates on A7V or A7rV?
ruthenium wrote:
Regarding "I think the only thing non-auto WB achieves is consistency" - I wouldn't think of it exactly this way. To me, non-auto WB turns WB into a correction that needs to be considered on top (literally) of all other corrections a raw file may require. We normally don't want the raw files to have camera corrections. Disabling auto-WB is in line with this mentality.
You can always batch-change to daytime-WB in post and you have lost nothing due to whatever WB was set in camera.
Regarding "I think the only thing non-auto WB achieves is consistency" - I wouldn't think of it exactly this way. To me, non-auto WB turns WB into a correction that needs to be considered on top (literally) of all other corrections a raw file may require. We normally don't want the raw files to have camera corrections. Disabling auto-WB is in line with this mentality.
You can always batch-change to daytime-WB in post and you have lost nothing due to whatever WB was set in camera.
Feb 12, 2026 at 10:58 AM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #18Skin tones updates on A7V or A7rV?
Daran wrote:
You can always batch-change to daytime-WB in post and you have lost nothing due to whatever WB was set in camera.
And just like I said earlier, this does NOT guarantee any type of consistency if your light was actually changing.
Unfortunately for most, you have to rub a few brain cells together.
ruthenium wrote
Regarding "I think the only thing non-auto WB achieves is consistency" - I wouldn't think of it exactly this way. To me, non-auto WB turns WB into a correction that needs to be considered on top (literally) of all other corrections a raw file may require. We normally don't want the raw files to have camera corrections. Disabling auto-WB is in line with this mentality.And just like I said earlier, this does NOT guarantee any type of consistency if your light was actually changing.
Unfortunately for most, you have to rub a few brain cells together.
Feb 12, 2026 at 11:01 AM
p.3 #19Skin tones updates on A7V or A7rV?
ruthenium wrote:
My feeling is that in general, with or without a lens, no camera priced under $10K can be trusted to do accurate auto-WB.
I don't know why you would think that expensive cameras are any better at the auto-WB guessing game. No camera can beat reading WB from a grey card, be that in camera or in post. And even that WB is debatable, as mapping this accurate WB discards the mood of the actual light at the time. Which is why Sony camera's have two AWB modes to accommodate your priority. But the truth of AWB is that without a well known target the camera really can't tell reliably how much of the light is due to the illumination any better than a photographer can.
My feeling is that in general, with or without a lens, no camera priced under $10K can be trusted to do accurate auto-WB.
I don't know why you would think that expensive cameras are any better at the auto-WB guessing game. No camera can beat reading WB from a grey card, be that in camera or in post. And even that WB is debatable, as mapping this accurate WB discards the mood of the actual light at the time. Which is why Sony camera's have two AWB modes to accommodate your priority. But the truth of AWB is that without a well known target the camera really can't tell reliably how much of the light is due to the illumination any better than a photographer can.
Feb 12, 2026 at 11:06 AM
p.3 #20Skin tones updates on A7V or A7rV?
RoamingScott wrote:
And just like I said earlier, this does NOT guarantee any type of consistency if your light was actually changing.
Of course not. I responded to the idea to use a fixed WB in camera, which has exactly the same issues as batch-setting it in post.
And just like I said earlier, this does NOT guarantee any type of consistency if your light was actually changing.
Of course not. I responded to the idea to use a fixed WB in camera, which has exactly the same issues as batch-setting it in post.
Feb 12, 2026 at 11:08 AM