What WB to use for the golden hours (sunrise and sunset)?

[privatebydesign]

Ah I understand, and agree, but I find the cameras A-WB to be as easily fooled as auto exposure

But you're using older Canon 1d models, aren't you? From what I've heard awb has decisively improved recently like 5d2->6d/5d3, and on my 60d/6d it's consistent enough to give me hints in postprocessing when the lighting has changed w/o me noticing by looking with my bare eyes. And if awb screwed up, well, then I simply bulk copy/paste a fixed wb (which I usually do anyway).

Agreed, as always there are many ways to get to the same result, or at least the result each of us actually wants. It just helps if you understand what the camera is doing and why it is doing it combined with our own workflows and anticipated results.

 

[bholliman]

My general approach is to set WB at a predetermined value, I use 5,500ºK, this takes one inconsistency out of the equation. If you use Auto WB you have to adjust for the cameras idea as well as the actual light, in post processing I find it easier to adjust everything by the same amount than try to even out the inconsistencies Auto WB introduces, then just tweak in groups as the light changed.

+1. For several years I used AWB but found I was spending a lot of time in LR micro adjusting the WB of each shot from a set to compensate for the white balance the camera selected for individual pictures. Keeping the WB set for Daylight or 5500K alleviates those PP issues.

 

[tron]

My general approach is to set WB at a predetermined value, I use 5,500ºK, this takes one inconsistency out of the equation. If you use Auto WB you have to adjust for the cameras idea as well as the actual light, in post processing I find it easier to adjust everything by the same amount than try to even out the inconsistencies Auto WB introduces, then just tweak in groups as the light changed.

+1. For several years I used AWB but found I was spending a lot of time in LR micro adjusting the WB of each shot from a set to compensate for the white balance the camera selected for individual pictures. Keeping the WB set for Daylight or 5500K alleviates those PP issues.

I can't see how that helps if the light for exterior shooting changes. 5500K will be wrong and you will still have to make changes. Unless you take a lot of pictures at the same external place at exactly the same conditions of course where the changes if any will be applied to more than one photos at the same time.

 

[WPJ]

My general approach is to set WB at a predetermined value, I use 5,500ºK, this takes one inconsistency out of the equation. If you use Auto WB you have to adjust for the cameras idea as well as the actual light, in post processing I find it easier to adjust everything by the same amount than try to even out the inconsistencies Auto WB introduces, then just tweak in groups as the light changed.

+1. For several years I used AWB but found I was spending a lot of time in LR micro adjusting the WB of each shot from a set to compensate for the white balance the camera selected for individual pictures. Keeping the WB set for Daylight or 5500K alleviates those PP issues.

I can't see how that helps if the light for exterior shooting changes. 5500K will be wrong and you will still have to make changes. Unless you take a lot of pictures at the same external place at exactly the same conditions of course where the changes if any will be applied to more than one photos at the same time.

I think that's the point, you already know the exact k with out having to look it up, make the work flow slightly faster

 

[tron]

My general approach is to set WB at a predetermined value, I use 5,500ºK, this takes one inconsistency out of the equation. If you use Auto WB you have to adjust for the cameras idea as well as the actual light, in post processing I find it easier to adjust everything by the same amount than try to even out the inconsistencies Auto WB introduces, then just tweak in groups as the light changed.

+1. For several years I used AWB but found I was spending a lot of time in LR micro adjusting the WB of each shot from a set to compensate for the white balance the camera selected for individual pictures. Keeping the WB set for Daylight or 5500K alleviates those PP issues.

I can't see how that helps if the light for exterior shooting changes. 5500K will be wrong and you will still have to make changes. Unless you take a lot of pictures at the same external place at exactly the same conditions of course where the changes if any will be applied to more than one photos at the same time.

I think that's the point, you already know the exact k with out having to look it up, make the work flow slightly faster

Even with WB set to auto, you can always correct the WB in ACR for one picture, select it first, then select more in Adobe ACR and synchronize WB. It is simple and fast.

 

[Zv]

My general approach is to set WB at a predetermined value, I use 5,500ºK, this takes one inconsistency out of the equation. If you use Auto WB you have to adjust for the cameras idea as well as the actual light, in post processing I find it easier to adjust everything by the same amount than try to even out the inconsistencies Auto WB introduces, then just tweak in groups as the light changed.

+1. For several years I used AWB but found I was spending a lot of time in LR micro adjusting the WB of each shot from a set to compensate for the white balance the camera selected for individual pictures. Keeping the WB set for Daylight or 5500K alleviates those PP issues.

I can't see how that helps if the light for exterior shooting changes. 5500K will be wrong and you will still have to make changes. Unless you take a lot of pictures at the same external place at exactly the same conditions of course where the changes if any will be applied to more than one photos at the same time.

I think that's the point, you already know the exact k with out having to look it up, make the work flow slightly faster

Even with WB set to auto, you can always correct the WB in ACR for one picture, select it first, then select more in Adobe ACR and synchronize WB. It is simple and fast.

Yeah but if you use flash worst thing in the world is Auto WB. Knowing what temp you are shooting at has it's advantages in camera. I think it helps understand color temp better too.

Also in post you want to see and control the amount of color shift as the sun sinks. For example in shot no 1. lets say you correct WB to 5000k and then sync all. Great but now shot 100 is the wrong color because by that point the sun went down and things got cooler and you wanted to preserve that look. Auto is too inconsistent and you'd have to muck about fixing a lot more shots then resyncing. With a fixed value you know how much or how less you need to move it by.

It's hard to explain but it does help your workflow by shooting at a constant temp. Auto can be cool one shot and then warm the next. Then you gotta figure out "was it really cool or was it warm at that point?" With Daylight you know exactly how it was!

 

[WPJ]

My general approach is to set WB at a predetermined value, I use 5,500ºK, this takes one inconsistency out of the equation. If you use Auto WB you have to adjust for the cameras idea as well as the actual light, in post processing I find it easier to adjust everything by the same amount than try to even out the inconsistencies Auto WB introduces, then just tweak in groups as the light changed.

+1. For several years I used AWB but found I was spending a lot of time in LR micro adjusting the WB of each shot from a set to compensate for the white balance the camera selected for individual pictures. Keeping the WB set for Daylight or 5500K alleviates those PP issues.

I can't see how that helps if the light for exterior shooting changes. 5500K will be wrong and you will still have to make changes. Unless you take a lot of pictures at the same external place at exactly the same conditions of course where the changes if any will be applied to more than one photos at the same time.

I think that's the point, you already know the exact k with out having to look it up, make the work flow slightly faster

Even with WB set to auto, you can always correct the WB in ACR for one picture, select it first, then select more in Adobe ACR and synchronize WB. It is simple and fast.

Yeah but if you use flash worst thing in the world is Auto WB. Knowing what temp you are shooting at has it's advantages in camera. I think it helps understand color temp better too.

Also in post you want to see and control the amount of color shift as the sun sinks. For example in shot no 1. lets say you correct WB to 5000k and then sync all. Great but now shot 100 is the wrong color because by that point the sun went down and things got cooler and you wanted to preserve that look. Auto is too inconsistent and you'd have to muck about fixing a lot more shots then resyncing. With a fixed value you know how much or how less you need to move it by.

It's hard to explain but it does help your workflow by shooting at a constant temp. Auto can be cool one shot and then warm the next. Then you gotta figure out "was it really cool or was it warm at that point?" With Daylight you know exactly how it was!

Zv, yes that's what I was trying to explain not using auto you have at least a know starting point.

 

[Zv]

Shot to shot consistency! That's the words I was trying to say but totally spaced out on!

 

[WPJ]

Shot to shot consistency! That's the words I was trying to say but totally spaced out on!

same here.....

 

[tron]

Also in post you want to see and control the amount of color shift as the sun sinks. For example in shot no 1. lets say you correct WB to 5000k and then sync all. Great but now shot 100 is the wrong color because by that point the sun went down and things got cooler and you wanted to preserve that look. Auto is too inconsistent and you'd have to muck about fixing a lot more shots then resyncing. With a fixed value you know how much or how less you need to move it by.

Sorry for removing most of the comments to reply I just wanted to avoid another tunnel thread (there was one where we ended up making fun ).
I do not disagree in concept too much I think. I just believe it is the same with ACR +1 step.
You just mention an example of a 5000K temperature applied to all via sync. Isn't the same if you have it all at 5000K at the time of shooting?
In both cases you would do either:
1. minor tweeks to some and/or
2. preserve the look of some.

Either starting from 5500K (or 5000) at the time of shooting or from a set temperature from ACR which by the way may also be the same (say 5500K or 5000)...

So I believe it is just a step difference either way (always talking about raw files)

Now, I have observed that my 5D2 and 5D3 are way off (too warm) at tungsten lighting (as was my 40D). In that case a preset value in K would give better results from the start (which seems to be around 2700K at least for many of my latest interior shooting cases). Still it is not big deal to apply at post and I have the advantage of not forgetting the camera to that value.

It is just the freedom that raw files give us. I believe both ways are acceptable and it actually comes down to personal preference.

 

[Zv]

Also in post you want to see and control the amount of color shift as the sun sinks. For example in shot no 1. lets say you correct WB to 5000k and then sync all. Great but now shot 100 is the wrong color because by that point the sun went down and things got cooler and you wanted to preserve that look. Auto is too inconsistent and you'd have to muck about fixing a lot more shots then resyncing. With a fixed value you know how much or how less you need to move it by.

Sorry for removing most of the comments to reply I just wanted to avoid another tunnel thread (there was one where we ended up making fun ).
I do not disagree in concept too much I think. I just believe it is the same with ACR +1 step.
You just mention an example of a 5000K temperature applied to all via sync. Isn't the same if you have it all at 5000K at the time of shooting?
In both cases you would do either:
1. minor tweeks to some and/or
2. preserve the look of some.

Either starting from 5500K (or 5000) at the time of shooting or from a set temperature from ACR which by the way may also be the same (say 5500K or 5000)...

So I believe it is just a step difference either way (always talking about raw files)

Now, I have observed that my 5D2 and 5D3 are way off (too warm) at tungsten lighting (as was my 40D). In that case a preset value in K would give better results from the start (which seems to be around 2700K at least for many of my latest interior shooting cases). Still it is not big deal to apply at post and I have the advantage of not forgetting the camera to that value.

It is just the freedom that raw files give us. I believe both ways are acceptable and it actually comes down to personal preference.

Ah yes I see what you're saying now. It's just an extra step to level all images in post to the same value. Hmmm yeah I guess that is essentially the same idea. Fair enough.

Btw what ever happened to that tunnel thread? Did it break the forum? CR was a bit wonky the last few days!

 

[tron]

Also in post you want to see and control the amount of color shift as the sun sinks. For example in shot no 1. lets say you correct WB to 5000k and then sync all. Great but now shot 100 is the wrong color because by that point the sun went down and things got cooler and you wanted to preserve that look. Auto is too inconsistent and you'd have to muck about fixing a lot more shots then resyncing. With a fixed value you know how much or how less you need to move it by.

Sorry for removing most of the comments to reply I just wanted to avoid another tunnel thread (there was one where we ended up making fun ).
I do not disagree in concept too much I think. I just believe it is the same with ACR +1 step.
You just mention an example of a 5000K temperature applied to all via sync. Isn't the same if you have it all at 5000K at the time of shooting?
In both cases you would do either:
1. minor tweeks to some and/or
2. preserve the look of some.

Either starting from 5500K (or 5000) at the time of shooting or from a set temperature from ACR which by the way may also be the same (say 5500K or 5000)...

So I believe it is just a step difference either way (always talking about raw files)

Now, I have observed that my 5D2 and 5D3 are way off (too warm) at tungsten lighting (as was my 40D). In that case a preset value in K would give better results from the start (which seems to be around 2700K at least for many of my latest interior shooting cases). Still it is not big deal to apply at post and I have the advantage of not forgetting the camera to that value.

It is just the freedom that raw files give us. I believe both ways are acceptable and it actually comes down to personal preference.

Ah yes I see what you're saying now. It's just an extra step to level all images in post to the same value. Hmmm yeah I guess that is essentially the same idea. Fair enough.

Btw what ever happened to that tunnel thread? Did it break the forum? CR was a bit wonky the last few days!

It did not! We have to try harder next time! ;D ;D ;D ;

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Many thanks to all of you for your feedback. It seems that I may try between setting the WB to 5,500K or to use Shade WB so, consistency in WB looks to be very benefitial for later post-processing.

I don't think you understood the message!

Use RAW.

WB setting in the camera does not affect the raw image, it just adds a image tag telling DPP to convert it later.

CHANGING THE WB SETTING IN CAMERA DOES NOTHING TO THR RAW IMAGE. ONLY DPP READS IT (maybe some software guesses)
In lightroom, you can set the white balance equivalent to any of the in-camera settings to what looks good to you, and duplicate it across all your shots. Don't change it in camera unless you are shooting jpegs.

See the Adobe white paper

www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/ps_workflow_sec3.pdf

 

[Don Haines]

I ramdomly get good WB on my pictures taken during the golden hours so I have to post process many of them later. What is a good Kelvin temperature for WB?

This is a question that has no answer.

The white balance for a sunset is not consistant... a lot depends on how much moisture and dust is in the air and how close the sun is to the horizon. There is no right value to set it to.... plus, for artistic reasons, you may wish to enhance colours or you may not.

I STRONGLY recomend shooting in RAW and post-processing the shot. Post-processing is a necessary skill for any photographer, it is not a crutch, it is an integral part of the creative process.

 

[gbchriste]

I use a Lastolite EZBalance and do a custom in-camera white balance. During golden hour, the color of the ambient light is changing constantly so I will rebalance the in-camera setting every 10 minutes or so, or any time we move from one lighting condition to another. My goal is to get a raw image with a neutral WB.

Now, in most cases we expect "golden hour" photos to have more warmth in them. And in PP I will adjust the color temp accordingly to get the finished effect I want. But I always want to start those adjustment with a neutral image.

 

[Zv]

I use a Lastolite EZBalance and do a custom in-camera white balance. During golden hour, the color of the ambient light is changing constantly so I will rebalance the in-camera setting every 10 minutes or so, or any time we move from one lighting condition to another. My goal is to get a raw image with a neutral WB.

Now, in most cases we expect "golden hour" photos to have more warmth in them. And in PP I will adjust the color temp accordingly to get the finished effect I want. But I always want to start those adjustment with a neutral image.

You do a custom WB every 10mins? And you shoot RAW? And you adjust it anyway in post?

Why? Your reason makes no sense. Why does it have to be neutral to begin with? You could set it to Tungsten and it wouldn't matter. You're gonna change it to whatever you like later.

I feel like we've been over this!!! Come on people it's RAW ffs!!!

 

[scottkinfw]

I gave up on the white card thing. For me, the nature of "Golden Hour" light changes so much and so quickly, that messing with the white card and setting the custom wb could cause me to loose a shot that may only present itself for a moment.

In pp, I will adjust the image to be what I want anyway, so I don't bother. I shoot raw.

If I was shooting in a studio or say industrial where absolute color match counts, I would use my Lastolite WB.
Scott

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I ramdomly get good WB on my pictures taken during the golden hours so I have to post process many of them later. What is a good Kelvin temperature for WB?

cloudy preset seems to work best as a quick starting point, autowb removes too much of the glow

white balance cards are no good since they just bring everything back to non-golden hour lighting, they correct AGAINST golden hour tones or any other lighting tones

ideally i'd view liveview in realtime on a calibrated screen and adjust custom wb in field to match what i saw, but i don't have such a setup

 

[tolusina]

I've found live view with exposure simulation active to be very useful in any difficult lighting situations.
On a 6D, I switch to live view, adjust exposure to your taste for the scene, hit the Q button, up/down on the pad until I get to WB, SET, left'right on the pad to get to K, INFO, then left'right on the pad to suit, finally, SET.
Since I still far prefer focusing and composing through the finder, I exit live view for the actual shot.
Tweak the result in post as and if needed, SOC should be very close to what you had in mind.

Takes longer to read this than it does to do it, I've found results gratifying.




.

 

[gbchriste]

I use a Lastolite EZBalance and do a custom in-camera white balance. During golden hour, the color of the ambient light is changing constantly so I will rebalance the in-camera setting every 10 minutes or so, or any time we move from one lighting condition to another. My goal is to get a raw image with a neutral WB.

Now, in most cases we expect "golden hour" photos to have more warmth in them. And in PP I will adjust the color temp accordingly to get the finished effect I want. But I always want to start those adjustment with a neutral image.

You do a custom WB every 10mins? And you shoot RAW? And you adjust it anyway in post?

Why? Your reason makes no sense. Why does it have to be neutral to begin with? You could set it to Tungsten and it wouldn't matter. You're gonna change it to whatever you like later.

I feel like we've been over this!!! Come on people it's RAW ffs!!!

Just because my workflow makes no sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't make perfect sense to me. Your criticism is unfounded and frankly quite rude considering you don't know all the facts.

On a personal level peculiar to me, I have a moderate color vision deficiency that makes dialing in large corrections by eye very difficult. I learned a long time ago that if I just take whatever white balance the RAW file happens to spit out at and then try to "fix" it, I'll screw it up completely. Conversely, if I start with a neutral image, I can easily make small adjustments to the temp and tint sliders to get it looking the way I want. For 99% of the images I shoot, even those during golden hour, that usually means just bumping the temp slider up a bit to get a little more warmth in the image and I'm done.

On a more technical level, I could just easily say it doesn't make any sense to take a bunch of raw images with a random WB setting and then sit there are try to guess, experiment, or otherwise analyze what adjustments need to be made to take it from whatever it was captured at to whatever it needs to be in the final image. Before I even download my session, I know that for all but the most unusual images I'm going to be bumping the temp up about 300-400. The very few remaining that need something else, I can deal with one at a time, even if that means getting my perfect-color-vision wife to sit with me for a couple of minutes and deal with the 5 or 6 images that need that extra attention.