What is white balance and what's the correct way to use it?

[marekjoz]

Here is a article written by Stefan Ohlsson the swedish Bruce Frazer and color handling educator for professional photographers http://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfoto.se%2Fteknik%2Ffarghantering-kalibrering-och-utskrifter%2Fkalibrera-din-kamera&act=url http://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfoto.se%2Fteknik%2Ffarghantering-kalibrering-och-utskrifter%2Fkalibrera-din-kamera&act=url

One of mine pictures from Cape Town are in the article and showing the differences in colors and problems with for example over saturation red colors in different profiles

There is something in this, that using serious tools you still achieve different results. One would expect, that serious tools should lead to objective, similar results. The problem with this which I see is: should the result be the most accurate - most similar to the live spectator of the event or it should be the most entertaining for the final photo viewer?
Since the results achieved are so different, I still find it as a problem in more subjective than objective matter, as final results may be quite differently graded by the final viewers.
I agree of course, that using tools gives you serious advantage over only subjective eye justice, but anyway - what you will finally do with it will be just your own vision and personal taste.

 

[neuroanatomist]

WHY?
QP-CARD incl profiling software cost 2 dollars more, and in none of your products (what I can se) we can make a own profile in less then 5 sec and in the shooting light and get better color accuracy. The profiles in the raw converters are not as well written for indoors light as you can generate by qp-card and by your self

Because the QPCard is heavy paper, and it will quickly become a crumpled mess if I carry it around in my camera bag. I can shoot with flash in the rain, and that's mixed lighting. A wet piece of paper won't work well in that scenario.

There is something in this, that using serious tools you still achieve different results. One would expect, that serious tools should lead to objective, similar results.

This is a key point. I agree that there is such a thing as 'correct' WB and color balance, but achieving it in practice is not simple.

 

[RLPhoto]

WB is a completely subjective thing but generally, You want it accurate.

Different Light sources give out different shades of light, Tungsten is more orange, Florescent is greenish, daylight is bluer, Flash is always 5600K Etc.

The tint control allows you to tweak the Green-magenta to fine tune the color more.

You can Lie about the true colors on a scene with mixed lighting to impressive results.

 

[NotABunny]

My situation pertains to indoor volleyball, in terrible lighting. I took 4 different WB readings at 4 different parts of the court, and got 4 different readings, and it mattered big time. ... I just hate to spend an hour on each photo when I have 90 of them to get the color balance right if it's wrong. ... How have you guys handled this?

I shoot RAW, in available light, never bother with custom white balance (because my shooting is too dynamic, especially when you consider that the lighting at 1/200 seconds has phases of different colors), and correct everything in post, shot by shot. However, with normal indoors lighting, the white balance can be corrected in bulk. But the really nice shots, I correct manually.

 

[mirekti]

Has anybody tried using Expodisc? Apparently produces great results, but it is a bit expensive, though.

I remember I read somewhere that even though one can correct WB in post it sometimes leads to wrong colors afterwards. Like, changing WB in post doesn't treat all colors the same, for example blue becomes darker blue while red doesn't and I belive some cast was mentioned. Does anybody have an idea about this issue?

 

[Quasimodo]

Has anybody tried using Expodisc? Apparently produces great results, but it is a bit expensive, though.

I remember I read somewhere that even though one can correct WB in post it sometimes leads to wrong colors afterwards. Like, changing WB in post doesn't treat all colors the same, for example blue becomes darker blue while red doesn't and I belive some cast was mentioned. Does anybody have an idea about this issue?

I have one for 77mm thread. It works great, but I found that using a normal A4 sheet of paper or a napkin does the job as well. Save the money for something else

 

[bycostello]

easy to fix in Lightroom.. just use the pipette tool

 

[trygved]

I've found great results with this particular WB lens cap
http://www.ebay.com/itm/77mm-White-Balance-Lens-Cap-For-Canon-Sony-Nokin-Lens-/280680216117?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4159d83635

The construction is as cheap as the price, but the functionality is great.
It renders the WB just a smidge warm, which I prefer.

I've tried two other types of WB lens caps, and find them wildly unreliable.
They have a version of this cap that I haven't tried, as it is like 50 some-odd dollars, but this appears to be the same thing.

Being able to grab the camera and run is important to me, which is also a factor.
I loathe toting stuff around.

 

[slowcar1DX]

just wondering if expodisc is any good for setting WB...

http://www.expoimaging.com/product-overview.php?cat_id=1

Thx!

 

[trygved]

just wondering if expodisc is any good for setting WB...

http://www.expoimaging.com/product-overview.php?cat_id=1

Thx!

I've used a knockoff of this unit and it was the worst of the batch.
Could have been the cheap materials or whatever, but it provided a ridiculously cold WB, sometimes tinting it purple.

 

[NotABunny]

Has anybody tried using Expodisc? Apparently produces great results, but it is a bit expensive, though.

I remember I read somewhere that even though one can correct WB in post it sometimes leads to wrong colors afterwards. Like, changing WB in post doesn't treat all colors the same, for example blue becomes darker blue while red doesn't and I belive some cast was mentioned. Does anybody have an idea about this issue?

The camera's WB doesn't affect RAW images, so that's possible only if the camera outputs JEPG whose WB processing algorithm is "better" than that of computer processing software.

 

[mirekti]

The camera's WB doesn't affect RAW images, so that's possible only if the camera outputs JEPG whose WB processing algorithm is "better" than that of computer processing software.

But I read somwhere that cameras collect data for different channels RGB and than applies WB. Too technical for me so maybe I explained it wrong. However, some say that even though one can play with WB in post it is not as precise as one would hit it the very first time.

My idea of using expodisc was a bit different than suggested. I'd like to use it in a room with multiple sources so I woud just point at the scene not each source and help camere make a good balance. Does this make sense?

 

[Quasimodo]

The camera's WB doesn't affect RAW images, so that's possible only if the camera outputs JEPG whose WB processing algorithm is "better" than that of computer processing software.

But I read somwhere that cameras collect data for different channels RGB and than applies WB. Too technical for me so maybe I explained it wrong. However, some say that even though one can play with WB in post it is not as precise as one would hit it the very first time.

My idea of using expodisc was a bit different than suggested. I'd like to use it in a room with multiple sources so I woud just point at the scene not each source and help camere make a good balance. Does this make sense?

Just my two cents:

I my mind it makes sense, whether you use a Lastolite, like shown over (could very well be better than expodisc, but bigger to carry around by the looks of it (it is not like you don't have enough to carry around if you're doing a shoot)). I have a warm expodisc and it works great. However when I have forgotten it, I have often just used a regular xerox paper (they are not perfect white), or a recycled napkin (brown/greyish) and it works great too. If anything goes wrong in your opinion, you can fix it in pp.

The way I do it (and I am not a professional in the sense that this is my main income), is that I put the expodisc on the lens and shoot at the person's face very close to get the best reading. If you are using strobes or Speedlights, you would want to have a remote trigger (ST-E2, or ST-E3 if you have the 600 RT EX, youngno, or Pocket wizard or whatever). The reason you would want a remote trigger is that if you use a 580 or 600 as a master it will (not sure if they can trigger without emitting light?) cast light when you are standing next to your subject to get a reading, and that will affect the reading in a wrong direction. If you have the remote, you put up the flashes where you want them, then trigger them while taking a reading next to the subject, and then put in the reading as your custom white balance. If you don't have a expodisc, lastolite, cube or whatever, try with a xerox paper. What I do is to turn of the AF on the lens, put the paper right next to their face, make sure the lens is out of focus, take a shot, and it immediatly becomes better than the AWB will give you in my experience.

G.

 

[NotABunny]

The camera's WB doesn't affect RAW images, so that's possible only if the camera outputs JEPG whose WB processing algorithm is "better" than that of computer processing software.

But I read somwhere that cameras collect data for different channels RGB and than applies WB. Too technical for me so maybe I explained it wrong. However, some say that even though one can play with WB in post it is not as precise as one would hit it the very first time.

My idea of using expodisc was a bit different than suggested. I'd like to use it in a room with multiple sources so I woud just point at the scene not each source and help camere make a good balance. Does this make sense?

Sense it makes, it may also be good enough, but it's not going to properly fix the color balance. That's because color is not given by the object, but by the light that hits the object and is reflected by it. I know that people are taught that objects have color, but that's simply wrong. Light has color and objects reflect a part of the light spectrum, with various intensities. For instance, if you have what you think is a purely red object that's illuminated by purely blue light, you'll see the object appear black, that is, it absorbs the light. So what is the correct color of the object? The one you think it is.

In the case of multiple light sources, you get a varying mix of seriously weird colors (coming from light bulbs).


Details here: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/white-balance.htm

Also see there white the green-magenta correct is available:

white balance uses a second variable in addition to color temperature: the green-magenta shift. Adjusting the green-magenta shift is often unnecessary under ordinary daylight, however fluorescent and other artificial lighting may require significant green-magenta adjustments to the WB.

What is not clear from that phrase is that the correction is necessary because the color balance was affected more in those areas of the spectrum, so that needs to be compensated separately than the rest of the color balance. This still doesn't describe all the differences in color from what a human expects, but it makes things good enough.

Also note that since the light spectrum reflected by the objects is not what the camera sensor was designed for (which is likely to be D65), you'll loose a lot of tonal definition, so color corrections in those areas of the spectrum will produce seriously noisy results.

Things like white discs may be used with good results if the light is consistent, so will not need to change the WB for each shot. But if that white disc will produce photos with white walls and shirts but people with orange or green skin, you should know that it nobody's fault - it's just the light.


This article is very good in explaining practically white / color balance and its perception by humans: http://www.ianplant.com/photo-tips-how-to-white-balance.htm

 

[Zv]

See also my blog post on WB here -

http://zeebytes.blogspot.jp/2012/09/photography-101-white-balance.html?m=1


It also includes step by step info on setting a custom WB and simple explanations.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

There is something in this, that using serious tools you still achieve different results. One would expect, that serious tools should lead to objective, similar results.

This is a key point. I agree that there is such a thing as 'correct' WB and color balance, but achieving it in practice is not simple.

WB is a completely subjective thing but generally, You want it accurate.

Different Light sources give out different shades of light, Tungsten is more orange, Florescent is greenish, daylight is bluer, Flash is always 5600K Etc.

The tint control allows you to tweak the Green-magenta to fine tune the color more.

You can Lie about the true colors on a scene with mixed lighting to impressive results.

Way back, I shot a bunch of pics in an old gym with lots of kids playing dodgeball. The pictures looked terrible because of the light. Super old mercury vapor lights. Very weird color I couldn't totally fix in post. So I looked into getting WB right in camera. Fast forward to today... I usually just use the camera settings and tweak in Lightroom. OTOH, when I shoot in that gym or I shoot an important event like a wedding, I use the WB tool. Why not? I've got it. But most times, I don't even have it with me.

It sounds like you want a simple answer to a rather complex question. The real question is what are your photography needs/goals for the images? Go back and read the posts by neuro and RLPhoto. That's real world common sense. (The rest is solid and factual, very interesting but likely overkill for your needs.) I think if you are like 90% of us and if you choose a WB tool, expodisc, WB LensCap, WhiBal, LastoLite, SpyderCube, Spirograph or Twister (with nice color dots), you'll be happy. Get it as close as you can in camera, tweak it in Lightroom. In most cases, simply keeping your camera set consistently (avoid AWB) will save time in post. That's what I do. Save the elegant WB calibration solutions like above for important but complicated mixed light scenarios and high expectations. Don't overthink it unless you are shooting thousand dollar images in a studio for clients that are going to color match the images. And if that's the case, you'll be learning how to use gels and filters, believe me!

RLPhoto has a point. This is about achieving a certain result based in part on accuracy and in part on what YOU like. I think we've ALL been obsessed with WB at one time or another and then eventually drift back to just using the camera settings most of the time. Learn and know how to use custom WB on your camera and be good at it but don't miss shots or reduce the fun of it by obsessing too much with WB unless the needs/goals for the images dictate/demand the extra effort.

 

[dirtcastle]

I'm definitely in the "subjective" camp on how to approach white balance. But I don't argue with the kelvin scale or those who want an accurate/realistic white balance.

When I'm out shooting, the light temperature can be all over the place. And when I'm editing, I tend to think of the white balance sliders as creative tools, rather than "correction" tools. Sometimes, a life-like white balance works for me, but because I use split toning and HSL so much... the idea of being "realistic" gets tossed out the window.

Ultimately, I think the key is to have good monitor calibration, so regardless of your white balance preference, you know what your shots will look like when people see them. I regularly see color shifts and eye fatigue and editing room lighting can also throw off the end results.

 

[AmbientLight]

My aim is always to reproduce colours looking as natural as possible. Therefore I fully agree with Mikael Risedal and Paul13Walnut5 to get it right in-camera. Using something like QPCard isn't taking up much time, so that is what I do. You can always tweak colours to your heart's content later on.

 

[PeterJ]

B&W and be there

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I'm definitely in the "subjective" camp on how to approach white balance. But I don't argue with the kelvin scale or those who want an accurate/realistic white balance.

When I'm out shooting, the light temperature can be all over the place. And when I'm editing, I tend to think of the white balance sliders as creative tools, rather than "correction" tools. Sometimes, a life-like white balance works for me, but because I use split toning and HSL so much... the idea of being "realistic" gets tossed out the window.

Ultimately, I think the key is to have good monitor calibration, so regardless of your white balance preference, you know what your shots will look like when people see them. I regularly see color shifts and eye fatigue and editing room lighting can also throw off the end results.

+1 & Ditto!