Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 67 of 67

Thread: Auto White Balance, Nature and why not to do it!

  1. #51
    Subscriber & Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,178
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    414

    Re: Auto White Balance, Nature and why not to do it!

    cmb_ = Charles

    True for C1, Lightroom, ACR, Aperture . . .

  2. #52
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Auto White Balance, Nature and why not to do it!

    Quote Originally Posted by cmb_ View Post
    cmb_ = Charles

    True for C1, Lightroom, ACR, Aperture . . .
    HI Charles
    I'm really sorry - it's late and I'm stupid! (I really should know by now)
    In that case, it makes one wonder whether, although the leica values seem to be interpreted, the Nikon values are 'hard coded' into the raw files and picked up by the raw converter, just like a custom white balance would be?

    P.S. now you'll be in Terry's good books . . . . how about NX, Bibble . . . .

    Just this guy you know

  3. #53
    Subscriber robsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,202
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    496

    Re: Auto White Balance, Nature and why not to do it!

    Quote Originally Posted by cmb_ View Post
    Jono,

    Interesting to see and thank you for posting.

    For completeness, it might be interesting to state the approximate time of day for the shots. Also, which RAW converter.
    When I was shooting a lot with the DMR, I would choose a manual setting of 5300k on the DMR. I am a little more lazy now and just choose the sunny WB setting and fine tune in post.

    Robert

  4. #54
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    etrigan63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Earth, Sol System (near Miami, FL)
    Posts
    2,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Auto White Balance, Nature and why not to do it!

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    HI Charles
    I'm really sorry - it's late and I'm stupid! (I really should know by now)
    In that case, it makes one wonder whether, although the leica values seem to be interpreted, the Nikon values are 'hard coded' into the raw files and picked up by the raw converter, just like a custom white balance would be?

    P.S. now you'll be in Terry's good books . . . . how about NX, Bibble . . . .
    I'll be able to help you in Bibble very shortly Jono.
    Carlos Echenique | Carlos Echenique Photography |Olympus OM-D E-M1 MK II | Olympus Pen-F - M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 25mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8, Rokinon 12mm f/2 NCS, M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO, M.Zuiko 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO

  5. #55
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Auto White Balance, Nature and why not to do it!

    Quote Originally Posted by etrigan63 View Post
    I'll be able to help you in Bibble very shortly Jono.
    Thank you Carlos - I haven't used Bibble for some time - Eric is such a nice guy though, and his spelling fascinating!

    Just this guy you know

  6. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.S. Canada
    Posts
    2,010
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Auto White Balance, Nature and why not to do it!

    I like jono's approach. You take the shots and you know each will be say 5500K and close to what was seen at the time of the shoot vs, on AWB anywhere up and down from that temp. Thus you have a fixed known starting point. Much like differential GPS - you need a known fixed starting point.

    After some time your brain will start to envision what a dawn, dusk, etc., scene will render like at 5500K vs. what your mind's eye remembers - making tweaking the WB in post that much easier.

    As an aside, has anyone ever compared their AWB results to what an incident color meter kicks-out?

  7. #57
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Auto White Balance, Nature and why not to do it!

    Quote Originally Posted by robmac View Post
    I like jono's approach. You take the shots and you know each will be say 5500K and close to what was seen at the time of the shoot vs, on AWB anywhere up and down from that temp. Thus you have a fixed known starting point. Much like differential GPS - you need a known fixed starting point.

    After some time your brain will start to envision what a dawn, dusk, etc., scene will render like at 5500K vs. what your mind's eye remembers - making tweaking the WB in post that much easier.

    As an aside, has anyone ever compared their AWB results to what an incident color meter kicks-out?
    Hi Rob
    I thought it was your approach!
    To be fair, I'd been doing it ever since I got the M8 - just not with any Nikons, but I quite agree - it makes life a great deal easier . . and more sophisticated!

    The Olympus E3 has an incident WB meter, and it certainly does a much better and more consistent job under these sort of conditions.

    Just this guy you know

  8. #58
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    etrigan63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Earth, Sol System (near Miami, FL)
    Posts
    2,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Auto White Balance, Nature and why not to do it!

    A daylight photo shot AWB with my M8 registers 5628K, Tint +22. Bibble 4.9.9b standard Daylight is 5700K, Tint -3.
    Carlos Echenique | Carlos Echenique Photography |Olympus OM-D E-M1 MK II | Olympus Pen-F - M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 25mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8, Rokinon 12mm f/2 NCS, M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO, M.Zuiko 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO

  9. #59
    Subscriber robsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,202
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    496

    Re: Auto White Balance, Nature and why not to do it!

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Hi Rob
    I thought it was your approach!
    .
    John:

    Wrong Rob

    Robert

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.S. Canada
    Posts
    2,010
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Auto White Balance, Nature and why not to do it!

    Hey, I'll take a pat on the back whenever I can get it - justified or otherwise

  11. #61
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Auto White Balance, Nature and why not to do it!

    Quote Originally Posted by robmac View Post
    Hey, I'll take a pat on the back whenever I can get it - justified or otherwise
    Quote Originally Posted by robsteve View Post
    John:

    Wrong Rob

    Robert
    Deary Me
    Senility setting in here
    I apologise to both of you guys!

    (at least I'm glad you agree with each other!)

    Just this guy you know

  12. #62
    Subscriber gogopix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Auto White Balance, Nature and why not to do it!

    WB that is mostly cool-warm adjustments (and most are) have conflictying perceptions; the bluer 'looks' more defined and sharp. However, esp on a hot day the wrmer is likely more what one sees and remembers.
    With humidity the blue shift takes out haze and seems better. But I wonder what most people would rather.

    Remember, what people perceive may be different from what the camera sees.

    BTW, Zeiss lenses tend to be 'cooler' and Leica warmer

  13. #63
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Auto White Balance, Nature and why not to do it!

    HI There
    Quote Originally Posted by gogopix View Post
    WB that is mostly cool-warm adjustments (and most are) have conflictying perceptions; the bluer 'looks' more defined and sharp. However, esp on a hot day the wrmer is likely more what one sees and remembers.
    With humidity the blue shift takes out haze and seems better. But I wonder what most people would rather.

    Remember, what people perceive may be different from what the camera sees.
    My experience is that most people like warmer - which is probably why Nikon (and most of the other Japanese camera manufacturers) seem to make the resulting images too yellow.

    More problematically, what one person sees and perceives may be different from another - it really is rather a minefield.

    We have an internal white balance system, which results in perceiving what we know to be white, whatever the light temperature. Whether we all do this the same is quite another matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by gogopix View Post
    BTW, Zeiss lenses tend to be 'cooler' and Leica warmer
    I agree, and both are warmer than Nikon lenses.

    Just this guy you know

  14. #64
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Auto White Balance, Nature and why not to do it!

    Then again just to different you could shoot AWB and then select those shots you want to convert to "Daylight" and batch (or write an action) those. I might find myself doing that more often than not as in general I either go with AWB or do a way different interpretation for my own use/version.

    Just Jono's idea in reverse.

    Neil

  15. #65
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Auto White Balance, Nature and why not to do it!

    Quote Originally Posted by neils View Post
    Then again just to different you could shoot AWB and then select those shots you want to convert to "Daylight" and batch (or write an action) those. I might find myself doing that more often than not as in general I either go with AWB or do a way different interpretation for my own use/version.

    Just Jono's idea in reverse.

    Neil
    Well, it wasn't really my idea (Rob's) and I don't think that this is doing it in reverse. The pictures in the original post show quite clearly that the AWB is fluctuating wildly from one temperature to an other, whereas using daylight is giving you a consistent standard (there's no such thing as a 'correct' white balance in such conditions, so you can then pick what you want).

    I guess you are doing the reverse in that you are electing for the inconsistent over the consistent?

    Just this guy you know

  16. #66
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: Auto White Balance, Nature and why not to do it!

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Well, it wasn't really my idea (Rob's) and I don't think that this is doing it in reverse. The pictures in the original post show quite clearly that the AWB is fluctuating wildly from one temperature to an other, whereas using daylight is giving you a consistent standard (there's no such thing as a 'correct' white balance in such conditions, so you can then pick what you want).

    I guess you are doing the reverse in that you are electing for the inconsistent over the consistent?
    Jono,
    I'm traveling and can't check this but the problem seemed to be in large part a tint issue. When you shoot AWB and come back load it on the computer and change the WB to Daylight, does Aperture change just temperature or temperature and tint? I know if you preset daylight you get both correct but AWB gets both wrong.

  17. #67
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Auto White Balance, Nature and why not to do it!

    Quote Originally Posted by TEBnewyork View Post
    Jono,
    I'm traveling and can't check this but the problem seemed to be in large part a tint issue. When you shoot AWB and come back load it on the computer and change the WB to Daylight, does Aperture change just temperature or temperature and tint? I know if you preset daylight you get both correct but AWB gets both wrong.
    Hi Terry
    Aperture doesn't have 'daylight' 'cloudy' etc. presets, so you have to change the temperature and tint together.

    Interestingly, I went out shooting this morning, came back and looked on the computer and thought "Oh! the colour is STILL horrible, I'll have to eat my words" . . . . then I looked at the camera and found it was on AWB (after some testing).

    But I think the real point and issue here is that it's much better to shoot nature to a fixed WB - just like using slide film - you can always change it later, but if you have a bunch of shots taken in the same light, all with widely different WB values . . . . it isn't helpful!

    Just this guy you know

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •