Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

White balance

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 1:36:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Hi,

A certain person in this group recently said how it was difficult
to get exposure correct while also having to worry about white
balance when the subject keeps going from sunlight to cloud.

I don't get it.

White balance is a non-event to me while shooting. Isn't white
balance applied at the RAW conversion stage, whether
in-camera JPEG or post shooting in the software?

I just leave it set on auto so the LCD playback looks okay.

Am I missing something?

On a similar vain: What do people do about colour balance
when using fill flash?

I shot some outdoor portraits last week and the flash was
obviously warmer than the available light when clouds passed
over the sun.

The match was quite good when the sun was out

Even if I had a filter for the flash, I would have been constantly
putting it on and taking it off.

Most of these pics will end up as B&W anyway so it doesn't
really matter in this case.

-Mike

More about : white balance

Anonymous
July 21, 2005 1:36:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mike,
Maybe he doesn't shoot RAW, not all
photographers want to do graphic editing
to there photos.

However if he just set his Kelvin level
to 5200-5500 it would equal Daylight
balanced film like Kodak 100 gold or
Velvia 50. Did he change film when some
one went from sun to shade?

The correct Kelvin level for flash is
usually the same for noon daylight film
ex. 5500K

Did you ever shoot film? Did you change
film when you used a flash? Or did you
change film if you went took a shot in
the shade? Why on digital then?

But thats one of the many beauties of
digital, you have options and can get as
crazy as you want trying to be perfect.
:+)


"Mike Warren"
<miwaNOSPAM@iprimus.com.au> wrote in
message
news:42de373f$0$23034$892e7fe2@authen.wh
ite.readfreenews.net...
> Hi,
>
> A certain person in this group
recently said how it was difficult
> to get exposure correct while also
having to worry about white
> balance when the subject keeps going
from sunlight to cloud.
>
> I don't get it.
>
> White balance is a non-event to me
while shooting. Isn't white
> balance applied at the RAW conversion
stage, whether
> in-camera JPEG or post shooting in the
software?
>
> I just leave it set on auto so the LCD
playback looks okay.
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> On a similar vain: What do people do
about colour balance
> when using fill flash?
>
> I shot some outdoor portraits last
week and the flash was
> obviously warmer than the available
light when clouds passed
> over the sun.
>
> The match was quite good when the sun
was out
>
> Even if I had a filter for the flash,
I would have been constantly
> putting it on and taking it off.
>
> Most of these pics will end up as B&W
anyway so it doesn't
> really matter in this case.
>
> -Mike
>
>
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 1:36:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mike Warren wrote:

> Most of these pics will end up as B&W anyway so it doesn't
> really matter in this case.

Twice as bad - you have to keep track of both the black ~and~ white
balance! >;^)
Related resources
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 3:26:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:14:37 -0400, "John_B"
<photography.firstchurchofthestreets.com> wrote:

>Mike,
>Maybe he doesn't shoot RAW, not all
>photographers want to do graphic editing
>to there photos.

That is true, millions of people are happy to pass over there negs to
an el-cheapo 2hr lab and they'll stick em into the album without
further thought.

>Did you ever shoot film? Did you change
>film when you used a flash? Or did you
>change film if you went took a shot in
>the shade? Why on digital then?

Digital doesn't have to emulate all the faults and problems that film
has. If it did, everyone wouldn't be moving towards it in droves.

Why on digital? - Because we can, and because it's easy.

What does digital mean to you? What's the biggest advantage you can
see? For some it's the polaroid advantage: Take photos of your
girlfriend in various states of undress and nobody needs to know. Or
take a photo, and there it is on a piece of cheap paper in a matter of
minutes. That's the trashy side of digital.

Some like the instant feedback, the insurance value of being able to
see that uncle Frank didn't blink when the flash went off.

But I think for most, the DSLR brings more than that. It is an SLR,
there's a hint that they care about which subject is in focus, and
which is not, they care about selecting a suitable aperture or a
suitable shutter speed. Why would these people suddenly *stop* caring
when it's time to prepare an image for print?

...well, many don't. They carry on caring about the fine details, so
they shoot RAW and stay in control right up until the print is made.

>But thats one of the many beauties of
>digital, you have options and can get as
>crazy as you want trying to be perfect.
>:+)

Indeed. More true if you shot RAW rather than JPEG just in case that
certain shot is amazing and warrants the extra time spent in the
digital darkroom to make it how you want it.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
July 21, 2005 5:31:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"John_B" <photography.firstchurchofthestreets.com> wrote:

> Mike,
> Maybe he doesn't shoot RAW, not all
> photographers want to do graphic editing
> to there photos.
>
> However if he just set his Kelvin level
> to 5200-5500 it would equal Daylight
> balanced film like Kodak 100 gold or
> Velvia 50. Did he change film when some
> one went from sun to shade?
>

That's what I do and it's never off enough that a touch of color adjustment
can't fix it. Using auto WB is asking for problems, like shooting in late
day sun and the camera corrects for it and cools it off? Or shooting a
sunset and it tries to "white balance" it?
--

Stacey
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 7:42:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mike Warren wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A certain person in this group recently said how it was difficult
> to get exposure correct while also having to worry about white
> balance when the subject keeps going from sunlight to cloud.
>
> I don't get it.
>
> White balance is a non-event to me while shooting. Isn't white
> balance applied at the RAW conversion stage, whether
> in-camera JPEG or post shooting in the software?
>
> I just leave it set on auto so the LCD playback looks okay.
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> On a similar vain: What do people do about colour balance
> when using fill flash?
>
> I shot some outdoor portraits last week and the flash was
> obviously warmer than the available light when clouds passed
> over the sun.
>
> The match was quite good when the sun was out
>
> Even if I had a filter for the flash, I would have been constantly
> putting it on and taking it off.
>
> Most of these pics will end up as B&W anyway so it doesn't
> really matter in this case.
>
> -Mike


White balance is not applied to the RAW files at the time of the picture
being taken, although the K temperature is recorded in the file. Color
temperature is applied when the RAW file is being converted in computer.
You can ignore the K number in the RAW file and choose whatever that
fits you. I like twisting it to the way I like it, warmer or cooler, not
necessarily need to be absolutely accurate to the reality. You can do
that with JPEG in Photoshop but you lose a lot of quality.
July 21, 2005 7:42:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

l e o wrote:

>You can do
> that with JPEG in Photoshop but you lose a lot of quality.

You won't lose a lot of quality shooting jpegs in the shade with the camera
nailed at 5200K and adjusting the color is PS afterwards. You're much more
likely to end up with a bad problem using auto WB than just setting the
camera to 5200K.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 7:49:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <dQEDe.1280$Uk3.1044@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
l e o <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:

>White balance is not applied to the RAW files at the time of the picture
>being taken, although the K temperature is recorded in the file.

That's generally true, but at least one camera, the Nikon D2X, balances
when the RAW data is digitized, by varying the amplification before the
ADC, accordingly. Kudos to Nikon for realizing that posterization is
just as detrimental to image quality as sensor noise is. On a camera
with bigger, more noise-free pixels, this could solve a lot of issues
with incandescent-light photography nicely.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 9:25:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <3k8q9sFt977qU2@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> That's what I do and it's never off enough that a touch of color adjustment
> can't fix it. Using auto WB is asking for problems, like shooting in late
> day sun and the camera corrects for it and cools it off? Or shooting a
> sunset and it tries to "white balance" it?

I've done sunsets in RAW and the camera didn't correct for
anything...still looked like a sunset. RAW is like a digital negative.
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 11:48:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John_B wrote:

> Maybe he doesn't shoot RAW, not all
> photographers want to do graphic editing
> to there photos.

To me, that's the equivalent of taking a roll of film to the
local 1 hour photo processor.

> Did you ever shoot film?

Yes. I am getting back into photography after about 20
years. I lost a lot of my interest and became a snap-shooter
when I no longer had a darkroom. Now, with Photoshop, I
can gain control of the process again.

> Did you change film when you used a flash? Or did
> you change film if you went took a shot in the shade?
> Why on digital then?

White balance is done after shooting with film. I think the
same applies with digital. You just have to shoot RAW to
achieve it. Even using RAW, it's still a lot easier with digital
than film.

-Mike
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 4:14:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 01:31:40 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"John_B" <photography.firstchurchofthestreets.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike,
>> Maybe he doesn't shoot RAW, not all
>> photographers want to do graphic editing
>> to there photos.
>>
>> However if he just set his Kelvin level
>> to 5200-5500 it would equal Daylight
>> balanced film like Kodak 100 gold or
>> Velvia 50. Did he change film when some
>> one went from sun to shade?
>>
>
>That's what I do and it's never off enough that a touch of color adjustment
>can't fix it. Using auto WB is asking for problems, like shooting in late
>day sun and the camera corrects for it and cools it off? Or shooting a
>sunset and it tries to "white balance" it?

If you shoot RAW, there is no such concept as 'white balance
problems'. The camera dumps the sensor data into a file, and add's a
recommendation about what the color temp should be and stores that
recommendation in the RAW file to provide a starting point.

If you shoot JPEG in auto mode, an incorrect guess on the cameras part
can have a drastic impact as to which bits of the sensor data ever
make it into the JPEG file. So I agree with you, this isn't a good
idea.

Unlike John, you still do minor color balance adjustments on the file
prior to printing (as I, and many others do) which demonstrates that
regardless of John's claims it is nearly impossible to get it spot on
during shoot-time.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 4:17:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 01:36:15 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>l e o wrote:
>
>>You can do
>> that with JPEG in Photoshop but you lose a lot of quality.
>
>You won't lose a lot of quality shooting jpegs in the shade with the camera
>nailed at 5200K and adjusting the color is PS afterwards. You're much more
>likely to end up with a bad problem using auto WB than just setting the
>camera to 5200K.

Agreed, but you'd be way better off with RAW. Auto white balance won't
damage the RAW file regardless of how far wrong it might be. (Except
when using the Nikon 2DX as JPS commented)

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 6:17:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

l e o wrote:

> White balance is not applied to the RAW files at the time of the
> picture being taken,

I know. That was my point. Why are some people so concerned about
white balance when shooting?

-Mike
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 6:17:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mike Warren wrote:
> l e o wrote:
>
>
>>White balance is not applied to the RAW files at the time of the
>>picture being taken,
>
>
> I know. That was my point. Why are some people so concerned about
> white balance when shooting?
>
> -Mike


You do if you are using JPEG/TIFF!

You don't if you use RAW.
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 6:17:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:34:05 GMT, l e o <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:

>Mike Warren wrote:
>> l e o wrote:
>>
>>
>>>White balance is not applied to the RAW files at the time of the
>>>picture being taken,
>>
>>
>> I know. That was my point. Why are some people so concerned about
>> white balance when shooting?
>>
>> -Mike
>
>
>You do if you are using JPEG/TIFF!
>
>You don't if you use RAW.

Precisely.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 10:05:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:36:26 +1000, "Mike Warren"
<miwaNOSPAM@iprimus.com.au> wrote:

>Hi,

----snip----

>What do people do about colour balance when using fill flash?
>
----snip----
>
>Even if I had a filter for the flash, I would have been constantly
>putting it on and taking it off.
>
----snip----
>
>-Mike
>

Mike, sorry if I missed something but it does not seem like
anybody answered this part of your question. A picture that has mixed
color temperature lighting in it can be problematic in both jpeg & RAW
because even in RAW "you" must select "1" color temperature for the
entire picture. In this case you would have to select the best
looking WB temperature that resides between these 2 extremes. In most
cases that would be in favor of the strongest light source, in this
case that's probably still the sun.

The fill flash color imbalance would need to be dealt with via
post processing, not a fun processes but than I am a relative novice
in both postproccessing & RAW conversion. I can tell of 2 ways I deal
with this, they may not be the best way of dealing with this problem
but they have worked well for me but it requires a little or a lot of
effort & @ times is not possible/practical.

1> Replace "fill flash" with a light reflector, reflecting the same
color light as the main light source. Much easier to do with an
assistant whenever possible or a preset area to take the picture(s).

2> Apply a filter to your flash to change it's color temperature
closer to that of the main light source. If your shooting in RAW with
most DSLR's you won't need to tell the camera anything about WB
because "you" will select that yourself "later" when you convert it.

Note: If your shooting in JPEG, "you" will need to either wait
for the cloud(s) to pass or reset a custom WB before taking the shot.
If your using "fill flash" with either JPEG or RAW "you" will also
need to add the closest matching filter to the flash. Option #1 works
much better for "me" & the type of pictures I usually take, so I now
rarely use flash & when I do (almost always indoors) I try to make it
the dominant light source but use a diffusion filter on it to avoid
harsh flash lighting, also a 2nd slave flash helps a lot too.

Sometimes I wonder where all the fun has gone in photography
because @ times it can be hard work to get it right, which is why I
am, & always will be an amateur enthusiast photographer, not a
professional. Correct or not, my definition of a professional
photographer is "somebody who makes more in the related field than
they spend on all of their related equipment".

Since I have never charged for my services, I will likely
never meet this description unless I happen to be the only 1 in the
right place @ the right time with a camera & manage to take a once in
a lifetime picture(s) & even then that picture(s) would have to be
worth a lot to cover 25+ years in film & 5 years in digital
photography equipment investments.

Hope somebody else with more knowledge can give you a better
answer than I have, frankly I would like to hear & learn from it too!

With DSLR's being quite low on noise even with relatively high
ISO settings & with many quality digital noise reduction programs out
there, I very rarely use my flash anymore. It took me a while to
learn to live without it, but I am glad I stuck it out & got through
the leaning curve. Going flashless also reduces the possibility of
red eye to virtually nil, although it's often easily corrected with a
good photo editor. The best way I have found to fix a problem, is to
avoid it's creation in the 1st place!

Respectfully, DHB


..





"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
July 22, 2005 2:45:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

> In article <3k8q9sFt977qU2@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> That's what I do and it's never off enough that a touch of color
>> adjustment can't fix it. Using auto WB is asking for problems, like
>> shooting in late day sun and the camera corrects for it and cools it off?
>> Or shooting a sunset and it tries to "white balance" it?
>
> I've done sunsets in RAW and the camera didn't correct for
> anything...still looked like a sunset. RAW is like a digital negative.


He's talking about shooting jepgs..
--

Stacey
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 2:42:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

DHB <yoda2k@verizon.net> wrote:

> Mike, sorry if I missed something but it does not seem like anybody
> answered this part of your question. A picture that has mixed color
> temperature lighting in it can be problematic in both jpeg & RAW because
> even in RAW "you" must select "1" color temperature for the entire
> picture. In this case you would have to select the best looking WB
> temperature that resides between these 2 extremes. In most cases that
> would be in favor of the strongest light source, in this case that's
> probably still the sun.

You could also run off two different versions, each with a different
color balance, and then selectively combine them.

It all depends on who's paying for your time. :-)
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 1:00:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <kkh4e15au9t158qh1bomqaesfseetajkt5@4ax.com>, <JPS@no.komm>
wrote:

> I've used autoWB for that very reason, but I don't do it as often
> anymore because I like to be reminded what light I shot under, or with
> what kind of filter, and this is more apparent in daylight mode.

Back when I got my 10D and was making the transition from many years of
film to the new world of digital, I tried to match the color balance to
the scene. But it seems like my idea of "shade" was the camera's idea
of "cloudy" or something else. So I learned about shooting RAW and now
just set the camera on Auto for white balance. So far, it's worked
great. When doing people, I'm not necessarily looking to get a perfect
Kodak Shirley (you young'ins will have to look that up).
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 8:23:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <230720050900111586%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

>In article <kkh4e15au9t158qh1bomqaesfseetajkt5@4ax.com>, <JPS@no.komm>
>wrote:

>> I've used autoWB for that very reason, but I don't do it as often
>> anymore because I like to be reminded what light I shot under, or with
>> what kind of filter, and this is more apparent in daylight mode.

>Back when I got my 10D and was making the transition from many years of
>film to the new world of digital, I tried to match the color balance to
>the scene. But it seems like my idea of "shade" was the camera's idea
>of "cloudy" or something else. So I learned about shooting RAW and now
>just set the camera on Auto for white balance. So far, it's worked
>great. When doing people, I'm not necessarily looking to get a perfect
>Kodak Shirley (you young'ins will have to look that up).

I would do that, except that when I did, I found myself wondering what
the lighting was. If I want to color-balance, I'll do it to the RAW
file. The off-color JPEG lets me know what the lighting was a lot
quicker.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 8:30:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1h05szc.16p8c7z1rfmx6vN%usenet@mile23.c0m>, Paul Mitchum
<usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote:

> > If you look at my shots on the LCD, you can't tell if they were shot RAW
> > or JPG.
>
> But I bet you *can* tell if the white balance was set incorrectly.

I shoot RAW & auto white balance - it doesn't matter. It's always been
right so far when I import the images into PhotoShop and they look fine
on the LCD.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 2:13:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mike Warren <miwaNOSPAM@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>l e o wrote:
>> White balance is not applied to the RAW files at the time of the
>> picture being taken,

>I know. That was my point. Why are some people so concerned about
>white balance when shooting?

The problem is automatic white balance. That can screw up the
colour where you don't want it, and you can't always correct for
it properly in JPGs. (You can alter the wb however you like in
raw formats). If you are happy with shooting film developed
at the photomat as mentioned earlier, then set your camera on
a -fixed- daylight white balance and use that with JPGs.
You'll end up getting similar results. (Film never changes
its "whitebalance" without changing rolls or adding filters.)
If you might want to alter the colours later, shoot raw.

If you get the WB set wrong (including using "automatic"),
your colours can be totally wrong.

It's not always the case, either, that you want your shot
to have whites looking exactly the same white. For a dusk
shot to have the proper ambience, maybe you want a bluish
tinge, as film would capture it, rather than as 'auto wb'
digital or your perception does.
--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 3:12:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:42:02 -0700, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
wrote:

>DHB <yoda2k@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Mike, sorry if I missed something but it does not seem like anybody
>> answered this part of your question. A picture that has mixed color
>> temperature lighting in it can be problematic in both jpeg & RAW because
>> even in RAW "you" must select "1" color temperature for the entire
>> picture. In this case you would have to select the best looking WB
>> temperature that resides between these 2 extremes. In most cases that
>> would be in favor of the strongest light source, in this case that's
>> probably still the sun.
>
>You could also run off two different versions, each with a different
>color balance, and then selectively combine them.
>
>It all depends on who's paying for your time. :-)

Paul Mitchum,
This is a great suggestion but it may only work with
relatively stationary objects, like mountains & etc. but may not work
so well for pictures of people as referenced by the original poster's
questions:

>" What do people do about colour balance >when using fill flash?

>I shot some outdoor portraits last week and the flash was
>obviously warmer than the available light when clouds passed
>over the sun."

However your suggestion may work for that too in a DSLR that
allows selection of saving "RAW+JPEG" @ best quality. Since this is
done in-camera for 1 exposure which is in the buffer, there would be
no movement between the 2 pictures. The JPEG would have a fixed WB of
the camera's or photographer's choice @ the time it was taken & the
RAW WB would be selected later when it's converted. So in actuality,
your suggestion may be a very valid option even for people pictures.

The only reason I say "maybe" is because I have never done it
& I do understand that with JPEG compression, it's possible that
perfect alignment may not always be "good enough", but it certainly
sounds worth further investigation. Yes even if it works, it's more
post processing time with a good editor but if it's an important
picture(s), it may be well worth the extra effort.

My post processing skills are likely not up to this task yet
but others may wish to try it & when I am ready/able, I will certainly
give it a try.

Thanks for your input, it's fuel for thought & future
reference.

Respectfully, DHB

..
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 3:12:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

DHB <yoda2k@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:42:02 -0700, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
> wrote:
>
> >DHB <yoda2k@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Mike, sorry if I missed something but it does not seem like anybody
> >> answered this part of your question. A picture that has mixed color
> >> temperature lighting in it can be problematic in both jpeg & RAW because
> >> even in RAW "you" must select "1" color temperature for the entire
> >> picture. In this case you would have to select the best looking WB
> >> temperature that resides between these 2 extremes. In most cases that
> >> would be in favor of the strongest light source, in this case that's
> >> probably still the sun.
> >
> >You could also run off two different versions, each with a different
> >color balance, and then selectively combine them.
> >
> >It all depends on who's paying for your time. :-)
>
> Paul Mitchum,
> This is a great suggestion but it may only work with
> relatively stationary objects, like mountains & etc. but may not work
> so well for pictures of people as referenced by the original poster's
> questions:

You misunderstand; sorry if I wasn't clear.

If you have taken a single RAW picture, and it has mixed color balance
in various parts, you might try the following:

Convert the RAW file using one set of color parameters, and then convert
it *again* using a different set of color parameters. Now you have two
images. Assuming, say, a flash photo of someone on a tungsten-lit street
at night, you'd correct one to make the subject look good, and correct
the other one to make the scene look good.

Take these converted images into something like Photoshop and combine
them as layers, revealing whichever part you want in a given portion of
the image. Cut the subject out of the streetlight-corrected image, for
example, replacing her with the proper version.

It could be easy, or it might not be. Whether you tried it would depend
on how important it is to color balance the whole image. That's why I
say it all depends on who's paying for it. :-)
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 7:32:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:52:24 -0700, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
wrote:

>DHB <yoda2k@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:42:02 -0700, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
>
>You misunderstand; sorry if I wasn't clear.
>
>If you have taken a single RAW picture, and it has mixed color balance
>in various parts, you might try the following:
>
>Convert the RAW file using one set of color parameters, and then convert
>it *again* using a different set of color parameters. Now you have two
>images. Assuming, say, a flash photo of someone on a tungsten-lit street
>at night, you'd correct one to make the subject look good, and correct
>the other one to make the scene look good.
>
>Take these converted images into something like Photoshop and combine
>them as layers, revealing whichever part you want in a given portion of
>the image. Cut the subject out of the streetlight-corrected image, for
>example, replacing her with the proper version.
>
>It could be easy, or it might not be. Whether you tried it would depend
>on how important it is to color balance the whole image. That's why I
>say it all depends on who's paying for it. :-)

Paul Mitchum,
Your correct, I did misunderstand but now that you
have explained it further, I'm at a loss to figure how I missed it
originally. However thanks for the clarification, I will definitely
note this & try it when needed. It does sound like a fair amount of
work but may well be worth it for some special pictures.

As a general rule I have not done all that much work in RAW
mode because for much of what I do it's far more effort than it's
worth but for certain things, it's clearly the best choice. Now
thanks to you, I have another reason to choose RAW over JPEG for
certain situations.

Respectfully, DHB


..
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
July 24, 2005 8:21:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Hi,
>
> A certain person in this group recently said how it was difficult
> to get exposure correct while also having to worry about white
> balance when the subject keeps going from sunlight to cloud.
>
> I don't get it.
>
> White balance is a non-event to me while shooting. Isn't white
> balance applied at the RAW conversion stage, whether
> in-camera JPEG or post shooting in the software?
>
> I just leave it set on auto so the LCD playback looks okay.
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> On a similar vain: What do people do about colour balance
> when using fill flash?
>
> I shot some outdoor portraits last week and the flash was
> obviously warmer than the available light when clouds passed
> over the sun.
>
> The match was quite good when the sun was out
>
> Even if I had a filter for the flash, I would have been constantly
> putting it on and taking it off.
>
> Most of these pics will end up as B&W anyway so it doesn't
> really matter in this case.
>

auto white balance is the worst. each time it balances the subject, if
your subject is wearing a pink shirt, then the next person is wearing a
blue, what will happen from frame to frame? It will make the more subtle
differences between cloudy and sunny sky seem, well, subtle.

I try not to work out in the sun anyway. Its open shade for me as much as
possible, if its a wedding and you just gotta, well those shots are not
portraits anyway, fill flash it and let the background do what it wants.
!