WB issues

Eyal_bin

Eyal_bin

Established
Local time
4:50 AM
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
125
Location
Israel
View My Gallery
Hi,

Lately I have noticed that my camera's white balance is rather inacurate, and I have to spend more time post processing the photos in order to correct the WB.

Does this sound familliar to anyone else? is there a way to fix this?


Oh, one last thing, I am using auto white balance when shooting.

Thanks for your help
 
I've just been watching the Luminous Landscape tutorials on processing RAW images using Adobe Camera RAW and they provide some excellent lessons on how to set the white balance. The WB can be adjusted to suit for colour balance and tone after the image is downloaded to your hard disk. I'd always used the Auto WB settings and didn't do much more than run them through Epson PhotoRAW, where I got what I thought were good results. After trying some of the workflow from LL, and reading the Real World Camera RAW book by Jeff Schewe, I'm getting much better results.

Highly recommended. And a lot less to take in than trying to digest Martin Evening's huge book on CS3.

Nick
 
Thanks for the replys.

Nick - Thanks for the tip, but I shoot street photography, so there is not a lot of time for me to manually adjust the WB between shots :-(

LCT - I am shooting RAW...
 
Eyal_bin said:
Hi,

Lately I have noticed that my camera's white balance is rather inacurate, and I have to spend more time post processing the photos in order to correct the WB.

Does this sound familliar to anyone else? is there a way to fix this?


Oh, one last thing, I am using auto white balance when shooting.

Thanks for your help
Click to expand...

My cameras generally do not have a problem with white balance, but it depends upon what type of lighting I am using. Indoors shots can be quite difficult, especially under certain kinds of lights.

I use an Expo Disc:

http://www.expoimaging.net/product-cat-overview.php

I bought an inexpensive close-out model a few years back and use it when I feel I need it. I like it because when I shoot JPG, it stops me having to adjust WB in post-processing. Other methods (white or gray card, etc) are designed so that you can easily set WB in post-processing, but you still have to set it in post-processing. I like not having to set it at all.

Some have experimented and seem to have determined that there are inexpensive home-made alternatives for the Expo Disc. I cannot say if they work or not. Mine does.
 
If you have not the time to set manual WB or adjust it in PP there's little help i can offer i'm afraid. Did you try iCorrect? Great little tool that i use much personally.
Eyal_bin said:
Thanks for the replys.

Nick - Thanks for the tip, but I shoot street photography, so there is not a lot of time for me to manually adjust the WB between shots :-(

LCT - I am shooting RAW...
Click to expand...
 
Step 1: Buy a $2 grey card and shoot a picture of it whenever you enter a new lighting scenario. The photo of the grey card doesn't even have to be in focus... it just needs to be in the same light as your subjects.

Step 2: Shoot everything in RAW

Step 3: Convert all your .ERF files to .DNG. This saves you tons of space (~6mb per file instead of ~10mb) without any quality loss and lets you embed 6mp jpeg previews into the files.

Step 4: In Lightroom (or your raw developer of choice), use your reference shot of the grey card to set your white balance across all of your other shots taken in that light.
 
Sam N said:
Step 4: In Lightroom (or your raw developer of choice), use your reference shot of the grey card to set your white balance across all of your other shots taken in that light.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the O/P say he wanted to avoid having to set WB in post-processing? It seems you're advocating he solve the problem of having to do post-processing ... by doing post-processing.
 
LCT said:
If you have not the time to set manual WB or adjust it in PP there's little help i can offer i'm afraid. Did you try iCorrect? Great little tool that i use much personally.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll look it up

bmattock said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the O/P say he wanted to avoid having to set WB in post-processing? It seems you're advocating he solve the problem of having to do post-processing ... by doing post-processing.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the backup 🙂 the reason for this issue is that I want to save time while processing, also, I am not that good at it, and I hate to waste my time and effort on this.
The thing is that I believe that it wasn't this bad couple of months ago, and I wonder if anyone knows about such issue or how to fix this in the camera itself.
But then again, this maybe only me...
 
When I had the R-D1, I remember that setting the WB in Epson Camera Raw was simply a matter of clicking a tab; it showed you which WB had been used for the photo, but you could change it retrospectively. one click.

I seem to remember Capture One was more of a rigmarole, though. What are you using?
 
Paul T. said:
When I had the R-D1, I remember that setting the WB in Epson Camera Raw was simply a matter of clicking a tab; it showed you which WB had been used for the photo, but you could change it retrospectively. one click.

I seem to remember Capture One was more of a rigmarole, though. What are you using?
Click to expand...

I am using photoshop RAW editor. although it is not a long or complicated procedure to fix the WB, I always feel that my fix is not 100% accurate and that the colors are to hot/cold...
I HATE THIS FEELING!!!!
I want to know and feel that the colors I see before me are real.
 
bmattock said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the O/P say he wanted to avoid having to set WB in post-processing? It seems you're advocating he solve the problem of having to do post-processing ... by doing post-processing.
Click to expand...

Yes, but with Lightroom and a reference photo it becomes MUCH faster and more accurate. There is no need to set WB for each picture individually. You can simply apply one WB setting to a whole group of photos shot in the same situation / lighting.

I don't see what's so hard about doing a few seconds of post on each of your photos. It still takes much less time than scanning film, taking color temperature readings with a sensor and using corresponding filters, or color-correcting color prints.

Post-processing is a reality of digital capture and I was just suggesting a more productive way of doing it.
 
Eyal_bin said:
I want to save time while processing, also, I am not that good at it, and I hate to waste my time and effort on this.
The thing is that I believe that it wasn't this bad couple of months ago, and I wonder if anyone knows about such issue or how to fix this in the camera itself.
But then again, this maybe only me...
Click to expand...

It could be that the light has changed with the seasons or that the lenses you use now have different color response. It's not likely that a problem with your camera would cause it to be less accurate with WB and fine with everything else.

Eyal_bin said:
I am using photoshop RAW editor. although it is not a long or complicated procedure to fix the WB, I always feel that my fix is not 100% accurate and that the colors are to hot/cold...
I HATE THIS FEELING!!!!
I want to know and feel that the colors I see before me are real.
Click to expand...

Again, a grey card is a more accurate way of setting your color temperature. Usually something white or grey in a photo is not actually a neutral color, so using that as a basis for WB setting can cause strange color casts.
 
Sam N said:
Yes, but with Lightroom and a reference photo it becomes MUCH faster and more accurate. There is no need to set WB for each picture individually. You can simply apply one WB setting to a whole group of photos shot in the same situation / lighting.

I don't see what's so hard about doing a few seconds of post on each of your photos. It still takes much less time than scanning film, taking color temperature readings with a sensor and using corresponding filters, or color-correcting color prints.

Post-processing is a reality of digital capture and I was just suggesting a more productive way of doing it.
Click to expand...

I understand. An Expo Disc sets your WB before you take the photos, so it should not require any post-processing WB adjustment. As I said, there are other options out there, but this is one of them that works for me. I do not have to do post-processing WB setting if I use it.
 
I find this a pain, too, FWIW. The R-D1's AWB is not so hot, and I am color-poor, and so shoot B&W 75% of the time. But Lightroom makes it pretty easy, and I'm slowly coming around to understanding it.

I have to check out the Expo Disc.
 
mabelsound said:
I find this a pain, too, FWIW. The R-D1's AWB is not so hot, and I am color-poor, and so shoot B&W 75% of the time. But Lightroom makes it pretty easy, and I'm slowly coming around to understanding it.

I have to check out the Expo Disc.
Click to expand...

I'm color-blind. The Expo Disc works for me. Others have said that they get a similar effect for a lot less using expedients like white coffee-can lids. I have also seen clones offered on eBay for next to nothing. No idea how well they work.
 
One big problem with using the expodisc on the R-D1... the R-D1 doesn't support custom white balance. This means you won't be able to set the WB using the expodisc until you get to post-processing... where it's not much different than a $2 grey card. Either way it's moot if you use ACR since that doesn't carry over the camera's WB settings.

Most DSLRs and even compacts do allow custom WB settings, though... so it could be useful there.
 
Funny, first thing I noticed about the R-D1 is how much I like its auto white balance and color rendition. But then again this is only my second digital camera and first that's not a p&s, so who knows...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom