White Balance

[george013]

Yes, probably so. But what we should get from this test is that, by and large, AWB can be a hit or miss affair - whereas, intelligent observation of the scene before us with our own eyes should prompt the correct WB selection . . .

. . . or just set everything to Auto with 51-point evaluative metering, turn the big knob to 'P' and fire away

If you can do that, then you will be the only person on this planet.


A trick I read in Holland to get a custom WB is putting a white tissue before the lens, aim at the lightsource and use that as the WB. There're also expensive tools for sale, but they work the same. The basic idea is the neutral grey idea.

With taking more shots you will have allways the risk that 1) the exposure, 2) the focal distance and 3) the WB will change.

George

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by xpatUSA
. . intelligent observation of the scene before us with our own eyes should prompt the correct WB selection . .

If you can do that, then you will be the only person on this planet.
George

Meaning that nobody except myself can look at an overcast scene and select "Overcast" WB

Good one, George! I hope nobody here feels insulted.

[george013]

Meaning that nobody except myself can look at an overcast scene and select "Overcast" WB

Good one, George! I hope nobody here feels insulted.

That's a preset. What is the difference with AWB. Except for it's fixed.

George

[Manfred M]

Basically, using AWB for in-camera JPEGs is asking for trouble, IMHO, and just clicking in a neutral area after the fact is not going to do a great job either.

I would tend to disagree Ted. AWB works quite well most of the time, just like a camera's reflective light meter. Just don't expect a 100% repeatability. To be frank, there is no real difference between a reading of 5600K and 5650K. Even the oddball reading of 5150K that Paul is getting is not going to be something most people will notice in a landscape shot.