Custom White Balance compared to AWB

[Geoff F]

I shot some examples to show a friend, who suffers from slight colour blindness, how a Custom WB differs from AWB.

And I thought some members might be interested to see the difference; particularly as some are starting to experiment with macro photography.

These are straight from camera with only a resize and slight sharpen.

Using AWB



And with a Custom WB set from a grey card.



Don't worry about the composition etc, I deliberately chose a difficult subject for colour balance. There was a slight bit of negative exposure composition used to set a better exposure for the flowers.

I normally shoot Raw which does give a second chance for WB change; and sometimes I want something which isn't strictly correct but is a fraction warmer or cooler.

On most general shots, AWB usually makes a fairly good job of the colour settings.

Where I find a particular potential problem is with flower photography where I need a reasonably accurate reference. Otherwise, once I try to edit the images a couple of days later I am wondering if a flower was really that colour. And if not what should I do to get a natural result.

This is where Custom WB really makes a difference.

And, of course, if shooting Jpeg getting your colour balance correct at the time of shooting really does make a difference.

[Mark Treen]

It's amazing the difference having accurate WB can add to a photo.
It's also amazing the effect of having warm low sun light can have on the mood of an image.
Beautiful example.

Here's a couple notes from my workflow for those of you who Shoot RAW, typcially shoot more then one image in a certain light and use Light Room.
-When ever you cross the threshold of a door think WB. I set mine to cloudy 95% of the time I'm outside and tungsten 80% of the time I'm inside. I like to be accurate in all respects except for WB, like a little bit of warmth. WB changes more frequently then this but it's a good starting point. It's always good to watch the color of the light.
-Try to shoot one gray card shot in each different light.
-Once in LR make lens/camera profile adjustments. Then use the neutral gray dropper and correct the WB. Hit Ctlr C (CMD C) and copy those adjustments. Hit G (Library Mode) and select all the photos with that light. Right click, Develop Settings, and Paste.
I do it this way so I can save time durnig capture. This is the one thing during capture I'm OK with not getting right.

A note to the techies out there. When you're shooting RAW the only thing doing a custom WB and having a more accurate WB during capture will help is the accuracy of the Histogram and the highlight clipping warnings. Since these are based on jpeg previews and not the actualy histogram or what is actually being clipped I don't use the histogram or clipping on my camera. You can afford this if you shoot a technique that takes control of exposure and tones and know before you shoot where your tones will fall.

Another techie note of interest is when color is causing the WB to be off when using AWB. If there is a lot of green or magenta in the shot, like in this one, then the error will most likely be on the green or magenta vector on the color wheel (cube/circle/star, etc...). They oppose each other and are represented and corrected by the Tint slider. Why this matters is because people usually try to correct WB errors by soley using the Temperature slider. This only works if the error is caused by a heated object (ie, halogen, tungsten, the sun). If the error is caused because you're on AWB and the scene has a lot of green then the tint slider is needed. You will never correct a green or magenta issue with the temperature slider(yellow/*blue slider) because you'll always go the wrong direction on the color wheel. But, if you never use AWB the tint slider shouldn't be needed unless green or magenta light is actually the light source for the subject.

Bottom line;
always watch the light
and unless you take only one picture of someone in a certan light I'd recommend to stay out of AWB

*Corrected

[William W]

. . . I normally shoot Raw which does give a second chance for WB change; and sometimes I want something which isn't strictly correct but is a fraction warmer or cooler. On most general shots, AWB usually makes a fairly good job of the colour settings. Where I find a particular potential problem is with flower photography where I need a reasonably accurate reference. Otherwise, once I try to edit the images a couple of days later I am wondering if a flower was really that colour. And if not what should I do to get a natural result.

This is where Custom WB really makes a difference.

And, of course, if shooting Jpeg getting your colour balance correct at the time of shooting really does make a difference.

There are a few methods of getting around this particular issue.

One simple method if you are shooting raw and especially for in-the-field-use, is to make the shot that you want using AWB:
Here is what the JPEG, SOOC, looked like:

OK, you might say “that’s pretty” – but I (and a few students) were there – and the flower was NOT that rich - in fact it was a very gentle peach skin colour with many more traces of blush-pink rather than the red / orange which is the dominate hue.

***

Then make exactly the same shot (still using AWB) but replace the flower with Photographic Grey Reference Card. This is what you get – don’t worry about the flower, the grey card is the Subject, make sure the Grey Card in the same light as the flower:


***

When you get back home, just open the raw file of the Grey Card Shot and just note the Colour Temperature in degrees Kelvin and also the TINT.

***

Then open the Flower Shot and manually reset the C.T. and the TINT according to the Grey Card shot.


The AWB algorithms in your camera are just so much in love with that Reference Grey Card, that the Auto White Balance will 99% of the time provide you with an excellent ‘in-the-field’ Colour Temperature Meter, for no extra drain on your wallet – if you can still buy a C.T. Meter!

Taking the extra shot of the grey card takes about 5~10 seconds on site and about the same time to check your reference and set the CT and TINT for the flower shot.

The method works well in all lighting conditions and there is no guessing and no fiddling with manual white balance on site. It is actually easier to exploit the camera’s automatic technology - and as a bonus, the Grey Card can be used to check your exposure on site; and to all pedestrian traffic, it looks as though you really know what you are doing.

Also you can leave your PP for several years and providing you have that ref shot of the grey card you can be assured that you will get very close to the colour of that flower, no matter what your memory is telling you.

***

On other matters raised:

Setting a Manual White Balance when shooting in raw will indeed have an effect on the Histogram and the Exposure indicators (Blinkies) – but the effect is actually quite small: we’ve tested it and found it as negligible, in the real world for most shooting scenarios.

The (much) more important factor for those who wish to use the Histogram or Blinkies as an exposure guide, is to ensure the ‘Picture Style’ (Canon) or ‘Picture Controls’ (Nikon) are set such that one understands how far to the right, one is actually exposing.

***

The bottom line:

Considering the two points I have directly addressed above, it is my view (if shooting raw), that AWB is the most efficient for nearly all shooting scenarios even those shooting scenarios where AWB will inevitably be: ‘incorrect’.

***

My exception:

There is one (common to some) oddment, where using a Manual Colour Temperature setting is a very good idea – and that is when one is shooting Available Light in a very low C.T. environment, for example a Ballroom with lots of chandeliers with low wattage incandescent filament lights (Typical C.T. ≈ 1800°K ~ 2200°K. In this shooting scenario it is better to use the lowest manual white balance setting, in degrees Kelvin that is allowable on the camera.


WW

[revi]

I found one other scenario where I prefer a set white balance (shooting RAW): theatre/scene with changing light colours.
I like the fixed reference I get for the embedded jpegs, which makes the initial judging a lot easier. And AWB can have a hard time with some of the more extreme light colours.

[William W]

^ Noted.
Thank you.
Good call.

WW

[AB26]

This is where Custom WB really makes a difference.

And, of course, if shooting Jpeg getting your colour balance correct at the time of shooting really does make a difference.

Hi Geoff,

I have to agree with you. I am a learning amateur and I shoot mostly in Jpg. The reason I do this is because I found Jpg to be a better method of learning to master camera settings.

Getting the WB correct when capturing the image is in my opinion not debatable, it is a must. Shooting flowers, wildlife, portraits, weddings and in commercial photography I believe WB has to be very accurate.

Getting the WB wrong in portrait photography can render your subject to be either very sick looking or very dead looking. In nature photography, there is a moment the light can render an amazing image, capturing the essence of the mood in that moment of time is still my ultimate goal. In wildlife and bird photography the colour rendition in the moment the image is captured has to be as close as possible to what you actually saw at that moment.

Though I do not always get it right with the first shot I keep on adjusting settings to get it as close as possible to what it should be. This has indeed been a very good learning curve for me as I am getting closer to the point where I can actually judge the correct Kelvin setting even before making the first shot.

Preset WB works very well for me and I use it more and more. AWB can render very odd looking colours under certain lighting conditions.

Though others might not agree with getting the WB right it will always be important to some of us. PP is not one of my strong points and I keep on trying to get it as close as possible in camera. My camera is, in my eyes, an image capturing computer, so why not learn how to use the computer I capture images with?

[William W]

My camera is, in my eyes, an image capturing computer, so why not learn how to use the computer I capture images with?

True.

But such does not exclude learning, nor wanting to learn, to master the other sections of the imaging process.

Nor does it exclude examining and understanding the WHOLE imaging process and best use that WHOLE process to attain your desired outcomes


WW

[AB26]

But such does not exclude learning, nor wanting to learn, to master the other sections of the imaging process.

True Bill,

However the learning experience should start with the image capturing device and not the image altering device. Once the skill of mastering the image capturing device has been embedded, resorting to the image altering device is justified.

The example images you posted, are those perhaps images of a Clivia? Was it the Orange or the Peach variety?

[Geoff F]

And, of course, William's mention of shooting an extra image containing the grey card reference can be used for any subject which may prove difficult; like outdoor portraits etc.

One area where I tend to go wrong sometimes is to trust the camera review screen image over my own judgment. So many times, the screen image was 'lying' and I would have been better off just doing what I thought was correct in the first place!

This applies to both colour and brightness.

I meter the problem areas but the screen view of my first shot looks over bright, so I end up actually under exposing. Now, when ever possible, I take one shot according to the screen and another according to my instincts, with some reference to the histogram as well.

[SteveF]

I found one other scenario where I prefer a set white balance (shooting RAW): theatre/scene with changing light colours.
I like the fixed reference I get for the embedded jpegs, which makes the initial judging a lot easier. And AWB can have a hard time with some of the more extreme light colours.

I shoot jpegs with a pre-set of tungsten. Gets you the same 'feel' across all the images. If there's a video guy there I always ask them how they are set up, posing as a newbie and looking for advice. Video guys are mpeg so they have to get it right and they have some pretty nifty tricks to get the white balance right. That deep red is horrible tho ...

[William W]

The example images you posted, are those perhaps images of a Clivia? Was it the Orange or the Peach variety?

Sorry - I have no idea.
If it were a grape variety I might have a chance of indentifying.
I am not a gardener.
I can kill plastic, indoor plants.

Those peach blush flower come out each Spring and the rest of the year I just have the long green leaves.
That particular bunch of peach blush bushes, grow under a tree and they get the morning sun (it rises in the east down here):

That is where those plants like to be, I know that because that lot survived.
I don't water the garden, the clouds do that.
Each other year I throw some liquid fish poo everywhere with splash of water.
Each Autumn, I cut everything back - severely.
The plants in my garden either survive or die - it is really that simple - Darwinian Theory being practiced: no political correctness and no second chances.

***

On another note: and returning to the topic.
Below is a more ‘serious’ result of the technique of White Balancing and attaining the ‘Correct Colour’ as I described above.

I was driving up the north coast to do an early Portrait Sitting and just after sunrise I passed a nursery and a bunch of these flowers caught my eye – (I do know these are ‘Roses’, because I buy Roses from the Florist).

The colour is just as it was in the morning light – that was what was important to me, to catch the colour and the subtlety and softness of the variance of hue. I don’t take many flower photos – so this Photograph (for me) is not so much about the flower, but it is about preserving the colours that I saw that morning,

Here:


WW

[Mark Treen]

WW
It sounded like you were saying if you take a picture of a grey card in AWB the camera will 99% of the time get the WB and TINT correct. So just open the RAW version of that picture in post and and read the Temperature and TINT of that photo and use it for the rest.
If you've done all that work why not just use the Neutral Gray dropper and get a more exact color?

Also, your statement regarding your AWB workflow is great if you are shooting in RAW. This is exactly what you said, no issues there. It's just all your pictures say jpeg. So just to be clear to anyone else. If you are shooting in AWB in jpeg the technique WW describes will not work for you.
If you've shot the rest of the photo's in jpeg you're out of luck for using adjustments for WB from one to apply to others. JPEGs in post are not read in, just +4 etc... As you recompose (in the same exact light) and have more or less green in the shot the camera in AWB will have the temperature jump all over the place. Without a reference you won't be able to fix this in post. Just eye ball each one individually. If you tried you'd be adding +4 temperature slider to 20 picture that all had a slightly different starting point.

Bottom line here is that if you shoot RAW and have a gray card shot in each lighting condition it really doesn't matter what WB is set to. (barring the in camera histo and blinkies that I propose should not be used anyway)

Revi
I agree for shooting something with colored lights on a stage. It's a color nightmare for the purest if you're shooting dynamically. The saving grace here no one looking at these prints will expect anything but color issues. It may look odd to have perfectly balanced and accurate WB in this scenario. Good thing too.

AB26 If you shoot jpeg you should try to get color right in capture. When you edit it in post you are in essence pushing wet paint around the canvas. I'd recommend though to switch to RAW if you workflow hardware can manage it. It adds no mandatory step to the workflow that requires any knowledge. If I can appeal to your desire to just want to learn the camera. Imagine setting the WB to a setting and being able to just leave it along. You don't have to worry about the color on your images. You can shift them in post without pushing wet paint around. This frees the RAM in your mind up when taking pictures so you can start composing the tones in a shot. Get the things that are easier to handle in post in post so you can focus on creative decision that make more impactful images during capture.

I'm not arguing for a more complicated workflow to satisfy a color purest. My appeal to you in switching to RAW if for an easier workflow (if your hardware can handle it) and one that makes taking pictures easier. There are other benefits to RAW for a separate post.

Geoff I agree to not trust the back of the camera for color or tones. I mainly only use it for sharpness review.

WW- You captured me with that rose image for much longer then my normal attention span. Wonderful picture. It's a great one to show how color can tell a story.

[William W]

It sounded like you were saying if you take a picture of a grey card in AWB the camera will 99% of the time get the WB and TINT correct.

That was what I wrote, Yes.

***

If you've done all that work why not just use the Neutral Gray dropper and get a more exact color?

Assuming that we are discussing the typical Eye Dropper Post Production Technique that reads the eyedropper from the Grey Card reference in the shot:

Using the Eye Dropper in a Post Production means that a little area of the image must be selected.

When a grey card is photographed in the field, the resultant image OF THE GREY CARD, may have various colour casts spread in areas / sections over the image of the grey card: this can be for various reasons, mainly reflections from neighbouring objects.

The salient point about using the Colour Temperature VALUE and the TINT VALUE as the camera INTERPRETED THE LIGHT (i.e. we are using the CAMERA as a COLOUR TEMPERATURE METER) - is to NULL all those little colour casts one gets when the image of a Grey Card in Photographed in situ.

I do not usually use the above described “eyedropper technique” for this main reason. There are also other minor reasons.

(Although you attest differently), I have found using the Eye Dropper Technique in PP actually LESS accurate and/or it takes a much longer time, to make accurate than what I have described above.

On the other hand, I have found, using an Hand Held CT meter in situ and then comparing the readings of the CT meter with the results of the Grey Card shot In Situ - to be very accurate 99% of the time – and that is why I wrote "99% of the time" in what I wrote.

***

Also, your statement regarding your AWB workflow is great if you are shooting in RAW. This is exactly what you said.

Again, yes.

That is exactly what I wrote and I wrote exactly what I meant.

I saw no need to clarify any ‘what ifs’ as I was not discussing other matters: for example I was NOT discussing shooting in JPEG.

***

. . . It's just all your pictures say jpeg.

The initial image that I posted which was labelled “JPEG SOOC”.

That was an indicative of how the AWB in the camera read the CT of the scene (from memory around 4350°K and +20 TINT).

(Obviously), it is impossible to post a raw image on line so I used the JPEG SOOC as the indicative initial image.

Similarly the FINAL IMAGE is labelled "raw" and then I describe the two (ONLY) conversions that were made to the raw file - and again the final image (converted from the raw) is a JPEG IMAGE, which I posted.

The labelling seemed quite clear to me and as is often used: but if the labelling caused any confusion for you, then the above explanation should clarify that confusion.


***

Bottom line here is that if you shoot RAW and have a gray card shot in each lighting condition it really doesn't matter what WB is set to.

That is NOT the bottom line of my commentary.

I also disagree with the statement.

Firstly, concerning "the bottom line":

One of the main points of my commentary was to indicate that for most photography it is easier/simpler just to leave the Colour Temperature selection set AWB all the time (as opposed to selecting various such as cloudy or tungsten, etc).



Secondly, concerning the statement:

It CAN matter what the WB is set to, even if you are shooting with a Grey Card as a reference.

‘Cloudy’ or ‘Tungsten’ will have little resultant effect for MOST shooting scenarios.

However, IF should one selects:

• (as one example) 2500°K and be shooting at the beach or in the snow;
• (as another example) 10000°K and be shooting under low wattage incandescent lights;

one will come across many issues whilst attempting to achieve a suitably balanced image in Post Production. And there will be increasing difficulty as the variance widens.

This was why I specifically mentioned how to address the shooting scenario comprising low wattage chandeliers.


***

Thank you for the kind comment on the Rose Photo.

WW

[William W]

. . . Once the skill of mastering the image capturing device has been embedded, resorting to the image altering device is justified.

I disagree with that Teaching Philosophy.

Separatism and placing a caveat that attaining master proficiency "in camera" before moving to learn other portions of the Photographic Technical Process and Art Form is: counterproductive; inhibitive and a generally poor road to follow.

I shall agree to disagree with you, on this point.

WW

[xpatUSA]

I shoot jpegs with a pre-set of tungsten. Gets you the same 'feel' across all the images.

That it does, Steve. I don't know what all the fuss is about

[Arlen]

However the learning experience should start with the image capturing device and not the image altering device. Once the skill of mastering the image capturing device has been embedded, resorting to the image altering device is justified.

Andre, I think I understand where you're coming from with this line of thinking. Learn one thing at a time, focus on and master that task before moving on down the production line. In some cases that approach works very well. But in this case you are unnecessarily handicapping yourself by not looking down the road to see what effects it will have. When you eventually get to the point where you want to consider learning post processing, you will kick yourself for not having shot in RAW all along. You'll look back at your old shots that had a lot of potential, that you could now turn into some really outstanding pictures, if only you had given yourself some flexibility by shooting them in RAW.

Like Mark said above, It adds no mandatory step to the workflow that requires any knowledge. You can shoot in RAW, run them through a RAW processor (like Lightroom or many other software options), and then just accept the default output without making any adjustments at all. You can wait until some time in the future to learn to master the adjustment controls. (Though I would recommend that you at least learn to do WB adjustments in the RAW processor soon. It's quick to learn, and FAR preferable to baking it into a JPEG.)

It's completely up to you of course, and I hope this doesn't feel like you are being ganged up on. It's just that those of us who have been through it want to help you (and anyone else reading this who doesn't understand the advantages of RAW) to avoid going farther down a less productive path than you have to.

[AB26]

Hi,

Bill:
Yes, that is Clivia. A very hardened plant that can survive on very little water.

I took a shot of a Clivia in my garden, this morning early. Shot in Jpg WB was preset, unfortunately I had to push ISO to 800 to get a decent shutter speed for a handheld shot. Compare your RAW image to this Jpg image and you will notice a vast difference in colour rendition. The leaves of a Clivia is a deep dark green. I did not use any fancy gray card to do the preset WB, I did it on a white reflector made from painters canvas. ( Steve Sint recons you can do it on a bride’s dress.)



This was resized and sharpened (the Southern way) in Photo Scape. I needed not do anything other than that.

I do not have any problem if you do not agree with my “teaching” philosophy. My “philosophy” comes from learning from others whom are more knowledgeable than myself. Everything I know I have learned from others. My late Father taught me that I will never be to old to learn, I really do appreciate that.


Mark:
Learning the art of painting with light is my goal and objective. Painting with light you need to see the light and capture that moment in time. I am by far not even close to what I am aiming to achieve.

I really do appreciate this kind of debate as WB settings and shooting in RAW has been discussed so often on this forum. Have I learned anything from these discussions? Yes I believe I have.

Shooting RAW or Jpg, no matter what mode you shoot in you need to get it as close as possible to what you see in that moment in time. Reducing the time spent doing PP will always be my ultimate goal.

Arlen:
My PP skills are very limited. I do not use any Adobe software, I would rather invest in another lens. I see no real benefit in shooting RAW only. Once I need to make large prints of images (larger than A2) I will use RAW. I can appreciate the pro-RAW shooting point of view. Should I be shooting RAW just because others feel it is the only way of shooting. Why does Nikon and Canon not remove the Jpg option from their cameras and force everybody to shoot in RAW?

I do not want to argue this point of view, it will be a senseless debate if people have preset ideas and want to force their idea upon others. I like shooting Jpg as it is helping me better understand light and the effect of light on subjects.

[Manfred M]

While I fully understand the benefits of shooting RAW; I have pretty well always been a jpeg + RAW shooter, simply because most of my images end up on the internet (with the limited colour management support of browsers) and of course the proliferation of low end screens that the typical user looks at (no calibration / profiling); a lot of my postings are SOOC. I contribute to a travel site and frankly when on the road and posting from my laptop, I know that I won't do a lot of PP work other than some really minor stuff. Any serious work gets done when I get home to my "good" PP equipment.

The RAW shots will be used when I print or post to photography sites, where the users tend to be more sophisticated.

So, while shooting, I play around with different colour temperature settings on the camera, including CWB, purely because I look for a pleasing shot, rather than getting a perfect WB (which often actually does not look great to me). I'm not a commercial photographer who is trying to hit a client's Pantone colours in their logo. I don't tend shoot flowers either, and when I do, colour accuracy is usually not at the top of my list; altough in .

I do shoot my Color Checker Pro when I want an accurate base to start with, so I certainly can hit an accurate WB if I want to (thank's for outlining your workflow Bill; I am defintely going to try it). I am quite fussy about getting my WB right when I shoot video, not so much as to give me 100% colour accuracy, but rather to give me a consistent base for my PP work.

[DanK]

However the learning experience should start with the image capturing device and not the image altering device. Once the skill of mastering the image capturing device has been embedded, resorting to the image altering device is justified.

Andre,

We have two threads in one here, but I would like to reply to this comment.

I really think you are doing yourself a disservice by drawing an artificial line between learning control of the camera and learning postprocessing. Knowing that you will be doing some processing in no way interferes with working on camera control in the field. In fact, it can give you additional options in the field. In addition, the improvements you will be able to attain with even simple processing will be encouraging. One can practice simple tunes even while still learning scales.

I don't know what equipment or software you have, but in many cases, you can have software emulate the settings that you could use for SOOC shooting. For example in Lightroom, you can set the defaults for rendering the image however you want, and among the options are styles that mimic the photo styles of the most common cameras. So, you can shoot raw, read the image into LR, and have something very similar to what the camera would produce, with no work. However, you still have complete control. If you messed up white balance, or don't like the amount of contrast, or for any other reason don't like the way the image looks, you can change it at will.

As someone who grew up with black and white chemical processing, I found digital processing a bit overwhelming at first, because there are so many software options and so many ways of doing things. I think the solution to this is to start with the basics and simply ignore additional complexities until you are ready for them. For example, a logical place to start would be with tonality controls, such as white point, black point, and contrast. Those are handled differently by different software, so it is helpful to choose one software package for this and stick with it. (I use Lightroom, but there are many alternatives). I think you will be very pleased by how much additional control just these few adjustments give you. Then you could add sharpening to your arsenal, and so on.

Anyway, this is just one person's opinion. It worked for me, and it might work for you. And if you decide to try, you will be able to get lots of helpful answers from people here if you run into problems.

Dan

[Arlen]

I do not want to argue this point of view, it will be a senseless debate if people have preset ideas and want to force their idea upon others.

Andre, I'm truly not trying to force any point of view on anyone, and I apologize if it came across that way. I just wanted to be sure that you, and anyone else who might be reading this thread, understand the choice and the consequences. It seems that you do. So you'll get no further argument from me. Only you can determine what's right for you, and I fully support your right to make your own choices. I hope there's no hard feelings, and I'm looking forward to seeing the images that you share with us.