Auto white balance

pete1w

pete1w

Suspended / Banned
Messages
96
Name
peter
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all, another question for you to ponder over. I have just read a review of the d3200 and the review states that the auto white balance does a fine job ( or words to that effect). So can I leave the WB in auto and forget about it or do you recommend I still use the setting I feel is most appropriate ? Cheers pete
 
I don't know the D3200 - I have a Canon 30D - but I imagine most DSLRs are broadly similar. The pro bodies might be different but I have no experience of them.

You have some choices. Leave it in auto, which may or may not give you the results you want. I find it a bit hit or miss. Choose one of the presets according to your assessment of the light, which can be a bit subjective, but it gets easier with some experience. Set a custom WB before you shoot. That's probably going to give you the best results in camera, providing the light temperature doesn't change significantly while you're shooting.

The easiest and most flexible solution is to shoot raw and adjust the WB in post processing if necessary. Of course, you can also choose any of the options above and retain the flexibility by shooting raw.
 
Check the picture when you have taken it and see what the result is, then adjust accordingly.

To be honest I often find auto leaves a very blue hue on the picture, I normally have mine on cloudy
 
I usually leave WB in auto (D3s & D700) apart from difficult mixed lighting indoors where I will set a custom WB, sometimes I will tweak the temp up or down but I never set the WB to cloud, sun, etc. Temp can easily be tweaked in LR or Bridge on raw files and usually needs it, especially indoor shots so auto is my go to setting. I posted a thread on DSLR WB a while ago as it seemed to me a little strange that a camera costing several thousand pounds did a poorer job on WB than a mobile phone. Consensus was with raw & pp you can tweak for accuracy whereas pics from a mobile are much less likely to be pp'd so more importance is placed on WB in these devices. Will be interesting to find out if auto WB accuracy on the 3200 is improved and comparable to the iiphone, etc....................
 
thanks people. i am going away for a few days next week hopefully to the seaside (should be nice and bracing walking the dog on the beach!!). i shall experiment with the settings then. unfortunately i wont be taking a laptop so it might be difficult to tell on the cameras little screen. i agree Ady that so much importance is placed on PP. i know the debate rages about this subject but if i buy a half decent DSLR surely the photos i take should be of a suitable quality to not be faffing around with them afterwards on a computer. what i see is what i wanna get. i generally only use very basic software for PP anyway (picassa) so i am limited in what i can achieve. hopefully i will get some images uploaded when i get back and let the debate continue. cheers pete
 
hi chaz forgive my ignorance but 100% of what is a good place to start?? i do know the nikon software supplied with the d3200 has a WB setting that can be altered PP but what does the 100% refer too? cheers pete
 
Hi, If it's of any help when shooting in RAW you can comfortably leave it on auto white balance most of the time as RAW files can nearly always be corrected for white balance in PP. There are rare circumstances when auto white balance would not yeald a correctable file, if this is the case and circumstances permit then I take a manual white balance reading from a white card particularly if the lighting is of a mixed source.

In our studio when shooting commercially ie product photography when an accurate colour balance is critical I always take manual white balance readings.

If shooting JPEGs you will find that most cameras these days give a pretty good account of themselves when it comes to white balance readings if left on auto. And these can still be corrected in PP but not to the same degree as RAW files. Once again if you have the time and the circumstances permit then a manual reading will possibly be more accurate.

The only time I use the pre-set settings in the camera is when the lighting is to such a degree that the auto setting would not yeald a correctable result so I then set the camera to something near to what I feel it should be, making it easier to correct in PP or if it is not possible to take a manual white balance reading.

Hope this helps.,

George.
 
pete1w said:
thanks people. i am going away for a few days next week hopefully to the seaside (should be nice and bracing walking the dog on the beach!!). i shall experiment with the settings then. unfortunately i wont be taking a laptop so it might be difficult to tell on the cameras little screen. i agree Ady that so much importance is placed on PP. i know the debate rages about this subject but if i buy a half decent DSLR surely the photos i take should be of a suitable quality to not be faffing around with them afterwards on a computer. what i see is what i wanna get. i generally only use very basic software for PP anyway (picassa) so i am limited in what i can achieve. hopefully i will get some images uploaded when i get back and let the debate continue. cheers pete
Click to expand...

Just a thought. You're going to experiment, which is the best way to find what works for you, but why not shoot JPEG + raw? It'll cost you memory card space, but that's cheap nowadays. Personally, I think the greater flexibility of raw, particularly if you want to adjust white balance and exposure, is worthwhile but you will have to make this decision for yourself. Compare the results when you get back and then make up your mind. Enjoy your break and let us know how you get on.
 
pete1w said:
thanks people. i am going away for a few days next week hopefully to the seaside (should be nice and bracing walking the dog on the beach!!). i shall experiment with the settings then. unfortunately i wont be taking a laptop so it might be difficult to tell on the cameras little screen. i agree Ady that so much importance is placed on PP. i know the debate rages about this subject but if i buy a half decent DSLR surely the photos i take should be of a suitable quality to not be faffing around with them afterwards on a computer. what i see is what i wanna get. i generally only use very basic software for PP anyway (picassa) so i am limited in what i can achieve. hopefully i will get some images uploaded when i get back and let the debate continue. cheers pete
Click to expand...
It depends what your 'good enough' is. And it always did.

In the film days, most people kept a film in their camera for a year or more and had the machine at Boots autocorrect any exposure or colour balance issues.

Nowadays those people can shoot in camera JPEGs with added custom styles and auto or selected WB and be happy with what comes out of the camera.

However some of us (let's use the word photographers) would use pro film or slide film that was carefully looked after, we would then carefully colour balance and expose it and either do our own printing or pay an arm and a leg for someone else to do it.

Nowadays we do that in PP.

Whether you're in the first group or the 2nd, you have to see that the first group can't expect the same quality results as the 2nd. Like everything else in life, the quality of the finished result depends on the care taken in the production.
 
pete1w said:
thanks people. i am going away for a few days next week hopefully to the seaside (should be nice and bracing walking the dog on the beach!!). i shall experiment with the settings then. unfortunately i wont be taking a laptop so it might be difficult to tell on the cameras little screen. i agree Ady that so much importance is placed on PP. i know the debate rages about this subject but if i buy a half decent DSLR surely the photos i take should be of a suitable quality to not be faffing around with them afterwards on a computer. what i see is what i wanna get. i generally only use very basic software for PP anyway (picassa) so i am limited in what i can achieve. hopefully i will get some images uploaded when i get back and let the debate continue. cheers pete
Click to expand...

Hi Pete,

This is exactly what I used to think. Bit by only using jpeg you really are missing a trick. I used to use picasa, still do sometimes, but the software that came with my canon makes using raw files so easy that its silly not to use them. I'm pretty sure Nikon would have much the same. I really would say give it a go, you'll probably be a convert like myself.
 
pete1w said:
hi chaz forgive my ignorance but 100% of what is a good place to start?? i do know the nikon software supplied with the d3200 has a WB setting that can be altered PP but what does the 100% refer too? cheers pete
Click to expand...
Well white being 255,255,255 that is what 100% white is, and Black being 0,0,0 and any true grey with have equel number such as 128,128,128
Its a place where you have true white so can then work from there.
 
Last edited:
If you haven't got time, and are in and out of changeable light, the AWB may suffice, though you occasionally may have to correct the colour in some pics. If you have the time set an appropriate preset WB for each situation. You may still have to fix the colour on pics, but hopefully fewer pics though.

If you are in a situation were the light source remains the same, choose an appropriate WB for the situation. By using a preset you get more consistant results, should the light in the situation remain the same. Again, you may have to correct some pics.

If you shoot in only Jpeg, you can correct the colour in post processing, but any large changes could show degradation in the image.

If you find yourself doing the same correction to AWB, or a preset WB, you can customise AWB and/or the presets tocompensate for that change in camera.

If you shoot in the RAW format you can alter the WB after the fact, but it is a a good idea to get as close to the correct WB because it saves time later. Als, although any changes to the WB made during post processing shouldn't degrade the RAW file, it could affect the exposure slightly, which is why it it is a good idea to get the correct exposure should you be shooting only in RAW.
 
I'd say that 90%+ of the time I leave my camera on AWB, it does a pretty good job of getting it right most of the time and as others have said, if you shoot in RAW you can easily tweek it in PP..... in fact even if you do use the "correct" setting when you shoot it may still need a little adjustment.

The only time I really come off AWB is when I'm shooting cricket/rugby/football and the light conditions are pretty stable i.e. sunny or cloudy. I'll usually take a couple of test shots of the grass (it's a mid-tone so makes a reasonable "grey card" and I can make sure that it looks natural rather than a radioactive green/yellow or a washed out grey/green).

I know this can be corrected easily in PP but when you're going through 100+ photos it's best to have everything as near as possible to how it should be :)
 
Auto White Balance does actually work quite well where you want your images to look as if taken in normal daylight. Where it falls down is if you actually want to record tones outside of that and that can be things like sunset or sunrise. AWB would try to take some of the red out. You do not need to shoot in RAW to be able to adjust the white balance but adjusting from RAW does give better control.

Mike
 
hi all i am back from my jolly in scarborough and took quite a few pictures all taken in AWB. i shall post those i think are suitable and let you arrive at your own conclusions. some will have been tickled with PP. i am actually quite pleased with some of the shots.
 
As a relative newbie I'm finding it more useful to play around with other settings such as aperture etc and have always left wb on auto. But as stated I do use raw and play around in Lightroom afterwards.

I will learn wb but only after I'm more proficient in what I consider the more basics.
 
as a newbie also i think i agree with you. more important to get the hang of the "exposure triangle" and more importantly composition. as for PP that is a whole new can of worms..... the shots i took of scarborough (in photo critique) were all shot with auto WB. if you get chance have a look and let me know what you think.. cheers pete
 
pete1w said:
as a newbie also i think i agree with you. more important to get the hang of the "exposure triangle" and more importantly composition. as for PP that is a whole new can of worms..... the shots i took of scarborough (in photo critique) were all shot with auto WB. if you get chance have a look and let me know what you think.. cheers pete
Click to expand...

I certainly will, I'm not too far from Scarborough (Hartlepool) so will enjoy looking at some relatively local shots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top