Question about White Balance....

P

Paul Parker

Suspended / Banned
Messages
56
Edit My Images
Yes
At the moment I am photographing sports and at this time of year under venue flood lights I find I have a few issues afterwards which is baffling me and hopefully anyone could advise?
Although a RAW fan and process these at leisure fine for speed I'm shooting Jpeg and save the RAW files for my own back up

I'm getting concerned why on my 1D3, 1D4 in with picture style both in portrait using AUTO WHITE Balance looks fine on the camera. I import into lightroom and as this import is JPEG my white balance options are limited compared to a RAW file.

I only have :-
As shot
AUTO
CUSTOM

So tend to leave as AS SHOT and rely on the camera to have done the donkey work.

Once tweaked exposure, shadows, highlights, I export file. Now here on numerous devices. Even on monitors calibrated with Spider Pro5. Pictures look yellow or too warm so something above isn't right?

Am I missing a trick or procedure? Would it be best then to guess a white balance at the venue, then dial in the kelvin. Say 4800, then as all pictures will be at that setting use the eye dropper tool then batch edit all remaining pictures to they don't come out orange or too warm.

Because when I check the same Images this time in RAW, the white balance looks ten times better!!

Could anyone advise me please? Many thanks!!!
 
Last edited:
I'm not a sports shooter, but...

Paul Parker said:
At the moment I am photographing sports... for speed shooting Jpeg.... tweaked exposure, shadows, highlights, I export file.
...
Would it be best then to guess a white balance, then dial in the kelvin. Say 4800, then as all pictures will be at that setting use the eye dropper tool then batch edit all remaining pictures...
Click to expand...

What advantages are you actually getting by using JPEGs out of the camera? By the time you've imported them into Lightroom and done all that processing, is it any quicker than shooting RAW?

I thought the point of shooting JPEGs was that you can use them straight out of the camera...
 
I like your think thinking @StewartR... Great logic probably worth me looking at. Probably obvious to some but I overlooked this theory so thanks! I know it opens up a new debate of RAW vs JPEG and what photographers should use but I can't see a photographer being happy with 'every' picture surely that they've taken straight from camera and it must go through lightroom at some point?

When I first got my DSLR I went straight down the RAW path and know where I stand with this. It's just the JPEG Switch it should be easier supposedly quicker but I don't like the results some may be shocked to read, so I must be doing something wrong...
 
Venue lighting can be very variable, depending on the light source. It could be some form of florescent or similar, which doesn't correspond to any of the cameras pre-sets even if you have a "florescent" setting. I would shoot RAW ( yes I know you prefer JPEG) , but this gives you the best option to get it right. I would make an adjustment for colour, and even highlight and shadow and exposure on a typical image. Then sync all the other to it. There may be some slight variation, but you can make those minor adjustments.

I have a 1Ds3 and have used it in unusual lighting conditions and find this approach works best. Auto can over compensate for any prominent colour bias in the image and custom generally only allows for a specific colour temp to be set. Non of these really work in unusual lighting conditions as you may need fine tuning with the tint control in Lightroom. You may think this a lot of work using RAW, but it will give you better quality images quicker. Plus you are having to work in Lightroom anyway
 
As you say that you are shooting under flood lighting and set for jpeg, perhaps you should consider using a white balance reference card to set the cameras WB. It's an actual through-the-lens measurement of the source kelvin temperature.
I use a Michael Tapes design ("WhiBal") with my D810 using the PRE command. It's not hard to learn, is very accurate and quite quick The card is very convenient and will easily fit in your pocket or camera bag.
Unfortunately if you are shooting in jpeg and the WB setting is incorrect, there's not going to be a lot you can do about it in post processing, as your camera will apply the WB setting information directly to the jpeg image and save it on your memory card - permanently!
 
StewartR said:
I'm not a sports shooter, but...



What advantages are you actually getting by using JPEGs out of the camera? By the time you've imported them into Lightroom and done all that processing, is it any quicker than shooting RAW?

I thought the point of shooting JPEGs was that you can use them straight out of the camera...
Click to expand...
I nearly always shoot RAW plus JPEG. Most of my shots are documentary, walking around opportunistic, or family & friends, with the occasional carefully crafted set of shots thrown in. 95% of the time a quick tweaking of the JPEG (5-15 secs) is all that's required. If I find myself struggling I'll switch to RAW, which adds at least an extra couple of minutes. Sometimes a shot is good enough or popular enough that I want to, or get asked to do, A4 or bigger prints, in which case I'll very likely go back to the RAW file. Doing most of my processing very quickly from jpeg saves em a LOT of processing time.
 
chris malcolm said:
95% of the time a quick tweaking of the JPEG (5-15 secs) is all that's required. If I find myself struggling I'll switch to RAW, which adds at least an extra couple of minutes.... Doing most of my processing very quickly from jpeg saves em a LOT of processing time.
Click to expand...
I don't get it, I really don't. In my experience processing a RAW file takes no longer than processing a JPEG. Import into Lightroom, tweak, export. What am I overlooking?
 
Totally agree ^^^^^^^^^^^^^:)
 
StewartR said:
I don't get it, I really don't. In my experience processing a RAW file takes no longer than processing a JPEG. Import into Lightroom, tweak, export. What am I overlooking?
Click to expand...
Depends on your process/flow I would guess. If you have defaults applied to raw files on import it can be virtually identical, or even faster to process a raw file. I have most of the basic settings applied based upon camera serial and ISO.
 
StewartR said:
I don't get it, I really don't. In my experience processing a RAW file takes no longer than processing a JPEG. Import into Lightroom, tweak, export. What am I overlooking?
Click to expand...

Now you've made me think about that, it may be an artefact of my workflow. Firstly since the only images I bother to process from RAW are those which were too difficult to process with simple tweaks from the JPEGs, of course my processing from RAW will take a lot longer. Secondly I do my simple tweaks to my jpegs in a simple editor which although it does process RAWS, and could do simple RAW tweaks almost as fast as JPEG tweaks, it only offers simple tweaks from RAW, no curves, no tone mapping, no selective adjustment of sharpening parameters, etc.. So that involves me in switching to another program to do the RAW processing, with extra between programs file importing and exporting steps. What's more, if I'm bothering to process from RAW I'm probably being fussy enough to care about the improvement in noise reduction I can get by using a separate dedicated noise reduction program which can do a much better job. And if I'm being that fussy I'll probably use another separate dedicated program to correct lens distortions and apply image plane adjustment tweaks.

So Lightroom can process from RAW as fast as doing the same process on a JPEG? Hm. Maybe it's time I looked into Lightroom, considered the possibility of actually paying for some of my image processing software.
 
in difficult or mixed lighting situations shoot raw and sort it out at your leisure.

If you must have instant results, such as a sports photographer does shoot both RAW and Jpeg.
 
There's a lot more latitude to adjust white balance at the raw stage or in camera as the calculations are done on the raw R:G:G:B pixel data direct(ish) from the sensor.
Once you've got a jpeg with baked-in values you're going to be limited and adjustments can adversely affect image quality.

Here's a video which demonstrates the different adjustments available - but then you already know this:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4X8BhlsxVk
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
in difficult or mixed lighting situations shoot raw and sort it out at your leisure.
Click to expand...
This is good advice and is generally recognized as such. However I suggest caution should be used when assuming there is not much need to worry if the correct WB has not been set in the first place. Unfortunately the human brain can quickly adjust to an image's colours and perceive them as normal, even when they are not. This is one of the dangers of not using correct WB and one of the reasons for regular screen calibration. While the image may look as if the correct settings have been applied, since it is not being compared side-by-side with a correctly balanced image, you can run the risk of inadvertently saving the image with a colour cast. Therefore using the correct WB techniques at all times, including shooting raw, will keep you safer and you'll have less post-processing if the WB is correct in the first place.
That said, it's your choice as to what colour cast pleases you. Who says you have to exactly match the "correct" WB! At least with a raw image you'll have the freedom to choose!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top