I understand the basic principal of white balance, and I can't begin to understand the more complex aspects of it.

I know that different light sources have different balances of colour- tungsten bulbs having a strong yellow light output for example- and from there I understand that to get the best photographs, the light source has to be taken into account.

Anyway, to the point. I have taken my holiday photos in RAW format (the first time I've taken more than a few in RAW) and now I have to begin to process them. I have been changing the white balance to cloudy (for a hell of a lot of pics) and this has improved the awful, flat, bluish tone that they have, but it is taking me ages.

I have never messed around with white balance on my DSLR, because I usually don't think about it, rely on the camera to know what it is doing and because I don't think it is that easy to access and change- four years on and I still don't recall exactly where and how this setting is accessed. My new EOS40D has just arrived and with a single button press and a quick dialling I have already found out how to change the white balance setting, so-

The question is- if I set the white balance on the camera to cloudy (for example) in RAW format, does this make it harder to alter the white balance if it doesn't meet my desires and second, are the best results generally obtained with the correct initial setting or with correction on the computer?

Also, if I was to shoot in the wrong light setting and then try to correct it, how much of a mess can you get into?

White balance is an effect that is applied AFTER the recording of the RAW image, so it won't affect your ability to alter the file afterwards. What you need to remember is that (with a few exceptions) the RAW file in your camera will be the same regardless of what white balance, image style, or other in-camera customisation (apart from exposure of course) you select. The WB is stored alongside the RAW file but doesn't affect it directly. This also means that it makes no difference whether you set the white balance in-camera or in post-production.

Most cameras have an auto WB function but I don't like this - often it is inaccurate and can render deliberately colour cast scenes (e.g. sunsets) a little bland. What I do is set my camera to Daylight by default, for pretty much all outdoor scenes. Often the blue cast created on cloudy days is desirable, and you would lose this using auto WB.

Thanks for the information.

If I understand correctly, I am currently viewing my RAW photos and correcting them with white balance settings appropriate to the lighting at the time, which is taking a long time. If I set the white balance accordingly on the camera, the RAW data will not be affected, but the data recorded relating to the shots will apply the white balance and when I view my photos for the first time, I shouldn't need to alter the white balance- but it is easy enough to do if I want to?



That was something that occured to me, but I forgot to mention it. What is the AWB based on? If I used flash, it would be nice to think that the camera knows this and records the data appropriately, but how does it assess white balance in all other situations?

Yes, that's correct. It should be easy to alter the WB in PP - Lightroom and Aperture both allow you to do this, and if you have a set of several shots in similar lighting conditions you can apply the same WB settings to all of them.



I don't know exactly, but I think it takes an 'average' reading of the whole frame and looks for an overall colour cast that it can correct. Generally the cast is deliberate (as in the case of sunsets) or the camera just reads it wrong, and I've found that using auto WB in tungsten light still leaves too much of a warm cast.

Perhaps I'm strange, but I find my camera's auto WB seems to do a quite adequate job.

To be honest the only time I have used custom WB is when I'm working under studio lighting. Most other times, the colour seems about right to me.

Maybe it's me eyes!

Well I found it to be worst under tungsten. But these days I shy away from anything set to 'Auto' as I'm a control freak like that... :D

Corrected.

If you want correct white balance and don't want to trust the auto settings (like a freak I know) there's always the option of something like these.

Mark

...or you could save yourself a few quid and get a much cheaper 18% grey card. You don't need one per lens then, either :D

What can throw the WB is shooting indoors under a mix of fluorescent and tungsten lighting. You'll find that either setting might make things look odd, as one source has a slight orange (maybe green) cast to it and the other will be more blue.
Of course, if you're a clever fella, you can start using that to your benefit in altering the colour palette.

For what it is, or appears to be, that lens cap is pretty expensive, but I think that the penny has dropped on how white balance filters work. I already had the gist of it with cards but I have never tried the reference shot before, I am beginning to understand it now.

There was an interesting article in a mag (the precise name escapes me) that I bought at the airport on using custom white balance settings from coloured filters on a flash to achieve very strange results- including iirc, an purple evening sky, but whilst the basic principals I can just about grasp, I didn't quite get how each colour flash filter gave the result that it did. I guess those that do play around with this sort of thing quite a lot have a good idea. For the rest of us (and maybe the guy that did the workshop) it could be fun finding out.

Yes, I've seen something similar. If you add a coloured filter to a flash you can alter the WB of the camera so that the flash seems neutral white, meaning any other sources of light (e.g. the sky) will be affected in the opposite direction - so if, say, you added a blue filter to the flash and adjusted accordingly, everything outside the flash's range would appear yellow/orange.

This is interesting http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... alance.htm

I got myself one of these cleaning cloths that are grey so double up as a white balance thingy.... I'm so technical......

Al

Now, here's a thing. It is said that the human eye sees white as white regardless of light source, fair enough. But surely what the eye sees is still dependent on light source and I can't see that something white appears white under a yellowish light source.

Now, I've been continuing work on my pictures and there are a few that are lit with a combination of daylight and artificial lighting and in a few cases, I have used/needed to use flash. No matter which correction I apply, it doesn't seem quite right, but it does look like I remember it at the time.

So what should I do? Correct the light so white looks white, or get the best match to the colour as I saw it at the time? What do you do?

I try to get the best match to what I think it should look like. It helps having an accurate monitor and steady room lighting.

In the end, it's your image. If you're happy with it, that's fine. There's no real set standard that says this or that colour is the right one. This is an art form.