Auto WB or not?

[fredlong]

For me it's varied with the system I'm using. My first DSLR was Olympus and auto wb was just fine. When I changed to a Panasonic based u43 system I found that the auto wb was changing, sometimes considerably, from shot to shot, so I got tin the habit of selecting a wb for each situation. When upgrades and the desire to have ibis again led me back to Olympus I used auto wb most of the time because it just didn't bounce around so much. Now I'm using Fuji systems and I'm back to selecting my wb.

No matter which way I get my wb I shoot raw, so you might say it doesn't really matter. I like to see a consistent starting point. When editing, the first thing I do is adjust the wb. With a good starting point it's usually only a minor adjustment. If I know I'll be editing multiple shots, I'll copy and apply the wb adjustment to the whole set. When I open the next file, it's ready to go.

 

[gryphon1911]

Charles, I have white balance on the Q menu too, so I can switch readily between AWB, sunny and cloudy as you say. I haven't experimented with the other settings and probably won't for the time being. My question really relates to the difference between sunny and cloudy, as it's not always obvious. For example, if it's a sunny day but actually my subject and I are in shade, does that count as sunny or cloudy? (in colour temperature terms) And if I'm taking a lot of pictures, in and out of shade, which is the better default setting?

To go back to an earlier point, when we tell the camera that it's 'sunny', could that remove a golden tone that might be desirable?

Film stock didn't come as cloudy or sunny, did it? It was just 'daylight'

Bastian, same question - is that daylight 'sunny' or daylight 'cloudy' ?

(sorry to labour the point)

-R

Some film stocks did have color biases to them. Very few, but some did.

That I remember, Kodak Cinestill 800T and Kodak Vision3 500T are tungsten balanced. People liked them for low light where they knew light bulbs might be used. Cinestill, coming from the movie industry where using staged lighting is the norm would make sense.

 

[Charzes44]

arkitect, that's true until you actually want to preserve the colour cast in a picture. Supposing you are walking past a pub at night and see that it is lit inside with a warm tungsten glow. You go inside and take discreet artistic shots of the interior and the clientele with your camera set to AWB. Back home, you discover that the camera has seen all those warm tones and yanked things firmly in the cyan direction. The lovely warm colours which drew you in have been 'corrected' away.

The same thing would happen if you shot RAW and there was a bit of white paper or something in the shot which you could use for the eye-dropper when editing.

The colour cast, in that example, is the truth. Something to be preserved, not 'corrected.' That's when AWB is not your friend.

-R

If it's really desirable 'what you see is what you get', then I would recommend starting with 'sunny' (in that situation), but to chimp to see that you are actually getting what you want.

 

[sasquatchphotog]

arkitect, that's true until you actually want to preserve the colour cast in a picture. Supposing you are walking past a pub at night and see that it is lit inside with a warm tungsten glow. You go inside and take discreet artistic shots of the interior and the clientele with your camera set to AWB. Back home, you discover that the camera has seen all those warm tones and yanked things firmly in the cyan direction. The lovely warm colours which drew you in have been 'corrected' away.

But our eyes/brain correct a scene to some extent too. So yes you'll see the colour cast, but not to the same extent as the camera will depict it at a given WB.

I use AWB while shooting RAW, then correct to around what I reckon the scene would have looked like at the time in post. It causes a bit of grief, and sometimes vacillate between different WBs, but overall I think the AWB gets me most of the way there more often than a set WB does. Particularly with my G9, I find the Daylight balance is often too warm for my liking.

Horses for courses though. Have sometimes tried to go with a fixed WB, and sure works for some people, but I always drift back to AWB.

 

[bastibe]

To be clear, the auto WB on my Fuji works perfectly fine, it's just that, as Richard said, I often prefer to keep the color cast, instead of equalizing it away.

The problem is, as sasquatchphotog said, that our eyes correct for some color casts, so a balance needs to be struck. I mostly encounter this in artificial light, however.

 

[xpatUSA]

I never use Auto White Balance, but then I never use Auto-anything.

I shoot raw only and select the appropriate WB in post, color-balancing if necessary

Those who shoot panoramas or composites probably know the perils of AWB where each shot can have a different color balance.

 

[ShipleyNW]

I always shoot on daylight. It gives me consistency across multiple frames. If I'm shooting through a burst or a scene or even a day, auto WB tends to change depending on the contents of the scene or the angle of the light. I find it easier to make color corrections in post, even if they all need correcting.

A couple of caveats. First, I photograph almost no people, so skin tones rarely come into play. Also, I live in the Pacific Northwest, and the default climate is socked-in overcast. I see a lot of blue images in post, to the point where correctly correcting almost feels like over correcting. But with subjects like landscapes, you get a little creative latitude and my stuff tends to be a little blue.

I think this scene looked better -- even more accurate -- with a blue cast to it. It feels like it felt in the early morning overcast. I fixed it up so the colors are more accurate, but the mood is different. I like the blue cast better, and that's the one I share when I share this shot.