White Balance - Auto vs. Manual
May 27, 2014 16:29:46 #
Just read some posts on auto ISO vs manual that got me to thinking about white balance.
Would anyone like to weigh in with thoughts pro n/or con? That's a silly question to post here on the UHH.
Would anyone like to weigh in with thoughts pro n/or con? That's a silly question to post here on the UHH.
May 27, 2014 16:42:50 #
No question is silly! There are always folks ready and willing to read whatever is posted. Some days I learn so much on UHH my head hurts :)
I'd always set WB, then someone (here, of course) suggested auto. Haven't had an issue since, especially if shoot in raw.
I'd always set WB, then someone (here, of course) suggested auto. Haven't had an issue since, especially if shoot in raw.
May 27, 2014 16:43:35 #
For my taste, the AWB is the best you can use.. however, if you do a lot of flash, the 'lightning bolt' for flash white balance does add a little more skin tones and nice color. Try them all in a controlled setting. Studio always needs a custom WB.
May 27, 2014 16:45:34 #
MadMikeOne wrote:
Just read some posts on auto ISO vs manual that got me to thinking about white balance.
Would anyone like to weigh in with thoughts pro n/or con? That's a silly question to post here on the UHH.
Would anyone like to weigh in with thoughts pro n/or con? That's a silly question to post here on the UHH.
Although I tend to use Manual settings exclusively, I depend on Auto White Balance, since I have found it gives good results. When in doubt, you should experiment and reach your own conclusions rather than depending on opinions by strangers.
May 27, 2014 16:57:54 #
If you shoot auto WB and RAW you should cover all the bases.
Editing in ACR allows you to 'sample' an area on your image that is white or gray to make any necessary adjustment.
Editing in ACR allows you to 'sample' an area on your image that is white or gray to make any necessary adjustment.
May 27, 2014 17:06:56 #
Tnpicman
Loc: middle tn
I personally like to set my wb myself. I feel that auto is the camera making a best guess at what "white" is. I feel I can do a better job taking test shots with different wb settings till I acheive the best look. IMHO.
May 27, 2014 17:08:54 #
rob s wrote:
If you shoot auto WB and RAW you should cover all the bases.
Editing in ACR allows you to 'sample' an area on your image that is white or gray to make any necessary adjustment.
Editing in ACR allows you to 'sample' an area on your image that is white or gray to make any necessary adjustment.
Nice to know this important tidbit, as I've been trying to confirm this assumption. ;)
May 27, 2014 17:14:55 #
One of the simplest ways to improve the immediate quality of any shot is to select the white balance for the type of lighting you are shooting in. Outside in sunlight is the most commonly used selection for me. Flash would be next, followed by incandescent or florescent if I'm shooting indoors without flash and no natural light. I do not like post processing, so for me I find this saves steps later on.
This is just my opinion and honestly there is no right or wrong way. If you shoot raw then you can easily change this setting through your software later on.
Chris
Quote=MadMikeOne]Just read some posts on auto ISO vs manual that got me to thinking about white balance.
Would anyone like to weigh in with thoughts pro n/or con? That's a silly question to post here on the UHH.[/quote]
This is just my opinion and honestly there is no right or wrong way. If you shoot raw then you can easily change this setting through your software later on.
Chris
Quote=MadMikeOne]Just read some posts on auto ISO vs manual that got me to thinking about white balance.
Would anyone like to weigh in with thoughts pro n/or con? That's a silly question to post here on the UHH.[/quote]
May 27, 2014 17:25:01 #
Darn. One more thing to think about... Actually, I love experimenting and will try some test shots to see if my mileage varies. Since I usually am shooting in RAW, at least I have a little more forgiveness in Lightroom later on if I do screw up a little bit.
May 27, 2014 17:28:45 #
MadMikeOne wrote:
Just read some posts on auto ISO vs manual that got me to thinking about white balance.
Would anyone like to weigh in with thoughts pro n/or con? That's a silly question to post here on the UHH.
Would anyone like to weigh in with thoughts pro n/or con? That's a silly question to post here on the UHH.
I like auto, except for unusual situations. It's easy enough to correct WB in post.
May 27, 2014 17:36:29 #
MadMikeOne wrote:
Just read some posts on auto ISO vs manual that got me to thinking about white balance.
Would anyone like to weigh in with thoughts pro n/or con? That's a silly question to post here on the UHH.
Would anyone like to weigh in with thoughts pro n/or con? That's a silly question to post here on the UHH.
AWB works better for me than any of the presets or manual or custom. Exceptions include 1-when I shooting a group of images to be stitched into a panarama WB as well as exposure needs to locked lest you get wierd results and 2- when making IR photos with a converted camera best results are with a custom WB attained by using a photo of my front lawn in full sunlight.
May 27, 2014 17:46:27 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
No question is silly! There are always folks ready and willing to read whatever is posted. Some days I learn so much on UHH my head hurts :)
I'd always set WB, then someone (here, of course) suggested auto. Haven't had an issue since, especially if shoot in raw.
I'd always set WB, then someone (here, of course) suggested auto. Haven't had an issue since, especially if shoot in raw.
Good Golly, Miss Molly. I really have to work on phrasing my posts more clearly.
The silly question I referred to was would anyone care to weigh in. This is the UHH. "Everybody" wants to weigh in - no need to ask.
May 27, 2014 17:54:42 #
I am a true believer in setting a custom white balance whenever I can, but especially in the studio. I know it can be adjusted in post, but that can be subjective and I like knowing it is correct. I have a circular WB target which folds up like a circular reflector, and I can use it as a circular reflector also. If it isn't feasible to do a custom white balance, I use auto.
May 27, 2014 18:38:44 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
MadMikeOne wrote:
Just read some posts on auto ISO vs manual that got me to thinking about white balance.
Would anyone like to weigh in with thoughts pro n/or con? That's a silly question to post here on the UHH.
Would anyone like to weigh in with thoughts pro n/or con? That's a silly question to post here on the UHH.
I've only been doing post processing this year, so changing WB is pretty new to me, but I have recently used WB adjustments to make images from several shoots better. I used auto WB to get the "as shot" look, and then sometimes adjusted it by up to 200K. If I set it manually, I don't think I would have been more accurate than the auto WB, so changing it in post processing seems to make the most sense.
May 27, 2014 18:39:31 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
MadMikeOne wrote:
Good Golly, Miss Molly. I really have to work on phrasing my posts more clearly.
The silly question I referred to was would anyone care to weigh in. This is the UHH. "Everybody" wants to weigh in - no need to ask.
The silly question I referred to was would anyone care to weigh in. This is the UHH. "Everybody" wants to weigh in - no need to ask.
I got it, and laughed! :thumbup: :lol:
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.