Fix Wrong White Balance (Page 2): This is the reason why I always shot in both JPEG and RAW. In RAW a simple fix, big problem in JPEG. Memory cards are big and cheap so no reason not...

AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California

This is the reason why I always shot in both JPEG and RAW. In RAW a simple fix, big problem in JPEG. Memory cards are big and cheap so no reason not to shoot in both at all times.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

russelray wrote:

For several years and versions, Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) has also been accessible as a filter from within Photoshop. Thus a JPG, even one with the incorrect white balance, can easily be brought into ACR to change the white balance. When I do it with my JPGs, I have three choices in ACR using the drop down arrow for the White Balance box: As Shot, Auto, and Custom. The Auto works extremely well. In fact, Auto is all I ever use for my DNG, CR2, and JPG files if I don't like the white balance.

Yes but--the ACR corrections for jpgs (both chroma and luma) are not the same as they are for raws. For raws they work at a pixel level, whereas for jpgs they are more a global wash. There is really no comparison in the results obtainable, even though they appear to function similarly.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

kymarto wrote:

Yes but--the ACR corrections for jpgs (both chroma and luma) are not the same as they are for raws. For raws they work at a pixel level, whereas for jpgs they are more a global wash. There is really no comparison in the results obtainable, even though they appear to function similarly.

I have found that they actually is a comparison, quite a good one. I shoot RAW only, but I sometimes have a need to go back and change a JPG file, and the working on JPGs with ACR is very good. Very nice result when I want to short-circuit a small change that a Client requests.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

tschuler wrote:

I was on a hike taking photos yesterday. I was us... (show quote)

If images were shot "RAW" (Nikon "NEF" files, I think)... then it's super easy to change white balance.

If images were shot as JPEGs, then it's not so easily done...

If there is a pure white, pure gray or pure black object in the image, with some of the following you can "sample" it with an "eyedropper" and apply auto correction pretty accurately. But the sampled area much be perfectly neutral and those are actually quite rare in images.

One at a time in Photoshop try "Image" > "Auto Color", "Image" > "Auto Tone" and "Image" >"Auto Contrast", or a combination of these. Be prepared to "Edit" > "Undo" if you don't like the result or "Edit" > "Fade" if the effect is too strong. (Use Photoshop's "History" panel if you need to undo more than one step.)

It's a bit more complex, but you also can apply "Image" > "Adjustments" > "Photo Filter".... probably "Cooling Filter LBB", but also look at the preview of Cooling filters "80" and "82", to see of one or the other looks better to you. Use the slider to strengthen or weaken any of these filters' effects (defaults to 25%, which is a pretty strong filter effect).

Even more complex but more precise would be "Image" > "Adjustments" > "Color Balance". Using that you can separately change each individual color channel in the highlight, mid-tone and shadow areas of an image. You need a pretty good idea of color mixing to do this very well.

There also are both automated and manual methods to do similar in "Image" > "Adjustments" > "Curves". When that box is open use the "Channels" pull down to access "Red", "Green" and "Blue" individually. Try the "Auto" with each and after adjusting all three, see if you like the results. If not, "cancel" the entire adjustment. There is means of doing manual adjustments instead... but it's complex. Probably the "Photo Filter" or "Auto Color/Tone/Contrast" method above will do better, without some extensive practice and experimentation doing it manually.

Note: All the above is difficult to do well if your computer monitor isn't calibrated. Most monitors are overly bright and don't render colors very accurately until they are properly calibrated. The easiest and most consistent way to calibrate is with a device such as a Datacolor Spyder or an X-Rite ColorMunki. That's an investment, but if you do many prints it can pay for itself over time, by reducing waste of ink and paper from improperly adjusted images.

tschuler

burkphoto wrote:

JPEGs are not meant as "digital negatives" that must be post-processed. They are meant for immediate use. As such, the in-camera process must be set up correctly for the way you want to record the scene. If you blow the white balance, you can't really fix it, any more than you can repair blown out highlights or plugged up shadows.

Next time, save raw images. Raw files retain the EXIF data of JPEG files, which camera MANUFACTURER provided post-processing software can reference, but the FULL, UNPROCESSED, digitized data from the sensor is there, so you can get ANY white balance you want, whether "correct" or special effect.

JPEG files have to be created PERFECTLY in the camera if they are to look their best. JPEG files can be considered quite similar to color slides. Everything about the look of a JPEG should be controlled with exposure, white balance, and the menu settings in the camera (Hue, Saturation, Contrast, Sharpness, Picture Style, etc.). Ideally, you do PRE-processing, not POST-processing.

If you always include a gray patch reference in one frame of each sequence recorded in a particular lighting situation, you can do "click balance" in your post-processing software, and apply that white balance to all other images recorded in the same light.

When I record JPEGs, I try to use a "custom white balance" — Nikon calls it a "preset white balance". I carry an ExpoDisc, a Delta-1 Gray Card, and a One Shot Digital Calibration Target. Each has different advantages, but can be used for getting the white balance right in a JPEG. Each may also be used as a "click reference" for raw file processing. The ultimate white balance reference, if you're going for perfect color match, is the ColorChecker PassPort. It creates a profile for your camera and the lighting you are using.

I learned a long time ago that when the light is changing, or I'm moving to location after location where the light is different, I should probably save raw images, even if I'm trying my best to get perfect JPEGs.

I used thousands of rolls of slide film back in the 1980s. So I'm used to nailing exposure and color balance at the camera as a discipline. Back then, we used gray cards and in-camera meters, plus incident light meters and color temperature meters. We always had a gel filter holder and a pack of Wratten filter gels ready for color correcting the light source to the film. Slide film has no real latitude, and you cannot change anything once it is exposed (assuming normal processing). The film that ran through your camera is what is projected or scanned, later.

So handling JPEG capture is just an easier extension of that color transparency workflow. I think of a JPEG as something I have to "bake" precisely with camera settings. I have NO INTENTION of ever editing a JPEG. That discipline, ironically, gives me just enough latitude to edit one when it needs a slight tweak. The closer I get to the desired result, the more latitude I have to adjust it. The farther I get from the desired result, the LESS latitude there is for adjustment.

THAT brings me back to raw. When you save a raw file, it contains all the unprocessed but digitized data that is available. Essentially, it has latitude similar to color negative film. You can develop it any way you choose, with far more control. If you use the manufacturer's software, you can probably start with the EXIF data recorded for the JPEG preview in the file, and then dial in any of the camera menu presets they present in the software. So if you blow the white balance setting, it's no big deal. Using a perfectly calibrated monitor, you can dial in whatever white balance you want. And because you have ALL the recorded data to play with, you can fine-tune the image to look better than an out-of-camera JPEG would look. You can change hue, color tone, contrast, brightness, exposure, sharpness, saturation, white balance... So if you are in a situation that is changing rapidly, you can hedge your exposure bets by saving raw files.

JPEGs are not meant as "digital negatives&quo... (show quote)

That is some very much appreciated, great information. I'm just a hobbyist and do not know a lot of the useful technical things like I wish I did. My passion is landscape photography -- off the beaten path. Hence my love of hiking.

My real camera is a Nikon D4s and I do capture both RAW and JPG with that camera. I use my D60 as kind of a point and shoot. I am out in California for work for a couple months, so I was lugging a lot of luggage on the plane. I had my ski equipment to head up to Tahoe on my days off. So, I opted for the much smaller and lighter load of the D60 for my trip, since the purpose of the trip was not for photography.