larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I have always set my white balance manually...never used Automatic, because the way it has to work is counter-intuitive to me. (The sensor needs to be looking back over my shoulder or off to wherever the light is coming from in order to sample it, not to the colors in the scene I am trying to photograph.) And with the increased saturation possible with the sensors and processors in second-generation bodies, it just seems logical that setting for the correct white balance is more important now than ever in the past.

After reading numerous posts here from folks who seem to get good results using auto white balance, I have decided to do some experimenting to see whether changing to auto might be a reasonable choice. (And this notion of changing something can be a pretty big deal for a guy who most of you might call "older.")

So far, my results have been at least a little bit disappointing. Now I realize that my camera is a little bit older (D300s), but it is a second-generation model that allows for most of the same options that current models offer, and it does produce excellent images. And I have started shooting with higher color saturation settings, especially outdoors. But is seems to me that when I set for automatic WB, everything gets pulled back to a sort of 'middle of the road' color palette without the vivid range of color that I can get with my manual settings. And the palette does not seem to be more natural or more correct...just M-O-R and a bit drab.

At this point, I'm not ready to blame all this on the camera. And I have a newer body coming as I am testing a venture into FX photography, so I'll certainly be testing with that one to see if the results are the same or better. But I am interested in your experiences and whether you feel like you have to "settle" to some extent when using auto WB.

Thanks.

ricardo7 Loc: Washington, DC - Santiago, Chile

I set my camera to AWB and shoot in RAW so I can fine tune the WB after-the-fact.

MtnMan Loc: ID

Shoot RAW and you can set the white balance later.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

You are shooting JPGs? You are shooting sort of automatic then if you are not shooting RAW.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

I have the camera set to Auto White Balance, shoot in RAW, and adjust as needed in LR, Except if I am photographing the Night sky then I set my camera to 3850 K

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I use both file formats.

As a note, this was not posed as a JPEG vs. raw question. I would respectfully ask that this thread please not be redirected that way. The question here is really not about file formats; it is a photography question. It's about capturing the best possible negative for subsequent use, whether via post processing or not.

In my mind, exposing with an improper white balance setting is the same as shooting with the wrong film, like using film balanced for tungsten outdoors. Yes it can be corrected in processing and printing, but why do something that just has to be fixed later if it can be correct to start with. And shooting with proper white balance is the only way to capture "all" of the visual information. I'll try to dig back and find an image that I shot years ago at a local zoo of a nocturnal animal display under red light. The image shot with WB at 2500 K with my D200 was easily rendered to a very pleasing natural image with just a little tuning. One shot for comparison at "Incandescent," (about 3200 K) was not ever fully salvageable, even with lots of work. The information at the other end of the spectrum (blue and violet) just wasn't there...it was below the dynamic range of the processor because of the red light.

Thanks, and I look forward to further replies.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I shoot Raw! I'll often leave my camera set to AWB and if the light is known to me, to say Daylight, Cloudy, Shade, Flash, Fluorescent. But for Raw I don't really have to set it to anything special because I can change them to any WB I want with ACR with either one click or one slide. For mixed light for sure I'll leave to AWB because I'll have to work on the color balance in full photoshop anyway. But the WB with RAW does not matter, only the initial thumbnail that comes up shows how a JPG might have looked.

If you upgrade from a Nikon (DX) D300 to a Nikon (FX) D810, D750, D610, or Df, I am sure you will see an improvement but possibly no difference in color other than less noise. If you want to see a taste difference in WB like Kodachrome vs Ektachrome would would likely have to change to a different brand of camera, say Canon, Pentax, or Sony. I know from looking at my friends cameras that both Nikon and Canon images have a certain "look", that differs. And that is not to say that you can't make them indistinguishable with PP, just that the JPGs right out of the camera look rather different to me and different from my Pentax images. Again, RAWs are pretty independent from camera.

Nothing wrong with setting WB manually or using AWB, but you should not have any problem getting good WB if you use your camera to its optimum for the given light conditions. I find in complex or mixed color balanced light (more than one type of Kelvin) that AWB is a good place to start. But that is me with Pentax cameras.

MtnMan Loc: ID

You seem to have some misconceptions. The RAW file is the digital negative. The first sentence of your second paragraph is simply wrong. It is when you choose jpeg that you pick the wrong "film". The third sentence is even more wrong. The only way to capture all 14 bits of information is record the RAW image. With jpeg you reduce that to 8 bits.

You might want to read Shewe's book "The Digital Negative".

I read your protests but you do not seem to understand that as soon as you choose jpeg you are processing your image. White balance is only one element of that choice.

CO

I think I know what you want to accomplish but I think you would need to get a spectrometer to get accurate results. I've always wanted one but they're very expensive. I've looked at models by Sekonic but they're over $2,000.

I know that you don't want RAW and jpeg file formats discussed but a good way to neutralize color casts is to take a reference photo of a photographic gray card that's in the scene where you're photographing. You can sample the gray on the card and do a "set gray point" in your editing software. You can then apply that newly calculated white balance to the other RAW photos that were taken at that scene.

MtnMan Loc: ID

You can also adjust that "look" with Nikon Picture Controls. Again we are talking when you in-camera process to make a jpeg.

The provided Picture Controls can be adjusted by the user. Some (maybe all) Nikons also let you design your own custom Picture Controls.

Picture Controls adjust sharpening, brightness, contrast, hue and saturation.

chaman

You are a bit confused. You asked what are your balance procedures? As some her just answered my balance procedures are shooting in AWB and then correct it in PP. That is a valid procedure and it as nothing to do with the JPG vs RAW issue.

MtnMan Loc: ID

PP certainly does have to do with RAW vs. jpeg because you have different options in post processing depending on whether you saved the RAW image file or a processed jpeg. At least in Lightroom. With RAW images you can choose from among the standard camera choices; e.g daylight, shade, tungsten, etc. Lightroom does not give you those choices for jpegs. You can only adjust the temperature and hue with sliders.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

When it is important to have proper white and color balance, I use an XRite Colorchecker Passport. Otherwise, I use AWB or use a preset (if I am doing HDR or focus stacking, or pano stitching).

Here is a great video that explains the workflow with a CCP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDtebpvATzc

I have yet to not get perfectly neutral balance using it.

chaman

Thats what I meant. In order to follow that procedure one must know that RAW has that option, JPEG do not. That doesn't mean we have to start a RAW vs JPEG free for all. I think is a fact that RAW has that advantage and should be common knowledge.

kpmac Loc: Ragley, La

Exactly. If you shoot in RAW, adjusting white balance in-camera will make no difference, nor will exposure compensation.