JPEG white balance CAN be changed
Jan 23, 2023 00:38:24 #
bikinkawboy
Loc: north central Missouri
Points well made Ysarex. And what you said certainly makes sense, especially the part about changing an already altered image. And I assumed what folks said about not being able to change WB was totally correct because on NX2, the WB tool functions on raw but is inactivated on jpegs. So correct me if I’m wrong, but you can change the WB on a jpeg except that it will likely never be truly accurate since a program like Lightroom is working with already altered data. Kind of like the time I accidentally added cinnamon to my chili (same size, shape and color container). I could doctor it up with other spices that did help the flavor, but I could never make it taste right.
And I guess setting the white balance is really nothing more than creating a known point or shade of color for the program to use to compare other colors to. If that “starting point” is off, so will the other colors. Am I correct?
And thanks for taking the time to explain things. I appreciate it!
And I guess setting the white balance is really nothing more than creating a known point or shade of color for the program to use to compare other colors to. If that “starting point” is off, so will the other colors. Am I correct?
And thanks for taking the time to explain things. I appreciate it!
Jan 23, 2023 05:58:30 #
Jan 23, 2023 06:32:33 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
bikinkawboy wrote:
Folks keep saying that the white balance can’t be ... (show quote)
You can also take any Jpeg image into RAW photoshop with the command of Ctrl/Shift/A, and you can then play all you want with the white balance.
Jan 23, 2023 06:46:06 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Did you discover the string to cut the butter???
It is a known fact that many folks disses JPG edits simply because they have no clue as to what a JPG really is. There is nothing new here. Disinformation is all over and not only in 'some' areas of our lives.
Enough said.
It is a known fact that many folks disses JPG edits simply because they have no clue as to what a JPG really is. There is nothing new here. Disinformation is all over and not only in 'some' areas of our lives.
Enough said.
Amen! And those folks are anxious to post their preconceived misconceptions in this very blog.
Jan 23, 2023 08:46:17 #
Jan 23, 2023 08:46:33 #
Jan 23, 2023 09:34:30 #
User ID wrote:
This is not news. Amateurs of minimal skills have been doing it since forever.
Acoarst we hafta hear some gripes from the geeks, but in essence jpeg files are reasonably adjustable, or in worst case situations somewhat *improvable*.
Acoarst we hafta hear some gripes from the geeks, but in essence jpeg files are reasonably adjustable, or in worst case situations somewhat *improvable*.
I really don't care what the "White Balance" is or how it was "set" - I still adjust the colors of my JPEGS to suit my judgement. NO auto WB is perfect ! and ALL can be adjusted - raw or JPEG - JPEG pleases me, but then I am not a computer geek with a huge investment in computer hardware and software and memory....... 
Jan 23, 2023 10:18:29 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
bikinkawboy wrote:
Points well made Ysarex. And what you said certainly makes sense, especially the part about changing an already altered image. And I assumed what folks said about not being able to change WB was totally correct because on NX2, the WB tool functions on raw but is inactivated on jpegs.
That was the software maker's choice. What you'll typically find as in Adobe software is that when setting raw WB the tool will give you values in degrees K for temperature but if trying to WB an already white balanced RGB image the degrees K disappears from the scale.
bikinkawboy wrote:
So correct me if I’m wrong, but you can change the WB on a jpeg except that it will likely never be truly accurate since a program like Lightroom is working with already altered data.
Correct, but like imagemeister you don't have to care -- just make pretty pictures. Someone who cares is just a geek or might be getting paid.
bikinkawboy wrote:
Kind of like the time I accidentally added cinnamo... (show quote)
Yes, sounds good.
Jan 23, 2023 10:22:02 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
billnikon wrote:
You can also take any Jpeg image into RAW photoshop with the command of Ctrl/Shift/A, and you can then play all you want with the white balance.
You can play with the WB but not "all you want." Try it and then "want" to add 350 degrees K to the temperature value.
Jan 23, 2023 10:25:32 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
Rongnongno wrote:
Did you discover the string to cut the butter???
It is a known fact that many folks disses JPG edits simply because they have no clue as to what a JPG really is.
It is a known fact that many folks disses JPG edits simply because they have no clue as to what a JPG really is.
It is a known fact that many folks diss JPEG edits because they know exactly what a JPEG really is (especially one of those OOC ones).
Rongnongno wrote:
There is nothing new here. Disinformation is all over and not only in 'some' areas of our lives.
Enough said.
Enough said.
Jan 23, 2023 10:50:36 #
Ysarex wrote:
Yes, sounds good.
We usually used daylight E6 so out of habit I loaded daylight film when, unfortunately, we were doing one of our rare hot lights scenes.
In the end the color separators corrected it as far as their technology could really manage. It looked pretty good (packaged foods). It was not technically accurate but it was no problem for printed advertising inserts on white stock.
Food looks fine slightly warm balanced. Maybe if we were selling cold beer it couldve been a problem.
Jan 23, 2023 11:12:56 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
User ID wrote:
We usually used daylight E6 so out of habit I loaded daylight film when, unfortunately, we were doing one of our rare hot lights scenes.
We all make mistakes.
User ID wrote:
In the end the color separators corrected it as far as their technology could really manage.
I used to work in a press shop -- typically they charged you for that.
User ID wrote:
It looked pretty good (packaged foods). It was not technically accurate but it was no problem for printed advertising inserts on white stock.
Food looks fine slightly warm balanced. Maybe if we were selling cold beer it couldve been a problem.
Food looks fine slightly warm balanced. Maybe if we were selling cold beer it couldve been a problem.
Choosing to present the final image slightly warm or cool deliberately because it's better that way is just fine. Are you really trying to argue that screwing it up and doing extra work to fix it is OK?
Jan 23, 2023 11:30:33 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
White balance can't be easily and/or accurately changed on jpgs. But it CAN be changed. Depends on how picky you are.
Correct answer!
When a JPEG is about half a stop underexposed, there is some headroom to adjust white balance. But if one of the channels is already blown out, you cannot get detail back into it.
The ironical paradox of JPEG exposure and white balance is that the closer you are to getting it perfect in the camera, the MORE latitude you have to adjust it. The farther away from normal it is, the more likely it will be difficult to make it right.
Jan 23, 2023 11:54:33 #
Jan 23, 2023 12:01:40 #
bikinkawboy wrote:
Folks keep saying that the white balance can’t be ... (show quote)
I've never heard or seen anyone suggest that. Almost any photo editor will allow that adjustment. The result will quite possibly be less to your liking than if you were adjusting a RAW or a 16-bit tif file but you can still make the adjustment on a jpeg or any other file format.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.