# white balance issues



## Jarveye (Jan 14, 2011)

Hi ive been shooting with my 60D recently, and was on a job which involved shooting in a school games hall with those horrable reddish yellow sodium lights, i was quick to set my white balance manually right down to 2500K and tryed shooting, was still yellowy in my opinion, so i tryed WB shift to add more blue, and still not ideal...

i tryed different variations with WB shift to no avail befor resetting the shift, taking a photo at 2500K, then using the custom WB function on a 2500K picture assuming it was at its coldest setting and it probably wouldnt do much, but to my surprise the camera set the WB somehow EVEN colder, in-fact, far too cold, the image was too blue.

so 2500K was too warm for the horrable lights, and WB shift couldnt correct it, 

but custom WB set it too cold and again i coulnt correct it with WB shift, so i really couldnt win...

any idea how this works? if the camera can custom colder based on selecting a warm image but i cant use the Kelvin setting to make it as cold, even if i add blue WB shift


----------



## Admin US West (Jan 14, 2011)

Are you shooting raw or jpeg?

If jpeg, use a gray card to use for setting white balance. That will also help you set colors in post processing if you shoot raw. There are all kinds of gray cards and similar gadgets that do something similar.


----------



## fman (Jan 14, 2011)

+1 for gray card. Auto WB sucks indoors, there are way too few presets and otherwise it's just a too long trial and err.
Canon has a lot of space here for improvement.


----------



## revup67 (Jan 14, 2011)

I've been through your trials and tribulations and know first hand an excellent inexpensive solution. I would skip using the preset WB's in the camera - they are all inefficient except possible the AWB in shaded outdoors or with flash - I had decent success with that . Don't waste time on the color temp settings unless you have a Kelvin meter for accuracy and they are not cheap. For indoor without flash a White Balance card is essential

Here's what you may wish to consider:
1)get a whibal card - the one I use is by Michael Tapes at: http://mtapesdesign.com/ the 36.95 one is probably your best bet. In AWB take your photo, then Set the photo as the Custom WB choice and your done. If the lighting changes repeat above steps. Note: this card offers more capabilities so be sure to read his tutorial.
2)And Shoot RAW, not JPG as JPG pre-bakes all settings into the picture. Shooting RAW will let you choose the white balance eye dropper in DPP. So you load your RAW photo with the WhiBal card, place the eye dropper on the WhiBal card in the photo, then apply to all photos from same session.

Hope that helps.

I do this all the time and the colors are dead on. Also note, if you shoot RAW, there's already a JPG embedded in the RAW file. The RAW is your Digital negative and the same benefits apply as if it were a film negative. You always have the unaltered original. I've played with the camera's color balance settings and that helped a bit but still to get accuracy nothing beats a a good white balance card.

Rev


----------



## superFX (Jan 15, 2011)

+1 for shooting RAW. Whenever I run into difficult light I always find that it pays off shotting RAW. It just broadens your ability to edit in post whilst letting you focus on shooting rather than missing the action because you were mucking around with settings.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 16, 2011)

revup67 said:


> Here's what you may wish to consider:
> 1)get a whibal card
> 2)And Shoot RAW



Exactly. Although I actually like the SpyderCube instead of the WhiBal.


----------



## NotABunny (Jan 16, 2011)

Jarveye said:


> sodium lights



You can't win because of something called Spectral Power Distribution (SPD). Color temperature (and white balancing) is a parameter which defines light incompletely.

Take a look at this http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/education_resources/learn_about_light/pop_curves.htm?0&23

( All curves are at http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/education_resources/learn_about_light/distribution_curves.htm )

(At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D65 , you can see the SPD for D65.)

Basically, the sodium light stimulate matter only on a very narrow wavelengths band, while natural light (or the D65 standard) stimulates matter on a very wide wavelengths band. This means that the colors that you get on the sensor can't be corrected with anything (because they are either literally not reflected by the matter, or recorded by the sensor as a metamer rather than the standard color).

Instead, you get metamerism, that is, colors which would be distinct in a D65 light, are the same in sodium light.

You can get acceptable colors in some indoor ligthing conditions, but some ligthing conditions are just bad.

A ColorChecker may help much more than anything else because it records what various colors (24) look like in a given set of ligthing conditions. Their software then reverse engineers the standard colors.

A custom white balance only records what gray looks like, again, an incomplete definition of the light.

Unfortunately, the camera sensor doesn't record the SPD (that is, the powers for all the wavelengths) of each pixel, but just the powers for the RGB wavelengths. So, in your case, you simply can't get acceptable colors.


----------



## Spaniard (Jan 17, 2011)

Jarveye said:


> Hi ive been shooting with my 60D recently, and was on a job which involved shooting in a school games hall with those horrable reddish yellow sodium lights, i was quick to set my white balance manually right down to 2500K and tryed shooting, was still yellowy in my opinion, so i tryed WB shift to add more blue, and still not ideal...
> 
> i tryed different variations with WB shift to no avail befor resetting the shift, taking a photo at 2500K, then using the custom WB function on a 2500K picture assuming it was at its coldest setting and it probably wouldnt do much, but to my surprise the camera set the WB somehow EVEN colder, in-fact, far too cold, the image was too blue.
> 
> ...



Have you heard of Expodisc before? That how I custom my white balance according to the surrounding every time I go for shoot.


----------



## Jarveye (Jan 17, 2011)

Thanks for those replys guys, all very helpfull. i will likely be getting one of those WB cards or making my own, because of my job and high volume of photos being taken sometimes using RAW is out of the question.

I suppose my question was however, are there white balance temperatures and variations which cannot be set manually?

as, like i said, i set it to the coldest setting and it still appeared yellow under those lights. but using the custom function the camera was able to make it much much bluer than 2500K


----------



## Admin US West (Jan 18, 2011)

As someone said, if your light is narrow spectrum, then you will not be able to make colors balance, you might be missing red and blue for example. Our brain is a marvelous thing, it fills in the missing colors so you see white where you know it should be white. A camera can only capture what it sees.

A gray card helps most of the time, but not for certain types of lighting.


----------



## NotABunny (Jan 18, 2011)

Jarveye said:


> the camera was able to make it much much bluer than 2500K



If you shoot RAW, in Lightroom for example you can go as low as 2000 Kelvin. (I think Canon's software has the same minimum temperature.)


----------



## Jarveye (Jan 18, 2011)

but what i mean is:

the camera set ti 2500K was still yellow (warm) under those horrible lights

i know that under those lights i will likely never get a perfect white balance,

what i am asking is, how did the camera set an even colder than 2500K white balance using the custom white balance? and why is this ability not available manually? because if i could i would have set the white balance half way between the coldest i could (2500K) and whatever setting it did using the custom WB, as one was too blue and the other too yellow


----------



## Admin US West (Jan 18, 2011)

What value is given in exif? That value is what the camera applied for the image.


----------



## kubelik (Jan 18, 2011)

jarveye, are you using DPP or similar software?

in DPP, if you adjust the color temperature numerically, you can then click on "Tune..." just off to the right on the color balance area. this loads up a color wheel which allows you to then further slide the color in any direction.

I find this really helpful in eliminating green/magenta casts from photos that simply altering the color temperature doesn't solve.

also, in my experience, when you use Custom Color Balance with a white card or such, the camera will actually use that Tune slider in addition to setting a custom temperature number. so that probably explains how it got a more neutral color than just setting the temperature at 2500K.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 18, 2011)

kubelik said:


> ...when you use Custom Color Balance with a white card or such, the camera will actually use that Tune slider in addition to setting a custom temperature number.



I've found that Auto WB sets both a custom temperature (K) and a custom tint (magenta/green) - when I view the As Shot WB in DxO, I've seen some pretty strong tint selected in-camera (e.g. +80 toward magenta, with +100 being the top of the scale).


----------



## 87vr6 (Jan 19, 2011)

I'm by no means good at the whole post process thing, but I do use DxO, after being kind of tired of DPP's (percieved to me) limitations... 

Here's straight off the camera raw turned into a jpeg with no editing:






And the PP'd one using DxO:





For a quick job, I think it looks good enough to me. FWIW, the unedited picture was taken with AWB. Pictures are from my 5D MK2.


----------



## Jarveye (Jan 20, 2011)

thats impressive correction, thats borderline what i would consider too far gone to correct, ill have to try that DxO optics, untill now ive always just used photoshop.

i am guessing you somehow ha to mask off the actual yellow items so they remained yellow?


----------



## JRSJ (Jan 20, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Qd-3pe9fek


----------



## 87vr6 (Jan 20, 2011)

Jarveye said:


> thats impressive correction, thats borderline what i would consider too far gone to correct, ill have to try that DxO optics, untill now ive always just used photoshop.
> 
> i am guessing you somehow ha to mask off the actual yellow items so they remained yellow?



Nope. DxO takes care of it all. It's an EXTREMELY smart program, it burns up some processing power. No masking layers or anything. Just simple adjustments. Download their trial, it's good for 30 days. That's what I did, then I sprung for the 200 dollar elite version I liked it so much.


----------



## revup67 (Jan 21, 2011)

Good post of examples - I need to explore that DxO program again. I've been using a WhiBal card and don't touch the WB in post at all - it's usually dead on with florescent or tungsten light much like what you've show in your sample images


----------



## nocojoe (Jan 21, 2011)

How is DxO Optics Pro Elite any different than photoshop when it comes to white balancing? The sample picture in this thread look like a 30 second job in Adobe Camera Raw.


----------



## 87vr6 (Jan 21, 2011)

nocojoe said:


> How is DxO Optics Pro Elite any different than photoshop when it comes to white balancing? The sample picture in this thread look like a 30 second job in Adobe Camera Raw.



I never said it was... The OP was talking about DPP and it's limitations. I use DxO, hence any examples I have to show are from DxO.. They're priced similarily, so use what you want.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 21, 2011)

nocojoe said:


> How is DxO Optics Pro Elite any different than photoshop when it comes to white balancing?



If you mean adjusting WB directly in Photoshop, there is a significant difference. DxO is performing the adjustment on the RAW file, meaning there's no loss of image quality when you alter the WB. Photoshop is adjusting a converted file, meaning changing the WB degrades IQ. But, if by 'photoshop' you actually mean Adobe Camera RAW, then it's probably no different - you have the same two adjustments, temperature and tint, and ACR is working on the RAW file.

Generically speaking, DxO is analogous to Adobe Camera RAW, not Photoshop. ACR converts RAW files into a format that either Photoshop or Lightroom can use for subsequent editing. DxO is not an image editor, it's a RAW converter. But IMO, it does a better job than ACR at RAW conversions, in part because the DxO corrections are generated from laboratory testing of specific camera+lens combinations. ACR now offers lens-based corrections as well, but they are not as accurate (they are estimates and apparently some are derived from user-submitted profiles). Also, ACR does a fair bit of 'black box' processing based on what Adobe engineers think make images look good, and those changes are automatic, invisible, and can't be turned off. DxO can has presets with the same goal, but you can choose to use them or not.

Personally, I really like DxO. I found that it certainly does a better job than DPP at RAW conversions (comparison HERE).


----------



## kubelik (Jan 21, 2011)

neuro, in looking at that comparison, I couldn't help but notice that the DxO images all look like they have had significant noise reduction, sharpening, and contrast boost applied to them against the DPP images. is that something that can be turned off?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 21, 2011)

kubelik said:


> neuro, in looking at that comparison, I couldn't help but notice that the DxO images all look like they have had significant noise reduction, sharpening, and contrast boost applied to them against the DPP images. is that something that can be turned off?



Certainly. For those, I just used the Default v2 preset and those are the pre-defined adjustments. But there are settings for each of the adjustments, and you can turn them off or adjust them as you like. You can also easily define your own preset, or different ones for different shooting situations, and process images through those. Or go through each image one by one and tweak as you want.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 3, 2014)

Jarveye said:


> but what i mean is:
> 
> the camera set ti 2500K was still yellow (warm) under those horrible lights
> 
> ...



In answer to your original question. It is quite possible that the "Auto WB" settings have a wider range than the manual WB options, just like flashes in manual mode can only go down to 1/128 (or 1/64) but in ETTL they can go lower, but I doubt it, just look at the EXIF to see what the camera actually set and I am sure you will see the true difference is probably the tint value.

If you are just using the ºK value in manual WB you are missing the key Tint element to the WB equation. The camera, in auto WB, will assign a temp and tint value, in manual ºK the WB will not have a tint value applied.

As Neuro points out the capabilities of WB adjustments in DxO and PS ACR are the same, but the key to the van shot is RAW, WB corrections do not work on jpegs. If you are shooting in such difficult scenes regularly i would suggest relooking at an efficient RAW workflow, it takes no more time because you have batch and action recording capabilities in ACR/PS, they are much more powerful than in camera jpeg processing.


----------



## JPAZ (Oct 3, 2014)

I concur with what everyone is saying regarding shooting in RAW then using something like DxO or LR. But every once in a a while, the color balance/temperature just does not seem to be acceptable no matter how hard I try (I am my own worst critic). Just last night I was doing post on a night shot and the streetlight glow gave me unacceptable color. I struggled with that even trying to patch and clone in PS but that lost some of the details that I was trying to capture. Finally, I did what one must sometimes do............gave up on the color altogether.

If I am not happy with the outcome, there are occasions where I just might convert to B&W. Is that sacrilege?


----------



## wsheldon (Oct 3, 2014)

JPAZ said:


> I concur with what everyone is saying regarding shooting in RAW then using something like DxO or LR. But every once in a a while, the color balance/temperature just does not seem to be acceptable no matter how hard I try (I am my own worst critic). Just last night I was doing post on a night shot and the streetlight glow gave me unacceptable color. I struggled with that even trying to patch and clone in PS but that lost some of the details that I was trying to capture. Finally, I did what one must sometimes do............gave up on the color altogether.
> 
> If I am not happy with the outcome, there are occasions where I just might convert to B&W. Is that sacrilege?



I've been there too, usually due to mixed lighting in a theater or street shot. Nothing wrong with going B&W - it's only your photographic vision that matters.


----------

