# Kelvin Temp System: do you use it? Why?



## Dylan777 (Jul 21, 2016)

Hi guys,
I have been shooting with AWB for years. I recently pushing myself manually adjusting Kelvin Temp in white balance. It does add another steps, however, I really like the results I'm getting 

Do you use it? why?

Best,
Dylan


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 21, 2016)

Since I only shoot raw, I never saw much point.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 21, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Since I only shoot raw, I never saw much point.



+1


----------



## dcm (Jul 21, 2016)

Coming from film, it is a lot easier and more accurate to change white balance than color filters on the front of the lens. Shooting with a 6D and downloading via WiFi provides usable images for immediate use. I can always tweak it later in post processing.

I tend to use for creative purposes (sunrise/sunset) to bring out the colors or to match a light source, such as a recent shoot in a datacenter where I could read the color temp of the fluorescent tubes and match them. It saves time adjusting it later to correct fluctuations in AWB across images in a shoot.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 21, 2016)

I shoot with Kelvin white balance all the time now. I'm always carrying a 600EX-RT and gels so I find it's good to know what exactly the ambient lighting situation is in order to execute a desired relative color or closely matched color from my Speedlite. 

When I started using Kelvin my awareness of ambient lighting skyrocketed. I would summarize it as follows: if it looks like dogs' breakfast on the rear LCD then I wasn't paying attention to the lighting.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 21, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Since I only shoot raw, I never saw much point.
> ...



RAW is what I have in my cams also. Still find K manual setting give more tasty tone in RAW files. Minor tweaks in LR hit the spot well. There is no right or wrong here of course


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 21, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> I shoot with Kelvin white balance all the time now. I'm always carrying a 600EX-RT and gels so I find it's good to know what exactly the ambient lighting situation is in order to execute a desired relative color or closely matched color from my Speedlite.
> 
> When I started using Kelvin my awareness of ambient lighting skyrocketed. I would summarize it as follows: if it looks like dogs' breakfast on the rear LCD then I wasn't paying attention to the lighting.



That my #1 reason to jump on K, especially skin tone under difficult light condition. Kinda like shooting with prime Vs zoom, more awareness in composing the shots - might not be the best sample, but hope you get the point


----------



## rfdesigner (Jul 21, 2016)

Dylan777 said:


> Hi guys,
> I have been shooting with AWB for years. I recently pushing myself manually adjusting Kelvin Temp in white balance. It does add another steps, however, I really like the results I'm getting
> 
> Do you use it? why?
> ...



I shoot RAW, so I use K=5500 all the time. 5500 means RG&B are more or less balanced, and so clipping in one colour or another in very cold or warm light is likely to show up better in the histogram. If you allow AWB and it tones down the red, but it's the red channel that's clipping then I'm concerned it might clip without showing blinkies (IIRC calculated from the JPEG.. even though it isn't saved)

Now I've got my YN600EX-RT it also produces reliable results with that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2016)

Dylan777 said:


> RAW is what I have in my cams also. Still find K manual setting give more tasty tone in RAW files. Minor tweaks in LR hit the spot well.



That's one of the points of shooting RAW – unlike jpg, the WB is not 'baked in' to the file. 'Tone' in RAW files is arbitrary, there's no difference (unless you think it's more difficult moving a slider a little further).

The only real consideration for the in-camera WB was touched on by rfdesigner. To take that to the logical conclusion, Google 'uniwb canon' – your JPGs will look terrible, but it'll give you a close approximation of a RAW histogram.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Jul 22, 2016)

I'll set it off a grey card if for some reason I can't get to Lightroom, but I don't feel bad about being spoiled on auto WB, LR and my Colorchecker Passport.

Jim


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 22, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi guys,
> ...



Thank you for sharing your thoughts to this topic. I'll give it try.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 22, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > RAW is what I have in my cams also. Still find K manual setting give more tasty tone in RAW files. Minor tweaks in LR hit the spot well.
> ...



Thanks for the info John


----------



## rfdesigner (Jul 22, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > RAW is what I have in my cams also. Still find K manual setting give more tasty tone in RAW files. Minor tweaks in LR hit the spot well.
> ...



just tried the uniWB and it's much more consistant, thanks for mentioning it. I've now got it programmed into my landscape mode, but I'm keep K=5500 for flash.


----------



## nc0b (Jul 23, 2016)

I definitely use Kelvin when shooting ballroom dancing under incandescent lighting. No I don't shoot raw, as these pictures are often used on a web site or for scrap book archives of the dance organization. I have no interest in the added complication in workflow of shooting raw. Ballrooms often have fancy chandeliers with dozens of tiny bulbs, and a setting of something around 3200 K works very well. The skin tones are warm and pleasant, but not annoyingly yellow or approaching orange if AWB is used. 

I may get flamed for shooting JPG, but my output with a 70-200mm f/2.8 II and a 6D fulfill the needs of the Colorado dance organization. Compared to everyone else's results with their compact cameras, the dances I shoot using Kelvin turn out excellent.


----------



## fish_shooter (Jul 23, 2016)

Kelvin temp is useful when comparing adjustments made in Lightroom which are done in conjunction with tint. In underwater photography both have to be adjusted almost picture by picture so I frequently note the settings. I have also used degrees K in non-photographic applications - i.e., in chemistry and physics formulas - it has been a number of years however.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jul 23, 2016)

nc0b said:


> I definitely use Kelvin when shooting ballroom dancing under incandescent lighting. No I don't shoot raw, as these pictures are often used on a web site or for scrap book archives of the dance organization. I have no interest in the added complication in workflow of shooting raw. Ballrooms often have fancy chandeliers with dozens of tiny bulbs, and a setting of something around 3200 K works very well. The skin tones are warm and pleasant, but not annoyingly yellow or approaching orange if AWB is used.
> 
> I may get flamed for shooting JPG, but my output with a 70-200mm f/2.8 II and a 6D fulfill the needs of the Colorado dance organization. Compared to everyone else's results with their compact cameras, the dances I shoot using Kelvin turn out excellent.



I might suggest that successfully shooting JPG for paying clients shows a degree of professionalism.. you can get it close enough in-camera, just like we all had to do with film.


----------



## Zeidora (Jul 23, 2016)

For critical shots, I do a custom white balance, particularly, if there are no good white/black/neutral grey points to do a soft white balance in photo editing software. The RAW adjustments are all good and well for mood shots, but for color accurate reproduction it is better to make adjustments before shooting, and not adjust the RAW files further. Sometimes there is no option for including a color checker (e.g., compound microscope images).

On my 5D2 I tried a few times specifying K values based on Minolta Color Meter III readings from flash. However, the AWB turned out better, so I did not try it further. Those were some macro shots, so not sure whether this has an effect.

Being Kelvin aware is a very good thing, particularly if you have multiple light sources with different K values. The eye/brain is extremely efficient in adjusting for it, but the camera is brutally straight faced about it. I notice it a lot when I tried to mix an Einstein 640 with a Speedlight 580. The Lee filter sample booklets are great to make all sorts of LB filters for the 580. Then it is also good to know the mired system, and how to chose the right filter.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 23, 2016)

I use Kelvin all the time for thermodynamic equations as stock-in-trade, e.g.:


∆_G_ = ∆_H_ - _T_∆_S_

etc etc, as I am sure many CR users also do.


----------



## Besisika (Jul 23, 2016)

I use K when I gel my flash, in particular under mixed lighting with fluorescent.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jul 23, 2016)

AlanF said:


> I use Kelvin all the time for thermodynamic equations as stock-in-trade, e.g.:
> 
> 
> ∆_G_ = ∆_H_ - _T_∆_S_
> ...



I use it for defining/measuring the sensitivity of radio receivers.

Many people use "noise figure", which I also use, but I find "noise temperature" to be more useful as it's independant of variations in ambient temperature


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 23, 2016)

Zeidora said:


> For critical shots, I do a custom white balance, particularly, if there are no good white/black/neutral grey points to do a soft white balance in photo editing software. The RAW adjustments are all good and well for mood shots, but for color accurate reproduction it is better to make adjustments before shooting, and not adjust the RAW files further. Sometimes there is no option for including a color checker (e.g., compound microscope images).



I trust you're aware that an accurate white balance isn't the same as a full color profile with a ColorChecker. If you're setting a custom WB in the field for shooting JPG, that's ideal. If you're shooting RAW, it's a waste of time that could be spent shooting, IMO. "If there are no good white/black/neutral grey points," in the picture, well...you shot the exposure reference for the custom WB, just use that in post (also, custom WB limits what you can use for that reference to something large and gray, for critical work I prefer to include a more comprehensive reference like a ColorChecker or SpyderCube). As I keep saying, if you're shooting RAW, there _no difference_ in terms of when you apply the WB, except whether you choose to spend the time while shooting vs. at more leisure in post. 

For your microscopy, since what you want to balance is the light source, you can usually use the same no-slide image for flat-field correction and to set WB. If you really require a neutral gray WB reference, you could use the Applied Image IAM-4 (a density step wedge in microscope slide format; I use one for microdensitometry calibration).


----------



## retroreflection (Jul 23, 2016)

Describing a light source by Kelvin Temp assumes the light source behaves as a black body radiator, correct?
Terribly grey radiators exist, and LEDs and fluorescent lights generate white light in a manner totally separated from black body emissions (the trick to their energy efficiency).
Manufacturers of these lighting systems claim to conform to color temperatures, but shaving a few nickels here and there is the key to everyday low prices.

It seems to me that a blanket utilization of Kelvin Temp (assuming jpeg shooting for speedy delivery) is setting yourself up for disappointment in some lighting situations. A more open mind may be in order. A custom white balance does not impose conformance to the black body curve which just might be the reality you need to see.


----------



## Zeidora (Jul 23, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Zeidora said:
> 
> 
> > For critical shots, I do a custom white balance, particularly, if there are no good white/black/neutral grey points to do a soft white balance in photo editing software. The RAW adjustments are all good and well for mood shots, but for color accurate reproduction it is better to make adjustments before shooting, and not adjust the RAW files further. Sometimes there is no option for including a color checker (e.g., compound microscope images).
> ...



Agree on WB and profiling being distinct. That was not OPs question, so I assume pre-profiled camera-lens system.

Re RAW adjustment vs. pre-shoot adjustment, you are missing the point. Consider you shoot an all-over picture of orange flowers. There are loads of shades of orange, and the hue will be affected by the K setting. So what is the true color? Unless you pre-set the K value (or do custom WB) before you shoot, there is no way of getting an accurate color hue. [There is also the tint question, which is a function of exposure, again not what OP asked].

You could shoot a white balance/grey card/color checker first, then take picture of flower, then adjust K of first image in RAW and transfer that value to the flower image. I wonder what is more cumbersome, though.

Re grey wedges, fine for greyscale calibration, but not the same as a color-checker, or similar. Re balance light source vs. WB of camera, the old photo setting (3200K) on microscope incandescent light sources (plus 80 series filter for daylight film), is a bit dated, particularly if you consider LED sources these days. WRT WB/K/profiling, there is no difference between dLM and dSLR. Axiocam HRc with Zen works quite nicely.


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 23, 2016)

Dylan777 said:


> Hi guys,
> I have been shooting with AWB for years. I recently pushing myself manually adjusting Kelvin Temp in white balance. It does add another steps, however, I really like the results I'm getting
> 
> Do you use it? why?
> ...



I shoot raw since 1997 so white balance is a thing for post processing. As physicist I like to have as much reliable science in my life. Kelvin temperatures are reliable for our sun, incandescent lights, very good LED lamps.

During exposure I always use the sunlight setting (5200 K) to have reliable and stable matching between scene and display.

Mostly I set K values in postprocessing for
(1) artificial light sources as "first approach" - works well with incandescent lamps and LED lamps with CRI of 95%. Works well e.g. with a slide projector as light source.
(2) photos taken in the morning or afternoon.

Ad (2): AWB gives better whites but usually I like the mood of the yellowish light while it disturbs the differentiation in greens: always a little bet smeared yellowish-green palette. By tuning the K setting between daylight and the "white K setting" I get what I want: The right mood but very good color differentiation. Example: If 3600K gives pure white, I use e.g. 4400K as a optimum setting.

Best - Michael


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 23, 2016)

Zeidora said:


> Re RAW adjustment vs. pre-shoot adjustment, you are missing the point. Consider you shoot an all-over picture of orange flowers. There are loads of shades of orange, and the *hue will be affected by the K setting*. So what is the true color? *Unless you pre-set the K value (or do custom WB) before you shoot, there is no way of getting an accurate color hue.* [There is also the tint question, which is a function of exposure, again not what OP asked].
> 
> You could shoot a white balance/grey card/color checker first, then take picture of flower, then adjust K of first image in RAW and transfer that value to the flower image. I wonder what is more cumbersome, though.



Sorry, but the highlighted statements above indicate that it's you who is missing the point, rather egregiously. Those statements are true if shooting JPG, but not for RAW. The in-camera WB setting (auto, cloudy, tungsten, Kelvin, custom WB, whatever) has *absolutely no effect* on the RAW image data. In that regard, it's the same as the settings for picture style, ALO, high ISO NR, color space (sRGB vs AdobeRGB), etc. None of those affect the RAW image, all they do is set metadata flags that tell your RAW converter what values to display when the file is opened. You can set your in-camera WB to 2500 K or 10000 K and just leave it there. Your JPGs will mostly look awful, but for the RAW image you can set the color temp to whatever you want in post, and the resulting image will be exactly the same as if that Kelvin temp was set in-camera before the shot was taken. No difference. 

To reiterate – if you're shooting RAW, there is no difference whether you apply a WB setting before the shot is taken or when you're post-processing the image. That's why it's a RAW image. 

To re-reiterate, the _only_ in-camera setting that affects the RAW image data is long exposure NR, which subtracts a dark frame from the RAW image prior to writing it to the card. No other in-camera setting – none of them, including Kelvin or Custom WB – affect the RAW image, only the metadata (meaning those settings can be altered at will in post, with no 'penalty' and nothing lost). Again, that's the whole point of shooting RAW. 

As for 'cumbersome', you just select your WB reference image and all the files to which you want it applied, then use the WB eyedropper tool on the reference image. Or, if you know the color temp you want, just select a batch of images and type in that value. Either way, it's a couple of mouse clicks and done. 




Zeidora said:


> Re grey wedges, fine for greyscale calibration, but not the same as a color-checker, or similar. Re balance light source vs. WB of camera, the old photo setting (3200K) on microscope incandescent light sources (plus 80 series filter for daylight film), is a bit dated, particularly if you consider LED sources these days. WRT WB/K/profiling, there is no difference between dLM and dSLR. Axiocam HRc with Zen works quite nicely.



My point had nothing to do with balancing the light source. I was suggesting the step wedge for a neutral gray (i.e., reduced intensity) WB reference, as opposed to using the white light source directly.


----------



## greger (Jul 23, 2016)

I use AWB for everything except flash. I don't shoot indoors much, but would use flourescent if needed. Shooting in Raw I rarely have to adjust colour in post. Adding a blue filter in PS has enhanced a couple of pictures when I tried it.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 23, 2016)

My dermatologist said something about Kelvin the last time he "burned" off a wart with liquid nitrogen. 

Ouch.

SERIOUSLY though...when I use my strobes (Einsteins) I set to 5600K so I get better looking, more consistent flesh tones on the little preview thingamajigger on the back of the camera. Otherwise I get swings, where some look right, others too warm. Setting to K works for me in this situation.

Otherwise, AWB seems great on the 5DIII--even under fluorescent lights.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 23, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> nc0b said:
> 
> 
> > I definitely use Kelvin when shooting ballroom dancing under incandescent lighting. No I don't shoot raw, as these pictures are often used on a web site or for scrap book archives of the dance organization. I have no interest in the added complication in workflow of shooting raw. Ballrooms often have fancy chandeliers with dozens of tiny bulbs, and a setting of something around 3200 K works very well. The skin tones are warm and pleasant, but not annoyingly yellow or approaching orange if AWB is used.
> ...



Professionals I know tend to use the best tools available. But real men don't eat quiche, right?

Please remember, when talking about film, y'all had that plastic strip...I think it was a negative? Didn't it have quite a bit of leeway for working with prints? Dodgin' and burnin' and all that? JPGs limit what can be done with images, digital and print. RAWs are the soft generation's negatives, I guess.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 23, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > nc0b said:
> ...



A hallmark of professionalism is use of appropriate tools, they need not be the best. If for example a client prioritizes quick-turnaround, adding steps post-capture is inappropriate.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 23, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > rfdesigner said:
> ...



Then we are kind of getting mixed up. If comparing to film days, there was one hour photo, or polaroid...

You are right, JPG has an important place in a few situations these days, and, getting it right consistently for JPG shows great camera skill. And that's where proper color temps are critical.

But lower quality images, even snapshots, have long been acceptable for "night on the town" work, direct flash and all. And I understand that photojournalism standards lean towards JPG. Like everything in photography, trade-offs, so, for less flexibility and lower standards generally when speed or hoped for integrity is the priority, JPG.


----------

