"Correct" white balance

[Frode]

In order to achieve "correct" white balance (the way our eyes sees the colors) in camera, what is your "workflow"?

I've tried WhiteBal card and CBL, but I'm not interested in getting, for example, neutral white when the white do have some yellow in it in tungsten lighting.

Of course, AWB/Tungsten ans so on, do a fairly decent job sometimes, but as I like to get the WB "right" in camera, I'm interested in hearing what you do to achieve this?

I`ve tried to use Liveview and adjusting the WB there, but I find it a bit hard to nail it there also. Especially indoors/dim lighting.

Suggestions?

[David H. Hartman]

With my D800 I use Auto1 WB unless the light source is an ugly, spiky non-continuous artificial light source. In this case I use a custom or preset WB.

For tungsten light I use Auto1 WB and I then adjust the WB to a warm balance in Capture NX-D but not as warm as reality.

Dave Hartman

[Most of the lamps in my house are high CRI 9.5 watt LEDs. I treat them the sane as tungsten. They are quite warm,  maybe 3400K.]   

[Frank Fremerey]

White balance in camera is always one size fits all over the whole frame. Often a lighting situation consits of more than one light source in different parts of the frame. To achieve a "correct" White Balance in these cases only masking and multiple WB settings for different parts of the frame do the trick.

If you have only one light source of constant color you simply measure a white balance preset using an industry target. Note that so called full spectrum lights and converter sources in general do change color over time and you can get two or three different WBs in a burst of six frames with preset WB in camera. In such cases Auto WB can be the better choice, esp on fifth gen cameras with their exceptional WB builtin to the Exspeed 5.

[Les Olson]

In order to achieve "correct" white balance (the way our eyes sees the colors) in camera, what is your "workflow"?

But the way our eyes see the colours is based on what our brain thinks the colours are. Skin colour as we see it is constant because we know what colour skin is so we automatically discount the colour of the light however it changes. When we don't know what colour something is what we see is determined by the colour of the light.  So in artificial light a white balance that makes skin look the way we saw it may make something else look not the way we saw it.

[MFloyd]

Frank provided the complete answer. Nikon AWB provides the correct solution in 95% of the cases. Anyway, as I’m always shooting in RAW, WB is not an immediate concern. When it comes to reproduction, I use a color chart and make a color profile to adjust.

http://www.datacolor.com/photography-design/product-overview/spyder-checkr-family/

[Frode]

With my D800 I use Auto1 WB unless the light source is an ugly, spiky non-continuous artificial light source. In this case I use a custom or preset WB.

For tungsten light I use Auto1 WB and I then adjust the WB to a warm balance in Capture NX-D but not as warm as reality.

Dave Hartman

[Most of the lamps in my house are high CRI 9.5 watt LEDs. I treat them the sane as tungsten. They are quite warm,  maybe 3400K.]   

Thank you, David!

Normally I've set my WB to Auto WB 2, but very often, compared to what I see, the colors are a bit on the warm side (especially in tungsten lighting).

I always capture in NEF.

Maybe I should try to adjust the Auto WB 2 in camera in order to decrease the warmth?

[Frode]

White balance in camera is always one size fits all over the whole frame. Often a lighting situation consits of more than one light source in different parts of the frame. To achieve a "correct" White Balance in these cases only masking and multiple WB settings for different parts of the frame do the trick.

If you have only one light source of constant color you simply measure a white balance preset using an industry target. Note that so called full spectrum lights and converter sources in general do change color over time and you can get two or three different WBs in a burst of six frames with preset WB in camera. In such cases Auto WB can be the better choice, esp on fifth gen cameras with their exceptional WB builtin to the Exspeed 5.

Thank you, Frank!

Unfortunately, I think you are right :-) ! There might not be a "short cut" in this matter. If so, please enlighten me :-) !

I would like it to be one though....because often its the light that makes the picture and I`d like to capture it the way it was, not what it looks in a "neutral" lighting condition.

[Frode]

But the way our eyes see the colours is based on what our brain thinks the colours are. Skin colour as we see it is constant because we know what colour skin is so we automatically discount the colour of the light however it changes. When we don't know what colour something is what we see is determined by the colour of the light.  So in artificial light a white balance that makes skin look the way we saw it may make something else look not the way we saw it.

Thank you, Les!

I've never thought of it that way, makes sense though. Interesting, Ill look into it!

[Frode]

Frank provided the complete answer. Nikon AWB provides the correct solution in 95% of the cases. Anyway, as I’m always shooting in RAW, WB is not an immediate concern. When it comes to reproduction, I use a color chart and make a color profile to adjust.

http://www.datacolor.com/photography-design/product-overview/spyder-checkr-family/

Thank you, MFloyd!

Agree regards to no concern due to shooting in RAW. Though, isn't it so that wrong WB in camera might affect our exposure? I always try to follow the ETTR- method, so then a "wrong" WB might not get me the "optimal" exposure if it makes the highlights burn out "to early"? Especially in situations with dim light and use of high iso values?

[Frode]

Any one tried the Color Checker? Does this work in the same way as an ordinary WB card? In other words; it won't help in this regard?

[MFloyd]

Thank you, MFloyd!

Agree regards to no concern due to shooting in RAW. Though, isn't it so that wrong WB in camera might affect our exposure? I always try to follow the ETTR- method, so then a "wrong" WB might not get me the "optimal" exposure if it makes the highlights burn out "to early"? Especially in situations with dim light and use of high iso values?

Good question. My belief is that, if it affects the exposure, it will be minimal and within the control boundaries. BTW, I am not an ETTR follower, but that’s another question 

[Bjørn Rørslett]

If one relies on the displayed histogram to fine-tune the optimum exposure, having a relevant w/b is crucial. Otherwise you might end up using an exposure setting that later indicates severe over- or underexposure. People working with ultraviolet (UV) are acutely aware of this often neglected fact.

If in doubt, set the camera to monochrome w/b. That at least gives a good starting point in the subsequent processing of a RAW file.

[Frode]

Good question. My belief is that, if it affects the exposure, it will be minimal and within the control boundaries. BTW, I am not an ETTR follower, but that’s another question 

I`m all ears, MFloyd regarding ETTR or not :-). Its just the way I've learned it, but I'm always willing to learn :-).

[elsa hoffmann]

Any one tried the Color Checker? Does this work in the same way as an ordinary WB card? In other words; it won't help in this regard?

Sometimes it saves my *ss and sometimes I don't like the result. If shooting product and I need to produce the correct colors  and WB - I use the Color Checker. (purple for instance can be a real bastard)
Unless I shoot stuff like art or product or fashion etc, I adjust WB to my liking. I am of the opinion that WB can be very subjective (unless you shoot product etc)

[Frode]

Sometimes it saves my *ss and sometimes I don't like the result. If shooting product and I need to produce the correct colors  and WB - I use the Color Checker. (purple for instance can be a real bastard)
Unless I shoot stuff like art or product or fashion etc, I adjust WB to my liking. I am of the opinion that WB can be very subjective (unless you shoot product etc)

Thank you, Elsa!

Yes, indeed, WB can be very subjective.

I'm thinking of going from Nikon Capture NX- D to Bridge/PS CC, and the idea is to create better starting point (color/WB) than what the original profiles in PS CC gives me (as far as I know, Nikon doesn't share their "numbers")...