Is there any reason NOT to custom set your white balance?

[sublime]

For white balance, I have a few different settings available, such as daylight, cloudy, halogen lighting, etc. The setting I use most often for my camera is the custom set one: before I take a picture, I go to that option, point to what I want to shoot, press "set," wait a second for it to register, then find that the picture on the LCD looks much better than any of those other settings.

...which leads me to wonder why those different settings are there. Is there any reason why one wouldn't choose this option? Do any of these options make my picture look more artistic? Whaddaya think?

[Jason Dunn]

I think it's mostly for the lazy people (like me!) who tend to leave it on auto and hope the camera figures it out. I really should start setting it manually though - but I thought you needed a white card for that?

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

At the very end it depends on what you wish to portray. For instance, some fashion shots are shot in tungsten-balanced film to give that lovely blue hue (now it's probably PSed in).

For sunsets and sunrises you might want a warmer image, so you might tweak that.

In the end, however, if you're deadly serious, using filters to correct is better than digitally manipulating them, because you're increasing the gain of a certain subset of the pixels in the photo. It's like upping the ISO of some of the pixels, so you might get more background noise. Alternatively you can shoot in RAW (See this thread (http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4820) for a discussion on RAW) to minimise the problem and for greater flexibility.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

A white card helps a lot, but you can approximate using known white objects in the area. It's better to get it 80% right then having the camera to get it like erm, mostly wrong.

[Jason Dunn]

A white card helps a lot, but you can approximate using known white objects in the area. It's better to get it 80% right then having the camera to get it like erm, mostly wrong.

Does the white object need to fill the screen, or just be the focus point? I think I'm trapped in the video world of years ago...

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Ah well, what does the manual say? I'm guessing it needs to fill a certain area of the centre of the image.

[bjornkeizers]

I use a Canon Digital Ixus V2. It can automagically figure out the white balance, lighting, etc. but I usually have it on full manual - I don't usually use the flash, and more often then not I need to tinker with the ISO settings as well. Unless you're pressed for time or lazy, you should always go full manual :D

[Gary Sheynkman]

You will get better pics with manual settings but you can say to your family: ok guys, now wait for like 5 minutes in that pose while I set the balance, shutter, and aperture...lol

[sublime]

Yeah, I'm doing everything manually, except for focus. But, the other day, I took two pictures of my all white duvet: one without setting the white balance, and one with setting it. The latter made a perfect picture, while the former suggested that my duvet was, in all actuality, pink.

But, Lee, thanks for the info. That's exactly what I was looking for: suggestions as to what the other settings would do for my picture. I have a tungsten setting, and I'll see if I can get any lovely blue hues in my pictures - but that pink hue really isn't all too beautiful...

[Jonathon Watkins]

Hmmmm, maybe I'll have to have another look at this setting. I've usually gone with auto up to this point......

[Suhit Gupta]

I do use auto-white balance a lot of the time, although when I am in manual mode, I have set up numerous macros (something that most DSLRs allow) that I can easily switch to.

Suhit

[Jason Kravitz]

Yeah, I'm doing everything manually, except for focus. But, the other day, I took two pictures of my all white duvet: one without setting the white balance, and one with setting it. The latter made a perfect picture, while the former suggested that my duvet was, in all actuality, pink.

The white is pink (or orange) seems to happen when you are shooting under lights and your white balance is not set for indoor (flourecent or tungsten or custom).

I find that using the sunny day or cloudy day outside gives pretty decent color without worrying about custom. The cloudy white balance is warmer and will give redder tones than than sunny setting (similar to using a warming filter).

If you want to go custom there is a product called ExpoDisc that is supposed to give you correct white balance - I have not tried it
http://www.expodisc.com/

Some other folks claim that you can put a pringles can lid on your lens and it will do the same thing as the expo disc - again I have not tried it.

Another thing to consider for shooting manually... when setting your exposure if you "zero out" in manual mode what you see as white your camera meter actually sees as a medium gray color so sublime... in your test above where you are taking a picture of a white subject, it is better to overexpose slightly (2 stops for white) or else the white will not be as bright as it is in real life. Same goes for a black subject - you underexpose to ensure you get the black tone and not a lighter gray tone.

For those interested - do a search on the "zone system" as a means of getting correct exposures - I believe this was invented by Ansel Adams or at least he used it quite a bit...

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

The expo disc.. reminds me of a tale of the stone soup, heh. It just turns the camera into a big incident meter.

Zone system has changed quite a bit; the original system was meant to be used with sheet black and white film, and also it encompassed developing methods. Also digital reacts to light a little differently compared to film, so bear in mind that what you read about the zone system may not apply to digital.

[Jason Dunn]

The expo disc.. reminds me of a tale of the stone soup, heh. It just turns the camera into a big incident meter.

What does that mean exactly? I looked at the site, and it looked like a very clever accessory - one that I might even use. ;-) But you don't think very highly of it?

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

What it means is that it just, in the case of measuring exposures, measures the light level present, and in the case of white balance, averaging out the colour temperature in the scene.

It's a neat idea, but at US$80 for the smallest one, to US$140 for the 77mm (which is what most professional lenses outside of superteles use), no thanks. Experience is a far better tool to use, and is more beneficial in the long run. I'll save the money for a second hand Sekonic or Gossen flash meter instead. Or a new Polaris meter; they aren't too bad.

[Jason Kravitz]

And don't forget the pringles lid - you get a snack and a tool all for under $2

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Ah yes, that is a good idea too! Except it's not going to work with big lenses. Know of a snack with a bigger lid?

[Bob12]

Sure - Cool Whip :)

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Ah, ok, though Cool Whip is not available here.

[Jason Kravitz]

Question 1:
Are you guys purchasing these cameras with your own cash or getting them for some business type deal?

Question 2:
If the latter, can I come work for you :roll:

[Jason Dunn]

The discussion about Bob12 waiting for his camerea has been moved here:

http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5294

Please continue the discussion there - this thread is about white balance. Thanks. :-)

[SassKwatch]

Yeah, I'm doing everything manually, except for focus. But, the other day, I took two pictures of my all white duvet: one without setting the white balance, and one with setting it. The latter made a perfect picture, while the former suggested that my duvet was, in all actuality, pink.

The white is pink (or orange) seems to happen when you are shooting under lights and your white balance is not set for indoor (flourecent or tungsten or custom).
All this is another reason to consider shooting everything RAW. I don't even think about WB until I open a RAW file.....and then customize it to fit what looks best to my eye...not some arbirary setting determined by a camera mfr.

Though I believe the mfrs do work rather hard at fine tuning the custom settings they include with the device (i.e., 'Incandescent' is just a 'custom' setting they've pre-defined for you), I've just seen too many instances where even the appropriate WB setting from the mfr produced some rather funky results. Definitely more time consuming, but better for the photographer to determine what suits his/her 'vision'.

Sorry for this rather late reply to the thread.

[David Prahl]

:n00b:
So when using spot light meter on my G3, I should be pointing the recticle at a white object, not the scene itself? Can this be any white object (piece of paper?)?

Thanks.

[Jason Kravitz]

the spot meter on your G3 is for setting exposure not setting white balance - you can point it at any object in the scene to get an exposure reading

Look in your manual to learn how to set custom white balance (this would involve pointing at a white object in the same light as you are shooting)

[David Prahl]

the spot meter on your G3 is for setting exposure not setting white balance - you can point it at any object in the scene to get an exposure reading

Look in your manual to learn how to set custom white balance (this would involve pointing at a white object in the same light as you are shooting)

Sorry, wrong lingo.:oops: I do know how to evaluate the white balance of a scene from the white balance menu.

[SassKwatch]

:n00b:
So when using spot light meter on my G3, I should be pointing the recticle at a white object, not the scene itself? Can this be any white object (piece of paper?)?
Doesn't necessarily have to be a white object. But should be the brightest subject in the scene.

A good example would be a concert....with a spotlighted musician. Spot meter is definitely the way to go here. Just put it on a bright area of the highlighted musician and shoot away. And don't forget to turn off the flash. Since most built-in flashes only have a range of 12-15 ft *at best*, letting the flash fire from your 85th row seats is pretty useless. :)

But the technique would also be just as appropriate in many landscape scenes...especially when water is involved...or lots of bight sky with shadowed mountain/canyon walls. At the extremes of these scenes, even shooting with a spot meter won't be enough to get the 'perfect' exposure. Those just have to be done in post processing by blending a couple different exposures of the same scene.

I would have to say this recommendation if pretty subject to one's desires for the shoot. Using the spot meter can lead to some rather underexposed looking shadow areas straight out of the camera. So, you frequently have to be willing to spend some time in post processing to bring those out.

If you choose not to, or don't have the time to spend in post, you're probably better off sticking with one of the 'averaging' meter types. Just be aware that this increases the risk of 'blown' highlights.

[sublime]

I just found out another tip from PopPhoto Magazine.

If you want to get a warm effect for your picture, point your camera onto something blue, then set the custom white balance. It will make your pictures have that warm glow.

They also mentioned that Tungston setting for blue pictures, which is already alluded to in this thread.

[sylvangale]

Just thought I'd chime in on white balance...

When white balance (WB) is set correctly the difference in your photo results can be night and day.

My Toshiba PDR-4300 always gave red/orangish tints when indoors on any of it's WB settings for lighting, but setting a custom WB via pringles lid makes all my indoor pictures look a HELL of a lot better.

Pringles Method:
1) Eat Chips
2) Toss Can
3) Keep Lid
4) Set camera to custom WB option
5) Place Pringles lid over camera lens
6) Point at brightest object in setting
7) Snap a picture (or however your camera acknowledges WB set)

Coffee Filter Method (for large lenses):
1) DO NOT MAKE A CUP OF COFFE FIRST... :twisted:
2) Take two coffee filters wrap around lens
3) Point at brightest object in setting
4) Snap a picture (or however your camera acknowledges WB set)

I'll attach images shortly to show the different between a Pringles Lid, Coffee Filter, and my camera's default White balance within the hour.

[sylvangale]

I give up on putting the pics up here! :eek: I guess I can't link through a geocities page. :cry:

Anywho if you go here
http://www.geocities.com/athens/parthenon/8521/mypics/

camera.jpg is default camera WB... ugly ain't it.
coffee.jpg is WB after coffee filter.
pringles.jpg is WB after pringles filter.[/url]