Aperture: White Balance in Adjustments inspector no longer appears by default

Aperture 3.3.2
In the past week, the White Balance adjustment in the Adjustments inspector no longer appears by default in my program. It's always been there, above Exposure, Enhance, and Highlights and Shadows.
Now, White Balance is gone, and I have to click 'add adjustment... White Balance' for every single photo, which is hugely frustrating. I shoot in Canon RAW.
What happened to my default White Balance, and can someone help me put it back?
Thanks!

Click the cogwheel beside the White Balance adjustment and add this adjustment to the default set.
Regards
Léonie

Similar Messages

Aperture white balance default

I'm new to Aperture
The Aperture white balance default is 6826 (tint 13).
I set my camera wb to Flash.
How can I change the Aperture default WB to Flash?
In my meta data all my images have a wb=Flash. Should Aperture read the metadata to set the WB?
Tony

Hello Tony,
welcome to the Aperture Forum of the Apple Support Communities. Can you explain a little bit more, which default setting you are talking about?
At first I thought you were talking about the default setting for the White Balance adjustment in the adjustment panel of the Library inspector. But that one is set to a color temperature of 5000K (Horizon daylight), a suitable preset for landscape photography - at least, that setting is what I see in my Aperture version.
The number you quote "6826 K" is in the range of the color temperature of a LCD or CRT screen, suitable for the display of digital images on a screen. Where did you find that setting?
If you want to adjust any image to the setting the white balance your camera was set to, then you need to define a preset for the White Balance adjustment in the adjustment panel of the Library Inspector. Set this to the color temperature of your flashlight - it should be somewhere in the range of 5,500–6,000 K. Do you know the exact color temperature for the flash setting of your camera?
Regards
Léonie

Iso, Shutter Speed, Aperture, White balance for music videos or film?

Hello everyone. I just started making music videos. I just want some tips or can someone direct me to a good guide for music videos. I know the basics of iso, shutter speed, and aperture already. I read some guides and so far I know I gotta put my shutter at 1/50 or if i'm recording something at high speed, i increase it. is it so? Also, I always put my aperture at the lowest. I have a Canon T2i and Canon lenses 50 f/1.8 and kit lens. I always put my aperture at the lowest 3.5(kit lens) or 1.8. The tricky part is the ISO. I don't know where to put my ISO. I know the lowest ISO is good but sometimes the video looks dark. Do I fix this in video editing programs? Like should I always stay at ISO 100? What about white balance? I use Final Cut 7.
Also, what about during the day and night? Indoors? etc I also have a cheap LED lights.

your questions are about the very basics of photography.
I would consider to buy a book, which explains photography 'from the ground' ("... for dummies.." not meant as an offence!)
in short:
a scenery offers a defined amount of light.
Your cameras 'film' aka sensor, needs a defined amount of light to deliver a picture.
So, on recoprding, you have to control the amount of light, and the controls are:
aperture - opened or closed
shutter - shorter or longer
speed (ISO) - higher or lower.
Imagine the light as a stream of tiny balls, coming from your scenery: a bigger hole = aperture lets more balls into the cam. A shorter shutter speed reduces the amount of balls. And a higher ISO catches more balls than a lower. ..
Understanding that, you realize that those parameters are crosswise-related: an open aperture + a shorter shutter speed results in the same amount of light on the sensor as a closed aperture and a longer shutter speed.
If the amount of light is still too much, lower the sensitivity = ISO.
If the amount of light is too little, open the aperture, or use a longer shutter speed or raise the sensitivity.
When you set one or two parameters in this equation, you have to adjust the other ones: Video-makers start with the shutter speed, usually set to 1/2 of frame-rate = 1/50 - 1/60 - why? Because it allows a nice looking 'smear' aka motion-blur aka 'film look'.
Now, with a given speed, you can conrtol teh amount of light for the sensor only by aparture; and when you reach limits, by setting ISO.
When you understood this BY PRACTICING, you're next step is the concept of 'shallow focus'/depth of field. And when you understood this BY PRACTICING, you'll will understand the need of Neutral Densitity Filters for movie-makers...
But first things first: buy a book; read your cam's amnual; practice the settings and watch carefully the different results, diff. settings result.
... and it's really just about basics - independently of your device and/or your software.
None of the things mentioned above can be done or 'fixed' in post... (basically...)
happy movie making!

Pentax K5 / Apple Aperture - White Balance Inconsistency

Used my new Pentax K5 with studio flash for the first time on Saturday. I got some peculiar colour temperature results. Can anyone explain this?
All shots used the following settings:
- Raw DNG
- Adobe RGB
- Camera white balance set to "Flash"
- ISO 100
- 1/180s
- f/11 to f/19
- same lens used throughout ( Pentax A 50mm macro f2.8 )
When I loaded the raw files in to Apple Aperture the colour temperatures of the raw conversions came out as an inconsistent variety of temperatures and tints. As sample, the first ten shots on the "roll" show the following white balance values after raw conversion (prior to any manual adjustments being made):
5759 K / +4
5759 K / +4
5759 K / +4
5759 K / +4
4492 K / -9
4479 K / -7
4463 K/ -8
4469 K / -11
4563 K / -8
4572 K / -8
(For what its worth, 5759 K / +4 looks right to me.)
What is going on? Do I have a camera problem or an Aperture raw conversion problem?

My first question is why are you converting to DNG before importing into Aperture? It appears that Aperture should support the RAW files from that camera.
Second question is how familiar are you with the whole concept of RAW images? You realize that none of the camera settings (apart from shutter speed and aperture) affect the digital RAW file.
One of the strengths and reasons for shooting RAW is the ability to adjust white balance after the shoot. JPG images are extremely limited in their ability to have there white balance adjusted.
RAW conversion software is as much art as science, which is why no two RAW conversion programs will render an image in exactly the same way.
So I would first eliminate the DNG step and then see how that affects the workflow.
regards

Can you make white balance/exposure adjustments on top of current adjustments across multiple shots?

Hi There,
We have a bunch of shots taken using natural light - the shots all have completely different exposure and white balance adjustments.
Now that the shots feel like they've been shot at the same time of day (and on the same day) we'd like to start adjusting the white balance accross multiple shots - but use the current white balance/exposure from each individual shot as the starting point - not reset the adjustments.
Kind of like baking the current settings or making adjustments on top of current adjustments - or make new adjustments relative to the current adjustments.
Hope that makes sense - is this possible in Lightroom?
Cheers

trshaner wrote:
I've never used the Quick Develop tool:
Convince me why it's better
Quick Develop is for artists, not scientists/engineers - sounds like you know how to use it.
Ya know, some people use Lr with the histogram closed so as not to get distracted by the technical aspects. I could adjust an image using the histogram only, without looking at the image!
FWIW, amount of temp/tint per increment is fixed for RGB files. I never figured out how it decides the increment for raws, but I'd very much like to know it, in order to normalize relative adjustments when a mix of raw & rgb files are selected.
PS - I think the original philosophy was:
1. After importing, take a quick-dev pass in lib module and adjust all the basics in the ball-park, then:
2. Fine tune in dev module one by one, if need be and schedule allows... (yes I know there is auto-sync in dev module, but it adjust things absolutely, and the context of this discussion is relative adjustment).
Via that workflow, there's not so much switching back and forth between lib & dev modules for access to the quick-dev panel during development.
FWIW, it doesn't suit me well-enough either, which is why I invented Gazoo .
Cheers,
Rob

Aperture white balance only goes to 2500 where Lightroom goes to 2000

I shoot with a Leica M8, which has poor white balance. I was unable to remove red cast with aperture, while Ligthroom had no problems. I noticed the white balance sliders in aperture only go to 2500. Lower numbers can be input manually, but that prevents sliding until right. Is there any way to adjust the slider settings?

Robo,
Hover your mouse over the NUMBERS and then click and drag. It'll take you down to 2000 if you drag to the left, and if you drag to the right you'll increase the temperature, as well. Only the sweet spots are shown.
Scott

Can you remove the camera white balance setting in Aperture

I have a Canon 7D and use Aperture for processing and storing my images.
With the Canon I shoot both video and still and frequently adjust the white balance in the camera. I make a frequent mistake in leaving the wrong white balance setting on - eg when taking video indoors in the evening I set the white balance to indoors (the Canon seems poor at white balance decision making on video) and then I forget I'm not using auto white balance and switch to taking a photo with flash. The result is a horrible blue photo - which if I don't spot the problem at the time seems very hard to correct afterwards.
I use the Aperture white balance adjustments frequently but unless there is a patch or white or grey I an use the dropper on, I find this particular situation seems to be right off the scale of what I can fix in Aperture. I end up with sliders at the extremes of the scales and no intuitive sense of what numbers to type in manually to try and get realistic colour - so I often end up discarding these photos even if the shot itself is something I'd like to use.
So my question is given I'm importing RAW, is there a way to show the phoo without the (wrong) white balance setting I applied in the camera, to let me choose white balance from scratch?
Or if not, do you have any advice about how to adjust from this very bluey unrealistic colour of image?

Kirkby - thanks for the quick reply.
Didn't know you could drag inside a value field - that's helpful.
But being able to get different numbers on the slider isn't the root of my problem.
In a specific example I have two photos - one taken with white balance set to flash and the photo was with flash, where after a bit of tweaking to get the colour I want the temp slider is at 5000K (and tint 0). The second photo has my shooting error with interior lighting white balance but taken with flash. The two shots were taken from almost the same point of the same view (but different people in frame). The shot with the white balance error comes off camera horribly blue coloured. I can fiddle with the two sliders - I take temperature to 20000K and tint to 40 to do the best with it I can, and with those settings one of the two faces is approaching flesh colour but the wall behind the subjects (which is a light blue in reality) is now appearing light yellow in places. I just can't get a good looking colour effect no matter ow extreme the slider settings.
I may have phrased my question badly - as I totally agree you can't show a raw without a colour setting - so maybe I'm better asking to be able to use a different colour setting on the raw data rather than having to start with adjustments on top of my white balance mistake.
Given the two shots were in the same place against the same background and the same lighting (both with flash) it seems to me I ought to be able to get a similar colour effect on both and I just can't. To illustrate here are the two photos (the one on the left was shot with flash wb and in Aperture I'm viewing it with 5000K and 0 tint, the one on the right was shot with indoor wb and in Aperture I'm viewing it with 20000K and 40 tint and it looks terrible!)
https://www.box.com/shared/qle3t6ovyhrd1egez3vc

Inaccurate White Balance Of 808 In Low Light - Any...

I find the white balance and exposure of the Pureview 808 in indoor low light shots to be erratic, mostly inaccurate in most shooting modes. Although the predecessor N8 produces a noisier and darker image that is lacking in clarity (in low light), I find its white balance to be more accurate than the Pureview 808.
In low to dim lighting, the white balance on the Pureview 808 always appear to be cooler than actual conditions apart from the image being slightly over-exposed.
Below are my observations on the Pureview 808 (only in low light):-
1) In "Scenes", Night mode will produce an image that is slightly brighter than actual conditions, slightly overexposed. White balance is off.
2) In "Creative", Auto, Incandescent and Fluorescent modes, - as above.
3) In "Creative", Sunny and Cloudy modes will produce an image that is truer to actual conditions. White balance is more accurate in these modes.
The N8 in Night mode (with white balance in Auto) produces a more accurate white balance than the Pureview 808, though the image suffers from noise and is slightly under-exposed.
Not exactly a criticism of the Pureview 808 as the overall image quality in low light at high ISO levels is still pretty remarkable with excellent clarity and low levels of noise. It's just the minor issue in the white balance which seems to be always off in low light.
In good light, bright sunny conditions outdoors, no issues.
For those who own the Pureview 808, may I ask how do you cope with this slight anomaly in the Pureview 808? Will there be software update in future to address this flaw?
Any information would be appreciated.

It is unfortunate that sample images cannot be posted here. I have some sample images which not only demonstrate the inaccurate white balance of the Pureview 808 in low light but also the erratic exposure which seems to render an image in low lighting conditions to appear brighter than what it is in real life, an over-exposed image.
Below is the link to CNET's review which also highlights the inaccurate white balance of the 808.
http://asia.cnet.com/shootout-nokia-808-pureview-vs-panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx5-62216561.htm

Lens Profile Tool Addition – White Balance Offset Correction

I have noticed that my Canon 17-40mm and 70-200mm F4 IS lenses have virtually identical color temperature and can use the same white balance setting. My Sigma 50mm F2.8 Macro lens is another story, requiring almost 200K and +15 change to White Balance sliders. I am sure there are cases where Canon’s lenses will differ more widely and exhibit a similar degree of white balance differences, not to mention use of UV or 1B protection filters. An 85mm F1.2 lens using “rare earth” low dispersion glass, will have a warmer color temperature than a lens using more common glass elements.
I use the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport to create custom profiles for each of my camera bodies. I typically make separate correction presets for Daylight, Cloudy, and Tungsten (2700K). This requires changing the LR White Balance sliders to obtain “neutral gray in the ColorChecker image files shot in each of above described lighting conditions. It does not appear necessary to create a separate ColorChecker camera profile for each lens, just correction to the LR white balance slider settings.
I did some measurements of change in camera profile for Sunny Daylight (~5,500K), Cloudy (8,000K+), and Tungsten (~2,900K) lighting. There was no measurable change in rendering of the ColorChecker Passport images for the extreme Sunny to Cloudy conditions, and only very slight changewhen comparing the Tungsten profile. This was done by loading a ColorChecker Passport image file and applying alternate profiles:
EXAMPLE:
Open a DaylightColorChecker Passport image file in LR, apply Cloudy Camera Profile, and adjust White Balance for the gray scale patches using the Eyedropper Tool. Then look at the 'Before' and 'After' images....you will see NO visual change to any of the color patches. I saw only a very slight change when doing this with the Daylight to Tungsten (artificial light source) comparison.
The relatively small change in color balance between lenses (~500K max.) should have no measurable or visible affect to the ColorChecker Passport created "Camera Profile." The ColorChecker Passport or any other "Camera Profile" creation tool is first and foremost correcting for differences in the camera's image sensor color rendering.
SUGGESTION:
Since this white balance difference is a factor of the lens, it would be very convenient to add another tool in Lightroom's and Camera Raw Lens Profile panel for “White Balance Offset.” This allows setup of LR defaults for one specific lens type, such as your most used lens. Then you use the new ‘Lens Profile’ located ‘White Balance Offset’ correction tool to adjust white balance for all of your other lenses. In addition, Adobe or camera manufacturers could also provide the 'White Balance Offset Correction' as a function of the lens spectral response deviation from linear. This would provide a "uniform method" of calculating and adding the White Balance correction to the 'Lens Profile.' Since this is a factor of the lens only, the “lens offset correction” can be used with ANY lens/camera body pairing, The current LR and Camera Raw White Balance settings are then only used for “Global” correction of lighting conditions, and NOT for lens differences.
This is a linear mathematical function,which should be extremely easy for Adobe to add the ‘White Balance Offset’ correction feature to LR’s and Camera Raw's Lens Profile GUI. Just like many other tools in LR that some don't use, you can choose to use it or not!

Interesting suggestion. Thanks. -Simon

Wrong white balance in NEF files (Nikon D70 RAW)

Hi
I have a problem with NEF files: I shoot them with white balance set to Cloudy (6500K), however, in lightroom the white balance is shown as 5450K.
There is a color shift because of this:
When I leave the white balance at "As shoot" the image appears OK, however, changing white balance to "cloudy" which is supposed to do nothing, makes the image warmer, obviously because Lightroom believes that the image is shot at 5450K and converts it to 6500K, e.g. makes it warmer, while the image is already 6500K. Changing the setting to, say, "shadow", makes it even warmer.
Of course I may try to correct the WB "blindly", disregarding the temperature value, but that's annoying.
The camera is Nikon D70, unpatched.
Did anyone have the same symphtom?
Is there any fix or a workaround?
Thank you,
Gennady

When the camera was set to "Cloudy" (6500K) then switching to "daylight" (5200K) makes the picture cooler, switching to "Shadow" (7500K) makes the picture warmer. This is how the camera behaves and this is how Nikon's NEF convertor behaves. Obviously, when the camera was set to "Cloudy", then switching between "As shot" and "Cloudy" should make no change, because "As shot" means "Cloudy", because the camera was set to "Cloudy".
Now, for some reason, Lightroom believes that the picture was shot with a manual settings of 5450K. I don't know why it believes so.
And thus, switching from "As shot" to "Cloudy" makes the picture warmer (although it should leave it unchanged), and switching to "Shadow" makes it even more warmer, far warmer that it should be at "cloudy" setting.
What I expect is that switching from "As shot" to "Cloudy" in the Lightroom would give the same colors as switching from "As shot" to "Cloudy" in Nikon's NEF convertor. And apparently it does not work this way.

Aperture 3 - Multiple White Balance Presets

Just installed the Aperture 3 Trial and found that on the Adjustments pane, I'm seeing to White Balance preset flyouts under the Presets dropdown. The entries on each of these flyout menus are different. Plus, I can't see what the actual settings are for each preset when I try to edit. Any idea what's going on?
Thanks.
- Leon

I think I may have answered my own questions. It looks like Aperture 3 provided it's own presets for White Balance and it imported the one's I created in Aperture 2, but put them under a second White Balance flyout. That explains mystery number one.
Regarding the ability to see the values included in the preset, they used to show up in the edit window. Now it looks like the only way to see them is to select them and see the settings they apply in the Adjustments pane.
Can anyone confirm these behaviors?
Thanks.
- Leon

White Balance in LR vs. Aperture

I'm comparing LR and Aperture for use with my Pentax K10D. What's amazing is how different the RAW conversion is in each program. I now have a full appreciation of RAW files as "digital negatives" and the software programs as "developers".
For example, a RAW file that appears properly exposed on my K10D will also be properly exposed in LR. However, that same file will be overexposed by 2/3 a stop in Aperture (of course this is recoverable, but interesting nonetheless). I imagine this has something to do with the different tone curves applied to the RAW file by the camera, Aperture and LR. LR seems to be more similar to what is done in-camera on the Pentax K10D.
One thing I can't figure out though is why white balance values would be different in each program. I thought WB was simply stored as a number (kelvin) in the camera, and the RAW converter just reads that number. Clearly I'm mistaken here, because in several test photos I opened in both Aperture and LR, the white balance is dramatically different. (Both WB settings are "as shot"). For example, for the same photo, in Aperture WB was 5950 and in LR it was 4550.
The programs must have a different way of calculating or displaying this info, because when I use Aperture's WB settings in LR, or vice versa, the images don't look the same at all. The tint sliders seem to be very different as well.
Any insight you could offer on this would be appreciated. At the end of the day I can produce very similar results in both programs with adjustments, but I'm trying to figure out which one's default settings are closest to what I prefer.
Finally... what effect do the following preferences have, and is it advisable to use them?:
- "Make defaults specific to camera serial number"
- "Make defaults specific to camera ISO"

If you consistently get White balances in LR that are far off, it could be that the WB decoding algorithm for this camera is wrong. You might want to submit a bug report in that case. You should be able to see the actual white balance in the manufacturer's software (don't know if pentax makes any). You can also open it up in the open source dcraw (or its outstanding GUI derivative
ufraw) program. The author of dcraw has basically cracked all the RAW formats that are in use and it almost always reads white balance correctly. Also, exiftool might read those values.

Aperture incorrectly reading white balance data from RAW file?

I'm having some problems with both Aperture 1.1.2 and 1.5 importing RAW files from a Nikon D70 and a Canon G6. In both cases, Aperture is not reading the "as shot" white balance correctly.
With the G6, Aperture is always setting a fixed color temperature of 6016K, and a fixed tint of -15, regardless of the image in question. If I read the same image using Adobe Camera Raw, or Lightroom, then it I get the white balance value as set in the camera.
With the D70, it's picking up a different white balance value from the one set in the camera, always one far warmer than it should be, and with a green tint. Again, the Adobe tools get the right value out of the RAW file. With both cameras I have experimented with setting the white balance manually on the camera, and also with the "auto white balance" setting, but it makes no difference to Aperture.
Obviously I can change all of the values manually, but it's very time consuming, and in most cases the in-camera value is pretty close to what I need, so I'd much prefer Aperture to use it.
In any case, I'm worried about the discrepancy between Aperture and Camera Raw on something so basic.
Anybody got any ideas? I'm hoping I'm just doing something silly, as I have only been using Aperture for a couple of weeks, and maybe something is mis-configured.
Thanks
HG

In any case, I'm worried about the discrepancy
between Aperture and Camera Raw on something so
basic.
Sorry I can't help you directly with Aperture as I haven't bought it - yet. However, re-the above quote, I'd just mention that the interpretation of colour temperature values is not quite as simple as it might seem. Even more so when you bear in mind that RAW converters from 3rd parties like Adobe or Apple are not based on the RAW conversion engine produced by the camera manufacturer - in effect they have to guess/estimate what the temp/tint values in the RAW file actually mean...
Some time back I made a series of tests using 3 Canon cameras, with ACR, Capture One & the Canon RAW converter. Each produced noticeably different results, and C1 & ACR showed quite different temp/tint values. (The Canon software only showed 'As Shot' - no values). The differences were consistent between shots from each camera (using WB values input or AWB) - but they weren't consistent from one camera to another. Which program produced the best result depended very much on the Camera/Subject/Personal taste...
Hope someone can help with Aperture specific info, I'm sure there must be a way of making camera specific adjustments to the RAW conversions...

Aperture 3 White Balance range

I recently took a handful of photos under some garishly unbalanced street lights. I took a greycard shot and used custom white balance in my Canon camera, which caused the photos to come out surprisingly well but not perfect.
When I loaded the photos up in Aperture, I thought that two or three pictures could use some additional tweaking. By making any white balance adjustment at all in the application, it reset the white balance to 2000K -- which is actually above the temperature of the lights.
I can't seem to manually set the white balance to any lower value, and the only way I can get rid of a color cast is to disable any White Balance adjustment (thus using the setting from the RAW file).
Is there any way to extend the range of Aperture's white balance adjustments? Is this the sort of thing that ought to work its way into a feature request?
(Just for conversation's sake, the location in question was the Campbell Community Center's parking lot during a San Jose Bike Party. Anyone from the Aperture team is welcome to take some snapshots there if they doubt the necessity of a wider white balance range...)

Have you tried tweaking it with the curves adjustment? Sometimes you correct colour casts a bit more precisely with a simple "auto split" curves adjustment, or by tweaking the curves themselves manually.
Have a look in the manual starting at p536 and also check out p549 specifically.

Help! Why does Aperture automatically adjust my white balance?

Hey,
Just wondering if anybody knew why Aperture seems to want to automatically adjust the white balance settings of the RAW .NEF images I've been importing. I mean, on an example image, the in camera white balance was about 5900K with no hue adjustments, but when I imported it into aperture, it looked completely different. Sure enough, Aperture had set a color temp of 5475K and a hue of -22. If I wanted it to be adjusted, I would've asked, but I spent the time getting the white balance right in camera for a reason. I really don't want to have to go back and adjust every image manually. That would defeat the purpose. Please, lend some insight.

I have a D80. Do you think apple will eventually develop a solution to this problem, or some sort of workaround? In the meantime, might I be better off just using the proprietary software, like captureNX? Or, how about adobe camera raw?

Aperture: White Balance in Adjustments inspector no longer appears by default

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for