Precision White Balance Techniques

Hello. This is my first post here; glad to be joining.
I have been using Nikon Capture for years and am moving to Aperture because I find the new Capture NX no longer meets my needs. I have been using a post processing technique taught by a Ron Reznick. Let me say it's not my intention to prosetlyze here, but I am looking for a way, in Aperture, to get precise White Balance.
I've already made a suggestion to permit enlarging the luminance histogram in order to use the shadow area (<64) curve reversal to get precise White Balance but cannot do it with the current Aperture histogram. I have the 30" monitor yet the curve is still only 1" high, too small to use.
Is there a technique one of you use to set the white balance? I asked this at DPReview and was lectured to that it's whatever you want, but that isn't how I understand white balance. I don't have a need to change it to something else; I simply want to set the precise WB which occurred when the image was shot.
Any suggested methods using Aperture?
Thanks in advance, Rich<br>
Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, Mini (2)   Mac OS X (10.4.8)   30" Monitor

Rich - I'm using the WhiBal product with excellent success. I shoot the target at the scene (easily carried on a lanyard around my neck) and then process in Aperture with the White Balance tool. BTW, when positioning the tool, I use the loupe option set to show color values to insure that I'm getting the most neutral point....you can learn about the WhiBal gizmo from video tutorials on the web site: http://www.rawworkflow.com/products/whibal/index.html
I hope this is helpful in some way...your discussion of using curves to do this is something new to me, so you may be beyond this point.
Good Luck.
david
MP, PB12   Mac OS X (10.4.8)  

Similar Messages

  • How to change the white balance in Final Cut Pro?

    What is the best way to change the white balance in Final Cut Pro? I have some clips which are to green. I would like if possible something which might resemble the Camera Raw dialogue in Photoshop. Any way of measuring color (RGB values)?

    There is some specific help in this trainng book:
    http://www.amazon.com/Apple-Pro-Training-Correction-Studio/dp/0321635280/
    When using Color Corrector 3-Way to correct for a green tint, the bullet points are something like this:
    1) After loading the clip into the Viewer and applying the CC3W filter to the clip, open your scopes and move the window so you can see the Viewer (with the CC3W tab open) and the scopes
    2) First, if necessary, adjust the white and black levels using the video level sliders below the white and black color wheels (I use the slider above the scopes to make the trace in th4 scopes as bright as it will go without blooming)
    3) Looking at the Parade scope, the idea is to balance the whites, mids, and blacks on each color display (red, green and blue). So you watch the Parade and drag the dot that is in the center of each color wheel (starting with the whites) away from the color of your tint (in your case, green). Drag the dot until the highest portions in all three Parade displays are as even as you can make them
    4) Then do the same with the mids, using the Mids color wheel, moving its dot away from green
    5) Do the same thing with the blacks
    6) Double check the image on an external video display that is properly adjusted using color bars from Final Cut
    NOTE: This short reply is not sufficient to fully explain this technique, and you really need to understand Color Theory before doing this anyway. That's why I recommended the training book.

  • Removing blue cast/tint from JPG (wrong white balance setting while taking picture)

    Hi,
    Photosohop newb here, still using CS3 (10.0), so please be patient.
    I was at a convention not long ago, where I took lots of pictures with my phone. I only noticed at home, that a few of the pictures came out with an intense blue cast because of a bad white balance setting (I must have accidentally changed it).
    I was trying to fix the image for the last 2 hours, with no real luck. I tried everything under Image -> Adjustments -> "Auto Color", "Color Levels" and "Match Color", moving the sliders up and down to get the best match. The best I could come up with was still far away from the other pictures I took the same day.
    Here is one of the bad pictures: http://imgur.com/vw12aTQ
    And here is one I took just a minute later with the "normal" setting: http://imgur.com/RMFm7fo
    I actually got a pretty good match by cutting out some of the cobblestones from both pictures and using "Match Color" -> "Source", but I couldn't apply this technique to the whole picture.
    Could somebody please help me to make the colors of the first picture similar to the second one?
    Thank you,
    Roland

    Here's an easy fix...
    Choose Image - Adjust - Curves, then click the Gray Point dropper and sample something in the image that should be a neutral gray - say one of the stones on the ground.  Click in various places until you like what you see.
    -Noel

  • White balance and B+W image

    I understand how I can use the colour information in a raw file to create a B+W image with some considerable depth and variety. In the B&W tab, I can reset the various contributions of the different colours to the image (which is great), and I can use these to create all kinds of filter effects, etc.
    There is one thing I'd like to be able to do that LR doesn't seem to allow me. I would like to get a netural (true) reading of the luminance values of the sensor when I'm converting to B+W. I should be able to do that by setting these values to their middle location (option click gives me a "reset"). However, I'd really like to completely neutralise the white balance settings as this setting is still altering the luminance values of the image.
    I really want to have a completely neutral representation of the luminance values as recorded by the sensor with no colour bias in how these are rendered, but I don't see how I can do that with the requirement to set a white balance. It really seems to me that LR should have a way to disable WB when converting to B+W, or at least some way to have WB be bypassed (or neutral). I understand that this can be a part of a creative interpretation (so I'm not suggesting it should be disabled). Then I can still use the B+W colour sliders to control the contribution of each colour, which also might include manipulating white balance.
    From the reading I've done, I can chose a 6500K (or 5500K, opinions seem to vary about which value is "most neutral") - and I would assume a value of 0 on the red-green tint, but even in this setting, there still seems to be some notion of a weighting being applied to the recorded colour values.
    I don't think I can use LAB in Photoshop for this; I could just take the "L" channel, but then I've lost the colour information, and if I were to keep all three channels, then I think I would still have a WB setting to contend with? (Sorry, I don't know much about how LAB works, so maybe I can do it this way)?
    So, basically, I want to start with as neutral a rendering into B+W as I can, just as an achromatic sensor (or B+W film) would record the shot, then use the color information in the RAW file from that point.
    Thanks!
    Bill

    So, basically, I want to start with as neutral a rendering into B+W as I can, just as an achromatic sensor (or B+W film) would record the shot, then use the color information in the RAW file from that point.
    An achromatic sensor would have no colour information, but it would still have a certain effective WB built into its hue sensitivity. Same for B&W film, or for any variants on that such as the orthochromatic film which preceded that. Early movie film required lurid coloured makeup (green lipstick IIRC) for the actors, to make their mouths show up in a way that seemed natural in B&W terms. Then the film stock improved, became "panchromatic".
    IMO you are misusing the word "neutral" here, since all photographic techniques are carefully designed, developed and then honed by testing so as to correspond credibly to human vision. So it's a matter of choosing among the many representations that are available, one that WE (using some standardised average) consider subjectively believable or natural-looking. All cameras or all Raw conversion impose a contrast curve as standard, which can be varied to taste, but there is no greater "neutrality" to one or another setting for that curve, except what WE choose to invest in that. Same for WB.
    If you wished to define a central-weighted averaging-metered shot in  LR "neutral" tone curve (under the 2012 process version), using Adobe Standard camera profile, with all other settings at Adobe defaults, Daylight WB, you would not be alone in considering that some kind of an - at least useful - idea of an un-fiddled-with starting point ... merely because, this has not been overtly individualised for a given picture. However any other setup that you can apply consistently, would be an equally valid starting point.
    This is like the reliability of witnesses in court - we do not require them to be omniscient and infallible, and would be more (not less) suspicious of the testimony if there was any claim to that; we only require them to be candid, without applying bias or distortion or pretending to be other than they are.
    The Raw data is not conventionally human viewable - or at least, we know that we are looking at an artificiality however we make  it viewable, and this cannot be a "better" picture per se (whatever it is) without having considered, "better" for what?
    If you instead wanted to define a pattern-metered exposure, Camera Standard, auto tone (assuming that worked - grin),  AutoWB, apply auto mix to first B&W conversion... as your "vanilla", you might in truth better reflect the highly adaptable nature of human vision... and more particularly, of the kind of camera you picked, as having a pictorial character which seems more natural to you. If you consistently think ALL your out-of-camera images need some kind of correction, then that is YOUR normal. Even "vanilla" does not taste of nothing, it is distinctively sweet and fragrant; but in a way that we become so used to, that it can eventually pass our notice without comment.
    A daylight balanced WB picture of a candle-lit scene represents an odd variation on human perceptions, but so does a perfectly WB-corrected one - since our experience of candle-lighting includes the awareness of how much what we see is "warmed", which might be why we have chosen that kind of illumination. The camera WB, and/or the B&W conversion we might make, or (for example) our decision to use tungsten-balanced rather than daylight-balanced film (or a corrective colour filter) to represent it, reflects the same perceptual relativism.
    To paraphrase Pontius Pilate, "what is neutrality?" (applies noise reduction, as a digital equivalent of washing hands).

  • 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.

  • Sunrise/Sunset and White Balance

    I have a question about overriding Automatic White Balance when photographing sunrises and sunsets. A few days ago, I got my first DSLR, an EOS 5D Mk III. I know the ISO triangle after shooting film on my Canon A-1 that I bought 34 years ago, which still works). However, this white balance thing is a fourth dimension. Films are balanced for daylight and the ISO is also dictated. For photographing a sunrise or sunset, to me, it makes sense to set the white balance to 5200 Kelvin (daylight). I got one response from a camera club member who said his photos were all in the 5000 range. Others have said "Shoot in RAW and fix it in post processing". The second response of "Fix it later" just doesn't ring my bell. What about getting it right the first time? Should I set white balance to daylight or some other setting? I can always experiment with changing white balance; after all, I'm not wasting film. Below are a series of sunrises that I took using Kodak Portra 400, -2/3 stop, on my Canon A-1. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ralphhightower/sets/72157633079358301/ Thanks, Ralph
    Solved!
    Go to Solution.

    It might be helpful to just think of the digital camera's white balance capabilities as a built-in and very complete set of color conversion and color correction filters, such as we used to use with film. Now, for your convenience, all those filters are right there, inside the camera.... much easier to carry around and use!
    If shooting during Golden Hours, the camera's Automatic White Balance (AWB) can tend to overcorrect and remove some of the lovely golden nature of the light. One solution is as others have recommended, to shoot RAW and make your adjustments later. This is no different from making the adjustments in-camera, at the time of exposure, and can make for much greater control and precision. It's not really a "fix it later" thing... It is more a matter of doing fine-tuning and optimizing the image (more on this below). RAW simply retains all the data from the original capture and is a good thing to use, anyway. 
    All digital cameras essentially capture a TIFF image file with a lot of proprietary data attached and an embedded "preview/review" JPEG... that's what the RAW file is. If you make JPEGs in-camera, a lot of data is thrown away, following the directions laid out by the settings in the camera. If, instead, you save the entire RAW file, you can change those directions later in post-processing... or just make a JPEG from the image "as shot", using the exact same set of instructions as were set in the camera at the time of exposure. One of the beauties of RAW is that so long as you store the original image file, you can always go back and re-process it another way, if you wish. This is particularly helpful when new to digital and uncertain about your settings. Something you might want to do is shoot RAW+JPEG initially. That way you have both the full data stored, along with the potential to make changes if you wish, plus the JPEG produced according to your camera settings. The JPEG can serve as a post-processing learning tool, using it as a point of comparison with your own RAW file conversions.... and as feedback about your camera settings. (Don't trust the image display on the camera's LCD screen... it's not calibrated and is too subject to ambient light variations. The histogram display is generally more informative, but even that is subject to the camera's settings, since it's done from the embedded JPEG and not directly from the full RAW file.) 
    But, I agree, it's also good to "get it right the first time". Or at least come as close as possible.
    The most ideal way to do that would be to set a Custom White Balance for every shot. Use a standardized target, bathed in the same light as your subject/scene, and take a shot of it... then tell the camera to use that as reference. However, it's just not practical to do that.
    Nor is it a good idea to set one particular color temp and use it for everything (i know photogs who do that and have had to work with their images.... it makes for a lot of extra work!)
    Thus there are all the "presets" you can choose among, looking for one that's most appropriate for your particular situation... And there is AWB, which allows the camera to try to choose for you. Outdoors in daylight I've found Canon AWB to be pretty darned good. Shots in the shade can be a little overly cool. And indoor shots with tungsten or other artifical light are when a Custom WB is most likely to be needed.... especially with weird, uncalibrated lighting such as sodium vapor and mercury vapor lamps.
    To set an accurate Custom WB, get yourself a gray card or similar (I use Lastolite EZ Balance targets, which are sort of like a foldable/flexible gray card). This also can be helpful arriving at an accurately metered exposures. Something else I use in certain circumstances are Warm Cards... these have slight tints that "fool" the camera into slightly tinting the image.... a light blue/cyan target will cause the camera to render a slightly warm color balance. Warm Cards would be particularly helpful shooting during the Golden Hours, if wanting to retain some of the warmth of the light at those times of day.  It's more accurate doing this than simply manually setting a particular color temp, although that's possible too. 
    And, yes, you should spend some time getting to know how your camera handles color. Each model can be a bit different. You'd do well to shoot a bunch of test shots with AWB, Custom WB and, if you wish, the various presets... to see how they perform.
    Of course, you don't always have time to think about or make settings... sometimes to catch fleeting light you have to run to catch an image quickly, shoot RAW and "fix it later" in post-processing!
    If you haven't already done so, you might want to calibrate your computer monitor. As concerned as you are about rendering accurate color or manipulating it the way you want it, in case you are unaware of it... your computer monitor is lying to you. All computer monitors are different, none are really very accurate and virtually all are way too bright. If you make prints using an uncalibrated monitor, you will usually find them coming out too dark. This is because an overly bright monitor causes you to adjust the image too dark. If you don't already have them, you might want to get computer calibration software and hardware and use them regularly (about once every month or two, usually... monitors change over time and with use). 
    The way the calibration device works is by first running a test on your particular monitor, and then providing a profile that the computer will use when rendering images on the display. Some of the more sophisticated calibration suites can also be used to develop printing profiles (unique for each ink/paper/printer combination), projectors and other viewing devices. (I use a Datacolor Spyder, one of several different calibration devices/softwares available).
    Hope this helps!
    Alan Myers
    San Jose, Calif., USA
    "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
    GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
    FLICKR & PRINTROOM 

  • 3500K vs. 5500K and White Balance

    I have always used 3500K fluorescent in the studio. I've been looking at upgrading my lighting (from work lamps), but almost everything out there seems to be 5400-5600K (for example, see http://gear.digitaljuice.com/products/products.asp?pid=2575).
    I asked a professional I know about this and he made this statement, "If I do a white balance, then it shouldn't matter".
    Could someone please explain to me how it is that I can shoot using daylight temperature lighting (5400-5600K) in a studio, do a white balance, and get studio color (3200-3500K)? I mean, isnt' that what is being suggested by the pro?
    And doesn't this mean that if I want daylight temperature, I should never do a white balance (and vice versa)?
    Many thanks, everyone.
    Paul

    Steven,
    I don't know about you, but I'm out of the work lamp and mounting business. Been working with them for 3 years and the headaches the accompany them are simply not worth it anymore.
    They use cheap clamps, and they slide and are easily moved by brushing up against them or sometimes even if something close to them or attached to them is moved. If you put work lamps on arms from the wall, especially if there is more than one lamp per arm, adjusting one will inevitably throw off any others. So it's constant frustration with readjusting. I forced back to the waveform using OnLocation CS4 in an attempt to get that tight, thin horizontal line.
    Then there's the issue of placement. Subject is standing, sometimes sitting--on a chair--on a stool. Interview format means readjusting the lights to the other guy sitting at the opposite angle (if using one camera and shooting the two subjects separately), etc., etc.
    All this just means lost hours and even days--at least it has for me. The ability to have real background lights and 3-point lighting on stands (all with softboxes or otherwise sufficiently diffused) quickly and easily reposition them, knowing I don't have to mess around with making homemade flags and snoots using Black Foil or some other impractical contraption, even bounce cards, are just another way of not doing it right (although, bounce is certainly a legitimate and commonly used technique). Plus, I can go on location with real lights and set up quickly and easily.
    And the list goes on . . . for every project or even scene change. Blues, despair, anguish. Ugh!
    Those fold-up-small reflectors are cool. My friend has them. He likes them a lot.
    shooternz,
    Thanks for joining the conversation.
    overlighting a green screen ✔ I am aware of that and am going for the Flat even  lighting you mention. Had it only once before with the work lamps, but those days are over.
    If using point sources...pull them way back ✔ That's what is frustrating me now. I moved them back so I could move the subject back in order to gain a higher field of view. Not sure if my HVX-200p can do something to compensate for that. But yeah, they're too close and last time, when I had them way back and it worked quite well in the key, I didn't even have them diffused.
    What if I'm using lighting: like these? Do you think 4-point lighting of the green screen would be best? If so, how does this affect your statement that 2 stops under the subject key exposure is recommended?
    Proper distance of subject from  screen is essential. ✔ Right. See #3. I had 5-6 feet previously and that keyed well.
    LEDs are not the way to light Chroma Screens (or anything else in my opinion). ✔ LED's are off the list.
    Troy,
    there are light spots and the dark spots ✔ I know. I don't have them positioned yet, but even if I did, they are too close and don't disperse sufficiently.
    I think you need stronger lights ✔ Investigating now which real lights to buy.
    you want a backing light, or two, behind the subject. ✔Always do that.
    So far, I'm liking the lights in this link, mostly for the brightness and softness I'm after, for both the subject (3-point) and green screen. However, I'm still open to further suggestions.
    Sincere thanks to everyone. This has been a great thread.
    Paul

  • Correcting the white balance?

    I have some clips that are slightly blue on the white. Was wondering whether there was a way to correct the white balance in post-production (FC2)? Thank you.

    I'll add to Andy's reply.
    If you open the Scopes and select the Parade scope, look at the relative traces of red, blue, and green. A well balanced shot of an evenly composed scene will display on the Parade scope with fairly similar red, blue, and green traces.
    So, while you keep an eye on the Parade, move the little circle in the white color wheel slowly away from blue until the red, blue and green traces are mostly even. Then look at the traces in the zero to 20 unit range and do the same thing with the black color wheel. Then again with the mids wheel while looking at the traces in the 40 to 70 unit range.
    That should get you close. After that, it's an art. Make further corrections S-L-O-W-L-Y, with very small changes at a time, until things look right on a properly calibrated external video monitor.
    But before you do all that, look at the waveform monitor scope and adjust sliders at the base of the whiles and blacks color wheels until the trace shows video going from 0 to 100, or close to it, depending on the scene. (Sometimes, a properly displayed shot just doesn't go all the way from 0 to 100, and should not be made to do so. Most times, this will work - do it before the rest of the color correction.)
    NOTE: This is a too-short explanation of basic color correction techniques. If this doesn't make sense, seek the details elsewhere. The Peachpit Apple Training Series book, "Advanced Color Correction and Effects in Final Cut Pro 5" is really good, though it hasn't been updated for FCP 6 (not that it has to be - no changes.)
    http://www.amazon.com/Apple-Pro-Training-Advanced-Correction/dp/0321335481/

  • White Balance Metadata not showing in Adobe Bridge CS6

    Hi there, I am running Bridge CS6 on a Mac, and use Canon 5D and 5DMark 111 cameras. I have an issue with Bridge which I can not seem to figure out. Whether I shoot Raw or JPG and I am trying to do some testing for white balance, once I open the images in Bridge, in the little icon panel just below the folders/favourites panel etc I can see the f stop info, speed, metering , ISO etc, but the only icons I get for WB are if use auto - then I see AUTO.  But when I do a manual WB like 'cloudy', 'tungsten', or 'shade' etc all I get are the symbols for 'Custom" or "Manual".  How do I get the actual symbols for what type of WB i've chosen to show up? 
    I have purged the Cache - both in the individual folder and the overall Cache in preferences.  I have checked that all the boxes are ticked in the preferences panel for the Metadata.  So not sure what else to do.
    Cheers D

    Ok thanks for that, at least I wont be chasing my tail.
    I did install the DNG converter 8.3 but I still NEF files as a NEF icon. Any clues to what I may not be doing right there?

  • Adobe Bridge - White balance metadata

    When I browse raw files from my Canon EOS Rebel XT/350D in Adobe Bridge I always look at the Metadata tab to check for the f-stop value, speed, white balance settings, etc. of the currently-selected raw image file.
    I noticed that the pictures shot in Automatic White Balance appear on the upper-left portion of the Metadata tab as an icon indicating AWB. However, whenever I take pictures with manually-set white balances, such as shade, day light, tungsten, etc., the metadata tab no longer indicates the white balance I chose, instead, it either shows an icon of a camera or two dashes, as in --.
    Is there any way I can set Adobe Bridge to show the appropriate White Balance icon for pictures I take with manually-set white balances?

    Hi Curt,
    Thanks for your reply. Yes, White Balance is checked in preferences/metadata. All of the Exposure metadata entries are also checked.
    I forgot to mention that my version of Camera Raw is 4.5 (the latest).
    You know, although White Balance is checked, I cannot find a White Balance text entry on any of the metadata lists (File properties, IPTC core, Camera Data (EXIF), etc.). The only place where I can see the White Balance setting in on the upper left corner of the Metadata tab, under the f-stop value.
    Here is a personal question for you: When you browse your pictures in Adobe Bridge and you select one that was taken with a specific White Balance (not Auto), does your Adobe Bridge display an icon for that particular White Balance setting? I just want to eliminate the possibility that this happening only in my computer.
    Thanks a lot for your time and attention.

  • Imported images are given "flash" as white balance

    Since I implemented LR3 and played around a.o. with some presets, all of my images (RAW) at import are transformed to the "flash" white balance, as shown in the Library right colomn and as can be seen in the image.
    The images come out of the camera with a wb-info as the one set to the camera when shooting the image, so no problem with the camera. So I suspected some initial preset, but couldn't find it. Then, I imported the files into Photoshop 4 and Elements, and exactly the same thing happens: they convert immediately to the flash WB. So, is there a settings file that is shared by all three programs?
    I checked the same files on my lap-top with LR3, and there LR shows the wb settings that I set on my camera; so the problem is with settings on my one PC.
    Has anybody any idea how to get rid of this setting?
    Rob

    robijsselstein wrote:
    My surprise is that the other programs use the same defaults apparently
    The Default you set in LR is valid for ACR, no matter whether used under LR or under PS/PSE. Their values are also stored in the Camera Raw settings directory, not in the LR directory.
    Beat

  • 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

  • Lightroom: Why does auto white balance no longer work after changing the camera calibration profile?

    I'm using NEF raw files from Nikon.
    Lets say for example I import a NEF file into Lightroom (v4) and click on 'auto' for white balance. The white balance in the image is  adjusted correctly (somewhat). However, if I then change the camera profile (in the camera calibration section) from 'adobe standard' to 'camera standard' then the white balance in the image becomes very wrong. I then have to set the white balance back to 'as shot' and correct it manually instead.
    Why would 'auto white balance' no longer work just because I change the profile from 'adobe standard' to 'camera standard'?
    Any ideas?

    Works as expected here...
    Which Lr version and what OS??

  • White Balance Correction

    Hi all,
    This might be a question which is too "simple" for Aperture but here goes...
    I am used to using Adobe or Nikon products to edit my RAW images, in those apps you could change white balance as if you were in camera (ie: daylight, shade, flash etc...). In Aperture it seems the only way I can adjust white balance is to click somewhere in the image which is white, is this correct?
    Appreciate it.
    MBP 15'' 2.16   Mac OS X (10.4.6)  

    I think it what would put Aperture in a
    better position would be to use the same system as
    the competition
    How can Aperture surpass the competition by copying them? The current system is workable for saving presets. I am looking for something much better out of Apple in the next revision of Aperture than just 'copying' the competition.
    Aperture is innovative and ground-breaking software in many areas. We will have to wait a bit longer for them to fill in some weaker spots in a application.

  • White Balance Tool

    I am using the following:
    latest CS4 version
    latest camera raw version
    MAC 10.5.5
    Can anyone help please - I open bridge, then open a raw file in camera raw. I then use the white balance tool. I go over the image with this tool to see the pixel values - but there are no pixel info showing on the R G B settings on the right (just below the graph). In Photoshop, this tool is working fine.
    Is there a preference setting to activate this tool to work properly in camera raw?

    Well, I have tested it again and the preference to start Bridge at log in, seems to be doing it. I ticked this off, closed down and started Bridge manually and the tool fully works OK with my work space. But could be something else, I don't know, but starting Bridge at log in on my computer seems to be this.
    The saved work space I have set up as follows - on the left side of screen I have placed my favorites, folders, collections panels at top left, then underneath these, I have placed filter, metadata, keywords panels. I have no panels on the right and just have big thumbnails on the main area.
    Anyway, thanks again, I can live with this now, I just start Bridge manually :-)

Maybe you are looking for