Viewing ppi and white balance in exif??

Hi Folks
I'm wondering if it's possible to see ppi and white balance settings for an image in the metadata panel within LR. I don't see it now and I don't know if it's just not possible, or if I've overlooked a setting somewhere.
Thanks for your help!

> What I would like to see is what ppi a given image is at before exporting.
Before you export, it has none! Only x and y number of pixels per side. When you do export, the ppi setting is read by, say, Photoshop in context of a size to print, although that of course can be subsequently adjusted.
I generally set 300 ppi for all but newspaper work, and check the box to not uprez any photos. The latter helps when I've severely cropped an image and later want to prep it for printing large-ish: Then when I open it, I see it doesn't have that many original pixels.

Similar Messages

How do I include metadata information (aperture, shutter speed, ISO and white balance) to each image on contact sheet?

How do I include metadata information (aperture, shutter speed, ISO and white balance) to each image on contact sheet?

Just to expand JimHess reply. This are all the EXIF data you can include on a print. As far as I know, WB is not written to any standard EXIF fields.

Tethered and White Balance question

I am using the latest Aperture and also the latest Aperture Hot Folder to shoot tethered using my Canon5d to my powerbook g4 1.67ghz. The issue is shooting images with the same white balance applied as I shoot. Is there an obvious way to do this that I am missing? Or does anyone have an idea how to do this using Applescript? My main app to shoot is CaptureOne and white balance is quite easy to do using this app. I am trying to integrate Aperture into my shooting workflow not just my post workflow. Any ideas would be appreciated.
- Rudy

i don't know what your canon is like, but the D200 also has the ability to 'read' a white balance setting (probably from the same sort of calibration card that you're talking about... i've never tried one, but often want one). this calibrates the in-camera white balance setting based on the light you're shooting with. this again would hopefully get you close to correct without software post production (this is a theme for me: shoot correctly and then spend less time correcting).
and you've still got the ability to tweak if its not perfect and then lift/stamp those tweaks everywhere else. i like the fact that CapOne had thought of that for tethered shooting, but i also don't like to stretch and pull my image data any further away from the raw data than necessary.
keep us posted on how you finalize the workflow
scott
PowerMac G5 2.5GHz Mac OS X (10.4.8) MacBook Pro 2.0GHz

My Vibrance and white balance tool have disappeared! Please help!

I ALWAYS use my vibrance and white balance tools on my side toolbar and now they're gone! I don't know how to get them back up and running. Thanks so much! By the way, this is in Lightroom 5. Thanks so much!

Rikk!!! I have spent hours trying to figure out how to get it back!! LOL. Thank you!!! What a silly, frusterating problem so easily solved. I really appreciate your reply!

Manual Exposure and White balance control?

What Webcams provide the ability to manually set the Exposure and White balance?
I know the nx pro ultra does, but I am having trouble connecting to it from my Java application.
Also are there any other wideangle webcams out there?

What Webcams provide the ability to manually set the Exposure and White balance?
I know the nx pro ultra does, but I am having trouble connecting to it from my Java application.
Also are there any other wideangle webcams out there?

I am on Lightroom 5 and the exposure and white balance adjustment tools on the right side of the scr

I am on Lightroom 5 and the exposure and white balance adjustment tools on the right side of the screen have disappeared. How do I restore them?

Right click on one of the other panel headers e.g Tone Curve and a menu will pop up for you to select Basic.
How it gets de-selected is not apparent but several users have had this happen since the release of version 5. It has ahppened to me on at least two occasions.

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

Color correcting and white balance

There doesn't seem to be any tools specifically for it. What is a good way to white balance in shake? I can't seem to get good results.

I use Mult to match a layer to another by viewing the individual color channels in the viewer.
ColorCorrect is the uber color correction node.
ColorCorrect is similar to the 3Way Color Corrector in FCP but without the graphical interface. Grab an image, apply the nodes and see what happens.
But, as in Motion and After Effects, think of what part of the image you want to adjust whether it's the white/black points or gamma range or whatever and then apply the node suitable for that adjustment.

Aperture 2 and White Balance Tint

Hello
Has anyone else noticed the huge colour shift when making a White Balance Tint adjustment with AP2 on a new image?
When I make an incremental (1 point) Tint adjustment for the first time on a new image the colour changes dramatically (similar to making a 20 point tint adjustment in one go). Hitting the Reset button and then making further incremental WB adjustments eliminates the problem - and everything is back to normal.
This is happening on both my Nikon D3 and Canon 1DmkIII images, so, I don't think it's a camera specific problem.
Anyone else?

I am having the same issue. Clicking in the value box for Temp or Tint causes a big shift. Using the Temp slider causes the image to go green quite a bit. The eye dropper is not much better. It routinely goes warm by a few thousand degrees or gets a green tint.
I called Apple and walked the tech through the issue and he was able to duplicate it and confirmed it is a bug. It is driving me crazy as I am spending way to much time fussing with white balance.

Lightroom 4 and white balance tool

In Lightroom 4 i use the whtie balance tool and find point that give as high as 99% reading and it would work to set it as the reference point. Today i did the same thing and got a message that said Lightroom could not obtain white balance from that spot and to try again. i've never seen this before. even if i used a spot that was 100% reflective. It would just render colors off.
Today i did the same thing and a message came on the screen that Lightroom couldn't obtain white balance from that spot and i should try again. i was only able to obtain white balance if i used a spot that reflected no more than approx. 90%.
what has changed?
thank you

The White Balance Picker sample area in LR4 can now be adjusted using the 'Scale' slider, so yes it has changed from LR3:
http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/white_balance_eyedropper_tool_option
The readings you see in the LR Histogram in no way reflect the actual raw data values. The White Balance picker needs a sample area that has no raw data clipping in any channel (i.e.All four R,G, B, G2 channels 99% or less). I suspect the 99% area you are sampling has raw data clipping in one or more channels. If interested you can download RawDigger to examine the image file to confirm:
http://www.rawdigger.com/
I suggest choosing a sample area that is well below 99%, such as 85% to 95%.

A dumb question about kelvin and white balance in Lightroom

I keep reading a high kelvin number is cooler and a low number is warmer, but in light room, in the develope module, the lower number ( 3500 ) is blue, and a higher number, (7000) is very yellow. What am I missing?

Lee is essentially correct with his analysis but incorrect with the details. The Kelvin colour temperature scale is between Yellow and Blue, not Red and Blue as stated.
There's a lot of confusion about this, with many digital photographers missing the significance of the difference between cyan and blue, magenta and red etc.
To be fair, the printing industry has added to the confusion by traditionally calling printing inks Blue, Red and Yellow when they really are cyan, magenta and yellow.
Even Adobe can get it wrong. In the initial Lightroom beta release, the temperature scale had the colours Cyan at one end and Yellow at the other. I suggested it be changed to Blue to make it correct and less confusing which thankfully was implemented in the next update.
Despite decades of working with colour both in the darkroom and with Photoshop, I too struggle with the counter-intuitive approach of the colour temperature reading in Lightroom.
Essentially, if you shoot in light that is too blue, then you need to add Yellow. So the Kelvin number displayed in Lightroom isn't the 'Mired' correction or the amount of Yellow added, but a readout of the scene's original colour temperature before the Yellow correction.
This can be really useful. I use several different branded flash units with various reflectors and attachments. I recently ran a test, shooting a Macbeth colour checker with all the different combinations.
I then used the White Balance Selector (dropper) on the neutral 5 patch and wrote down the resulting colour temperature.
From that I could work out what filter corrections I needed to use on each flash and reflector to produce consistent daylight balance.
Most flashes seem to be around 6000ºK but I had variation between 5200ºK & 6400ºK with the combinations.

Adjusting exposure and white balance in LR?

I'm fairly new to digital photography and want to start using LR for more than just tagging my images. I currently shoot with a 5DM3 at the highest .jpg quality settings.
1. Can I adjust white balance for .jpg files in LR? OR does it really need to be done with a RAW format file?
2. Can I adjust exposure compensation for .jpg files in LR? OR does it really need to be done with a RAW format file?
3. If I can fully adjust the white balance and exposure compensation in LR for a .jpg or RAW file, is there any real benefit to doing it in camera? Will you achieve the same quality level doing it in LR vs. in camera? Are there any downsides to doing it in LR vs. in camera?
Thanks!

southwestform wrote:
1. Can I adjust white balance for .jpg files in LR? OR does it really need to be done with a RAW format file?
Yes, you can adjust white balance on .jpg files. There will be two differences. For a raw file the adjustment scale will be along an absolute temperature scale so you can set, for example, an exact 6500K white balance. For a JPEG the adjustment scale is relative because the white balance is already baked into the file. The other difference is that with raw, you will be able to push white balance much further from the current setting before the image starts to fall apart.
southwestform wrote:
2. Can I adjust exposure compensation for .jpg files in LR? OR does it really need to be done with a RAW format file?
Similar answer. You can adjust exposure up and down for a JPEG, but you will find a much narrower range of adjustment before the image visibly degrades. It will be easier to darken the image than to lighten it. When you increase exposure on a JPEG, shadows you lightened will look much worse a lot faster than with a raw file.
southwestform wrote:
3. If I can fully adjust the white balance and exposure compensation in LR for a .jpg or RAW file, is there any real benefit to doing it in camera? Will you achieve the same quality level doing it in LR vs. in camera? Are there any downsides to doing it in LR vs. in camera?
The problem in any editor (not just Lightroom) is that your files, raw or JPEG, have been limited by the dynamic range of the sensor in the camera. You can't "fully" make adjustments if the camera can't "fully" record the scene in the first place. If you want to make a +4 EV adjustment to an image and you do it in camera, the image data is in the sweet spot of the sensor and it's going to look great. If you don't adjust in camera and you expect to make the +4 EV adjustment in an image editor, you are going to try to push a lot of shadow data up into the lighter tones. The shadow data is the lowest quality, so lightening it will reveal noise and banding. In addition, if your camera doesn't have enough dynamic range, the camera might not even record down far enough for you to pull off a +4 EV adjustment in software. The better sensor you have, the more likely you can make big adjustments and like the result.
Raw just gives you more room to make mistakes. It is always better to try and get it right in camera.

JPEG and White Balance

When Aperture imports JPEGs it offers the same white balance options as it does for RAW files.
My understandiing from using Lightroom which does not use temperature in it's white balance Develop module for JPEGs, is that there is no data associated with a JPEG that tells the program where to start with white balance.
I'm curious as to what assumptions Aperture makes with regard to white balance when importing JPEGs and what goes on in the background as you change the temperature with a JPEG.
Thank you.

Aperture assigns a temperature of 5000k to all jpg and tif files.
I don't know what goes on in the background but the temperature changes are useful, if not correct.
Cheers,
Terry

Color Checker And White Balance

Hello Everyone.
I usually have a shot from my Color Checker and create a Profile for that Day of shooting.
I have Two choices.
1- Click on the Gray Color of the Color Checker for a White Balance, and then Export the color checker as a DNG, and create a profile.
2- Create a DNG from the Color Checker shot, and Later apply the White Balance.
In other words, when you open the Color Cheker in the Camera Raw, It Is a Flat Image. If I create a white balance from the Color Checker
and then, Export it as a DNG to create a Profile Is It more Accurate ?
Dose It make any different ?
NOTE:
I get a better White Balance shooting either the Gray color from the Color Checker, Or a 18% Gray Card, rather than shooting a white color of Color Checker
or Shooting a white paper.
UPDATED:
I was reading this article that you should Aim the Gray-Card one third of angle between Camera and the Main Light or sun.
It says If you hold it flat next to your object It is Wrong.
Is this also how you should Aim the Color Checker One third of angel between Camera and the Main Light ?
Please read this article.
What's a Gray Card and Why You Should Own One
Also this Article Is opposite of the top
Using Gray Cards
Thank you very much For All Your Helps.

In your initial post you seem to be asking if it makes a difference whether you set the WB on the DNG you create your color profile from or not. I don’t know that it makes a difference in the color profile but it should be easy enough to test experimentally, by making two DNGs from the same raw file, one where you’ve set the WB to as low as it’ll go, and one where you’ve set the WB to as high as it’ll go, and make a profile from each and see if you get a different look based on which one you use or not.
Then you talk about which gray patch on a color-checker is better to use for WB, saying you don’t use the white one, but one that is grayer. My idea is to use whatever patch matches the brightness of whatever you are wanting to get the closest to the right WB. If you have a midtone subject then use the midtone gray patch. If you have a light subject use a brighter gray patch, and if you have a very dark subject then maybe use a darker patch, though probably not the darkest because there will be more error in that WB computed from the darker patches, so lighter ones would be preferred if you don’t have any other reason to choose one over the other, though not the brightest one, necessarily, because it could be clipped and unusable.
Finally you’re asking about the angle of the card with respect to the camera and the mainlight. You don’t want it to be halfway between the angle of the mainlight and the camera because that would have too much glare to the extent that there is any glare with the specially-prepared surfaces of the color-checker. You also don’t want it to be flat on to the camera, because that gives too much emphasis to the lighting behind the camera position (blue sky, green plants, red dirt, building walls) as blocked by the camera operator, so 1/3 of the way toward the mainlight angle is a way to mix in the lighting along the horizon with the mainlight to get an average. If you doubt whether this makes a different take two CC shots, one flat toward the camera and one facing the mainlight, as the two extremes of the color balance variation and see how much different they are when eyedroppering the same gray patch in LR.
In your situation, with 100% strobes, your only non-strobe-colored lighting would be from reflections of the strobes off other things nearby. Are you in a completely neutral studio setting and everyone except the model wears neutral clothing? If there are close by light colored neutral objects such as walls and ceilings, then some of the strobe light will likely reflect from the clothing and off the walls making the color-balance tinged with a bit of the subject’s colors. You could minimize this by taking your calibration shots without the subject or any non-neutral-colored objects in the vicinity of the strobes so as to minimize the subject reflection coloring the light. Whether any of this matters depends on how neutral and reflective your studio environment is. If your entire studio is matte black except for the model and backdrop then you don’t need to worry, but if it’s not, then there would be some reason to care.

Viewing ppi and white balance in exif??

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for