EOS 90D Advice on Auto White Balance settings

[Anonymous]

Hi 

I was recently reading Understanding Exposure and am already on RAW and M, 99% of the time. Really enjoying the learning process and trying to work without things that say Auto. 

I wondered what the feelings and thoughts are on AWB settings - any good advice welcome 

Thanks 

Twiddler

[p4pictures]

Auto white balance is generally very good, it's one of Canon's significant strengths. In auto, the camera can actually apply different white balance at different parts of the image. If you have a scene lit by household lights, and daylight through a window the camera does a great job of balancing the different light colours and making a good looking result.

Since you shoot RAW you can change the white balance in your editing, either selecting one of the presets like daylight, tungsten, cloudy etc. or dialing in a Kelvin temperature value. A final option is to use the click white balance to select something that should be neutral toned in the frame and then use that to set the white balance. 

On the camera itself there are similar presets, and you can use them if you like. Some use shade or cloudy on an overcast day to add warmth to shots but I often find it a bit too warm for my taste.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Brian

That makes sense. I'll just set it on AWB and do any adjustments later, which is basically what I was doing. I got hooked on getting rid of anything with Auto in the title, trying to make my brain work!

Twiddler

[wq9nsc]

I always shoot in RAW so the camera setting for white balance isn't critical.  Most of the time, auto white is fine but I frequently use white priority for sports under unusual lighting conditions.  This will often correct color shifts due to color temperature variation and even when fine adjustment is needed, it gets me very close.

Rodger

[FloridaDrafter]

I'm not sure if it's a MILC thing, but my Raw come in with  "Auto ambiance priority" as default WB adjustment (in DPP) and that works fine. It's nothing I intentionally set in the camera because, like Rodger, I shoot Raw and don't concern myself with WB. In fact, I seldom have to mess with it in post.

Newton

[ebiggs1]

"I wondered what the feelings and thoughts are on AWB settings - any good advice welcome "

This is a bit confusing. But WB and most all in-camera settings are no stored or do they effect a raw image. None of those settings, WB for instance is saved in a raw file which is essentially just ones and zeros. However when you upload to your computer or view them in the camera LCD screen they do show WB obliviously. The raw file can not be viewed as is so a conversion must be made. The raw converter which ever one you use, I.E., Photoshop, DPP4, etc., does use the camera settings to create that viewable image. But it is just a parameter to make the viewable image. You can set WB and/or most other settings as you please in a raw file. Even then it does not get backed into the raw file. About the only setting that does effect a raw file is exposure.  The raw file basically saves the unprocessed, uncompressed data directly from the camera's sensor without any in-camera adjustments like white balance or sharpening, etc. 

[Anonymous · Accepted solution]

Thanks for your detailed replies. So it looks like I just stick to RAW and M and I'll learn to use the editing software to develop my skills. The thinking behind my question was whether the more experienced photographers bypass WB and do their own thing. So now I can stop worrying about another Auto feature on my camera controlling what I do. 

As ever Guys - Thanks for your help and understanding.

Twiddler

[ebiggs1]

Post editing is where it is at with raw. That is where great photos are made.

[justadude]

"The raw converter which ever one you use, I.E., Photoshop, DPP4, etc., does use the camera settings to create that viewable image. But it is just a parameter to make the viewable image. You can set WB and/or most other settings as you please in a raw file. Even then it does not get backed into the raw file."

I agree that the WB adjustments do not get baked into the RAW file.  I could be wrong, but I'm not certain that the WB adjustments do show in the viewable image either.  That is the only part of your reply that I am questioning.  I've heard other photographers say "it does show in the viewable image" and others yet say "it doesn't show in the viewable image".  Bear with me while I explain why I think it doesn't... 

When I shoot infrared photography it's the only time I shoot RAW+JPEG instead of RAW only, like I do with my regular photography.  Infrared requires a strong WB adjustment to be made since I am capturing light beyond what humans can see with the naked eye.  The adjustment changes quite a bit based on the amount of sunlight, which infrared wavelength filter I'm using at the time, and a few other factors.  Needless to say, I adjust the custom WB often when I am shooting infrared for the day.  The reason for adding the JPEG is that way I can see on the camera screen how the current WB adjustment is doing.  For example, if I am shooting with a 590nm filter, the image will be mostly yellow, with blue foliage (this will be edited later so the colors look like a typical infrared image, but that's beside the point).

So when I go home and upload the RAW and JPEG files without doing any edits at all... the JPEG looks like it did on the camera screen - mostly yellows, and blue foliage.  The RAW file is pretty much all red, with light tints of purple.  While the JPEGs will vary in colors a bit every time I change the WB over the course of the day, the RAW files still have the exact same red and light tints of purple - no variances.

Granted, most people do not shoot infrared photography.  But what I am seeing in these files is the reason I'm questioning if the RAW files use the camera settings for WB on regular photography - again, only in the unedited viewable image.  I might be missing something.  What are your thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Thanks Brian 

I think I can understand your argument/point. Its probably above my pay grade at the moment as Im on a steep learning curve. But your point is well made. 

When I posted my question it was to see if the experienced photographers were bypassing the Auto element for more control. The RAW position makes sense at the moment - Im currently using DPPE for editing and it gives me lots of options and control. Lots to think about - but the main thing for me is to enjoy my hobby.

Thanks

Twiddler