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

[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

[Anonymous]

Hi again Gary

Your reply made me dig a bit deeper - but as I've only had my eos90d around 12 months I just enjoy taking it for a walk. I live in a rural, hilly part of the UK so lots of landscape etc. I have to admit that I hadn't pursued infrared at all till I read your post. It looks fascinating and I've already got a Hoya R72 filter in my basket!  I've got a good tripod and monopod - so any tips for this beginner would be most welcome. Cheaper filters are available, but this seems to be the best one.

Thanks

Twiddler

[justadude]

You get what you pay for with filters.  The Hoya R72 is one I have been using for 20+ years.  With a non-converted camera you are limited to shooting either the 720nm or 850nm wavelengths.  You would need to convert your camera to full spectrum infrared to shoot the more colorful wavelengths... but then you can't shoot regular photos anymore so I don't recommend that unless you have a second camera body.  Besides... shooting on a non-converted camera means longer exposures (like 20 seconds in full sun).  The long exposure adds a dreamy effect, which makes infrared even more otherworldly - and I love that look.

I would be happy to share what I've learned over the past 20 years of digital infrared.  If you ever jump into infrared film, I've been doing that since the 1980's and can help there as well.  I've taught quite a few people over the years, mostly through back and forth messages.  It's a bit of a learning curve, but it will challenge you... and it is fun.

If you want to see what I do with infrared (to confirm I know a bit about it) you can see some of my work here:  https://500px.com/p/garysyrba/galleries/infrared 

If you are interested in tips on infrared with your Canon 90D I think we would have to start a post here under General Discussion - but let's check with the admins first to see if that would be allowed here on the Canon forums.  Of course I'll have to promise to only discuss the infrared settings I've used on various Canon cameras, and not mention the Pentax ones.  😂

[Ramsden]

Hi Gary

Apologies for long delay in replying. I got locked out in a reset password debacle - and ended up registering under a new email. Crazy Bots. I'll be getting an infra red filter before next monday. So I'll be open to help and advice. I like the look of it and at the moment it will work well with my shots of old railway viaducts - pylons going over mountains. Ive done some reading - but open to advice.

Thanks

Mark

A

[ebiggs1]

 " 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."

Raw camera files are simply data info like computers use. Ones and zeros. The only thing they can store is exposure. How bright or dark they are. There isn't any in-camera processing like white balance, contrast, or sharpness adjustments, etc. However like I said all that extra info is stored in a meta data tag that raw converters use to create something we can view. That is where folks go wrong or get confused about a raw file because it seems like or looks like the raw file is more than it is. Again, a raw file is the unprocessed, uncompressed image data directly captured by the camera sensor.

[justadude]

"However like I said all that extra info is stored in a meta data tag that raw converters use to create something we can view. That is where folks go wrong or get confused about a raw file because it seems like or looks like the raw file is more than it is."


I think you and I are misunderstanding each other, Ernie.  I do know that the RAW file is 100% unprocessed data... and I know there isn't any in camera processing like there is on jpeg.  Let me try explaining what I am asking again because this seems to be an ongoing debate between a lot of photographers over the years...

So the info stored in the meta data tag that is used to create something viewable - we both agree that the viewable image is simply a reference point, and not the actual image itself.  All photographers agree that no matter what you do with a custom WB it does not affect the RAW file.  However, some photographers say that even though it doesn't affect the RAW file, it DOES affect what the raw converter creates to show us in the unprocessed raw file.  Personally I don't believe so due to the large WB difference I'm seeing in the unprocessed raw file vs. the jpeg.  That's the only thing I'm questioning.

I just set my R8 up to shoot RAW+JPEG.  I put a 720nm wavelength filter on the lens.  I set a custom WB and took a photo.  Then I changed the WB drastically and took a second photo of the same thing.  Uploaded everything into Lightroom, and looked at the unprocessed files.  The two jpegs look totally different from each other.  The two raw files look identical.  Yet other photographers say they notice a difference in the unprocessed raw "viewable creation" when they change settings like I did.

That is where my confusion comes in as to why some people see a difference and others do not on the untouched raw files.

[p4pictures]

For the mirrorless cameras both EVF and LCD show the effect of the white balance setting in the preview image, and in the captured image displayed on the camera. For a DSLR using Live View the same holds true. 

For example if I set my mirrorless camera to AWB and look at the scene outside the colour looks as I expect, but if I change the white balance to tungsten, then the scene is much bluer toned. Tungsten white balance effectively adds lots of blue to combat the orange of the tungsten bulbs. My EOS 7D Mark II in live view set to tungsten white balance shows a blue scene when pointed at the daylight outside my office.

If I capture and image, then for RAW images there is an embedded JPG preview that has the white balance settings applied, plus the shooting info in the file shows what white balance the camera was set to when the photo was taken. If you capture a JPG on the camera then the image is processed with the selected white balance. 

@justadude 

When you look at images on the computer, you need to know that different programs use different approaches to preview / display RAW images. Canon DPP uses the camera settings as its initial point of display for a RAW. Other software might not care about the white balance settings - Windows Photo app is a possible one here, as it now automatically "enhances" RAW images when displaying them.