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

[stevet1]

Twiddling,

You've gotten some advice and recommendations from people whose opinions I value highly.

All I can say is that in my own experience, I found that AWB yielded photos that seemed too washed out for my tastes. I started using the Presets like Daylight and Cloudy and was happier with the results. Nowadays, I predominantly use a Kelvin setting of about 5300K, but on cloudy days, I might use the Cloudy Preset to add a little warmth.

I once read that if you want to emphasize the blues and yellows in your picture, use Daylight, and if you want to empasize the reds and greens, use Cloudy. 

On my camera, (a T8i), Daylight has a Kelvin temperature of 5200K. A Cloudy Preset has a Kelvin temperature of 6000K.

One way you can test this for yourself is to put your camera in Live View and hit your Q  button.

Select the white Balance and choose Kelvin. Using your arrow keys, you can raise or lower your Kelvin temperature and see the effect it has prior to taking your shot.

Steve Thomas

[Anonymous]

Hi 

Thanks for your reply. I was also trying to use the K setting, prior to this post. I prefer that option - its just one more thing to remember. And as we say in the UK we have a lot of weather!

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

[Ron888]

Never heard of that one! Thanks,i'll go check it out

[p4pictures]

Auto white balance gained the option to choose ambience priority and white priority in some of the DSLRs, certainly my EOS 5D Mark IV had the setting, and from a quick check so did EOS 5DS R and EOS SL3 (250D).

Originally Canon only offered the single auto white balance. By Canon engineers chose they elected to make it render warm toned scenes under tungsten lighting as warm. In some magazine and online reviews this was commented on quite often. So the engineers added the option for auto white balance with white priority to make the camera render tungsten with a more accurate white, but less of the ambience of the scene.

[Ron888]

Auto white balance to different parts of the image?That's fascinating.I'll see if i can find more info online.
How long has this been a thing?I've been out of photography for awhile

[p4pictures]

Auto white balance works like that for at least the last 20 years in Canon cameras. 

[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.  😂

[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.