Help with white balance

[TCav]

There are times when there's nothing in the image that's actually white, gray or black. Then it gets a little tougher.

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by TCav

There are times when there's nothing in the image that's actually white, gray or black. Then it gets a little tougher.

that's why color temperature adjustments in RAW work so well. You don't need any of the above. You can keep moving a slider to adjust the temperature and stop when the photo looks good to you.

[JustinThyme]

Im with John, this alone is one of the biggest reasons I shoot RAW and all most PP flow starts with raw. There is a big difference between changing the digital data after the fact in much the same way the cameras processor would change it and going to jpeg and taking an already processed image and reprocessing it. Every time a change is made to jpeg your image data is degraded and you loose IQ, this is not the case with RAW files.
If you are going to shoot jpeg then the gray card and custom WB is your best bet, but then when the light changes you have to set it again. Then the one image you were after all day is wating for you but not for long, you swing the camera around and snap the shutter just to find out later that the custom WB you had set waws good for where you were pointed but not for where you snapped the image you were waiting for. The color of the light as well as the intensity plays a role in the WB. If you shoot raw you have the ability to change to one of many presets after the fact, use custom and a slider to adjust temperature or adjust off of one of the presets and alter the image as digital data before conversion, the results would be no different than using a grey card and setting that as custom WB. The only difference is you are changing the RAW information out of the camera instead of the camera applying those changes before converting it to jpeg.

[imut]

Every time a change is made to jpeg your image data is degraded and you loose IQ, this is not the case with RAW files.

If you play a JPEG in PP for 100 times that would reduce IQ, 1-10 times doesn't effect it so much. But generaly my friends take pictures in RAW mode when they will edit it in PP.

At the beginning of "Understanding Exposure" you would see that, writer says " it would be waste of time editing every picture you take with PP" not exactly like that it was something similar.

So don't take every picture in RAW mode because you wouldn't have so much time if you want to edit them if you are not professional.

For instance; Mark can take in RAW because he is a wedding photographer, he does this for living.

On the other hand jpeg is compressed format of course editing in jpeg format would reduce quality but after 100 times i believe.

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by imut

At the beginning of "Understanding Exposure" you would see that, writer says " it would be waste of time editing every picture you take with PP" not exactly like that it was something similar.

Let me say this - 99% of every picture WORTH KEEPING is worth editing. A simple crop even. If it's worth keeping it's worth looking good. Now, here's where reality comes in: there are plenty of instances where starting with a raw file vs. jpeg gains you nothing. And, depeding on how you are used to processing it could add a step. For example, I use Photoshop CS to edit my photos. My camera (Canon 1dmkIII) is not supported for Raw conversion on CS. I need to upgrade to like CS4 to get that. So I have to use other software for raw conversions. So, my preference is to not buy more software, and use RAW only when I need to. In those instances I shoot Raw+JPeg. I use the jpeg files unless there's a problem with exposure or white balance. Then I go to the safety net of the RAW file. If you're shooting indoor, available light shots -most cameras do a bad job in that situation at figuring out the WB. So I know I'll want Raw+jpeg. Now, I happened to have gotten used to leaving it on RAW+Jpeg so the only time I switch to JPEG only is when I know I'll be taking a lot of photos - when I shoot sports to help with buffer handling or on vacation when I can't download off my card. So, for examplel on a recent vacation trip - I kept about 120 photos - taken in raw+jpeg. I used maybe 2 of the raw files. So, a small percentage. But I was glad to have them because the shots would not have turned out nearly so well if I had to start with jpeg.

So, what I'm saying is - it's not worth spending extra $$$ for me to convert to using raw files entirely. But I do process 100% of my images that I keep. And I absolutely make sure I have RAW files every time I use flash and every time I'm in a tough WB situation because I know I can save photos much easier with RAW than jpeg. If someone handed me a copy of Lightroom or CS5 I'd be inclined to switch to RAW only as it wouldn't add any time to my workflow and wouldn't cost me money.