AWB....be aware.

[Dave in Wales]

The difference between colours in JPEG set at AWB and manual WB can be amazing.

SOOC JPEG, AWB ......

P7060350 copy by Dave in Wales, on Flickr


Actual colour, 'Shadow' WB manually set......

P7060354-2-Edit by Dave in Wales, on Flickr

[Ross the fiddler]

Yes & why I always save both JPEG & raw files. One thing to be also aware of (as far as I can tell) is the difference that can occur with mains LED lighting is if the shutter speed isn't synced to the mains frequency then a series of sequential exposure can end up looking different in WB too.

[Graham_of_Rainham]

Damien Demolder (former AP Editor) described AWB as the invention of Satan...

[pdk42]

Shoot raw and you never need to worry about WB.

[shenstone]

Originally Posted by pdk42

Shoot raw and you never need to worry about WB.

I'm not sure it's as simple as that .. it just means you have to remember what the colours were later when you process your files at home. I can't say that my colour memory is that accurate and I think I would have had no idea if I had been at Dave's place and then processed raw files a week later (or more)

I try and get at least one picture in the group of shots where I compare to reality as a reference - easy if you are shooting in micro 4/3 cameras where you can see it in the viewfinder, not as easy in the old days of 4/3. wandering around places with a variety of natural light or where the sun is going in and out can mean a reference shot more often


Anyway an interesting comparison and a good example for someone new to considering white balance


Regards
Andy

[MikeOxon]

The only term worse than 'auto' is 'intelligent auto'. When this appears on a camera, I can only assume that the 'intelligence' referred to is somewhere below an earthworm

[Ross the fiddler]

Originally Posted by MikeOxon

The only term worse than 'auto' is 'intelligent auto'. In this case, I can only assume that the 'intelligence' referred to is somewhere below an earthworm

I dunno. Some people I know of or hear about seem to be less intelligent though.

[MJ224]

Originally Posted by MikeOxon

The only term worse than 'auto' is 'intelligent auto'. When this appears on a camera, I can only assume that the 'intelligence' referred to is somewhere below an earthworm

An earthworm is very good at being an earthworm. Bet you could not live like they do...………..

[MikeOxon]

Originally Posted by MJ224

An earthworm is very good at being an earthworm. Bet you could not live like they do...………..

But would I want to?

[benvendetta]

Originally Posted by pdk42

Shoot raw and you never need to worry about WB.

It's the only way to go for complete control. Mind you, I still set WB even shooting RAW. Habit I guess, plus I often supplement to RAW file with a small JPEG.

[MikeOxon]

Originally Posted by benvendetta

............. I often supplement to RAW file with a small JPEG.

You don't actually need to, since there's one already embedded within the RAW file. A viewer such as IrfanView can display this image.

[blu-by-u]

Originally Posted by pdk42

Shoot raw and you never need to worry about WB.

Problem is that OI.Share don't read RAW and instant Upload is not possible

[Ricoh]

Couple of other options:
Shoot B&W...
Shoot Portra and see what it should look like.
+1 more: Shoot Velvia and enjoy.

Damien Demolder partly got it right, he meant to say "Auto" is the work of Satin, decouple and take control".

[Bassman51]

So which image (auto or shadow) matches your perception of the scene at the time? Which is closer to your conception of what the image should look like?

[shenstone]

Originally Posted by Bassman51

So which image (auto or shadow) matches your perception of the scene at the time? Which is closer to your conception of what the image should look like?

He suggests the second one is nearer correct in his post .. just helping

regards
Andy