Re: WB Questions
Re: WB Questions
- Subject: Re: WB Questions
- From: Andrew Rodney via colorsync-users <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 12:39:15 -0700
Short answer: ignore the numbers, which has little to do with ‘accuracy’.
CCT WB value is rather meaningless anyway.
CCT Kelvin defines a large number of possible colors for one. Each raw
processor will report differing values from the same raw image as well. I've
measured a light source with a Spectrophotometer below, and you can see what it
actually measures and what two raw converters report (one being Adobe's) is
different. The numbers reported don't really matter; the color appearance in a
raw converter and how you want it to appear is essential.
http://digitaldog.net/files/CCTandRaw.jpg
http://digitaldog.net/files/RawWB_Differences.jpg
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net/
> On Nov 17, 2023, at 12:34 PM, Louis Dina via colorsync-users
> <email@hidden> wrote:
>
> Okay you gurus, I have some questions about white balance, and I’ll use an
> example to hopefully make it clearer.
>
> I often take nature photos in the woods, and it’s not unusual for my DSLR’s
> AWB to set the WB to something like 4200K and a tint of -3 or so. The
> camera sees all the greenish yellow leaves on the trees, reddish yellow
> leaves on the ground and probably assumes there is a yellowish cast, so it
> assigns a cooler WB to neutralize the “color cast” it thinks it sees. The
> result is an overly bluish image, and depending on the amount of green
> leaves or yellow-red leaves, it adjusts the tint as well. Not very accurate.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
| References: | |
| | >WB Questions (From: Louis Dina via colorsync-users <email@hidden>) |