[clackers]

There's always converting the images to Black-and-White....

That's ultimately the go.

[C_Jones]

If you use live view when you are shooting, when you adjust your white balance you will be able to view the affect of each setting on the subject on the rear lcd screen. That way you can see what white balance setting you like best prior to taking the shot with no guesswork.

[southlander]

Now, if we are talking mixed lighting, then white balance is problematic as there is more than one light source each of which may have very different characteristics. There is no one right answer for a global WB setting.


My local train station for example is a huge pain to photograph at dusk - the platform lighting spilling onto the tracks is sodium vapour so extremely yellow, the waiting areas are lit by fluros with a very green tint and then the broader area is still bathed by the residual daylight which can itself vary greatly from daylight up into the high temperature ranges as twilight progresses. These various sub-areas of the image spill over into each other so it is really painful to attempt to correct after the event. When all else fails, going artistic and converting to B&W has a lot going for it.


As authorities become more energy conscious, public lighting systems are being upgraded so there can be a real mix within a given area.


Some of the metal halide lights in large museum areas are terrible for WB, particularly when displays are sensitive to UV degradation and so the spectum of lighting for those exhibits is skewed away from the voilet end of the spectrum.

[goatsNdonkey]

One option would be to select a WB setting that let as many of these diverse lightings SHOW for their artistic effects, as would be seen in some of Lautrec's more garish depictions of the Moulin Rouge.
http://c300221.r21.cf1.rackcdn.com/lautrec-moulin-rouge-detail-1343625914_b.jpg

Now, if we are talking mixed lighting, then white balance is problematic as there is more than one light source each of which may have very different characteristics. There is no one right answer for a global WB setting.


My local train station for example is a huge pain to photograph at dusk - the platform lighting spilling onto the tracks is sodium vapour so extremely yellow, the waiting areas are lit by fluros with a very green tint and then the broader area is still bathed by the residual daylight which can itself vary greatly from daylight up into the high temperature ranges as twilight progresses. These various sub-areas of the image spill over into each other so it is really painful to attempt to correct after the event. When all else fails, going artistic and converting to B&W has a lot going for it.


As authorities become more energy conscious, public lighting systems are being upgraded so there can be a real mix within a given area.


Some of the metal halide lights in large museum areas are terrible for WB, particularly when displays are sensitive to UV degradation and so the spectum of lighting for those exhibits is skewed away from the voilet end of the spectrum.

[rawr]

Now, if we are talking mixed lighting, then white balance is problematic as there is more than one light source each of which may have very different characteristics. There is no one right answer for a global WB setting.

Theoretically, that is exactly the issue that Ricoh's 'Multi Auto White Balance' white balance setting for the K-3/K-1 etc solves:

The new Multi Auto White Balance function splits the image into different areas and runs white balance on each area separately.

For example:

- Images split into areas affected by the light from the flash and areas not affected by the flash.

- Images split into areas lit by natural sunlight and areas lit by artificial lighting equipment.

Calculations are made for each separate area, ensuring that a more natural-looking white balance effect is achieved under a mixture of lighting conditions from various different light sources.

K-3: New Multi Auto White Balance Feature | Ricoh Imaging Support

But in practice I haven't been convinced that it makes a dramatic difference. Some lighting seems just too complicated for a camera to get right.

[clackers]

Yep, no substitute for reframing to avoid mixed light. Put a gel over the flash to match an ambient source that's unavoidable

Finally, use your software to correct as much as possible some areas. This maybe limited in its power because painted or dyed surfaces are subtractive about light - have fun retrieving data when it's blackened!

[southlander]

Theoretically, that is exactly the issue that Ricoh's 'Multi Auto White Balance' white balance setting for the K-3/K-1 etc solves:



K-3: New Multi Auto White Balance Feature | Ricoh Imaging Support

But in practice I haven't been convinced that it makes a dramatic difference. Some lighting seems just too complicated for a camera to get right.

Also I think this only works for JPEG output so not much help for RAW users.

[lithedreamer]

Also I think this only works for JPEG output so not much help for RAW users.

I don't know about that. I thought raws still produced Multi Auto White Balance when the White Balance was set to 'As Shot', as long as the camera was set to MAWB at the time of the shot.

[rawr]

I think this only works for JPEG output so not much help for RAW users

True enough. WB data is recorded in the RAW metadata (inc. Multi-AWB), but not directly applied to the image until processed.

Problem with M-AWB is that not all RAW processors, I think, know how to handle M-AWB white balance. [As I understand it] M-AWB records different bits and pieces of WB all over the image, as the metering algorithm sees fit, and then stores those readings in the EXIF somewhere, whilst 'normal' camera WB just paints one WB setting over the whole image.

I suspect only Pentax Digital Camera Utility, and the in-camera RAW processing engines of Pentax and Ricoh cameras that offer M-AWB, know how to fully implement M-AWB when processing RAW's into TIFFs or JPEGs.

[derekkite]

It's too bad the camera can't automatically bracket a choice of white-balance settings. You could do that manually changing the settings between shots of the same subject, but it would slow things down.

No need to take multiple shots. White balance is simply a calculation that assigns colors. You can change the white balance post shot.

[lithedreamer]

No need to take multiple shots. White balance is simply a calculation that assigns colors. You can change the white balance post shot.

If you shoot raw. If I shot JPEG, white balance bracketing could be useful.

[rawr]

If you shoot raw. If I shot JPEG, white balance bracketing could be useful.

FWIW, and apologies for some of my previous post, but I had forgotten about a little known feature of Pentax Digital Camera Utility (v4 and v5). PDCU actually does an OK job allowing you to adjust WB on Pentax JPEG's, using the WB eye-dropper to select up to 5 gray points, or just selecting a WB preset to over-ride the camera setting (pic related). Most times, it works pretty well.