[SpecialK]

I shoot RAW and thus don't really care about white balance anymore. It is easy to change in post processing.

Same here, though I rarely change it unless it is really off :-)

[Lowell Goudge]

I shoot RAW and thus don't really care about white balance anymore. It is easy to change in post processing.

Same here, though I rarely change it unless it is really off :-)

The issue with setting WB is not a JPEG vs RAW argument, but an issue of time in processing regardless of which you use.

WHen you shoot raw, it carries with it the WB settings and many image editors use this to display the colors. If you take a don't care attitude, you can be carring the wroing settings into you rPP and spend time re-adjusting.

I shoot JPEG and while adjustments are just as easy during PP as with RAW for WB, it is always better to start close, especially since JPEG is only 8 bit color not 12 as your RAW image

[Jim Royal]

I shoot JPEG and while adjustments are just as easy during PP as with RAW for WB, it is always better to start close, especially since JPEG is only 8 bit color not 12 as your RAW image

I would disagree on two counts:

First, the key difference between correcting WB in raw versus JPEG is that WB corrections in raw do not change any pixel values. A radical WB change in JPEG will likely introduce posterization, and not just because JPEG is 8-bit. It's because colour adjustments to JPEG images must necessarily change the image pixel.

Also, when using a dedicated photo-organizing tool such as Lightroom or Aperture, it is very fast to make WB corrections to a large number of photos. Before adopting Lightroom, I couldn't bear to shoot in raw because of the amount of additional work involved. Now, it's actually faster than shooting JPEG and using Photoshop alone.

So whens hooting, I simply guesstimate the correct WB setting in the camera (usually leaving it on either Auto or Tungsten), and fix it later.

[SpecialK]

The issue with setting WB is not a JPEG vs RAW argument, but an issue of time in processing regardless of which you use.

Only a few shots out of any of my shoots "require" changing the WB, and mixed in with the rest of processing time...it is insignificant. If I truly had to be conscious of it, I would use the gray/white card method explained in the manual.

[Serpiente]

photoshop.. and on my cam on auto

[MrApollinax]

For outdoor shots during the day I use AWB most of the time. The only time I manually WB is when I am indoors with a mixture of different lightsources.

[Lowell Goudge]

I would disagree on two counts:

First, the key difference between correcting WB in raw versus JPEG is that WB corrections in raw do not change any pixel values.

I think I said this, in fact I believe I said WB for raw only carries the wb data into the editor to display it as it was set in the camera.

A radical WB change in JPEG will likely introduce posterization, and not just because JPEG is 8-bit. It's because colour adjustments to JPEG images must necessarily change the image pixel.

This is why it is important in JPEG to get as close as possible, and why WB adjustment is important, not because you want to make radical adjustments but because with JPEG it is important to be as close as possible.

Also, when using a dedicated photo-organizing tool such as Lightroom or Aperture, it is very fast to make WB corrections to a large number of photos. Before adopting Lightroom, I couldn't bear to shoot in raw because of the amount of additional work involved. Now, it's actually faster than shooting JPEG and using Photoshop alone.

I can't speak of either as I don't own either, but from what I have read of lightroom is that it really acts as an image processing command interface. it does not change the actual data, but only displays the image as if it were processed with the commands you set. I agree this is far superior than a tool that actually changes the individual images, but note that many editors, PSP X2 included are capable of batch processing.

So whens hooting, I simply guesstimate the correct WB setting in the camera (usually leaving it on either Auto or Tungsten), and fix it later.

that is your choice. As you have indicated, when working in RAW you have more flexibility, I don't disagree, where as with JPEG you need to be much closer to the correct settings, because they do change your data file.

I don't really think there is any disagreement between us in principle, it is just that as a JPEG shooter, (I have been quite pleased with what I can print up to 11 x 17 and therefore have not seen the need to shoot raw) I pooint out that FOR JPEG you need to be much more aware of the settings, WB, Contrast, Exposure etc. WHile there is always the argument that "you can fix it later if you shoot RAW" the best approach is to try for the optimum always, and this means even when shooting RAW, you should approach the shot, as though you were shooting JPEG because it will make you a better photographer in the long run

[dylansalt]

I'm quite happy to leave my camera on the 5700Kelvin setting which gives me the same warm colours as my Oly's AWB for most outside shots.

Heavy cloud/ Overcast I use the Cloud WB.

Mixed inside lighting - preview shot and adjusted manually in camera or Manual White Balance off white card and adjusted if needed.

I shoot Jpeg 98% of the time so it's important to get it right 1st time