White balance is, quite likely, the least discussed photographer-controlled setting in digital photography.  Due to the dramatic effect variable white balance settings have on the appearance of your images, it really should be better understood than is seemingly the case.  But while you frequently hear or read of aperture, shutter speed, ISO and focal lengths used, white balance settings are rarely revealed.

What Is White Balance?

You may have noticed, if you’re observant, that objects appear different in terms of color depending on the nature of the light in which you view them.  This, in essence, is what the concept of white balance is all about.  Our eyes (and brain) naturally attempt to adjust for light with different “color casts,” but your camera doesn’t (unless it’s set to Auto White Balance—again, more on that below).  The idea of a neutral white balance is to render objects of a given color so that they appear the same regardless of the “warmth” or “coolness” of the light bathing that object.  By adjusting the temperature of the white balance, you can achieve this effect…but you may not want to.  You may want to exercise some artistic control and emphasize a cast, in certain instances.

White balance is expressed using the Kelvin scale of temperature, with lower numbers being “cooler” (or bluer) and high numbers being “warmer” (or more yellow).  When it comes to natural light, broad sunlight is usually represented by a neutral white balance in the neighborhood of 5000-5200 degrees; cloudy/overcast light is normally in the range of 6000 degrees; open shade usually demands a neutral white balance in the 7500-8000 degree range.

You can see the impact of this in the images presented below.  I shot the nearly monochromatic image of the cormorant in heavy fog at Tillamook Bay in Oregon.  I’ve generated three versions of the same image, adjusting nothing other than the white balance.  You can see what a dramatic difference the image has at various white balance settings.

In this case, the “shade” setting (white balance 8000K) is roughly neutral.

The Benefits of RAW Capture as They Pertain to White Balance

One of the great benefits of shooting RAW images with a digital camera—as opposed to JPEGs or TIFFs—is that the white balance can be adjusted during postprocessing with absolutely no penalty.  If you shoot JPEGs, you really need to get the white balance correct at time of shooting or you may find yourself with an unwanted and potentially difficult to remove color cast.

Essentially any digital camera that allows you to shoot RAW will also allow you to adjust the white balance manually—or use an auto white balance setting, where the camera will attempt to select the “best” white balance for you.  I normally avoid “auto” modes like the plague, because I want to establish what I consider the “best” settings (because I’m the only one that knows what I’m trying to accomplish).  But because I shoot RAW exclusively, I can let the camera take its best crack at the white balance setting and still retain full control in post processing, and save the time fiddling with this in the field.  (It can be a royal pain to mess with white balance in real time, particularly when the light is changing quickly and frequently.)  Actually, my camera’s auto white balance setting is usually pretty good; it basically nailed the cormorant image, for instance.  But, more often than not, I end up tweaking the setting using my RAW conversion software, though usually not more than a few hundred degrees.  Occasionally, however, the camera really spits the bit and I have to make a substantial change.

When One White Balance Setting Isn’t Enough

One particularly frustrating aspect of white balance is that, with some scenes that are complexly lit, the “best” white balance for one part of the the scene is significantly different than it is for another part.  Occasionally when I run across a situation like this, I’ll actually process the single image twice—with a different white balance setting for each part of the image—and then blend them together in Photoshop.  The below image is an example of such an image.  The sky and the area in the canyon were so dramatically different in terms of lighting that I processed the former at a white balance of 5000K and the latter at 7200K.  In this instance, processing with a single white balance either made the sky too orange or left the foreground with an unpleasant bluish tinge.  (Again, having shot in RAW, I was able to accomplish this process fairly easily.)

Making Filters Superfluous

Back in the film era, many people carried sets of warming and cooling filters (and/or a warming polarizer) to obtain the look they were after, depending on lighting conditions, subject matter and the emulsion they were shooting.  For instance, I frequently used an 81B warming filter when shooting autumn foliage in overcast or drizzly conditions.  This is completely unnecessary when shooting RAW with digital capture; any desired warming can be accomplished in postprocessing, and at the level of your choosing.

Artistic License

Having the ability to adjust your white balance without penalty can allow you to get pretty creative, if you want to exercise your artistic license in postprocessing.  The below image, which was shot with a blue-gold polarizer, is an example of this sort of approach.  Despite having shot in open shade, I intentionally processed this with a sunlight-compatible white balance, to accentuate the blue cast in the water (accentuated by the polarizer).

Whatever specific approach you select, I highly encourage you to experiment with your shooting format to see what process with regard to white balance as it pertains to your workflow in the field and the digital darkroom.  It’s far too important a factor to neglect.

Thursday Tips is written by Kerry Mark Leibowitz, a guest blogger on 1001 Scribbles, and appears every other Thursday.  To read more of his thoughts on photography, please visit his blog:  Lightscapes Nature Photography.