Canon should be totally ashamed of this (and some others too) HP got this basic and absolutely essential thing right in their little digicam that's cheap even for a P&S, so why can't Canon?!! Yes, I know, there's more to the Canon 20D, but w

Here's the white balance test of the Canon 20D D-SLR

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page21.asp (Ootdoors:
Excellent, Fluorescent: Average, Incandescent: Poor)

Here's the white balance test of the budget P&S HP Photosmart R707

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/hpr707/page6.asp (Outdoors: Excellent,
Fluorescent: Excellent, Incandescent: Excellent)

"Mike Henley" wrote in message
om...
Here's the white balance test of the Canon 20D D-SLR

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page21.asp (Ootdoors:
Excellent, Fluorescent: Average, Incandescent: Poor)

Here's the white balance test of the budget P&S HP Photosmart R707

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/hpr707/page6.asp (Outdoors: Excellent,
Fluorescent: Excellent, Incandescent: Excellent)


You don't seem to quite understand what this test means.

This is a test of using Canon's AUTO white balance, the AWB, accessed
through the function menu. It is *not* the results of simply, as you say
"the white balance test". It is the AUTO white balance test. The reviewer
doesn't show the results of using the other various white balance PRESETS.
The presets are choices such as Daylight, Fluorescent, Tungsten, Cloudy,
etc.

Although I have entirely different type of Canon, on my Canon the AWB
setting makes my photos come out a little more orange.

When I use the TUNGSTEN preset indoors, not AWB, the photo color comes out
fine.

I'd guess that the Canon 20D D-SLR has settings similar to my Canon SLR-type
model.

Even I know (as one who doesn't know much about cameras) that you have to
experiment with some of the settings instead of just using AUTOMATIC mode
for everything.

"Renee" wrote in message
...

You don't seem to quite understand what this test means.

This is a test of using Canon's AUTO white balance, the AWB, accessed
through the function menu. It is *not* the results of simply, as you say
"the white balance test". It is the AUTO white balance test. The reviewer
doesn't show the results of using the other various white balance PRESETS.
The presets are choices such as Daylight, Fluorescent, Tungsten, Cloudy,
etc.

Sounds like HP simply chose to allow the camera to make much larger changes
in automatic mode. That is something that would annoy a professional
photographer, though it's handy for casual snapshooting. The pro would want
the automatic changes to be relatively small so as not to produce unexpected
results.

"Michael A. Covington" wrote in message ...
"Renee" wrote in message
...

You don't seem to quite understand what this test means.

This is a test of using Canon's AUTO white balance, the AWB, accessed
through the function menu. It is *not* the results of simply, as you say
"the white balance test". It is the AUTO white balance test. The reviewer
doesn't show the results of using the other various white balance PRESETS.
The presets are choices such as Daylight, Fluorescent, Tungsten, Cloudy,
etc.

Sounds like HP simply chose to allow the camera to make much larger changes
in automatic mode. That is something that would annoy a professional
photographer, though it's handy for casual snapshooting. The pro would want
the automatic changes to be relatively small so as not to produce unexpected
results.

This doesn't make any sense at all. Auto white balance can be switched
off if needed but when it's working it should actually work as
expected.

Yes, a professional photographer really enjoys a poorly performing and
practically useless ***Auto*** white balance (sarcastic).

Here's the deal, everything you can do with the images from a camera
that gets auto white balance wrong you can still do with the images
from a camera that gets it right; the difference is that with one you
have something that is correct and natural by default and if you want
to deviate from the correct and natural for a particular image then
you can, but with the other you have screwed up skintones and you'll
have to laboriously mess and waste time with each individual image in
post-processing to get it the way you think it should be, and even
that wouldn't be good enough compared to how it really was.

"Renee" wrote in message m...
"Mike Henley" wrote in message
om...
Here's the white balance test of the Canon 20D D-SLR

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page21.asp (Ootdoors:
Excellent, Fluorescent: Average, Incandescent: Poor)

Here's the white balance test of the budget P&S HP Photosmart R707

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/hpr707/page6.asp (Outdoors: Excellent,
Fluorescent: Excellent, Incandescent: Excellent)


You don't seem to quite understand what this test means.

This is a test of using Canon's AUTO white balance, the AWB, accessed
through the function menu. It is *not* the results of simply, as you say
"the white balance test". It is the AUTO white balance test. The reviewer
doesn't show the results of using the other various white balance PRESETS.
The presets are choices such as Daylight, Fluorescent, Tungsten, Cloudy,
etc.

Although I have entirely different type of Canon, on my Canon the AWB
setting makes my photos come out a little more orange.

When I use the TUNGSTEN preset indoors, not AWB, the photo color comes out
fine.

I'd guess that the Canon 20D D-SLR has settings similar to my Canon SLR-type
model.

Even I know (as one who doesn't know much about cameras) that you have to
experiment with some of the settings instead of just using AUTOMATIC mode
for everything.

I fully understood that this was the AWB when I posted, but what you
don't seem to understand is that there is no universal "tungsten" or
"fluorescent" light situation that a preset will get right all the
time. Each light pulp is different; a different intensity of tungsten
or fluorescent or whatever or even a mixture of more than one light
source in the situation. Even when you do a custom/manual white
balance in-camera in-situ, or even if you do it in post-processing
using a white object in the image, there's rarely ever a decidedly
"white" thing in reality. You can use a white balance slider
afterwards in post-processing to correct it, but then it'd be
different for each lighting situation or angle on a lighting
situation, and you'd be messing with something that could've and
should've been gotten right the first time, at a great expense of
time, and you'll be doing it to your liking rather than how it
*really* is, which to me means that you just won't be getting it right
no matter how "fine" it looks unless it's exactly like the natural.

In my experience, and I've been testing this over the past week
between an HP camera and a major japanese manufacturer's camera that's
much more expensive and I got with the intention of upgrading to it
from the HP but now won't be keeping, if a camera won't get it right
in the auto setting it won't get it right with a preset either. Now
you may get it to "come out fine", but "fine" is not good enough, and
especially when you put images from the two cameras next to each other
(I could show you the images if you want to), and, quite importantly,
especially when you're dealing with skintones. I will not have any
respect for a camera that can't get skintones right, and will make me
have to go through sliders, curves, histograms, and swatches for each
individual image when another much cheaper cameara will just get them
consistently right time after time and regardless of light source.
(yes, there's more to skintones than just white balance, but white
balance is one thing that shouldn't be screwed up)

The HP too has presets and manual/custom if you wish to switch off
auto and use those, but it also has an auto white balance that DOES
work, eventhough it's budget-priced even for a P&S. The Canon 20D
doesn't, and Canon should be totally ashamed of that, and no bull****
excuses from the Canon apologists will do.

I ain't no expert on Canon's (my one is a T90 :-) but what I do know is
that as the number of variables increases so does the complexity of using
the device - any device whether it be software or hardware.

This IMHO seems to be part of the learning curve with any equipment.

On mission critical shots and assuming the shoot is in RAW I nam sure that
RAW support allows tweaks to AWB and WB settings.

If I had a Canon (hint hint) I am sure I could be more specific.

Perhaps the consolation is that digital images may be post-processed?

Although the point is, I suppose, to use settings to get as close to the
finished output you desire as it cuts down on repeat work and post
processing

My 2c

Aerticus

Oh.... the T90!

I still have my T70 body from highschool days. The T-90 and T-70 were great
cameras. Still are!


"Aerticus" wrote in message
...
I ain't no expert on Canon's (my one is a T90 :-) but what I do know is
that as the number of variables increases so does the complexity of using
the device - any device whether it be software or hardware.

This IMHO seems to be part of the learning curve with any equipment.

On mission critical shots and assuming the shoot is in RAW I nam sure that
RAW support allows tweaks to AWB and WB settings.

If I had a Canon (hint hint) I am sure I could be more specific.

Perhaps the consolation is that digital images may be post-processed?

Although the point is, I suppose, to use settings to get as close to the
finished output you desire as it cuts down on repeat work and post
processing

My 2c

Aerticus

end of an era m8

Now if we could see into the future who'd have thought that digital cameras
would re-invent photography on such a grand largesse scale

(I'd have bought shares just in the lowest slump)

Aerticus

"Bryce" wrote in message
...
Oh.... the T90!

I still have my T70 body from highschool days. The T-90 and T-70 were
great
cameras. Still are!


"Aerticus" wrote in message
...
I ain't no expert on Canon's (my one is a T90 :-) but what I do know is
that as the number of variables increases so does the complexity of using
the device - any device whether it be software or hardware.

This IMHO seems to be part of the learning curve with any equipment.

On mission critical shots and assuming the shoot is in RAW I nam sure
that
RAW support allows tweaks to AWB and WB settings.

If I had a Canon (hint hint) I am sure I could be more specific.

Perhaps the consolation is that digital images may be post-processed?

Although the point is, I suppose, to use settings to get as close to the
finished output you desire as it cuts down on repeat work and post
processing

My 2c

Aerticus

Mike Henley wrote:

In my experience, and I've been testing this over the past week
between an HP camera and a major japanese manufacturer's camera that's
much more expensive and I got with the intention of upgrading to it
from the HP but now won't be keeping, if a camera won't get it right
in the auto setting it won't get it right with a preset either.

Nonsense. Just how do you think an autosetting works?

--
John McWilliams

Nonsense. Just how do you think an autosetting works?

How is it nonsense?

I actually sat down with two cameras and tested them against each other, one
with a competent AWB, and the other with a poorly performing AWB; the one with
the poorly performing auto white balance got it a little better with its
incandescent preset than with its auto setting, but still, compared to the
other camera with the competent AWB, the preset was still quite poor, and
that's not surprising, as there's no univesral incandescent that a preset will
always meet. You may say it's tunable, and I'll say that doesn't change the
fact that the AUTO setting is poorly performing and the person would have to do
work with nearly every image to get it right.

Why don't you do a comparison yourself before you argue; get that little HP
(it's less than $350 and you can put it on ebay afterwards), and see for
yourself.