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

Cameras that try to get white balance right in every situation are actually
not desirable. Say your taking a picture of wood furniture of a light color,
like the natural wood. White balance could be tricked into thinking it is
incandescent light and make the wood look dull grey. Serious photogs will
manually set the WB or use Kelvin if the camera supports that.
bg


Like I said, "serious photogs" can manually set the WB if they wish to, but if
a camera is to be set to AUTO WB then it better have a competent AUTO WB
(assuming the camera has both AUTO and Manual, which most do), especially when
budget priced P&S seems to get it right. I see NO sense at all in the claim
that a camera with a poorly performing AUTO white balance is of photographic
merit; Auto is one thing, Manual is another.

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) writes:
Here's the white balance test of the Canon 20D D-SLR
Here's the white balance test of the budget P&S HP Photosmart R707

Auto white balance is inherently subject-dependent; results will be
better or worse depending on whether the subject matches the assumptions
of the white balance algorithm. Do you balance the picture overall to
grey, or just the brightest object on the assumption that it's white?

However, this doesn't matter very much. Anyone shooting a 20D in
circumstances where white balance is critical should either be shooting
in RAW (so WB doesn't matter until conversion time) or do a manual white
balance from a white or grey card.

The HP camera's auto white balance is more critical because it doesn't
*have* RAW output.

Dave

Auto white balance is inherently subject-dependent; results will be
better or worse depending on whether the subject matches the assumptions
of the white balance algorithm. Do you balance the picture overall to
grey, or just the brightest object on the assumption that it's white?

However, this doesn't matter very much. Anyone shooting a 20D in
circumstances where white balance is critical should either be shooting
in RAW (so WB doesn't matter until conversion time) or do a manual white
balance from a white or grey card.

The HP camera's auto white balance is more critical because it doesn't
*have* RAW output.

Dave





Hi Dave,

Thanks for the reasonable reply.

I personally think any situation that includes skintones (usually in artificial
lighting) is a critical situation. I have no problem with RAW output for
creative control, but I don't think this should be an excuse for poor AUTO or
default output performance. As for subjectivity, I totally agree, it becomes
entirely subjective, and that's why I think a camera should by default get it
as right as possible, otherwise it'd be left up to you to decide what skintone
a person has, and this i find totally unacceptable (the other relevant issue is
of course color accuracy). It probably doesn't matter for a sunset or a flower
shot, but I think it's absolutely ridiculous that I should sit with RAW,
sliders, curves, histograms and swatches to decide what skintone an individual
had - it shouldn't be up to me, it should be just as it was (color accuracy too
is again something I feel should be gotten right by the camera by default).
This doesn't mean that you can't do creative control stuff, it just means that
you don't have to ALWAYs laboriously do it because what you're getting out by
default is incorrect.

PS to all: By the way, the "ridiculous Subject line" was an error of cut &
paste that I didn't notice. How long was it?

Sabineellen wrote:

snip
PS to all: By the way, the "ridiculous Subject line" was an error of cut &
paste that I didn't notice. How long was it?

This is the subject line of your original post:

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

Some would think that it is _slightly_ excessive ;-)

This is the subject line of your original post:

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

Some would think that it is _slightly_ excessive ;-)


Ha ha ha... yes, it's a little excessive.

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

On 11 Nov 2004 00:05:39 GMT, (Sabineellen) wrote:


Auto white balance is inherently subject-dependent; results will be
better or worse depending on whether the subject matches the assumptions
of the white balance algorithm. Do you balance the picture overall to
grey, or just the brightest object on the assumption that it's white?

However, this doesn't matter very much. Anyone shooting a 20D in
circumstances where white balance is critical should either be shooting
in RAW (so WB doesn't matter until conversion time) or do a manual white
balance from a white or grey card.

The HP camera's auto white balance is more critical because it doesn't
*have* RAW output.

Dave





Hi Dave,

Thanks for the reasonable reply.

I personally think any situation that includes skintones (usually in artificial
lighting) is a critical situation.

I look around, and see skin tones that range from a light pink to a
dark reddish brown to almost black, with all kinds of hues inbetween.
How does the auto WB distinguish which particular skin color is
natural, and which is due to lighting?
Look for something white? What's *supposed to be* white in a given
pic?
IMO, that auto WB works as well as it does is pretty good. When the
subject is a person (with all the variations of skin color/tone), it's
darn near magic.
I have no problem with RAW output for
creative control, but I don't think this should be an excuse for poor AUTO or
default output performance. As for subjectivity, I totally agree, it becomes
entirely subjective, and that's why I think a camera should by default get it
as right as possible, otherwise it'd be left up to you to decide what skintone
a person has, and this i find totally unacceptable (the other relevant issue is
of course color accuracy). It probably doesn't matter for a sunset or a flower
shot, but I think it's absolutely ridiculous that I should sit with RAW,
sliders, curves, histograms and swatches to decide what skintone an individual
had - it shouldn't be up to me, it should be just as it was (color accuracy too
is again something I feel should be gotten right by the camera by default).
This doesn't mean that you can't do creative control stuff, it just means that
you don't have to ALWAYs laboriously do it because what you're getting out by
default is incorrect.

Is this always incorrect a theorital outcome, or are your pics of
people always incorrect?
I ask because my DR's people pics, indoors and out, regardless of
lighting, are usually spot on.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

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

Sabineellen wrote:


Like I said, "serious photogs" can manually set the WB if they wish to, but if
a camera is to be set to AUTO WB then it better have a competent AUTO WB
(assuming the camera has both AUTO and Manual, which most do), especially when
budget priced P&S seems to get it right. I see NO sense at all in the claim
that a camera with a poorly performing AUTO white balance is of photographic
merit; Auto is one thing, Manual is another.


Er, "as you said"....Iae, you've already morphed the complaint into that
the AWB is "poorly performing", from the review's notice that it was
excellent in daylight, but poor under incandescent lighting. Moreover,
the presets are tunable.

Did you ever consider that in order to get the AWB to be excellent in
daylight- the majority of time where it'll be used- there might have
been some tradeoffs?

Go ahead and not buy one, but to lodge this as a major complaint is
churlish.


--

John McWilliams