I use "Auto" White Balance most of the time but noticed pictures seemed to be a little cool (bluish) during normal daylight. After some experimenting with white balance fine tuning I am much happier using auto white balance with fine tune set at A2 (slightly warmer).
Reading Thom Hogan's D7000 Guide he states Nikon uses 5200K (kelvin) for outdoor lighting and that the accepted "daylight film" Kelvin is balanced at 5400K. He recommends a fine tune of A2 that is 5495K when shooting in "Direct Sunlight" for the best white balance. So, he has verified my original fine tune adjustment was correct to obtain a more accurate white balance.
Has anyone else experimented with the white balance fine tune on their D7000 and came to the same conclusion? If not what is your fine tune settings?
Addendum: Picture control is set to "Standard" with no modifications except for no sharpening.
I have to agree with you on this (Auto WB) being on the coolish side in daylight.It is good to hear someone else say it, I was wondering if I was alone. I will try your recomendations when I get my 7K back from the shop.
Charles: Auto2 (keep warm lighting colors) is not the same as using "Fine-Tuning White Balance". See page 119 in your D7000 manual or page 323 in Hogan's guide. His complete "white balance" section is on pages 316 through 338.
Actually, I had a hard time deciding if A1 or A2 was more accurate, but decided to go with Hogan's recommedation. Both are better than the default setting in my opinion. Also, in my opinion the "Auto2 (keep warm lighting colors)" didn't look accurate and I haven't heard anyone else who was pleased with it. People see colors differently, but it might be worth your time to re-evaluate using "Auto2 (keep warm lighting colors)".
Ken: Shooting JPEG + NEF (14-bit) is the only way to fly.
Does Hogan provide many recommended settings in his book? I already have a couple of D7000 books that go over what the settings are, but am always looking for more ideas from how others have actually used and changed those settings. I have the nikonian book which was great, should I also get Hogan's?
>Does Hogan provide many recommended settings in his book? I >already have a couple of D7000 books that go over what the >settings are, but am always looking for more ideas from how >others have actually used and changed those settings. I have >the nikonian book which was great, should I also get >Hogan's?
Sorry I missed your post earlier.
I have been very happy with Thom Hogan's 820 page book/guide. It is very detailed in all aspects of using the D7000. Everything is discussed such as it's history, myths, features, settings, usage, recommendations for all settings, many features are compared to other Nikon cameras, etc. Even the SB400 through SB900 flashes and usage are included.
It is a little expensive if you order his complete package (includes printed, PDF, and ebook versions and a smaller "To Go" condensed user guide). I highly recommend at least buying the book/guide in printed form. You will be surprised how many times you grab it off the book shelf for quick reference.
It is sold only through his website, the link is below.
Today I was shooting with a D7000 on a clear, sunny day (yes they do occasionally happen here in the PNW this time of year). I was shooting in direct sunlight. I used a Sekonic C-500R color meter to check the light, and it read 4420K. The closest D700 setting was 4350, so I shot that. Here is the resulting image (embedded JPG extracted from unedited NEF):
The sun, of course is lower on the horizon here this time of year, even at 2:30PM when I was shooting, but it moves everywhere. So beware of someone claiming one number is correct for "daylight".
Yes, Hogan does explain how sunlight is not a "constant" and does offer a chart that covers the more common lighting conditions, the Kelvin and a recommended fine-tune setting. Example: your 4420K is very close to what he describes as "Early Morning/Late Afternoon" sunlight that is 4500K in his chart and the fine-tune should be set at B6.
So many variables to consider, e.g. time, location, season, etc. - but that is what makes photograpy so interesting.
P.S. How accurate is the orange color in the picture compared to what you actually seen.
>Well there’s red, then there’s “RED”. When I read J Harris’s >comment and looked closely, I felt it was probably red, and it >appears that way on my calibrated system, and my wife’s >uncalibrated one. > >But it’s not a fire engine red, and does tend to lean toward >the orange in appearance (at least that’s what I perceive). > In real life it is definitely not a fire-engine red. To me, orange is the color of the links in the nikonians forums. It's like this.
Mick, I don't believe you can get any redder than your red font example . I also use a calibrated monitor (NEC MultiSync PA241W).
I agree the train engine is more red than orange, but it is getting close to a reddish orange/orangish red color. I believe Pete is saying he noticed a subtle orange(ish) tint too. We were discussing the D7000's "white balance" accuracy - that is why I was wondering how accurate your white balance setting was compared to the actual color, as it seemed to be a hard color to replicate accurately.
By the way, the Nikonian "links" color look more brownish-orange than a pure orange to me.
>In real life it is definitely not a fire-engine red. To me, >orange is the color of the links in the nikonians forums.
Well Mick, there’s reality and then there’s perception. But when it comes to chromaticity, ones perception is their reality. After all two people could be standing side by side looking at the same color sample, yet describe it differently. In fact when I goof around experimenting with this, my left eye sees the world slightly cooler then my right eye. Which makes me wonder which one is seeing the world correctly?? LOL
I’m not saying anyone in particular is correct here in their descriptions. More to the point, I know that standard RGB Orange has a value of 255,165,0. But what I see in my mind when I think Orange has a value of 255,111,0.
But your train to me appears to be the RGB value of around 223,75,48. Which is different from RGB red with its value of 255,0,0. And if you look at the RGB values, it seems somewhere between red and orange with a hint of blue(at least to me that is).
So I believe that is the problem with the crux of this debate, in that perception of color is individual and highly variable. But it’s an interesting discussion just the same.
Thu 09-Feb-12 11:58 AM | edited Thu 09-Feb-12 02:48 PM by mklass
Well, the red in the locomotive is certainly oranger than the red in either car, but definitely not as orange as the traffic cone behind the fence. This is mostly to demonstrate the colors relative to each other, rather than the absolute color, as this was taken in entirely different lighting conditions with a D3s on AWB, since I didn't have my D7000 or color meter with me when I saw this scene.
Working there gives me a certain latitude in photographing on site, especially since one of my my "other duties as assigned" is to be the company photographer.
It's also interesting to see the different shade of red (darker) created by shadows at the top of the engine - left of the rear exhaust grill/vents.
So, what I take from all this is that digital cameras can create all the different tonal variances of the same color - but a user should still test the white balance setting to ensure accuracy of those tones.
I have posted elsewhere on this forum about my frustration so I wont rehash other than...mine also shot cool outside, and ridiculously blew out the Red channel indoors under tungsten light, Nikon service adjusted but it still just didnt look right to me.