Canon should be totally ashamed of this (and some others too) HP got this basic and absolutely es

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.

 

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.

 

You truly don't know anything do you Mike?

Study photography and learn something about colour temperature.

 

You need to type less and do a little bit more research.

 

My Ferrari does not have a traction control, so the wheels spin if I his the
gas pedal too much. Friends BMW has it, shame shame on you Ferrari. Because
this is a photoforum, I should also add that I don't own a digital camera,
because I'm too stupid to use it

 

I do wish people would steer clear of subjects they obviously do not
understand.

I do wish people would learn that the subject line is for a brief subject
line and not for an essay.

 

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

 

Dude, why did you even bother to type anything in the message box? Your
subject line didn't even fit on my 19" monitor. Geez, keep it short.
And next time, don't troll.

 

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 bullshit
excuses from the Canon apologists will do.

 

I've done more than a "little bit" of research and I've been
experimenting with actual cameras over the past week. You need to type
a little more and make sense.

 

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.

 

May you should stay out of it then because your analogy doesn't apply to the topic.

 

wow!

actual cameras!

 

a "tad" bit maybe?

Is "tad" more than "little"?

 

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

 

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:

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 ;-)