White balance is something most photographers know affects how colors appear, but a recent video argues that almost every camera, even high-end cinema models, is designed in a way that makes precise control harder than it needs to be.
In the video, the creator walks through how Kelvin-based white balance steps do not match how our eyes perceive changes in color. Using side-by-side image sequences, he shows that equal Kelvin increments can bunch up toward the warm end of the spectrum while giving far fewer adjustments to cooler tones. The result is a control system that feels inconsistent, with small changes at low Kelvin values creating big color shifts and large changes at high Kelvin values barely moving the needle.
There is real science behind it, tied to how light from hot objects follows Wien’s Law, which is not a straight-line relationship. The video also points out that exposure controls already account for non-linear perception, so there is no reason white balance could not be treated the same way. Canon’s cinema line is one of the few examples that comes close, offering an option to step in equal color increments, but most systems still stick with fixed Kelvin jumps.
The video linked above includes practical examples, visual tests, and a proposed fix that would make life easier for photographers and filmmakers alike. It is a fascinating look at a setting most of us take for granted.
10 Comments
No.
What is the reasoning behind your answer? I am eager to read the explanation/rebuttal.
What is the reasoning behind your answer? I am eager to read the explanation/rebuttal.
Meh
There's a comment at YT from @michaelfokias that explains why this is not a problem. The total BS coming from this channel is a good reason not to trust content creators even when they have millions of subscribers.
The YouTube comment doesn’t actually argue against the video.
The video is saying Kelvin steps don’t match how we see color and that cameras could be designed to account for that.
The comment is just explaining that in high end film work people already know this and work visually with a few common settings. That’s not a counter, it’s just describing a way of working that avoids the problem.
There is no problem with color balance and most people (except for the best printers) can't see color shifts of less than 100K anyway. The content creator imagined a problem based on a limited scientific knowledge of color temperature that didn't take into account how photography is practiced in the real world. The highest quality sources in the industry (Broncolor etc) routinely have variations of 100k or more between them so the only way to compensate for multiple lights is at the source and not with a single camera setting. If a photographer is simply working with a single source and trying to get perfectly accurate color then it's best to use a handheld meter pointed directly to the source because in-camera readings are almost always wrong since they're mixed with reflected light that contains color shifts.
I shoot GFX and the 16 bit colour and dynamic range is so flexible. I shoot auto white balance now anyway it's not an issue. I can adjust pretty much anything in post so I don't tend to worry about white balance any more.
https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/the-16-bit-fallacy-why-more-isnt-… - good read, if you want to know not just believe :)
I read the article but it's just his opinion as well doesn't mean he's right. There are some myths in photography and then there are some on hand experience. What I found in my experience is that the dynamic range is very flexible and hence why I don't get obsessed with white balance and I've had a very successful professional photography career even though my business is a very small one. I generate a great secondary income from my small business and I keep it that way and I've had no problems shooting auto for about 90% of my photography. When I say auto I'm in auto white balance however I do change it for bright sunny conditions outside. For instance this shot here. I would adjust the K rating.