How White Balance Shifts Affect Our Perception

How White Balance Shifts Affect Our Perception

To fully understand how white balance affects our perception, we must first explore how color shapes our emotional response in photography. Since the dawn of time, we humans have become accustomed to associating certain colors with specific contexts. The ability of humans to read visual cues for signs of danger is likely an instinct as a survival mechanism. For example, brightly colored insects scream danger without having to look into the species.

Applying the same context in photography, it is important to understand how colors make us feel when viewing an image, particularly how color changes the mood of an image beyond the subject matter. A lot of this variation often comes down to how the image is processed in color. This also indirectly explains why black and white images often carry a timeless quality because the absence of color creates a sense of detachment. Without the presence of rich color information, it becomes harder for us humans to connect emotionally by just relying on the tonal contrast to convey meaning.

While we as photographers tend to boost saturation in our images to make them much more visually striking or convert them into black and white to portray elegance and timelessness, a lot of times neither approach is appropriate to represent your subject in the image. Therefore, after experimenting with trends like heavy color grading in recent years, I have recently found myself going back to approaching my images with natural color editing, keeping colors as accurate as possible. When adjusting the white balance, I aim to reflect the mood of the scene without over-processing.

Knowing these underlying foundations, how does it help us as photographers, especially when color accuracy is critical when it comes to commercial work? While color accuracy is crucial, we are not looking to achieve the most perfect color reproduction most of the time because perfection is not always possible. The goal is often to get as close as possible to what we perceive as accurate, given the various variables during shooting and post-processing through different imaging pipelines. Managing these factors is challenging, making it impractical to achieve flawless color reproduction every time.

This brings us back to the foundation of how we all interpret color. Take the image example below. Despite being the same image, a mere white balance shift is capable of transforming the entire meaning and mood of the image. This is mainly attributed to how we resonate with warm colors with the Sun and cold colors with the Moon. Hence, largely shifting our perception of the warmer image being a sunset or sunrise scene and the colder image being a night scene.

As both warmer (6,500 K) and colder (3,800 K) white balance work perfectly well on the image above, we can conclude that there is no real correct white balance that works for scenes like this that are low in saturation and have no presence of strong dominant color. Therefore, we can freely choose the appropriate white balance in post-processing based on our creative output. However, if we intend to deliver the most accurate image based on what we shot, then the image with a warmer white balance is indeed much more accurate, as this image was shot during sunrise instead of moonrise.

Lastly, to end this article, I would like to share some tips for managing white balance that I have been using throughout my practice in photography. The number one rule is probably trying to get it as close as possible in real life as a solid starting point. That way, you will not risk introducing strange shifts in the tonal spectrum during post-processing. To make things easier, you can also opt to shoot raw. This is because there is not much leeway in an 8-bit JPEG to make any adjustments without introducing weird hue shifts and color artifacts. While shooting in raw offers flexibility, you should also closely monitor your exposure and white balance to avoid blowing any channel information, especially the red channel, as it's usually the first to go. Lastly, perform manual white balance with gray or white cards whenever possible. That way, you can have a reference point to go back to if you wish to get colors as accurate as possible.

Zhen Siang Yang's picture

Yang Zhen Siang is a commercial photographer specialising in architecture, food and product photography. He help businesses to present themselves through the art of photography, crafting visually appealing and outstanding images that sells.

Log in or register to post comments
9 Comments

Zhen, Initially I thought variable White Balance settings and the ability of customize WB settings as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Over the years my enthusiasm with digital WB began to fade. Based upon my experience shooting and scanning film.

I had several years experience digitalizing film before digital cameras became available to most consumers, myself included. my first was a 1.2 megapixel point and shoot, around 2002. I was bitten by the photo bug all over again.
My next digital camera upgrades required, at least 8 megapixel resolution, raw file format, and customizable WB. In time I started to notice discrepancies with WB’s, K temperature ˚, from camera and software brands and more of an overall tinting effect of an image. As your examples show here. Might as well just use a photo color filter in post processing software.

More and more I found myself resorting to manually correcting color balance. By setting both black and white points within each the RGB channels early on in an image’s workflow before I do any global adjustments.
Yes you have to set the white balance to something but in my opinion that just gets you in the ball park. With some experimental trial and error, patience, experience you can gain control over your color balance.

You are not wrong. This is what I have been feeling all the time and could not get them to be perfectly accurate. Most of the time the shadows would be too blue when corrected. White balance if you think about it, it is really just a compensation for the colours of the light that we shoot in. And of course to make things a little more complicated, we have reflective lights that might add complications into the overall image white balance. Should the camera compensate for the reflective light or direct light source? A good example would be shooting in a forest or grass field. Reflective light from the greens will always screw up the white balance. Therefore, I stand by using our visual perception as a 80% of the judgement to whether the white balance is correct or not instead of being 100% technically accurate.

Zhen, what I find makes things easier and more accurate to me is I always keep a live view of a colour histogram open and I keep one eye on it and the other eye on the image. Whether it’s blue in the shadows or cyan in the highlight you should be able to see these problems in a colour histogram simplest with either levels or curves by applying either the offensive colour or the two opposite colour channels to the appropriate area(s) you can work the problematic colour(s) out. This way you can gain almost 100% accuracy through 80% technical proficiency and the rest visual perception ;)

yes this is what I have been doing most of the time when colours are being crazy. also a personal preference, sometimes I like a little tint on the image to convey a certain mood. That is when the charts and graph are thrown slightly away

Things may also get complicated when involving mix coloured lighting. Which in this case there is no perfect neutral point to begin with. This is where your perceptual judgement comes in. "Does this colour look weird?" or "Does this image turn out how I want it to look?"

Being most of my images are shot in natural light things are usually fairly straight forward but in instance like storm lighting, golden hour sunsets or rises especially some areas in deep shade can look weird. I figure others use spit toning why not split white balance so to speak … after all isn’t that what white balance real are different tones.

Although if I might say the work I have seen on you profile/portfolio I can’t see any of the issues you discuss here and are not comparison to the two examples here.

I find split toning a little too global and too easy to go overboard and looking cliche. I have been struggling with that a lot to a point of almost avoiding shooting at certain time of the day or scenes.

Well, recently I have been going towards a much more natural look and have been striving towards that a lot. Which means, if the shadow is blue, so be it. As long as its not overly saturated and distracting I am okay with it.

I agree with your point on split toning I’ve never used them or preset LUTs like you said they are to global and other than being cliche they are still just ball park starting points. I have processed some images differently for shaded areas compared to main lighted area when I feel the need be.

I feel a 1960/70 mantra coming on with your comment of “more natural” … ‘want is normal’. If a camera picks up a blue cast in a shadow whether it’s there or not but the human eye/brain cancel it out which is correct? … the brain/eye or the digital sensor or film.

I would personally shift towards personal preference of "more natural" in that sense. What I perceived as being correct.