In camera white-balance is not reproducible in Lightroom (UV photography)

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 5 years ago
Hello,
I'm doing reflected UV-photography: http://bee-colours.blogspot.de/
Recently, I found out that the way Lightroom /ACR render UV photos, even when the white-balance is set to "as shot" completely ruins the photos. This is not the case with several other RAW-converters:
You can find some discussion here:
http://www.ultravioletphotography.com...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/for...

I've been a faithful LR user for several years, now. However, the fact that there's no way to reasonably preserve the in-camera WB settings lets me seriously consider other software solutions:
I would be happy to hear from you and to find a true "as shot" white balance option in LR rather sooner than later!

Best regards,
Nico Chalwatzis
--
Dr. Nicolas Chalwatzis, Am Höllberg 31, 64625 Bensheim, Germany, Tel. 06251 770927
nchalwatzis@googlemail.com
Photo of Nicolas Chalwatzis

Nicolas Chalwatzis

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
  • frustrated

Posted 5 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Nicolas Chalwatzis

Nicolas Chalwatzis

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Now, just for completeness. Here's how Lightroom renders this image:
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1373 Posts
  • 334 Reply Likes
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe....

Read tutorial 4 on Infrared and Specialty Lighting. It will give you a LR-based solution using the DNG Profiling tool.

There are other helpful articles about this here: https://www.google.com/search?q=creat...
Photo of Nicolas Chalwatzis

Nicolas Chalwatzis

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thanks Rikk, for your reply. I have tried the DNG profile editor after Jeff Schewe has recommended it to me on a Luminous Landscape forum. However, as far as I have understood the tool, it requires adjusting every single colour individually. This seems very tedious to me, if the ACR result is so different from the camera WB. Since I’m aware of at least tree other RAW-converters that offer a REAL “as shot” white-balance option I find it hard to accept why this should be so painful in ACR as it seems to be ...?
You might have a look at the links that I’ve included in my original post.
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1373 Posts
  • 334 Reply Likes
You shoot a test card under your light conditions once. Build a profile that can be applied to thousands of images at a time if you choose. I don't think you are understanding the tool and its use.
Photo of Nicolas Chalwatzis

Nicolas Chalwatzis

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I've tried to build a profile, using the in-camera jpg as reference. However, I couldn't get a satisfactory representation of the colours. ACR doesn't accept a light temperature below 2000 K and a tint below -150. So I find it incredibly hard to build the profile that you suggest.
Would somebody at Adobe be willing to demonstrate how a profile would allow me to reproduce the in-camera white-balance, if I provide a couple of RAW files and the in-camera JPGs?
Others have suggested to me to use an alternative RAW converter that doesn’t impose the restrictions that ACR does. I’ve tried some and at least the white-balance part is painless there without the need to build custom profiles .... I value many aspects of Lightroom, but for UV-photography I’m not yet sure it is really useable in the current version.
Photo of Nicolas Chalwatzis

Nicolas Chalwatzis

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
OK, I've given it another try and I've now a profile that gets me at least closer to the in-camera WB. I need to tweak and check a bit more to see if it matches consistently
Thanks, Rikk for the hint.
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 134 Reply Likes
"I would be happy to hear from you and to find a true "as shot" white balance option in LR rather sooner than later! "

It does have a true as-shot white balance. However, the entire white balance system in Camera Raw has a limited range of temperatures and tints. I would bet you're plastered up against one of the rails on one or both of those sliders.

So, it's not a problem of reading the camera's settings, it's a problem of the total range over which Camera Raw is calibrated. I think expanding this range to deal with under water, infra red, ultra violet and so on would require regenerating camera profiles for every camera supported by Camera Raw (approaching 300, I think?) which could be a very massive undertaking.

I suppose the other approach is to extrapolate the existing profiles but that might lead to unexpected results - I don't know enough about it to know if that's possible or not.
Photo of Nicolas Chalwatzis

Nicolas Chalwatzis

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Yes, that's right. My whitebalance is at 2000 K and the tint at -150.
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 134 Reply Likes
Yep...there you go. Expanding the current range is problematic which is why the DNG Profile Creator is handy - you can do just this side of anything in there.
Photo of Nicolas Chalwatzis

Nicolas Chalwatzis

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
OK, I've now a profile that gets me at least closer to the in-camera WB.
Thanks, Lee for the hint.
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 134 Reply Likes
Cool...can we see the processed result of the above shot with the new profile?