Manual white balance vs edit wb in post

[GlenElectronic]

A few of the wall shots are at depth as well as the wreck at the end of the video.

 

[Steve_C]

Nice shots. i will note that I shoot about half my pictures just for fish ID purposes. At 100 ft with 20 ft of viz on an overcast day there is not any color without the lights. Essentially all my diving is 60 ft or deeper, viz is rarely over 30 ft, and sometimes you get particulate.

 

[GlenElectronic]

I've read there is no difference in the outcome whether you manually white balance or do it in post as you're filtering either way, filtering pre or post is the same.

I manually white balance. For one reason I do little other post production so manually white balancing means I have little to no post production.

I would have to disagree (for video). When you white balance in post the imagine is degraded (although a very small amount). Plus it is very difficult to balance for color when you have almost no real reference point of the saturation underwater. The only way to accurately color balance in post is to always have a white slate in the shot as a reference point.

 

[GlenElectronic]

Nice shots. i will note that I shoot about half my pictures just for fish ID purposes. At 100 ft with 20 ft of viz on an overcast day there is not any color without the lights. Essentially all my diving is 60 ft or deeper, viz is rarely over 30 ft, and sometimes you get particulate.

Ive been diving over 45 years and I made a rule years ago about diving. 80/80. I don't dive unless the water temp is 80 degrees and the vis is 80ft or better ;-) Of course I don't really follow that, but you get the idea. Warm water climates and typically great vis.

Thanks for the complement. I have many more dive videos, need to find the time to upload them.

 

[Storker]

I would have to disagree (for video). When you white balance in post the imagine is degraded (although a very small amount).

Emphasis mine. If you shoot stills in raw file format, the raw file contains everything that the sensor has captured. In that situation, it doesn't matter one iota which WB you used during shooting. JPEGs are a very different beast, though, just like video. Adjusting WB on a JPEG will lead to loss of quality, so it's important to get your WB as correct as possible.

Plus it is very difficult to balance for color when you have almost no real reference point of the saturation underwater. The only way to accurately color balance in post is to always have a white slate in the shot as a reference point.

Isn't this just as valid for WBing while shooting? I set my WB to auto, and more often than not my camera gives me a pretty decent starting point. And IMO "correct" post-production isn't about getting it as close as possible to reality, it's about getting it as close as possible to your perception of reality.

 

[GlenElectronic]

Several years ago I did a major experiment shooting underwater video scenes with auto white balance and then manual white balance. Spent days documenting all the details and then reviewing all the results with a vector scope in post. The difference of color quality was astounding with manual white balance. I never went back to auto white balance. And I stopped diving with lights (except at night).

The cool thing about post production is that you get to create what ever you want, so yes perception and creative ambition is reality. I happen to enjoy showing non-divers what the actual environment is really like so color accuracy is important to me. My edited dive videos are also long (usually 20 minutes) to get an understanding of a typical dive (although my bottom time is usually 60 minutes or more).

All I can tell you is that most people are blown away when I show them one of my dive videos on a large HD screen. I don't use compression and transfer all my finished dive videos to BluRay disc. The color quality, detail and lighting and controlled camera moves make a big impact.

 

[Storker]

Several years ago I did a major experiment shooting underwater video scenes with auto white balance and then manual white balance. Spent days documenting all the details and then reviewing all the results with a vector scope in post. The difference of color quality was astounding with manual white balance.

Again, I'd like to point out that the situation is very different if you shoot video compared to if you shoot stills in raw file format. The OP specifically mentions the Canon G7X which is a raw file format capable still camera, that's why I'm pointing out the difference between raw file stills on the one hand, and JPEGs or video on the other.

 

[GlenElectronic]

Agreed, but he only talks about video so that is my reference point.

 

[Skeptic14]

I've shot in every possible water condition you can imagine, if you take your time it all turns out nicely.

I don't dive unless the water temp is 80 degrees and the vis is 80ft or better ;-) Of course I don't really follow that, but you get the idea. Warm water climates and typically great vis.

At 100 ft with 20 ft of viz on an overcast day there is not any color without the lights. Essentially all my diving is 60 ft or deeper, viz is rarely over 30 ft, and sometimes you get particulate.

As @Steve_C points out, with less than stellar conditions shooting ambient at 100 feet will produce pretty terrible results.

My local diving has typical vis ranging from 25-40 and trying to shoot video or stills beyond ~50 feet in that vis without a light will be a disaster, big difference in what you can get away with shooting ambient only depending on the water conditions.

 

[Steve_C]

Goal is also important. You are trying to show what your clear water dive looks like. I am trying some of the time to identify fish and creatures and their coloration is important.

If I only dove 80/80 I would have quit diving a long time ago. There is a lot of neat stuff in not 80/80. Kelp forests are just one.