Talk:Color balance

message: I believe this article suffers from continuing to contain someone's initial unsourced guesses as to what color balance is.  Based on my own experience in color science, I'd say nothing above is correct, and not much that has been since then has helped much.  I recommend we look for good sources, and replace the nonsense with what they say.  Just checking here first to see if anyone thinks any of that is correct, and if so, whether a source is known. Dicklyon 03:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the above information seems pretty completely wrong, as far as I can tell, although, I'm not sure that color balance should be explained by “relative amounts of red, green, and blue primaries.”  That's a pretty arbitrary definition, given the arbitrary nature of those “primaries.”  Instead it could perhaps be described in reference to trichromatic color vision and the opponent process.  And some explanation of adaptation is required, I think.  --jacobolus (t) 11:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is any of that correct?

message: "retinex" redirects to "color constancy."  Should it?  Both terms are linked from this article and some others.  --jacobolus (t) 00:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  retinex 

message: Furthermore, I'm not so sure that what we're talking about here is "color balance".  It's actually more like what's called "white point adaptation" or "illuminant adaption" or "white balancing".  The difference, I think, is that color balance is generally conceived of as a simple operation in a working RGB space or something like that, while the illuminant adaptation usually involves transformations between spaces, and/or custom matrices for different illuminants.  The Viggiano paper does not mention the term "color balance" at all.  So I'm wondering what should be the boundaries of these topics, or whether we need to call this article "white balance" if that's what it's about. 
Dicklyon 04:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Adaptation" is a phenomenon of the human visual system. "Color Balance" pertains to image reproduction. The latter is also referred to variously gray balance, white balance, etc. Lovibond 15:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But adaptation to the illuminant is also something that a camera must do to keep colors looking about right in photographs, whether by AWB or otherwise. Dicklyon 23:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And when a camera "adapts" to the illuminant, it's called color|white|gray balance, to distinguish it from the human visual phenomenon of chromatic adaptation. That's how it has been explained to me. Lovibond 23:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's that simple, but I'll look for some refs. Dicklyon 23:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing ever is that simple, is it? Lovibond 23:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This difficulty in determining the precise transformation implied by each term is the reason I originally suggested merging "white point" into this article.  It would be good in my opinion to have a summary somewhere, explaining what different types of mathematical adaptations can be made to remove color casts, and to explain any ambiguities of the terms involved.  I'm a complete novice at this stuff, so I can't help too much to describe what is meant (unless there are some particularly relevant papers I should try to read and help summarize; I can get most recent papers online through school), but I've found terms like "white balance," "color balance," "color temperature," "illuminant," paired with words like "transformation" and "adaptation" used with a whole range of intended meanings, and it is not always clear exactly what an author means by a particular such phrase.  I wonder if there is some source which clarifies the possible usages of these terms, and provides more precise terminology, so that we can avoid any confusion. --jacobolus (t) 06:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, we need to find some sources and see how they use the terms, and quote and reference them.  I have a bunch of books to consult on this.  I'm not a novice at it, but I always go back to the books when these kinds of questions need to be resolved. Dicklyon 23:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to side with the folks that said that the article is about what I could call "white balancing". Color balance is a broader concept... take a look at the original article that's at the top or just search Google for "color balance". For example, when a photographer says he wants to change the color balance, that might entail adding this color and subtracting that. Photoshop even has a filter called Color Balance, and it allows you to do just that. White balancing is a specific type of color balance operation; one you do to make neutral objects appear neutral.--Adoniscik (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, speaking as an expert on white balance, including automatic white balance, and chromatic adaptation, I'd say that the notion that it's about making neutral objects appear neutral might be true, but it's not the same as rendering them as objectively neutral, which is why Photoshop and other apps try to make it easy to exercise manual control over the balance.  But there's no real distinction in what the operation is.  In general, you pick a space to adjust the gains of the primaries in, whether you call it white balance or color balance.  If we make this article "white balance", I'm having a hard time imagining what the "color balance" article would be.  The alternative approach is to just make sure we say all that needs to be said about color balance, and then, if it's too much, we can consider a split. Dicklyon (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of article

message: The article about color correction talks about using colored filters over the lens, etc. to change color balance.  I wonder what the proper place is for discussing the use of techniques like filters, changing color exposure times on various colors in making (pre-digital) photographic prints, and other types of color corrections is.  There's also some discussion of how color balancing is done in motion pictures in the color grading article.  I wonder if any of these articles should be put as sub-sections (w/ main article link) of each-other.  Perhaps color correction should be the top level such article, and should have sections describing the meaning of color balance, color temperature, white point, etc?  --jacobolus (t) 07:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  how does this fit in with [[color correction]] ?? 

message: Wow, folks -- great discussion, and how the article itself has grown. Lovibond 20:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The two of you have indeed done a nice job so far.  I'm happy to sit and cheer from the sidelines. :) --jacobolus (t) 00:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress thus far (23 May 2007) 

message: This article is helpful, but I don’t learn from this how the camera chooses the neutral point to use to (automatically) calibrate the white balance. If there is a black street, a green tree, and a white cloud, in the field of view how does it decide what pixel(s) to peg to neutral? Thanks! --Lbeaumont 23:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several AWB methods are mentioned, and several have references; but you're right it doesn't say, because AWB should be a whole article on its own.  There's no method that always works well. Dicklyon 07:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to see what it said about AWB, especially related to film and scanning.  As far as I know, back to the early color negative printing days, there is a system to color balance based on the overall color of an image.  One way was to put a diffuser over the lens, and then read off the average color with a light meter and red, green, and blue filters. As well as I know, this was commonly done for non-professional color negative printing.  It sometimes fails when the image has large blocks of one color, though. I wanted to see what this article would say, both from the color negative printing process and AWB in digital cameras. Gah4 (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Choosing the neutral point

message: I wonder whether “adjustment of the relative amounts of red, green, and blue primary colors in an image such that neutral colors are reproduced correctly” is really always the proper definition here.  Specifically, I would call the “tint” and “temperature” sliders in Adobe Camera RAW “color balance” tools, but they don’t really change relative amounts of RGB except indirectly. (As far as I can tell, they basically shift the image in a* and b* dimensions.)  So I suppose the question is, do chromaticity corrections in non-RGB models count as “color balancing”? —jacobolus (t) 14:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you even know what those controls do?  If they do change RGB balance, even if indirectly, then the definition seems OK.  But I'm open to a more general definition if you can find one.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, they have parameterized color balance by a color temp and a tint.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text: You mean Photoshop's arbitrary representation of tint as one chromaticity dimension, according to the guy who should know.  Fine. Dicklyon (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Right, ACR.  And he's talking about "chromatic adaptation", which is one good approach to color balance, but certainly not the only one. Dicklyon (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text: It depends on what you understand by "color balance". As a Photoshop user, I would lump all the color correction tools under "color balance" and the ones you mentioned under "white balance". It seems everybody has their own definition, and it's easy to find references backing each position. I consider "white balance" a special case of "color balance". I think the confusion partly derives from the usage of balance in casual phrases like "the balance of color in this picture is wrong", which then gets contracted to "the color balance of the picture is wrong". The term "White balance" does not lend itself to such usage, and therefore has a narrower meaning. --Adoniscik(t, c) 03:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  Show me some of those refs.  I would not have thought that's a difference between white balance and color balance, or that a bunch of different tools would be lumped under color balance.  I don't understand what it is that you don't like about the book you linked. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Sure.  I'm not denying that “color balance” tools are used to adjust relative amounts of R, G, B.  I’m just wondering a) how general the definition of “color balance” is, b) if there’s a general term which encompasses both types of adjustments, and c) what the proper term is for color corrections more sophisticated than simple R/G/B twiddling.  Then this article should be placed IMO at whatever the most general term is, or if usage varies or is ambiguous, that should be explained in the article text.  &c. —jacobolus (t) 06:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's certainly the case that usage is variable and ambiguous, such that even with lots of sources it's going to be tricky to explain.  As to the one that Adoniscik found with both "color balance" and "white balance" in one sentence, I can't find much clue as to what they think those mean, or what the distinction is that they think they're drawing between them; the whole paragraph is content free. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color balance using other than RGB  

message: I was wondering what the icon on camera menus represented, and found this. 
* The sliders in stereo amplifiers that you use to (manually) set the balance between the left and right audio channels?
Or the Crossfader on a Disc jockey Mixer - used to fade out the end of one song, and seamlessly fade-in the beginning of the next.
Anyone have a better idea, or even a 'reliable source' ?
It may represent something obsolete, like the Floppy disk icon for 'Save' !
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does the icon represent ? 

message: Substituted at 12:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Not sure whether this would add much value or not, also unsure as to policy on embedding animations in to wiki pages, so I though I'd post this in the talk section and see what others think rather than add it to the main article. Intent was to provide an example of a really dramatic adjustment, with the initial features being almost invisible and also showing how noise and other visual issues can be increased or hidden. Thoughts?
Prosthetic Head (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of extreme white balance adjustment? 

message: It seems to me that the article could mention, or just follow along, with the distinction between pre- and post- color balance.  In the film days, this would be filters over the lens when taking the picture, or filters when printing from color negatives.  (With color positives, one is expected to get it right in the first place.). Because of non-linearities in film, it is much better to get right in the first place, and so negative films balanced appropriately were created.  But because of differences in printing paper and printing light sources, one still must balance at printing time.  One part of the article mentions filters over the lens, but not what can be done at printing time.   In the digital case, again one can change the balance later, but it is best to get it right (or close enough) in the first place.  One can then make fine distinctions later. Gah4 (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  pre and post