This is all getting too much for, what I would have thought was, a relatively simple task of automatically setting the white balance.
It is only since coming across this particular image, with these reflective bands, that I have ever had a problem.
Thanks to this conversation, it is obvious that ever since PL1, this behaviour has existed but I have obviously never used the WB pipette on a reflective white subject. My simplistic answer is to avoid trying to pipette-WB on such subjects in future.
When I remember well CaptureNx had 3 pipets for the white balans: white,gray and black. Not 100% sure. And pipets for doing the same but next to the wb. Difference was with wb only the blue and red channels were changed. Without wb the 3 channels were averaged.
…and it’s not simplistic at all. Many applications (and cameras) prevent users from basing white balance on a bright area. Here’s what Lightroom comes up with in such a case:
@StevenL
Maybe that DxO could introduce such a warning too. There might be a catch though: From what level of brightness (per channel) should the warning be triggered? Adaptively? Preset level? Based on camera properties like e.g. the max. linear level? Anything will improve the UX.
Actually, in this case this shouldn’t be too hard. If Lightroom is able to emit a warning, it’s probably because it is able to evaluate, by observing the clicked pixel and its environment, the validity/quality of the computations it is about to make. PL should do the same.
IMHO, it’s just programming as usual : controlling the validity of a result.
Actually, in this case this shouldn’t be too hard. If Lightroom is able to emit a warning, it’s probably because it is able to evaluate, by observing the clicked pixel and its environment, the validity/quality of the computations it is about to make. PL should do the same.