Is white balance card / tool the best correction to used?

[eninja]

I started covering event, and recently got problem on color of my photos.
So I calibrate monitor and take into account white balance of scene,
and correcting white balance in post processing as standard first step to address this color issue.

I bought expodisc too.
during dpp editing:
photos taken indoors at fluorescent white light, when i try to click on white object, or try to use the photo from expodisc as my reference white balance. the resulting photo ambient light look worst than when use the auto whitebalance settings. look worst, i mean, ambient light and skin tone more saturated yellow.

So my question is, is white object and grey photo from expodisc really is the best reference for white balance?
or I need to trust my vision (to identify color cast and adjust accordingly)

Thanks.

 

[Pookie]

I use the Colorchecker Passport for all event work with mixed lighting... make a DNG dual profile and use it for every shot in the same area.

 

[eninja]

I use the Colorchecker Passport for all event work with mixed lighting... make a DNG dual profile and use it for every shot in the same area.

I will consider your workflow, care to elaborate what does make a DNG dual profile means?

 

[Pookie]

From X-rite's site...

"When you are photographing a scene with distinctive lighting, creating a custom DNG Camera Profile is recommended. However, when you are shooting in routine lighting conditions, such as in sunlight or in a room with fluorescent bulbs, a Dual Illuminant DNG Profile can provide a flexible standard baseline, which you can apply to your images. Dual Illuminant DNG Profiles provide assurance that you can achieve consistent color when shooting in a broad variety of lighting conditions."

http://www.xrite.com/product_overview.aspx?ID=820&Action=support&SupportID=4987

 

[privatebydesign]

The first thing you have to realise, WB is subjective. If you do a 'true' WB at an event and then process all your images to that value then you often find all the character from the event disappears, effectively neutral white has no ambiance so dialing in a perceived WB value (the subjective part) will better replicate the feel of the event. Obviously the type and style of event will dictate how much ambiance you want to leave in.

The Passport will not help with WB values in and of itself, but it will help with colours, sometimes dramatically.

Dual Illuminant Profiles are created in post by a profile editor, I find Adobe's free editor much more user friendly, intuitive, and adaptable than the X-Rite version that ships with the Passport.

What it does is take your reference shot and creates an accurate colour adjustment profile from it, you can specify the WB value for that profile (the most accurate for that one WB value, a Single Illuminant Profile) or you can create a Dual Illuminant Profile (DIP), to make the DIP the profile editor automatically creates two base readings within the same file, normally at 6,500ºK and 2,850ºK, it then interpolates the changes to each colour channel within the profile so as to give you a more accurate colour rendition even when you choose a different WB to the 'as shot' value. DIP's are the most often profiles made and used.

After you use the Passport and make the profile you apply that profile, but then still choose a WB value, either to your choice or direct from one of the various 'white' chips on the card. These two adjustments can then be applied to all the relevant files in one click.

 

[FTb-n]

The first thing you have to realise, WB is subjective. If you do a 'true' WB at an event and then process all your images to that value then you often find all the character from the event disappears, effectively neutral white has no ambiance so dialing in a perceived WB value (the subjective part) will better replicate the feel of the event. Obviously the type and style of event will dictate how much ambiance you want to leave in.

Absolutely true.

I've used a couple different "guaranteed true" WB cards to help with setting the WB in post. But, I haven't found one that I can rely on 100%. A lot depends upon the event and how its lighting plays a role in the imagery. This can be subtle, or extremely blatant such as with a figure skating ice show where colors are used with spot lights to reflect the mood of the number. If I go strictly by a true WB, skin tones may render naturally, but it no longer looks like an ice show. It looks like a dress rehearsal with all the house lights on.

Still, when setting WB in post with Lightroom, I have found that the whites of the subject's eyes are more consistent than my WB gadgets. So make sure to get some good shots of someone looking in your direction. (I haven't tried this, but maybe a selfie will work.

 

[Tinky]

White balance is a technical setting and is either correct or not. It is not subjective.

I subscribe to the idea of getting things as neutral or as correct in camera as possible, and then playing around in post.
What you put in at the camera stage cannot always be taken back out, whereas if you start clean you always have that to go back to via the marvels of non-destructive editing.

That is not to say that an image cannot be enhanced by some colour grading, it absolutely can, but for me the best starting point is a neutral raw file.

I achieve this using a mix of presets (tungsten preset is handy for stage work where your lights might always be filtered and incapable of giving a neutral wb reference) my calumet 3 way card (works great with fcps 3 way colour correction) or if doing a still life, qpcards and software.

White balance is not subjective. Effects are.

 

[Marsu42]

I use the Colorchecker Passport for all event work with mixed lighting... make a DNG dual profile and use it for every shot in the same area.

It's a good option, but I found that constant lighting (esp. wb) is paramount - or color checker is next to useless. It's not like it's "nice to have", but you could also just shoot a cheap gray scale to get a hint for the color dropper.

So my question is, is white object and grey photo from expodisc really is the best reference for white balance?
or I need to trust my vision (to identify color cast and adjust accordingly)

Personally, I find that the "correct" wb can look very awkward depending on the setting the viewer is in. Summer noon, sunset, ... can have wbs that look plain wrong to me.

I have some experience there because I shoot gray horses a lot, and boy, you cannot imagine how different gray looks there are over the year. So if shooting outdoors, setting a "subjective" color temperature and then adjusting the tint accordingly often looks more natural to me.

 

[FTb-n]

That is not to say that an image cannot be enhanced by some colour grading, it absolutely can, but for me the best starting point is a neutral raw file.

Is there such a thing as a "neutral raw file"? I had understood that in-camera white balance settings are only applied during the conversion to JPG and that RAW is RAW. But, RAW files do include a thumbnail JPG which will reflect the WB settings (primarily for the LCD).

 

[privatebydesign]

That is not to say that an image cannot be enhanced by some colour grading, it absolutely can, but for me the best starting point is a neutral raw file.

Is there such a thing as a "neutral raw file"? I had understood that in-camera white balance settings are only applied during the conversion to JPG and that RAW is RAW. But, RAW files do include a thumbnail JPG which will reflect the WB settings (primarily for the LCD).

You are right, RAW files do not contain a setting to make the WB 'neutral', they have a tag to tell the rendering program what WB was used or chosen, but that is a completely different thing.

On another note, whilst Tinky took exception to the way he read my comment, regarding WB we are actually on the same page, nearly. There is a 'correct' WB setting, and that is what I called 'true' WB, that is one where blacks, whites and greys are rendered neutral, he then said that file can be 'enhanced via grading' in post, which is entirely subjective, whereas I just used the term 'subjective'. Rendering blacks, whites and greys as neutral is not subjective, processing a file to actually convey the scene in a realistically atmospheric manner is (and we do that far more often than process for 'neutral'). You do not have to do the first before doing the second.

 

[Tinky]

That is not to say that an image cannot be enhanced by some colour grading, it absolutely can, but for me the best starting point is a neutral raw file.

Is there such a thing as a "neutral raw file"? I had understood that in-camera white balance settings are only applied during the conversion to JPG and that RAW is RAW. But, RAW files do include a thumbnail JPG which will reflect the WB settings (primarily for the LCD).

You are right, RAW files do not contain a setting to make the WB 'neutral', they have a tag to tell the rendering program what WB was used or chosen, but that is a completely different thing.

On another note, whilst Tinky took exception to the way he read my comment, regarding WB we are actually on the same page, nearly. There is a 'correct' WB setting, and that is what I called 'true' WB, that is one where blacks, whites and greys are rendered neutral, he then said that file can be 'enhanced via grading' in post, which is entirely subjective, whereas I just used the term 'subjective'. Rendering blacks, whites and greys as neutral is not subjective, processing a file to actually convey the scene in a realistically atmospheric manner is (and we do that far more often than process for 'neutral'). You do not have to do the first before doing the second.

Can't believe i'm getting drawn into a debate which is by now more about semantics (which I find boring and tedious) and less about photography (which I find interesting and fun) but here goes. You want to see somebody taking exception... read on.

Please read the first three lines of my original comment. I'm saying get it right in the camera then you can play play play away in post til your happy heart is content. (phuck it up in camera and you may have problems, especially under non-continuous sprectrum lighting, like Sodium, like most LEDs, like some flouros)

By getting it right I mean that the white balance setting on your camera matches the colour temperature of the light you are shooting under.

You selectively quoted me out of context and I sincerely cannot think why, other than that enjoy this sort of thing.

READ MY COMMENT AGAIN! PLEASE READ IT TWICE. A THIRD TIME. GET A RESPONSIBLE ADULT TO EXPLAIN WHAT ANY BIG WORDS ARE.

It can be summarised as this:

-White balance is not subjective. It's either correct or not. It is a term specifically related to the rendition of colour temperature.

-What you do with that file afterwards is your call. Totally subjectively. Just don 't confuse the wb slider with the hue slider.

 

[privatebydesign]

-White balance is not subjective. It's either correct or not. It is a term specifically related to the rendition of colour temperature.

-What you do with that file afterwards is your call. Totally subjectively. Just don 't confuse the wb slider with the hue slider.

You are the one trying to argue semantics, and if you had read my post properly once then you would have realised we are saying exactly the same thing. When I said WB is subjective, it was in the context of output WB, and that is exactly what you are saying, but as always people read the headlines and not the context. 'Correct'-'True' are the same thing, as are 'afterwards' and 'in post'.

Where we differ is in the importance of getting a 'neutral' file to start with. I don't bother, I shoot everything in RAW with WB set to 5,500 ºK, I find this the easiest to deal with and as there is zero reduction in IQ to changing WB in post I have better things to do. If I am concerned about the lighting I will shoot a Passport reference image every now and again to aid my subjective output, but that really is more if I am worried about metamerism, not so much my subjective output WB.

As for the Hue slider, generally you cannot get a 'Correct'-'True' WB value without the Hue slider, they are x and y axis of a neutral WB.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The first thing you have to realise, WB is subjective. If you do a 'true' WB at an event and then process all your images to that value then you often find all the character from the event disappears, effectively neutral white has no ambiance so dialing in a perceived WB value (the subjective part) will better replicate the feel of the event. Obviously the type and style of event will dictate how much ambiance you want to leave in.

Exactly my thought, in many cases, perfect white balance is nice, but in many cases, I prefer to balance colors to suit the way I saw them. I photographed a event last week where the director used a lot of colored lighting. White balance makes no sense.

 

[Tinky]

The first thing you have to realise, WB is subjective. If you do a 'true' WB at an event and then process all your images to that value then you often find all the character from the event disappears, effectively neutral white has no ambiance so dialing in a perceived WB value (the subjective part) will better replicate the feel of the event. Obviously the type and style of event will dictate how much ambiance you want to leave in.

Exactly my thought, in many cases, perfect white balance is nice, but in many cases, I prefer to balance colors to suit the way I saw them. I photographed a event last week where the director used a lot of colored lighting. White balance makes no sense.

White balance makes perfect sense. If anything, this is exactly when you should take control of white balance.

Stage lighting. Going to be 3200k or therabouts. So use your tungsten preset or dial in 2900-3200k.

Your camera now sees the lit subject the way the lighting director intended, Reds come out Red, Greens sre Green and Blues are blue. Even yellows will be yellow. Something that woukd really confuse a camera left in awb.

Your camera has presets. You don't always need a white or grey surface to balance from. WB taken manually off f a fiktered light is going to wrong. So take it off an unfiltered light. Or take an educated guess at what type of light they are using. Theres a preset for that. Bingo.

 

[Tinky]

You are the one trying to argue semantics, and if you had read my post properly once then you would have realised we are saying exactly the same thing. When I said WB is subjective, it was in the context of output WB, and that is exactly what you are saying, but as always people read the headlines and not the context. 'Correct'-'True' are the same thing, as are 'afterwards' and 'in post'.

Where we differ is in the importance of getting a 'neutral' file to start with. I don't bother, I shoot everything in RAW with WB set to 5,500 ºK, I find this the easiest to deal with and as there is zero reduction in IQ to changing WB in post I have better things to do. If I am concerned about the lighting I will shoot a Passport reference image every now and again to aid my subjective output, but that really is more if I am worried about metamerism, not so much my subjective output WB.

As for the Hue slider, generally you cannot get a 'Correct'-'True' WB value without the Hue slider, they are x and y axis of a neutral WB.

We aren't saying the same thing at all. You say you shoot everything at daylight and fix it later. I say fix it at the camera.

You seem to regard wb and hue as cheeks of the same arce, I say one is a production stage control, one is a post-production control.

In my day job I shoot video, mainly with. an eng camera, and I white balance the camera everytime I change location, sometimes if I think the kelvin reading is out I'll black balance for good measure.

You don't bother shooting neutral, you just fix it in post. I dob't know why I'm lowering myself. Anyway, have fun.

 

[eninja]

The first thing you have to realise, WB is subjective. If you do a 'true' WB at an event and then process all your images to that value then you often find all the character from the event disappears, effectively neutral white has no ambiance so dialing in a perceived WB value (the subjective part) will better replicate the feel of the event. Obviously the type and style of event will dictate how much ambiance you want to leave in.

Exactly my thought, in many cases, perfect white balance is nice, but in many cases, I prefer to balance colors to suit the way I saw them. I photographed a event last week where the director used a lot of colored lighting. White balance makes no sense.

Thanks for your example.
How did you set (attained) your white balance for this?
I bought expodisc expecting that alas my problem solved, in the end expodisc only help a bit.
my vision still has the last say. They never mentioned that in the expodisc review.

I understand that my question was answered a lot of times.
in the end, while editing I will use my vision to judge;
I'll start with using click white balance tool. then proceed using the white balance slider
to adjust and judge how really the ambiance look base from my memory.

Any suggestion on nailing the skin tone? - color passport checker?

 

[Pookie]

Get yourself a Colorchecker from X-rite (my original reply), this will help you set up a color profile in horrible light and, wait for it... it has grey chips and white balance chips. You can do it all from there.

Look, lots of these so called pros here on this site are pros in their own mind... and would rather go on and on about this or that. They're easy to spot, they can't show any work for "privacy" issues and they're more interested in listing all of their precious gear. Take anything said as gospel with a grain of salt the size of Gibraltar. At the end of the day, it's you sitting in front of the computer looking at your own work. You choose what you like, you're the photographer. Work flow is important and if something can make your life easier (ie using a Colorchecker), do it and move on. All I know is when I have a few hundred photos to get to the client the next day, setting up a color profile gets you very close to what need. You will then have to make a judgment call and decide where you want the WB when dealing with mixed lighting... there is no simple one size fit all answer.

 

[eninja]

Get yourself a Colorchecker from X-rite (my original reply), this will help you set up a color profile in horrible light and, wait for it... it has grey chips and white balance chips. You can do it all from there.

Look, lots of these so called pros here on this site are pros in their own mind... and would rather go on and on about this or that. They're easy to spot, they can't show any work for "privacy" issues and they're more interested in listing all of their precious gear. Take anything said as gospel with a grain of salt the size of Gibraltar. At the end of the day, it's you sitting in front of the computer looking at your own work. You choose what you like, you're the photographer. Work flow is important and if something can make your life easier (ie using a Colorchecker), do it and move on. All I know is when I have a few hundred photos to get to the client the next day, setting up a color profile gets you very close to what need. You will then have to make a judgment call and decide where you want the WB when dealing with mixed lighting... there is no simple one size fit all answer.

Your right, colorchecker it is.
after all what is better than having the same object in your photos and also in your hand while you are editing.
Thanks. I will go this direction.