White balance, how to determine?

[Mr Bean]

I was out taking a few pics the other day of our local wild flowers. It was late in the day, with less than an hour of sun. So, there was a touch of red in the light. While taking this pic (a Field Daisy) I wondered what techniques others have taken to establish a white balance in the field. The reason I ask is that this flower has a hint of mauve in the petals, and what can you do to establish the "real mauve"?

Using an 18% grey card or a white card, just to one side (to crop out later) was a thought.

Any suggestions would be appreciated. I'm using Lightroom v4.4 for my post processing.

 

[Pi]

Gray card is good, but the result depends on the position and the orientation. Placing it too close to a colorful subject might affect the result visibly. You may want to place it in front the flower, take a shot, remove it, shoot again.

Some people like white balance diffusers/caps - they might be known under other names. They help the camera measure the WB of the light falling on the lens. I am not saying that they are better or worse - actually, I never tried them.

 

[emag]

Color Checker Passport, set up profiles in LR

 

[Mr Bean]

Gray card is good, but the result depends on the position and the orientation. Placing it too close to a colorful subject might affect the result visibly. You may want to place it in front the flower, take a shot, remove it, shoot again.

Thanks Pi. I might go back to that flower on the weekend and try a couple of cards (grey / white) then see what I end up with.

Color Checker Passport, set up profiles in LR

Thanks emag. I haven't seen that before. I presume its this sort of thing.....
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/colorchecker-psssport.shtml

 

[Sporgon]

Quick n simple method: just photograph a white card in the same light as your flower. Set custom White balance from this shot.

 

[tpatana]

Assuming your monitor is calibrated: if it looks good, then it's good.

If you want to go more high-tech, then the cards and such work too.

Often I go by the eye. If it looks wrong, I tune the sliders. Also it's bit subjective, so many times I switch between couple photos, and tune until they all look good. If you stick only to one photo, often after tuning it to "look good", and you come back later, it doesn't look good anymore.

 

[Janbo Makimbo]

I have an expodisk and it is very good for setting custom white balance...

 

[mb66energy]

I shoot raw and use always the "sunlight" white balance setting to keep things comparable.

Afterwards I correct - if necessary - the color temperature (using DPP, lightroom will have it's equivalent) to a value which suits my needs.
I too observed the color shift in afternoon light and it muddle up different greens to a "greenish-yellowish soup". Shifting color temperature from 5200K (daylight) to sth. between 4000K and 4500K gives IMO better colors. But I do not try to overcorrect the values - 3500K might be correct for such cases: I like to leave a bit of the warmer atmosphere in the image to conserve my experience (or colder ambience if the light was blueish).

A major prerequisite is a constant lighting of the surroundings of the monitor and to "calibrate" your eyes to grey or white regions of the computer screen.

Best - Michael

(BTW: you use a great lens set with larger gaps which can be filled by using your feet ...

 

[mikebg]

The best way by far, is to use live view (if you have it).

Set the camera to live view and point the camera at your subject. With one eye on the lcd and one on the subject, adjust the white balance until what you see on the lcd looks the same as the subject. Works every time!

 

[Don Haines]

The best way by far, is to use live view (if you have it).

Set the camera to live view and point the camera at your subject. With one eye on the lcd and one on the subject, adjust the white balance until what you see on the lcd looks the same as the subject. Works every time!

That is so simple that its brilliant! I'm going to give it a try. I have been using a card which is half grey scale and half color bars, but I often do not have it with me when I need it.

 

[privatebydesign]

Not really, the problem with that method is the camera screen calibration, it isn't and you can't create an accurate profile for it.

Accurate colour in flower pictures demands camera profiles and the easiest way to get them is with an X-Rite Color Passport. Nothing short of a camera profile is good for anything other than the most casual of flower images as the colours are some of the strongest in nature and tax the capabilities of current gear.

 

[Janbo Makimbo]

The best way by far, is to use live view (if you have it).

Set the camera to live view and point the camera at your subject. With one eye on the lcd and one on the subject, adjust the white balance until what you see on the lcd looks the same as the subject. Works every time!

Good luck seeing accurate white balance on an lcd in sunlight....... Expodisk is by far and away a more accurate method than this

 

[emag]

Mr. Bean -

I also have an (equivalent to) Expodisk and have used it extensively. It is indeed quicker than the Color Checker Passport for setting a custom white balance.......BUT......the passport has so many more uses and is just as simple to carry. I've really taken a shine to it since I began using it. You can set up custom camera profiles in Lightroom for various lighting conditions (sunny, clouds, rain, twilight, deep shade, etc.), shoot Raw and select the correct profile in post. Much less tweaking is needed with such a work flow. Want to warm skin tones a tad? Click on the appropriate warming white balance block on the image of the Color Checker. IIRC, there have been posts on CR from colorblind photographers here on CR who use the Passport to ensure proper color.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Accurate colour in flower pictures demands camera profiles and the easiest way to get them is with an X-Rite Color Passport.

+1 on the X-Rite Color Checker Passport. Small, light, easy to slip in a bag, and quite tough.

 

[jebrady03]

somewhat related - does anyone know how to determine what color temperature was selected when using auto white balance? I'm using DPP and the "info" window doesn't reveal it.
Thanks!

 

[neuroanatomist]

somewhat related - does anyone know how to determine what color temperature was selected when using auto white balance? I'm using DPP and the "info" window doesn't reveal it.

That's an annoyance with DPP. I use DxO Optics Pro, and it shows the actual color temperature that's been applied.

 

[Pi]

somewhat related - does anyone know how to determine what color temperature was selected when using auto white balance? I'm using DPP and the "info" window doesn't reveal it.
Thanks!

You can use EXIFToolGUI but that is not the most elegant solution. I can see the color temp value there but not the Tint one (must be there somewhere).

Last time I used DXO, it reported different color temp and tint values than LR.

Anther remarks: when you shoot with Daylight WB, you cannot see in LR what the camera thought was the right one. That is a good starting point very often, and it is good to have. LR has its own Auto one.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You can use EXIFToolGUI but that is not the most elegant solution. I can see the color temp value there but not the Tint one (must be there somewhere).

Last time I used DXO, it reported different color temp and tint values than LR.

Interestingly, for an image shot in mixed lighting, when I open the RAW file in various converters, I see the following for the As Shot settings:

DxO: 3740K, Tint 0
ACR: 3600K, Tint +30
Aperture: 3495K, Tint +26

Which is 'right'? Maybe none...

Exiftool just reports 5200 in the color temperature field, so that's apparently just a default value. It may be that the color temperature for Auto WB is not recorded as a Kelvin value in the EXIF, but rather the converter must deduce the WB settings from other data/metadata.

 

[Pi]

You can use EXIFToolGUI but that is not the most elegant solution. I can see the color temp value there but not the Tint one (must be there somewhere).

Last time I used DXO, it reported different color temp and tint values than LR.

Interestingly, for an image shot in mixed lighting, when I open the RAW file in various converters, I see the following for the As Shot settings:

DxO: 3740K, Tint 0
ACR: 3600K, Tint +30
Aperture: 3495K, Tint +26

Which is 'right'? Maybe none...

Exiftool just reports 5200 in the color temperature field, so that's apparently just a default value. It may be that the color temperature for Auto WB is not recorded as a Kelvin value in the EXIF, but rather the converter must deduce the WB settings from other data/metadata.

From one of my shots (boldface and the separation line mine):

WB_RGGBLevelsAsShot : 2260 1024 1024 1613
ColorTempAsShot : 5786
WB_RGGBLevelsAuto : 2260 1024 1024 1613
ColorTempAuto : 5786
WB_RGGBLevelsMeasured : 2344 1020 1027 1529
ColorTempMeasured : 6314
-----------------------------------------------
WB_RGGBLevelsDaylight : 2144 1024 1024 1742
ColorTempDaylight : 5200
WB_RGGBLevelsShade : 2461 1024 1024 1444
ColorTempShade : 7000
WB_RGGBLevelsCloudy : 2310 1024 1024 1574
ColorTempCloudy : 6000
WB_RGGBLevelsTungsten : 1651 1103 1103 2932
ColorTempTungsten : 3200
WB_RGGBLevelsFluorescent : 1908 1061 1061 2618
ColorTempFluorescent : 3674
WB_RGGBLevelsKelvin : 2144 1024 1024 1742
ColorTempKelvin : 5223
WB_RGGBLevelsFlash : 2325 1024 1024 1558
ColorTempFlash : 6129

The values below the line seem to be the same for each shot.

Now, open it in LR, and I get: Temp=5300, Tint=0. Go figure. I do not have DXO installed right now to try with it.

 

[crasher8]

people keep trying to reinvent the gray card. Just use it.