I post too Much on Here!!
- Jul 21, 2010
I trust you're aware that an accurate white balance isn't the same as a full color profile with a ColorChecker. If you're setting a custom WB in the field for shooting JPG, that's ideal. If you're shooting RAW, it's a waste of time that could be spent shooting, IMO. "If there are no good white/black/neutral grey points," in the picture, well...you shot the exposure reference for the custom WB, just use that in post (also, custom WB limits what you can use for that reference to something large and gray, for critical work I prefer to include a more comprehensive reference like a ColorChecker or SpyderCube). As I keep saying, if you're shooting RAW, there no difference in terms of when you apply the WB, except whether you choose to spend the time while shooting vs. at more leisure in post.Zeidora said:For critical shots, I do a custom white balance, particularly, if there are no good white/black/neutral grey points to do a soft white balance in photo editing software. The RAW adjustments are all good and well for mood shots, but for color accurate reproduction it is better to make adjustments before shooting, and not adjust the RAW files further. Sometimes there is no option for including a color checker (e.g., compound microscope images).
For your microscopy, since what you want to balance is the light source, you can usually use the same no-slide image for flat-field correction and to set WB. If you really require a neutral gray WB reference, you could use the Applied Image IAM-4 (a density step wedge in microscope slide format; I use one for microdensitometry calibration).