Become a part of the community. Register and take part in all the features the site has to offer.

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Frequent Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Natal
    Age
    38
    Posts
    1,771

    Default WB card question

    Setting a custom WB with a 135 lens means that in order to fill the viewfinder it is impossible to maintain focus.

    Options?
    Use a wider lens to fill the viewfinder and have the card in focus then change to 135 and continue.

    or shoot the card oof as it makes no difference.

  2. #2
    Frequent Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Centurion
    Age
    60
    Posts
    2,111

    Default Re: WB card question

    OOF makes no difference for WB.
    Best,

    Leo Theron
    ... see my pictures HERE

  3. #3
    Member janosa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Bloemfontein
    Posts
    179

    Default Re: WB card question

    I always thought it was supposed to be out of focus. Well, you learn something new every day. I've always stuck the camera on manual focus, turned focus to infinity and filled the frame with the card. Works perfectly.

    I started doing it that way 'cause I get a "no Good" response from the camera if the cards is in focus. With the exact same exposure settings, if I defocus the lens, I get a "Good". Might just be something I do that causes this.
    Stuff. Lots of stuff

  4. #4
    Frequent Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Natal
    Age
    38
    Posts
    1,771

    Default Re: WB card question

    Thanks for clearing that up for me

  5. #5
    Member Sella174's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Coral Islands
    Age
    39
    Posts
    107

    Default Re: WB card question

    Why not get one of the WB filters?

  6. #6
    Frequent Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Natal
    Age
    38
    Posts
    1,771

    Default Re: WB card question

    Decided to shoot RAW and set to 5200K, I am happy with it.

  7. #7
    Frequent Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Centurion
    Age
    60
    Posts
    2,111

    Default Re: WB card question

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Drummond View Post
    Decided to shoot RAW and set to 5200K, I am happy with it.
    Sorry - but this will work out in the midday sun. If you move into shade, artificial light, fluorescent lit scenes and flash your WB will be OUT.
    Best,

    Leo Theron
    ... see my pictures HERE

  8. #8
    Frequent Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    cape
    Age
    36
    Posts
    602

    Default Re: WB card question

    isnt it easier to use a whibal card and just let the model /or yourself hold it in the first shot,(no need to fill the frame with it , you just need it visible somewhere in the first shot) and then just take a reading in photoshop and adjust all photos taken in the same setting/light afterwards to the correct white balance? the cards start @ us$20,95.
    Last edited by HeinrichR; 24-03-2010 at 10:26 PM.
    w

  9. #9
    Member Sella174's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Coral Islands
    Age
    39
    Posts
    107

    Default Re: WB card question

    If you shoot RAW, then WB is irrelevant because you adjust it afterwards in post-processing - using, amongst other things, the histogram. Getting WB right on the camera is only necessary when shooting straight to JPEG - and even then it isn't that important, as you can still adjust it afterwards.

    Otherwise, get a WB filter.

  10. #10
    Frequent Member Trevor Ives's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    934

    Default Re: WB card question

    Quote Originally Posted by Sella174 View Post
    If you shoot RAW, then WB is irrelevant because you adjust it afterwards in post-processing -
    Yes, and No.... Allegedly, if you set your WB to 2000 and shoot a scene that's 10000, you won't have the leeway to correct it, as the data in the file is apparently skewed so far that sufficient correction cannot be done. Not done it myself.

  11. #11
    Member Sella174's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Coral Islands
    Age
    39
    Posts
    107

    Default Re: WB card question

    Ah, then apparently RAW isn't really "raw" sensor data.

  12. #12
    Frequent Member Riaanvdb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Strand WC
    Age
    43
    Posts
    4,479

    Default Re: WB card question

    Quote Originally Posted by trevori View Post
    Yes, and No.... Allegedly, if you set your WB to 2000 and shoot a scene that's 10000, you won't have the leeway to correct it, as the data in the file is apparently skewed so far that sufficient correction cannot be done. Not done it myself.
    I am not so sure about this, can you supply a source for the information.
    Riaan van den Berg (Pixel Arrie)
    PixelArrie.co.za

    __________________
    Digital Asset Management / Lightroom v3 and 4/ RAW development workshops in Strand
    __________________
    (I came, I saw, I left my mark I cannot revisit all images critiqued by me, so I'll assume you said thanx, For questions/comments please e-mail or PM me.)
    Test your LCD monitor now !!!! http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/ | Photographic Society of South Africa: www.pssa.co.za | Pretoria Wireless User Group: www.ptawug.co.za

  13. #13
    Frequent Member Andrew Roos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kloof, KZN
    Age
    47
    Posts
    981

    Default Re: WB card question

    Quote Originally Posted by trevori View Post
    Allegedly, if you set your WB to 2000 and shoot a scene that's 10000, you won't have the leeway to correct it, as the data in the file is apparently skewed so far that sufficient correction cannot be done. Not done it myself.
    I tested this by taking two pics. Both were taken in the shade, with a high colour temperature. One was taken using the "incandescent" WB setting on the camera (2680 K). The other was taken using the "shade" setting (7124 K). Then I used Bibble 5 to apply a "shade" WB setting to the image that was originally captured using the incandescent setting.

    The images are below. I don't see a noticable difference, which is consistent with what I thought, that WB is only applied to the image data when generating the JPG. However info about the camera WB setting is included in the raw file so the raw converter can use the WB that was set in camera if desired.

    Andrew



    captured with incandescent WB converted the Shady in Bibble



    Captured with shady WB in camera
    Last edited by Andrew Roos; 25-03-2010 at 05:31 PM.

  14. #14
    Frequent Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Natal
    Age
    38
    Posts
    1,771

    Default Re: WB card question

    Quote Originally Posted by markthomas View Post

    I work differently. I have set my camera to a Manual white balance of 5200 and leave it there permanently. This means colours change as they should - ie red skies at stay red instead of the camera compensating for them. Obviously I can change it later.

    To Quote a friend, we all had. I should add, I shoot 5200K under studio conditions that I work in. (School halls) In other situations I shoot RAW and AWB

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
>