Help with White Balance Please

[Wolfaardt]

Heindriech would you care to elaborate?

Camera's light metr gets fooled by large white or black areas in the frame. (eg: snow, sand, brides dress) The light meters calibration is for a even 12% grey, not pure white. The camera will compensate by under exposing the shot if you have a larg white sheet in the frame.

Incorrct exposure complicates WB.

[HeinrichR]

Whibal ?

[GaryStone]

A white card/paper can be used for white balance, but then you have to make sure that the image (of the white card) is not blown out* - that is why you should use a Grey Card.

* 'Blown out' means that all the channels of the sensor, Red, Green and Blue, are saturated (close to or at 255), and thus does not contain any colour information - and then you cannot use the white card image for WB. In these examples, the white card in the image was blown as it is now 251/251/251 in all the examples.

Leo thanks for a comprehensive answer. I understand that blown out is 255 255 255. surely 251/251/251 is not blown or what should the reading be?

[GaryStone]

What looks good is a very subjective opinion. I personally find the "natural" look very bland and prefer my images well saturated, somewhat contrasty and lightly warm.

What do you prefer?

Sella thanks for your input. What I am looking for is an accurate version of how the eye saw it.

[GaryStone]

Thanks for your input Hienrich times 2.

So much advice and I don't feel I'm on the right track yet, but thanks to all.

[Daleen]

Gary, just read through the whole thread again and everybody's comments are correct but WB can be confusing at the best of times. Let me try and clarify by explaining what I do and why it works for me. Maybe I should just start off by saying that I shoot for stock and an incorrect WB would render an image absolutely useless so I have to be really nitty about it.
1. First of all we're talking about WB and not exposure, it's easy to get mixed up with the two and although you can't really seperate them we'll assume for the purpose of this thread that exposure is spot on and not the problem here (as indeed it wasn't in your image in the first place)
2. I only use tungsten, sunny, cloudy or custom WB settings on my camera (canon 4OD). Reasons for this being that sunny is fine for flash as well, shady is a tad too warm so I prefer cloudy and I very seldom shoot in fluorescent light (if I do shoot in fluorescent I resort RAW processing) Less choices, less brainpower needed....I'm blonde you see
I never use AWB because it's always off IMO, at least with my camera and I'm in any case used to setting WB for every situation.
3. In situation: when I do struggle with WB I use a white printer paper to set Custom WB, it has to fill the screen or at least the circle in the middle of the view finder in order for the cam to read it correctly. The light on the white paper should be the same light that falls on your subject (we said your exposure's right so we're not worried about that remember). White paper is easy to come by and cheap. (You could have zoomed in on the white paper in girls hand and used it to set CWB)
I even sometimes just point my cam at a white wall (or white shirt) and take a shot of that as my reference (I know,I know, it's very often not really white but it helps in getting much closer to the WB being right)
It's true that you can use a grey card for WB but I use that more for exposure when needed but I've found that I get much better results with a white paper with my camera and I suppose this may differ from camera to camera.
4. Post-processing:You can let your subject, eg the girl in your original image, hold a grey card with which you can set your WB in post-processing. Then it does not have to fill the frame. I use Lightroom 2.6 and its eyedropper tool needs a neutral grey to be able to adjust WB (if I'm not doing it by the seat of my pants) Maybe some other processing programs can do it with white?? I do this especially in situations where there's different light sources eg. tungsten and flash and I know I'm gonna need to work on it afterwards.
5. Of course shooting in RAW makes the WB headaches go away....

A final thought...don't let it bug you too much and don't get bogged down in too much technical detail...oh you of analytical mind....and just enjoy shooting as much and as often as you can!!

[SteveG]

Most stuff has been covered, but there are a few "watch-out-fors" in the course of the thread:

Kodak Grey Cards are NOT neutral. they are fine for setting film exposure, adequate for digital exposure, but they do not give accurate WB.

normal office printer paper is NOT neutral either. Its actual colour is usually blueish/purplish, but looks bright and white 'cos it's flourescent. Above mentioned exposure problems too. Using it for a flash diffuser could create colour casts too.

White clothes too are often flourescent and are seldom neutral. Same goes for teeth, eyes, walls, etc: seldom neutral

If you're wanting to save time and do things right with WB get the right tools: Whibal (as mentioned) is neutral. grey patches on Xrite ColourCheckers are neutral. The new ColourChecker Passport is very cool. Shoot RAW and include a shot with your WB tool whenever you think the scene's WB has shifted.

Zone system? eh? that's so film-era, so analog. use your histogram, don't clip the important stuff, set your contrast in RAW-conversion and PS. But, I suppose it has merit if you shoot jpg.

"blown out" applies if even one of the RGB channels is clipped. If your white balance card is clipped in just one of the channels it will not give an accurate WB. So: bright white cards are not good for WB, as they clip too easily. I get the best WB results from the brighter grey patches on my ColourChecker.

[Surly Ghillie]

White balance is just another way of expressing colour temperature , which is measured in degrees of Kelvin. The lower the kelvin number, the more yellow the light, the higher the number, the more blue. By example; an ordinary tungsten filament light bulb would measure around 3200 degrees Kelvin, florescent~incandescent; about 3800~5500, through cloudy/shady to a mid-summer day under open sky, which would measure between 9000-16000 degrees (depending on where you were on the globe... A namib desert reading would be significantly different to one taken at the same time of day in say, kirstenbosch gardens). Snowscapes push up Kelvin temps because of the great degree of UV and blue light that it reflects back.

Before upgrading to the D3 I used to choose my colour temperature based on actual Kelvin ranges measured off memory from the days of film. But then I tried the auto WB on the D3, and so far, with almost 10,000 shutters behind me, I've only ever managed to truly flummox it 2 or 3 times ~ mostly under very low and atonal light conditions.

[Ryan Drummond]

But then I tried the auto WB on the D3, and so far, with almost 10,000 shutters behind me, I've only ever managed to truly flummox it 2 or 3 times ~ mostly under very low and atonal light conditions.

I am with Ghillie on this one, 1ds 11 and AWB, adjust in PP when processing RAW. When shooting under studio conditions 5200K, because MT told me to when he was still using C.

I shoot for clients and am contracted to a RM agency so I pay alot of attention to my finished image.

On another note I seem to recall a point in the 580ex manual that said when using flash the AWB and Flash Temp presets were the same!

[OttoF]

. . . don't let it bug you too much and don't get bogged down in too much technical detail...oh you of analytical mind....and just enjoy shooting as much and as often as you can!!

(My comment is not for the professionals, perfectionists and technocrats!)

Maybe I miss the point of all the technicalities of WB and what one should/should not be doing. For Mr (Ms) average enthusiast my guess is that to get close to natural is most desirable. My eye sees white as white under incandescent and flourescent; so my camera can do the figuring (when I remember).

Indeed, when I first shot some babies in the maternity ward (photo shoot of course!) I failed to notice the disctinct blue cast the window films put on the pictures (I do not use flash for obvious reason). Next time I borrowed a sheet of printer paper from the ward sisters, put it in a crib near the next subject, adjusted "Custom WB", and got near perfect white balance. A little post processing did the rest.

So, what's my point? As Daleen says: "don't get bogged down", learn the basics, and enjoy the hobby: shoot - shoot - shoot!

[Harley]

Today, one of the worst things you can do is to use the Auto-WB setting...

Only if you shoot straight to jpeg....

[Sella174]

Only if you shoot straight to jpeg....

Correct, because on-camera WB is irrelevant when shooting RAW.

[Harley]

Correct, because on-camera WB is irrelevant when shooting RAW.

Not irrelevant no, but not as important as it can be successfully changed or altered in post to suit the specific image.

[Leo Theron]

Interesting to see the views, correct as well as wrong assumptions - and that in 25 postings.

What really distinguishes a high quality professional shot from the so-so effort of an amateur - when both are pin sharp?

The professional shot is correctly exposed and has true colour and a range of tones that fully covers the available brightness range, irrespective of reproduction media.

To achieve that, your colour balance and exposure MUST to be spot on.

A good guess here and some fooling around there is of no photographic value. If you know what you are doing, (ie RTFM) it means you will NOT get bogged down. It really takes seconds to preset the WB on the majority of cameras, and from there on you only have to tackle the exposure. Even less post processing is now required.

Again - this is all is of NO value if you do not have a calibrated monitor.

The past masters of colour management is cinematographers. They use Kodak Grey cards. Makes you think.

[SteveG]

@leo: all valid and valuable, except the last line, which I'd love you to expand on - explain your thoughts.

As it stands it has little to no meaning: Kodak Grey cards are not neutral, so how could they be used in colour management? Cinematographers that shot film never used colour management, as they did not process through computers. It's full of holes, so please, tell us what you were thinking.

[GaryStone]

Less choices, less brainpower needed....I'm blonde you see

Gees for a blonde you get pretty technical, thanks for the detailed reply

5. Of course shooting in RAW makes the WB headaches go away....

I understand and agree that you can modify the file afterwards, but this is the problem how do you know when it's right.

[GaryStone]

Most stuff has been covered, but there are a few "watch-out-fors" in the course of the thread:

Kodak Grey Cards are NOT neutral....

normal office printer paper is NOT neutral either. Its actual colour is usually blueish/purplish, but looks bright and white 'cos it's flourescent.....

White clothes too are often flourescent and are seldom neutral. Same goes for teeth, eyes, walls, etc: seldom neutral....

If you're wanting to save time and do things right with WB get the right tools: Whibal (as mentioned) is neutral. grey patches on Xrite ColourCheckers are neutral....

Shoot RAW and include a shot with your WB tool whenever you think the scene's WB has shifted.

SteveG your reply really makes sense and to my mind is the answer. Where does one buy the Xrite or Whibal in Pretoria and what does it cost. Also is there not a cheaper alternative like a standard grey card you can buy at CNA?

[GaryStone]

For Mr (Ms) average enthusiast my guess is that to get close to natural is most desirable.

Yes as close as posssible to real is what I am aming for, but I suppose this is debateable again.

[GaryStone]

Thanks Surly, Ryan, Leo, Harley + Sella for your input

[Leo Theron]

@leo: all valid and valuable, except the last line, which I'd love you to expand on - explain your thoughts.

As it stands it has little to no meaning: Kodak Grey cards are not neutral, so how could they be used in colour management? Cinematographers that shot film never used colour management, as they did not process through computers. It's full of holes, so please, tell us what you were thinking.

Steve, not my thinking - but some facts and a bit of history -

- 18% Kodak Grey Cards ARE a standard. They are also neutral, in that they do not have ANY colour cast.

- Colour management is not the reserve of modern, computer based photographers, neither was it invented by them! Using densitometers, exposure meters, colour meters, standard film stock and reference shots, ie Kodak Grey Cards (!) and calibrated filter sets, cinematographers, printers, aerial photographers, TV broadcasters et al all used colour management since the advent of industrial colour imaging. Intimate knowledge, full understanding, set processes and calibrated filter sets were the tools of the trade...

- We should actually go back a bit and first have a good look at incident light measuring (eg with an 'invercone') vs reflected light measurement. Then we must look at determining the actual colour temperature and spectral composition of the light being used. If all that is understood, colour management is easy. For example - why is it so difficult to get a good image of an subject illuminated by a fluorescent lamp?

- Cinematographers use film stock - yes they still do it today! - which runs around R2-3000 per minute (might be more) when that heavy camera is running. What do they use for initial colour management? The lowly Kodak Grey Card.

- On the box of the Colour Spiders that we use today there is some interesting information - the PANTONE trademark. That comes back from the earliest films...

Ya - a little bit of history goes a long way.

PS: I have not financial interest in Kodak!