Custom white balance

[Lizziejane]

Ok, I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I have yet to venture into "custom" anything, but I think it's time...

I read an article tonight that on one hand made a lot of sense, but on the other, left me confused.

Basically, it suggested taking a picture of someone holding a white card (zoomed in on the card), then going into the menu and setting that picture as my custom white balance. I'm ok with that part, but my question is, if I'm shooting someone who is fairly stationary and I'm using natural light from a nearby window but I decide to add some flash, will that affect my custom white balance? Seems to me it would, but I need to ask! If so, should I be taking two pictures of the white card - one with flash, one without - and programming two custom white balances?

The article then went on to suggest taking a second picture of a grey card, and checking the histogram. If the reading is smack dab in the centre, then you have correct exposure. If it's off to the left, you're underexposed, or off to the right, you're over-exposed. Assuming I'm shooting something or someone that's stationary and the light remains constant, this makes sense to me. Is it really that simple to get the perfect exposure? I'm assuming this technique would really only work accurately with a subject that is stationary, in consistent light.

One other article suggested you could use a grey card to set your white balance. This makes no sense to me at all. Telling your camera that grey is white just sounds all wrong! What am I missing?

I know I can shoot raw and fix it up afterwards, but I always seem to muck things up in Lightroom - I just can't seem to stop "fiddling" with settings and then am horrified at the results in print. I'd prefer to perfect my shooting skills rather than Lightroom/photoshop skills.

Any help or insight would be greatly appreciated!

 

[ukcatfan]

Basically, it suggested taking a picture of someone holding a white card (zoomed in on the card), then going into the menu and setting that picture as my custom white balance. I'm ok with that part, but my question is, if I'm shooting someone who is fairly stationary and I'm using natural light from a nearby window but I decide to add some flash, will that affect my custom white balance? Seems to me it would, but I need to ask! If so, should I be taking two pictures of the white card - one with flash, one without - and programming two custom white balances?

If you do not want to shoot in RAW and change the WB later, then you need to set the WB to custom through the camera's menu. Just taking a picture of it is not going to do it b/c the camera sets the WB individually on each shot unless you tell it otherwise. Also, custom WB and JPG can be dangerous b/c you might set it and forget when you go to a different light source. With JPG, there is no good recovery of that mistake.

Yes, you do need two custom shots b/c that is two different WB levels. Only one custom WB level can be set in camera at a time.

The article then went on to suggest taking a second picture of a grey card, and checking the histogram. If the reading is smack dab in the centre, then you have correct exposure. If it's off to the left, you're underexposed, or off to the right, you're over-exposed. Assuming I'm shooting something or someone that's stationary and the light remains constant, this makes sense to me. Is it really that simple to get the perfect exposure? I'm assuming this technique would really only work accurately with a subject that is stationary, in consistent light.

That will give you an accurate meter reading, but that does not mean that it is the correct exposure. Certain situations call for over and others under, so it is certainly not fool proof.

One other article suggested you could use a grey card to set your white balance. This makes no sense to me at all. Telling your camera that grey is white just sounds all wrong! What am I missing?

That will work with the in camera custom WB, but not in PP. If you do RAW and PP, you would be better off having a card with white, neutral gray, and black. That way you can set those points.

I know I can shoot raw and fix it up afterwards, but I always seem to muck things up in Lightroom - I just can't seem to stop "fiddling" with settings and then am horrified at the results in print. I'd prefer to perfect my shooting skills rather than Lightroom/photoshop skills.

I suggest practicing more b/c that really is the best way. Also note that the printing frustration could be due to the monitor not being calibrated correctly. Also, the settings for the image to print are a little different than for viewing on a monitor. For example, the exposure needs to be a little higher and the image should be sharper for print. Another reason RAW is the best way to go IMO.

Kevin

 

[MICKEY88]

1.That will give you an accurate meter reading, but that does not mean that it is the correct exposure. Certain situations call for over and others under, so it is certainly not fool proof.

2.
I suggest practicing more b/c that really is the best way. Also note that the printing frustration could be due to the monitor not being calibrated correctly. Also, the settings for the image to print are a little different than for viewing on a monitor. For example, the exposure needs to be a little higher and the image should be sharper for print. Another reason RAW is the best way to go IMO.

Kevin

I respectfully disagree with these 2 points,


1. true certain subjects call for + or -
exposure compensation, _ examples{ woman in black gown in front of ababy grand piano, would require - exposure comp, bride in white gown in front of white wall , would require + exposure comp, because in both situations your camera would try to turn the black or the white, to grey,}however, if you meter off of a grey card placed in front of your subject, and use these settings your photo will be accurately exposed.., now if you add flashthat could change things..


2. I think perfecting shooting skills rather than relying on post processing is the best way

 

[MarkBarbieri]

It might help to get a better understanding of what "white balance" is. When you take a picture, the color of the light affects the color of your subject. Sunlight, shade, and different light bulbs are all different colors. White balancing is what you do to correct things to make the color neutral so that white in your picture looks white, grey looks grey, and black looks black.

White balance is usually done by photographing something neutral in color (the same amount of red, blue, and green) such as a white card or a grey card. If you took a picture of a grey card using an ordinary tungsten light bulb, it would look a bit orange instead of pure grey. You then adjust the levels of red, green, and blue in your picture so that it looks pure grey. Wheter you use a white or grey card doesn't really matter. The important thing is that your card be neutral in color.

You actually can white balance JPG images, not just RAW. The problem with doing that is that the JPG has already thrown away some of the information originally captured by the camera and the more you "adjust" the picture, the more likely you are to run into problems because you are missing that extra information.

You are correct in assuming that you need a different white balance every time you change the lighting. That's true even if you just change the balance of the lights. Of course, that's assuming that you want precise white balance. Most of the time, your lighting won't change that much and you can get it good enough.

Don't obsess over white balance. Truly neutral lighting isn't what you always want anyway. A nice warm scene taken at sunset looks nice precisely because the white balance is off - it's way too warm. Understand what "correct" white balance is, but don't think that all of your shots should be neutral.

I think that it is more important to have consistent white balance rather than correct white balance. Looking through a slightly cool or slightly warm set of pictures isn't that jarring. Looking through a set where someone has inconsistently tried to fix the white balance on each shot so that the white balance shifts between pictures is jarring even for non-photographers.

Another problem to be aware of is that scenes aren't consistently lit. Think about a picture of a person taken in sunlight standing on a grassy field. They will be primarily lit by direct sunlight (relatively neutral) but the shadows will be lit be light reflecting from the green grass. If you adjust the white balance for the sunlight, the shadows will be green. If you adjust the white balance for the shadows, the rest of the picture will be messed up. There is no perfect solution unless you are going to use very controlled and balance lighting.

If you want to get really serious about white balancing, read the book The Classic Guide to Color Correction. I did and the main thing that I learned is that for my style of shooting, I've got better things to do with my time. My advice is to adust white balance to meet your tastes and to apply the same balance consistently to all of your photos taken in the same lighting.

As for exposure, check your histogram. It's true that setting exposure off of a grey card will get you "correct" exposure for that light level. However, if you have some more brightly lit or more shadowed areas in the photo, they will be off. Also, if you have some very white or very black areas in the picture, you might lose detail in them with "correct" exposure. Do your best to set a proper exposure, but check your histogram to make sure that you are getting the exposure you expect.

I'll also concur with the sentiment that it is better to get it right when you shoot then it is to "fix" it later. Just don't obsess over making it perfect. Sometimes good enough is good enough.

 

[Lizziejane]

Thanksk for the replies guys. Just one more question - when I check the histogram in camera on some shots I took, it was not quite touching the right side. Yet when I opened it in PE, it was spiking on the right. Is that normal?

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Thanksk for the replies guys. Just one more question - when I check the histogram in camera on some shots I took, it was not quite touching the right side. Yet when I opened it in PE, it was spiking on the right. Is that normal?

No. That's not normal at all. The histogram in the camera should match the histogram on the computer. Always.

The one possible exception that I can think of us if you are viewing a greyscale histogram on your camera and looking at an RGB histogram on the computer. In that case, it's possible that you'll see that you blew out a color channel on the computer but that the grey scale values all looked OK.

 

[ukcatfan]

I respectfully disagree with these 2 points,


1. true certain subjects call for + or -
exposure compensation, _ examples{ woman in black gown in front of ababy grand piano, would require - exposure comp, bride in white gown in front of white wall , would require + exposure comp, because in both situations your camera would try to turn the black or the white, to grey,}however, if you meter off of a grey card placed in front of your subject, and use these settings your photo will be accurately exposed.., now if you add flashthat could change things..


2. I think perfecting shooting skills rather than relying on post processing is the best way

1. I still have to disagree with you. I "sometimes" try to think outside the box where an over or under exposure is "creatively" correct. I have seen many pro shots that are "technically" not exposed correctly, but I have no right to tell them that they messed up the shot. If it was exposed how they wanted, then it was exposed correctly IMO.

2. What in the world does shooting skills have to do with setting the WB??? IMO, that is a function of the camera's software and I do not believe it makes anyone less of a skilled photographer to not want to manually set it on every shot. This is like saying someone is not a skilled photographer with film when they happen to not have the right type of film in the camera. I personally see skills as getting the exposure and composition the way you want it so that it tells the story you intended.

Kevin

 

[MICKEY88]

1. I still have to disagree with you. I "sometimes" try to think outside the box where an over or under exposure is "creatively" correct. I have seen many pro shots that are "technically" not exposed correctly, but I have no right to tell them that they messed up the shot. If it was exposed how they wanted, then it was exposed correctly IMO.

2. What in the world does shooting skills have to do with setting the WB??? IMO, that is a function of the camera's software and I do not believe it makes anyone less of a skilled photographer to not want to manually set it on every shot. This is like saying someone is not a skilled photographer with film when they happen to not have the right type of film in the camera. I personally see skills as getting the exposure and composition the way you want it so that it tells the story you intended.

Kevin

1. I always think outside the box, but that has nothing to do with the point here, you originally stated that metering off of a grey card, won't guarantee an accurate exposure...I maintain, that it will indeed,

if a photographer whether pro or amateur, chosses to under or over expose, that is their perogative, it doesn't mean they've blown the shot, but the very terms under and over, indicate something other than an accurate exposure



2.sorry if you took that personally, but white balance is part of the equation of getting a good photo, and I'm not alone in thinking that it's best to get the best possible shot out of the camera and do as little as possible post processing,

I don't know that I've ever encountered a situation where I had to set white balance on every shot..

however I certainly set it for daylight, or inside with tungsten, or whatever type of lighting, it's not that difficult, if one practices it regularly, it becomes second nature

 

[ukcatfan]

That will give you an accurate meter reading, but that does not mean that it is the correct exposure. Certain situations call for over and others under, so it is certainly not fool proof.

1. I always think outside the box, but that has nothing to do with the point here, you originally stated that metering off of a grey card, won't guarantee an accurate exposure...I maintain, that it will indeed,

if a photographer whether pro or amateur, chosses to under or over expose, that is their perogative, it doesn't mean they've blown the shot, but the very terms under and over, indicate something other than an accurate exposure



2.sorry if you took that personally, but white balance is part of the equation of getting a good photo, and I'm not alone in thinking that it's best to get the best possible shot out of the camera and do as little as possible post processing,

I don't know that I've ever encountered a situation where I had to set white balance on every shot..

however I certainly set it for daylight, or inside with tungsten, or whatever type of lighting, it's not that difficult, if one practices it regularly, it becomes second nature

1. To quote myself above, I never said that it would not result in an accurate exposure. In fact, I said that it would give you an accurate reading, but an accurate exposure is not always the best exposure. The OP was looking to see it is as simple as metering a gray card to get a "perfect" exposure every time. The answer is no and that is how I responded. I believe that we both have the same stance on this and that it just did come across in the wording to you.

2. I did not take it personally, I just wonder why you would look down on someone for using RAW to not have to worry about the WB while out shooting? I know your long time stance on RAW from your many responses about it, but I would just like you to know that it comes across arrogant at times. I know you well enough to know that you are not pointing fingers, but we constantly have new people stopping by here and they might not know you at all.

Kevin

 

[Anewman]

My take...

Metering off of a grey card will give you an proper(perfect/accurate... whatever one calls it) exposure at that area in the frame, other areas of the frame might not be properly exposed.


When it comes to WB and RAW, setting in-camera does NOT make much of a difference to the final result. The setting is not applied to the image data and all software interpret that setting differently, there is no calibration chain that assures a perfectly set WB setting in-camera will be exactly the same once the image is converted. If one takes a picture of the gray card and uses it adjust WB in software and then applies it to other images in taken under the same exact lighting conditions, you will be much better off.

 

[MICKEY88]

1. To quote myself above, I never said that it would not result in an accurate exposure. In fact, I said that it would give you an accurate reading, but an accurate exposure is not always the best exposure. The OP was looking to see it is as simple as metering a gray card to get a "perfect" exposure every time. The answer is no and that is how I responded. I believe that we both have the same stance on this and that it just did come across in the wording to you.

2. I did not take it personally, I just wonder why you would look down on someone for using RAW to not have to worry about the WB while out shooting? I know your long time stance on RAW from your many responses about it, but I would just like you to know that it comes across arrogant at times. I know you well enough to know that you are not pointing fingers, but we constantly have new people stopping by here and they might not know you at all.

Kevin

1.
actually you said an accurate exposure wouldn't be a correct exposure...that is different than saying ..the best exposure,,I'm at a loss for when an accurate exposure wouldn't be the best exposure...please help me understand this one with an example...

2.

I don't look down on anyone, for shooting raw, but the fact remains, if you geta proper exposure, and have set the right wb prior to the shot, you do have less work to do in post processing,

you really don't know me at all, or arrogant is one of the last things you would associate with me..

sticking to my guns on the issue is not arrogance, I just think it's a dis-service to tell someone not to bother learning how to set white balance if they ask how to do it,

WB really doesn't fluctuate shot to shot in most situations, , taking the time to set wb before the event starts, saves time post processing after the event..

 

[ukcatfan]

1.
actually you said an accurate exposure wouldn't be a correct exposure...that is different than saying ..the best exposure,,I'm at a loss for when an accurate exposure wouldn't be the best exposure...please help me understand this one with an example...

2.

I don't look down on anyone, for shooting raw, but the fact remains, if you geta proper exposure, and have set the right wb prior to the shot, you do have less work to do in post processing,

you really don't know me at all, or arrogant is one of the last things you would associate with me..

sticking to my guns on the issue is not arrogance, I just think it's a dis-service to tell someone not to bother learning how to set white balance if they ask how to do it,

WB really doesn't fluctuate shot to shot in most situations, , taking the time to set wb before the event starts, saves time post processing after the event..

Ugh. OK, this is going to be my last post on this. I am not even going to check back for a response. I said that you sometimes sound arrogant with your posts, but I personally have read enough of your posts and contributions on the board to know that you are not. The tone of the written word does not always come across as intended. I was just saying that someone who noes not normally read your posts could be offended by your writing style.

Kevin

 

[MICKEY88]

Ugh. OK, this is going to be my last post on this. I am not even going to check back for a response. I said that you sometimes sound arrogant with your posts, but I personally have read enough of your posts and contributions on the board to know that you are not. The tone of the written word does not always come across as intended. I was just saying that someone who noes not normally read your posts could be offended by your writing style.

Kevin

obviously it's your choice to drop out of the conversation,

 

[Groucho]

Yikes. Let's see if we can bring this thread back around.

The best thing to do is to try shooting a few shots in raw, then use whatever raw processor you have (probably what came with your camera) and see what the effect of changing the white balance will be. Most will also let you pick a neutral color (ie, a shade of gray) and will automatically white balance off that, usually with very good results.

Some shots cannot have "correct" white balance through the whole frame. For example, I have a shot of my wife and son on an indoor merry-go-round, taken with the flash, but the sunny outdoors in visible through the large open entrance. The flash requires one white balance while the outdoors requires another, so without separating the two in Photoshop, I can choose either a proper foreground and a bluish background, or a proper background and a yellowish foreground.

Even if you never shoot Raw again, you'll have a better idea of just how the changes in white balance will affect the shot.

 

[MICKEY88]

there is a really simple solution for those who choose to shoot jpeg...

simply take a few test shots with each wb setting and see which one looks most natural.on your lcd screen

not sure about other cameras but my 7d even allows me to go into setting it by color temperature, from 2500 -9500K

 

[Groucho]

Still more and unnecessary work and you still have all the other disadvantages of JPG.

Look at it this way: how many of us have set the ISO to a higher level when shooting indoors then forgot to reset it when outside and taken a few outdoor photos at ISO 1600? If so, congratulations but for the rest of us, the less we have to worry about when shooting, the better! Especially when in such a dynamic place as a Disney park, where you rarely have the luxury to stop and check all your settings.

 

[MICKEY88]

Still more and unnecessary work and you still have all the other disadvantages of JPG.

Look at it this way: how many of us have set the ISO to a higher level when shooting indoors then forgot to reset it when outside and taken a few outdoor photos at ISO 1600? If so, congratulations but for the rest of us, the less we have to worry about when shooting, the better! Especially when in such a dynamic place as a Disney park, where you rarely have the luxury to stop and check all your settings.

I check my settings frequently at wdw,it's a habit
now I'm really confused, that train of thought would lead me to believe it's better to have a basic P&S with no camera settings..

why buy an advanced dslr if you don't intend to use it to it's full capacity..

on one hand I hear it's better to shoot raw, so you can have more control over your final product, on the other I'm being told I do unneccessary work in using the functions and control that my camera allows me..????



I don't think there is a right or wrong way per se, just a way that works best for each individual,, shooting everyday a lot of these things become second nature, when I use exposure comp or change my wb for a few shots, I automatically return to my favorite settings, at the end of the day when I empty my card, and charge my batteries, I also double check to see that my settings have all been returnedto the basics that I usually start out with each day..

 

[Master Mason]

1 and I'm not alone in thinking that it's best to get the best possible shot out of the camera and do as little as possible post processing,

I don't think anyone disagrees with you on this, but sometimes when I read your posts it comes across like if you don't get the perfect shot with just your camera then your somehow not as good as others. This is not fair or accurate, because people have been post processing for years in the film world.

examples, cross processing the film, dodging and burning, varrying the exposure time of the paper when making prints, cross processing the paper, etc....

The camera and it's settings are just one part of the equation, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with post processing shots if that's how you want to do it.

 

[MICKEY88]

I don't think anyone disagrees with you on this, but sometimes when I read your posts it comes across like if you don't get the perfect shot with just your camera then your somehow not as good as others. This is not fair or accurate, because people have been post processing for years in the film world.

examples, cross processing the film, dodging and burning, varrying the exposure time of the paper when making prints, cross processing the paper, etc....

The camera and it's settings are just one part of the equation, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with post processing shots if that's how you want to do it.

sorry it comes across that way, that isn't my point...nor way of thinking..
I post process all the time, sometimes to tweak things others to completely alter a photo, I 've never said post processing is wrong, I just disagree with the concept of shooting raw as a catchall, and not worrying about trying to get the best possible shot, by using your cameras controls to the fullest..

 

[Anewman]

I 've never said post processing is wrong, I just diagree with the concept of shooting raw as a catchall, and not worrying about trying to get the best possible shot, by using your cameras controls to the fullest..

I agree 100% that the best possible exposure(to the photographers taste) is ALWAYS ideal, I just do not think it applies to certain things such as WB when shooting Raw. No matter what setting is placed in-camera it does not get applied to the image data. It makes no difference to the file, and there is no across the board standard on what the settings equal once it hits software.

You can set a custom wb but if you shoot raw the conversion software probably does decent job of getting close to the temprature you wanted but it will not be exact unless you are using your camera companies software. The only way to get it exact in any other software is to take a picture of a reference card and use that to set a custom white balance, then apply that conversion to all your shots in that lighting.