# Proper white balance techniques?



## photogod88 (Oct 1, 2012)

How do I master custom white balance I find that my shots never have true colors or distorted exposure tones. Before digital everything was shot right on camera I hate the thought of post production. How do I adapt to the demands of digital photography.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 1, 2012)

Get yourself a grey card or white balance target.  Take a photo of it, in the same light as your subject.  Then (following the user manual's instructions) use that photo to calibrate your custom white balance setting.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 1, 2012)

Use a white terrycloth washcloth or small hand towel as a WB target. Or a gray one. I'm not kidding! Take a Custom WB shot in late-afternoon light about 2 to 3 hours before sunset, in an open, shade area, and set that as Custom White Balance #1, if your camera allows. TRY that sometimes in the afternoon and early morning hours as a Go-TO pre-set. Especially if you shoot a lot in the same general location or area at those times.

If you are unsure of how to do the above,as with so,so many things, RTFM...read the fine manual, to learn how to set a Custom White Balance pre-set.


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 1, 2012)

photogod88 said:


> Before digital everything was shot right on camera



No it wasn't.
Pictures from the average photographer looked like crap - on the average.



photogod88 said:


> I hate the thought of post production. How do I adapt to the  demands of digital photography.



I can't think of a single technique, except perhaps polaroid, that doesn't require post-processing.
What do you think that labs did when you sent the film off?

Well, you can leave your camera sent at default setting, set your jpeg settings to average, all the time not thinking of them as post-production - which they are - and shoot only SOOC.

Of course, you'll lose 80% of the capacity of the digital image.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 1, 2012)

Wanting to 'nail' WB dead-on basically demands some post work.  Even when I shoot using a Custom WB set by using my ExpoDisc, sometimes I find the WB is still not quite what I wanted. Since I shoot raw, PP is part n parcel of the process anyway, so changing WB in post is easy.

Post work is going to end up being a part of your life if you truly want to make the images the way you intend them to be.  Live with it.

In the meantime, learn what your camera is able to do in terms of setting Custom WB.  If it doesn't, find out what settings it _does_ have built into it and learn to use those instead of Auto.


----------



## photogod88 (Oct 1, 2012)

I tried white valence one time and it is green and it won't change back


----------



## MK3Brent (Oct 1, 2012)

It's so easy to change in DDR, so unless I'm dying to see what it will look like in camera while shooting... I'll leave it on Auto. Once I know my correct temperature, I'll select all and synchronize WB. Easy peasy. (shooting RAW that is.)


----------



## Graystar (Oct 1, 2012)

You don't say what kind of camera you have.  The custom white balance process differs between brands.

I carry a white-balance reference in my back pocket.  It's a plastic card, 4" x 6" and about 3mm thick so it's sturdy.  It made by RMI and it's called the Digital Gray Card (although it's not sold for exposure...only for white balance.)  I have a Nikon and setting a custom white balance is very easy.  I just hold down my WB button for two seconds, whip out the card and face it toward the primary light source, frame the card in the camera, and press the shutter...done.  It only takes a few seconds, so I do it any time I step into new light.

I find that a custom white balance always looks better than one of the standard settings, and better than trying to set it myself in post-processing.  The eye is a fairly poor calibration tool...if it was a good calibration tool then we wouldn't need to buy hardware to calibrate our monitors.

Here's a link to the gray card I used...
Digital Gray Card


----------



## table1349 (Oct 1, 2012)

Understanding White Balance

WhiBal White Balance Gray Card Video Tutorial by Michael Tapes


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 1, 2012)

In addition... if you're that picky about WB, you'll need to calibrate your monitor.


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 1, 2012)

use an ExpoDisc, it's not perfect, but its as close to perfect as you'll get in camera.  It really will only be off if your lighting changed between when you white balanced and when you shot (or if you didn't point your camera in the general direction you were shooting when you white balanced).

Once you go expodisc, you never go back.  ExpoDiscs and baseplate screw in straps are the two accessories that I couldn't live without any more.


----------



## jhodges10 (Oct 2, 2012)

Two questions:

1) are expo discs worth the added expense? My local camera shop wants $100 for the expo disc vs $10 for a set of white & gray cards.

2) In what instance do I use the white card? The gray card?

I saw the link to a tutorial but I'm on an iPad and it required flash.  . Thanks!


----------



## photogod88 (Oct 2, 2012)

Graystar said:
			
		

> You don't say what kind of camera you have.  The custom white balance process differs between brands.
> 
> I carry a white-balance reference in my back pocket.  It's a plastic card, 4" x 6" and about 3mm thick so it's sturdy.  It made by RMI and it's called the Digital Gray Card (although it's not sold for exposure...only for white balance.)  I have a Nikon and setting a custom white balance is very easy.  I just hold down my WB button for two seconds, whip out the card and face it toward the primary light source, frame the card in the camera, and press the shutter...done.  It only takes a few seconds, so I do it any time I step into new light.
> 
> ...



I use a canon 5d mark 2


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 2, 2012)

What kind of lighting are you shooting in when you are having these problems?


----------



## Buckster (Oct 2, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> use an ExpoDisc, it's not perfect, but its as close to perfect as you'll get in camera.  It really will only be off if your lighting changed between when you white balanced and when you shot (or if you didn't point your camera in the general direction you were shooting when you white balanced).
> 
> *Once you go expodisc, you never go back.  ExpoDiscs and baseplate screw in straps are the two accessories that I couldn't live without any more.*


Funny, I tried both and went back on both.  Expodisc got sold after several uses and I went back to my favorite WB tool:
http://www.amazon.com/PhotoVision-D...TF8&qid=1349226815&sr=1-3&keywords=Ezybalance

Baseplate screw in strap is now attached to the strap lug on the left side of my camera, where I find it more comfortable to work with, and better for getting my camera bodies quickly onto my tripods.

But to each his own.


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 2, 2012)

Buckster said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > use an ExpoDisc, it's not perfect, but its as close to perfect as you'll get in camera.  It really will only be off if your lighting changed between when you white balanced and when you shot (or if you didn't point your camera in the general direction you were shooting when you white balanced).
> ...



well, that's more of a hybrid white balance/ exposure correction tool.  

I do like the setups where you have a baseplate screw strap attached to a one sided strap that goes on one of the lugs as well.  Just as long as I can quickly take the trap on and off without threading a needle.


----------



## Graystar (Oct 2, 2012)

photogod88 said:


> I use a canon 5d mark 2



Ah...bummer. Canon has a somewhat cumbersome method for setting a custom white balance. As far as I'm aware, there's no quick method that takes a sample image and sets white balance with one press of a button (even though Canon compact cameras have that feature.) Most Canon users will tell you that they just use Auto WB and fix it in post-processing.

To answer jhodges10 question...
I would say that the Expodisc is not worth the money. First, there's no reason at all why the Expodisc should be more accurate than a good quality card reference such as WhiBal, X-Rite (makes the ColorChecker range of targets), or my favorite, the Robin Meyers Imaging Digital Gray Card. The RMI DGC is only 15 bucks, is easy to carry in a back pocket, very durable, and doesn't have to be installed on the camera to use. A card can be placed in the exact location that the subject will be, whereas that's more difficult to accomplish with the ExpoDisc. The ExpoDisc certainly works...I just think it's unnecessarily cumbersome in both size and use for what you get.

The three-card set is for exposure.  You take a picture of the three shades and you get three peaks in your histogram.  You adjust exposure until the outer peaks are where you want them.  Personally, I see it as another form of setting exposure via trial & error.  Better to learn exposure and be able to set exposure from the tones in the scene or from a gray card.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 3, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...


Correct, I can use it for either purpose, or for both.  I like to put it in my model's hands so that it's getting hit with the light the model's getting hit with, and balance from that.  Works well for me.



fjrabon said:


> I do like the setups where you have a baseplate screw strap attached to a one sided strap that goes on one of the lugs as well.  Just as long as I can quickly take the trap on and off without threading a needle.


I use a heavy key ring.  I have one in the left strap lug of each body, and then just snap whichever strap I want to use onto the ring, so no threading the needle.  Works well for me.


----------



## photogod88 (Oct 3, 2012)

MLeeK said:
			
		

> What kind of lighting are you shooting in when you are having these problems?



I shot a lot of in doors and night photography as well as in sun light I use the sunny 16 rule but the sun tends to wash or fade my quality of saturation plus exposure I am either too dark or too bright. My whites are more of a EEG shell white than a true white. And I'm talking about the cream color egg shells. Plus I do club promotional photography so a lot of time it's a mixture of flash and neon light plus arbitrary tungsten lighting mixed in its frustrating


----------



## photogod88 (Oct 3, 2012)

Does anyone think the ultimate exposure computer by Fred Parker is a wast of time


----------



## Buckster (Oct 3, 2012)

photogod88 said:


> Does anyone think the ultimate exposure computer by Fred Parker is a wast of time


His explanation for it uses the word "bracket" 13 times, and the last one says "bracket liberally".

I'll just keep using my Sekonic L-3558R light meter for the tricky stuff that a gray card won't handle very well.  It's a very reliable digital exposure computer that doesn't require "bracket liberally" to work.


----------



## Graystar (Oct 3, 2012)

Buckster said:


> I'll just keep using my Sekonic L-3558R light meter for the tricky stuff that a gray card won't handle very well.  It's a very reliable digital exposure computer that doesn't require "bracket liberally" to work.



Other than flash metering, what kind of "tricky stuff" would a 358 handle that a gray card won't handle well?  I ask because, except for being unable to meter certain areas such as the interior of the lion's den at the zoo, I haven't run into a situation where the metering provided by my gray card was off.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 3, 2012)

Graystar said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > I'll just keep using my Sekonic L-3558R light meter for the tricky stuff that a gray card won't handle very well.  It's a very reliable digital exposure computer that doesn't require "bracket liberally" to work.
> ...


Your examples are good: Anywhere I can't get my gray card to easily or conveniently meter off of, and that includes some things that are too far away from me to make it practical, as well as restricted areas, like the inside of a lion cage, I often prefer the spot meter on the Sekonic to the one on board whichever digital camera body I'm using. Also I do use flash a lot, in multiple light setups that include plenty of modifiers, gels, reflectors, gobos, flags, flocking, and so on.  I also still like to shoot film with my antique cameras, especially my MF cameras, and I use it religiously for that as well.

And, from triggered by what I read from the exposure computer link: Any situation that's "tricky" enough that someone would say, "bracket liberally".  You've articulated some of them very well here:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...eter-centre-weighted-picture.html#post2726052


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 3, 2012)

Graystar said:


> To answer jhodges10 question...
> I would say that the Expodisc is not worth the money. First, there's no reason at all why the Expodisc should be more accurate than a good quality card reference such as WhiBal, X-Rite (makes the ColorChecker range of targets), or my favorite, the Robin Meyers Imaging Digital Gray Card. The RMI DGC is only 15 bucks, is easy to carry in a back pocket, very durable, and doesn't have to be installed on the camera to use. A card can be placed in the exact location that the subject will be, whereas that's more difficult to accomplish with the ExpoDisc. The ExpoDisc certainly works...I just think it's unnecessarily cumbersome in both size and use for what you get.
> 
> The three-card set is for exposure.  You take a picture of the three shades and you get three peaks in your histogram.  You adjust exposure until the outer peaks are where you want them.  Personally, I see it as another form of setting exposure via trial & error.  Better to learn exposure and be able to set exposure from the tones in the scene or from a gray card.



A little thing that is about the size of a small cheeseburger, pops on and off the end of your lens is cumbersome?  With an expo disc it takes me under a minute to white balance.  Also, you just point your camera at the light source that will be hitting your subject?  Not sure how that's particularly difficult?  

With a grey card you either have to do stuff in post, after having your subject hold the card, or you have to make the card take up the full frame, which I've always found to lead to slight inaccuracies, since you're not shooting from the same angle you normally would.  

I can understand not wanting to pay the money for an expodisc, but saying its 'cumbersome' is just unfathomable to me.  Pros love expodiscs precisely because of how fast and non-cumbersome they are.  

I used grey cards forever, until I started using an expo disc every day for work.  After using an expodisc consistently on a day to day basis, it was hard to go back to grey cards, so I finally just bit the bullet and paid the money for my own personal one.


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 3, 2012)

photogod88 said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Other than the sunlight situation, you will always have a problem with colors and white balance no matter what you do. You are mixing lighting and the indoor lights often cycle in colors, especially tungsten and incandescent lights. If you are mixing and getting a little of all of those lights in your shot your white balance will be a total nightmare no matter what you do. You can set a custom white balance that is perfectly correct in the center, but the right side may be green and the left may be orange. Different temperature lights show up. 
The cycling will also throw your exposure a little as well. You'll find one frame to be rather green and very bright, one to be a muddy color and dark, one to be yellow and maybe one that is spot on. There is nothing  you can do about it outside of canceling it out with flash. 
The club promo stuff you have to remember to be shooting for the light to be the color of the light. If it's a blue light on the subject, they should be blue... Not perfectly proper skin toned people.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 3, 2012)

The obsession with white balance is largely a modern, digital, phenomenon.

Not to say they didn't worry about it back in the day, but the only place you could really do much with it was in printing. I bet if you poked around, you'd find some of the same people going on about the Wonderousness of Large Transparencies and The Necessity of Rendering Whites as Pure White.

Given that transparency film came in a pretty limited set of color rendering possibilities, these two points of view are in contradiction.

Nowadays, we can "fix" white balance in a single click, so now, apparently, it has become necessary to do so. On the one hand, I will allow that where digital allows us to do a better job, we should just go ahead and use it to do the job better. On the other hand, I find the obsession which white balance annoying -- it's something that most people don't even see, but there's a cadre of people who have learned to see it, and have elevated it to like the third most important thing: God, Country, Rule of Thirds, White Balance (ok, 4th most important thing).


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 3, 2012)

amolitor said:


> The obsession with white balance is largely a modern, digital, phenomenon.
> 
> Not to say they didn't worry about it back in the day, but the only place you could really do much with it was in printing. I bet if you poked around, you'd find some of the same people going on about the Wonderousness of Large Transparencies and The Necessity of Rendering Whites as Pure White.
> 
> ...


That's all fine and well when you are shooting for personal reasons, but when you are selling to a client who is expecting perfect, then what is your take on it?


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 3, 2012)

amolitor said:


> The obsession with white balance is largely a modern, digital, phenomenon.
> 
> Not to say they didn't worry about it back in the day, but the only place you could really do much with it was in printing. I bet if you poked around, you'd find some of the same people going on about the Wonderousness of Large Transparencies and The Necessity of Rendering Whites as Pure White.
> 
> ...



I basically agree, especially for only minor quibbles.  But as you also admit, today, there's no reason not to get white balance right.  It's one of those things that can take what would otherwise be a stunning image and make it just slightly, almost imperceptibly 'off' if it's not right.  It's also nice to be able to 'artistically' use white balance as well.  Landscape people do this all the time.  Landscapes, to most people, look a little better when they're slightly warmer than is technically correct.

One of the somewhat annoying things on here is when people will say 'white balance is off' when very obviously the photographer meant to make it a bit warm.  I could abide with the critique being "I don't think the warm treatment works", but some people will call to correct any white balance that isn't exactly 'pure', even if it was fairly obviously a choice made by the photographer.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 3, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> That's all fine and well when you are shooting for personal reasons, but when you are selling to a client who is expecting perfect, then what is your take on it?



It depends on the client, to a large degree, and as a professional I am sure you're fully aware of catering to your client's tastes and desires. If the client is relatively sophisticated _and_ shares modern tastes, you're going to get the whites pure white, you're going to push the contrast to ridiculous levels on any black and whites, you're probably going to either over saturate or under saturate, and if you undersaturate you're probably going to push contrast into the midtones.

If you're shooting for ME, you might choose a more naturalistic rendering of the whites, letting them look bluer in the shade and warmer in the sun, and warmer still indoors.

If you're shooting for a relatively unsophisticated bride, you're going to make your photographs look as much as possible like whatever her recently married friends are likely to have seen, which is probably related to the first client's taste. Wedding dresses in particular are problematic, since you're going to want them to look white in anything formal (since the white is often the point of the dress), but you might elect a more naturalistic color balance for informals, depending on what styles are prevalent.

If you're shooting football, you might consider pushing the white balance to give night games one look, and day games another -- cooler and warmer, I suppose? I don't really know the color temp of the huge banks of stadium lights, though.

What's perfect? If your client knows and can articulate it, do that, regardless of what people on the internet say. If your client doesn't or can't, try to hit whatever the local market is doing. If that's still not enough, make it look however you think looks best.

ETA: What I am really saying is that white balance isn't an objective measurement, like resolution. It's not "better or worse", it's not even "more or less accurate" since the reason white things look blue in the shade is because they're blue. It's just an effect, and there are cases where applying it one way or another looks more or less flattering, or more or less natural, or more or less cold/warm, and so on.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 3, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> I basically agree, especially for only minor quibbles.  But as you also admit, today, there's no reason not to get white balance right.  It's one of those things that can take what would otherwise be a stunning image and make it just slightly, almost imperceptibly 'off' if it's not right.  It's also nice to be able to 'artistically' use white balance as well.  Landscape people do this all the time.  Landscapes, to most people, look a little better when they're slightly warmer than is technically correct.



Absolutely! It's an effect. If the photograph looks better warmed up, warm that bad boy up. It's something to be aware of, certainly. A set of related photos should look similar in terms of color balance as well as other things, to be truly coherent as a set.

My beef is with the idea that if the white objects are not rendered completely neutral the "white balance is wrong". It makes no more sense than saying "the saturation is wrong" or "the contrast is wrong". Ineffective, ugly, incoherent, sure all those apply. "wrong" does not.


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 3, 2012)

amolitor said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > That's all fine and well when you are shooting for personal reasons, but when you are selling to a client who is expecting perfect, then what is your take on it?
> ...



I think you have some good points in there, but they tend to make me feel like you are still striving for a 'correct' white balance in every situation. 
Let me explain: Slightly warm or cool or whatever your taste may be, you still would never put out blue, glowing orange or magenta skin tones. You aim for your whites that are in the consistent light to be white. The ones in the shade would be cool as would the opposite if you were shooting in the shade. You wouldn't take an image shot in the shade where the color is cool but has a background in the warm evening sun and make the shaded subject blue so that the background would be proper. Nor would you make the sun cool to match the tone of the subject. The sun would remain warm-or even warmer as you raise the color on your subject to be in range for proper skin tone. Will the skin tone be exactly the same as the subject's skin? Maybe to probably not. It'd be enough correct to not draw the eye thinking HOLY ORANGE DUDE or HOLY DEAD BODY!

In short I think you are right about obsessing about the white balance being slightly eggshell instead of pure is really unrealistic. As a matter of fact, many whites ARE a blue tint or a warm tint that we just don't notice unless we are able to and LOOKING for it. If you look at computer paper from several different manufacturers some will be blueish and some will be creamier. They're all white until you put them together in one report and compare. 

However, that's not exactly how your post seemed. It seemed as if fixing things is kind of pointless overall when average people just plain don't see it. They may not consciously see a bad color, but they also know if something feels not right about it. It has to be within a tolerance for correct. The chances of us knowing that the person really was shaded in blues and should be blue are slim if we see a blue person. 

Football, on the other hand is a whole different ballgame. Night games are a nightmare in a rainbow of color. Day games are easy if they are early, however if the sun is going down the color temp actually skyrockets for a while-BUT if I left it at say 7200K people would most definitely notice it is orange. I don't care so much about perfectly CORRECT as I care about LOOKING correct within a tolerance. A bank of football lights has a range from about 3200K to sometimes near 5000K and you can get everything in between in about one minute. Some are better than others.


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 3, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > MLeeK said:
> ...



The best is when you get them where different lights in the same stadium are on different cycles.  So everything lit by the right side is blue, everything lit by the left side is orange, and everything lit by both sides is magenta or green.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 3, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> However, that's not exactly how your post seemed. It seemed as if fixing things is kind of pointless overall when average people just plain don't see it. They may not consciously see a bad color, but they also know if something feels not right about it. It has to be within a tolerance for correct. The chances of us knowing that the person really was shaded in blues and should be blue are slim if we see a blue person.



Well, I hope my followups clarified my thinking!

Certainly I agree that white balance can enter the realm of the unreal pretty easily, at which point I will certainly stop liking it, and probably lots of people will.


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 3, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...


Dear, God... I have one of those. I am holding that one till last every week. I HATE IT!!! My family laughs as I sit here and mutter while processing the batch. Whenever we arrive at the field they say something to the effect of "here we go again... UGH" because they know they're going to have to deal with me! I can process 3 games in the time it takes me to process that damn field!


----------



## Derrel (Oct 3, 2012)

amolitor said:
			
		

> On the other hand, I find the obsession which white balance annoying -- it's something that most people don't even see, but there's a cadre of people who have learned to see it, and have elevated it to like the third most important thing: *God, Country, Rule of Thirds, White Balance (ok, 4th most important thing)*.



I lol'ed. And then nodded in agreement. How funny! Err...I mean, how tragically sad...


----------



## amolitor (Oct 3, 2012)

Rent a really big cherry picker and gel those bad boys..


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 3, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Rent a really big cherry picker and gel those bad boys..


I'd be better off if I could shove a set of strobes up in each bank of lights.


----------



## photogod88 (Oct 3, 2012)

MLeeK said:
			
		

> That's all fine and well when you are shooting for personal reasons, but when you are selling to a client who is expecting perfect, then what is your take on it?



What do you think about these shots did it on spot no flash and corrected in DDR


----------



## Graystar (Oct 3, 2012)

Buckster said:


> Your examples are good: Anywhere I can't get my gray card to easily or conveniently meter off of, and that includes some things that are too far away from me to make it practical, as well as restricted areas, like the inside of a lion cage, I often prefer the spot meter on the Sekonic to the one on board whichever digital camera body I'm using. Also I do use flash a lot, in multiple light setups that include plenty of modifiers, gels, reflectors, gobos, flags, flocking, and so on.  I also still like to shoot film with my antique cameras, especially my MF cameras, and I use it religiously for that as well.



Okay...perfectly reasonable.  Why do you prefer the Sekonic spot meter over the camera?  Just the amount of information, or is there a performance or usability advantage that you prefer?


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 3, 2012)

Graystar said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Your examples are good: Anywhere I can't get my gray card to easily or conveniently meter off of, and that includes some things that are too far away from me to make it practical, as well as restricted areas, like the inside of a lion cage, I often prefer the spot meter on the Sekonic to the one on board whichever digital camera body I'm using. Also I do use flash a lot, in multiple light setups that include plenty of modifiers, gels, reflectors, gobos, flags, flocking, and so on.  I also still like to shoot film with my antique cameras, especially my MF cameras, and I use it religiously for that as well.
> ...



in camera light meters can't meter flash.


----------



## Ysarex (Oct 3, 2012)

photogod88 said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Welcome to TPF.

You haven't set your edit flag yet, I'm going to assume it's OK to show  you a change, but let us know if you'd prefer "hands off" on your  photos.

The photo of the young woman: it's tending flat and she has cyan  highlights in her hair (see adjustment below). You're original post  mentions struggling with WB. You got some good advice about setting a  custom WB at the time the photo is taken. Given your statement that  you'd prefer to avoid PP, then setting a custom WB is a necessary step  -- auto WB does not work. The other option is to shoot raw and set the WB in post which you're saying you want to avoid. As this thread continued you also asked about  exposure. Yes, Fred Parker is a waste of time. Considering the three photos you posted, I'd say your having some exposure problems due to high contrast ranges. Given the type of photos you're taking the only real efficient solution for that is flash. Flash also solves your WB problem. You need quality off camera flash hardware: it's either that or you will do the PP. Your camera has a feature you'll find under the Custom menu called HTP (highlight tone priority) which you might find helpful but it is a double edged sword.

Joe


----------



## Buckster (Oct 3, 2012)

Graystar said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Your examples are good: Anywhere I can't get my gray card to easily or conveniently meter off of, and that includes some things that are too far away from me to make it practical, as well as restricted areas, like the inside of a lion cage, I often prefer the spot meter on the Sekonic to the one on board whichever digital camera body I'm using. Also I do use flash a lot, in multiple light setups that include plenty of modifiers, gels, reflectors, gobos, flags, flocking, and so on.  I also still like to shoot film with my antique cameras, especially my MF cameras, and I use it religiously for that as well.
> ...


I meter flash with the incident dome, actually.

But in any case, I nearly always shoot from a tripod, even outdoors in pretty good light.  When I get into a situation where I think the spot meter would be a better tool than the incident meter, I find that it's easier for the way I shoot to lock down my composition, then put the Sekonic to my eye and move around the scene to check out exposure values, rather than to move the camera around to get them.  Sometimes that leads me to employ a graduated NDR or shoot bracketed exposures for later HDR work.

It's probably influenced heavily by working with film and meters for 30 years before I got into digital too.  Old dog, old tricks, or something like that.


----------



## Graystar (Oct 3, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> A little thing that is about the size of a small cheeseburger, pops on and off the end of your lens is cumbersome?  With an expo disc it takes me under a minute to white balance.  Also, you just point your camera at the light source that will be hitting your subject?  Not sure how that's particularly difficult?
> 
> With a grey card you either have to do stuff in post, after having your subject hold the card, or you have to make the card take up the full frame, which I've always found to lead to slight inaccuracies, since you're not shooting from the same angle you normally would.
> 
> ...



If the Expodisc works for you that's fine...I'm not saying that it doesn't work.  It's just that in my personal opinion I think it's more cumbersome to use than a card.

I look at the usability issue from the perspective of walking around, say, a large museum, where every room has different lighting.  I want to set a custom white balance quickly without having to unzip a pocket on my bag (or sometimes I don't even have my bag.)  I guess I could carry an Expodisc in a front pocket...which it would have to share with a phone or keys.  But carrying a card in the back pocket is easier than in a bag, and more comfortable than a front pocket.

I use a gray card that's 4"x6" and only 3mm thick...it fits in my back pocket and I don't even feel it back there.  As I have a Nikon, it literally takes me less than 10 seconds to set a custom white balance.  I hold the WB button for two seconds to initiate the WB procedure, whip out the card from my back pocket, face it towards the light (or if there are two light sources, held to catch both,) and then frame the card and press the shutter.  I don't even look through the camera...I just put the lens directly on the card, careful not to block the light.  Then the card goes back in my pocket and I'm ready to shoot.  It's fast, easy, indestructible, and works every time. The card was only 15 bucks and can be "refreshed" with sandpaper should it get dirty.  

I'm sure the Expodisc works well...I simply don't see what advantage I get by spending 5 times as much, and always having to point in some other direction into the light source to set my white balance.  And what do you do with two light sources?  If you don't point the Expodisc directly at the source, the color from the area that you are pointing at may influence the white balance setting.  I don't have that problem with a card.  It's for these reasons that I never recommend the Expodisc.  But like I said...it's just a personal evaluation...one person's opinion.


----------



## Graystar (Oct 3, 2012)

photogod88 said:


> What do you think about these shots did it on spot no flash and corrected in DDR


Girl by window...way off.  Too blue.
In car...clear green cast.
Third shot...ever so slight green cast...but willing to call "nitpicking" on that evaluation and declare the WB good.


----------



## Graystar (Oct 3, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> Graystar said:
> 
> 
> > in camera light meters can't meter flash.
> ...


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 3, 2012)

Graystar said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > A little thing that is about the size of a small cheeseburger, pops on and off the end of your lens is cumbersome?  With an expo disc it takes me under a minute to white balance.  Also, you just point your camera at the light source that will be hitting your subject?  Not sure how that's particularly difficult?
> ...



Hmm, I've just never found this method of WB'ing to be particularly accurate for me, often not even as accurate as just using auto WB.  But maybe you're just better at it than me.  I cant think of a single time my expo disc has ever been noticeably off.    just my opinion.


----------



## Graystar (Oct 3, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> Hmm, I've just never found this method of WB'ing to be particularly accurate for me, often not even as accurate as just using auto WB.  But maybe you're just better at it than me.  I cant think of a single time my expo disc has ever been noticeably off.    just my opinion.



Good results from a card is difficult if the card doesn't have a good quality matte surface.  I have a card called the Digital Grey Kard (DGK) by DGK Color Tools (as oppose to the Digital Gray Card [DGC] by RMI.)  The DGK surface is about as neutral as the DGC surface.  But the DGK is far more reflective, and specular reflections can throw off the reading.  The DGC, on the other hand, can provide the same reflectance over a good range of angles with no specular reflections.  It's a much better card.

In this respect there's an advantage to the Expodisc in that you're getting a product of known quality.  If you just go out and get any ol' gray card, your results might not be as good as mine.  However I do only recommend the RMI DGC, and a person looking for advice could just as easily buy an Expodisc knock-off from ebay, thinking it will work just as well (it won't) as someone buying a cheap gray card, also thinking it will work just as well.

I think the main point of my response is that quality does matter, and we should consider that in our recommendations and personal evaluations of products.


----------



## photogod88 (Oct 3, 2012)

Ysarex said:
			
		

> Welcome to TPF.
> 
> You haven't set your edit flag yet, I'm going to assume it's OK to show  you a change, but let us know if you'd prefer "hands off" on your  photos.
> 
> ...



Joe fantastic work on my photo really amazing I'd love to learn more from you. I see so much of what I'm trying to achieve in that edit you did I'll leave my work open to edit any time you want to throw your mix in a picture please do and if you want I'll send you links to the actual full image. I know a lot of people that would kill for your talent in post production I myself am even willing to pay for a lesson two thanks for the inspiration


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 3, 2012)

photogod88 said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is a slight green blue on the first one. 
The skin tones in the second two are too orange. Warm is good, but pure orange is harsh. You've toned it down on the faces somehow and that helps A LOT. The second of those two is better than the first. 
They're passable, but if you are shooting a high end wedding it's not so great. I wouldn't put it out that orange. If you are finding oranges to be that heavy when you KNOW your white balance elsewhere is good switch to the HSL sliders in LR/ACR. You can have a major affect on the oranges by sliding the luminance slider for orange to the +. You then retain the warm tone, but the skin doesn't look orange.


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 3, 2012)

I should probably adjust the exposure a bit on her face, but this was a 2 second edit just lifting the luminance and reducing the saturation of the oranges. Still has the warm look, but not heavy on the orange!


----------



## BuS_RiDeR (Oct 3, 2012)

Big Mike said:


> Get yourself a grey card or white balance target.  Take a photo of it, in the same light as your subject.  Then (following the user manual's instructions) use that photo to calibrate your custom white balance setting.



^

Yeah that...


----------



## Ysarex (Oct 3, 2012)

photogod88 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for the flattery I'm happy to help. People do pay me; I'm a retired college prof. who still teaches photo and Photoshop part-time -- I've been at it long enough I should know a few things. You'll find some very capable people here at TPF who will give you useful info (no charge!). You're meeting some of them in this thread.

In your photo I removed the cyan/blue color shift -- you really see it in the highlights in her hair. Then I lightened the photo some and raised the contrast a little. I used a mask to suppress that effect on her face.

Joe


----------



## JDFlood (Oct 5, 2012)

I wouldn't shy away from post production. These days it is really easy and cool. You can improve your photos 100% and no nasty chemicals! The clouds washed out? One slider, there're back. Shoot into the sun and foreground blacked, slide another slider it's back. Face underexposed move another slider. Sunset overexposed.... Well you get the idea. I spend a few seconds with each photo. You can apply Sam to all in a series... Way cool. JD


----------

