Proper white balance techniques?

[fjrabon]

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:
Amazon.com: PhotoVision 14 Inch Pocket One Shot Digital Calibration Target with DVD, Collapsible Disc Exposure Aid for Digital Cameras: Electronics

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.

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]

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]

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:
Amazon.com: PhotoVision 14 Inch Pocket One Shot Digital Calibration Target with DVD, Collapsible Disc Exposure Aid for Digital Cameras: Electronics

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.

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

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Buckster]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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).

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]

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).

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]

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]

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.