White Balance Devises

<p>Ok, I have a question that I am aware has personal preferences to it but I want some real user input on this. Which do you prefer a white balance devise such as the "ExpoDisc Neutral" or "The Spyder Cube"?<br>

I am aware the "Disc" is put directly onto the lens of your camera and then correct your white balance in the camera. While with the "Cube" you shot the "cube" in the setting and then shot the setting then make corrections/develop in a computer program.<br>

If I have gotten either one of the above processes incorrect, sorry, correct me and give me the pros and cons.<br>

Thanks for your knowledge,<br>

Lisa</p>

<p>i prefer something like the Whibal card or the XRite ColorChecker (or passport)</p>

<p>What's wrong with a good old grey or white card?</p>

<p>"What's wrong with a good old grey or white card?" Nothing, but what about the shooting a white surface and correcting from there? Just wanting feedback about the "Disc" and "Cube".</p>

<p>I shoot in RAW and large jpeg and let AWB take care of the jpegs. In RAW, I can adjust the temperature as I please, anytime. (Actually, if you open the jpegs in Adobe Camera Raw, you can do the same thing to them.)</p>

<p>I would say that AWB gets it pretty close to right about 90% of the time, or so it seems to me.<br /> Zach here just the other day, said he used coffee filters to set white balance (<a href="00Uspn?unified_p=1">link</a> ) -- you have to admit, it appeals to the cheap in us all. ;)</p>

<p>Of course, you have to use the bleached filters, not the unbleached ones.</p>

<p>I didn't like the Disc due to larger color tolerances. I would just use a coffee filter if all I wanted was a reasonable approximation.</p>

<p>I tried the Cube. I thought it was great in the studio where you have a more controlled lighting (you hope) but was kind of a hassle in the field. Although it isn't big, it is bulky and takes up valuable real estate in your camera bag. For field work I use a Whibal card.</p>

<p>But as for shooting workflow, there is a huge difference between the two. If you use the Disc, you need to make sure you set your white balance before you start shooting. With the Cube, Whibal, and others, you can take your reference image anytime during the shoot as long as the light temperature doesn't change.</p>

<p>RAW with AWB usually works good enough with a batch correction in NX2 if necessary. If I do a custom white balance it's with a coffee filter.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>what about the shooting a white surface and correcting from there</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The question is, "What is white?" Critical white balance devices have tight tolerances so control color casts. This is why using a piece of paper is only an approximation and AWB is probably just as accurate in many situations.</p>

<p>Likewise a regular gray card isn't neutral gray-despite the name. They are more concerned with exposure than color. I've tested out a bunch of new neutral gray cards and found that some were green, some were red and some were magenta. While they may have only been anywhere from 1-6 points of color, 6 points magenta on a face-not so good looking</p>

<p>White balance is one of the few aspects of photography where the photographer gets to be creative. A white balance device's main advantage is to maintain consistency processing a large volume of images taken under the same light in an efficient manner.</p>

<p>I use a WhilBal card not so I can click on it to arrive at R=G=B, but to confirm through its flat spectral reflectance qualities as measured by a spectrophotometer, that the color hue I see with my eyes and not through the viewfinder is not fooling my eyes only the camera's.</p>

<p>This card will accurately reflect a warm yellowish hue with a tinge of tan when lit by direct sunlight positioned around 45 degrees in a clear blue sky. It will also reflect a bluish hue with a tinge of magenta when viewing it pointing straight up at the same blue sky away from direct sunlight.</p>

<p>R=G=B is a display viewing environment concept to eliminate the affects varying color casts have on editing an image. You can click on any neutral looking object in an image and get some kind of balance correction. Most often accuracy to scene isn't one of them not even with the WhiBal card.</p>

<p>Pleasing color can be achieved using this approach, however, as long as the light source looks neutral so when the user clicks for R=G=B on a neutral object, the image's entire color table is equalized somewhat so they can afterward boost saturation and contrast evenly without causing hue shifts in neutrals which ends up making the image pop due to the effect of color constancy.</p>

<p>This is the secret sauce behind using white balance devices as well as maintaining some kind of consistency within a photo shoot using the same type of lighting. Shooting Raw and building a custom profile will render more accurate to scene results in the image's color appearance than a white balance device will deliver.</p>

<p>I've studied this for some time shooting real world objects using direct sunlight as my light source with my Pentax K100D DSLR testing jpeg captures over how Raw converters interpret my camera's perception of white balance. When I click for R=G=B the image noticeably desaturates and appears bluish by comparison and sometimes becomes brighter where all I have to do is increase saturation and contrast and I'm pretty much done.</p>

<p>Change the quality and neutrality of lighting and I've got my work cut out for me.</p>

<p>Expo Disk is what I use.....easier and more flexible than anything else I've seen,, especially where the light sources are many and very varied, which happens often on large location commercial shoots....regards, Robert</p>

<p>Some camera's are better at white balancing over others using their AutoWB setting. Using the "Disc" over the lens approach sounds like it would be more convenient than carrying around a white balance device you'ld have to include in every session shoot.</p>

<p>Wonder if the "Disc" reduces the amount of light coming in when placed over the lens. Don't know. Never used it.</p>

<p>Below is a demonstration of what these devices are suppose to do to the image for post processing. It doesn't always happen this way though at least in my experience even under direct sunlight.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>The question is, "What is white?" Critical white balance devices have tight tolerances so control color casts.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Arrgh!<br>

This always gets me going. LOL<br>

Critical? How critical (anal) does a photog have to be?<br>

1) Perfect WB?..Great. Is the printer perfect?...Are our eyes perfect? Screen calibrated?</p>

<p>White card/gray card use in manual white balancing is more than adequate for any photography job save scientific studies.<br>

Gray card in scene one time, shoot RAW, copy WB setting to all other photos. Done.<br>

Really concerned over WB inconsistancy? Worried you might be off by 15-20 degrees K? Don't shoot jpg then.<br>

Man; I can't even see a visual difference of 15-20 degrees! LOL</p>

<p>All these cute little widgets are made to convince you that you must have them..It's called sales.</p>

<p>I'd be happy to challenge anyone with their whiz-bang-O-matic white balance gizmo to shoot the same object I do, print it, and then ask a unbiased person to tell us which WB is on and which is off.</p>

<p>Lisa; save your money.</p>

<p>Alright, on the coffe filter thing. I use it, and I swear by it now. It is not exact, but it gets you pretty close. The basic idea is to shoot at your light source with auto something (ie. shutter, ISO or apeture), then either set custom white balance in camera (I have had both success and failure with this) or later in ACR (only been successful). The thing to remember with coffee filters is they aren't a 100% smooth/translucent surface, so little spots of it might vary slightly in color. But it does get you close (within a 200k, plus or minus), and from there, you can adjust it yourself.</p>

<p>Kevin,</p>

<p>I didn't see anyone here mention kelvin tolerances of 15-20 degrees. I agree with you that's unnoticeable.</p>

<p>But there's more to it for some folks who shoot product shots and need to get the image to look both accurate and pleasing. Thought I demonstrated that in the sample above. </p>

<p>The first image in that sample can't have any additional saturation applied because it would amplify the yellow filter appearance across the entire image. The apple variety depicted is a Pink Lady or Cripps Pink and it shouldn't have an orange red but a pinkish/magenta red with a greenish yellow lighter part.</p>

<p>Adjusting the color temp sliders in the Raw converter could be done by trial and error, but I found it took some time getting the right balance because my eyes kept adapting to whatever I came up with. I'ld go from green to red to too bluish to orangish especially on pale complected skintones everytime I looked away from the screen and looked back.</p>

<p>The center image is the most accurate of the three which looks quite ashen and downright butt ugly with regards to color, but that's what it looked like. Also this is what happens when shooting under daylight and editing on a 6500K display. This look is what turns most folks off from using WB devices the way they were designed to be used if they only knew all they had to do is increase saturation afterward and maybe tweak the color temp slider. But we as humans weren't meant to have to deal with this sort of visual trickery. The film companies did it for us before digital.</p>

<p>Your camera must do a better job at AutoWB compared to my camera.</p>

<blockquote>"<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1722891">Tim Lookingbill</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 01, 2009; 04:30 p.m.</blockquote>

<p>Using the "Disc" over the lens approach sounds like it would be more convenient than carrying around a white balance device you'ld have to include in every session shoot."<br>

Great Point Tim. The "Disc" does seem to be more convenient, and your other point "Wonder if the "Disc" reduces the amount of light coming in when placed over the lens." also brings another good question. I myself never using either one of these devices would not know the answer. All points are well put.<br>

"<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5585318">Kevin Delson</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 01, 2009; 08:42 p.m.<br>

Arrgh!<br />This always gets me going. LOL<br />Critical? How critical (anal) does a photog have to be?<br />1) Perfect WB?..Great. Is the printer perfect?...Are our eyes perfect? Screen calibrated?"<br>

This is another great line of thought that I have heard and agree with.<br>

"All these cute little widgets are made to convince you that you must have them..It's called sales."<br>

!This was what I was wanting to hear!<br>

These gadgets that keep coming out to make you a "better" photographer I think instills a false net for those who just pick up a camera and never have even heard of a Grey Card or know the 15-20 degrees K difference or even what the K stands for. <br>

There is an artist in everyone I believe. I also believe the people who make these products do so to express the knowledge they have and to make a profit, but I see so many falling into the money trap for no apparent reason. If you know how to use your camera then you should know how to balance the light in all sense of that tool to produce what it is you want to convey to the viewer.<br>

We ALL see things differently and that is what makes us all unique as photographers, artists and humans.<br>

Thanks for all of the different Schools of thought this was interesting. </p>

<p>Golf is a multi-billion dollar industry in sales to amateurs.</p>

<p>Most of us will never play on tour.<br>

I still love the game though. ;)</p>

<p><em>White balance is one of the few aspects of photography where the photographer gets to be creative. A white balance device's main advantage is to maintain consistency processing a large volume of images taken under the same light in an efficient manner.</em><br>

I cannot agree more.<em> </em>One good example of using customized wb to neutralize the lighting condition is shooting products/models in a studio where lighting is under your control. Bad examples of using customised wb to neutralize the lighting conditions include shooting sunrise/sunset, candle lit interior, etc. Or using a SINGLE customized wb for different lighting conditions.<br>

For those who seldom need a customized wb, or are not disciplined to created multiple customized wb, don't waste your money:<br>

<a href="http://www.ppmag.com/web-exclusives/2008/11/product-comparison-white-balan-1.html#more">http://www.ppmag.com/web-exclusives/2008/11/product-comparison-white-balan-1.html#more</a></p>

<p>I have an expo disk. I have not used it as much as i thought i would. But i do believe its a good product, worth having in your kit. The pro is that it allows your camera to be used as an incident light meter, not just a reflected light meter. This might result in more accurate exposure. It lets you create custom white balance that matches the immediate lighting. I did some initial testing, shooting a row of multicolored objects sitting on top of a living room chair. The lighting was typical living room lighting with tungsten bulbs. I then took sample pics of the sample objects using each WB setting on the d300. Then I took a sample pic using a custom white balance made with the expo disk. The expo disk picture did manifest more accurate and true-to-life color hues than the other pics. So i believe it does live up to its advertisement claims and give you more accurate color hues. The con is that the custom white balance setting you make is only good for that particular scene, subject, and lighting. If you move to a different spot, and/or the light changes, then you have to do another custom white balance setting to match the new situation. Some people might find that inconvenient. (I suspect many people just use the Automatic WB setting and dont worry about it.) So, my experience with it as positive and it seems to do what it claims to do, and it seems to produce better noticeably better results than the WB presets on your camera.</p>

<p>This discussion I just got done with pretty much supports the reasons for using a WB device:</p>

<p>http://forums.adobe.com/thread/516436?tstart=0</p>

<p>I had no idea camera's varied that much.</p>