Do you use Grey Card when using studio flash

Retrophonica

Retrophonica

Messages
65
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok, I may be asking a really silly question here

If I'm using studio flash, can I still use a grey card to set my white balance?

If so, is the process exactly the same as if I was using it outside with natural light

I'm shooting RAW - so would you still do this? or would you adjust in Photoshop afterwards

Cheers
Andy
 
Yes I would use the grey card if i have nothing else as different surfaces can add reflected light of different colours that a grey card can help minimise. Personally if I want accurate control then I use the passport system and then use lightroom to produce a far more accurate colour set up (still use the grey card for the simultaneous JPEGs)

Mike
 
Context is king:

Firstly you have to remember that the potential colour variation is almost non existent compared to what we find in the real world. So for shooting people, or for fun, you can set the WB as flash or leave it on auto and you should be fine. There may be tiny variations based on the shift in colour of softboxes, brollies etc, which are more variable than the colour shift of the flashes.

So if you’re shooting products and want absolutely critical colour accuracy, then a grey card isn’t good enough, you’ll want a colour checker passport or similar.
 
Slightly off topic - once you've shot and you're in Photoshop, how do you set the colour temp - if you've got two light both at different settings I'm guessing that it will be different - Do I set this by eye and what looks good? While playing with colour last night I set mine to 5600 and it looked about right - however my instructions on my lights suggest:


Colour temperature:

Setting 1 = 5090K

Setting 2 = 4915K

Setting 3 = 4915K

Setting 4 = 5K

Therefore, total possible variation from different fl

ash heads set to different power levels

cannot exceed 400

0 K,

which is insignificant.

Variation between flashes at any given power setting i

s too small to measure.

Power setting dial:

Setting 1 = 1/32nd power

Setting 1.5 = 1/16th power

Setting 2 = 1/8th power

Setting 3 = 1/4 power

Setting 3.5 = 1/2 power

Setting 4 = Full power
 
mike weeks said:
Reality is that colour temperature is a personal thing, some like a cooler look, some a warm and others a neutral, important though is that over a series of images you are consistent

Mike
Click to expand...

Thanks Mike - I tried this last night but wanted to gauge the general feeling on this - I did it by eye and kept the same over three test pics and it looked good - I need a way to keep the images (more the backgrounds) consistent as they will sit side by side on a website or mail chimp etc
 
Yes, use a white balance card, and click on that with the WB dropper in post-processing. Make sure the card is dead neutral and made for WB, as opposed to merely mid-grey for exposure. Position it in the frame so that it's illuminated by the key light in the main area of the image.

That should get the main subject cock-on but as mentioned above 'optimum' colour balance is a moveable feast and can vary a lot in some situations. Our vision can be very tolerant in pictorial scenes, less so when we know that things like a bride's dress should be white, and consistency shot to shot is usually much more important that absolute accuracy.

Even in controlled studio conditions things can change inadvertently. Lights can change colour slightly with power setting (sometimes quite a lot if you go from max to min power), softboxes vary, and as you move things around any influence from the surroundings can change too. Large areas of plain tone like backgrounds are very prone to making even slight shifts more noticeable. I fix that by eye with the local adjustment brush in Lightroom. If you need a neutral grey background, just desaturating that with the local brush is a handy trick. Also, the background area around the image in Lightroom is a neutral mid-grey tone (middle of the histogram) and I find that's a very useful reference for visual comparisons.

Edit: when trying to match colours shot to shot, I put the curser over the reference image and read the RGB levels in Lightroom off the area in question, then copy them. That will get you close, then I tweak by eye with the images side by side on the same monitor screen.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
Context is king:

Firstly you have to remember that the potential colour variation is almost non existent compared to what we find in the real world. So for shooting people, or for fun, you can set the WB as flash or leave it on auto and you should be fine. There may be tiny variations based on the shift in colour of softboxes, brollies etc, which are more variable than the colour shift of the flashes.

So if you’re shooting products and want absolutely critical colour accuracy, then a grey card isn’t good enough, you’ll want a colour checker passport or similar.
Click to expand...

This. The SpyderCheckr 24 is probably the cheapest
 
HoppyUK said:
Yes, use a white balance card, and click on that with the WB dropper in post-processing. Make sure the card is dead neutral and made for WB, as opposed to merely mid-grey for exposure. Position it in the frame so that it's illuminated by the key light in the main area of the image.

That should get the main subject cock-on but as mentioned above 'optimum' colour balance is a moveable feast and can vary a lot in some situations. Our vision can be very tolerant in pictorial scenes, less so when we know that things like a bride's dress should be white, and consistency shot to shot is usually much more important that absolute accuracy.

Even in controlled studio conditions things can change inadvertently. Lights can change colour slightly with power setting (sometimes quite a lot if you go from max to min power), softboxes vary, and as you move things around any influence from the surroundings can change too. Large areas of plain tone like backgrounds are very prone to making even slight shifts more noticeable. I fix that by eye with the local adjustment brush in Lightroom. If you need a neutral grey background, just desaturating that with the local brush is a handy trick. Also, the background area around the image in Lightroom is a neutral mid-grey tone (middle of the histogram) and I find that's a very useful reference for visual comparisons.

Edit: when trying to match colours shot to shot, I put the curser over the reference image and read the RGB levels in Lightroom off the area in question, then copy them. That will get you close, then I tweak by eye with the images side by side on the same monitor screen.
Click to expand...

Thank Hoppy - That's really useful

I've taken a bit of a u-turn with some photography and i've cut some images out and placed them on a gradient in Photoshop - It's not a route I wanted to go down but it's worked well - But I will try what yu mentioned above to see how that looks in comparison

Thanks again
Andy
 
Retrophonica said:
Ok, I may be asking a really silly question here

If I'm using studio flash, can I still use a grey card to set my white balance?

If so, is the process exactly the same as if I was using it outside with natural light

I'm shooting RAW - so would you still do this? or would you adjust in Photoshop afterwards

Cheers
Andy
Click to expand...
I use the ColorChecker passport not only get correct WB but also right colours. Yes you can set the WB with a true grey card. but as your in raw it's not set in stone and can be changed if needed.
 
Retrophonica said:
Thank Hoppy - That's really useful

I've taken a bit of a u-turn with some photography and i've cut some images out and placed them on a gradient in Photoshop - It's not a route I wanted to go down but it's worked well - But I will try what yu mentioned above to see how that looks in comparison

Thanks again
Andy
Click to expand...

You're welcome Andy :)

The ideal solution is usually a compromise - the best result for least effort. Whatever works for you. For me, that means getting it as right as reasonably possible in-camera, then cleaning things up in post-processing, but not transforming the entire image.

Cutting out always takes a lot of time to do properly, and I find only works well with subjects that have clear, sharp outlines. And if you want a white background for example, unless the subject is actually shot against white (or something close to it) then it will look completely wrong. The subject is always partly lit by the background, it will pick up reflections etc from it and create a shadow on it, if only around the base where it sits on the background.
 
HoppyUK said:
You're welcome Andy :)

The ideal solution is usually a compromise - the best result for least effort. Whatever works for you. For me, that means getting it as right as reasonably possible in-camera, then cleaning things up in post-processing, but not transforming the entire image.

Cutting out always takes a lot of time to do properly, and I find only works well with subjects that have clear, sharp outlines. And if you want a white background for example, unless the subject is actually shot against white (or something close to it) then it will look completely wrong. The subject is always partly lit by the background, it will pick up reflections etc from it and create a shadow on it, if only around the base where it sits on the background.
Click to expand...

I agree, which is why cutting out was never my intension - However 99% of the stuff I am shooting at the moment is on a white background so is looking 'right' on a very light grey gradient.
But my new enemy is shadow - I have cut an item out and added it's own shadow which looks ok - I've also cut out the item and included it's shadow and that also looks ok - but neither really blow me away

Lots of Youtube tutorials on shadow and practice practice practice !!
 
Chaz Photos said:
I use the ColorChecker passport not only get correct WB but also right colours. Yes you can set the WB with a true grey card. but as your in raw it's not set in stone and can be changed if needed.
Click to expand...

Thanks Chaz - Yes, the power of RAW - I'm so glad I stuck with RAW as I'm tinkering with older pics that I shot over a year ago and can now do so much with them - Things I didn't know a year ago - So it was worth the extra storage
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top