Geting the White Balance right

BitterSweet

BitterSweet

Messages
20
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm having issues with getting the white balance and tint right in post production when I dont use the grey card.

Sometimes I shoot with the WB set to something like "Cloudy" or "Sunny" on my 5D M3. Since I shoot in RAW I know that I can correct the White Balance later in post but I seem to be having issues with getting it right manually. I use the "picker" in Lightroom but that also doesnt always work correctly.

I tried sliding the WB slider left and right until I am happy, then adjust the tint but when I export the image the color balance always seems to be a bit off, so it means I'm not getting it right when adjusting it manually.

My 27'' apple monitor is calibrated with Spyder5. This issue is very annoying as I tend to do some basic color correction in Lightroom and then move the image to Photoshop for editing further and with me not getting the WB right from the beginning usually results with a lot of tweaking in Photoshop after I do all retouching.

Does any one have a similar issue or suggestions about how to approach this?
 
•
One common issue is more than WB zones! For ex.: A same picture may have 2 or more WB zones!
Trying to WB a shot, in such a case, will result in a zone being good and the other is not so. A local
adjustment WB on each zone is a better strategy.
 
In some tutorials I watched the general advise was to always make sure the skin tones are correctly balanced, but even to get the skin WB and tint correct is not that easy. Or maybe it's just me?
 
I know that it must be quite a common problem and I know that the best way would be to set the custom white balance and use a ColorChecker Passport (which I also have) but sometimes I dont have those with me so I set WB in my camera to smth like "cloudy". In the end editing those photos becomes a "color balance mess"
 
If the exported shot is wrong, yet it looks right in the raw software, it's most likely a colour profile issue. What colour profile are you saving your images with? Make sure it's sRGB unless you really know what you're doing.

Also.... shoot a reference shot with a grey card in the frame as well as the actual shot. Then white balance off the grey card.
 
Grumps1974 said:
Of course it does mean that you need to have a camera capable of setting a manual white balance setting.
Click to expand...


No it doesn't. Just shoot raw... forget white balance, and if that lens cap is accurate, then just use the white balance tool on the resulting image.

The whole point (or one of them) in shooting raw is that many things aren't fixed into a bitmapped image format and can be adjusted post shoot with no penalty. White balance is one of these.

(proper) Grey cards tend to be more accurate though, as a mid tone often yields better results.
 
Define what you mean by "right" white balance...

(it isn't as obvious as it sounds unless you are shooting white objects, in which case its trivial in Post...)
 
flossie said:
Define what you mean by "right" white balance...

(it isn't as obvious as it sounds unless you are shooting white objects, in which case its trivial in Post...)
Click to expand...


Let's assume the OP means correct (neutral and accurate). Anything other than correct is a subjective choice. However, it's always best to view the image accurately BEFORE you make that choice because if you spend enough time looking something that's too warm, or too cold, it becomes "normal" for you... and if then use that as a basis for further adjustment, the audience for the image that have not spent hours staring at it as you have may react very differently than you expected.
 
Pookeyhead said:
No it doesn't. Just shoot raw... forget white balance, and if that lens cap is accurate, then just use the white balance tool on the resulting image.

The whole point (or one of them) in shooting raw is that many things aren't fixed into a bitmapped image format and can be adjusted post shoot with no penalty. White balance is one of these.

(proper) Grey cards tend to be more accurate though, as a mid tone often yields better results.
Click to expand...

I quite agree with your statement. I shoot exclusively in RAW. However for anyone reading this who shoot in jpeg these filters serve a useful purpose (again assuming you can set the white balance on the camera).
 
A majority of scenes do not have a single correct white balance.
It may be lit by the sun, but include coloured surfaces that reflect their own bias on to the scene.
I rarely set any particular white balance, as in raw it can be better set on a perceptual basis, or with the picker using an area that you wish to be neutral grey.
In the days when I shot transparencies, I was one of the many people who preferred a warm result and would most of the time use a warm UV filter. I would suppose, that like them, I still have that bias, though I am not conscious of it.
Of course any one with a degree of colour blindness, and fortunately I do not, must use what aids that are available, and use the cameras inbuilt ability and that of photoshop to show them a numerical neutral.
 
Pookeyhead said:
No it doesn't. Just shoot raw... forget white balance, and if that lens cap is accurate, then just use the white balance tool on the resulting image.

The whole point (or one of them) in shooting raw is that many things aren't fixed into a bitmapped image format and can be adjusted post shoot with no penalty. White balance is one of these.

(proper) Grey cards tend to be more accurate though, as a mid tone often yields better results.
Click to expand...

I'll emphasise the proper. The grey card I'd be using for ages is actually a bit warm and a long way off the 18% grey it was advertised as being. It wasn't especially cheap either.

The QPCard is highly regarded and the spydercheckr 24 is a lot more affordable than the colorcheckr passport.
 
juggler said:
I'll emphasise the proper. The grey card I'd be using for ages is actually a bit warm and a long way off the 18% grey it was advertised as being. It wasn't especially cheap either.

The QPCard is highly regarded and the spydercheckr 24 is a lot more affordable than the colorcheckr passport.
Click to expand...


They can go off with age, yes. Air pollutants, dirt.. all adds up. Think of how your white walls need decorating and become discoloured.. even if you don't smoke.
 
petrolhead said:
Is there a plugin available for Photoshop
Click to expand...

A plug in for what? White balance? You don't need one. Shoot a grey card reference shot, load up the raw file in ACR, and just click the grey card with the WB dropper tool. You need to sort white balance at the raw stage, not in Photoshop. Once you open a raw in Photoshop (and not ACR) it's no longer a raw file (unless it's a smart object that links back to the raw).
 
juggler said:
True, but I seriously doubt mine had faded; I think it's been way off since day one.
Click to expand...

An 18% grey card (we used to use the Kodak grey card in the old non-digital days) was used to obtain a reference exposure with a light meter. It was not designed for colour correcting/reference purposes. It may be you have one of these. I have a set of the old WhiBal plastic tags (White/Grey/Grey/Black) which being colour constant right through are pretty indestructible and have served me well for years. I looked up the 'inventor' of WhiBal and here is his web link...

http://michaeltapesdesign.com/whibal.html

Anthony.
 
Anthony.Ralph said:
An 18% grey card (we used to use the Kodak grey card in the old non-digital days) was used to obtain a reference exposure with a light meter. It was not designed for colour correcting/reference purposes. It may be you have one of these. I have a set of the old WhiBal plastic tags (White/Grey/Grey/Black) which being colour constant right through are pretty indestructible and have served me well for years. I looked up the 'inventor' of WhiBal and here is his web link...

http://michaeltapesdesign.com/whibal.html

Anthony.
Click to expand...

Thanks.. my card was advertised as being suitable for both colour & exposure but in fact is good for neither; it's just nice looking well made plastic rubbish. I now use a SpyderCheckr 24 - which is how I know definitively that mine is off. The colour is a bit off but it's a very long way from 18% grey.
 
BitterSweet said:
I'm having issues with getting the white balance and tint right in post production when I dont use the grey card.

Sometimes I shoot with the WB set to something like "Cloudy" or "Sunny" on my 5D M3. Since I shoot in RAW I know that I can correct the White Balance later in post but I seem to be having issues with getting it right manually. I use the "picker" in Lightroom but that also doesnt always work correctly.

I tried sliding the WB slider left and right until I am happy, then adjust the tint but when I export the image the color balance always seems to be a bit off, so it means I'm not getting it right when adjusting it manually.

My 27'' apple monitor is calibrated with Spyder5. This issue is very annoying as I tend to do some basic color correction in Lightroom and then move the image to Photoshop for editing further and with me not getting the WB right from the beginning usually results with a lot of tweaking in Photoshop after I do all retouching.

Does any one have a similar issue or suggestions about how to approach this?
Click to expand...

I use a color checker passport for camera / lens combination profile and for correcting white balance. Not the cheapest solution, but is very handy none the less.
 
I have spent many hours, days, weeks even, Messing with White Balance, Grey Cards, ColorChecker, Camera Profiles.... It can and will drive you mad. I have set WB to a satisfactory point on an image only to view few moments later or the next day and it looks way off. I don't use grey card or colour checker anymore really. It's all done by eye.
 
hollis_f said:
I use a ColorChecker Passport to generate custom profiles. For WB I always eyeball it - I don't care about accurate WB, I care about a WB that looks good.
Click to expand...

That's when you start to see wedding albums where the groom's suit is a different colour in every shot etc.


Oxford_Matt said:
I have spent many hours, days, weeks even, Messing with White Balance, Grey Cards, ColorChecker, Camera Profiles.... It can and will drive you mad. I have set WB to a satisfactory point on an image only to view few moments later or the next day and it looks way off. I don't use grey card or colour checker anymore really. It's all done by eye.
Click to expand...

Which is why you use them. Same as profiling a screen. I know my screen's profiled, so after working on something red for hours on end and my screen looks cyan as a result when I finally close the image, I can assume it's actually accurate and just my eyes making it look cyan. Same deal... Having an accurate grey point removes subjectivity. Even if what you want is not pure accuracy, you'll still be starting from a point you can trust and your eyes settle down on a neutral image before you decide how warm or cold to make it.

I've no idea why people are spending hours, or being driven mad messing around. First shot has a grey card in it... then click on it with the WB dropper. Takes 1 second and I can then match every image taken under the same lighting conditions. If I decide on +300 warm in LR, once they're all white balanced, I can just apply that to all images, and they're all identical still. If this is a pain in the arse, then you're doing something wrong.
 
Pookeyhead said:
That's when you start to see wedding albums where the groom's suit is a different colour in every shot etc.
Click to expand...


I don't agree. If you use the same Camera profile and adjust WB by eye then Sync the White Balance across all
Images (Taken under same conditions) you won't have any noticeable issues with colour variations.
 
juggler said:
Thanks.. my card was advertised as being suitable for both colour & exposure but in fact is good for neither; it's just nice looking well made plastic rubbish. I now use a SpyderCheckr 24 - which is how I know definitively that mine is off. The colour is a bit off but it's a very long way from 18% grey.
Click to expand...
Many digital cameras no longer use 18% as their setting so the card you have may be taking that into account, I' believe 12% is the new 18% (if I remember rightly)
 
Pookeyhead said:
That's when you start to see wedding albums where the groom's suit is a different colour in every shot etc.
Click to expand...

Not if you're a lazy bugger like what I am. Get it looking right in one shot and apply it to all the others shot in the same light.
 
Pookeyhead said:
If I decide on +300 warm in LR, once they're all white balanced, I can just apply that to all images, and they're all identical still.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I do, except I don't have to muck about shooting a grey card. Really doesn't seem to be any point if you're going to be manually adjusting WB anyhow.
 
swanseamale47 said:
Many digital cameras no longer use 18% as their setting so the card you have may be taking that into account, I' believe 12% is the new 18% (if I remember rightly)
Click to expand...

It depends on the camera, I think. I've recently calibrated my light meter to my camera and workflow but haven't worked out exactly what my camera does use. My old card was nearer 50%, though.
 
Oxford_Matt said:
I don't agree. If you use the same Camera profile and adjust WB by eye then Sync the White Balance across all
Images (Taken under same conditions) you won't have any noticeable issues with colour variations.
Click to expand...

You won't have any issues with variation within a set, but there could easily be issues with accuracy.
If you shoot a WB card for each set then you can guarantee that you're consistent from set to set, too.

hollis_f said:
Not if you're a lazy bugger like what I am. Get it looking right in one shot and apply it to all the others shot in the same light.
Click to expand...

How do you 'get it looking right?' I find that my ability to judge colour falls off severely after a few minutes looking at any given image (or set of images). The point about using a WB card or colour target is that there is no need for a judgement call.
 
•
One point neglected here I think:
WB is a technical consideration and have less to do with artistic intent!

It is very important to get the WB right but one should not forget that it is a
"tweakable" tool like all the others when it comes to a final rendition that
may very well express some personal artistic intent.

Quite often. it is easy to see if the WB was neglected or tweaked. And, of
course, the rightful artistic intent one may put in a rendition may not please
everyone!
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•
One point neglected here I think:
WB is a technical consideration and have less to do with artistic intent!

It is very important to get the WB right but one should not forget that it is a
"tweakable" tool like all the others when it comes to a final rendition that
may very well express some personal artistic intent.

Quite often. it is easy to see if the WB was neglected or tweaked. And, of
course, the rightful artistic intent one may put in a rendition may not please
everyone!
Click to expand...

Very true. It seems to me to be invaluable to have a consistent starting point, especially if you're going to go off-piste when it comes to processing.

However - the warmth or coolness of an image does affect it's artistic & emotional impact, so it's not purely technical.
 
hollis_f said:
Which is exactly what I do, except I don't have to muck about shooting a grey card. Really doesn't seem to be any point if you're going to be manually adjusting WB anyhow.
Click to expand...


Hey whatever works for you. Just be aware that the eye/brain system normalises what you're staring at and images that are warm eventually start to look normal... same with images that are cold. Starting from a known, objective position of accuracy is just best practice. Up to you how you do it though.
 
Pookeyhead said:
…the eye/brain system normalises what you're staring at and images that are warm eventually start to look normal... same with images that are cold.
Click to expand...
•
+1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top