White Balance

[tester3000]

Has anyone used a 18% Gray Cloth before for white balance? Do the wrinkles affect anything? I'm thinking to buy one because its easier to store and i can dust off my lenses with it.

Something like this?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/387585-REG/Spudz_SPFD25_BB_Micro_Fiber_Cleaning_Cloth.html

OR

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=150361212894

Thanks.

[tester3000]

bump... anyone?

[ssnxp]

I'd also like to get opinions on this; seems like a good deal, if they work as advertised.

[ToyTrains]

Would you really want to clean your lens with a cloth that you put on the ground to get a white balance reading:eek:

[Wilt]

Some 18% gray cloths/cards are 18% gray, making them ONLY suitable for exposure measurements with a light meter, but NOT suitable for white balance because they are not truly neutral in color (R-G-B values are equal)

Some gray cloths/cards are R-G-B neutral, making them ONLY suitable for White Balance adjustment as custom WB in camera or as PP targets for WB adjustment tools, but they are NOT also 18% tonality and are therefore NOT suitable for exposure measurement with a meter.

Some 18% gray cards/clots are 18% tonality and also R-G-B neutral and suitable for metering and for white brightness.

Both products linked in the OP are 18% gray (good for exposure) but NO MENTION of neutrality, so are unknowns for white brightness!

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/IMG_3071-1.jpg

The products depicted in the photo are suitable for both exposure measurement and for white balance, EXCEPT for the lower left gray card which is suitable for exposure and not for white balance.

In a test of the Premium Digital Grey Card by Digital Image Flow vs. the WhiBal product http://www.mincel.com/featured/whibal-vs-digital-grey-kard/, a difference in warmth of the photo was resultant! One image was corrected using Digital Grey Kard and is slightly warmer compared to the second one which was corrected using WhiBal. This illustrates the problem of cards/cloths which are gray but which may NOT be neutral! Interestingly, both claim to be neutral gray. (In my photo shown above, you can see three products which all claim neutrality and which seem to bear that claim out by all being rendered similarly.)

[Aweitzel]

Good to know, i have a grey card similar to the one in the lower left and it was sold to me as a white balance grey card.

[ilumo]

Hey guys. I am having some problems with in camera custom white balance. i have one of these:

http://www.digitalimageflow.com/templatepage/productinfo_DGK2.htm

Didigtal Grey kard,

And when I try to set the custom white balance ( I shoot the card with spot metering, and SET the Custom WB, then I select the Custom WB as my WB setting), the color temp is VERY cool.

I tried shooting the card with eval metering, center weighted, everything, and it's still blue. my colleague used it on his Nikon , and still VERY cool. is there anything we are doing wrong? darn!

Please don't tell me to shoot RAW and post process, because I know I can fix it that way. I'm trying to AVOID shooting raw so i dont have to PP as much... which is my primary reason for getting this card. thanks guys.

[SkipD]

Hey guys. I am having some problems with in camera custom white balance. i have one of these:

http://www.digitalimageflow.com/templatepage/productinfo_DGK2.htm

Didigtal Grey kard,

And when I try to set the custom white balance ( I shoot the card with spot metering, and SET the Custom WB, then I select the Custom WB as my WB setting), the color temp is VERY cool.

I tried shooting the card with eval metering, center weighted, everything, and it's still blue. my colleague used it on his Nikon , and still VERY cool. is there anything we are doing wrong? darn!

Please don't tell me to shoot RAW and post process, because I know I can fix it that way. I'm trying to AVOID shooting raw so i dont have to PP as much... which is my primary reason for getting this card. thanks guys.Are you pretty much filling the frame with the reference card for the setup shot?

Are you absolutely sure that the light hitting the reference card (during the Custom White Balance setup) is the SAME COLOR as the light hitting the subject/scene you are photographing?

[ilumo]

yes, i am trying to fill up the frame. It cant completely fill it because if it fills it, then it's way too close to focus (im not sure if that matters).

The light hitting the card SHOULD be the same as my subject. I basically hold the card an arms lenght away and snap a picture of it. then i set the custom WB setting, then I shoot the subject, which is about 2 arm lengths away. and it turns out super blue. I've tried this is multiple environments.

[SkipD]

yes, i am trying to fill up the frame. It cant completely fill it because if it fills it, then it's way too close to focus (im not sure if that matters).

The light hitting the card SHOULD be the same as my subject. I basically hold the card an arms lenght away and snap a picture of it. then i set the custom WB setting, then I shoot the subject, which is about 2 arm lengths away. and it turns out super blue. I've tried this is multiple environments.As an experiment, try doing a custom white balance setup. Then, make an image of the reference card using the custom white balance setting. Compare the image to the card. They should be the same.

Another thought - what are you using to determine the color of the final images? If you're using the LCD display on the camera, don't. If you are using a computer monitor that has not been calibrated (using both software and a colorimeter that measures light intensity and color on the display's screen), that could be at least part of your problem.

[Wilt]

Maybe your monitor is off...check the R-G-B values of a shot of the gray card...the eyedropper tool should result in values which are mid-way in the scale, e.g. 128-128-128 on a max scale 255.

[ilumo]

As an experiment, try doing a custom white balance setup. Then, make an image of the reference card using the custom white balance setting. Compare the image to the card. They should be the same.

Another thought - what are you using to determine the color of the final images? If you're using the LCD display on the camera, don't. If you are using a computer monitor that has not been calibrated (using both software and a colorimeter that measures light intensity and color on the display's screen), that could be at least part of your problem.

It is not the same, at least i don't believe it's the same. it was NOTICEably bluer/cooler. It was very bad.

I was looking at it from the screen, but trust me, it was WAY cooler than it should have been. by many many thousands of Kelvin.

[ilumo]

Maybe your monitor is off...check the R-G-B values of a shot of the gray card...the eyedropper tool should result in values which are mid-way in the scale, e.g. 128-128-128 on a max scale 255.

I mean, i'll check the setting on the monitor, but I mean even from the back of the camera LCD, it's VISIBILY too blue. A piece of white paper is sky blue. I'll have to take some pics and post some examples later tonight. I'm just not sure why it's like that. my friends Nikon d700 does the same thing.

[Wilt]

I mean, i'll check the setting on the monitor, but I mean even from the back of the camera LCD, it's VISIBILY too blue. A piece of white paper is sky blue. I'll have to take some pics and post some examples later tonight. I'm just not sure why it's like that. my friends Nikon d700 does the same thing.

What happens if you ignore this Digital Gray Card product, and instead simply use a piece of white printer paper?!

[ilumo]

What happens if you ignore this Digital Gray Card product, and instead simply use a piece of white printer paper?!

it's still cooler than it "should" be and way cooler than AWB ( which is usually too warm). I haven't been able to use any good Custom WB shots indoor. when im outdoors, the AWB is usually very good. Indoors I have been finding myself use the kelvin setting and turning on Live view and adjusting it that way. that's been working great, but I wish that the custom Wb would work correctly so I can get it spot on for certain rooms.

[Wilt]

it's still cooler than it "should" be and way cooler than AWB ( which is usually too warm). I haven't been able to use any good Custom WB shots indoor. when im outdoors, the AWB is usually very good. Indoors I have been finding myself use the kelvin setting and turning on Live view and adjusting it that way. that's been working great, but I wish that the custom Wb would work correctly so I can get it spot on for certain rooms.

My first inclination would be to say there is something horridly wrong with the camera, but then you blame your friend's Nikon of the same behavior (I am assuming with your same Digital Gray Card?!)

So then I wonder if the DGC is at fault, which is why I asked about using a simple white piece of paper. But since you think that is bluish, too, it makes me wonder about the computer monitor...how does the photo in post 5 look?

...but you blame the LCD on the camera of the same thing, too. :confused:

Can you post some photos resultant from use of the custom WB, and a shot of the card?

[ilumo]

Post #5 looks perfect to me. I'm going to go snap a few photos now and show you guys. I wonder I it's because of he digital grey kard. Maybe I should have gone with whibal :p

My first inclination would be to say there is something horridly wrong with the camera, but then you blame your friend's Nikon of the same behavior (I am assuming with your same Digital Gray Card?!)

So then I wonder if the DGC is at fault, which is why I asked about using a simple white piece of paper. But since you think that is bluish, too, it makes me wonder about the computer monitor...how does the photo in post 5 look?

...but you blame the LCD on the camera of the same thing, too. :confused:

Can you post some photos resultant from use of the custom WB, and a shot of the card?

[jcothron]

I think you may have answered this, but I want to make sure I understand. You are taken a shot of the gray card, while you're facing the light source? (looking at it) Or... are you facing away from the light source?

If you're facing toward the light source, you may get erroneous readings being that the card is not lit by the lightsource but by whatever is behind you. I've done this, indoors and outdoors and I would get the same thing you're getting.. way too cool.

It makes a big difference, so just checking.

[111t]

You should fill the frame with your white balance target. It doesn't matter if it's out of focus. Problem with small cards is that it's hard to not cast a shadow on them when you're so close. In my experience the smaller ones like that are for when you want to correct the wb later in lightroom or some other post program. The alternative is a larger target. The photovision targets come in a variety of sizes.

Do you have a sample of the photo of the target that you used to actually set the custom white balance?

[Wilt]

In my prior post, "In a test of the Premium Digital Grey Card by Digital Image Flow vs. the WhiBal product http://www.mincel.com/featured/whibal-vs-digital-grey-kard/ a difference in warmth of the photo was resultant! "

The linked article has been removed! Further research finds someone who did a comparison of the two products and found identical results from both.
[edit] working link restored.

[Jimmer411]

The article is still there, only the link in post 5 works, post 20 is dead.


I have a DGK and haven't had any issues settings white balance with it, tho I shoot raw I find that its pretty much spot on where I want it to be. As for the article, I prefer the warmer look that the DGK gives, its just too bad that someone went thru the trouble to purchase both cards and test them but failed to properly expose the image. Warmer images tend to look muddy when under exposed as opposed to cooler images that look more neutral when under exposed (atleast to my eyes).

[ilumo]

very interesting results. I think I will have to try this again. here you guys go

here is the original set with AWB
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4054/4419201466_a6e1a33a36_b.jpg

here is after I try to "EYE" the kelvin WB
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2679/4418446431_fb31a56299_b.jpg

this is a picture of my "custom WB image"
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4025/4419204042_21edb82c7a_b.jpg

this is the result of using the custom white balance:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2679/4418446431_fb31a56299_b.jpg

[ilumo]

I think you may have answered this, but I want to make sure I understand. You are taken a shot of the gray card, while you're facing the light source? (looking at it) Or... are you facing away from the light source?

If you're facing toward the light source, you may get erroneous readings being that the card is not lit by the lightsource but by whatever is behind you. I've done this, indoors and outdoors and I would get the same thing you're getting.. way too cool.

It makes a big difference, so just checking.

You know what. this MIGHT be what is happening. However, how you see the picture of my card above is how I shot it at work and at a restaurant I was testing the card out at. And they were BOTH too cool. However, in THIS test the custom white balance looks GREAT. damn. I really wonder what the heck I did to mess it up before...

[ilumo]

btw, a little off topic, but do you think these photos are a little underexposed? my 5d looks like it does that a little bit.

[jcothron]

judging by the shadows, your light source in this shot was above and to the left. If that's the case, then the correct light source was hitting the card...and it worked.

As far as exposure it looks okay to me.. the lighter areas look pretty light to me. If it's under-exposed I don't think it's by much. I normally ETTR anyway.

[SkipD]

If I were setting up the camera for Custom White Balance, I would have used a larger card or at least brought that one closer to the camera so the frame would have been nearly filled with the gray card. There's enough of a chance that the other colors in the field could affect the Custom White Balance with the small card filling only a portion of the frame that I wouldn't do it that way.

[ilumo]

here is another test where I sefinately see the TOO COOL effect:

here is the scene with AWB (see how its too warm):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2757/4419540665_f4896e3edb_b.jpg

heres the scene with my Kelvin setting:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4024/4419540211_2b1d516aa4_b.jpg

Heres my custom WB card shot that I used to set it:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4068/4420306066_8c4d2e5f9a_b.jpg

heres the image using custom Wb (way too blue):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/4420306516_fe2ddf14d6_b.jpg

[Wilt]

Why don't you leave the Digital Grey Kard in the photo, the next time?

I sampled various 'white' things in the custom WB shot.
The HP white carton on the top reads 246-251-254
White UPC labels on various boxes read 193-208-229, 210-223-240, 188-196-209

Using your Kelvin settings, that shot shows better balance, as you stated.
The HP white carton on the top reads 252-254-251
White UPC labels on various boxes read 229-240-242, 228-236-238, 209-214-218

...but I'm not sure how accurate the 'white' really is!

[SkipD]

Ilumo - what is the light source for the cardboard box set of shots? I'm presuming it is fluorescent lighting that's got ballasts running at the power line frequency. If so, that's a very tricky kind of lighting to judge white balance with unless you are using 1/120, 1/60, 1/30, or 1/15 second shutter speeds (in the U.S. where power line frequency is 60Hz).

Also - what sort of lighting are you using for the "Netflix" series?

[ilumo]

here's another shot of the scene WITH the grey kard:

here it is at Kelvin WB:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4067/4419751673_ddce4c2669_b.jpg

here it is with custom WB:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4061/4420518664_7c4db0bee4_b.jpg

The custom looks much bluer. Sorry that the kard is a little blurry, but you can definitely see the color difference.

Why don't you leave the Digital Grey Kard in the photo, the next time?

I sampled various 'white' things in the custom WB shot.
The HP white carton on the top reads 246-251-254
White UPC labels on various boxes read 193-208-229, 210-223-240, 188-196-209

Using your Kelvin settings, that shot shows better balance, as you stated.
The HP white carton on the top reads 252-254-251
White UPC labels on various boxes read 229-240-242, 228-236-238, 209-214-218

...but I'm not sure how accurate the 'white' really is!

[ilumo]

Ilumo - what is the light source for the cardboard box set of shots? I'm presuming it is fluorescent lighting that's got ballasts running at the power line frequency. If so, that's a very tricky kind of lighting to judge white balance with unless you are using 1/120, 1/60, 1/30, or 1/15 second shutter speeds (in the U.S. where power line frequency is 60Hz).

Also - what sort of lighting are you using for the "Netflix" series?

cardboard set of shots, I'm pretty sure they are all fluorescent lighting. Not sure about the frequency though. you're probably right. Let me try it again with a slower speed.

netflix series I am using incandescent lighting... BUT I was at 1/40 sec shutter speend.. HMMM.

[SkipD]

cardboard set of shots, I'm pretty sure they are all fluorescent lighting. Not sure about the frequency though. you're probably right. Let me try it again with a slower speed.

netflix series I am using incandescent lighting... BUT I was at 1/40 sec shutter speend.. HMMM.Use one of the precise shutter speeds that I listed, and you won't see the problems that can occur with line-frequency fluorescent lighting (changes in intensity and color from shot to shot) when using shutter speeds that don't let the frame be exposed for 1 or more full half-cycles of the power line voltage.

[ilumo]

Use one of the precise shutter speeds that I listed, and you won't see the problems that can occur with line-frequency fluorescent lighting (changes in intensity and color from shot to shot) when using shutter speeds that don't let the frame be exposed for 1 or more full half-cycles of the power line voltage.

Actually, I tried 1/30, 1/40, 1/50, and they all still came out a little cool. I used those SS's to take a shot of the grey kard, and to take a sample shot AFTER applying the custom WB. hmmm.

[SkipD]

Actually, I tried 1/30, 1/40, 1/50, and they all still came out a little cool. I used those SS's to take a shot of the grey kard, and to take a sample shot AFTER applying the custom WB. hmmm.To determine if the lighting can be a problem, shoot a rapid series of shots at 1/320 or faster. If all of the images have the very same exposure levels and colors, the lighting is NOT a problem. If you see variations in exposure and/or colors, then shoot the test shots at either 1/30 or 1/60 second to eliminate the light source from contributing to any variation from shot to shot.

[ilumo]

To determine if the lighting can be a problem, shoot a rapid series of shots at 1/320 or faster. If all of the images have the very same exposure levels and colors, the lighting is NOT a problem. If you see variations in exposure and/or colors, then shoot the test shots at either 1/30 or 1/60 second to eliminate the light source from contributing to any variation from shot to shot.

I shot at 1/320, 5 shots continuous, and I do not see any variations... any other ideas?

[SkipD]

I shot at 1/320, 5 shots continuous, and I do not see any variations... any other ideas?You have confirmed that the light isn't changing intensity and color at power line frequency. You're lucky there.

I would suggest that you try a significantly larger gray card. Try to fill the frame if you can with the reference card. I would use my 8x10 WhiBal card if I were doing a Custom White Balance setup.

You could also try using a piece of opaque white paper (maybe several sheets together) for your reference as long as you center the light meter when shooting the white (so you don't blow out any channels). You want the image of the white paper to be a shade of gray instead of brilliant white. Ordinary white paper isn't necessarily truly "neutral", but it's worth a try since there's virtually no cost to try it.

If you can borrow another reference card such as a WhiBal, maybe your results would be different - hopefully better. The assumption is that your card might not be quite neutral.

[Wilt]

here's another shot of the scene WITH the grey kard:

here it is at Kelvin WB:


here it is with custom WB:


The custom looks much bluer. Sorry that the kard is a little blurry, but you can definitely see the color difference.

Yeah the eyedropper tool says the RGB of the grey card is 182-186-189 for your WB, while the card is 212-221-238 for the custom WB.

[111t]

It seems to me that having the netflix in the background of the white balance shot should bias the white balance toward cyan right?

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u43/111t/colorwheel.jpg

But it certainly didn't seem to. I don't know. Would it be helpful to run a test with red blue and green construction paper to see if the custom wb comes up with the secondary colors? If it didn't work right it'd be pretty obvious.

The custom white balance is the selected white balance right? (the little flower shaped thingo) (sorry, i don't mean to be insulting, just trying to figure it out)

I know it's possible to set the custom white balance without actually being on custom white balance. It throws you a warning... but it doesn't change the setting for you. Also, the 'second chance' diolog box that pops up when you set the custom white balance is designed to stop you from changing anything unless you're really sure.

Once again, just double checking the basics.