WhiBal Card Issues

I recently purchased the WhiBal card and have mixed feelings about the effectiveness. Sometimes is appears to be right on but many others times it appears to be much warmer then the scene. Has anyone else experienced this?

Yes, along with all the other WB targets I've used. A WB card is not a panacea. Use it as a starting point and adjust to taste. I also use the XRite Passport for creating ICC profiles, it has WB samples that have different temperatures to them.

So, when you shoot the WhiBal are you using it for a Custom White Balance or as a "target" to use in a Raw processor.

And, in practice, when you do set the WB using the target, then in your processor it should show up as neutral in its RGB values. In other words if in your Raw processor or other software, once the WB has been set, the RG&B values should be very, very close.

Check that out. If the RGB values don't match up, then yeah, you have some kind of problem. One possibility is that you are shooting in mixed light, which can mix things up. Start with one light source and see where it gets you. For mixed light you will have a balancing act, and there is no "best" answer.

If, though, the RGB values do match, then you have a couple possible things to look at. First is your monitor -- an improperly calibrated or uncalibrated monitor can have color issues. In the Raw, Post Processing and Printing sub-forum there is a sticky FAQ that has info on color management as well as other good info. Look for the two threads on color problems and color management:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=138533

And then, there's the possibility the you are just "perceiving" the warm color. But check out these various things!

I have started using one of the knockoffs of the BRNO baLens caps, and I am MORE than pleased with it. It is an absolute pleasure to use, and most important of all, I will not forget to carry, because it is now my lens cap. It worked really great for me. My knock off only cost $5.

professorman wrote in post #13368032
I have started using one of the knockoffs of the BRNO baLens caps, and I am MORE than pleased with it. It is an absolute pleasure to use, and most important of all, I will not forget to carry, because it is now my lens cap. It worked really great for me. My knock off only cost $5.

So, something came up in a rectent discussion in which such on-the-lens WB "targets" was briefly discussed.

One of the posters stated in a way that indicated the he/she "knew what they were talking about" that these devices should always be used directed at the light source, like "incident" light meters, rather than toward the "lit" subject, picking up the "reflected" light.

I'd never heard about it and was dubious, so tested it out, using one of my reliable ol' white coffee filters. I found that using it with reflected light got me a WB that was closer than using it with the direct light source. My comparison was to a pic with the filter as a "target", and then being correctedly accordingly in Lightroom.

So, I'm wondering how you use your "cap"?

...i just use a small white towel, take a photo of it, set it in manual and use it as custom wb. when i open the file in dpp, i choose "click white balance", am i doing it correctly?

If you're using it as a reference for the eyedropper in Lightroom, one issue I've found is that the ISO used can throw it way off. Its like the eyedropper only uses one pixel to determine the white balance for the entire scene. With higher ISOs, adjacent pixels can be quite different and cause huge differences in the reported color temperature depending on exactly where you click.

meeko031 wrote in post #13368548
...i just use a small white towel, take a photo of it, set it in manual and use it as custom wb. when i open the file in dpp, i choose "click white balance", am i doing it correctly?

That's fine. If you are shooting Raw, using a Custom White Balance is less important, but can be helpful, but if you are shooting jpeg, an in-camera Custom White Balance is quite important for any "iffy" lighting, and then using the eyedropper may not be so effective.

But if in DPP you are using the eyedropper in the Raw tab, then that means you are processing Raw files, in which case if you use an in-camera Custom White Balance, then instead of the eyedropper you might want to look at whether it needs any tweaking, in which case you might want to take one of the other approaches.

mike_d wrote in post #13368580
If you're using it as a reference for the eyedropper in Lightroom, one issue I've found is that the ISO used can throw it way off. Its like the eyedropper only uses one pixel to determine the white balance for the entire scene. With higher ISOs, adjacent pixels can be quite different and cause huge differences in the reported color temperature depending on exactly where you click.

Well, that is an interesting point. Actually, for shooting a WB target either for using it for a Custom White Balance or for an eyedropper adjustment you don't need to use AF/focus the object! In fact, in the camera manuals discussing a Custom White Balance, Canon specifies to set the lens to MF explicitely. Now if you consider the two reasons: first, you should have the center metering circle filled with a solid colored object, meaning there should be no contrast and detail that the camera could focus on, so don't try. Second, and definitely applicable to your point, is that, expecially in high ISO scenarios, you don't want an in-focus shot, in other words some blur could help, maybe!

tonylong wrote in post #13368641
Well, that is an interesting point. Actually, for shooting a WB target either for using it for a Custom White Balance or for an eyedropper adjustment you don't need to use AF/focus the object! In fact, in the camera manuals discussing a Custom White Balance, Canon specifies to set the lens to MF explicitely. Now if you consider the two reasons: first, you should have the center metering circle filled with a solid colored object, meaning there should be no contrast and detail that the camera could focus on, so don't try. Second, and definitely applicable to your point, is that, expecially in high ISO scenarios, you don't want an in-focus shot, in other words some blur could help, maybe!

I always took the directive to set the camera to MF to based on the assumption that user has AF linked to the shutter button and the featureless target may prevent the camera from taking the shot. Also, depending on the lens, the target's location, it may be less than the MFD which would also result in the camera's refusal to shoot.

Either way, when using the shot as a target for the eyedropper, wouldn't digital noise act like a layer on top of the shot, whether the shot is in focus or not? Canon's in-camera custom white balance seems to do a nice job of averaging out what's in the spot meter circle. Too bad LR's eyedropper doesn't have a control to choose a radius from the pointer and average out the values. That would certainly make it more accurate at high ISO.

mike_d wrote in post #13368723
I always took the directive to set the camera to MF to based on the assumption that user has AF linked to the shutter button and the featureless target may prevent the camera from taking the shot. Also, depending on the lens, the target's location, it may be less than the MFD which would also result in the camera's refusal to shoot.

Either way, when using the shot as a target for the eyedropper, wouldn't digital noise act like a layer on top of the shot, whether the shot is in focus or not? Canon's in-camera custom white balance seems to do a nice job of averaging out what's in the spot meter circle. Too bad LR's eyedropper doesn't have a control to choose a radius from the pointer and average out the values. That would certainly make it more accurate at high ISO.

Yeah, there would be noise even if you were OOF. So, it would be interesting to see what kind of variation between Custom WB, the DPP eyedropper, and the LR eyedropper.

I just checked out a shot of mine where I shot a solid gray "target" at ISO 6400 (it was the white coffee filter wrapped over my lens) and the LR eyedropper shows very little variation in the RGB values as I run the eyedropper over the shot. Thid was in the "Fit" view. And then, in the 100% view, yes you could see the noise, of course, both in the preview and especially in the little eyedropper "grid". But the noise that showed was all "neutral toned", in other words, the LR chroma noise reduction does a great job of whiping out color noise at just its default setting!

tonylong wrote in post #13368211
One of the posters stated in a way that indicated the he/she "knew what they were talking about" that these devices should always be used directed at the light source, like "incident" light meters, rather than toward the "lit" subject, picking up the "reflected" light.

I'd never heard about it and was dubious, so tested it out, using one of my reliable ol' white coffee filters. I found that using it with reflected light got me a WB that was closer than using it with the direct light source. My comparison was to a pic with the filter as a "target", and then being correctedly accordingly in Lightroom.

So, I'm wondering how you use your "cap"?

You use the cap pointed to the light source. I have only had it about 2 weeks now, and used it around my house. I tried using it taking a picture towards the 'lit' subject, picking up the 'reflected' light, however the white balance was way off. Maybe you got lucky with your 'reflected' light test, because it can vary based on the color of your target when using it as a reflected light white balance meter. It would probably struggle in mixed lighting conditions, however, after I set it for one room in my house, I went to all my rooms and the white balance was still correct. My kitchen light has a mixture of incandescence and florescence bulbs, and it was still decent enough. If you do video, this would be a GREAT tool to have. Obviously, you can also own a white balance card or similar apparatus if you want something better. For on the fly white balance, I will always have this cap on the lens. That is what I love the most about it. It will always be there.

professorman wrote in post #13376978
You use the cap pointed to the light source. I have only had it about 2 weeks now, and used it around my house. I tried using it taking a picture towards the 'lit' subject, picking up the 'reflected' light, however the white balance was way off. Maybe you got lucky with your 'reflected' light test, because it can vary based on the color of your target when using it as a reflected light white balance meter. It would probably struggle in mixed lighting conditions, however, after I set it for one room in my house, I went to all my rooms and the white balance was still correct. My kitchen light has a mixture of incandescence and florescence bulbs, and it was still decent enough. If you do video, this would be a GREAT tool to have. Obviously, you can also own a white balance card or similar apparatus if you want something better. For on the fly white balance, I will always have this cap on the lens. That is what I love the most about it. It will always be there.

Well, interesting -- My better results using the coffee filter were first to use it as a "target", just sitting there, and then using it as an over-the-lens "device" but pointing a bit away from the light source, although it still picked up whatever light was bouncing off the off-white walls, which may have done the trick.