Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 03 May 2012 (Thursday) 22:12
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

In-camera custom wb vs lr eyedropper

 
Dustin ­ Mustangs
Senior Member
Avatar
310 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: MI
     
May 03, 2012 22:12 |  #1

I just got a photovision calibration target (external link) that I have been using to set a custom white balance on my 60D. If I use the LR3 eyedropper tool on the calibration image it gives a visually different temp and tint. The difference is somewhat inconsistent but typically around 500k and 5 or so in tint. Shouldn't these be closer to the same? Which one is correct? Is there such a thing as a perfect white balance and is it attainable?

I realize it's another creative option we have to work with but I'd prefer to start my workflow with it is as accurate as I can get.

Here is an example. The first one was set in-camera with custom white balance, second was set with eyedropper in lr3 (both using the calibration target image).

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

05_01_2012 (5907).jpg (external link) by DapperPhoto (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8020/7140789045_9edec1c7a1_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/66379335@N08/7​140789045/  (external link)
05_01_2012 (5907).jpg (external link) by DapperPhoto (external link), on Flickr

60D | 15-85 3.5-5.6 IS | 70-200 4L | 50 1.8 | 100 2.8 macro | 1.4x II | 580EX | 430EX II


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,378 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 604
Joined Aug 2009
     
May 03, 2012 23:43 |  #2

I have a WhiBal card. If I use it as a target to do a custom white balance in camera, it agrees very closely with what I get in LR2 when clicking on it with the eyedropper. That is, assuming I aim it so there's no glare and I'm at a relatively low ISO, say 800 or less on my 5D. The noise from higher ISO causes eyedropper readings to vary significantly depending on where I happen to click.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 546
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
May 04, 2012 00:26 |  #3

There will be differences in the actual values. The camera does a calculation and then stores a value in the Raw Exif. Lightroom then tries to reverse-calculate that value for the initial preview. But when you do the eyedropper Lightroom is acting totally independent. It's no big deal, especially since the two shots you posted appear to be quite close to my eyes.


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dustin ­ Mustangs
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
310 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: MI
     
May 04, 2012 07:57 |  #4

Are you using a calibrated monitor Tony? I can hardly see the difference looking at this thread on my uncalibrated, piece of crap screen notebook but on my calibrated ips panel it is pretty obvious. IIRC the last time I posted two shots I thought were different for no good reason you had the same opinion. Just curious...


60D | 15-85 3.5-5.6 IS | 70-200 4L | 50 1.8 | 100 2.8 macro | 1.4x II | 580EX | 430EX II


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dustin ­ Mustangs
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
310 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: MI
     
May 04, 2012 08:02 |  #5

mike_d wrote in post #14376888 (external link)
I have a WhiBal card. If I use it as a target to do a custom white balance in camera, it agrees very closely with what I get in LR2 when clicking on it with the eyedropper. That is, assuming I aim it so there's no glare and I'm at a relatively low ISO, say 800 or less on my 5D. The noise from higher ISO causes eyedropper readings to vary significantly depending on where I happen to click.

I did notice a slight difference depending on where I clicked the target image and I too assumed it was due to noise even tho it was on an iso 100 shot. But no matter where I clicked it was still considerably off of the in camera numbers.


60D | 15-85 3.5-5.6 IS | 70-200 4L | 50 1.8 | 100 2.8 macro | 1.4x II | 580EX | 430EX II


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dmward
Cream of the Crop
9,081 posts
Gallery: 29 photos
Likes: 1525
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Metro Chicago
     
May 04, 2012 08:41 |  #6

If you have a largeish white field to sample with the eye dropper enlarge the dropper sample area using the scale slider at the bottom of the develop window when the eye dropper is selected. That will give you the most accurate WB. 500K and 5 tint is not significant.


David | Sharing my Insights, Knowledge & Experience (external link) | dmwfotos website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DunnoWhen
Goldmember
Avatar
1,748 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Mar 2006
Location: South Wales
     
May 04, 2012 09:43 as a reply to  @ dmward's post |  #7

I’m on a calibrated iMac. I can see quite a difference.

In the first image, the white band on the child’s sweater is white (and if I want to delude myself, I might be able to see a fraction of blue).

On the second image, I’m seeing a yellow cast which tends the white to more of a cream colour.


My wisdom is learned from the experience of others.
...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dustin ­ Mustangs
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
310 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: MI
     
May 04, 2012 10:01 |  #8

dmward wrote in post #14378135 (external link)
If you have a largeish white field to sample with the eye dropper enlarge the dropper sample area using the scale slider at the bottom of the develop window when the eye dropper is selected. That will give you the most accurate WB. 500K and 5 tint is not significant.

Oh, thanks for the scale tip. I did not see that down there. Since I am using the target I can easily jack that all the way up. Unclicking auto-dismiss is also a handy feature I was overlooking.

Maybe I should ignore the eye dropper tool. Just playing around with the scale turned all the way up and some extra color noise reduction thrown in, I got up to a 16 point difference on the tint scale depending on where I clicked on the grey area of my target. The color temp stayed within a couple hundred tho.

I do appreciate getting your opinion, but I will have to respectfully disagree about 500k not being significant. That is 10 increments of difference on the slider. And that is the average difference I am seeing, not the biggest.


60D | 15-85 3.5-5.6 IS | 70-200 4L | 50 1.8 | 100 2.8 macro | 1.4x II | 580EX | 430EX II


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dustin ­ Mustangs
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
310 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: MI
     
May 04, 2012 10:06 |  #9

DunnoWhen wrote in post #14378442 (external link)
I’m on a calibrated iMac. I can see quite a difference.

In the first image, the white band on the child’s sweater is white (and if I want to delude myself, I might be able to see a fraction of blue).

On the second image, I’m seeing a yellow cast which tends the white to more of a cream colour.

That is the area I see the biggest difference too. The top one is more accurate there but I think the bottom one might have a more pleasing skin tone. Truthfully, I like it best in between the two and maybe that is what I have to step away from this with.


60D | 15-85 3.5-5.6 IS | 70-200 4L | 50 1.8 | 100 2.8 macro | 1.4x II | 580EX | 430EX II


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nathancarter
Cream of the Crop
5,474 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 601
Joined Dec 2010
     
May 04, 2012 10:25 |  #10

dmward wrote in post #14378135 (external link)
If you have a largeish white field to sample with the eye dropper enlarge the dropper sample area using the scale slider at the bottom of the develop window when the eye dropper is selected.

There's some disagreement over whether increasing the scale actually does anything.

The interface would lead you to believe that it uses the average of all the pixels shown in the WB picker window. But some say that only the center pixel is used, regardless of the scale/zoom of the WB picker sample window.


http://www.avidchick.c​om (external link) for business stuff
http://www.facebook.co​m/VictorVoyeur (external link) for fun stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,378 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 604
Joined Aug 2009
     
May 04, 2012 11:00 |  #11

Dustin Mustangs wrote in post #14378006 (external link)
Are you using a calibrated monitor Tony? I can hardly see the difference looking at this thread on my uncalibrated, piece of crap screen notebook but on my calibrated ips panel it is pretty obvious. IIRC the last time I posted two shots I thought were different for no good reason you had the same opinion. Just curious...

I'm on a Huey calibrated 6 year old Samsung TN screen and can definitely see a difference. The second pic is warmer than the first.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
paddler4
Goldmember
Avatar
1,320 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 7
Joined Aug 2009
     
May 04, 2012 11:33 |  #12

It makes no difference whether the in-camera WB is similar. One of the beauties of shooting raw is that is does not matter at all what the camera thinks the white balance is. If you are in a situation where you are not certain, take a shot with a neutral gray card, like a whiBal, and use the eyedropper to get the WB nominally correct. Then, adjust to taste. The truly "correct" WB is the one you like.

I stopped fussing with custom WB completely once I started shooting RAW. Just wasn't worth the time.


Check out my photos at http://dkoretz.smugmug​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dustin ­ Mustangs
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
310 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: MI
     
May 04, 2012 11:47 |  #13

With all due respect, you completely missed the point of this thread.


60D | 15-85 3.5-5.6 IS | 70-200 4L | 50 1.8 | 100 2.8 macro | 1.4x II | 580EX | 430EX II


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,378 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 604
Joined Aug 2009
     
May 04, 2012 12:24 |  #14

paddler4 wrote in post #14378982 (external link)
I stopped fussing with custom WB completely once I started shooting RAW. Just wasn't worth the time.

I would say its still useful so that the histogram on the back of the camera will be more accurate when you're checking your exposure.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 546
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
May 04, 2012 15:57 |  #15

So, I loaded them both in to get a quicker comparison. My eyes just aren't sarp enough to catch the differences by scrolling up and down.

So, I loaded them into DPP and was able to do an "instant" comparison..

And yeah, the LR WB is warmer, yes it is.

Now as to the technical reasons of why LR would come up with a different WB from using the eyedropper, well, I don't know -- I can imagine various different factors.

As to how it would affect us in our photography, well, I'd just say that if you are going to be "picky" about color then you just want to do whatever you can to ensure "accuracy", as in using an in-camera custom WB and then see how it compares to the eyedropper approach and your efforts to tweak.

I also, as always, advocate using DPP as a "reference", both to get a good idea of how the out-of-camera jpeg would look, and maybe compare with the LR rendering, and also you can use the DPP eyedropper alongside of the LR eyedropper. You may get a good reference point for what you are doing in LR.


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,099 views & 0 likes for this thread
In-camera custom wb vs lr eyedropper
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is brservices
1174 guests, 299 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.