White or Grey

Morning everybody

Just a quick question it seems like everybody at the camera club has their own ideal on which one to use for setting the white balance. So what are your thoughts on the subject.

I was always told white for Canon and grey for Nikon, but have used both with Nikon

Mike

I use white because it's readily at hand and is most efficient with light. Gray works, too. Either way, be sure to avoid materials with a fluorescent treatment: such fabrics and paper will seem white, but actually emit excess blue in the presence of any UV (a component in sunlight and flash). I use untreated art paper from Blick.

If you shoot on the meter, both should come up gray which is what you want. Actually, the tone shouldn't matter as long as the whites aren't blown & the blacks aren't crushed.

Gray Card…White Paper. What’s best?

I'm quite happy with the WhiBal card. Not quite white, not gray. Closer to white though.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #18346869
If you shoot on the meter, both should come up gray which is what you want. Actually, the tone shouldn't matter as long as the whites aren't blown & the blacks aren't crushed.

Gray Card…White Paper. What’s best?

Ok I tried this method and it certainly works for exposure. Used plain white paper and +2 1/3 stops (7 clicks) and the histogram was bang up against the right margin with no clipping (5Div).

If you are using this for custom white balance. Is there also a way of getting the K value from the first white/grey shot or is this something that you adjust in PP, for example by using the eye-dropper in Lightroom?

I've a feeling there's something I've missed.

DaviSto wrote in post #18346929
If you are using this for custom white balance. Is there also a way of getting the K value from the first white/grey shot or is this something that you adjust in PP, for example by using the eye-dropper in Lightroom?

I've a feeling there's something I've missed.

1st, I don't use LR, so someone else will have to answer that.
2nd, I consider WB settings to be a guide for consistency while shooting RAW. Unless I'm shooting product, I will adjust WB during RAW processing to what I think works best for that shot, so I'll feel free to pick warmer/cooler as I go through the images. I might pick warmer AND cooler for 2 conversions of the same image & blend them together in PS.

So for me, the "correct" WB isn't always the right" WB? Don't be afraid of fudging it a bit if you think the shot looks better.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #18346950
1st, I don't use LR, so someone else will have to answer that.
2nd, I consider WB settings to be a guide for consistency while shooting RAW. Unless I'm shooting product, I will adjust WB during RAW processing to what I think works best for that shot, so I'll feel free to pick warmer/cooler as I go through the images. I might pick warmer AND cooler for 2 conversions of the same image & blend them together in PS.

So for me, the "correct" WB isn't always the right" WB? Don't be afraid of fudging it a bit if you think the shot looks better.

I'm experimenting with fully manual WB at the moment. I was surprised by how straightforward it seems. The results have been great (in WB terms, at least) and, as you point out, shooting RAW means I can always tweak in PP if necessary. I haven't found any need for this so far even for difficult lighting (e.g. strong sunlight through a canopy). I seem able to judge the K value (well, OK, guess it) about right.

I'm hoping to spend some time using a Tilt-Shift lens for stitched shots and I can see that there could be more need for PP adjustments here.

lonerider519 wrote in post #18346761
it seems like everybody at the camera club has their own ideal on which one to use for setting the white balance. So what are your thoughts on the subject.

Simply keep in mind is that the concept of WB results in a 'neutral' value for R-G-B when the camera is recording a 'neutrally colored' surface...whenever you aim your camera at a black surface or a gray surface or a white surface (which fill the frame), the meter suggests an exposure which records that area as a 'midtone', resulting in R-G-B values close to 50-50-50 (on a scale of 100%). Cameras or software may reject setting WB when the eyedropper is too close to 100%, whereas when the values in the sample are 'more moderate' in value the eyedropper tool works fine.

The goal of White Balance is to ensure proper accurate color. Not exposure.

If the RGB values are close to 255--which they are likely to be with a white sheet--then the value of any color above that will be incorrectly measured. If your exposure is already set to reproduce the sheet as white, then any predominant color is already above 255--the system can't identify that fact.

So you'd have to be careful to make sure the white sheet is underexposed to get an accurate balance.

OTOH, if the overall exposure is correct, the gray card would only be gray--and its values would be well within the capacity of the system to measure RGB.

RDKirk wrote in post #18347262
So you'd have to be careful to make sure the white sheet is underexposed to get an accurate balance.

^

...and to reinforce the point I made earlier, IF THE SHEET FILLS the viewfinder, the meter suggests an exposure which captures that white sheet as 'mid tone gray', so you would get an accurate WB value -- assuming the white is perfectly neutral! But 'white' sheets and 'white' printer paper actually can vary significantly from 'neutral', throwing off any readings of WB using that target area.

In 2010 I posted on POTN about flaws of choosing random 'white bond' for setting WB...the results could vary depending upon which brand and model of paper! I shot a known neutral 18% gray card, and two inexpensive white bond paper samples from two different brands of paper purchased from chain store office supply places. All three were shot in bright daylight, seconds apart, with target area filling the viewfinder. All three shot, exactly as metered with Canon 40D spot meter, (all resulting in mid-tone RAW shots). I used LR2 eye dropper tool to balance the White Brightness and adjust the Tint. Here are the values which resulted from LR2...

• Douglas Gray card: 5350K with +4 (shift toward magenta) Tint
  
• White paper 1: 5750K with -6 (shift toward greenish) Tint
  
• White paper 2: 5900K with -11 (shift toward greenish)Tint
  

http://michaeltapesdes​ign.com/whibal.html

Some great information on this topic. I have a white and grey card in my camera bag and i have even used the ice just before a hockey game as a custom white balance. Just wondering as when i get into lightroom or photoshop it seems easier to get the colors and skin tone closer when i do a custom white balance. I don't own a color checker but thinking one may be in my camera bag soon.

A colorchecker's the best bit of kit I've bought. Take shot of it in the same light as your subject, then do a light source profile later when you're processing. Takes seconds. Perfect colour, then you can warm or cool to taste if you want but you start with it spot on. It's better than a grey (or white) card because light sources can vary a bit at different wavelengths, so just moving the scale up or down isn't quite the same. (Hoping that makes sense).