Custome settings

The studio I work at has been balancing off a white card instead of a grey card, and I've noticed when we use this sky blue backgroung and I've customed balanced at 8@125the (INVALID EMAIL) the images look blue, like their dead, but when I switch over to the flash setting the images produce a red tint to them. What am I doing wrong or should I tell the studio to shot a grey card?

When you switch over to flash you have to do the custom wb again. You have to do it for whatever light you are using. probably not much difference between white and gray card.

Gray Card…White Paper. What’s best?
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=58677

Hello,

I use one of these:

http://www.rawworkflow​.com/products/whibal/i​ndex.html

There's an obviously biased write-up on that page that suggests things to look for in a good white balance tool.

We've been happy with whi-bal so far. The hardest part is just remembering to use it.

If you use a white card, then one of the channels can be higher without you knowing it because it appears to be blown out, causing a color cast. But if you use a grey card you can see if one channel is just a few points off from the other two.

I set-up the lights first, then set the wb at f8@125 or aoround there. We've has the WhiBal cards for about a year now and really never used them. I just got done looking at the site and did some at home test. See, the thing was about a year ago we were shooting raw for everything and just tookk for every in post production, then a rep from a color lab said we should shoot jpeg and now when doing so in a controled lighting the color seems to be off a little. really only when we use that particular background, which I hate.

What if another rep said to only shoot film? I'd go back to RAW, but deliver a jpg to that lab?

Well, I went back to shoot the whibal cards (in raw) and it seems to be working alright. It's the jpeg shooting that I get nervous about, and it more to do with certain colors. I changed some setting in the mark II that had to do with the color tone, saturation in hoping that will make a difference.

If you've got a MK II & don't have an immediate deadline to meet like the Sportshooters like Gavin, KennyG & IndyJeff have, I wouldn't diddle around with jpgs. Which is what your doing now. Change this, change that?
While you're doing that, I can gave a kick a** jpeg converted from the RAW file in less time.

So you shoot raw all the time even on sports?

Yes, "Digital negative"! Try this for yourself. Shoot a Raw + Max Jpg. A max jpg from my 20D is 2,754 KB. The exact same shot with the jpg extracted from RAW is 4,315 KB. (Your sizes will vary depending on how busy the subject matter is.)
Whatever info is in my extracted jpg is a lot more detailed than what comes right out of the camera.
Granted that you get a much bigger file from your MK II, but why throw those extra bits away?

This post shows that you can see the difference in detail even in a small web jpg: post #58,

The original thread:
Auto White Balance - works really well (Actually it doesn't!)

Well, it started back with this rep.,from a local color lab, "saying why shoot raw,when you are in a controlled situation (lighting) shoot jpeg." We do a lot of memory mates in the area and the post production shooting raw just tookk a long time and space. Now, I shoot jpeg and raw on my own, but at the studio it more about time and space.

The rep has a valid point, but is he a shooter? It's about personal preference & shooting freedom to me Mike, as I said in post #9. When I'm shooting, I don't like to have anything come between me & the process, like "Measurebating" a 1/2 stop exposure change or color balance etc. every time I add/change a light or set-up. RSP frees me from that, let's me get on with the job at hand, & I think I gain quality & save time in the long run.

thanks everyone I think we're going back to raw