WhiBal Test

OK, spinning off this thread: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=911999

I decided to test the WhiBal -- in part, because it's been stated that my monitor is not calibrated (which I maintain it is.)

Beyond that, I just wondered what OTHERS see -- that will a.) show if the WhiBal is accurate and b.) show if my monitor is whacky.

Here are 3 samples with 3 WB settings -- "auto", "cloudy", and custom with the WhiBal.

Which WB looks the best to YOU? And can you tell which is which?

1.

Do you mean that you set a "Custom White Balance" based on that third shot, or that you used the "dropper tool" to set a neutral point based on the grey of the WhiBal card for the third one? The first one looks a tad orangey, the second is clearly blue (which I'd expect from a "Cloudy" setting) and the third looks possibly a bit off, but better than the other two.

I mixed them up so people wouldn't know which is which (so they wouldn't be prejudiced toward the WhiBal.) One WB is edited on "auto", one with "cloudy", and the other using the WhiBal.

Yes, in DPP, I opened the photo and used the dropper on auto white balance and touched it to the grey part on the card to get the result. I assume that is how you use the WhiBal? If not, then maybe that's my problem!

Jon, you see what I see, BTW. I guess that means my monitor is good?

On my crappy non-calibrated laptop I'd say 1 is auto, 2 is cloudy and 3 is using the dropper to balance off the card.

imahawki wrote in post #10663424
On my crappy non-calibrated laptop I'd say 1 is auto, 2 is cloudy and 3 is using the dropper to balance off the card.

I second this

^ what he said.

I liked the auto setting at a first glance because the colors were more pronounced. However, the more i stared at the image, i found that it was indeed too warm for my taste. the 3rd shot looks nice, but seems slightly underexposed? or less vivid?

That peach chair is competing for colors from the kid...

Of the three shots, I find #1 to appear to be most "normal". The WhiBal card appears to be the most neutral in that shot. It appears that there's a colored tint to the WhiBal in both #2 and #3 images, though I don't know that I can put names to the tints I see as they are not radical but noticeable.

If these were mine, I would expect that #1 was done with the "custom" color balance in post-processing by using the eyedropper on the WhiBal card.

On further examination, I'd call #2 bluish and #3 greenish though both tints are only slight.

#3 looks best

FTR, I didn't adjust the exposure or anything else. This is SOOC.

Can we have the answers, please?

YankeeMom wrote in post #10663360
which I maintain it is

By that, do you mean hardware calibrated? If not, anything else is just simply guessing.

You got it, Skip. Good eye on the card.

1. WhiBal Card
2. Auto
3. Cloudy

It seems like most of you see what I see -- that #1 is a bit too warm, #2 is too blue, and #3 seems the most natural (though could still be slightly adjusted.)

My concern is that the WhiBal is not a good investment for me. I bought it because I thought it would only help with WB, but it doesn't seem to reflect WB very accurately for me. (It has shown a too warm WB with almost every sample.) IOW, because I shoot RAW and can edit WB in DPP, I probably don't need it -- esp. if I'm going to have to fine-tune it anyway (the work is the same.)

I just had to test it first -- like I said, it's $30.00 for that little card and I can return it, but also there was some question about the calibration of my moniter (which seems fine.)

Thanks for the feedback -- the fact that most saw a bad WB with the WhiBal (#1) and thought that #3 was the most correct (I agree), helps!

$30.00 is not a ton of money, but I hope this helps others who are considering this purchase. I also want to mention that when I tried to use the card to custom WB IN the camera, it looked warm in my LCD screen, too (another confirmation on my monitor.)

Saying all this, it might be very useful a.) studio shooting or b.) shooting in jpeg.

Mark1 wrote in post #10664222
By that, do you mean hardware calibrated? If not, anything else is just simply guessing.

It can't be guessing if I see what everyone else (with calibrated monitors) see. Also, the WYSIWYG is dead on wherever I print. I do not have special hardware to calibrate this monitor -- I did adjust in on the Internet a few years ago, but I cannot remember the name of the program. This monitor, by the way, is a heavy dinosaur, over 4 years old.

YankeeMom wrote in post #10664256
My concern is that the WhiBal is not a good investment for me. I bought it because I thought it would only help with WB, but it doesn't seem to reflect WB very accurately for me. (It has shown a too warm WB with almost every sample.) IOW, because I shoot RAW and can edit WB in DPP, I probably don't need it -- esp. if I'm going to have to fine-tune it anyway (the work is the same.)

My firm opinion is that the #1 image is in fact the best of the bunch by a significant amount. The other two have very noticeable, though slight, color shifts in them. I see the color shifts in both the WhiBal cards and in skin tones.

I strongly suspect that, if your monitor were properly calibrated with a colorimeter and software that generates a table of corrections, you would agree with me about the #1 image being quite good for colors.