WhiBal Test

SkipD wrote in post #10664293
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.

Sorry, Skip, but most people concur that the first photo is just too warm. You may be a little biased because you could see the difference in the CARDS -- or maybe you like warmer tones -- but it really can't be argued that the photo is on the warm side and there is nothing wrong with my monitor.

Actually it is still guessing. Just because what you print matches does not mean they both are not off. That said, it is possible to be very close by guessing. Some people have the eyes for it. But that is where the software solutions break down. If you do not have the eyes to make the matches, one will never get it right.

YankeeMom wrote in post #10664340
Sorry, Skip, but most people concur that the first photo is just too warm. You may be a little biased because you could see the difference in the CARDS -- or maybe you like warmer tones -- but it really can't be argued that the photo is on the warm side and there is nothing wrong with my monitor.

My challenge to you is to use both the WhiBal card and an X-Rite Original ColorChecker Card (originally a Gretag Macbeth card) in some photos. Make prints of the photos and compare all of the colors on real the card to the image of the card in the prints. I think you may be surprised.

Of course, if you are satisfied with your output then that's all that really matters. Your images just won't be adjusted to standard color values and folks with calibrated systems won't see exactly what you see.

I agree with Skip about #1 being most neutral rendition of the WhiBal card in the photo. In comparison, #3 is deficient in the red channel. And I agree with him that you should have a single shot with the WhiBal and another known-neutral control patch, to see if the WhiBal is as neutral as the control.

Mark1 wrote in post #10664355
Actually it is still guessing. Just because what you print matches does not mean they both are not off. That said, it is possible to be very close by guessing. Some people have the eyes for it. But that is where the software solutions break down. If you do not have the eyes to make the matches, one will never get it right.

Both off? Even MPIX and WalMart in the exact same way? That doesn't seem likely. I don't see how I could have "eyes" for something I don't see. IOW, when people post photos in this forum for critique, I see what everyone else sees. If it is too blue, too orange, or perfect -- that is what I see too.

SkipD wrote in post #10664412
My challenge to you is to use both the WhiBal card and an X-Rite Original ColorChecker Card (originally a Gretag Macbeth card) in some photos. Make prints of the photos and compare all of the colors on real the card to the image of the card in the prints. I think you may be surprised.

Of course, if you are satisfied with your output then that's all that really matters. Your images just won't be adjusted to standard color values and folks with calibrated systems won't see exactly what you see.

Apparently they DO see exactly what I see. Everyone else could see that photo #1 is warm. Maybe the actual light was on the warm side, but the photo is WARM (higher in yellow tone.) The middle photo is cool -- too BLUE. That is what I see and that is what you see. Some people PREFER a cool or warm look, but that doesn't mean we are not seeing the same thing.

I will look into that card you posted -- in fact, I may buy a CHEAP WB card anyway. It seems they all work the same. IOW, there doesn't seem to be any compelling benefit to using WhiBal over other (cheaper) cards. Every time I have used the WhiBal, I have needed to make adjustments anyway and that is probably the same with a cheap card. I wouldn't mind having a cheap card if there is no WB reference in my pictures, but I still probably don't NEED them as I adjust, on my own, in DPP pretty well and will probably only get better at it. I probably won't compare to the WhiBal, however, because I believe I have to return it within a certain time frame.

Wilt wrote in post #10664859
I agree with Skip about #1 being most neutral rendition of the WhiBal card in the photo. In comparison, #3 is deficient in the red channel. And I agree with him that you should have a single shot with the WhiBal and another known-neutral control patch, to see if the WhiBal is as neutral as the control.

I don't care how the card looks -- I care about the subject. It is too warm and I have seen that with almost every test shot I took using that card (including flowers.)

If the problem were my monitor than all those other people wouldn't have seen it the way I do. If my monitor was off and I wasn't seeing WB correctly then why wouldn't ONE PERSON mention it to me when I post photos here, on Flickr, or Facebook? I may not get it "perfect" every time, but it's not my monitor. I've checked it against online tests and it's perfect every time.

Thanks for all the feedback and suggestions everyone! I still maintain that this is a good test for others to see. I am not saying that the WhiBal NEVER works right, but it has been a bust in all my tests -- might as well get a cheapie.

YankeeMom wrote in post #10666495
I don't care how the card looks -- I care about the subject. It is too warm and I have seen that with almost every test shot I took using that card (including flowers.)

If the problem were my monitor than all those other people wouldn't have seen it the way I do. If my monitor was off and I wasn't seeing WB correctly then why wouldn't ONE PERSON mention it to me when I post photos here, on Flickr, or Facebook? I may not get it "perfect" every time, but it's not my monitor. I've checked it against online tests and it's perfect every time.

I know you don't care how the card looks...but the reason why I commented about deficiency of red channel in #3 was to afirm that the shot #3 skin tones might look right to your eyes if the color balance was too cool. I was suggesting a test with WhiBal and another known-neutral product, to CONFIRM that the WhiBal itself is indeed neutral. After all, no point in returning the WhiBal and buying another card if the results will be the same! Perhaps what you interpret to be excessive warmth due to WhiBal might simply be an unnecessarily high Saturation issue, not a neutrality of tone issue.

Wilt wrote in post #10666642
I know you don't care how the card looks...but the reason why I commented about deficiency of red channel in #3 was to afirm that the shot #3 skin tones might look right to your eyes if the color balance was too cool. I was suggesting a test with WhiBal and another known-neutral product, to CONFIRM that the WhiBal itself is indeed neutral. After all, no point in returning the WhiBal and buying another card if the results will be the same! Perhaps what you interpret to be excessive warmth due to WhiBal might simply be an unnecessarily high Saturation issue, not a neutrality of tone issue.

I am pretty much admitting that I don't need a card at all -- but it's possible that one could be useful in some circumstances (maybe in studio?) If I can get a cheapie, I might and keep it in my bag.

My biggest beef with the WhiBal is that it is very expensive and if my SUBJECT is not going to have a correct WB by using the card, then I am going to have to go in and make adjustments -- that's what I am already doing, so why pay $30.00? That's all I'm saying.

I agree with Skip
I should point out, though, that it doesn't look like you place the white balance card in the same light that the child's head is in. The card is shadowed by the individual holding it. You need to be very careful that you set your target in the same light as your subject. I'll bet you that first shot would have been slightly less warm if you had.
To be very blunt...
Thinking that the whibal card is a source of problems rather than a solution is absurd. If you are having problems, it is your monitor or your eyes. Many people are not aware that we humans have adaptive vision. The longer you look at it, the better it looks. For this reason we need to use tools to calibrate our equipment and keep us out of the loop. That said...they are your images and I would fight for your right to do whatever you want.
I have found a big improvement in my images by upgrading my calibration techniques. This has allowed me to get into art reproduction which requires accuracy.

OK, but there is no proof that anything is wrong with my eyes or monitor. Until Skip revealed the results (by studying the CARD), everyone acknowledged that the first photo is too warm (even you did, for crying out loud.)

If I held the card wrong, then this "tool" is just a PITA. Again, why bother when you can make all the adjustments (correctly) in DPP or other RAW programs? I thought this might be something people should consider before forking over $30.00 or more on WhiBal.

YankeeMom wrote in post #10666919
OK, but there is no proof that anything is wrong with my eyes or monitor. Until Skip revealed the results (by studying the CARD), everyone acknowledged that the first photo is too warm (even you did, for crying out loud.)

If I held the card wrong, then this "tool" is just a PITA. Again, why bother when you can make all the adjustments (correctly) in DPP or other RAW programs? I thought this might be something people should consider before forking over $30.00 or more on WhiBal.

That's right. Everyone in the whole world is out of step!
Read in my paragraph the part about my fighting for your right to do what you want. It is simple, return the card and suffer whatever consequences result. It is your camera, your game, and your prints. Everyone here is simply making an effort to help you perfect your process. I find your response to their efforts quite offensive. THEY ARE TRYING TO HELP YOU!

poloman wrote in post #10667036
That's right. Everyone in the whole world is out of step!
Read in my paragraph the part about my fighting for your right to do what you want. It is simple, return the card and suffer whatever consequences result. It is your camera, your game, and your prints. Everyone here is simply making an effort to help you perfect your process. I find your response to their efforts quite offensive. THEY ARE TRYING TO HELP YOU!

Quit stating the obvious then, Polo. I already know it's my card and my camera, and that I can do what I want, etc.

If telling me that my monitor is wrong is help, then try again. Everyone in the world is not using this card, some have supported the notion that the cards are useless with WB adjust in RAW, and almost everyone saw what I see -- that the sample I posted is too warm. I post photos all over the Internet -- no one has ever told me that my WB is (generally) off. (I acknowledge that it could be off AT TIMES due to human error.)

Now, if I am holding the card wrong, fine. I can fiddle with it every time -- but I am just stating that is a PITA. If I am fiddling with the card and adjusting the WB even when I use the card, then I am no better off (and just spent $30 for nothing.)

I thought that others might be interested to know this. (Again, look at the link in post 1 if you want to see the OP on this conversation.) I am not saying that the WhiBal never works. I am saying that it failed almost every test I tried and, IMO, it is not worth $30.00. Since a WB card could still be useful in some situations, I would consider a cheap option.

Chill, we're all trying to help!

Wilt wrote in post #10667103
Chill, we're all trying to help!

I'm not angry. But you keep saying the same thing over and over and so do I. You say my monitor doesn't work, I say that I see what you see. Now what? LOL.

YankeeMom wrote in post #10667111
I'm not angry. But you keep saying the same thing over and over and so do I. You say my monitor doesn't work, I say that I see what you see. Now what? LOL.

You wondered about your card, I provided a neutral example electronic file to see if your monitor might not be adjusted properly.

You complained that printing did not yield same result as monitor, so we wanted to determine if it was the monitor, or simply 'helpful' adjustment by the printer you were sending photos to.

You complain about too much warmth, so I suggested including another control target alongside the WhiBal to verify the neutrality of your WhiBal.

The reason you are getting so much 'help' is the simple fact that many other people have gotten good results with the WhiBal. At the same time, I do recall an issue for a while with consistency in production of the WhiBal, which lead to some variation in neutrality!


I then suggested the issue might not be White Balance per se, but level of Saturation.

Where I am saying the same thing over and over?

Wilt wrote in post #10667144
You wondered about your card, I provided a neutral example electronic file to see if your monitor might not be adjusted properly.

You complained that printing did not yield same result as monitor, so we wanted to determine if it was the monitor, or simply 'helpful' adjustment by the printer you were sending photos to.

Actually, I've said more than once that the WYSIWYG is excellent with my monitor. All the prints I've gotten are virtually the same as what I see on my monitor (whether I have the processor -- MPIX -- adjust them or not.) Maybe this is a source of the confusion?