WhiBal Test

YankeeMom wrote in post #10667271
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?

It seems to be the issue... when someone raised the question about 'neutral target' vs. 'neutral monitor' vs. 'neutral print', a number of people did not get the point that in spite of all three being neutral, the shots were 'too warm'. Which is why I raised the issue of Saturation rather than White Balance. But I have not seen a reply to that possibility.

Look at these shots and comment about color balance...

so....spray and pray. Whatever floats you boat.
If you do care about color accuracy you might want to check out the xrite passport. I have been amazed at the difference this hardware/software package has made in my work. But if the Whibal is too much for you, this is much more trouble.

Sampled the gray part of the Whi-Bal card in PS and came up with the RGB values below. My preference is #1 as looking the most natural. Pantone Huey for calibration here.

1- R=190, G=194, B=193
2- R=163, G=191, B=212
3- R=181, G=192, B=196

I'm wondering if what you percieve is being influenced by the surrounding colors(?)

I'm a big fan of WhiBal. It works.

YankeeMom,
I've been lurking in this thread as a new WhiBal owner. I have to agree with the others that say you seem angry with their posts. They're only trying to help. I don't get the hostility. If you don't like the WhiBal return it and get your money back. BTW, I don't think $30 is all that much for something that could save you countless hours of PP over the course of your life.

Wilt wrote in post #10667414
Look at these shots and comment about color balance...

That is tough because it's a bad photo (meaning the blown out highlights and dark shadows.) It is also quite noisy -- almost like a scan. That is part of what I see which makes it hard to get good color.

But I also see that the photo on top is a tad warmer than the one on the bottom (which has a blue tint that you can see in the man's shirt.) The 2nd one also looks a little "green" to me (but maybe that is a reflection off the child's shirt.)

I was also going to post a comment and I don't want this to become a bash fest but I don't get the mentality that when step 1 is calibrate your monitor, people (and not just in this thread) always just say its fine and move on to a million other possibilities. To me its like asking for help because your computer won't turn on but refusing to check if its plugged in.

Mark_48 wrote in post #10667777
Sampled the gray part of the Whi-Bal card in PS and came up with the RGB values below. My preference is #1 as looking the most natural. Pantone Huey for calibration here.

1- R=190, G=194, B=193
2- R=163, G=191, B=212
3- R=181, G=192, B=196

I'm wondering if what you percieve is being influenced by the surrounding colors(?)

5 other people (besides me) either thought #1 was too warm or concurred that #3 looks the best. Ultimately, it's how my subject looks that matters. Maybe a warmer look IS correct, but I don't like it. I tested it with some flower shots, too, and felt they were too warm. (But there is an argument that I held the card wrong and that would support the notion that photo #1 has a wrong WB as well.)

I'm not saying the card does not ever work. I may be using it incorrectly, but it just seems that I am going to end up doing the same work in PP that I do anyway (tweaking WB), so why spend $30.00?

imahawki wrote in post #10668214
I was also going to post a comment and I don't want this to become a bash fest but I don't get the mentality that when step 1 is calibrate your monitor, people (and not just in this thread) always just say its fine and move on to a million other possibilities. To me its like asking for help because your computer won't turn on but refusing to check if its plugged in.

If my monitor was not calibrated, then I would not see what everyone else sees. Also, the photos in my Flickr and Facebook sites would all be off on WB. I have yet to hear anyone say that is so (including times when I've posted on this forum.) If my monitor is not correct then 6 other people on their thread better get theirs checked, too. I'm not saying that I never get WB wrong, but if it were because I have a bad monitor all or most of them would be wrong.

Is my WB off on this? On my monitor it looks pretty darned good. If my monitor is not callibrated and I am seeing things "too warm" when they are "just right" then this photo should be VERY COOL to those with calibrated monitors:

YankeeMom wrote in post #10668198
That is tough because it's a bad photo (meaning the blown out highlights and dark shadows.) It is also quite noisy -- almost like a scan. That is part of what I see which makes it hard to get good color.

But I also see that the photo on top is a tad warmer than the one on the bottom (which has a blue tint that you can see in the man's shirt.) The 2nd one also looks a little "green" to me (but maybe that is a reflection off the child's shirt.)

I didn't choose a 'good' photo deliberately, and the photo is noisy because it was a crop of a very small section of the entire photo...it was chosen only for skin tones in bright sunlight. The teaching point is that the 'warmer' one is in fact NOT any different in color balance than the second photo, but merely was an adjustment of Saturation! Interestingly the 'warmer' photo is LESS saturated than the 'cooler' one where I bumped up the Saturation from the as-shot level!

YankeeMom wrote in post #10668320
Is my WB off on this? On my monitor it looks pretty darned good. If my monitor is not callibrated and I am seeing things "too warm" when they are "just right" then this photo should be VERY COOL to those with calibrated monitors:

The photo of the girl looks quite nice, but I think there's a slight error in the colors. It looks a little on the greenish side like your #3 in the first series. I have no reference as to what the colors should look like, of course, and what I think I am seeing is a rather slight error anyway.

By the way, I don't call the "greenish" look "cool" (vs "warm"). It's a bit on the "yucky" side in my book.

If you really want to test your setup, get the color chart I linked to before. Photograph it along with your WhiBal card. If you use the eyedropper tool on the WhiBal card, the rest of the colors on the Xrite color checker card should look right. If you tweak the colors the way you seem to do on a regular basis, I believe we who have the color checker card will be able to see errors in the various colors when looking at your image of the card on our calibrated monitors.

Knowing how to make absolutely faithful colors appear in our images is a good tool to have, especially if photographing artwork as an example. If you choose to make a correction to the otherwise faithful colors because you like the modified colors, nobody will fault you for that because it photography is an art. However, blaming a what's well known as a very good neutral reference for being wrong is wrong.

Your shot in post 41 looks well balanced, but it is also readily apparent as to the fact that the shot was in the shade, solely by the relative coolness of the subject's left side of face.

Wilt wrote in post #10668389
I didn't choose a 'good' photo deliberately, and the photo is noisy because it was a crop of a very small section of the entire photo...it was chosen only for skin tones in bright sunlight. The teaching point is that the 'warmer' one is in fact NOT any different in color balance than the second photo, but merely was an adjustment of Saturation! Interestingly the 'warmer' photo is LESS saturated than the 'cooler' one where I bumped up the Saturation from the as-shot level!

OK, the skin is the same but the shirts are different, right? The bottom one is bluer, right? I had to search to see a difference and found it in the shirts.