WhiBal Test

poloman wrote in post #10670321
Smart Aleck? Adaptive vision is a fact of our lives. Just trying to keep you from stumbling.

Oh, thank you for your concern.

(For everyone else, I'm not mad. Polo is always giving me grief. Not sure why or if he just doesn't like me -- or just having fun. Or maybe really tying to help? )

With the QPcard 201 you can verify your present monitor color rendition accuracy and further adjust it if necessary.

You download the digital reference image and check its display against the corresponding $15 reference card to dissipate any dilemma. I like this approach, since it's based on visual comparison rather than faith.

Vision adaptation is real, though, therefore you shouldn't concentrate on any single color patch for too long, but rather browse over the entire collection at a reasonable pace and return to the problematic spots later - perhaps more than once.

http://www.qpcard.se …=1&tci=100&prod​=6&tci=146

I guess I still don't know why I'm worried about my monitor when 7 other people (on this thread) saw what I saw. Are all our monitors bad?

(I have to say that I checked the card on my camera LCD and it was warm there, too.)

You really need to get rid of that card, its clearly bugging you.

No, not necessarily bad, but there is room between "bad" and "accurate".

BTW, you may count me as the 8th.

imahawki wrote in post #10675352
You really need to get rid of that card, its clearly bugging you.

Yeah, but I was rooting for it. I did spend $30.00 and ordered it after all.

agedbriar wrote in post #10675357
No, not necessarily bad, but there is room between "bad" and "accurate".

BTW, you may count me as the 8th.

So all are monitors are somewhat inaccurate -- with the exact same flaw?

I tend to believe they mostly are somewhat (randomly) inaccurate and that the goal shoud be to contain their inaccuracy within reasonable limits.

I almost forgot... I took your first image and only brightened it: suddendly it appeared to me as the best WB, especially judging by the card-holding hand.

YankeeMom wrote in post #10663360
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.

2.

3.

agedbriar wrote in post #10675418
I almost forgot... I took your first image and only brightened it: suddendly it appeared to me as the best WB, especially judging by the card-holding hand.

A touch of brightness and a touch less saturation...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

That does look better for WB. OK, I usually do WB FIRST (when I go to DPP) then exposure, contrast, sat, then sharpening. Maybe expsosure first could make a difference. Well, I took more sample shots with my daughter. Again, they looked warm to me, but I will pp them fully and see if it helps.

Thanks for the feedback and samples guys. I love the idea of this tool -- hope to make it work for me (even though I just packaged it up to return -- just haven't sealed it yet. )

OP you could saved alot of pages in this thread.. lol Your confusing accurate with what looks good on YOUR monitor. Problem with sticking with what you think looks good is that any color cast will be enhanced in pp.

The numbers dosent lie no matter how you slice it or dice.

MR do little wrote in post #10677235
OP you could saved alot of pages in this thread.. lol Your confusing accurate with what looks good on YOUR monitor. Problem with sticking with what you think looks good is that any color cast will be enhanced in pp.

The numbers dosent lie no matter how you slice it or dice.

I know -- and I keep seeing what everyone else is seeing. I do on virtually every thread and in my prints.

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!

Perhaps, but I can surmise that the increase in saturation did change the color balance. The saturation slider affects saturated colors more than neutral (less saturated) colors. (The vibrance affects skin tones less in order to preserve them). Because your photo had primarily green tones, an increase in the saturation would affect the green more than the other tones, making the more saturated image cooler as you noted. To test this theory, you could use the same photo which had a WB card or similar in it. Preferably, choose a photo that has primarily cool or warm colors in it. Keep all the ACR settings the same, except for saturation. Then click on the WB card in the photo and see if the custom WB is the same.