This content has been marked as final.
Show 42 replies
-
1. Re: White Balance question
Nick Decker Jan 20, 2008 7:36 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)GH, just select the White Balance tool in ACR (third from the left in the upper left corner). Use it to click on a neutral gray swatch. -
2. Re: White Balance question
(PShock) Jan 20, 2008 7:42 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)Well, if you're using a white card to achieve a custom white balance, and you do it properly you shouldn't need to tell ACR anything - that's the point of a custom white balance. The card needs to fill the frame entirely for this and you would be telling CAMERA to use this as a white balance.
However, if the white card is simply a part of the frame, do as Nick suggests and use the WB eyedropper in ACR to click on the card. (there needs to be some tonality though - if the card is pure white with 255 across the RGB board, it won't work. -
3. Re: White Balance question
greenjumpyone Jan 20, 2008 7:50 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)Nick,
duh! ;) I am so used to looking at the tools on the right panel that I never even saw the tools on the top of the screen!
I have now learned to not only use the tool, but to also set up the settings, save them and then apply them to an entire group of photos. :D
THANKS for making me look at my window more closely!
hopper -
4. Re: White Balance question
greenjumpyone Jan 20, 2008 7:53 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)phil,
I have the Whibal cards and used them for my white balance. I had the camera set to "cloudy" for my white balance, but it wasn't a perfect match. By using the cards and setting my WB in PS, my NEF images now look more natural.
I did shoot in both jpg basic and RAW this time. The saturation etc in the camera processed jpg had pretty good balance, it was just my nef images. I'm sure it's me and I tend to struggle with this on a regular basis. :| That's why I keep my Whibal cards handy! :) -
5. Re: White Balance question
(PShock) Jan 20, 2008 8:34 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)> I have the Whibal cards and used them for my white balance. I had the camera set to "cloudy" for my white balance,
Yes, but you can also create a "custom" white balance which would give you perfect color WHILE you shoot - for whatever type of light you happen to be in, jpeg or RAW. Not saying you should or need to do this, just pointing out the option.
What's that guy get for those WhiBal cards - something like $35? Probably costs $2.50 to make. I've always said the real money in photography isn't in shooting - it's in making gadgets that photographers will convince themselves they need. :)
-phil -
6. Re: White Balance question
Nick Decker Jan 20, 2008 10:34 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)>I have now learned to not only use the tool, but to also set up the settings, save them and then apply them to an entire group of photos.
You're welcome, GH. As I think I've mentioned in the past, my eyesight has a red-green deficiency. Not really "color blind", but I apparently see some colors differently than most folks. Gray cards and ACR have been a life saver for me.
You need to be careful in mixed lighting, though, like exterior window light and incandescent in the same photo. Put the gray card in the light that you want to be dominant, and tweak from there.
Also, you can often find a neutral value in the scene and use that instead of the gray card. Just move your cursor over what you think should be neutral and watch the RGB values in ACR. If you find a spot where R,G and B are the same (or very close), take a WB sample there. Like Phil said, though, if the area is too bright, ACR will beep at you to let you know. -
7. Re: White Balance question
greenjumpyone Jan 20, 2008 11:01 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)In this case I was outside and it was quite overcast, in fact, it was misting. It seems I spend quite a bit of time taking photos of dogs outside! :) This was at an outside dog show. It cleared up a bit by afternoon, but I was done shooting by then! ;)
I do have ACR set up to show me "red" areas where I might be blowing out the highlights.
Yesterday was the first time that I was formally trying to catch photos of the dogs in a dog show, gaiting etc. I'm hoping the owners of the dogs will like the shots so much they will buy them! ;) Time will tell!
Here's one sweet boy:
http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=10jXksSQEgrASm2JRQWuu5RyiZ0yOx1
(dang, I wish we could put links in our posts :( Sorry if I break the page width, I did try to use the short link, but the forum software still won't allow it.) -
8. Re: White Balance question
(Donald_Reese) Jan 20, 2008 11:25 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)That dog had some serious brushing. -
9. Re: White Balance question
greenjumpyone Jan 20, 2008 11:36 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)His fur is wet because of the mist that was coming down on us. You should see how feathery his fur (and the other dogs fur as well) is when it's dry and flowing in the wind as he runs. :) -
10. Re: White Balance question
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Jan 20, 2008 12:50 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)Well, maybe I am just lazier than others here on WB, becuae I am not trying to match anything. The WB that comes from the "As Shot" version is different than ACR "Daylight", for which "As Shot" has been set up. What's important is that I get the mood correct. So, as shot on an overcast day looks, well, overcast. I can shift the WB as indicated here, but I do it with a certain amount of scepicism, because I aqm not necessarily trying to make it accureate. Accurate compared to what? A fabric sample under inky lights? Under north light? What'd the reference?
The important aspect of RAW is that it is just that, RAW, with a selected WB thrown in for starters. AFAIK, the RAW itself does not have a WB bias. If I am wrong, let me know where. :-) -
11. Re: White Balance question
(PShock) Jan 20, 2008 1:00 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)Agree Larry -
Unless your shooting products where correct color is crucial ... it's all subjective. And you're correct about RAW.
-phil -
12. Re: White Balance question
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Jan 20, 2008 3:56 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)Especially where shooting product shot, you really have to have the entire path in mind to be sure you have it correctly represented. -
13. Re: White Balance question
Ramón G Castañeda Jan 20, 2008 11:04 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)Hopper,
Forgetting about all photographic considerations for a second, as someone who was intimately involved with dogs and AKC dog shows for several decades, I have to say that the stance of that beautiful dog after having cloned out the handler's leash is most unnatural (second shot, of course). No Labrador stands with his neck like that without the handler pulling on the collar and holding out the treat in front. -
14. Re: White Balance question
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Jan 21, 2008 9:04 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)I'm curious, Ramon. Is that an AKC POV or is it true for Labs in general? It appears to be attentive, but I know German Shepherds, not Labs. -
15. Re: White Balance question
greenjumpyone Jan 21, 2008 3:18 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)I didn't say I didn't retouch the photo! ;) Yes, I removed the lead from above the dog's head, but didn't retouch the dog at all.
This dog *will* free stack very nicely without a lead on, but he does need something to hold his attention... a ball, a treat, a toy of some sort.
Oh and for clarity, he is a Golden Retriever, not a Labrador Retriever. -
16. Re: White Balance question
(barry_gray) Jan 21, 2008 3:51 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)Ramon knows his dogs yeseree! The Lab/Golden difference is not subtle.
I've worked Labs in the field for years, you sir are clueless.
Have you ever seen the stance of a flushing dog (labs and goldens) when a bird flushes? how about a "Pointing Lab" when it's on the hold? (Yes there's most definitely such a breed)
Mister Know It All strikes again! -
17. Re: White Balance question
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Jan 21, 2008 4:39 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)I missed it too.
Here's a yellow lab. Not so much hair/fur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labrador_Retriever -
18. Re: White Balance question
(Donald_Reese) Jan 21, 2008 5:40 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)Here is a cutie
http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1MYFnDIDI2FTKUCBrvLvjlZzrwkB40 -
19. Re: White Balance question
greenjumpyone Jan 21, 2008 5:47 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)That looks, to me, to be a Chinese Crested. I like the "powder puff" versions of those dogs the best. Apparently in one litter, there will be at least one of the puppies born WITH hair. That one is called a "powder puff" and the are cute little creatures. :) Their fur-less brethren don't do much for me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_crested
photo of a powder puff Chinese crested dog:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/TiaFront.jpg -
20. Re: White Balance question
Ramón G Castañeda Jan 21, 2008 5:50 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)>Have you ever seen the stance of a flushing dog (labs and goldens) when a bird flushes? how about a "Pointing Lab" when it's on the hold?
Yup. The neck stretches FORWARD, not backward in that case.
Normal stance: http://www.jphpk.gov.my/English/golden_retriever.jpg
Pointing: http://www.nationaldogbreeders.com/uploads/poc1.jpg
Note neck angle and direction of topline of muzzle, from stop to nose. -
21. Re: White Balance question
Ramón G Castañeda Jan 21, 2008 5:52 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)Hopper,
That is precisely what I was talking about. It is entirely too obvious that you removed the leash, to the point of making the image look very unnatural. -
22. Re: White Balance question
Ramón G Castañeda Jan 21, 2008 5:56 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)Lawrence,
I can't think of any dog regardless of breed that would look natural if you photograph it when stacked by a handler who is pulling upward on the leash and collar and then clone the leash out of the picture.
Check any dog show images you want. -
23. Re: White Balance question
Ramón G Castañeda Jan 21, 2008 6:07 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)>Have you ever seen the stance of a flushing dog (labs and goldens) when a bird flushes? how about a "Pointing Lab" when it's on the hold?
Yup. The neck stretches FORWARD, not backward in that case.
Normal stance: http://www.jphpk.gov.my/English/golden_retriever.jpg
Pointing: http://www.nationaldogbreeders.com/uploads/poc1.jpg
Note neck angle and direction of topline of muzzle, from stop to nose. -
24. Re: White Balance question
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Jan 21, 2008 6:12 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)Ramon, from that perspective, I see your point. Leaving the leash out of the image gave an unnatural look. But since the handler is not shown, the leash unattached to a hand could be confusing as well. I would likely have cloned it out as well.
Oh, well...nice dog!:-) -
25. Re: White Balance question
Ramón G Castañeda Jan 21, 2008 6:31 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)>But since the handler is not shown, the leash unattached to a hand
Lawrence, it's perfectly normal to have a picture showing the lead (leash) and not the handler's hand. The lead just "extends" to the top of the image.
What better to highlight the show quality of a great dog than a (hint of a) dog-show setting? -
26. Re: White Balance question
(-macman) Jan 21, 2008 8:05 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)Petty comments aside, beautiful dog, Hopper. You have an instinctive talent for showcasing mans best friend.
We recently acquired two pups around here; Ill see if I can find the time to post some decent shots in the near future.
One pup is a Old English Mastiff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN025W0dlSQ -
27. Re: White Balance question
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Jan 21, 2008 8:10 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)Maybe we should start a thread about dogs. I have tons of shots of Valentine. Well, maybe not tons....:D -
28. Re: White Balance question
(-macman) Jan 21, 2008 9:57 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)Good idea, Lawrence. Could be sweet and informative.
Hopper, have you checked out the Golden Retriever clips on YouTube?
I especially like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4B_QZS4YR8
Or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydmmg7-VXSw
:) -
29. Re: White Balance question
(-macman) Jan 21, 2008 10:29 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)Back to the topic at hand: a while back I set up my 2-light (umbrellas) studio lights as usual for a photo shoot with my 30D. Using my formerly trusty Minolta III flesh meter, I took a flash reading and was disappointedly surprised that my exposures were at least 2 stops underexposed. I opened the lens by about two stops (banking on the camera histogram) to finish the shoot and got great pix, nonetheless, but it has puzzled me since that time.
This particular meter has always been spot-on in the past when I was still shooting film.
Any ideas why the discrepancy with digital? I havent done any further experimenting since than, relying exclusively on the built-in histogram for proper exposure.
Thoughts... -
30. Re: White Balance question
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Jan 22, 2008 1:00 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)The meter is not calibrated to the digital. Check the actual f stop/shutter speed the meter calls for against what the camera calls for at identical ISO for starters. You will have to do this without strobes at first. Just check under daylight for instance. -
31. Re: White Balance question
Ramón G Castañeda Jan 22, 2008 1:01 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)Ironically, macman's comment is the pettiest of them all. -
32. Re: White Balance question
(PShock) Jan 22, 2008 4:47 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)Two stops is a gross difference. Are you sure the meter and camera were set to the same ISO?
The best way to check if a meter is in the ballpark is by using the "sunny 16 rule", (which says any given ISO value will become the shutter speed value at f/16 for a correct exposure).
With the meter set to ISO 100, go outside on clear day with the sun high in the sky and take an incident reading of the sun. You should get an exposure reading close to 125th @ f/11 2/3. (if you can set shutter speed to 1/100th of a sec, it'd be 1/100 @ f/16.)
If the readings you get aren't close to this, the meter needs calibrating.
-phil -
33. Re: White Balance question
Dirk Williams Jan 22, 2008 5:32 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)This thread has gone to the dogs! -
34. Re: White Balance question
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Jan 22, 2008 10:37 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)Since it is a discrepancy, It is important to see whether the two meters track. I am suspicious of the actual ISO numbers published by the camera companies. It is unimportant as to what they are, since the system is closed. They might as well be A, B, or C, with the idea that moving from letter to letter doubles the sensitivity of the detector (or more correctly, doubles the gain). That would be just as valid.
OTOH, if they are using ISO, it better be accurate! Two stops is totally unacceptable.
macman, be sure you put fresh batteries in the meter before going any further. Does the meter have a battery check? -
35. Re: White Balance question
(PShock) Jan 22, 2008 11:08 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)> I am suspicious of the actual ISO numbers published by the camera companies.
Just I'm sure you were by film companies. Rarely did I shoot film at the rated ISO. Still, my 1Ds MK II is fairly spot on with my hand-held meter - which has been my experience with every Canon DSLR I've ever used. Not perfect in every instance, but certainly within 1/2 stop at most. It's close enough that I've never worried about re-calibrating the meter.
Any DSLR manufacturer who's ISO equivalent is THAT far off would go broke in no time.
Either macman's meter is way off, his metering techniques are wrong, or there's something wrong with the camera. I'd make sure the meter is sound first.
-phil -
36. Re: White Balance question
(-macman) Jan 22, 2008 11:41 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)> Ironically, macman's comment is the pettiest of them all.
Regarding Hopper and her pix, there was NO pettiness portrayed or implied in my posts. If you construed it as such, it most assuredly was in your own, ill-conceived mind. -
37. Re: White Balance question
(-macman) Jan 22, 2008 12:00 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)I will do some further testing with my meter when I find some spare time. The batteries should be good, as I just replaced them recently (Ill double check that also, though, to be sure).
ISO was set correctly! I just verified that. As already stated, the flash readout from the meter threw me for a loop at the time. I knew instantly that something was wrong as the camera preview was overly dark and the resulting histogram only reached the middle of the graph. So I set the meter aside and stuck with the histogram for approximate exposure.
Thanks for the feedback. Ill let you know what I come up with... -
38. Re: White Balance question
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Jan 22, 2008 2:26 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)My guess is the batteries.
I'm not comfortable with the urban legend about sun at a certain time etc. Even Ansel's version, north light at noon, is off. To be sure, measure both instruments at the same time, and I would also switch to continuous rather than strobe as a first test.
You have two problems. One is calibration, the other is profiling. (where have we seen this before?). Calibration is less important than having the system profiled so that both give the same answer, and the exposure is correct. When one is incident, one is reflected, one a closed system, I would believe anything!
I have considerable experience with this type of error and it is far more common than one might suspect. I had some fiber optic measurements to make. We had three meters, one a $40,000 analyzer, all 3% devices, all had current stickers saying they were within 3%, so the max error to expect is 6%. The actual errors were 10 to 12%. A quick check on two of the instruments showed both well within 3%.
Such is life. :-) -
39. Re: White Balance question
(PShock) Jan 22, 2008 4:31 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)It's not urban legend, it's a fact. The rule as I stated is surprisingly accurate and more importantly, completely consistent. I've shot many subjects outdoors without use of a meter at all with great success - even in my transparency days.
I'm not sure why you're even bringing the camera's meter into this discussion. Number one, it's a reflective meter (which is far more likely to give false results without careful technique), and number two - a built-in camera meter is utterly worthless with studio flash --- you know, the situation he's having problems with?
A two stop discrepancy is not simply some sort of manufacturer variance issue - something along the chain is
b broken.
Checking the meter as I've outlined will take less than 2 minutes. Walk outside on a clear day - make a reading of the sun.
-phil


