Grey card? Quick question, "promise"

[davetucker]

Hi
A quick question, can I use a 18% grey card to set my WB? My train of thought goes like this.....1) formatted card in camera. 2) find location I wish to shoot. 3) 1st shot with 18% grey card in the frame. 4) remove grey card and take shot. 5) continue to take shots.

Once back at "base" import raw files into LR2....now comes the "sticky bit" if I select the "white balance selector" and move over the 1st image will this set the correct WB? If so how do I apply this WB setting, taken from the 18% Grey card, from my first image, and apply to the rest of the exposures taken from that particular shoot?

would be grateful for any advice.

 

[ejay79]

Should work fine, although for some reason I've had better luck with my white card instead of my 18% grey.

In LR, after I have set the WB on that first image, I go into grid view. First select that first image, then hold shift and click the last image in the set, this will select all of them. You'll notice that the first one you clicked will have a brighter white selection color, this is important. Now if you click the Sync Settings button on the lower right of the screen, you can select which properties you want to apply from the first image (the really-highlighted one) to the others. To just do WB, click the Uncheck All button and then mark the White Balance checkbox and hit OK. It'll then apply that WB setting to each one.

 

[Anthony.Ralph]

I have read that for digital photography a white card is better for obtaining a 'correct' white balance. The old 18% cards were used for calculating exposures and are not neutral grey.

Anthony.

 

[ejay79]

I have read that for digital photography a white card is better for obtaining a 'correct' white balance. The old 18% cards were used for calculating exposures and are not neutral grey.

Anthony.

Cool, that's good to know and definitely explains why it always seems "off" when I try it.

 

[James_N]

No, an 18% grey card is intended for exposure and not White Balance.

The main problem is that grey cards are printed and the ink quality erodes over time. Also there is a lot of variability in the production process and no guarantee that grey cards are spectrally neutral.

Instead of a 18% grey card use a product like WhiBal or an Expodisc.

Hi
A quick question, can I use a 18% grey card to set my WB? My train of thought goes like this.....1) formatted card in camera. 2) find location I wish to shoot. 3) 1st shot with 18% grey card in the frame. 4) remove grey card and take shot. 5) continue to take shots.

Once back at "base" import raw files into LR2....now comes the "sticky bit" if I select the "white balance selector" and move over the 1st image will this set the correct WB? If so how do I apply this WB setting, taken from the 18% Grey card, from my first image, and apply to the rest of the exposures taken from that particular shoot?

would be grateful for any advice.

 

[davetucker]

THanks Guys, so I need a white card, the rest worked a treat, however in LR2 the "sync" button is "copy" (I hope, I have this right) Many, many thanks.

 

[Sean McCormack]

It's copy in Library and Sync in Develop

 

[calaf]

A set of photos in a gym with what can only be described as orange lighting was handled pretty well by Lightroom's auto setting.
However, I am looking at the camera's custom white balance. The recommendation, including Youtube vids, is for a full frame picture of a piece of white card/paper to be taken. This flies in the face of the Michael Tapes' WhiBal product advertising.

When in more difficult lighting conditions, I tend to go for the monkeys and typewriters approach, which means a greater number of images to work through.

To make life more efficient I would appreciate comment...

To my question therefore...

Am I better just shooting with AWB set and taking using Auto WB in Lightroom
or
Shooting a white card frame on the 4'D and using the custom function.
or
Taking a WhiBal shot and using that to set the custom WB
or
Taking a WhiBal shot and inkdropping the WB in Lightroom?

Thanks in advance!

 

[LightCode]

AWB is usually good (depending on camera, of course) under "standard"
lighting conditions, while it can be fooled by artifical lights, and mostly by
"mixed" light temperatures (neon and/or incandescence and/or sunlight...)

If you shoot in RAW, the WB can be easly set in postprocessing, however,
in difficult lighting conditions a PRESET of the WB is usually a good idea

the AWB in LR can be taken as a starting point, then you can fine tune it
has you like, ... assuming you have a calibrated monitor(!)

Stefano

EDIT: not always assuming a white reference object to be "really white" is
the best choice, sometimes it gives an unpleasant result, since there are
colour cast that are needed for a natural view

 

[calaf]

Stefano, thanks for the reply.
My brother keeps suggesting that I shoot raw, but up to now, I haven't acted on the suggestion.
I appreciate that postprocessing (off topic, but I can't seem to get Mogrify working in any shape form or size!) is where RAW comes into its own but I do consider myself very much a recreational shooter, who enjoys "tweaking" and as yet havn't really found the need for RAW. Perhaps when I have more understanding I will appreciate benefits.

I suppose what I am really interested in is reducing the processing time, which then relates to the initial camera set up. At which point the question is more general than Lightroom specific, and is to do with basic exposure technique but this then would appear to be, excusing the pun, a grey area between a Lightroom and a Canon forum.

 

[Brad Snyder]

Chris, shoot raw, and the problem will, in most cases, evaporate. Even horrid yellow sodium vapor gym lighting, can be compensated for in one photo, and bang, applied to the whole shoot.

If you're not shooting raw, you're wasting a good deal of the resources Lr was intended to provide.

I'm not sure what you mean by the Mogrify reference, but what Lr does is conventionally termed 'post processing'. You can look at Mogrify as providing some specific post processing tools that Lr doesn't, or that Mogrify handles more efficiently from a workflow perspective.

Really, try it. You'll never look back.

 

[Bruce J]

Back to your original question about WhiBal vs. a white (or gray) piece of paper. WhiBal and other devices sold for the same purpose are truly neutral gray; paper, including photo gray cards are not. If white balance is critical to your photo, use something that is made for the purpose. If close is good enough, take a photo of anything that looks grey to you under the lighting in use and use that to balance in post processing. I would never shoot jpegs under difficult lighting conditions (actually, I never shoot jpegs at all).

I've used a small WhiBal for several years and am very happy with it. Even for images where I know I will eventually want to change the ultimate WB, I find it useful to start with a correct, neutral WB and make changes from there.

 

[calaf]

Brad
Thank you for your response. I do consider myself very much the novice with digital photography, and resisted the move for a long time, the justification being that I was content with the Contax/Zeiss film gear I owned.
Consequently, there are many issues where I feel one step at a time is a better learning curve for me, and getting used to a) the Canon and b) Lightroom is quite a challenge.

I regularly see references to workflow and it seemed to me that perhaps setting the camera more effectively before the shoot would mean less time with Lightroom, not that I am complaining...I enjoy the "tweaking".
Where I am having particular issues, hang-ups perhaps, is the concept of processing after the event, rather than getting as much done before pressing the shutter, which ultimately was a "film process".

The WhiBal v white paper issue is a further complication in this journey I am on.

As for Mogrify, I have downloaded, and removed, and downloaded again ....and again, but each time I don't seem to make any headway, and for whatever reason, I haven't got to grips with it. Another part of the journey, but is not one I am too bothered about at the moment.

Software is a strange beast, most manufacturers have so much in their products, some will be useful to some but not others. In the long term I hope that I will gain knowledge of more features, but as long as I can achieve what I feel is appropriate to my needs with something else I can learn at that point I am content.

 

[calaf]

I've used a small WhiBal for several years and am very happy with it. Even for images where I know I will eventually want to change the ultimate WB, I find it useful to start with a correct, neutral WB and make changes from there.

Bruce

Thank you for your thoughts, I warm to the idea of getting close and then tweaking after that! I also appreciate the idea that not all greys/whites are what they seem.

Regards
Chris

 

[Bruce J]

Bruce

Thank you for your thoughts, I warm to the idea of getting close and then tweaking after that! I also appreciate the idea that not all greys/whites are what they seem.

Regards
Chris

Chris,

My pleasure. Although I spent most of my professional career creating software, I was also pretty overwhelmed when I switched from film to digital. LR was an absolute godsend for me, although I also still resort to PS occasionally. Come back often as you have additional LR questions. This is by far the friendliest and most helpful group I've ever discovered on the web. Most importantly, enjoy the process! Cheers,

 

[kirbinster]

I've always heard you are better using grey than white as most white papers are not pure and have a color tint.

 

[Denis Pagé]

Grey too can have a color cast. Use Grey or white as long as it is neutral.

 

[Bruce J]

I find that a neutral gray seems to work better for me than white. With a white card, even if it is neutral, it's often nearly blown out on one or more channels. This seems to make it more difficult for the WB tool to make the appropriate corrections. YMMV. Cheers,

 

[Bovineguy]

Just wondering, what color is the inside of your camera bag/case? Mine is 18% gray, by choice, something I expect for a camera bag/case.

 

[Mark Sirota]

Neutral white is more accurate than neutral gray, for the same reason that exposing to the right works. There's more resolution in the brighter zones, provided none of the channels are blown. You want the brightest white you can get without blowing any channels.

 

[calaf]

Just wondering, what color is the inside of your camera bag/case? Mine is 18% gray, by choice, something I expect for a camera bag/case.

Hmm, never thought of that.....my Lowe Pro bag is certainly a fetching shade of light grey!:roll:

Beyond that, as one does, (well I do), I get carried away and look to eBay.

I have bought, sent all the way from the Far East, some white balance cards in a delightful shade of very dark grey.

I have also bought a Digital Gray Kard, which is, it would seem, similar to the WhiBal, and which is nothing like the grey of the Far Eastern product...all of which goes to prove that

"I can't afford to buy a bargain," which I keep telling myself I follow as a principle, but more often than not I fail to stick to!

Have to say that the Digital Kard comes with a useful information leaflet.

I think my approach will be as suggested by Bruce, getting close in most conditions, but on those occasions when I feel there is a real need for accuracy, to have the facility of the dedicated card will be beneficial.

Thanks to all for help, support and advice!

 

[mel hill]

first off 18% grey refers to the reflectivity of the card and is useful for determining exposure only. It is not meant for color balance.

A properly exposed image of the above color checker will provide a very accurate color balance when the the second lightest white patch is used to set the camera custom color balance or in post-processing.

 

[Denis Pagé]

Welcome to the forums Mel!
And thanks for your contribution.

 

[Bruce J]

Just wondering, what color is the inside of your camera bag/case? Mine is 18% gray, by choice, something I expect for a camera bag/case.

Eric,

Mine is black, but I'd never use it for setting WB even if it was 18% gray. 18% gray cards (and fabrics) are intended for setting exposure, not WB. There is no guarantee, or even intent, that the color of the 18% material is actually a neutral gray. Do the test yourself.

I just made an image of a Kodak 18% gray card that I happen to have w/ a WhiBal sitting on top. Then, I imported the image into LR and used the WB tool to set the WhiBal portion of the image to neutral. Moving the cursor around on the WhiBal, I get readings of 69.3% +/- '.1 for R, G, and B. On the 18% gray card adjacent to the WhiBal, I get readings of: 55.5R, 55.'G, 53.5B. So, my 18% Kodak gray card is slightly yellow or orange from neutral. Maybe that's because it's quite old.

The point is that you need to test your gray card before you use it for WB settings. The same is true of "white" paper. Now, perhaps you don't need this level of accuracy. If so, then anything that you see in the image that appears gray or white is probably good enough. I'm just advocating knowing what you are using and not making the assumption that 18% gray = neutral. It just ain't so . Cheers,