White Balance: Whibal

[PB&J photography]

Well, see had this been a white balance comparision, I may agree with your point.

This was a white blance comparion. You may not know anything about that.

I'll fix the link, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Cold hard facts. Understandable. However, a histogram isn't going to show you anything, unless it's of a target or something. There really is not "perfect" histogram. At least...not to me. High key, low key, tons of midrange...all show up differently. But, you know this.

What do you call "perfect balanced lighting"? Does this exist?

I did this with mixed lighting. The reason, that's what I work with. And, that's the reason I purchased the first custom WB tool. For me to show it in one type of light even would prove nothing to me.

But, I can see your point.

Doug has done a scroll through the images and posted his results somewhere in the prophoto land....

Which White Balance Tool? Try this and I'll fix the link.

I plan to add more images and testing. Narrowing down the tools used as well. As you can see the information is backwards....darn blog! So, I am in the process of finding time to move it to a website and put it in order. With the ColorRight being shipped currently, I wanted to get this out there. Plus, it was fun for me. First time I'd done anything like this. Sure, I have a lot to learn. That's why I'm here. To pick everyone else's nos...or uh, brain!

Do you have the means to post a review of such in the manner to which you suggest? If so, let's get busy with it! I'd love to see other comparisions illustrating such methods.

Do you know how I test images? My eyes! I don't use a dropper in PS (I don't even own PS. Well, I have PS 6 around here somewhere, not on the computer though, still in the wrapper). I have no idea what quantative measure even is or means.

I'm not an image editor or computer person. I photograph. That's about it. Yep...I do a lot of outsourcing. But, with that in mind...I have little to no workflow after a wedding. I simply rotate images. (Wish I could find a quicker way to do this even). Any editing I do or b/w conversion is done with BullzEye. It does WB correction as well. I'm not suggesting my methods to anyone. Just saying what they are. As you probably figured out, I'm not a RAW shooter. Most the time I don't use rull resolution on the camera. I'm just defying all the odds here...lol.

So, this test in a way was made for me and my methods. As absurd as they may be to you or someone else, that's just why I did what I did. Does it make it right? Nope. Wrong? Nope.

And, yeah...I have no clue as to how I would put a histogram on the screen or even the EXIF data.

Doesn't mean I am objected to learning this though. I'm always learning new things, or at least trying to. I play around until I find what I prefer and what works best for me. As I'm sure we all do.

I appreciate your taking the time to peek and your feedback!

[Doug_Kerr]

Hi, Drew,

Originally Posted by drew

Since I use both methods. I think it means that sometimes mine is long and sometimes it is short.

There is a lot of that going around!

There are some advantages to the short method. When on the run, for instance. The longer method tends to get in the way when on the move.

An apt analysis.

Ok. That's it for me. Can't take this any further. Melissa would not be happy.

Indeed, the better part of valor.

Take care,

Doug

[KevinStecyk]

Originally Posted by kixpixphotography

Well, see had this been a white balance comparision, I may agree with your point.

This was a white blance comparion. You may not know anything about that.

I'll fix the link, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Cold hard facts. Understandable. However, a histogram isn't going to show you anything, unless it's of a target or something. There really is not "perfect" histogram. At least...not to me. High key, low key, tons of midrange...all show up differently. But, you know this.

What do you call "perfect balanced lighting"? Does this exist?

No it doesn't it. However, pick a control lighting scheme where you have an accurate color balance. Now change your lighting and test your different schemes' abilities to fix.

Originally Posted by kixpixphotography

I did this with mixed lighting. The reason, that's what I work with. And, that's the reason I purchased the first custom WB tool. For me to show it in one type of light even would prove nothing to me.

But, I can see your point.

Doug has done a scroll through the images and posted his results somewhere in the prophoto land....

Which White Balance Tool? Try this and I'll fix the link.

I plan to add more images and testing. Narrowing down the tools used as well. As you can see the information is backwards....darn blog! So, I am in the process of finding time to move it to a website and put it in order. With the ColorRight being shipped currently, I wanted to get this out there. Plus, it was fun for me. First time I'd done anything like this. Sure, I have a lot to learn. That's why I'm here. To pick everyone else's nos...or uh, brain!

Do you have the means to post a review of such in the manner to which you suggest? If so, let's get busy with it! I'd love to see other comparisions illustrating such methods.

I am different than you. I am a hobbyist who has the time and ability to have the model hold a Photovision target. I don't do weddings where I need to get white balance fast.

If I am photographing a scene, such as a mountain or something, then I will likely change the white balance to suit my personal tastes. Granted, I won't climb up the mountain, put a target on it, climb back down, and take the shot. I am not sure that any method would give accurate color. The lighting on the mountain is likely different than from where you are shooting. And the trees might be covered by clouds (bluish color cast) while the bare rock is exposed to the sun.

Originally Posted by kixpixphotography

Do you know how I test images? My eyes! I don't use a dropper in PS (I don't even own PS. Well, I have PS 6 around here somewhere, not on the computer though, still in the wrapper). I have no idea what quantative measure even is or means.

While I know what I like and what I don't like, I am cautious about using my vision alone to make critical color judgments.

Here, look at squares A & B. Do they look the same color to you? If I didn't know better, I'd swear that they are different colors. But yet they are the same. Still want to use your eyes alone?

Checkershadow Illusion

(You can use the eye dropper in Photoshop to verify that the colors are, in fact, the same.)

Quantitative versus Qualitative:

Quantitative: Car A with 220 horsepower is more powerful than Car B with only 165 hp. Furthermore Car A weighs 1800 lbs whereas Car B weights 2200 lbs. So not surprisingly, Car A is able to accelerate more quickly at 6.2 seconds for 0-60 mph. Car B clocks in at 8.4 seconds.

Qualitative: Car A is more powerful than Car B. When you're in Car A, you can just feel the power. When the driver steps on the pedal, you sink back into you seat faster and further. Trust me, I know, Car A is a better car.

Originally Posted by kixpixphotography

I'm not an image editor or computer person. I photograph. That's about it. Yep...I do a lot of outsourcing. But, with that in mind...I have little to no workflow after a wedding. I simply rotate images. (Wish I could find a quicker way to do this even). Any editing I do or b/w conversion is done with BullzEye. It does WB correction as well. I'm not suggesting my methods to anyone. Just saying what they are. As you probably figured out, I'm not a RAW shooter. Most the time I don't use rull resolution on the camera. I'm just defying all the odds here...lol.

So, this test in a way was made for me and my methods. As absurd as they may be to you or someone else, that's just why I did what I did. Does it make it right? Nope. Wrong? Nope.

And, yeah...I have no clue as to how I would put a histogram on the screen or even the EXIF data.

Doesn't mean I am objected to learning this though. I'm always learning new things, or at least trying to. I play around until I find what I prefer and what works best for me. As I'm sure we all do.

I appreciate your taking the time to peek and your feedback!

Take my feedback for what it is worth. My needs are different than yours. I am still learning and mastering my processes.

Good luck.

[PB&J photography]

Makes sense and I agree 100%. I am referring however to in the field and on the fly.

In competition prints, maybe for me that would be a whole other ball game.

Insane illusion. I'd swear right along with you they are different.

Maybe you could help me on this one...perhaps I'm too anal, thus my reason for not even wanting to indulge in certain things. I guess I would not even know where to begin. Take a facial cheek. You have make up, lights and shadow, possibly some skin differentations...where do I start with the dropper? Or would I even do this, but only do the "known" blacks, whites, etc. and have the rest correct itself?

Gets too complex to me. But, like I say...I'd love to learn all this. I just got some PS tutorials, I think I'll learn a lot from those and from you guys. Thanks for taking time to share and enlighten.

Personally, I trust my lab for these corrections. Yes...trust...lol.

[KevinStecyk]

Originally Posted by kixpixphotography

Maybe you could help me on this one...perhaps I'm too anal, thus my reason for not even wanting to indulge in certain things. I guess I would not even know where to begin. Take a facial cheek. You have make up, lights and shadow, possibly some skin differentations...where do I start with the dropper? Or would I even do this, but only do the "known" blacks, whites, etc. and have the rest correct itself?

Oh, I wouldn't use a human cheek as my test target. Rather, I'd use something inanimate so that I could repeat the test under various conditions. Use a mannequin if necessary.

There are others who frequent this board who could provide more insightful comment as to how and what to test.

[PB&J photography]

Ohhhh...you mean for generalized testing, I assume. I was under the assumption of testing any image per se. That makes more sense.