How do it know?

[Doug_Kerr]

Hi, Drew,

Originally Posted by drew

Um, I appreciate you guys summing up white balance for us from a more technical standpoint. However, we've already been over this ad nauseum elsewhere.

Well, e-x-c-u-s-e- me. Sorry to infest this kaffeklatcsch with any notion of science.

Best regards,

Doug

Well, e-x-c-u-s-e- me. Sorry to infest this kaffeklatcsch with any notion of science.

No need to be offended Doug. Certainly, none was intended. You may not be aware that we have already gone over this same basic issue in two other threads.

As far as science goes. I love science. I am probably as guilty as anyone at "being an academic." There is a tremendous amount to be said for the scientific method. I have three degrees from three different universities (two of them in scientific fields). I have also taught university statistics and experimental design and methodology. The issue here isn't science.

The issue is how to practically apply the scientific knowledge we have about how light works and how white balance reference frames are both taken and measured.

By cherry picking a few minor theoretical points we are missing the big picture. This is very easy to do. Said another way, these discussions are "missing the forest for the trees", or how about, "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

The questions being asked here are theoretical points that, while interesting, really have no bearing on the overall usefulness of the product. These posts are better suited for our color management forum, not a sales and support forum for a product. I'm afraid they do nothing to illuminate the normal shooter on the value or usefulness of this product and in fact may serve to confuse the reader.

So once more with emphasis. No one is disagreeing with the following 2 statements. Although, it may sound that way.

With this product you will save time and you will get much closer than you will using awb the vast majority of the time.

Most live events do not, in any way, lend themselves to the use of a gray card.

The ExpoDisk concept is great if we place the "instrument" (that is, the camera with the ExpoDisk on the lens) at the subject position with the disk parallel to the subject surface, so that it receives light just as the subject will.

No "instrument" will theoretically make the determination we seek if put at the camera location for the shot and aim it into the scene.

Many instruments may give a good result that way, but this is a triumph of good luck over physics.

Now to address this topic once more. You may get a more accurate reading by pointing the parrot at the light source. If you can, and are willing to do so, please feel free to point it at the light source when taking your reading. For that matter, go ahead and run up to the subject during the live event, stand next to them, open up your zoom wide and take your reference shot. It may be more accurate. But, if I was going to do this why wouldn't I just use a gray card?

As discussed here, and in the article this often is either impossible, or undesirable.

In the dojo example it is easy to see how trying to pick one of the light sources to shoot for your reference image will produce a much more inaccurate reading than simply shooting the subject. The fact is shooting the subject works well most of the time. This is not the product of "luck." It is the result of the fact that when light strikes an object it reflects light back. By passing this reflected light through a white target to create a reference image the camera is able to create a reasonably accurate set of numbers that can be used to create a reasonably accurate suggested white balance preset.

[Doug_Kerr]

Hi, Drew,

Originally Posted by drew

No need to be offended Doug. Certainly, none was intended. You may not be aware that we have already gone over this same basic issue in two other threads.

No, sorry I missed that.

[quote]As far as science goes. I love science. I am probably as guilty as anyone at "being an academic." There is a tremendous amount to be said for the scientific method. I have three degrees from three different universities (two of them in scientific fields). I have also taught university statistics and experimental design and methodology. [quote]

Wow!

No, WOW!

The issue here isn't science.

The issue is how to practically apply the scientific knowledge we have about how light works and how white balance reference frames are both taken and measured.

By cherry picking a few minor theoretical points we are missing the big picture. This is very easy to do. Said another way, these discussions are "missing the forest for the trees", or how about, "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

Also good is, "Although the Moon is smaller than the Earth, it is farther away." Or, "It is tough making predictions, especially about the future."

The questions being asked here are theoretical points that, while interesting, really have no bearing on the overall usefulness of the product. These posts are better suited for our color management forum, not a sales and support forum for a product. I'm afraid they do nothing to illuminate the normal shooter on the value or usefulness of this product and in fact may serve to confuse the reader.

I guess I have no business in a marketing forum. I just wandered in by mistake after I got your e-mail.

So once more with emphasis. No one is disagreeing with the following 2 statements. Although, it may sound that way.

With this product you will save time and you will get much closer than you will using awb the vast majority of the time.

Well, I can't disagree, since I have never tried it. Besides, evidently this wouldn't be the right forum to disagree in anyway.

Most live events do not, in any way, lend themselves to the use of a gray card.

Well, they're good in case of rain.

Hang in there, Chief.

Best regards,

Doug

[Doug_Kerr]

Hi, Drew,

Originally Posted by drew

Now to address this topic once more. You may get a more accurate reading by pointing the parrot at the light source.

That's something like what I said, but not quite. I was speaking about putting the "face" of the instrument at the subject position and parallel to the subject "face". That may or may not be the same as pointed at (one of) the light source(s). But, hey, that's one of those details.

If you can, and are willing to do so, please feel free to point it at the light source when taking your reading.

Well, thanks.

For that matter, go ahead and run up to the subject during the live event, stand next to them, open up your zoom wide and take your reference shot. It may be more accurate.

I certainly wouldn't suggest that - what would be the principle behind it?

But, if I was going to do this why wouldn't I just use a gray card?

Well, maybe the Mayor wouldn't be willing to hold it for you.

Best regards,

Doug

Well, they're good in case of rain.

Never thought of that.

The Parrot, being only 3 inches in diameter might work better, because it would be more targeted.

evidently this wouldn't be the right forum to disagree in anyway.

No, not really. But, who cares. I've never been very good about keeping threads on topic and in the right place anyway.

Please feel free to keep the disagreements coming. Although, you might wish to actually try the product first.

I'm afraid we're about to get more technical in here anyway. I don't think it is going to help the normal shooter get their work done any better, or any faster. But, hey it is fun, I guess.

How about let's get back to spectral neutrality. I'll see if I can get some numbers up for those interested in measurements made using a spectrophotometer.