Pro Photo HOME
Go Back   Pro Photo HOME > Professional Digital Workflow Discussion > White Balance Tool Discussions
Register Now for FREE!
Our records show you have not yet registered. Sign up for your FREE account INSTANTLY. Free accounts provide basic access.

Username: Password: Confirm Password: E-Mail: Confirm E-Mail:
Agree to receive admin email and abide by forum rules 

ColorRight

Comment
 
LinkBack Article Tools Search this Article Display Modes
<!-- google_ad_section_start -->kixpixphtography's WB tool measurememt tests<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
kixpixphtography's WB tool measurememt tests
Published by Doug_Kerr
04-22-2008
kixpixphtography's WB tool measurememt tests

Our colleague kixpixphotography (sorry, I can't seem to remember your actual name - it appears infrequently) has posted the results of an interesting series of tests with several white balance measurement tools (all of the "diffuser" variety. They involved a "tabletop" scene of several colored paint bottles and some other items, including what appear to be some folding test targets (with black, white, and gray portions)

He hasn't told us yet which general technique was used, but I suspect is was the "from the camera position" technique.

[This is the technique often called "reflected light". The term isn't apt, except perhaps when practiced with the Color Parrot/ColorRight diffuser. The intimation of the term is that what is measured is the light reflected from the subject, whereas in fact with most diffusers it is a far broader incidence of light - actually the incident light on the camera position. And of course that's good - the chromaticity of the light reflected from the subject is the last thing we want to measure for white balance correction purposes, unless the subject happens to be a neutral target.]

I have taken a look at the test images to attempt to assess the "accuracy" of the color balance obtained in each case. To do this, I had to make the assumption that the "white" sector of the tricolor test targets was fairly close to reflective chromatic neutrality. If in fact it was substantially off neutral, then of course all bets are off.

I read the sRGB color of that sector in each of the images (on an 8-bit RGB basis, which we realize introduces some quantization error). I then calculated the chromaticity each represented (as CIE u'v' color coordinates) and plotted the results on the du'v' chart. Here, the origin (0,0) represents "theoretically ideal" white balance color correction.

Here we see that chart:



Let me first say that I am well impressed with the performances of all the tested diffusers in this series (even the devices not intended to be white balance diffusers but pressed into service for curiosity's sake, like a plastic urinal cap).

As you know, I am not a big fan of "from the camera position" white balance measurement, owing to the lack of any comforting concept by which it should provide reliable information. Nevertheless, we continue to find that in so many cases, it produces a very useful result. I won't philosophize here in what situations bring that about, and I don't know enough about the total environment of these tests to analyze them in that regard.

Suffice it to say, all the "real diffusers" (plus the urinal cap) produced very respectable results in this particular test series (all much better than the camera's "AWB" function; we have no idea what camera was involved).

Clearly here the best "bang for the buck" comes from the urinal cap (assuming that one could get one at almost zero cost), with the runner up being the "Mennon" white balance cap (which we hear is available for $5.00).

It was also nice to learn of the Clear White diffuser, offered by Lynn Radeka, of which I was previously unaware.

Of course, that diffuser is recommended for use in the "at the subject" mode.

The Color Parrot/ColorRight diffuser is shown with the greatest error (still not very large). In fairness to our host here, I point out that this analysis is wholly dependent on the assumed chromatic neutrality of a non-pedigreed (unknown, in fact) reference object. Thus we cannot draw reliable conclusions from small differences in the "plotted" performance of the different diffusers.

That having been said, I will take a moment to give my outlook on "from the camera position" measurement.

1. Its best chance to give a desirable result is when the overall illumination on the camera position is similar to that on the subject.

2. In general, a broader acceptance pattern is more likely to successfully exploit this than a narrower one.

Of course, I have no information on the acceptance patterns of any of the "diffusers" tested except for the Color Parrot.

Thanks again for the nice round of tests results.
__________________
Best regards,

Doug

Visit The Pumpkin, a library of my technical writings:
http://doug.kerr.home.att.net/pumpkin

"Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler."
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #1  
By PB&J photography on 04-23-2008, 04:33 PM
Thumbs up Re: kixpixphtography's WB tool measurememt tests

Camera used was Nikon D70. All tested in Aperture Priority. For more accurate results, I plan on running another round of tests by actually using a handheld meter. I did it in Ap Priority to resemble "real life" shooting. Meaning, this is how I typically will photograph a wedding. (Depending on the situation, of course).

The platic urinal cap. Ha ha. My gf works in a hospital. We had some of these lying around (for whatever reason) and to me they looked like they'd work well, given their whitish color and opaqueness. The color resembled the inside of the Mennon. Yes, cost is virtually free. Shoot, if you want one for giggles, send me an email at nsjrb@yahoo.com and I'll mail you one. They even have a slot to attach to your camera strap! ha ha

I tried to keep this test as controlled as possible. Making each measurement the same and in the same method.

On the ClearWhite (Lynn's piece) you say that's to be used in Art mode or whatever? Sorry for the poor paraphrasing, I don't have your writing in front of me to refer to and only can rely on my poor memory. What's that mean? Or was it at the subject you said? Either way, whatever you said, it wasn't done that way. The reason....again to keep them all the same.

Regardless of how much better the results may be taking the measurement at the subject versus at the camera, for my purposes this is not ideal. Also, to me it's not real practical. If I'm going to take the time to approach the subject, or that area, I am going to use a target. Being I cannot approach the subject in many situations, that's out of the question.

Why do I do it this way? Experience.

Scenario one: I was in the balcony of a church lighted by flouresents. The stage however had stage lights, tungsten chandiliers and other spot lights. Tons of light was pouring in from the stained glass. I tried a target. Being it needs to fill the frame, the length of my arm as as close as I could get to the subject on stage. Again, I'm in the balcony. I got a nice measurement for the flouresents that surrounded, but when target was lowered and actual subject was photographed....I got junk!

It is my beleif that even using a WhiBal or anything to later adjust would not have proved acceptable results, as the WB measurement I had was nothing near what was truly and majorly illuminating my subject.

Scenario two: Very similar. While the lights may be a bit more consistent, a rodeo arena is not a place to place a target or grey card or even get near the subject for the "longer method".

So...use a WhiBal, grey card, or any other device you want to name for post processing. Yeah...I hate post processing. BUT...in actuality, again, this would not prove effective either. For instance, the area is well lit. The stands...not so much. Okay so I pull out target, whiBal,whatever and place it as close as I can to the arena...arms length maybe? Well, the light hitting the persons and animals in the arena is not what is hitting said piece at arm's length. Therefore, I am not going to obtain acceptable results.

Why not lean over the fence and put the said target, etc. into the light of the arena?
Crowds.
Before the event do this....
Sure, but you'll find the light changes and later on during the event you'll need to redo it and will likely be out of luck.

Take the above rodeo situation and apply it to a dance/ stage/ theatrical production. Let's say you can put a target on there before hand, well guess what...a spot light of a different temp color just came onto the scene, the show's started and you can't get back up there.

For this reason, I personally thank Drew for addressing my frustrations with the ColorRight.

I did some quick tests comparing targets to the v1.1 of the ColorParrot. Yes, the Color Parrot did well, however not as well as the target. Was the difference enough for me to not use the Color Parrot? No! It was still much better than AWB and saved me time in processing.

I will say this, that I have NOT done similar testing/ comparison with the ColorRight or updated version.


By the way....Rick.

I'm going to attempt to change my name in the settings.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Comment


Article Tools Search this Article
Search this Article:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new articles
You may not post comments
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:51 PM.





ColorRight

Pro Photo Store

Professional Photo Resources Atlanta


Geo Visitors Map

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.1.0