White balance tools
Jun 20, 2016 05:39:05 #
Hi,
hoping someone out there can help
I am trying to source a particular tool to use to adjust white balance
The one I have been shown is slightly larger than a deck of cards, it has a grey balance section on the back and at the front under a patterned semi clear opening section there is a matrix if coloured squares that if you take a picture with it beside the subject you can use the squares to adjust the colour cast in editing software
What i particularly like is the obscured section that you can shoot through and use that as your reference point for adjusting white balance rather than using a card which sometimes can be a little difficult to use and are easily damaged
Thanks in advance
Bob
hoping someone out there can help
I am trying to source a particular tool to use to adjust white balance
The one I have been shown is slightly larger than a deck of cards, it has a grey balance section on the back and at the front under a patterned semi clear opening section there is a matrix if coloured squares that if you take a picture with it beside the subject you can use the squares to adjust the colour cast in editing software
What i particularly like is the obscured section that you can shoot through and use that as your reference point for adjusting white balance rather than using a card which sometimes can be a little difficult to use and are easily damaged
Thanks in advance
Bob
Jun 20, 2016 06:15:25 #
You're probably thinking of the X-Rite ColorChecker - or similar.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=color+correction+tools&tbm=shop
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=color+correction+tools&tbm=shop
Jun 20, 2016 06:46:52 #
Bob, your post may describe two items. Jerry gets the ColorChecker right for the first one but the ExpoDisc is the second one. The differences between the two are that ColorChecker is better for matching all colors and uses a proprietary plug-in with Lightroom for the final adjustments. If you need precisely matched colors, this is definitely the tool of choice. You use the ExpoDisc once on the camera to determine the white balance for your photos until the lighting changes. It is excellent for mixed lighting and makes no claims to match colors as accurately as the ColorChecker.
I have used the ExpoDisc for years and find it to be very reliable so long as the lighting stays the same. I think it is easier to use than the ColorChecker and the only problem with it is forgetting to turn the autofocus back on. The key to the ExpoDisc is the fact that it is manufactured and checked to be white unlike cheaper products.
I have used the ExpoDisc for years and find it to be very reliable so long as the lighting stays the same. I think it is easier to use than the ColorChecker and the only problem with it is forgetting to turn the autofocus back on. The key to the ExpoDisc is the fact that it is manufactured and checked to be white unlike cheaper products.
Jun 21, 2016 08:46:38 #
Jun 21, 2016 09:21:52 #
Yes, the Color Check Passport by X-rite. I have one and love it.
http://xritephoto.com/colorchecker-passport-photo
http://xritephoto.com/colorchecker-passport-photo
Jun 21, 2016 13:43:36 #
Bobc163 wrote:
Hi, br hoping someone out there can help br I am ... (show quote)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDtebpvATzc
Only tool I know of that gets it right 100% of the time, even with dual color light sources. As a former user of the Expodisk, it is far easier to shoot a target, and keep on shooting, than to set up the Expodisc, take a test shot, adjust the white balance, then resume shooting. Of course, if you are not shooting raw, the Expodisk is the better solution.
Jun 21, 2016 15:15:45 #
Gene51 wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDtebpvATzc
Only tool I know of that gets it right 100% of the time, even with dual color light sources. As a former user of the Expodisk, it is far easier to shoot a target, and keep on shooting, than to set up the Expodisc, take a test shot, adjust the white balance, then resume shooting. Of course, if you are not shooting raw, the Expodisk is the better solution.
Only tool I know of that gets it right 100% of the time, even with dual color light sources. As a former user of the Expodisk, it is far easier to shoot a target, and keep on shooting, than to set up the Expodisc, take a test shot, adjust the white balance, then resume shooting. Of course, if you are not shooting raw, the Expodisk is the better solution.
Please substantiate your two main claims.
1. Only tool I know of that gets it right 100% of the time, even with dual color light sources.
2. if you are not shooting raw, the Expodisk is the better solution.
Jun 21, 2016 17:51:55 #
I use the ExpoDisk, the Color Checker, and the Color Checker's Grey Cards, depending upon the situation. On the go, it's the ExpoDisk 90% of the time and for studio/headshots it's the Color Checker 90% of the time. But I do mix and match, depending. Both methods have their advantages. Bst of luck!
Jun 21, 2016 20:21:22 #
abc1234 wrote:
Please substantiate your two main claims.
1. Only tool I know of that gets it right 100% of the time, even with dual color light sources.
2. if you are not shooting raw, the Expodisk is the better solution.
1. Only tool I know of that gets it right 100% of the time, even with dual color light sources.
2. if you are not shooting raw, the Expodisk is the better solution.
Don't need to - it's a personal opinion. It's neither right nor wrong - it's an opinion. But I do have 49 yrs in the business. Not that this matters. . .
Do spend the time to look at Jeff Lazell's video - it has a lot of information, he demos the dual illuminant feature very nicely, and if you still think there is a better way, bless your heart!
Jun 21, 2016 22:40:21 #
Gene51 wrote:
Don't need to - it's a personal opinion. It's neither right nor wrong - it's an opinion. But I do have 49 yrs in the business. Not that this matters. . .
Do spend the time to look at Jeff Lazell's video - it has a lot of information, he demos the dual illuminant feature very nicely, and if you still think there is a better way, bless your heart!
Do spend the time to look at Jeff Lazell's video - it has a lot of information, he demos the dual illuminant feature very nicely, and if you still think there is a better way, bless your heart!
I do not mind you offering a personal opinion so long as you identify it as such. However, you passed it off as fact and therefore, subject to verification. That is the problem I have with your post.
And for my opinion, you might want to refer to my earlier post on this subject. I did watch that video and have read the X-Rite website.
Jun 22, 2016 01:30:45 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
Bobc163 wrote:
Hi, br hoping someone out there can help br I am ... (show quote)
Not sure what you are describing.... I've seen a variety or devices, but nothing exactly like that.
I use a Lastolite EZ Balance... it is flexible and folds up about 1/2 or 1/3 it's size for easy storage. White on one side, neutral gray on the other (which can be used both to set exposure and white balance at the same time).
I also use Warm Cards, which are used to set WB with a bit of a bias... cards that cause warmer and cooler effects are included in a set. There are also special ones for fluorescent lighting, as well as pure white and a 13% neutral gray. Warm Cards are laminated and durable.
Jun 22, 2016 19:24:27 #
abc1234 wrote:
I do not mind you offering a personal opinion so long as you identify it as such. However, you passed it off as fact and therefore, subject to verification. That is the problem I have with your post.
And for my opinion, you might want to refer to my earlier post on this subject. I did watch that video and have read the X-Rite website.
And for my opinion, you might want to refer to my earlier post on this subject. I did watch that video and have read the X-Rite website.
Not "passing" anything off as anything. It's my opinion on both statements. I present my ideas with conviction and without hesitation, and it is mostly based on 49 yrs as a photographer, most of it professional, and a pretty good understanding of how things work, and why an Expodisk, which relies on setting a custom white balance before taking the picture, works best with jpeg files, as compared to attempting to adjust the white and color balance after the fact. If you really want to understand my rationale, then just ask - but being confrontational on an open forum won't get you that. Yes, that is MY opinion.
However, since I don't know everything, and, if I may, draw from your posts that you feel quite differently - please provide your opinion on these two topics. You don't need to defend them, verify them or anything else you have suggested. Just present them, as I have, in the interest of increasing each other's - and anyone reading this thread - knowledge. Ball is clearly in your court. If you don't respond, it's ok. I understand you were just trying to be contrary and it was a veiled attempt to put me on the spot. If you know anything about me or have followed this forum for any length of time, when I post something as fact, I ALWAYS include backup, verification, etc - and never use sources like Ken Rockwell or Tony Northrup - both of whom are actually guilty of what you accuse me of - and yes, I can back that up, or just read this thread, particularly page 4 where I completely discredit Northrup using DXO's response to my questions based on Northrup's claims:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-377405-1.html
Looking forward to reading your opinions on the two statements I made that you are taking issue with.
Jun 22, 2016 19:43:35 #
Gene51 wrote:
Not "passing" anything off as anything. ... (show quote)
Gene
Your previous post that started this controversy about opinions contained the words, "that I know of." Now it seems to me that phrase clearly indicates either your opinion or the facts you have to based on your knowledge and/or experience. Since you did not include a reference, I assumed it was an opinion. I see no reason why you should have to defend yourself against such a pathetically anal antagonist. Someone owes you an apology!
Jun 22, 2016 19:58:36 #
Mogul wrote:
Gene
Your previous post that started this controversy about opinions contained the words, "that I know of." Now it seems to me that phrase clearly indicates either your opinion or the facts you have to based on your knowledge and/or experience. Since you did not include a reference, I assumed it was an opinion. I see no reason why you should have to defend yourself against such a pathetically anal antagonist. Someone owes you an apology!
Your previous post that started this controversy about opinions contained the words, "that I know of." Now it seems to me that phrase clearly indicates either your opinion or the facts you have to based on your knowledge and/or experience. Since you did not include a reference, I assumed it was an opinion. I see no reason why you should have to defend yourself against such a pathetically anal antagonist. Someone owes you an apology!
Thanks, and I do appreciate that you truly understand what I wrote and what you read. I will tag on an edit that should either shut him up or generate a lively discussion. Either way I am handing him the ball.
Jun 26, 2016 18:43:48 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.