Best white balance target (Page 2): Talk to the lighting director and learn the native white light color temperature. White balance for that. Let the filtered color fall where it may.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

CamB wrote:

I shoot lots of theater. Constant color and intensity changes. I do the same thing. Auto white balance and adjust color later. Really, what else can you do?

Talk to the lighting director and learn the native white light color temperature. White balance for that. Let the filtered color fall where it may. That will more accurately capture the color the lighting designer wants the audience to see.

Eunuch39 Loc: Orange California

I run into the same issue because my wife does competitive dancing and the lighting is always all over the place so you have no way to set a white balance and sometimes the pictures turn out good sometimes they don’t and it is tough. I sometimes do it in an editing process afterwards, where I actually add a white balance to the picture To get the white balance where I want it, and then I edit the object out

MJPerini

The color checker passport & software is probably the most convenient and complete.
It integrates with lightroom and other apps even allowing stepped warming cooling.
But any known reliable target, gives you a known place to start.
If you shoot professionally, you really need to include targets in test images.
Plus it makes editing easier and faster, so why not?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

bsprague wrote:

On my Android phone is the optional "Expert Raw" camera app. ...

The three apps will be within 100 or 200 K. Any further adjustment in post can be done with the "Calibrated Mark V Eyeball".

If you care about white balance you will be shooting raw. Auto WB on your camera does exactly the same thing more precisely.

The only place you can remedy an imbalance is on your computer. In your raw editor, you can read the temperature and tint your camera selected. You can apply the camera's WB by selecting "As shot" from the choice of standard WB settings as you develop the raw file.

But any way it is measured it is very likely to be wrong, especially if there are multiple light sources.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

burkphoto wrote:

It's really not meant for that. However, you can get a sense of the impossibility of perfect white balance in a scene by eye-droppering the various sides and seeing what happens to the overall scene. At least you can find the best in a bad mix of alternatives...

One purpose of tools such as this is to determine exposure ratios for controlled lighting in a studio.

It's actually not very good at either task. The only thing it is clearly good at is to separate someone who did not give it much thought from $50.

The Datacolor Spyder Cube is available new from your favorite supplier for $54 including a pouch and instructions. The more innocent buyer can get it for $67 used on ebay.

If all you give it initially is a quick glance you might miss the fact that it is hanging from a loop that gives you no control of the orientation of the planes. For control, it must be sitting on a flat surface or attached to a tripod.

I have a lot of respect for Datacolor when it comes to calibrating my monitor, but this device does not pass the sniff test. There are much easier ways to get the color right. There are also more reliable ways to measure lighting ratios including incident light meters.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

burkphoto wrote:

Talk to the lighting director and learn the native white light color temperature. White balance for that. Let the filtered color fall where it may. That will more accurately capture the color the lighting designer wants the audience to see.

rcarol

Setting the white balance is immaterial if you are shooting RAW. If you are shooting jpeg, then it does matter.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

burkphoto wrote:

Talk to the lighting director and learn the native white light color temperature. White balance for that. Let the filtered color fall where it may. That will more accurately capture the color the lighting designer wants the audience to see.

Exactly. WB is for the base light color. Filtered color is intended color and if you get the base white right those colors will be good.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

rcarol wrote:

Setting the white balance is immaterial if you are shooting RAW. If you are shooting jpeg, then it does matter.

Immaterial in that it can easily be changed with raw, but you should at least have a good idea what light color you’re dealing with for accuracy in editing. I don’t think the designers at a fashion show wouldn’t want you just making your own decisions about how their colors should look.

Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD

burkphoto wrote:

I have good luck in venues where I can scout ahead... (show quote)

👍👍

rcarol

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Immaterial in that it can easily be changed with raw, but you should at least have a good idea what light color you’re dealing with for accuracy in editing. I don’t think the designers at a fashion show wouldn’t want you just making your own decisions about how their colors should look.

You’re making that decision when your taking the image or during post.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Immaterial in that it can easily be changed with raw, but you should at least have a good idea what light color you’re dealing with for accuracy in editing. I don’t think the designers at a fashion show wouldn’t want you just making your own decisions about how their colors should look.

Right on both points!

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Immaterial in that it can easily be changed with raw, but you should at least have a good idea what light color you’re dealing with for accuracy in editing. I don’t think the designers at a fashion show wouldn’t want you just making your own decisions about how their colors should look.

Most of us seldom deal with images where the white balance is critical. For the most part we just need to get it to the point of not being noticeably wrong.

The attached images were taken Monday in the shade of a screened porch.

The first image is how the JPEG SOOC probably would have looked. The second is how Capture One thought it should look. The third is how it would look if we are convinced that the white blossom should be exactly white and the fourth if we think the white paint is neutral. It's only when you compare the three images that you will clearly see the difference.

You can see from the temperature and tint numbers that there is no consensus on which WB is correct. They all have their place and they all could make a decent print.

Z7 Auto WB (As shot): 5436k 3.8 tint

WB Capture one Auto WB: 6447k 3.4 tint

WB set with eyedropper on a white portion of the blossom: 6004k 3.2 tint

WB set with eyedropper on a white wall on right: 5645k 5.4 tint

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

rcarol wrote:

You’re making that decision when your taking the image or during post.

Missing the point. I can see why you shoot mostly B&W

JD750 Loc: SoCal

selmslie wrote:

Most of us seldom deal with images where the white balance is critical. <snip>

You can certainly say that for yourself but you should not try to extrapolate that to everyone else.