cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I am going to agree with and lean on what Gene has said here. That said, I utilize a variety of methods, saving the more precise for the more critical work. I am a fan of the Expodisc, but admit its neither perfect nor universally useful. I find the Expodisc great for situations when I'm in a rush to shoot a basketball game, at least enough to get me started. I've not yet used my ColorChecker Passport to profile a camera, but I've been meaning to (really I have!). If lighting is constant, I do find taking a couple of shots with the ColorChecker included to be invaluable. Luckily, for me, I don't shoot artwork! Best of luck.

Bipod

The question is: does color accuracy/fidelity matter?

Well, judging by the number of people posting their photos on-line,
I guess not. :-) The image file may be balanced, but every display
device is different. So even if the image file is correctly balanced,
the image people see won't be. (Sigh.)

How many folks here white balance their computer monitors?
How many balance the displays on their smart phones (if it's even
possible)?

So if one only posts one's photos on line or e-mail them to people,
why bother to white balance the camera? (Of course, a serious
photographer will do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do).

Even a cheap digital camera has excellent color fidelity--given the
limitations of RGB color--if it's been white balanced. But color inkjet
and laser printers are a mixed lot: some good, some bad. And monitors
and color LCD screens are a disaster--because nobody bothers to white
balance them. (People used to white balance their projector and
plasma screen TVs, but times have changed).

There's also the issue that LCD screens have limited dynamic
range and their black isn't very black. This is more of a problem for
B&W than for color. Compared to the original, even a good scan of
an Ansel Adams landscape when displayed on an LCD looks like its
been bleached.

If digital sensors have less dynamic range than B&W print film, don't
worry: somebody will invent a display device that has even less
dynamic range than a digital sensor. The technology race-to-the-bottom
continues...cheaper and smaller...cheaper and smaller....

Finally, I'll just touch on the issue that all common light sensors and
display devices are RGB (3-primary additive color). But the particular
spectral color used as the primarly colors in the sensor and in the display
device may be different. So even if the display device is white balanced,
it may not produce the same color triangle as the sensor.

To add to the complexity, all common color inkjet and laswer printers are
Cyan-Magenta-Yellow (3-primary subtractive color). These are the subtractive
colors on the RGB color wheel -- but they are not exact matches. So even
they are perfectly white blanced, they will not produce exactly the same
color triangle. All inks are limited to available pigments, and (one hopes
in vain) to permanent ones.

Color film was equally complex: but was interchangable. If you didn't like
Kodachrome, you could load Anscochrome instead. Or Fuji Velveta.
Sure, you can redden a digital image with a filter or with PhotoShop, but
you can't change the value of the Red used by the camera's image sensor.

No matter what monochormatic colors the sensor designer choses for R G
and B, some hues will lie ouside that particular color triangle, and so cannot
be reproduced. Good luck reproducing sienna or burnt umbar!

Note that the Munsell system of colorometry uses *four* primary colors
to measure hue: Red, Yellow, Green, Blue and Purple. Four is a lot better
than three. (But only if one cares about color accuracy.)

RGB/CMY color has a certain look, which is very splashy. Impressionist
painters often use it. The closest to RGB/CMY in modern pigments is:
Yellow Cadmium Light = Yellow
Phthalo Blue = Cyan
Quinacridone magenta = Magenta
Only the cadmium yellow is permanent. But at least you get to choose.
As you do with a film camera. With a digital camera or printer, the
manufacturer gets to choose and you get to live with it.

Artists are all aware of color wheels and the problems of mixing colors.
But most photographers now take color for granted. And so we are all
living with splashy, phony looking color that looks different on each monitor.

Well, back in the day there were even more extremely bad color slides
and prints--but not *everybody's* were bad. There was more diversity
in the technology. Diversity is good.

Color film used various numbers of layers, and many different films were
available for common formats. In motion pictures, the Technicolor camera
(4th process, from 1932 on) used used three strips of three different emulsions
to caputre a single image. And lithogrpahy and dye transfer used various
numbers of colors. It was all very messy and expensive, but very capable.

If Elliot Porter is know for his color nature photography using the now
extinct dye transfer process. If he were alive and working today, he'd probably
be an oil painter.

Where is it written that color photography is supposed to be easy, convenient
and cheap? Oil painting certainly isn't. But in the hands of a master colorist,
the results ain't bad.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

Two other questions.

When using a white card, can you use it to see the color of the light--or does it just adjust the camera automatically to true white? In other words, can you use the camera as a light color meter for determining filters on a different (film) camera? I have used a digital camera as a light meter for a large format camera... could do the same for a color temperature meter?

Second, does the color adjustment for light have a role for black and white digital photography? Shooting black and white on an overcast day, we might use a skylight filter (at least) for better rendition in black and white. Can the digital camera do what color filters do in black and white film cameras? (red for clouds, green for swarthy male portraits, etc.) How would the white card app handle this? I am rarely as excited by digital b/w as I am with film--or digital color.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Actually I use a neutral balanced card where and when needed! It’s called WhiBal NB card they are a little expensive but well worth the money. JustGoogle it!

jamesl Loc: Pennsylvania

Yes, I use a "X-Rite ColorChecker Passport" most of the time for anything that I want to be sure to get or at least start with correct color. Other times I just use a grey card which still gives pretty accurate color. As for why you would use it, the questions answers itself. You use it because you do care about accurate color. If I wasn't concerned about the accuracy of the colors, I probably wouldn't bother.

HT

True Blue...

MrGNY Loc: New York

You are missing a color in your explanation of color printers. The colors used in a ink jet or laser printer are Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black. That is known as 4 color process. Then you have higher end photo printers that add grey and another shade of magenta. Then there is also high fidelity printing that adds orange and green into the spectrum to make your colors pop.

You capture an image with light- R/G/B three channels. You print with inks or toners that use pigments.

You can use a monitor that is not calibrated and use the eye dropper tool to check your colors in RGB, to make sure they are correct. In this instance the blue color in a Pepsi can would have a RGB color reference and a CMYK reference depending on how the piece is going too be produced. Print or web.

julian.gang

The question is what processing software do you use? For myself I use Lightroom 2, I know it's older, but very workable! I was once told the only way to really a piece of software is to pick it, then stick with it! So Lightroom is my choice and there are so many presets and other variables it would take a lifetime to try them all, hope this helps...Julian

julian.gang

I for got to mention the white balance presets. Just type "Lightroom white balance".

Bipod

Whatever light you WB in, that's the light the camera is WBed for. This is true
no matter what card you use.

So direct sunlight at noon on a clear day with no smoke or haze is a good choice.
At least you'll know where you stand. Then if you end up shooting by incandescent
room lighitng, you can select a "Tungsten" balance profile if your camera
has one preset, or use a color-correcting filter if it doesn't.

To see how important the quality of the light is, try using one of those fancy
x-rite Pantone Color Checker Passport Photo thingies under a sodium vapor lamp. :-)
Instead of all those lovely colors on the card, they'll be just two: yellow and black..
It may be better than a plain WB card in some situations, but it still depends on the
light (because it's not a light source, it's subtractive color).

Other than a calibrated lab reference lamp with regulated power supply, the sun
is the only affordable source of continuous spectrum light of a (more or less)
known color temperature of which I am aware. If somebody knows of a better one,
I'd love to hear about it.

Tunsten light is continuous spectrum, but the color temperature varies with the
brand of bulb, type of bulb (halogen or regular), age of the bulb, whether it is
"long life", and the supply voltage. So it's not a good reference point and
any color correction is at best approximate.

Should one be this fussy? Well, it depends on how one feels about green
skin tone. :-) They used to sell color correction filters for fluorescent lights
(hope springs eternal) that still made people look like Kermit the Frog.

These days, there is a lot of weird light around (LED and sodium vapor,
in addition to old-style fluorescent) that makes color photography by ambient
light impossible or nearly so. One can't do anything about that (except use
a flash), but at least make sure one's has good color in sunlight.

There is no such thing as a "white" LED. They are really a monocolor LED
with one or more phosphors applied to it. Most use blue and yellow. These
two colors combine to make whitish light.

Two colors gives a color line, not a color triangle. So it can't really be mapped
onto that RGB color your camera uses. Some subject hues that look different in
daylight will look the same by LED light (and not necessarily the ones that
look the same to your eyes!). The human eye and the camera were made by
different manufacturers. :-)
https://i.stack.imgur.com/CT604.png

Some of the newer white LEDs intended for illumination mix three colors, some
even four. But the choice of colors is severely limited by physics. "You can't
always get what you wa-ant." Someday someone may invent an LED that is
better for photography--let's hope so.

Anyway, a correctly WBed digital camera has awesomely good color, but it still
depends on having (an adequate amount of ) more or less continous-spectrum
light and on WB.

I only use digital cameras for color, and I only use film for B&W. So I can't
comment on digital B&W except to say its not B&W--it's a new thing that
needs a new term. Maybe I'll come to like it someday.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It depends on how you use that card! If you do a ring-around of exposures at different Kelvin settings and hue offsets, you might eventually get there. You would have to evaluate the histogram of a JPEG with Photoshop or something similar to be sure you have a perfect gray balance of a target. The exposure at which you get all three RGB channels in balance has the right color temperature and hue offset for use with film.

THAT, however, is a rather impractical thing to do, unless you have lots of time! It might be easier to find out what the light source is and find a close match for it in advance.

Noon sunlight, 10-2, 5600K
Incandescent 60W bulb, 2600-2700K
Cool White Fluorescent, 4100K
Quartz halogen stage and screen lights 3200K
HMI stadium lights 5000K

...etc.


As for black and white, in-camera white balance would be silly. Do it in post production on a raw file, and you can get any value for any filter you want!

Ron Dial Loc: Cuenca, Ecuador

I have a color meter, that accurately measures the color temperature of light sources. But for the vast majority of the time, I leave the color balance set to 5500 degrees, which is the temperature of sunlight. I also always shoot RAW. When processing the images, Adobe RAW converter will permit you to modify the white balance. 5500 degrees is also the color temp of daylight film. If you truly want to only shoot accurate color balanced photos, this means you may have to re-meter after every shot, or you can leave it set for sunlight and change the image when processing it.

You can also use a Photoshop plug-in like ICorrect EditLab, a color corrector which can change the white balance of any neutral object in the image.

But correct color is essential in all shots, especially portraits.

DIRTY HARRY Loc: Hartland, Michigan

I'm not trying to be a smart ass or anything but after you go to all this trouble with white balance and 18% gray cards ... then you go into post processing and change everything. What am I missing here?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

There are several points to remember.

The reference device can be used for setting both exposure and white balance of JPEGs made in the camera.

The reference device can be used as a “click balance aid” when post-processing raw files.

Whether you are trying to get an accurate rendering OR an artistic interpretation of the scene, using a monitor calibration kit allows minor or major tweaking for WYSIWYG printing.

There are many instances where an all-JPEG workflow is either desirable or required.

There are times when raw AND JPEG files must be captured — the JPEGs get used immediately (within seconds or minutes), while the raw files are processed for better quality reference copies.

For scenes with wide dynamic range, raw files are essential. Post-photography processing can compress the wide tonal range of a raw file into a pleasing JPEG that you cannot duplicate in the camera, OR into the limited reflectance range of paper and other prints.

Having reference targets makes all of these workflow scenarios easier. Can you live without them? I do, for casual work. For any scene I want to render intentionally or in a specific manner, I’ll pull out an appropriate target.

Ron Dial Loc: Cuenca, Ecuador

The point I am going to make here is about workflow.

I noticed a lot of photographers discussed the accuracy of metering in the field or before a shot. Part of the point I was trying to make is "it is usually more important to GET the shot". Certainly if you shoot raw, you can "re-meter" in post, when the sense of urgency is less. Taking time in the field to meter every shot for color balance may defeat the purpose of shooting the picture. I suggested setting the camera for daylight, 5500 degrees and leave it, unless you are in a tungsten setting, and even then, with LED's and all the different colors of light, you still may be better off just shooting and setting the white balance in post.

The only time I think it is beneficial to your workflow to check light color, is when you are going to be shooting a lot in a setting that is all one color light. And in such a setting getting an accurate color reading will be difficult because of all the subtle variations. Clearly a color meter is way more accurate than the camera reading off a card. But color meters are expensive, then we are back to compromises. Take a color reading that may not be entirely accurate and if the shot looks funny in the computer then you change it anyway.

People have correctly pointed out that when looking at a digital image on the monitor and you want color accuracy, the monitor must be calibrated. Unfortunately, most monitors sold are not capable of being totally corrected for white balance, and laptops are certainly not. To truly check a monitor, outside of using a color checker, you need a knowledge of the RGB #s on the Gretag-Macbeath card. When you shoot this card in a test shot, each of the squares has a RGB numerical value. In Photoshop, and probably some other editing programs, you can check the actual display color of each square, by the RGB#. This is hyper accurate and will truly tell you what color is being seen.

However, if your printer is not calibrated and you are not using the correct color profile for the paper you are using, then everything else is for naught.

So back to the workflow point, why take all of the time to color check each scene for white balance if the rest of the color chain is not accurate at all. Just get the shot and correct/re-balance in post. And for all of the JPEG fans out there, this is another reason to shoot RAW.