Custom white balance technique.

[Deadtrees]

I feel like I'm bombing D/V forum yet here comes one more thread.
It's about setting white balance. Many, if not most of all, people seems to set their manual custom white balance by using white paper. The problem is that the white paper isn't really white as we see it. It is so because those papers are processed by neon and other chemicals to have that white look. By using those, you mostly end up getting bluish white white balance.

The method I have been using is 'shake the camera' method. What you do is quite simple.
(Setting manual white balance differs from brands to brands. Below would be the step for Canon users)

1. Turn off AF, set it MF until everything is as blurry as possible.
2. Shake the camera pointing toward where there's the least colored objects and take a picture
(Make sure shutter speed isn't fast. 1" seems to work best in most areas. Faster shutter speed is okay when there aren't many colored objects.)
3. Set your manual white balance using that blurry picture.

 

[PowerRanger]

lol sounds interesting. I'll have to give this a try some time.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

For white balance, you should be using a gray card, not white paper. I know, it seems messed up.

I personally don't bother with the white balance. As long as it's relatively close and I shoot in RAW, I can easily change the white balance in Adobe Camera RAW or Capture One Pro.

 

[OdiN]

The easiest is to just shoot a grey card before your shots. Re-shoot it whenever lighting changes.

Then you can get the proper white balance from the shot with the grey card and set all the other shots to that level.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
I personally don't bother with the white balance.

You must shoot outdoors

Indoors and with video, WB. Video editors hate having to try to white balance in post (I shoot and edit - post color correction is a huge PITA and can eat CPUs for lunch). Never fix in post what you could fix in capturing, if you do video.

PS, that technique does not work with any video cameras I have ever owned.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
I personally don't bother with the white balance.

You must shoot outdoors

Indoors and with video, WB. Video editors hate having to try to white balance in post (I shoot and edit - post color correction is a huge PITA and can eat CPUs for lunch). Never fix in post what you could fix in capturing, if you do video.

PS, that technique does not work with any video cameras I have ever owned.

I do shoot indoors quite often, and all I do is just change the white balance of a number of photos using a batch operation OR change the white balance only on the very few photos that I plan to post process further.

But I can definitely see you wanting to white balance with video. White balancing photos is easy.

 

[rml]

Photoshop is the ducktape of the camera world. I still prefer to see a good picture that has not been altered in any way. That's how to tell who is actually a good photographer.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: rml
Photoshop is the ducktape of the camera world. I still prefer to see a good picture that has not been altered in any way. That's how to tell who is actually a good photographer.

I hope you do realize that even in film days, dark room processing was widly used. Photoshop was, too, used for films. Do you know that even using flash light/filter is considered lame for some photography purist? Hell, some are even against using any sort of light meters.
In digital, even if you don't 'alter' pictures, cameras' built-in photoshop-like digital processing does the work. If you're a real purist, your last hope is to decode RAW data in your eyes. Simply put, a good photographer would use anything that can enhance the quality of the picture.

 

[troytime]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: rml
Photoshop is the ducktape of the camera world. I still prefer to see a good picture that has not been altered in any way. That's how to tell who is actually a good photographer.

I hope you do realize that even in film days, dark room processing was widly used. Photoshop was, too, used for films. Do you know that even using flash light/filter is considered lame for some photography purist? Hell, some are even against using any sort of light meters.
In digital, even if you don't 'alter' pictures, cameras' built-in photoshop-like digital processing does the work. If you're a real purist, your last hope is to decode RAW data in your eyes. Simply put, a good photographer would use anything that can enhance the quality of the picture.

I really like that last line.
A good photog also makes do with what he has - even if its only a cheap lens and camera

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
Hell, some are even against using any sort of light meters.

damn right. the camera can't help but lie to you. i find it really annoying that DPreview doesn't just publish the darn exposure value, instead it tells you the aperture, shutter speed, and exposure compensation. i'm guessing that the exposure compensation was applied and the resulting aperture and shutter speed were posted. the whole thing makes little sense to me. but then i think in terms of EVs when i'm just running around without a camera.


best thing i've done for photography is buy a camera with a broken meter. (i need to use it on a focus chart, i'm not sure the focus is right either, now that would be a waste)