White Balance on my new T1i

I recenty purchased my first DSLR, a Canon T1i. I've taken some beautiful pictures, but some have not turned out as well as I expected. I'm prettycomfortable with the fundamentals of photography, but white balance is one I'm not comfortable with yet. The picture below is an example of one in which the colors don't seem to be correct on. There is a bluish tint to it. I took this one with the White Balance in Auto. I've been researching white balance for a while now, and I'm getting the impression that Auto White Balance often is not good enough.


To get optimum color in my pictures, am I going to have to do a custom white balance when taking pictures, use a gray card,and/or modify them when I put them on my PC? I was able to get more accurate (or more appealing) by adjusting them in Digital PhotoPro (tone curve adjustment), but I'm arookie at that, too. Ipushed the B (blue) button and pulled it down until the blue decreased enough to look normal.


I've also tried using the preset White Balance modes with different levels of success. For example, if the scene contains sunlit areas and shady areas, I'm not sure which one to use.


If you can point me in the right direction for a strategy on getting the White Balance correct when taking the picture and/or how to start learning a the correct way to post process them, I would appreciate it very much.





Thanks,


Jeff


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.29.22/IMG_5F00_0142.JPG[/img]

White balance is one of those things that we skip over early on in our learning process because we don't really understand it. Then we get less than optimal results and we turn to our software and try all the adjustments curves, we even take on RAW images because White balance can be applied there more readily.


But if you want truely great results you have to take the time to understand white balance or at least how to set a custom white balance.


The answer you want is best found in an EXPO disc. Photography is a lot like golf there is a club for everything that goes wrong, but honestly you are going to have to learn to set a CUSTOM WHITE BALANCE. the best product is NOT a gray card, but an expo disc. Get one to fit your largest lens and simply use it and set a custom white balance. Really it is not that hard. And your results will be much better.


But looking at the above photo your problem my be your light meter and not a white balance. Your camera reads reflected light for its meter, and here you are wearing a red shirt that reflects light much different than skin tones. You may have to use your spot meter function in this case or an external light meter. Your main problem above is overexposed skin tones.

iND,


Where does one acquire an EXPO disc?





Jeff,


Welcome! Are you an Alabama fan, or resident, or both? I live on the Eastern Shore. If you are nearby we could shoot some together. It would be fun!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Gray-Card-Review.aspx


Bryan answers a ton of questions here. At least he did for me.

Jayson,


Actually I had read that article a good while back and had forgotten about it. Thanks for the reminder. Sounds like a gray card pack will certainly fit my budget better, too.

You might start with Amazon. The expo disc is much easier to use than a gray card.


Make sure you know how to set a custom white balance in your menu.


You will see instant results.

Until I have obtained a lens and a low end strobe kit, I have no problem with shooting in RAW and using PP to change white balance. (being a student = small budget)


But I do have a gray card, so perhaps I will break that out soon.


iND, those EXPO discs do look nice though!

Hi, Jeff!


If you want optimum colors you need to get the white balance correct and there are several ways to do that. Many like gray cards because they are cheap and easy to use. You can also use an Expodisk which is popular and accurate. I bought a Zerocs White Balance Filter that can be used on lenses up to 82mm in diameter. However I must say that is has not been used very often. I only use it when I am shooting indoors and when the lightning can be very tricky. Most of the time I use the presets and it works fine for me. When I use the presets I set the white balance during postprosessing.


If you are going to invest in a tool like an Expodisk, a grey card or another solution I think it is difficult to say that one is better than the other. Take some time to read and make your desicion based upon what suits your needs or type of photography. If you are taking large amouns of images it can be timeconsuming to correct the colors during postprosessing, then a WB solution will come in handy.


If you want to get the "colors right", you will probably spend some time to learn about color management as well. Do you want to process your images in the sRGB colorspace or Adobe1998 color space? Or maybe ProPhoto which is even wider? But that is another story.


About white balance and workflow, here is how I do it:


More than 95% of the time I use the White Balance presets. When the lightning gets really tricky I use the WB filter. I always shoot in RAW of course. I use the white balance picker tool in Canon´s Digital Photo Professional or Photoshop to find a neutral area and then set the whitebalance. If several images are shot under the same lightning conditions I apply the same whitebalance using copy and paste.


How can I tell if the lightning gets tricky and the white balance presets can´t handle the situation? I always check the histogram. If you shoot indoor and you have several types of light which have several types of color temperature you can sometimes see that one or more of the colorchannels "blows out" (burns out) or "jump out" of the histogram. Then it´s time to set a manual white balance using the WB filter. Another situation where I prefer to set a manual WB is when I am going to shoot hundres of images under the same lightning situation. I then save a lot of time when I process the images as I can use the "reference" shot and apply the WB to all the images with just one click.


There are of course many other aspects regarding white balance but this is a simple way to get started. Have fun with your new camera.


PS! You should also consider to invest in a tool to calibrate your monitor. It is not possible to get the colors right if your monitor is not properly calibrated. I use Spyder3 Elite but there are other tools of course.





Kind regards,


Johnny

White balance is certainly a challenging topic, and I'm still trying to figure out how to gain the knowledge and experience that'll suit me best. That said, I've settled on a fairly robust method that works quite well for me. Unfortunately, it's a little tougher than just doing a custom white balance, but it makes all of the difference when shooting flash.


Step 1: Set white balance to Kelvin (K), using a random guess (or just 5000) to start.


Step 2: Shoot a picture of the gray card (preferably ONLY the gray card) in the light that you're subject's in.


Step 3: Review the shot, and bring up the RGB histogram.


Step 4: If the Red channel is brighter (further right) than the Blue channel, choose a lower Kelvin temp. Choose a higher temp if Red is darker (further left) than the Blue channel.


Step 5: Return to step 2 and repeat 2-4 until Red is as close to Blue as you can get it.


Step 6: While still reviewing your most recent image, if the Green channel is brighter than the Red/Blue channels, you'll need to dial in some minus Green in the White Balance shift menu. If Green is darker than Red/Blue, you'll need to add some Green in the WB Shift menu.


Step 7: Repeat your cycle a few more times to get green balanced with red/blue.


Now you have a neutral white balance and you know what temperature you're shooting in. Since flashes fire at daylight (5000? 5600?) color temp and you've identified what color temp your ambient is, you'll now know exactly what gel to put on your flash to make it match (or warmer than) ambient light.

Hi Jeff! Setting a custom white balance is important tomy workflowbecause a lot of the things I photograph are done under mixed light. I use a mixture of WB tools from the ExpoDisc, to a Whibal, to a refective target (Photovision Calibration Target is my favorite right now). It just depends on where I am and the situation as to which one I use.


Here is an older article that talks about the differences between some of these various tools. There are a number of articles that can be found on the web by searching for 'custom white balance'. You just need to determine which tool will work best for the way that you want to work.

Hello HiFiGuy1,


I'm definitely an Alabama fan and I live in Saraland (Western shore:). I would definitely like to get together sometime, after I get my feet under me. I've got a lot to learn. I look forward to talking to you.





Jeff

Thanks for all of your comments. It was obvious before I even posted (although I hoped not) that getting the best picture is going to take some work. It's just a little frustrating that getting the right color seems a little harder than it was with a film SLR (or so it seems after only two weeks of having my first DSLR). I'll continue to try to learn and watch this forum. I've already learned a lot.


Thanks.

I'm a big fan of the 'click white balance'


Assuming you've got something white. I might spend a lot of time clicking all over, as the same white might be different depending on the light that's shining on it (in the same picture).


But, if you can take a picture of something that fills the screen which is white or gray, then look at the histogram, the peakson the right side should be pretty even. Or, you can adjust the peaks to even out in the RGB individual settings...


But, certainly, if you're going to get the colors right, you need to get the white balance first. Aside from the color cast, if the white balance is off, you just tossed the dynamic range possible for each color channel. I'm probably not saying that correctly, but hopefully I'm understood anyway [:)]

For me, getting white balance right out of the camera is MANDATORY. My submission deadline is often to close to the end of an event to even mess with RAW images. (I shootweddings and family portraitsin RAW where there is time to mess with WB). So, I'm trying to minimize editing to just cropping and the autolevel button whenever possible.


I'm try to get perfect jpg's into the laptop andoff to the photo desk, so I want a custom WB whenever possible. My 18% gray card cost $3.99 and it rides in the lid of the pelican case to every event. I've had no issues with shooting the card under event lighting and setting the custom WB feature.


The only time this bites you is when you leave the custom WB set and take flash pictures at the press conference after the game. Not that I've ever done that (this week), but a friend of mine told me it's really bad. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dallasphotog

The only time this bites you is when you leave the custom WB set and take flash pictures at the press conference after the game. Not that I've ever done that (this week), but a friend of mine told me it's really bad. :)
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Ah yes, the dreaded "flash override" issue. Hence the reason I work so hard to determine the color temp/shift of my lighting, so I'm that much more inclined to balance my flashes (or know exactly what gel goes on the first time!).


Easy solution: buy a second camera/lens to use as your dedicated "flasher" camera. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin

But, certainly, if you're going to get the colors right, you need to get the white balance first. Aside from the color cast, if the white balance is off, you just tossed the dynamic range possible for each color channel.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Hmmm. I was going to make a strikingly similar comment about this, and then thought twice about it: does it matter if WB is set right/close? In other words, does the camera meter a scene different if the WB is set differently? If the camera doesn't meter differently, you'll come home with the same exposure (the same aperture/ISO/shutter settings), and you'll still have a lot of red (if under tungsten) or green (if under fluorescent) or whatever. As a result, you'll still have blasted reds/greens/whatever. Boy I wish I had a camera at the office to play...

Well, if you're shooting raw, you've got the same data, so it doesn't really matter, in that you can correct it later...


But, if you've got a color cast such that something 'white' is actually using a disproportionate amount of a red or blue channel, that means that not only are you prematurely exhausting headroom in that color, but that the range of saturation, in variance to what 'white' is, will also be more limited.


I've found that many pictures I've taken that looked very poorly saturated, with very muted colors, suddenly come alive and poponce I fix the white balance towards something more 'correct', something I couldn't do by merely increasing the saturation, in part because doing so with the wrong white balance prematurely clips the individual color channels. I may want to slightly slant the white balance for effect, but if it gets far from off, it becomes close enough to impossible to fix.


Subjectively, for me, often when colors look artificially saturated, it's not just because they're too saturated, it's because one of the color channels is being clipped, and this is something that's easier to avoid when you get the white balance closer to right than not.