The problem with Whibal and similar.

The problem with whibal or any other WB system that is increasingly becoming alive to me is that when shooting in mixed lighting, i.e. flash and ambient, or even mixing the two where the flash is the main lighting source but the ambient is within a stop or two, the only way to get accurate WB from a whibal or other card system is if the flash to ambient ratio is exactly the same from shot to shot. You also have to have the whibal at the same plane as the subject. Having the whibal flat on the table doesn't help your vertical subject. having the whibal infront of your subject doesn't help, it is in a different flash/ambient ratio. If your exposures are not all exactly the same then you will be getting a different flash/ambient ratio and hence a different WB.

OK we are only talking about a couple of hundred K but that can make all the difference when we are talking about facial tones. I've been using mine less and less since discovering that the only way that it is truly accurate is if it is held next to the subjects face and the flash/ambient exposure never changes. Perfect for studio, not that good for working at a wedding where the exposures fluctuate, the fill level fluctuates (due to distance of subject when using flash) and you can't get the card next to the subject.

The worst case scenario is using bounce flash. Indoors bounce flash (with fill card or LS or omnibounce) fluctuates the WB often drastically depending on distance to the subject, the closer you are the more the WB moves over to flash from ambient. In cases like that a meter distance can move the WB over 200K. The 'holding the Whibal while shooting' type shot as featured on the Whibal site is useless when mixing flash and ambient which is truth be told where the true value of a system like this is.

I'm not knocking an excellent product, I have two of them, one for backup I think that it is so crucial to digital photography. But I'm using it less and less as 99% of my photography is in mixed lighting plus bounced/diffused flash and correct whibaling is often close to impossible.

Is this a given when using a system like this, do others disagree or am I doing something wrong?

All thit seems pretty true, Ben,

However, it gets one a lot of the way there in most instances.

I, myself take new base shots for every change of light and even position.

I have the model or someone else hold it.

At a reception I stalk the place and take base shots with a card all over the room. I process from RAW with settings A,B,C etc for that event or for orther work, for each shot.

I still change settings according to my own judgemnt!

Asher

Hi Ben,

you found here, too.

I don't know if it might work better, but instead of white balance, skin balance. I think it is something I should try out, before saying it was a good idea or not.

What I'm suggesting is instead of matching the white, match the skin tone, maybe you would need an assistant's forehead to substitute for a white card. I suspect if you had a number of colour cards, you could sort of icc profile each image. It won't be quick enough for you, 'tho.

Best wishes,
Ray

Ben,

I find this a somewhat confusing approach, if you have two different light sources, in this case flash, and the ambient (most likely effecting the background primarily), since the ratio may change or you can't use a WhiBal to white balance both light types at the same time or get an average white balance (more on that in a minute), your option is to not to use a white balance reference at all? That is a very odd approach to me. I find that having a WB reference for at the very least one of the light sources would give you something to work with as opposed to nothing. when setting WB for flash shots I usually have the subject hold the WhiBal in front of them just below their face this usually gives me really close WB for their face, I find if I must chose what I am setting my WB for, having proper WB for skin tones (especially the face) is the most important for color accuracy when shooting people. If the background is drastically different or I need something back there to be extremely color accurate then I have someone hold the WhiBal back there as well for a WhiBal shot, my 10 year old daughter loves to run around holding up my WhiBal and has become a valuable assistant in this area. Now when converting I will usually WB for the face shot and if necessary I can WB the background, make two conversions and blend in PS. However generally in these situations the background is usually slightly out of focus and of lessor importance so having the WB off by 200 or 300 degrees will not be detrimental, and if it is I can either blend or do local adjustments. I just find it easier to work with an image if the primary component of the image is correctly white balanced to start with. Now the ratios may change frequently during the shoot but shooting a WhiBal every ten or so shots will give you something that may be usable as opposed to nothing at all, so if it even gets me in the ballpark I find it helpful. I realize that every situation is different, and it isn't always possible to get a good WhiBal shot, but at least I have the shot and the option of using it, whether it works or not, as opposed to not having the option that at all. FWIW


Kyle

Hi,
I normally let the model hold the graycard in front of her face meaning that area will be perfect.

If you really have problem you can place several cards in the scene of course.

My favorite is if you are shooting in a staged area where camera position and subject's position don't change frequently you can put the WhiBal at the edge of the frame and crop or clone it out later, or even hide it within the scene where it isn't noticed, later you can play the WhiBal version of "Where's Waldo?", I have one shot where no one has found it yet (it was actually disguised as part of a coaster a glass was on!)

Kyle

Hi, Frank,

I normally let the model hold the graycard in front of her face meaning that area will be perfect.

Click to expand...

Of course, and this is just what the theory suggests one do!

The target card is a proxy for the subject surface, one with "neutral" reflectance chromaticity.

Of course, this is not possible if the subject does not have a "planar front", so we have to decide which "face" of the subject we want to optimize the color correction for. Often, that will be the "face" of the subject that "faces" the camera.

And although you didn't mention this, based on that outlook, the target should "face" the camera. (I'm hoping that's what you meant.)

Agreed that there are a few WhiBal rules that are mandatory.

• The light falling on the WhiBal must be identical to the light falling on your subject point of interest (usually face)
• Be careful not to have glare coming off of the WhiBal. That is one of the reason for the highly reflective sticker.
• Use it all the time

In a modeling situation the model can use the WhiBal as a prop, and just get used to grabbing it every now and then and hold it up in his/her normal movements.

In the end it is simply a tool that can and usually helps a lot if used properly. As always we photographers have to be crafty, where taking a light meter reading or a WB reference shot. That is what make a pro a pro..:>)

Well it don't have to be the face of course.
It can be the back or the feet for that matter
Just whatever is the dominant light source.

Hi, Frank,

Just whatever is the dominant light source.

Click to expand...

No, just at (and parallel to, to the extent that is meaningful) the object surface for which we wish to optimize the color balance.

When we take a calibration image of the WB target, we are really asking the question, "what is the chromatcity of the overall illuminance on the subject surface". (Note that the relative contgribution to that of two light sources involves both the relarive luminous flux densities of the arriving light and their angles of incidence on the suface of interest.)

A target at the location of the subject surface, and inclined the same way, will experience that illuminance (and thus its chromaticity). If it is color neutral, then the light from it will exhibit that chromaciticy, and we will successfully measure it with our camera.

A test target at the subject surface postion, but inclined toward the "dominant" light source, will not (necessarily) experience illumination with the same chromaticity that the subject surface will experience in the shot.

The WB target is a proxy for the subject surface. We want it to experience the same chromaticity of overall illumination the subject surface experiences (so it can "report that" to us by reflecting light of that chromaticioty toward the camera in the calibration shot, then it needs to be in the same situation as the subject surface (to the extent that is practicxal).

We are not interested in the chromaticity of the "dominant" light source arriving at out subject surface. We are interested in the chromaticity of the overall illuminance on the surface, since that is what will control the chromatcity of the light reflected by that surface in the actual shot.

Here is an easy test. Set up a shot with a test subject with a neutral plane surface (you can use your WB target), at some angle to the camera axis. Then arrange two different light sources of differing chromaticity (a tungsten lamp and and a fluorescent lamp, for example), illumninating the test subject from different angles, such that vour judgement of "toward the diominant source" is not in the direction the test subject is facing.

Then take two different WB calibration test shots. In the first, face the WB target "toward the dominant light source". In the second, face it the same way the test subject surface faces. (That shoud be easy if you are using a WB target as the neutral test subject - just leave it in place.)

Then take the actual shot. Apply WB corection based on the two WB calibration shots. In which case will the corrected image of the subject be "chromaticity neutral "(after all, the test subject actually is)?

Best regards,

Doug

Doug, you are saying what I am, i.e. that for an accurate reading in mixed lighting the card should be on the same plane and angle that the subject is which is often almost impossible in an (relatively) uncontrolled shooting situation such as a wedding.

I do of course still use the whibal in those circumstances but my point was that in mixed lighting and especially when using flash/bounced flash with varying levels of exposure/fill it more often than not is totally wrong unless the above conditions are met. To the extent that I'm not bothering in such situations to make sure that I take a whibal shot in each location, at each distance from flash to subject, at each fstop/shutter speed combo (the more I open up the more ambient, etc).

I'm not knocking an excellent product, just noting that it is limited or should I say that digital photography is limited by the huge variations present every time you change a setting, a camera-subject distance, exposure accuracy, or the lighting itself changes.

Not that film was better mind you....

Doug Kerr said:

Hi, Frank,
The WB target is a proxy for the subject surface. We want it to experience the same chromaticity of overall illumination the subject surface experiences (so it can "report that" to us by reflecting light of that chromaticioty toward the camera in the calibration shot, then it needs to be in the same situation as the subject surface (to the extent that is practicxal).

We are not interested in the chromaticity of the "dominant" light source arriving at out subject surface. We are interested in the chromaticity of the overall illuminance on the surface, since that is what will control the chromatcity of the light reflected by that surface in the actual shot.

Best regards,

Doug

Click to expand...

Well said Doug. Thanks..

Ben Rubinstein said:

I'm not knocking an excellent product, just noting that it is limited or should I say that digital photography is limited by the huge variations present every time you change a setting, a camera-subject distance, exposure accuracy, or the lighting itself changes.

Not that film was better mind you....

Click to expand...

Actually in most cases, the exposure accuracy, and the camera-subject distance will not affect or require the need for an additional reference shot. The exception is flash, where the exposure and distance changes the relationship of the flash to the ambeint light which will change the WB requirements.

Similar experience

I took a few shots at a wedding with white balance cards, but I found that almost every shot where the subjects moved, I moved, or both moved, had different "correct" (pleasing to my eye) color temperatures.

My conclusion was that white balance cards are useful to me only in totally consistent light. Unless, of course, I were to include cards in every shot...completely impractical.

Further, the "correct" white balance when using the cards is not necessarily the most pleasing white balance. Just like the film days when we often liked to warm it a bit with an 81A filter.

Ben Rubinstein said:

The problem with whibal or any other WB system that is increasingly becoming alive to me is that when shooting in mixed lighting, i.e. flash and ambient, or even mixing the two where the flash is the main lighting source but the ambient is within a stop or two, the only way to get accurate WB from a whibal or other card system is if the flash to ambient ratio is exactly the same from shot to shot.

Click to expand...

In such a situation, what you really need to do is match the flash light color to the ambient light color. I bought a whole bunch of Rosco Cinegel swatchbooks for $0.01 from B&H and cut them out to match the shape of my flash head. I use removable double-sided trasparent tape to stick them to the flash. I keep a set of the ones I need most often (1/8 through full CTO) in a business card holder in my pocket. They are marked with a color temperature which gets you close but you could also use a white-balance device to get a more accurate reading.

Lee Jay

Gary Jean said:

Further, the "correct" white balance when using the cards is not necessarily the most pleasing white balance.

Click to expand...

Which is what I always say: Who needs "correct".

Actually there is a good reason for the WhiBal, reference. Once you know how the scene looks like corrected you have a good basis from which to adjust everything to your needs.

Hi, Lee Jay,

In such a situation, what you really need to do is match the flash light color to the ambient light color.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a good plan.

Best regards,

Doug

Back in the film days, there weren't too many portrait or wedding photographers buying Ektachrome professional and putting carefully calculated CC filter packets in front of their lenses. Most were shooting some kind of -color and depending on a lab to make it look "pleasing"--and all the issues of balancing color between flash and ambient lighting were still there. We basically ignored much of the issue because what we got was what we got, and everyone else got it, too.

As someone has already mentioned, the issue for portraits and weddings isn't "accurate" color, it's "pleasing" color. Having a WhiBal in the scene gets us to accurate on at least one plane. From there we can tweak to "pleasing" (see: http://www.smugmug.com/help/skin-tone for a discussion).

I find that in dicey situations, I actually do just as well merely setting the camera's WB for the dominant lighting and shooting RAW. I'd have been no closer with film, but with film I wouldn't be able to tweak it later.

As I read through this topic I wonder how anyone gets anything done dealing with wb . After moving to the Aptus I have tried to do a wb but as the light fades on my shoots the balance changes and If I dont shoot a new one every 5-10 minutes my colors are way off . Then the landscape lights come on and then the pool lights come on and I am screwed again . In studio I find it easy to do but the light never changes and it makes my post work faster . On a architectural shoot I am finding that it is way easier to just shoot raw and balance light sources and then blend together .

Funny thing is that I can shoot a house in raw , process the images , create a image balanced for each lighting source , merge them together , print them and go back to the shoot site and review the prints and they are so damn close to what is there that it is not worth it trying to make it any better .

Shoot a event in jpeg , it is worthwhile to wb . Shoot in a studio it is worthwhile . Shoot interiors where you have ten rooms with 3-5 views of each and front and rear exterior in a 12 hour day , I find it a waste of time as I will be spending half my day screwing with wb .

I have felt concerned not dealing with all this wb crap that I may not be getting the best quality that I can get , at least I used too . I shot with a big architectural shooter from another state in town to shoot a job who I chat with online and brought the subject up . He and his first assistant laughed like it was a big joke and said there is not enough time in a day to deal with all the crap you go through to do a wb on a architectural shoot . So I am wondering why everyone makes such a big deal out of this when we have cameras that shoot raw ? You can fix damn near anything quickly as long as you have a good exposure and most things can be fixed when converting from the raw image .

Most of the conversations I see on this subject seem to be hobby level photographers on other forums that buy this thing or that thing or use a coffee filter over the lens . I can't imagine having to deal with this every day when I shoot 5 days a week .

Thing is that with the older crop of cameras certainly, the AWB was horrible, the whibal and friends give you a place to start with if you don't have any white in the scene to work from, that itself can save a significant amount of time. I can eyebal WB in ACR but I used to run a photo lab doing this all day plus I've been shooting and processing 1000+ RAW images a week for over 2 years. It is still amazing though how much better you get with a reference point than eyeballing it, often a K+tint combo can be similar to another with an entirely different combo, but the correct one is significantly better.

Actually there is a good reason for the WhiBal, reference. Once you know how the scene looks like corrected you have a good basis from which to adjust everything to your needs.
Dierk Haasis

Click to expand...

This is my position as well.

whibal white clipping?

Michael,

I use whibal, it's a big help. Use it in Capture One Pro to set levels. When I click on the black label, bingo--perfect, I like the black point it sets.

But when I click on the white card, it almost always pushes the white point slider too far left, by maybe 20-30 points. I manually move it back to the right, to where my eye tells me it needs to be.

There's probably a simple explanation? thanks for your help!

Ed

This has been asked and asnswer on the WhiBal forum at my site www.rawworkflow.com.

This is the thread