18% gray card is the most cost-beneficial tool I've found!

[PhotomanJohn]

I have a comment about setting the exposure compensation to +1 when creating a custom white balance in the camera. At least in the case of Nikon, the camera automatically increases the exposure one stop when taking the reference picture. I am not sure if the cameras pay attention to the exposure compensation when doing custom white balance but there is the possibility that the reference exposure may boosted by 2EV which in some cases might cause blowout of the channels.

John

[New Daddy]

I go with Mike on this one. When shooting in the studio or outdoors under constant lighting conditions I include a grey card in the first frame which I use as a reference in LR to set the white balance. I don't use it for setting exposure as I may have with film as I now have a histogram right in front of me!

In the context of environmental portrait, when the lighting is uneven, I don't think histogram is of much help. It's not much different from relying on the matrix (evaluative) metering method of the camera. What I really care about is the exposure on my subject. That's why I'd use the 18% gray under my subject's lighting. If that should result in some clipping in some other part of the scene (like a nearby window), then so be it! Who cares? I think the histogram works well when the scene is equally important across the frame - like in a landscape. In a non-studio setting, environmental portraiture, where you are willing to accept clipping in the interest of best exposure of your subject, histogram doesn't really tell you much.

[chauncey]

I don't think histogram is of much help

I don't understand that comment...could you elaborate a little.

[New Daddy]

I don't understand that comment...could you elaborate a little.

Well, I gave you an example in my post. Just visualize that example. You are willing to accept some clipping in the background, as long as your subject (your family or kids) are properly exposed. When you rely on a histogram, how would you know what's causing the clipping? It can be coming from a backlit window that you may be willing to accept or it could be coming from a specular highlight on your kid's face which you wouldn't want to accept. That's why I think it's not of much help in the kind of situation that I described, which I find myself in very often.

[Colin Southern]

In the context of environmental portrait, when the lighting is uneven, I don't think histogram is of much help. It's not much different from relying on the matrix (evaluative) metering method of the camera. What I really care about is the exposure on my subject. That's why I'd use the 18% gray under my subject's lighting. If that should result in some clipping in some other part of the scene (like a nearby window), then so be it! Who cares? I think the histogram works well when the scene is equally important across the frame - like in a landscape. In a non-studio setting, environmental portraiture, where you are willing to accept clipping in the interest of best exposure of your subject, histogram doesn't really tell you much.

In that context, the histogram gives you an indication of the degree of any under-exposure, whilst blinkies give you an indication of any areas of over-exposure (at which point you can quickly visually check if they're areas that contain important information eg brides dress, or areas that can be ignored eg specular highlights).

However having just said that, in the field (as opposed to in the studio), in multiple light zone situations (eg ambient light plus one or more flashes), reviewing the image on the camera's screen is as good as anything (providing the 'tog is shooting RAW, if it looks pretty good on the screen then there's usually more than enough tolerance in the RAW data to be able to get it to where it needs to be in post-production.

I should probably add that using a viewing loupe to look at the screen makes this process about a zillion times easier (due to the magnification and shielding from ambient light) (damn near compulsory for that kind of work).

[Geoff F]

Quite a few different things going on in this thread.

Re Geoff's comment:

I don't think there is any need to do this. I shoot a lot of flowers (check my site), and I have not set a custom white balance once in the years I have been shooting raw. The camera's white balance has no effect on the raw image, although some software uses it for an initial rendering.

Creating a custom white balance does not permanently change a Raw file. But with most software (I am using ACR at the moment) it gives you a close starting point which will be displayed as the 'default view' when you start your Raw conversion.

Too many times, without a white balance check at the time of shooting, I get home and look at my shots. The colours are frequently incorrect and need adjustment. Without a reference point I spend a lot of time trying to remember what were the correct colours and have to fiddle around with the Raw settings until I get something close.

In reality, my final 'remembered' results are often incorrect when compared to the 'real live flower'.

With a custom white balance at the time of shooting only a very slight tweak will be necessary.

[William W]

A couple of comments:

1. candid portraiture, often does not afford the time nor the interference to use a reference card of any sort
2. using histograms to attain the exposure correct, by definition assumes that the image which was first (and maybe second and third too) taken, is only a trial and can be discarded.

I have and use Grey Cards; White Cards and also the WhiBal set of cards including the pocket card: all of which are really handy tools.

But the point is, as the OP specially mentioned Candid Portraiture: in this case it would bode well to hone the skill of setting the correct exposure from Skin Tones/Spot Metering and also learning to understand the limits of the Camera and to assess the EV Range of the Scene.

To attain these skills - it requires no extra money to purchase anything – just an investment in time to lean the metering system of the camera and then lots of practice.

WW

[Colin Southern]

Creating a custom white balance does not permanently change a Raw file. But with most software (I am using ACR at the moment) it gives you a close starting point which will be displayed as the 'default view' when you start your Raw conversion.

Too many times, without a white balance check at the time of shooting, I get home and look at my shots. The colours are frequently incorrect and need adjustment. Without a reference point I spend a lot of time trying to remember what were the correct colours and have to fiddle around with the Raw settings until I get something close.

In reality, my final 'remembered' results are often incorrect when compared to the 'real live flower'.

With a custom white balance at the time of shooting only a very slight tweak will be necessary.

+1

Memory is usually a hopeless thing to rely on for whitebalance.

I did a test years ago where I took a couple of shots - one with a neutral reference included. I too the other shot - deliberately mucked up the WB and then got another photographer to adjust the skin tones by eye (to see how close he could get). The end result was that he was "close, but not that close".

A spectrally neutral reference doesn't mean you have to stick with it (eg I typically warm portraiture and cool landscape), but it does provide an accurate and consistent starting point.

[Colin Southern]

1. candid portraiture, often does not afford the time nor the interference to use a reference card of any sort

And in my opinion I might add that getting close enough WB in candids usually isn't hard -- there's typically something in the scene that can be used as a starting point

[Mike Buckley]

In the context of environmental portrait, when the lighting is uneven, I don't think histogram is of much help...What I really care about is the exposure on my subject.

When using the LCD display of my camera to zoom in on a particular area of the captured image such as the subject, the histogram that is displayed applies only to the viewed area, not the entire image.

[William W]

. . .getting close enough WB in candids usually isn't hard -- there's typically something in the scene that can be used as a starting point

+1

and even if the scene doesn't have the "common something" to make a reasonable attempt at White Balance, then 95 times out of 100, it doesn't really matter, because we'd capture in raw and then tweak the WB and CT in Post Production to suit the meaning and the situation of the Photograph.

I think that all too often, too much emphasis is placed on "getting the correct White Balance in camera" - because we will tweak an individual image in PP anyway.

***

Getting to the nitty gritty of WB issues in Candid Portraiture:

Even when WB has mattered in Candid Portraiture - there are pre-shoot workarounds that I have found work for me.

The four big "problems" I've come up against are:

1. low EV available light work, indoors under incandescent lights - (the red/orange cast can be a pain): the bottom line is, with many cameras it is usually better to set a Manual White Balance at the lowest degrees Kelvin available on the camera: (typically 2000~2400°K for DSLRs).

2. Fluorescent Lights - here I've found it is often better to use a FILTER on the lens and then set AWB rather than relying on the "Fluoro" setting on DSLRs - I don't fully understand why that is, but I think that some cameras' "Fluoro" settings are too sensitive in some odd manner.

3. Three phase lighting can cause issues - and one workaround is to shoot with a slow enough Tv (Shutter Speed) to get at least half the full cycle . . . 1/100s is good to go as a "safe" base point.

4. Mercury Vapour lamps are just a pain - not often encountered much where I am now, but I've found it best to set a Manual Colour Temperature around 8000°K, if photographing people.

***

HOWEVER - what is important is maintaining continuity of WB throughout some particular (more formal) shoots.

Maintaining WB continuity is a whole other ball game: for example ensuring that the Bridesmaids have same hue of green or purple in their dresses throughout the Wedding Album: remembering that the Bridal Party may be shot in four or five different lighting scenarios.

The same applies to a Portrait shoot where we might move from the Studio to outdoors in the one session.

Greens and Purples are usually the most difficult.

Also many Photographers don't realize how really important it is to nail the exposure correctly to ensure the least amount of problem with WB in Post Production.


WW

[xpatUSA]

Dan that last comment about digital being 12% grey is true, thing is I can not remember where I read it, I wish I did remember where.

For serious articles on cards, reflectance, metering, 18% vs 12.5%, etc., Doug Kerr is the man:

http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles...eflectance.pdf

http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles...etering_18.pdf

If it ain't there, it hasn't been written :-)

As far as white balance is concerned, I'm beginning to appreciate the difficulty of scenes that do not offer themselves to easy WB assessment. That being because I've started using "UniWB" as my normal setting. So, +1 to the difficulty of trying to set the balance afterward, especially with variable lighting.

[Andrew76]

But the point is, as the OP specially mentioned Candid Portraiture: in this case it would bode well to hone the skill of setting the correct exposure from Skin Tones/Spot Metering and also learning to understand the limits of the Camera and to assess the EV Range of the Scene.

To attain these skills - it requires no extra money to purchase anything – just an investment in time to lean the metering system of the camera and then lots of practice.
WW

That's what I thought - I have no issue with using gray cards, white cards, purple cards etc, anything that will help you out, but as I asked in post #11, I couldn't see the use for it for this type of photography....

Thanks for clearing that up, Bill.

[rpcrowe]

I don't know how this happened but a long-long time ago, before I purchased my Whibal card, I ordered a cheap three card set from a Chinese vendor on eBay. It never came and since I only paid something like $2.00 U.S. Dollars, it wasn't worth starting a hassle over. However, recently, I saw a set of cards from this same merchant on eBay and emiled him that I had never received the set ordered and paid for over a year ago.

Lo and behold, I received the three card set the other day. I am going to play with both the gray card and the white card and see how they stack up against my Whibal. I have the mid-size Whibal card and wanted to order a wallet size so I would always have a card with me. I will play with the three card set. If it works, I will keep it and if it doesn't work, I will keep the lanyard and get rid of the cards...

[tao2]

Or...ye could save a wheen of time(and money) and meter from the palm of yer hand...

[Inkanyezi]

The palm of my hand is no good for white balancing, and exposure is really not a problem, as I have blinkies in the viewfinder and even a live histogram if I would want it.

What's saving hassle is a white balancing tool, and I have found that white plastic from the milk jug good enough for me. I also have a WhiBal card, but even if it is spectrum neutral, I like the milk container balance better, for any lighting. Moreover, I only have the key-ring card, and it is too small for setting WB in the camera, although it is splendid for including in a shot.

I also still have an old video camera lens cap, the milky variety that was put on the lens and pointed to the light source for pressing the WB button. However, it is not as close to neutral as I would like it to be, but I still keep it as a lens cap. The milk jar one is the one I use all the time, for my compact camera and the OM-D. The compact doesn't save RAW, so post-poning WB is not an option.

[New Daddy]

I don't understand that comment...could you elaborate a little.

Here is an article that shows you why "well-balanced histogram" may not be what you should look for. 18% gray card will be far more useful than the histogram.

http://digital-photography-school.co...roper-exposure

[chauncey]

18% gray card will be far more useful than the histogram.

Perhaps that might be true for the neophyte, but for those that truly understand the histogram and how to use it, taking your camera's dynamic range into consideration, it become a simple matter to take multiple exposures and blend them together in post processing.
For me, that live view histogram is invaluable for ETTR methods...if one is cognizant of it's limitations.

[Polar01]

Rick your post #37 you link to a article about exposure, yes if the scene is say snow covered the histogram will be pushed to the right and it the scene is dark it will be pushed to the left which in total means either you have a lot of light or a lot of dark in you image, that's it. It does not tell you if the scene has the correct hue only the amount of light and dark in the scene.
If you want to get the correct hue for the scene than that is here the grey card comes in, it has nothing to do with exposure which would affect the histogram.

Allan

[New Daddy]

Perhaps that might be true for the neophyte, but for those that truly understand the histogram and how to use it, taking your camera's dynamic range into consideration, it become a simple matter to take multiple exposures and blend them together in post processing.
For me, that live view histogram is invaluable for ETTR methods...if one is cognizant of it's limitations.

Don't take my statement out of context. If you follow the discussion to the beginning, it started with the qualification "under uneven lighting" - that's when I think I'll find 18% gray card more useful than histogram.

And your use of the term "neophyte" is ironic. Yes, I may have not enough experience under my belt in photography, but you seem to be quite a neophyte yourself in something else - social decorum.