What is the proper way to white balance using a grey card?

nomnomnom

Leading Member
Messages
569
Reaction score
102
I am trying to learn to use a white card with flash photography.

But when I use LR with the dropper, depending on where I pick on the grey card itself, it get vastly varying values. From 6650 to 7000.

View attachment 878e973d76ba438b87960885978dcf9d.jpg

The scene is exposed with no ambient light. Flash light only. I'm using the evolv 200 as flashes.

Secondly, let's say I just pick a random point on the card and start using those values for the rest of the shots.

None of them look good. They look rather yellow. Honestly, the closest to natural looking is by just picking "daylight" in LR.

In that case, the grey card method seems to be way off to begin with let alone the varying problem.

Any tips/help?
 
If you're using a cheap grey-card then you'll probably get inconsistent results. Even a Kodak card wasn't really designed to be a target for white balancing but rather exposure.

Try using a sheet of plain white paper instead as an experiment; you might find that works really well. Otherwise, splurge for one of the many offerings on the market designed specifically for color balancing.
 
If you're using a cheap grey-card then you'll probably get inconsistent results. Even a Kodak card wasn't really designed to be a target for white balancing but rather exposure.

Try using a sheet of plain white paper instead as an experiment; you might find that works really well. Otherwise, splurge for one of the many offerings on the market designed specifically for color balancing.
You are right, I switched to using this colorchecker passport thing just now and it seems to be better. Although still vary (from 13 to 15 for tint, and 5700 to 5750 for temp) a much smaller variance. Not sure if that's normal or not but I can work with that.



View attachment e079295dee354fdf9900fb691142315f.jpg
 
I just started using a Datacolor SpyderCUBE which helps me set white balance, white point, and black point.


I pair the SpyderCUBE with Datacolor's SpyderCHECKr to create my camera profile for the lighting I'm shooting under.

I shoot with multiple lights most times and one light is often at a slightly higher power to I get different values on each side of the cube.

At the end of the day I may tweek my WB for what I think looks best.
 
  1. nomnomnom wrote:
If you're using a cheap grey-card then you'll probably get inconsistent results. Even a Kodak card wasn't really designed to be a target for white balancing but rather exposure.

Try using a sheet of plain white paper instead as an experiment; you might find that works really well. Otherwise, splurge for one of the many offerings on the market designed specifically for color balancing.
You are right, I switched to using this colorchecker passport thing just now and it seems to be better. Although still vary (from 13 to 15 for tint, and 5700 to 5750 for temp) a much smaller variance. Not sure if that's normal or not but I can work with that.

View attachment e079295dee354fdf9900fb691142315f.jpg
1) What color are the walls in the room where you are working and how large or small is the room? You might be getting some contamination from stray light bouncing around the room.

2) if using the 24 patch color checker target in the passport, which square are you using? It should be the second or third lightest, not the lightest color patch.

3) it’s best to use the target at the subject position as that is the most critical part of the photo.

4) what modifier (if any are using on the light?



--
Ellis Vener
To see my work, please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
I am on Instagram @EllisVenerStudio
“If I have any advice to give, it is that a photographer should learn to work with the minimum amount of equipment. The more you are able to forget your equipment, the more time you have to concentrate on the subject and on the composition. The camera should become an extension of your eye, nothing more.”- Ernst Haas from the afterword to his monograph “The Creation” (1972
 
  1. nomnomnom wrote:
If you're using a cheap grey-card then you'll probably get inconsistent results. Even a Kodak card wasn't really designed to be a target for white balancing but rather exposure.

Try using a sheet of plain white paper instead as an experiment; you might find that works really well. Otherwise, splurge for one of the many offerings on the market designed specifically for color balancing.
You are right, I switched to using this colorchecker passport thing just now and it seems to be better. Although still vary (from 13 to 15 for tint, and 5700 to 5750 for temp) a much smaller variance. Not sure if that's normal or not but I can work with that.

View attachment e079295dee354fdf9900fb691142315f.jpg
1) What color are the walls in the room where you are working and how large or small is the room? You might be getting some contamination from stray light bouncing around the room.

2) if using the 24 patch color checker target in the passport, which square are you using? It should be the second or third lightest, not the lightest color patch.

3) it’s best to use the target at the subject position as that is the most critical part of the photo.

4) what modifier (if any are using on the light?
agree with all the above and 1 more, subject colour reflection.

Rp
 
A big factor in how we discover white balance is the monitor and the ambient light in the room while we edit.

if there is a proper calibrated monitor there is still the ambient light in the room what does influence our perception of white balance. Further i feel the longer i look on a picture what WB is off, than change the WB to the correct values, my brain tells me that the colors are sheit.

Me personally mostly stopped to evaluate WB by eye. I do rely on the Histogram and the RGB value reading.

For the histogram i look for a more or less equal appearance in the curve, so that R/G/B Curves do match in the most part.

For the RGB values, i do pick a neutral color, like dark grey, soft white, next to black and check the readings. if the reading for example is 245/245/243 luminance 245 i am fine with the white balance and no more take into consideration what my brain trys to trick me.
 
If you're using a cheap grey-card then you'll probably get inconsistent results. Even a Kodak card wasn't really designed to be a target for white balancing but rather exposure.

Try using a sheet of plain white paper instead as an experiment; you might find that works really well. Otherwise, splurge for one of the many offerings on the market designed specifically for color balancing.
You are right, I switched to using this colorchecker passport thing just now and it seems to be better. Although still vary (from 13 to 15 for tint, and 5700 to 5750 for temp) a much smaller variance. Not sure if that's normal or not but I can work with that.
Just a note on your method - the grey card needs to be in 'free air'. That is, away from anything in the subject that could reflect light and skew the reading. In both your examples, readings taken around the edges of the card where it touches the subject will probably be contaminated. Basically, hold or suspend the card just in front of the subject so the only light it receives comes directly from the flash. Of coursse, it will also pick up spill from around the room but the WB will automatically compensate. That's perhaps the main use for grey cards in practise (along with fine adjustments for flash and modifier variations) and unless you have something extreme like a red sofa just out of shot they should sort it all out.

Optimum WB is both objective and subjective. Technically correct WB, which is what the grey card is for, neutralises everything to daylight but this might not always yield the best looking image. There is truth in the saying 'if it looks right, it is right' but you need a calibrated monitor for that.

BTW, the background tone in LightRoom (and some other editing softwares) is neutral mid- grey. I find this a very handy reference.
 
You should photograph the gray card in the center of the frame, and ideally have nothing else in the range of it that could be casting shadows or discoloring it. I do this and find the wb to be spot on 99% of the time.
 
Over the "digital" years I've tried a lot of white balance cards. You will find a lot of them are not very accurate.

The choice of most professionals is the Color Checker Passport. It will have that small color checker but also that same size card in one of the flaps of just a light grey white balance target. However I find that even too small sometimes if I need to WB in camera.

From the same company, Calibrite, I use the larger white balance card.


You place this in the subject area. The subject does not need to be in the shot. I clamp it onto a light stand or have someone hold it if Im doing headshots/portraits. I do an in camera custom white balance. Then I also take a photo of it after I do that (Fuji doesn't save that custom WB shot). If I use a person I just take a shot of them with their face and the card below it a little. Just for some reference.

I find this to be the most accurate target but of course you can always adjust later to make it more warm or cool.

$60. It's one and done. I keep it in it's sleeve and in my light case. It'll last for years.
 
For complete color balance you need to make sure your monitor is color calibrated otherwise what you see on the monitor might not be accurate.

I use one of these as it allows for picking not only 18% Gray but also a Black point and White Point for Levels and Curves adjustment.



Also if you have a large 8x10 gray card you can use it to set the exposure as well the 18% gray needs to be in the center of the Histogram

After you have White Balance You can further adjust the colors using a colorchecker

Having the model hold it , bonus you get either a funny face or the hard to get smile.


Square 20 top row Also there are 2 rows of white shaded squares those are used to customize WB One row is for portraits and the other for landscape

The cool thing is that you can create a color profile for Lightroom or other software that can be used to adjust all photos take in the same light.

Also if there is change in the white balance on a shot using strobe. You need to make sure that the strobe is not the cause. You need to let if fully charge, sometimes that means to wait a bit longer then when it shows ready.

I've done tests with my SB800 speedflash, and with it I need to wait an extra few seconds or more before taking the next shot.

Some photographers use Lightmeter on all shoots some never use them. However those that don't will most likely get the exposure/light correct via tethered connection to color corrected monitor.


Using a Lightmeter to get the exact exposure helps

NOTE the correct placement of the meter this ensures the correct distance and final exposure pointing the meter toward the camera

Also the Lightmeter needs to be calibrated to the Camera using a gray card to place it in the middle of the histogram.
 
Last edited:
Start with a gray card which is known to be color neutral and 12% reflectance (not 18%) which is the ANSI standard for meters. Older pre-2005 Kodak grey cards were 18% and not color neutral. They became color neutral when upgraded around then but Kodak stayed with the 18% reflectance rather than changing to the newer 12% ASNI standard. The reason for that apparently was lobbying by Ansel Adams who had based his perceptual based Zone System on the 18% reflectance.

The difference in reflectance of the card does not affect setting WB with it, only how exposure indicated in the histogram. With a digital camera the spike from a 12% will be centered when highlights are correctly exposed because modern cameras use the 12% standard for exposure. The more reflective 18% card will put the card spike right of center in the histogram and setting exposure by centering it will result in clipped highlights.

If your camera has a custom wb function you shoot the card then use that frame for setting custom WB. I put the WB in daylight mode when shooting the card then shoot it again after using the first image to set custom WB. That way by scrolling between the two frames in the playback the difference between the color of the light and daylight can be visualized.

d60f6b5961534fd7b2947038d88801e9.jpg

When I switched to digital I started using a white towel to set exposure, cognizant that 255 values need to be reserved for specular highlights as in the top edge of this shot created with the back rim light to provide separation with the white background and textured whites of the towel which get recorded in the 240-250 range.

The challenge in exposure is matching scene range to sensor. Here’s how I suggest doing it:

1) Select the aperture you desire for DOF, e.g. f/8 to record an entire face in focus, then put fill directly above camera lens because there it will not create any shadows the camera sees. Raise intensity of fill alone until the camera is recording the desired amount of detail in the shadows. I used the knob on the stand but a black towel works better as a visual gauge.

2) Turn on the off axis key light. Placing it 45° to side of nose and about 30- 45° above produces realistic rendering of 3D objects in 2D images. Keep raising the intensity until clipping of highlights in the white towel appear in the playback.

With that approach the lighting ratio is controlled with step one, the setting of the fill light for the shadows. Other than any spill fill from key light off the walls and ceiling it will not affect shadow tone. In a small studio space with white walls you might consider covering the walls with black King size sheets for better control of lighting ratio. Thats what I did in my basement studio.

As seen in the gray scale of the color checker target on the test card setting lights based on detail in textured black and white towels matches scene range to sensor perfectly. Any object placed in that lighting will appear as perceived by eye with modeling similar to the direction of 10 am / 2pm sunlight which creates a flattering “mask” of highlights on the front of the face which helps pull and hold veiwer attention there.

Most beginners put key and fill on opposite sides but that results in unfilled crossed shadows in deeper areas like smile lines. Try both approaches and compare results paying addition to the tone of the darkest shadows on the face and whether or not they are getting any fill other than the spill fill off the walls and ceiling of the studio space. Centered fill will create a second catchlight in the center of the pupil but it is easily eliminated in post processing.
 
Last edited:
I don't WB for flash lighting anything anymore, even for products on a shooting table. Seriously.

I shoot RAW and let camera raw (photoshop) pick the temperature in auto white balance when I open the file.

it works every time, much MUCH better than a card. at least on the raws from canon 1Ds and GFX100 and a7rII that I have.

it's slightly less reliable on Nikons to be honest, but still better than a card in my opinion

Anyway, that's what I do. And I might be wrong of course
 
I don't WB for flash lighting anything anymore, even for products on a shooting table. Seriously.

I shoot RAW and let camera raw (photoshop) pick the temperature in auto white balance when I open the file.

it works every time, much MUCH better than a card. at least on the raws from canon 1Ds and GFX100 and a7rII that I have.

it's slightly less reliable on Nikons to be honest, but still better than a card in my opinion

Anyway, that's what I do. And I might be wrong of course
Auto WB in ACR/LR a rarely accurate. I'd never risk a clients product's true color on a guess. A calibrated wb target like a Color Checker Passport is so easy to put in the first shot and just sample off that for the rest. As long as the same lighting is used.
 
Over the "digital" years I've tried a lot of white balance cards. You will find a lot of them are not very accurate.
The choice of most professionals is the Color Checker Passport. It will have that small color checker but also that same size card in one of the flaps of just a light grey white balance target. However I find that even too small sometimes if I need to WB in camera.
Me too, I find it too small.
From the same company, Calibrite, I use the larger white balance card.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1649353-REG/calibrite_ccwb_colorchecker_white_balance.html

You place this in the subject area. The subject does not need to be in the shot. I clamp it onto a light stand or have someone hold it if Im doing headshots/portraits. I do an in camera custom white balance. Then I also take a photo of it after I do that (Fuji doesn't save that custom WB shot). If I use a person I just take a shot of them with their face and the card below it a little. Just for some reference.

I find this to be the most accurate target but of course you can always adjust later to make it more warm or cool.
Thanks, that's what I am after accuracy and larger area for ease of balancing.

What is on the reverse side of the Calibrite ccwb?
$60. It's one and done. I keep it in it's sleeve and in my light case. It'll last for years.
 
Last edited:
that's your opinion that I respect. But I did a catalog of paint (automotive, for body shops, a hundred different samples) using auto WB in ACR and the the color accuracy was spot on (and they sell colors.. LOL I mean....)

Just saying...
 
that's your opinion that I respect. But I did a catalog of paint (automotive, for body shops, a hundred different samples) using auto WB in ACR and the the color accuracy was spot on (and they sell colors.. LOL I mean....)

Just saying...
I can't help wondering if your software is picking up that flash was used and it's setting that automatically as the white balance? That usually works well.

But that aside, the point about using a grey card is that it cannot be wrong - it will always give you technically accurate white balance for the light falling on it. Now technically accurate (ie, mid-day sun 5500K) may not mean optimum or best-looking as there is art as well as science involved but it's a very good starting point.
 
What is on the reverse side of the Calibrite ccwb?
Nothing useful, just white text printed on black paper. Same with the full size Calibrite ColorChecker. Calibrite was formerly known as X-rite and before that, MacBeth.
 
The gray card in your image is likely getting some color contamination from light reflected off the cardboard box in close proximity to it. Better to position the card slightly in front of the box. I wouldn't remove the box entirely, though, as, due to the confined space, light reflecting off of it is contributing to the color temperature of the light bouncing around it.

--
"Don't be mean. We don't have to be mean. Because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos
 
Last edited:

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top