Setting White Balance from a Target

[bobnn]

. i only use WB card in my studio setting up different lights.

Electronic flash. It's like "canned sunshine" (though that's not the usual meaning of that phrase).

 

[Ellis Vener]

Raw bare flash can be like “canned sunshine”, but once you start adding g modifiers, things change.

 

[bobnn]

Raw bare flash can be like “canned sunshine”, but once you start adding g modifiers, things change.

Damn, I never even thought of this! Thank you! I'm going to have to check that. So far tge results look good, though.

 

[A74Me]

Raw bare flash can be like “canned sunshine”, but once you start adding g modifiers, things change.

you beat me to it

 

[jonby]

I think you should pay some attention to what Michael Fryd said in his first post. In most of the examples shown, the colour of light arriving at the subject is quite different from different angles, so the angle and position at which you hold the grey card will affect its colour quite strongly. To take the one of the girl with the purple top, for example, the light coming from above and behind is very much bluer than that bouncing up from below, which is much yellower. As the grey card is angled upwards, it is not surprising that it is quite blue and therefore makes most of the picture very yellow when neutralised. The more important parts of the figure and face are largely lit by the yellower light, so they look too yellow.

While I'm not saying that this accounts for everything you are seeing, I think it is a contributing factor. To take another example, the one with the hat, if you wanted the face to be neutral in colour, then you would need to use the card angled down in the same way as the face, or even under the hat, since it looks like some light is being transmitted through the hat and that is likely very yellow.

Another factor, I think, is simply that your preference is for slightly cooler than truly neutral. In the one with the crumpled paper which you have edited to taste, the paper is broadly speaking slightly blue. If I were to edit these images to my own taste, I think I would arrive at something slightly warmer than you have.

I do quite often use a white or grey card as a reference myself in various situations, but I use it as a general reference point rather than an absolute. In mixed colour lighting, which effectively you have in most of your images, there is no absolute - no 'correct' or 'incorrect' - you are always making a judgment, a compromise. It's the same with using a handheld light meter.

 

[Ellis Vener]

In most of the examples shown, the colour of light arriving at the subject is quite different from different angles, so the angle and position at which you hold the grey card will affect its colour quite strongly. To take the one of the girl with the purple top, for example, the light coming from above and behind is very much bluer than that bouncing up from below, which is much yellower. As the grey card is angled upwards, it is not surprising that it is quite blue and therefore makes most of the picture very yellow when neutralised. The more important parts of the figure and face are largely lit by the yellower light, so they look too yellow.

Absolutely right. This can be better addressed by using a colorimeter like the new Datacolor LightColor Meter (https://www.datacolor.com/spyder/products/lightcolor-meter) in incident mode to measure the color of the light coming from all around the subject and using that reading to set a custom WB on the camera.

--
Ellis Vener
To see my work, please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
I am on Instagram @EllisVenerStudio
If you like my question or response, please give a thumbs up. My ego needs the strokes.

 

[jonby]

In most of the examples shown, the colour of light arriving at the subject is quite different from different angles, so the angle and position at which you hold the grey card will affect its colour quite strongly. To take the one of the girl with the purple top, for example, the light coming from above and behind is very much bluer than that bouncing up from below, which is much yellower. As the grey card is angled upwards, it is not surprising that it is quite blue and therefore makes most of the picture very yellow when neutralised. The more important parts of the figure and face are largely lit by the yellower light, so they look too yellow.

Absolutely right. This can be better addressed by using a colorimeter like the new Datacolor LightColor Meter (https://www.datacolor.com/spyder/products/lightcolor-meter) in incident mode to measure the color of the light coming from all around the subject and using that reading to set a custom WB on the camera.

Yes I forgot that colour meters existed! I presume this will do the same for colour as the well-understood incedent dome does for brightness in a standard meter. The grey card is analogous to the incedent meter with a flat diffuser (or retracted dome on some).

 

[SmilerGrogan]

You’re right, the samples you posted are weirdly much warmer than the auto white balance results. I’ve never seen anything like it.

What brand of camera do you use?
Are you filling the frame with the card when you set a custom white balance?

If you crop into just the gray card and look at your RGB histogram do the three channels line up?

Which profile are you using in your raw processing application or if shooting JPEGs, which “picture style”?

that can affect color saturation, contrast and biasing towards one color cluster or another. I ask because mostly what i think I am seeing is increased color saturation and color contrast

I have only ever used the standard, or neutral profiles.

With Lightroom set to import with camera settings, it sets the saturation and contrast of these to zero on import. This isn't saturation - it's just white balance. For instance, here is the most egregious of these with Lightroom's auto white balance and the contrast and saturation then both increased to 50:



Definitely a bit too contrasty and saturated for my liking, but clearly not suffering from the extremely orange color that the white balance target yields (either using Nikon's pre-set white balance or Lightroom's white balance dropper).

 

[Ellis Vener]

In most of the examples shown, the colour of light arriving at the subject is quite different from different angles, so the angle and position at which you hold the grey card will affect its colour quite strongly. To take the one of the girl with the purple top, for example, the light coming from above and behind is very much bluer than that bouncing up from below, which is much yellower. As the grey card is angled upwards, it is not surprising that it is quite blue and therefore makes most of the picture very yellow when neutralised. The more important parts of the figure and face are largely lit by the yellower light, so they look too yellow.

Absolutely right. This can be better addressed by using a colorimeter like the new Datacolor LightColor Meter (https://www.datacolor.com/spyder/products/lightcolor-meter) in incident mode to measure the color of the light coming from all around the subject and using that reading to set a custom WB on the camera.

Yes I forgot that colour meters existed! I presume this will do the same for colour as the well-understood incedent dome does for brightness in a standard meter. The grey card is analogous to the incedent meter with a flat diffuser (or retracted dome on some).

targets like gray cards reflect light. So unless you are positioning it to reflect light impinging on it from multiple angles and then using those reflective readings in a calculation to come up with a solution, I see the connection you are making but it’s not a direct one.



im pretty old school about this stuff so maybe there’s something I don’t understand

 

[Johan Borg]

When using white paper (or clothing), be aware that these likely contain optical whiteners. These glow with a blue tint under UV light (sunlight and some strobes do contain some UV light).

In particular, printer paper tends to be slightly blue, to be perceived as whiter. Using it as a WB target only makes sense if you aim for a warm tint.

My daughter has the same skin tone as the girl in the photos and I also tend to get good results from auto WB. If I really care about consistency, I would rather use one of the presets (sunlight, cloudy..) which in my (Sigma) cameras can be fine-tuned to taste.

 

[SmilerGrogan]

Check out the channels from the sample where the OP set the white balance by clicking on the gray card. The three channels should overlap almost perfectly but yet they don’t. What does this tell us?

 

[Bob]

White Balance Adjustment:
Clicking on a white (or neutral gray) target with the White Balance Selector tool in Lightroom adjusts the image's overall color temperature and tint so that the selected target appears neutral (i.e., free of color cast). This helps correct for the color of the light in the scene.

Color Accuracy Beyond White Balance:
However, accurate color rendition across the full image depends on additional factors:

• Camera profile: Lightroom’s camera calibration or profile (e.g., Adobe Color vs. a custom DNG profile) significantly affects how colors are interpreted.
• Lens and lighting conditions: Variations in lens transmission, lighting spectrum, and subject reflectance can introduce color shifts that white balance alone cannot correct.
• Color calibration targets: To ensure color accuracy beyond white balance, tools like the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport can be used to create a custom color profile, correcting how specific colors render, not just the neutrals.

 

[SmilerGrogan]

I have a lot of experience with white balance, mixed lighting, and a variety of Nikon cameras, none of this would explain the images being so weirdly warm when using a custom white balance.

Creating a custom profile with Adobe’s profile creator might improve the overall look of the skin tones though.

White Balance Adjustment:
Clicking on a white (or neutral gray) target with the White Balance Selector tool in Lightroom adjusts the image's overall color temperature and tint so that the selected target appears neutral (i.e., free of color cast). This helps correct for the color of the light in the scene.

Color Accuracy Beyond White Balance:
However, accurate color rendition across the full image depends on additional factors:

• Camera profile: Lightroom’s camera calibration or profile (e.g., Adobe Color vs. a custom DNG profile) significantly affects how colors are interpreted.
• Lens and lighting conditions: Variations in lens transmission, lighting spectrum, and subject reflectance can introduce color shifts that white balance alone cannot correct.
• Color calibration targets: To ensure color accuracy beyond white balance, tools like the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport can be used to create a custom color profile, correcting how specific colors render, not just the neutrals.

 

[OldNikonFan2025]

I used to play this same game. My epiphany came when I color corrected for incandescent lighting where my eyes saw a white piece of paper and I set that as the WB target, but then the lampshade behind it didn't look anything like what my eyes were seeing. That's when I realized that my brain was making real time adjustments that my camera and software weren't making. Sometimes I still struggle with getting the color of the photo of a piece of clothing to look like it does when I'm looking at the actual piece of clothing, but I realize that whereas I can move that piece of clothing into any light and see the same color (just like the aforementioned white piece of paper), the camera does not see it that way.

Subsequently I gave up on using WB targets to set WB and now find that I'm getting pleasing results with the NX-D software that I use with my D850 set to "Natural Light Auto" (not available on my D500, then I just mess around with the Auto WB settings). I'll leave it to more knowledgeable people here to hash out getting the colors "just right," and just say that just like everything else in photography, for me, it's about getting things right where I want them.

Disclaimers:

First, I'm colorblind, and my eyes and brain cannot be counted on to distinguish subtle, or sometimes not-so-subtle, hues between red and green. Nonetheless, I saw very clearly what you were demonstrating in your examples without relying on anyone else to point them out to me.

Also, I still use UniWB on my Nikon cameras to determine, as much as is possible, how the camera is exposing the three channels, so all my final WB settings are done during Raw conversion.

 

[SmilerGrogan]

You have the wisdom that comes from experience. Unless you’re shooting a Coca Cola ad that requires you to land the red at exactly 244/0/9 it’s all a series of compromises.

I used to play this same game. My epiphany came when I color corrected for incandescent lighting where my eyes saw a white piece of paper and I set that as the WB target, but then the lampshade behind it didn't look anything like what my eyes were seeing. That's when I realized that my brain was making real time adjustments that my camera and software weren't making. Sometimes I still struggle with getting the color of the photo of a piece of clothing to look like it does when I'm looking at the actual piece of clothing, but I realize that whereas I can move that piece of clothing into any light and see the same color (just like the aforementioned white piece of paper), the camera does not see it that way.

Subsequently I gave up on using WB targets to set WB and now find that I'm getting pleasing results with the NX-D software that I use with my D850 set to "Natural Light Auto" (not available on my D500, then I just mess around with the Auto WB settings). I'll leave it to more knowledgeable people here to hash out getting the colors "just right," and just say that just like everything else in photography, for me, it's about getting things right where I want them.

Disclaimers:

First, I'm colorblind, and my eyes and brain cannot be counted on to distinguish subtle, or sometimes not-so-subtle, hues between red and green. Nonetheless, I saw very clearly what you were demonstrating in your examples without relying on anyone else to point them out to me.

Also, I still use UniWB on my Nikon cameras to determine, as much as is possible, how the camera is exposing the three channels, so all my final WB settings are done during Raw conversion.

 

[Roozeblij]

I was expecting someone to mention the expo disk by now?

 

[SCoombs]

It's important that the white balance target be lit the same as the subject.

Consider a photo of a girl outside, with the white balance target tilted up towards the sky. The girl may be lit by indirect light from the surroundings. The white balance target may have more of a component of direct sunlight. This might be enough of a difference to throw off the white balance.

True, but in this case the color of the shirt would for example be correct, which it isn't in the too-orange output. Additionally, I have used these targets next to the face with the same results.

Is it possible that your targets are not actually neutral? Perhaps it's time to try a number of different "neutral" objects in a frame, and see how they compare.

When using white paper (or clothing), be aware that these likely contain optical whiteners. These glow with a blue tint under UV light (sunlight and some strobes do contain some UV light).

Many laundry detergents contain optical brighteners to make your whites "whiter than white".

I've used a number of different targets, including some (like the one pictured here) which are rather quite expensive and intended to be quite accurate.

 

[Bill Ferris]

I've used a number of different targets, including some (like the one pictured here) which are rather quite expensive and intended to be quite accurate.

Have you used the eyedropper on her eyes? I tried that in LrC and liked the result...natural skin tones with just a subtle warm hue.

--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ

 

[knickerhawk]

I am not a beginner, but this seems like an appropriate place for this topic. I have been pretty confused trying to get a good white balance by using a white balance target, either using a white balance dropper tool in processing or setting a manual white balance in camera using a target. It has very consistently given me results that are much warmer than it should.

Actually, it's giving you much warmer (custon) white balance in outdoor shots, which are likely to be subject to a strong blue color cast from the blue sky. Thus, it's to be expected that in conditions where a general blue color cast is present, applying a white balance correction on a neutral subject such as a colorchecker gray patch, will cause the image colors to shift to the warmer colors.

I've gone out and specifically tested this several times over the years to the same results each time, but here I will present only a few examples of photos I still have easily accessible.

First, I would say that on the rare occasion it does seem to work decently.

Here is a photo I took to test at one point, this one with the white balance adjusted by me so the photo looks accurate to life:



Here is the white balance set using the dropper tool on the target. It is very, very close to what Lightroom's Auto WB comes up with:



This is perhaps slightly off from reality to my eye, but it's okay.

That's because the scenic lighting was not biased toward the blue. It was fairly neutral to begin with.

[snip]

Another attempt during one of my testing efforts:





This is the most egregious example. The others are at least... close in SOME way, maybe they would work for a given style, for instance. Here we just get something completely orange.

Let's take a closer look at the girl and the colorchecker without being biased by our perceptual expectations for what she should look like when photographed outside:


Left=Your uncorrected rendering; Middle=Your custom WB rendering using the colorchecker; Right=my correction to your custom WB rendering

With the scenic context missing, I think that most viewers would consider the Left rendering above to be to cold, the Middle rendering to be to warm and the Right rendering to be about right. Note that the blue circles inside the Middle and Right renderings are from the corresponding positions in the colorchecker of the Left rendering. Since the RGB values for the Middle and Right colorcheckers are very close to neutral, you can clearly see now that the colorchecker in the Left rendering is subject to a relatively blue color cast (as is the girl). In the context of an outdoor shot, the blue color cast is acceptable because we mentally adjust for it and perceive the colorchecker as gray when, objectively, it's far from it. Likewise with the girl's skintone and the perceived color of the shirt. By correcting WB based on the colorchecker, the WB is warmed considerably to achieve the corrected white balance, but we now perceive the girl's skintone, etc. to be too warm. That's just the inherent challenge of white balance and any effort to "correct" it.

What about the difference between the Middle and Right rendering? I checked the file info for your renderings and saw that you applied a quite a bit of positive vibrance and saturation adjustments (in addition to other adjustments to punch up contrast). When you do that, any pre-existing color conditions will be exaggerated toward a warmer color balance. The Right rendering has unwound that exaggeration by an applied negative adjustment of vibrance and saturation to yield a rendering that's presumably closer to what would have been generated in ACR/LR without the push you added in the first place. The lesson here is to be careful with vibrance and especially with saturation if you're dealing with overall color balance problems.

 

[SCoombs]

I am not a beginner, but this seems like an appropriate place for this topic. I have been pretty confused trying to get a good white balance by using a white balance target, either using a white balance dropper tool in processing or setting a manual white balance in camera using a target. It has very consistently given me results that are much warmer than it should.

Actually, it's giving you much warmer (custon) white balance in outdoor shots, which are likely to be subject to a strong blue color cast from the blue sky. Thus, it's to be expected that in conditions where a general blue color cast is present, applying a white balance correction on a neutral subject such as a colorchecker gray patch, will cause the image colors to shift to the warmer colors.

I've gone out and specifically tested this several times over the years to the same results each time, but here I will present only a few examples of photos I still have easily accessible.

First, I would say that on the rare occasion it does seem to work decently.

Here is a photo I took to test at one point, this one with the white balance adjusted by me so the photo looks accurate to life:



Here is the white balance set using the dropper tool on the target. It is very, very close to what Lightroom's Auto WB comes up with:



This is perhaps slightly off from reality to my eye, but it's okay.

That's because the scenic lighting was not biased toward the blue. It was fairly neutral to begin with.

[snip]

Another attempt during one of my testing efforts:





This is the most egregious example. The others are at least... close in SOME way, maybe they would work for a given style, for instance. Here we just get something completely orange.

Let's take a closer look at the girl and the colorchecker without being biased by our perceptual expectations for what she should look like when photographed outside:


Left=Your uncorrected rendering; Middle=Your custom WB rendering using the colorchecker; Right=my correction to your custom WB rendering

With the scenic context missing, I think that most viewers would consider the Left rendering above to be to cold, the Middle rendering to be to warm and the Right rendering to be about right. Note that the blue circles inside the Middle and Right renderings are from the corresponding positions in the colorchecker of the Left rendering. Since the RGB values for the Middle and Right colorcheckers are very close to neutral, you can clearly see now that the colorchecker in the Left rendering is subject to a relatively blue color cast (as is the girl). In the context of an outdoor shot, the blue color cast is acceptable because we mentally adjust for it and perceive the colorchecker as gray when, objectively, it's far from it. Likewise with the girl's skintone and the perceived color of the shirt. By correcting WB based on the colorchecker, the WB is warmed considerably to achieve the corrected white balance, but we now perceive the girl's skintone, etc. to be too warm. That's just the inherent challenge of white balance and any effort to "correct" it.

What about the difference between the Middle and Right rendering? I checked the file info for your renderings and saw that you applied a quite a bit of positive vibrance and saturation adjustments (in addition to other adjustments to punch up contrast). When you do that, any pre-existing color conditions will be exaggerated toward a warmer color balance. The Right rendering has unwound that exaggeration by an applied negative adjustment of vibrance and saturation to yield a rendering that's presumably closer to what would have been generated in ACR/LR without the push you added in the first place. The lesson here is to be careful with vibrance and especially with saturation if you're dealing with overall color balance problems.

I would have to check when I am at the computer with this photo again, but I don't believe I really did anything with vibrance or saturation with these and I almost never push the contrast about 5 at an absolute maximum. I don't quite remember but it is possible that when exporting these examples specifically for my post I added some because of some other discussion about this where people asked to see a more saturated version.

When I import photos Lr does set the saturation at +10 based on the camera settings, where I have the saturation pushed up by about the smallest amount it is possible to do so because otherwise I find things looking extremely, extremely flat and even to the point that even as a starting point for editing the RAW it's too lifeless. Lr's auto button, if I were to press it, will on as far as I can tell every photo set vibrance to +20 and saturation to +5, which I consider much too strong the vast majority of the time. I don't always use auto but I do usually press it at least once just to see what it looks like and in those cases where I generally like it or like it as a starting point I will almost always drop the vibrance back to 0 and put the saturation at +10, which looks just about right to me most of the time. If I do think a particular photo needs more color, I will usually wind up at saturation +15 and vibrance at +5 or something. In other words, I like to keep vibrance/saturation fairly reasonable 99% of the time.