White balance and Color correction

[Khalaful]

I have questions about white balance and color correction in detail:

White balance

I keep struggling with white balance if Calibrite's Colorchecker. Mine is only 2 years old and yet it does not give accurate white balance in many situations. Direct sunlight, shaded area, cloudy day, and more. How do you get a perfect white balance whenever you shoot outside? Am I suppose to get Delta 1 Gray card instead? And how do you deal with mixed lighting situation? How professionals adjust white balance to perfection?

Color calibration and correction

Might be the hardest before you start editing and grading your pic. There are quite a lot of people retouching images as close to original color as possible or somewhat commercial color tone instead of film or fancy color tone. I will not talk about film tone or unique color tone but how people calibrate or correct the color? Do they just use color checker and then make a specific profile or do they have to adjust colors manually and one by one? I think Karl Taylor's images are great example of commercial color tones.

 

[s_grins]

...

Unless someone else explains it better to me accuracy means consistency. Profiling multiple cameras and so colours are consistent through the entire process. Now I just go with pleasing colours and life is good.

I'm sure that works well for you and many others, But again, an assumption that photography is always about pleasing colors is incorrect.

I never said it was always about pleasing.

Someone did, as if it's the only way to approach a photo. As of now, 14 people agreed with the fist reply in the thread as the answer. It's only a possible answer. That's why I posted.

This is very childish approach

I said several times if you have specific needs. I'll add both professionally (which can be very critical) or person needs/requirements.

I'm just saying if those conditions don't exist do people need to get so caught up in it? If they want pursue that great. I've yet to look a single file posted on any forums and thought the colour was not accurate. How do I know what colour of red a persons shirt actually was. Unless the person is green and not in a Star Trek episode. Exposures or WB may be off but maybe that was intentional. Unless someone asks for critique I just appreciate it for what it is.

 

[ishwanu]

...

Unless someone else explains it better to me accuracy means consistency. Profiling multiple cameras and so colours are consistent through the entire process. Now I just go with pleasing colours and life is good.

I'm sure that works well for you and many others, But again, an assumption that photography is always about pleasing colors is incorrect.

I never said it was always about pleasing.

Someone did, as if it's the only way to approach a photo. As of now, 14 people agreed with the first reply in the thread as the answer. It's only a possible answer. That's why I posted.

This is very childish approach

What are you referring to as a childish approach? I don't think anyone's approach is childish. I just think there are different ones to consider.

 

[Zeee]

...

Unless someone else explains it better to me accuracy means consistency. Profiling multiple cameras and so colours are consistent through the entire process. Now I just go with pleasing colours and life is good.

I'm sure that works well for you and many others, But again, an assumption that photography is always about pleasing colors is incorrect.

I never said it was always about pleasing.

Someone did, as if it's the only way to approach a photo. As of now, 14 people agreed with the fist reply in the thread as the answer. It's only a possible answer. That's why I posted.

Ahhh. I see.

I said several times if you have specific needs. I'll add both professionally (which can be very critical) or person needs/requirements.

I'm just saying if those conditions don't exist do people need to get so caught up in it? If they want pursue that great. I've yet to look a single file posted on any forums and thought the colour was not accurate. How do I know what colour of red a persons shirt actually was. Unless the person is green and not in a Star Trek episode. Exposures or WB may be off but maybe that was intentional. Unless someone asks for critique I just appreciate it for what it is.

 

[s_grins]

...

Unless someone else explains it better to me accuracy means consistency. Profiling multiple cameras and so colours are consistent through the entire process. Now I just go with pleasing colours and life is good.

I'm sure that works well for you and many others, But again, an assumption that photography is always about pleasing colors is incorrect.

I never said it was always about pleasing.

Someone did, as if it's the only way to approach a photo. As of now, 14 people agreed with the first reply in the thread as the answer. It's only a possible answer. That's why I posted.

This is very childish approach

What are you referring to as a childish approach? I don't think anyone's approach is childish. I just think there are different ones to consider.

Referring to a majority is a simlistic and is a childish. Majority is not always right.

 

[Zeee]

I personally use a Sekonic C-800 spectrometer to set the WB manually in camera, at least when that is practical.

This post is excellent but needs a lot further explanation. Maybe Mads can come back and explain with more detail. I'm not going to attempt that but I can talk about this one point.

Just a few more dollars for your hobby. Only $1,659 at B&H.

A Sekonic C-800 spectrometer is a device to measure light's spectrum. And make a lot of other measurements about light (such as its CRI (Color Rendering Index).) And the light's color temperature, so you can set this numerically in your camera. I'd love to have one of these but the cost is way too much for an amateur. There is another way to do many of these measurements for a lot cheaper.

You can use ArgyllPro ColorMeter, which is an Android (not iOS) app that runs on any reasonably modern Android device (smartphone, tablet, etc.). Look at the ColorMeter site to see what it can measure. Look at the screenshots for "Photography" and "Lighting". (ColorMeter is also designed to measure for offset printing and cinematography, which we aren't interested in.)

All of this needs a lot more explanation. But I want to make the point that it is really desirable to measure the light you will be photographing in.

Cost. If it wasn't for cost, I'd say, skip ColorMeter and get the Sekonic device. But cost is usually an issue which is why I am talking about ColorMeter. Assuming that you have an Android device, you need to buy the ColorMeter app, which costs around $99. (There is a demo version so you can test to see if it works on your device.)

And you need a device to measure light. I think the cheapest device is an Xrite ColorMunki. (XRite has done a lot of renaming, so to keep it simple (and cheap), I'm going to link to a used ColorMunki that you can get on eBay.

XRite sold several different devices that they confusingly called "ColorMunki" The one you want is a spectrophotometer. There are other XRite devices that are colorimeters that won't work at all with Colormeter. Here is a link to another ColorMunki on eBay.

This listing is on the pricey side (ColorMunkis sold for about $500 new.) But scroll down to the Item description from the seller for more detail.

Sorry that this post is long and rambling, but I wanted to get across the idea that measuring light is really good. The Sekonic device is really good, but it costs a lot. You can do a lot of the same measurements with the ColorMeter app and a measuring device like a ColorMunki. Because items come and go on eBay, you need to examine the listings to find one that is reasonably priced, but also that the seller says is tested and is working (so you can use eBay's buyer protections if there is any problem.) "Not tested" is a bad thing here.

Again, maybe Mads can come back and explain color measurement better than I can.

Wayne

--
You just need to keep the forests wet

 

[Wayne Larmon]

I personally use a Sekonic C-800 spectrometer to set the WB manually in camera, at least when that is practical.

This post is excellent but needs a lot further explanation. Maybe Mads can come back and explain with more detail. I'm not going to attempt that but I can talk about this one point.

Just a few more dollars for your hobby. Only $1,659 at B&H.

Yes, which is why I described an alternative that costs much less (if you already have an Android device.) What I didn't do is explain why it is good to be able to measure light, with either device. I was hoping that somebody with more knowledge could do this.

Or you could take my word for it that measuring light is good and do your own research. Mads alluded to one benefit, above. There are more.

A Sekonic C-800 spectrometer is a device to measure light's spectrum. And make a lot of other measurements about light (such as its CRI (Color Rendering Index).) And the light's color temperature, so you can set this numerically in your camera. I'd love to have one of these but the cost is way too much for an amateur. There is another way to do many of these measurements for a lot cheaper.

You can use ArgyllPro ColorMeter, which is an Android (not iOS) app that runs on any reasonably modern Android device (smartphone, tablet, etc.). Look at the ColorMeter site to see what it can measure. Look at the screenshots for "Photography" and "Lighting". (ColorMeter is also designed to measure for offset printing and cinematography, which we aren't interested in.)

All of this needs a lot more explanation. But I want to make the point that it is really desirable to measure the light you will be photographing in.

Cost. If it wasn't for cost, I'd say, skip ColorMeter and get the Sekonic device. But cost is usually an issue which is why I am talking about ColorMeter. Assuming that you have an Android device, you need to buy the ColorMeter app, which costs around $99. (There is a demo version so you can test to see if it works on your device.)

And you need a device to measure light. I think the cheapest device is an Xrite ColorMunki. (XRite has done a lot of renaming, so to keep it simple (and cheap), I'm going to link to a used ColorMunki that you can get on eBay.

XRite sold several different devices that they confusingly called "ColorMunki" The one you want is a spectrophotometer. There are other XRite devices that are colorimeters that won't work at all with Colormeter. Here is a link to another ColorMunki on eBay.

This listing is on the pricey side (ColorMunkis sold for about $500 new.) But scroll down to the Item description from the seller for more detail.

Sorry that this post is long and rambling, but I wanted to get across the idea that measuring light is really good. The Sekonic device is really good, but it costs a lot. You can do a lot of the same measurements with the ColorMeter app and a measuring device like a ColorMunki. Because items come and go on eBay, you need to examine the listings to find one that is reasonably priced, but also that the seller says is tested and is working (so you can use eBay's buyer protections if there is any problem.) "Not tested" is a bad thing here.

Again, maybe Mads can come back and explain color measurement better than I can.

Wayne

 

[Zeee]

I personally use a Sekonic C-800 spectrometer to set the WB manually in camera, at least when that is practical.

This post is excellent but needs a lot further explanation. Maybe Mads can come back and explain with more detail. I'm not going to attempt that but I can talk about this one point.

Just a few more dollars for your hobby. Only $1,659 at B&H.

Yes, which is why I described an alternative that costs much less (if you already have an Android device.) What I didn't do is explain why it is good to be able to measure light, with either device. I was hoping that somebody with more knowledge could do this.

Or you could take my word for it that measuring light is good and do your own research. Mads alluded to one benefit, above. There are more.

I know you did and I take your word for it. I still have a Sekonic light meter I used when I shot weddings. I had a Sekonic spot meter I used in my old Ansel Adams B&W film phase. Not it the same league as a spectrometer.

A Sekonic C-800 spectrometer is a device to measure light's spectrum. And make a lot of other measurements about light (such as its CRI (Color Rendering Index).) And the light's color temperature, so you can set this numerically in your camera. I'd love to have one of these but the cost is way too much for an amateur. There is another way to do many of these measurements for a lot cheaper.

You can use ArgyllPro ColorMeter, which is an Android (not iOS) app that runs on any reasonably modern Android device (smartphone, tablet, etc.). Look at the ColorMeter site to see what it can measure. Look at the screenshots for "Photography" and "Lighting". (ColorMeter is also designed to measure for offset printing and cinematography, which we aren't interested in.)

All of this needs a lot more explanation. But I want to make the point that it is really desirable to measure the light you will be photographing in.

Cost. If it wasn't for cost, I'd say, skip ColorMeter and get the Sekonic device. But cost is usually an issue which is why I am talking about ColorMeter. Assuming that you have an Android device, you need to buy the ColorMeter app, which costs around $99. (There is a demo version so you can test to see if it works on your device.)

And you need a device to measure light. I think the cheapest device is an Xrite ColorMunki. (XRite has done a lot of renaming, so to keep it simple (and cheap), I'm going to link to a used ColorMunki that you can get on eBay.

XRite sold several different devices that they confusingly called "ColorMunki" The one you want is a spectrophotometer. There are other XRite devices that are colorimeters that won't work at all with Colormeter. Here is a link to another ColorMunki on eBay.

This listing is on the pricey side (ColorMunkis sold for about $500 new.) But scroll down to the Item description from the seller for more detail.

Sorry that this post is long and rambling, but I wanted to get across the idea that measuring light is really good. The Sekonic device is really good, but it costs a lot. You can do a lot of the same measurements with the ColorMeter app and a measuring device like a ColorMunki. Because items come and go on eBay, you need to examine the listings to find one that is reasonably priced, but also that the seller says is tested and is working (so you can use eBay's buyer protections if there is any problem.) "Not tested" is a bad thing here.

Again, maybe Mads can come back and explain color measurement better than I can.

Wayne

 

[Models By Day]

The ColorChecker Passport has 2 rows of WB patches, one for Portrait photos and one for outside/landscape photos. You can select to use any one of them, to suit your look.

Did you create a color profile with the ColorChecker. It corrects all colors in image.

You need to however create a profile for each Lens/Camera combo.

You can create a dual illumination profile which works better for outdoor images.

 

[Zeee]

The ColorChecker Passport has 2 rows of WB patches, one for Portrait photos and one for outside/landscape photos. You can select to use any one of them, to suit your look.

Did you create a color profile with the ColorChecker. It corrects all colors in image.

You need to however create a profile for each Lens/Camera combo.

You can create a dual illumination profile which works better for outdoor images.

I know you are asking the OP but I have version 1. I know version 2 was released but I’m concerned about dropping another $100 + and not liking it.

 

[Dave_J_E]

I have questions about white balance and color correction in detail:

White balance

I keep struggling with white balance if Calibrite's Colorchecker. Mine is only 2 years old and yet it does not give accurate white balance in many situations. Direct sunlight, shaded area, cloudy day, and more. How do you get a perfect white balance whenever you shoot outside? Am I suppose to get Delta 1 Gray card instead? And how do you deal with mixed lighting situation? How professionals adjust white balance to perfection?

Color calibration and correction

Might be the hardest before you start editing and grading your pic. There are quite a lot of people retouching images as close to original color as possible or somewhat commercial color tone instead of film or fancy color tone. I will not talk about film tone or unique color tone but how people calibrate or correct the color? Do they just use color checker and then make a specific profile or do they have to adjust colors manually and one by one? I think Karl Taylor's images are great example of commercial color tones.

The overall color management process involves white balance, camera color profile and monitor profile. All three need to be effective to get colors as close to true as possible.

White balance fundamentally means multiplying the red and blue channel values by suitable multipliers so that r=g=b for a neutral grey patch. The easiest way to do this is to shoot raw and use the wb eyedropper to select one of the grey patches in the Color Checker Passport (CCP) included in a test shot. The user interface for this is Color Temp and Tint rather than wb mutipliers as this is more intuitive to use. Having said that though, I usually find that auto wb in camera works pretty well for many situations.

White balance gets trickier however if there is more than one type of light source or eg if sunlight is reflecting strongly of a colored surface. Compromise is the order of the day.

A camera color profile can be made using a raw photo of a CCP and suitable software. In the case of Adobe, this profile includes a Forward matrix. It is produced using best fit between recorded color patch values and the reference values for these patches. Note this involves a compromise in accuracy as you can't make all patches exactly right. Also note that this matrix is determined using white balanced rgb values.

The monitor profile has similar compromises in color matching and is necessary to get a reasonably accurate view of the colors.

Dave

 

[Digitalis32]

I work with a fixed in-camera white balance of 5000K and have done so for several years. I avoid using auto white balance even if it is accurate, there are aspects such as skin tone that can be treacherous under mixed lighting with spectral anomalies with light sources such as Flourescent, Halogen/HMI and even LEDs with a CRI at or under 90 are can be rather problematic.

Working with a fixed white balance will make spectral anomalies clear and if your work environment illumination matches the D50* standard your eyes will be able to visualize the deficiencies for light sources with greater accuracy and correct anomalies in colour rendering appropriately. When working with an automatic correction system a lot of the time many will assume the cameras processing will correct colours in exactly the way we perceive them - this is an incorrect assumption.

Working with a fixed white balance gives you a consistent point of reference - when working with large libraries of files having a consistent point of reference is valuable aspect to workflow as it allows you to make a single change to a large number of images that is appropriate for the rendering intent rather than tweaking each image individually which is often time consuming and in an industry that expects fast turnaround such as commercial photography, is quite costly to the client.

*D55 and D65 are fine as long as you are consistent throughout your workflow.

--
A camera is just a camera. Who is behind it, matters far more.

 

[Zeee]

I work with a fixed in-camera white balance of 5000K and have done so for several years. I avoid using auto white balance even if it is accurate, there are aspects such as skin tone that can be treacherous under mixed lighting with spectral anomalies with light sources such as Flourescent, Halogen/HMI and even LEDs with a CRI at or under 90 are can be rather problematic.

Working with a fixed white balance will make spectral anomalies clear and if your work environment illumination matches the D50* standard your eyes will be able to visualize the deficiencies for light sources with greater accuracy and correct anomalies in colour rendering appropriately. When working with an automatic correction system a lot of the time many will assume the cameras processing will correct colours in exactly the way we perceive them - this is an incorrect assumption.

Working with a fixed white balance gives you a consistent point of reference - when working with large libraries of files having a consistent point of reference is valuable aspect to workflow as it allows you to make a single change to a large number of images that is appropriate for the rendering intent rather than tweaking each image individually which is often time consuming and in an industry that expects fast turnaround such as commercial photography, is quite costly to the client.

*D55 and D65 are fine as long as you are consistent throughout your workflow.

Very interesting. Thanks.

 

[TonyGamble]

"Sorry that this post is long and rambling, but I wanted to get across the idea that measuring light is really good."

Snag is you did not get round to telling us what you did with the measurement. Or it you did I lost it in the long, long, repeats.

Altering the way the WB sets the in camera .jpg has no effect on what is in the result if you shoot RAW.

And the thread then got muddled in the confusion of having a properly balanced editing monitor and knowing what the colour temperature was at the shoot.

Tony

London UK

 

[Models By Day]

I have the X-rite one that is over 10 years old or so and a new one

And can't see much of a difference, there is only a small difference that to me is is not worth the replacement every 2-3 years. I have kept mine closed when not in use.

I talked with a Lady that works at Calibrite and knows everything about the color patches and was even able to look at my old X-rite and tell me it how old it was.

 

[TonyGamble]

I have the X-rite one that is over 10 years old or so and a new one

Where people get in a mess with these is expecting their software to do the work for them 'automatically'.

As well as processing my RAW stills I use Resolve to edit my videos. Resolve has a facility for automatically rendering from one of these colour charts. It is more reliable and quicker to do it by hand.

I was surprised to have to struggle to find software to do this in the still photography arena. To use a chart to create a LUT. At the time of writing I have to admit I forget how I did it. But when so much of this thread is directed to folk wanting to create their own look or atmosphere I guess true colours don't come high on many people's lists.

Tony

 

[Toermalijn]

How do you get a perfect white balance whenever you shoot outside? Am I suppose to get Delta 1 Gray card instead? And how do you deal with mixed lighting situation? How professionals adjust white balance to perfection?

... how people calibrate or correct the color? Do they just use color checker and then make a specific profile or do they have to adjust colors manually and one by one?

I'm surprised that so many replies here are just make the colors the way you want them.

Maybe that's what is generally done in the Retouching subforum, but it's not the only answer. You might want to post these questions in the Pro Digital and Photographic Science and Technology subforums and see if the replies are different.

You could use a greycard or a colourchecker passport

 

[Models By Day]

ColorChecker Software has a plugin that is added to Lightroom that automates the creation of the color profile. Very easy.

The procedure for Capture one is more complex as you need to make certain changes to the photo before it can be used. I've done it once or twice only.

 

[Mads Bjerke]

I personally use a Sekonic C-800 spectrometer to set the WB manually in camera, at least when that is practical.

This post is excellent but needs a lot further explanation. Maybe Mads can come back and explain with more detail. I'm not going to attempt that but I can talk about this one point.

For those ho are unfamiliar with the C-800 it is a light spectrum meter.
All light haws a wavelength and the resulting colour of the light is measured in Kelvin.

The C-800 measures the lights spectrum - the different wavelengths contained in the light source - and presents a useable readout.

We can then take that light analysis and make adjustments to our lighting setups or cameras.

In simple terms we get a reading of the Kelvin of the light source.
We think of that as the white balance temperature.
You can take the reading and set your camera to that manual white balance value.

For example if the C-800 reads 5650K I will set the WB in camera to the nearest possible value, for example 5700K.

The C-800 also shows if there are any tint deviations from neutral - for example a shift towards green or magenta.

This tint reading is very useful if you work with artificial lighting.

All lights will vary in the tint output. Some are slightly green, some slightly magenta.
When you work as I do with multiple lights the C-800 allows me to correct these tints with gels. The result is a clean source of lighting that is all matched.

But wait, there is more...

The C-800 also give various ways to see how good a light source is.
The spectrum of wavelengths than are emitted from a light source vary drastically depending on the type of light.

Ideally the spectrum should be complete without missing wave lengths and also even in amplitude.
The sun and incandescent lights are very good in this regard. LED lighting is problematic.

LED lights are trying to emulate sun light by mixing various coloured led emitters. Typically they are red, green and blue.
This results in very spiky spectrums with certain wave lengths missing all together and making proper colour reproduction impossible.

To combat these issues som LED fixtures mix in other led diodes to even out the spectrum.
This can work if the quality of the design is of high quality.

The C-800 is really helpful in determining the quality of LED light to avoid these colour problems.

Another thing to aware of is that LED lighting panels often give wrong information on its displays. You can dial in a colour temperature, but the resulting colour output is usually completely different. The display lies to you.

So, should you buy a C-800?
Probably not worth it for the average photographer. The cost is a round £1200 and many will rightly make other priorities.

But if you are a professional photographer who strives to deliver the best colour and quality output, then you should definitely consider getting one.
It costs a small percentage of your overall equipment spend and is super helpful.

There are cheaper options that attempt to convert your phone into a spectrometer. I doubt they are super accurate. The C-800 has a special chip and sensor that the phone doesn't have.

 

[TonyGamble]

I personally use a Sekonic C-800 spectrometer to set the WB manually in camera, at least when that is practical.

This post is excellent but needs a lot further explanation. Maybe Mads can come back and explain with more detail. I'm not going to attempt that but I can talk about this one point.

I am not going to clutter this message with lines and lines of science.

Jolly long post Mads but I am still waiting to hear how all this fancy kit is supposed to work with anyone working with RAW.

Tony

 

[Wayne Larmon]

"Sorry that this post is long and rambling, but I wanted to get across the idea that measuring light is really good."

Snag is you did not get round to telling us what you did with the measurement. Or it you did I lost it in the long, long, repeats.

There are several reasons why my post was long and rambling. The first is that this spans multiple DPReview forums. It could go in this forum, the printing forum, the lighting forum, the photographic science forum. And in Open Talk because it can benefit all photographers. But it really should go in the non-existent Color Management forum (which affects all photographers that share their images with anybody else.) The issues I allude to would already be known to members of the above forums. But not all of the issues would be known to all members of each forum.

The second main issue for me is that I last worked with this over a decade ago so I don't have any live projects to point to. If you remember Tony, I was working on an (unrelated) project a number of years ago that you were involved in for a while. Well, this is a similar situation. I'll look through my archives so I can maybe do a single post with graphics to illustrate different points.

Altering the way the WB sets the in camera .jpg has no effect on what is in the result if you shoot RAW.

Yes. However, see the next section of my response.

And the thread then got muddled in the confusion of having a properly balanced editing monitor and knowing what the colour temperature was at the shoot.

Which spans the forums I mentioned above and the (nonexistent) color management forum. The measuring tools I discussed will give you the exact color temperature of the light you are measuring so you can copy the numbers into your camera's white balance settings. So that the white balance will be accurate, such that you wouldn't need to shoot raw for the purposes of adjusting white balance. If you didn't need to worry about white balance you might not need to use raw at all. (Assuming normal lighting, not special effect stage lighting.)

The reason for having a properly balanced monitor is to increase the odds that the image you edit on your monitor will look correct when viewed on anything that isn't your own monitor. Whether it is on the web (shorthand for any smartphone or computer), or a print on paper. (The ColorMunki I described can be used to improve the "print on paper" part.)

Another benefit of being able to measure the spectrum and various Color Rendering Indexes is so you can measure all the lights you will be shooting with. (In my case) so that you can determine which, if any, CFL or LED bulbs that you can get cheaply at a hardware or other retail store are suitable for providing accurate light. (I was shooting paintings.)

Or to evaluate if expensive lighting that is sold for photography is any better than cheap bulbs you can buy locally. (The cheap bulbs have improved over the years. But even back then I was able to see that cheap CFL bulbs I got locally measured identical to expensive "Full Spectrum" CFLs I ordered from a specialized web company.)

Or to check any mixed lighting to see if maybe some bulbs need to be swapped so all your lighting matches. Or to improve color rendering. (You bring a supply of cheap bulbs that you have already measured.)

Wayne