topic Re: Custom White Balance kinda sucks in EOS DSLR & Mirrorless Cameras

Custom White Balance kinda sucks

Stonius — Mon, 06 Nov 2017 03:24:58 GMT

It could be so much simpler, couldn't it?

It takes 10 operations to set up a custom white balance, which seems ridiculous for something that should be a quick and easy single button operation during a shoot. For a start it shouldn't require the image to be shot as it only takes the resultant setting anyway. Just stick the settings in the metadata. Secondly, it shouldn't require that the entire screen is filled with the grey card. If you're on a wide lens, it requires moving the camera to the card (light may be different where the camera is). It should just take into account say, 100 pixels in the center of the image.

As it is you have to;

1) switch to an auto exposure mode

2) zoom in to fill the frame with your calibration object (or move the camera). If you don't fill the frame the colour is skewed.

3) Take Photo

4) Press Menu

5) Find Menu 2 under camera settings

6) Enter the custom white balance option

7) Scroll to the photo you just took

😎 Select it.

9) Confirm selection

10) make sure your camera is in 'custom white balance mode'.

Needless to say, this is unnecesarrily slow and cumbersome during high pressure shooting environments.

I know people will say just to dial it in by eye using Kelvin, but that won't balance for the Magenta/Cyan axis the way a proper white balance does.

Markus

Re: Custom White Balance kinda sucks

diverhank — Mon, 06 Nov 2017 04:31:07 GMT

Hope you felt better after ranting :). I agree that the custom white balance is cumbersome. If correct balance is important to me, I'd take a picture with a gray card and adjust balance on others based on it in post. Shooting RAW, it doesn't matter what the white balance is. You can apply the correct white balance to all pictures very quickly in post.

Re: Custom White Balance kinda sucks

Stonius — Mon, 06 Nov 2017 05:53:34 GMT

True, but for video (unless you're taking an un-compressed feed from the HDMI) you dont have the same latitude that RAW stills give you to change colour in post. And using a grey card is not much of a solution if your lens is not super long because you will have to adjust the camer position to fill the screen. Just seems like it could so easily be a simple 'fill square with white, then press button' type operation.

Re: Custom White Balance kinda sucks

Waddizzle — Mon, 06 Nov 2017 08:52:30 GMT

@Stonius wrote:
True, but for video (unless you're taking an un-compressed feed from the HDMI) you dont have the same latitude that RAW stills give you to change colour in post. And using a grey card is not much of a solution if your lens is not super long because you will have to adjust the camer position to fill the screen. Just seems like it could so easily be a simple 'fill square with white, then press button' type operation.

First, I do not know what sort of post processing you use, but I can set a WB in post just as easily as a photo. Take a reference shot, and keep going.

Second, if choose to go the route of implementing a custom WB in the camera, the test shot does not have to fill the entire frame. Covering the center 2/3 should be sufficient. In fact, it seems to work for me covering only the active AF point, and a few surrounding points.

Finally, I suggest that you setup custom WB in a custom menu, so that you do not have to go hunting for it ever time that you wish to use it.

Re: Custom White Balance kinda sucks

TTMartin — Mon, 06 Nov 2017 14:23:08 GMT

@Stonius wrote:
It could be so much simpler, couldn't it?

It takes 10 operations to set up a custom white balance, which seems ridiculous for something that should be a quick and easy single button operation during a shoot. For a start it shouldn't require the image to be shot as it only takes the resultant setting anyway. Just stick the settings in the metadata. Secondly, it shouldn't require that the entire screen is filled with the grey card. If you're on a wide lens, it requires moving the camera to the card (light may be different where the camera is). It should just take into account say, 100 pixels in the center of the image.

As it is you have to;
1) switch to an auto exposure mode
2) zoom in to fill the frame with your calibration object (or move the camera). If you don't fill the frame the colour is skewed.
3) Take Photo
4) Press Menu
5) Find Menu 2 under camera settings
6) Enter the custom white balance option
7) Scroll to the photo you just took
😎 Select it.
9) Confirm selection
10) make sure your camera is in 'custom white balance mode'.

Needless to say, this is unnecesarrily slow and cumbersome during high pressure shooting environments.

I know people will say just to dial it in by eye using Kelvin, but that won't balance for the Magenta/Cyan axis the way a proper white balance does.

Markus

Steps 4,5 & 6 can be combined into one step by setting up Custom White Balance as the first choice under 'My Menu' and setting the camera so 'My Menu' comes up whenever you press the menu button.

As far as Step 7, I believe it defaults to the last photo taken, so is scrolling really necessary?

Re: Custom White Balance kinda sucks

TCampbell — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 16:04:09 GMT

I suspect the reason I don't read more complaints about the multi-step process to use custom white balance... is because hardly anybody does this.

You would use custom white balance if you shoot and save your images as JPEGs.

But I find that as soon as photographers get fussy about things like white balance and color... they quickly learn they should be shooting and saving as RAW -- not JPEG. White balance is used to allow the camera to convert and save the image as a JPEG -- it's not used if you shoot RAW.

In other words... those who are fussy about the accuracy of such things, are not using this process.

If I'm shooting causally, I don't worry about whtie balance and I adjust it by eye. (All my computer displays are color-calibrated using a ColorMunki -- so I know I can trust my displays.)

If I'm shooting something where color accuracy matters (and I do), then I have a gray card. I just make sure at least one frame has the gray card in it. Once I use that gray card to balance the color cast on that frame... Lightroom lets me sync that white balance to all other photos that I shot at that location.

Basically I click the white-balance eye-dropper tool, then click the mouse on the gray-card and it's done.

If there are other images that need to be white balanced, then I select the range of images and click "sync".

But since I shot RAW instead of JPEG... I not only have good control over white balance, I also have 14-bit data (vs. JPEG 8-bit data) with a lot more dynamica range and no loss of original data. So now I can also adjust my white point, my black point, I can adjust highlights & shadows and do some detail recovery... I can do so much more with the data than I'd have been able to do with JPEG.

Shooting RAW does require that you have some tools to allow you to post process the RAW files. Canon includes Digital Photo Professional (free) and it does it. It's a good editor but the workflow is a bit slower because it's meant to edit images one-at-a-time. There are commercial applications that make the workflow faster because you can move from image to image very rapidly and many types of adjustments that you would make to one image would also be made to all the rest of the images shot in that same location & lighting... so they make it easy to sync changes across images (you get to control which types of adjustments are sync'd.)

Re: Custom White Balance kinda sucks

BurnUnit — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 16:27:14 GMT

I'm still unclear if the OP is trying to set W/B for still photos or video... ??

Re: Custom White Balance kinda sucks

diverhank — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 16:45:14 GMT

@BurnUnit wrote:
I'm still unclear if the OP is trying to set W/B for still photos or video... ??

I think he mentioned video in his response to my post.

Re: Custom White Balance kinda sucks

Stonius — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 23:14:32 GMT

Yes, it's for video, guys.

Thanks for the input - there were a few ideas to make it easier I hadn't thought of.

In reply to Waddizzle - I did some tests to evaluate whether the *entire screen needed to be white, or just the central portion. I did the tests to see if I could place a colour chart on the edge without changing the white balance, or even label the individual white balance shots so I know what they are (as in 'daylight', 'tungsten', 'light of unknown color temp') and then maybe use that as a way of figuring out which gels are required in order to balance a scene. Anyhow, I digress...

I had a bounceboard and a blue sheet. First image just bounceboard. Second image, I lay the blue sheet across the bounceboard such that it took up the left third of the frame. Final image, the entire frame was filled with the blue sheet.

I only did it once, but there was a shift in colour temperature in the one-third blue shot. Now you're telling me the opposite maybe I should go back and repeat it a few times to make sure it wasn't just experimental error.

Still, I think the original hypothesis that it's waaay more complicated than it needs to be is valid.

Thanks

Markus

Re: Custom White Balance kinda sucks

TCampbell — Wed, 08 Nov 2017 00:26:38 GMT

The gray-card doesn’t need to fill the entire frame... the camera really just centers the central area of the frame. If it occupies roughly 1/3rd of the area then it’s probably enough. I deliberately throw the lens out of focus whenever I’ve done this so that any localized tonal variations would get blended out to an average value.

Re: Custom White Balance kinda sucks

Stonius — Wed, 08 Nov 2017 00:40:43 GMT

Hmm okay. I'm going to revisit this test and post my humble apologies when I find out that I was wrong all along. I mean, sorry, start a flame war! What was I thinking, where are my interenet manners?. 🙂

Re: Custom White Balance kinda sucks

BurnUnit — Wed, 08 Nov 2017 03:28:57 GMT

@Stonius wrote:
Hmm okay. I'm going to revisit this test and post my humble apologies when I find out that I was wrong all along. I mean, sorry, start a flame war! What was I thinking, where are my interenet manners?. 🙂

Don't worry about that too much. I just think there may have been some confusion about what you're final goal was. The responses in this thread are going to be from people that shoot only or mostly still photos. W/B is pretty easy to fix if you shoot in RAW.

If you're shooting video that might give you a whole different set of challenges. Are you shooting under really controlled lighting conditions?

Re: Custom White Balance kinda sucks

Stonius — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 07:33:59 GMT

Okey doke, yes it was experimental error. Testing it again reveals that it is a tiny area in the middle of the sensor that is the sample area for the white balance calculation.

I'll attempt to attach an image that shows the white balance skew with the accompanying images that were used for the white balance in that particular piece of video. The white piece of paper changes only a tiny increment across the field of view, but you can see the difference is dramatic. The middle shot has some colouration so obviously it straddles the boundary of the white balance sample. Not sure if it is affected by metering modes (spot or whatnot) or any other factors, but so far it seems either humble apologies or a good old flame war is in order. 🙂

Cheers & thanks

Markus

Re: Custom White Balance kinda sucks

Waddizzle — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 10:07:34 GMT

@Stonius wrote:
Okey doke, yes it was experimental error. Testing it again reveals that it is a tiny area in the middle of the sensor that is the sample area for the white balance calculation.

I'll attempt to attach an image that shows the white balance skew with the accompanying images that were used for the white balance in that particular piece of video. The white piece of paper changes only a tiny increment across the field of view, but you can see the difference is dramatic. The middle shot has some colouration so obviously it straddles the boundary of the white balance sample. Not sure if it is affected by metering modes (spot or whatnot) or any other factors, but so far it seems either humble apologies or a good old flame war is in order. 🙂

Cheers & thanks

Markus

What are we looking at? I see three near identical looking photos, which appear to have different WB settings. And?

Re: Custom White Balance kinda sucks

Stonius — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 10:42:51 GMT

There are three captures from video of a person that happens to be me on the bottom row.

Directly above each of them, are three subtly different photos that show the image that was selected for custom white balance and used in the image below. The subtle difference lies in the fact that the white piece of paper moves incrementally to the left. Once too much of the green backdrop hits the central part of the sensor, the white balance in the resulting image yields a magenta cast.

The point is to get a feel for how much of the image is used to determine white balance. So, for instance, you could have an 18% grey card in the middle that doesn't take up the entire frame and if you need to put a colour chart or slate in there to label them, you can without affecting white balance.

The reason I'm so concerned about this is I want to create a library that illustrates the effects of a whole bunch of different gels on skin tone, so I need to know that my white is bang on since the whole point of it is the colour.

Best,

Markus

Re: Custom White Balance kinda sucks

Waddizzle — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 10:49:32 GMT

Learn how to take an accurate sample of a grey card.

Like I said, the coverage does not need to fill the image. But, the sample shot does need to fill the center area of the image, where the exposure system samples the scene, which none of your sample shots do.

What you are doing reminds me of an anecdote.

[Athlete]: “Coach, when I hold my arm like this, my arm hurts.” (Actor holds arm above head,touching opposite ear.)

[Coach}: “Well, do not hold your arm like that, because it hurts you.”

Re: Custom White Balance kinda sucks

Stonius — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 11:07:01 GMT

@Waddizzle wrote:
Learn how to take an accurate sample of a grey card.

Thanks, but I don't have an A2 size grey card in my kit. I imagine you don't either. I find it harder to detect tonal shifts in greys than white, so I went with white. It worked, hey.

@Waddizzle wrote:

Like I said, the coverage does not need to fill the image. But, the sample shot does need to fill the center area of the image, where the exposure system samples the scene, which none of your sample shots do.

Yes, but the question for me was *how much of the centre frame needs to be filled. I don't think you understand what I'm trying to do here. The white piece of paper *does in fact cross the center of the sampled area - *that's why the resultant white balances are different!

@Waddizzle wrote:

What you are doing reminds me of an anecdote.

[Athlete]: “Coach, when I hold my arm like this, my arm hurts.” (Actor holds arm above head,touching opposite ear.)

[Coach}: “Well, do not hold your arm like that, because it hurts you.”

Maybe you want to make sure you know what's actually being attempted before you post condescending comments? Even better, maybe just don't post condescending comments at all. It reflects poorly on you.

Re: Custom White Balance kinda sucks

Waddizzle — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 11:47:09 GMT

I am not trying to insult you. I'm just being honest. Sorry, if you do not like it.

Your testing is bad science. You are trying to see if you can fool it, and you succeeded. Congratulations.

You have been told to use the center area of the image, where the AF point and the exposure system analyze the image. What do you do? You seemed to have done the exact opposite, in attempt to fool the camera. Again, congratulations.

Re: Custom White Balance kinda sucks

Waddizzle — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 12:03:43 GMT

@Stonius wrote:

Maybe you want to make sure you know what's actually being attempted before you post condescending comments? Even better, maybe just don't post condescending comments at all. It reflects poorly on you.

"What are we looking at? I see three near identical looking photos, which appear to have different WB settings. And?"

Excuse, you. But, I asked you what was being attempted, and you replied that you were testing the guidelines that you were given, regarding using the center AF point area of the image. It worked! You fooled it. Congratulations.

BTW, I do have a grey card. You lose the bet.

Re: Custom White Balance kinda sucks

Stonius — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 13:14:20 GMT

@Waddizzle wrote:
I am not trying to insult you. I'm just being honest. Sorry, if you do not like it.

Your testing is bad science. You are trying to see if you can fool it, and you succeeded. Congratulations.

You have been told to use the center area of the image, where the AF point and the exposure system analyze the image. What do you do? You seemed to have done the exact opposite, in attempt to fool the camera. Again, congratulations.

Might not look pretty, but it did what I set out to achieve.

I had a hypothesis, I tested it, I provided the experimental evidence to prove my claim. That's pretty much how science works.

Again, I don't think you understand the point of the exercise; it was to determine the approximate size of the sampled area so I can put other things in the shot without affecting the white balance. 'Fooling it' was kind of the point here. Three perfectly white balanced shots would tell me exactly nothing. I'm sorry you missed that, and that I had the temerity to actually experiment rather than just taking you at your word, but replication of results is also how science works, and you're just some dude on the internet who misunderstands the scientific method.

Look, there are a lot of places to get information on the internet. I'm not interested in a pissing contest with an 'Honoured Contributor' with comprehension issues. I'll leave you to your digital fifedom. With 5,377 posts in two years, you've earned it, though probably not much money in all that time you've spent on here (you don't mind me saying that, do you? I'm just 'being honest').

PS, I specified that you don't have an *A2* sized grey card (so you can fill the frame at a distance). You really expect me to believe you have a grey card that is more than half a meter on the long side? You should really get those reading and comprehension skills checked out, you know.

Bye, Troll