Demo: WhiBal. Are you using one?

and · 10-08-2007, 10:17 AM

Got my WhiBal in the mail today, after reading up on white balance, exposure and lighting I was convinced that this was a no brainer tool to pickup and use when you want to get the colors right without having to rely on your subjective eyes and the calibration of your monitor.

Its small (I got the pocket version), light and durable. Goes easilly in the camera bag.

What I find interesting is that its one of those things you dont really realize is wrong. I think my k10d does a decent job of Auto WB most of the time, but actually its usually a bit off, but just a bit and thats when you dont really notice.

I grabbed a quick and dirty test shot of my coffe table to try this out, camera was set to Auto WB, I see the exposure was a bit over, but thats not so relevant for this test.

Note that normally you would take a seperate shot of the WhiBal card and then set the wb for all your shots from that shot. (the ones taken in the same light). There are videos on the whibal website that show the workflow in detail, see video 3 of their online video tutorial. WhiBal White Balance Gray Card Video Tutorial by Michael Tapes

Anyone else use a WhiBal or other wb cards? I know there are cheaper cards out there, but I really liked the way WhiBal was done and it appears with solid product support and seems a very complete and well thought out package.

Original

Greypoint Set

kpfeifle · 10-08-2007, 11:43 AM

I have the exact same WhiBal card as you do. Could not live without it. It is a great product and very useful for getting accurate color in PP.

and · 10-09-2007, 03:05 AM

Well I am glad someone else reads this subforum :P

I sendt those two test pictures to a friend of mine and he ordered one online 3 minutes later

I looked at the expo disc too but its expensive, it looks like it can break and it seemed cumbersome to use.

**Eaglerapids** · 10-09-2007, 10:14 PM

Thank you and, there goes another $30, lol.
Actually the white balance has been driving me crazy. I took some pics the other day in cloudy conditions with auto white balance in the camera, shooting raw. In Lightroom, choosing auto or cloudy or daylight or shady all looked different of course but which one was the best or actually real?
After a while I couldn't tell, this looks like exactly the thing I need. It should be just the ticket used with my homemade lightbox also. I think this means we don't have to set a custom white balance shooting raw? Awesome. I need to check out their forums now for more tips.
Thanks again for the link

.
PS: We need a "thumbs up" smilie.

and · 10-09-2007, 10:54 PM

Glad this was usefull to someone

If you are shooting raw, then the wb on your camera doesnt matter, thats correct, you dont have to use custom wb. In fact you can set the wb completely wrong and the shot comes out with crazy colors, then just click to set the graypoint and you are all set. They did this in one of the WhiBal videos to demonstrate.

Also note that as a tool, this can be used wrongly. If you take the whibal shot in different lighting than your subject then it wont be correct. Also if you have very mixed ligting (in terms of color temperature) then of course you cant really get everything correct, but that is true no matter what kind of tool or technique you use.

I feel the same as you, I soemtimes try the different wb settings in ACR but which one is the right one? I dont really know... thats why I want something like this so I dont really have to think about it, just click on the card and I know its correct.

ve2vfd · 10-10-2007, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Eaglerapids

Thank you and, there goes another $30, lol.
Actually the white balance has been driving me crazy.

Yup same here! Here goes $30

I just don't have an eye for white balance so this is surely going to help.

Pat

breischl · 10-12-2007, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by and

If you are shooting raw, then the wb on your camera doesnt matter

I just read an interested thread in which the conclusion was that it actually does matter, even though it shouldn't.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-pentax-photography/12832-infrared...rence-raw.html

They're specifically talking about infrared, which is an edge case. But it seems like it's maybe a problem all the time, just not as much.

and · 10-12-2007, 11:09 PM

That is indeed an edge case, for which the whibal is not designed

Papou · 10-13-2007, 02:30 AM

G'day and

, mate just a short query about that card...You just use it for your White balance or can it be used as a grey card for exposure as well??...
So far ive just been using a sheet of A4 paper to set my white balance and have been sussing out the variuose "Grey cards " for exposure due to having read so much about the need for the grey card..
Have also been advised in the past that the palm of the hand can be used to set exposure akin to the grey card?? anyone agree with this??...
Hope you dont mind my jumping in on your thread rather than starting a new one

....
Cheers

and · 10-13-2007, 02:51 AM

I dont mind at all. I have heard about the palm method, and I beleive its a given that its not a 100% scientifically correct method, but rather a handy replacement for a greycard if you dont have one with you, which seemingly will work well in several conditions. I guess the most important one being outdoors where the sun is lighting everything the same way. People have different skin colors and different skintones (varying degrees of tan for instance) so its not a very scientiffic reference.

As for exposure with the whibal, I just tested it briefly, the pocket version I have being a bit small for this use, and I didnt find the results to be all that great.

Now, if you watch the videos, it is being stressed that WhiBal is a white balance reference card, not a greycard. Some greycards are designed for exposure, some are not.

Im not an expert, but I will tell you what I think. A grey card made for exposure needs to be 18% grey, or middle grey (mid tone) because that is what the spot meter gives you the reading for, middle tone.

A white balance card, does not have to be 18% grey, it just has to be neutral (R G and B all having the same value) so a card that is 100,100,100, is not middle grey and will not give the correct exposure with a spot meter, but it is neutral and will be correct when used to set white balance.

The WhiBal was not made to be middle grey, it was made to be light grey, because the image sensors capture more data in the light tones of the image than the dark ones, so having it light means you will get more data on it, but they didnt make it close to white, altho that would also have worked for white balance, because if it was white, then it might clip if you overexpose a bit.

So, as for the WhiBal, no its not advisable to use it for exposure, because it is not middle grey.

J.Scott · 10-13-2007, 03:38 AM

Originally posted by ve2vfd

Yup same here! Here goes $30

I just don't have an eye for white balance so this is surely going to help.

Pat

I bought one too! A very convincing demonstration indeed. I always seem to wrestle with proper WB, this will surely relieve some of my PP anxiety.

I don't have a hard time justifying the $34.95; that equates to a couple rolls of film, which I don't seem to buy much of anymore.

Mike Cash · 10-13-2007, 04:43 AM

I'm a proponent of the white coffee filter solution I learned about right here on Pentax Forums.

I was down at a trailer drop lot in Tokyo the other day and the extremely harsh yellow cast of the sodium lamps was overwhelming. I decided it would be a perfect opportunity to compare AWB and custom white balance set through the coffee filter.

Here is a composite image of the result:

Please note that it has been a while since I washed my truck, so the dingy off-white nature of the white section is actually very accurate.

Cost? Practically nothing if one just holds the filter in place. I sandwich a section of filter between a step-up ring and a clear lens-guard filter, so I probably have about 8 bucks tied up in it.

J.Scott · 10-13-2007, 05:51 AM

I wouldn't expect anything less from our resident 'MacGyver'.

If it works for you - that's great, Mike.

I can't argue that the picture on the right is vastly improved.
(However, I have a couple different brands of coffee filters in my house and they are all different shades of grey/white.)

The WhiBal card may be pricey (by coffee filter standards) but it seems like a quick, simple and consistent solution to my perpetual white balance issue in this digital age.

**jfdavis58** · 10-13-2007, 07:41 AM

Well, one for two ain't bad.

You're right about the white balance: the target must be neutral (or very nearly so). The ExpoDisk isn't, but it's very close and they run a photo spectrometer on each one to get the amount it's off. Mine has density of .75; WB red=0.0, green=0.03, blue=0.03 measured to NBS standards. I've had a WhiBal card set for about three years; had to take the manufacturers word on it's calibration. Also got a Robin Myers Imaging Digital Gray card. Again, not an exposure reference--they tell you so, but something the maker claims to have a 'flat spectral response", i.e. neutral. I even have a set or warm-balance cards from digital video work--you can print a set for yourself that's modestly accurate if you color manage both monitor and printer and are fairly adept at using google to find the web site.

WB does seem to matter regarding the RAW vs JPEG debate--it's not a fringe issue, nor is it known why or how much it effects the outcome; photographers lack the patience and equipment to make an accurate determination. There is some variance camera to camera or I'd tell you mine. Suffice it to say, one should ALWAYS perform a WB step in ones workflow in-camera.

You're wrong, or more precisely "you're perpetuating the myth of the Gray Card" along with Papou.

Interestingly, Kodak GrayCards have their 'typical spectral response" listed on their instruction sheet. And they are remarkably neutral! (Draw your own conclusions.) They have flaws: they fade and shift with time as they are manufactured on cardboard with normal printer's inks. They are NOT a standard shade of gray, they are NOT a standard target! THEY ARE A REFERENCE TARGET: something, unlike skin for example, that doesn't change much over either a short period of time or a long period of time. They ARE NOT consistently 18% or middle gray, nor do they need to be. They don't relate directly to the cameras calibration, which incidentally might not actually be 18%/middle gray either!

You set exposure off a gray card 'directly' at your own peril! More appropriately, you set exposure of any handy reference target by knowing how much to correct from the meter reading to make the reference look normal. THIS REQUIRES CAREFUL EXPERIMENTATION AND NOTE KEEPING AS IT VARIES FROM CAMERA TO CAMERA AND LENS TO LENS. {I will not apologize for shouting! This is important material! Ignore it at your own risk! Continue the myth, NOT!}

WB doesn't actually require a special target as the coffee filter set has demonstrated--it helps for those seeking technical 'perfection'. It's also not an 'end' in it's own right as far as color correction is concerned; you need a ColorChecker type device, more software and response curves and profiles to take that step. Over my digital career, I've used T-shirts, white walls, gray walls-anything that I was sure I could easily match on both the LCD and remember accurately once I returned to the computer.

Proper exposure doesn't require a gray card; you must however know how your meter reads and how your camera shoots and that does require careful experimentation at least once. Any handy reference target will do: your hand (palm-it doesn't change much or fast re color/reflectivity) the jeans you wear, the side of your camera bag. Or you could learn the zone system scale and have a whole list of reference targets and target tonal values-that will require some real effort; is the digital shooter up to this task?

Originally posted by and

I dont mind at all. I have heard about the palm method, and I beleive its a given that its not a 100% scientifically correct method, but rather a handy replacement for a greycard if you dont have one with you, which seemingly will work well in several conditions. I guess the most important one being outdoors where the sun is lighting everything the same way. People have different skin colors and different skintones (varying degrees of tan for instance) so its not a very scientiffic reference.

As for exposure with the whibal, I just tested it briefly, the pocket version I have being a bit small for this use, and I didnt find the results to be all that great.

Now, if you watch the videos, it is being stressed that WhiBal is a white balance reference card, not a greycard. Some greycards are designed for exposure, some are not.

Im not an expert, but I will tell you what I think. A grey card made for exposure needs to be 18% grey, or middle grey (mid tone) because that is what the spot meter gives you the reading for, middle tone.

A white balance card, does not have to be 18% grey, it just has to be neutral (R G and B all having the same value) so a card that is 100,100,100, is not middle grey and will not give the correct exposure with a spot meter, but it is neutral and will be correct when used to set white balance.

The WhiBal was not made to be middle grey, it was made to be light grey, because the image sensors capture more data in the light tones of the image than the dark ones, so having it light means you will get more data on it, but they didnt make it close to white, altho that would also have worked for white balance, because if it was white, then it might clip if you overexpose a bit.

So, as for the WhiBal, no its not advisable to use it for exposure, because it is not middle grey.

and · 10-13-2007, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by jfdavis58

You're wrong, or more precisely "you're perpetuating the myth of the Gray Card" along with Papou.

They are NOT a standard shade of gray, they are NOT a standard target! THEY ARE A REFERENCE TARGET: something, unlike skin for example, that doesn't change much over either a short period of time or a long period of time. They ARE NOT consistently 18% or middle gray, nor do they need to be. They don't relate directly to the cameras calibration, which incidentally might not actually be 18%/middle gray either!

You set exposure off a gray card 'directly' at your own peril! More appropriately, you set exposure of any handy reference target by knowing how much to correct from the meter reading to make the reference look normal. THIS REQUIRES CAREFUL EXPERIMENTATION AND NOTE KEEPING AS IT VARIES FROM CAMERA TO CAMERA AND LENS TO LENS. {I will not apologize for shouting! This is important material! Ignore it at your own risk! Continue the myth, NOT!}

Well its interesting to have a discussion around this topic, I am very interested in this topic these days and I very much welcome others with input. Now, I was a bit confused about your post, but if I understand you correctly, you agree on what has been said about wb references for setting wb, but you disagree about the use of greycards for exposure?

Exposure is not really the topic of this thread but its a topic I am interested in so I dont mind discussing it. But I dont really see your conclusion. You are saying that if someone sets the exposure straight off the greycard then they are not very clever, but if they set the exposure of the greycard and then correct it, then they are doing the appropriate thing. Altho if the greycard is correct then there is no reason to correct it?

afaik, the meter will give you the correct exposure for an object that is middle grey. now if what you are metering is not middle grey, say a white cloud, then you need to use your brain to put in a compensation for that. Another thing is that because its a reflective metering, the meter does not know how reflective the object is and highly reflective objects will again give the wrong reading. Now you are saying if you have a reference that you know of, then you can use that. Nothing against this reference being a greycard then. But what you are saying is that you should not assume that a greycard is correct.

Cameras do differ a bit, I guess partly due to the fact that their iso values are not consistent, some have actual iso values different from what you set, ie iso 100 is not really iso 100. lenses should not differ unless they are broken? some lenses have a bit faulty aperture levers that will give you actual aperture slightly different than what you have.

I must admit I have been entertaining the thought of getting a lightmeter....

10-08-2007, 10:17 AM	#1
and Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,476	Demo: WhiBal. Are you using one? Got my WhiBal in the mail today, after reading up on white balance, exposure and lighting I was convinced that this was a no brainer tool to pickup and use when you want to get the colors right without having to rely on your subjective eyes and the calibration of your monitor. Its small (I got the pocket version), light and durable. Goes easilly in the camera bag. What I find interesting is that its one of those things you dont really realize is wrong. I think my k10d does a decent job of Auto WB most of the time, but actually its usually a bit off, but just a bit and thats when you dont really notice. I grabbed a quick and dirty test shot of my coffe table to try this out, camera was set to Auto WB, I see the exposure was a bit over, but thats not so relevant for this test. Note that normally you would take a seperate shot of the WhiBal card and then set the wb for all your shots from that shot. (the ones taken in the same light). There are videos on the whibal website that show the workflow in detail, see video 3 of their online video tutorial. WhiBal White Balance Gray Card Video Tutorial by Michael Tapes Anyone else use a WhiBal or other wb cards? I know there are cheaper cards out there, but I really liked the way WhiBal was done and it appears with solid product support and seems a very complete and well thought out package. Original Greypoint Set

10-09-2007, 10:14 PM	#4
Eaglerapids Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Idaho,USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,619	Thank you and, there goes another $30, lol. Actually the white balance has been driving me crazy. I took some pics the other day in cloudy conditions with auto white balance in the camera, shooting raw. In Lightroom, choosing auto or cloudy or daylight or shady all looked different of course but which one was the best or actually real? After a while I couldn't tell, this looks like exactly the thing I need. It should be just the ticket used with my homemade lightbox also. I think this means we don't have to set a custom white balance shooting raw? Awesome. I need to check out their forums now for more tips. Thanks again for the link. PS: We need a "thumbs up" smilie.

10-13-2007, 02:30 AM	#9
Papou Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Queensland Photos: Gallery Posts: 124	G'day and, mate just a short query about that card...You just use it for your White balance or can it be used as a grey card for exposure as well??... So far ive just been using a sheet of A4 paper to set my white balance and have been sussing out the variuose "Grey cards " for exposure due to having read so much about the need for the grey card.. Have also been advised in the past that the palm of the hand can be used to set exposure akin to the grey card?? anyone agree with this??... Hope you dont mind my jumping in on your thread rather than starting a new one .... Cheers

10-13-2007, 02:51 AM	#10
and Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,476 Original Poster	I dont mind at all. I have heard about the palm method, and I beleive its a given that its not a 100% scientifically correct method, but rather a handy replacement for a greycard if you dont have one with you, which seemingly will work well in several conditions. I guess the most important one being outdoors where the sun is lighting everything the same way. People have different skin colors and different skintones (varying degrees of tan for instance) so its not a very scientiffic reference. As for exposure with the whibal, I just tested it briefly, the pocket version I have being a bit small for this use, and I didnt find the results to be all that great. Now, if you watch the videos, it is being stressed that WhiBal is a white balance reference card, not a greycard. Some greycards are designed for exposure, some are not. Im not an expert, but I will tell you what I think. A grey card made for exposure needs to be 18% grey, or middle grey (mid tone) because that is what the spot meter gives you the reading for, middle tone. A white balance card, does not have to be 18% grey, it just has to be neutral (R G and B all having the same value) so a card that is 100,100,100, is not middle grey and will not give the correct exposure with a spot meter, but it is neutral and will be correct when used to set white balance. The WhiBal was not made to be middle grey, it was made to be light grey, because the image sensors capture more data in the light tones of the image than the dark ones, so having it light means you will get more data on it, but they didnt make it close to white, altho that would also have worked for white balance, because if it was white, then it might clip if you overexpose a bit. So, as for the WhiBal, no its not advisable to use it for exposure, because it is not middle grey. Last edited by and; 10-13-2007 at 03:00 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Demo lens is OK to buy?	dreamnet	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	10-07-2009 04:53 PM
Official YouTube Demo Videos	nosnoop	Pentax News and Rumors	4	01-24-2008 08:01 AM
Demo Days - Houston	KFrog	Pentax News and Rumors	2	12-01-2007 09:12 PM
demo: ExpoAmigo vs WhiBal	and	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	1	11-06-2007 02:38 AM

10-08-2007, 11:43 AM	#2
kpfeifle Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Long Island, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 148	I have the exact same WhiBal card as you do. Could not live without it. It is a great product and very useful for getting accurate color in PP.

10-09-2007, 03:05 AM	#3
and Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,476 Original Poster	Well I am glad someone else reads this subforum :P I sendt those two test pictures to a friend of mine and he ordered one online 3 minutes later I looked at the expo disc too but its expensive, it looks like it can break and it seemed cumbersome to use.

10-09-2007, 10:54 PM	#5
and Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,476 Original Poster	Glad this was usefull to someone If you are shooting raw, then the wb on your camera doesnt matter, thats correct, you dont have to use custom wb. In fact you can set the wb completely wrong and the shot comes out with crazy colors, then just click to set the graypoint and you are all set. They did this in one of the WhiBal videos to demonstrate. Also note that as a tool, this can be used wrongly. If you take the whibal shot in different lighting than your subject then it wont be correct. Also if you have very mixed ligting (in terms of color temperature) then of course you cant really get everything correct, but that is true no matter what kind of tool or technique you use. I feel the same as you, I soemtimes try the different wb settings in ACR but which one is the right one? I dont really know... thats why I want something like this so I dont really have to think about it, just click on the card and I know its correct.

10-10-2007, 11:09 AM	#6
ve2vfd Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Montreal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,433	Originally posted by Eaglerapids Thank you and, there goes another $30, lol. Actually the white balance has been driving me crazy. Yup same here! Here goes $30 I just don't have an eye for white balance so this is surely going to help. Pat

10-12-2007, 01:43 PM	#7
breischl Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Denver Photos: Gallery Posts: 92	Originally posted by and If you are shooting raw, then the wb on your camera doesnt matter I just read an interested thread in which the conclusion was that it actually does matter, even though it shouldn't. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-pentax-photography/12832-infrared...rence-raw.html They're specifically talking about infrared, which is an edge case. But it seems like it's maybe a problem all the time, just not as much.

10-12-2007, 11:09 PM	#8
and Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,476 Original Poster	That is indeed an edge case, for which the whibal is not designed

10-13-2007, 03:38 AM	#11
J.Scott Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,675	Originally posted by ve2vfd Yup same here! Here goes $30 I just don't have an eye for white balance so this is surely going to help. Pat I bought one too! A very convincing demonstration indeed. I always seem to wrestle with proper WB, this will surely relieve some of my PP anxiety. I don't have a hard time justifying the $34.95; that equates to a couple rolls of film, which I don't seem to buy much of anymore.

10-13-2007, 04:43 AM	#12
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	I'm a proponent of the white coffee filter solution I learned about right here on Pentax Forums. I was down at a trailer drop lot in Tokyo the other day and the extremely harsh yellow cast of the sodium lamps was overwhelming. I decided it would be a perfect opportunity to compare AWB and custom white balance set through the coffee filter. Here is a composite image of the result: Please note that it has been a while since I washed my truck, so the dingy off-white nature of the white section is actually very accurate. Cost? Practically nothing if one just holds the filter in place. I sandwich a section of filter between a step-up ring and a clear lens-guard filter, so I probably have about 8 bucks tied up in it.

10-13-2007, 05:51 AM	#13
J.Scott Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,675	I wouldn't expect anything less from our resident 'MacGyver'. If it works for you - that's great, Mike. I can't argue that the picture on the right is vastly improved. (However, I have a couple different brands of coffee filters in my house and they are all different shades of grey/white.) The WhiBal card may be pricey (by coffee filter standards) but it seems like a quick, simple and consistent solution to my perpetual white balance issue in this digital age.

10-13-2007, 07:41 AM	#14
jfdavis58 Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 13 S 0357397-3884316 Photos: Gallery Posts: 887	Well, one for two ain't bad. You're right about the white balance: the target must be neutral (or very nearly so). The ExpoDisk isn't, but it's very close and they run a photo spectrometer on each one to get the amount it's off. Mine has density of .75; WB red=0.0, green=0.03, blue=0.03 measured to NBS standards. I've had a WhiBal card set for about three years; had to take the manufacturers word on it's calibration. Also got a Robin Myers Imaging Digital Gray card. Again, not an exposure reference--they tell you so, but something the maker claims to have a 'flat spectral response", i.e. neutral. I even have a set or warm-balance cards from digital video work--you can print a set for yourself that's modestly accurate if you color manage both monitor and printer and are fairly adept at using google to find the web site. WB does seem to matter regarding the RAW vs JPEG debate--it's not a fringe issue, nor is it known why or how much it effects the outcome; photographers lack the patience and equipment to make an accurate determination. There is some variance camera to camera or I'd tell you mine. Suffice it to say, one should ALWAYS perform a WB step in ones workflow in-camera. You're wrong, or more precisely "you're perpetuating the myth of the Gray Card" along with Papou. Interestingly, Kodak GrayCards have their 'typical spectral response" listed on their instruction sheet. And they are remarkably neutral! (Draw your own conclusions.) They have flaws: they fade and shift with time as they are manufactured on cardboard with normal printer's inks. They are NOT a standard shade of gray, they are NOT a standard target! THEY ARE A REFERENCE TARGET: something, unlike skin for example, that doesn't change much over either a short period of time or a long period of time. They ARE NOT consistently 18% or middle gray, nor do they need to be. They don't relate directly to the cameras calibration, which incidentally might not actually be 18%/middle gray either! You set exposure off a gray card 'directly' at your own peril! More appropriately, you set exposure of any handy *reference target* by knowing how much to correct from the meter reading to make the reference look normal. THIS REQUIRES CAREFUL EXPERIMENTATION AND NOTE KEEPING AS IT VARIES FROM CAMERA TO CAMERA AND LENS TO LENS. {I will not apologize for shouting! This is important material! Ignore it at your own risk! Continue the myth, NOT!} WB doesn't actually require a special target as the coffee filter set has demonstrated--it helps for those seeking technical 'perfection'. It's also not an 'end' in it's own right as far as color correction is concerned; you need a ColorChecker type device, more software and response curves and profiles to take that step. Over my digital career, I've used T-shirts, white walls, gray walls-anything that I was sure I could easily match on both the LCD and remember accurately once I returned to the computer. Proper exposure doesn't require a gray card; you must however know how your meter reads and how your camera shoots and that does require careful experimentation at least once. Any handy reference target will do: your hand (palm-it doesn't change much or fast re color/reflectivity) the jeans you wear, the side of your camera bag. Or you could learn the zone system scale and have a whole list of reference targets and target tonal values-that will require some real effort; is the digital shooter up to this task? Originally posted by and I dont mind at all. I have heard about the palm method, and I beleive its a given that its not a 100% scientifically correct method, but rather a handy replacement for a greycard if you dont have one with you, which seemingly will work well in several conditions. I guess the most important one being outdoors where the sun is lighting everything the same way. People have different skin colors and different skintones (varying degrees of tan for instance) so its not a very scientiffic reference. As for exposure with the whibal, I just tested it briefly, the pocket version I have being a bit small for this use, and I didnt find the results to be all that great. Now, if you watch the videos, it is being stressed that WhiBal is a white balance reference card, not a greycard. Some greycards are designed for exposure, some are not. Im not an expert, but I will tell you what I think. A grey card made for exposure needs to be 18% grey, or middle grey (mid tone) because that is what the spot meter gives you the reading for, middle tone. A white balance card, does not have to be 18% grey, it just has to be neutral (R G and B all having the same value) so a card that is 100,100,100, is not middle grey and will not give the correct exposure with a spot meter, but it is neutral and will be correct when used to set white balance. The WhiBal was not made to be middle grey, it was made to be light grey, because the image sensors capture more data in the light tones of the image than the dark ones, so having it light means you will get more data on it, but they didnt make it close to white, altho that would also have worked for white balance, because if it was white, then it might clip if you overexpose a bit. So, as for the WhiBal, no its not advisable to use it for exposure, because it is not middle grey.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-13-2007, 08:40 AM	#15
and Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,476 Original Poster	Originally posted by jfdavis58 You're wrong, or more precisely "you're perpetuating the myth of the Gray Card" along with Papou. They are NOT a standard shade of gray, they are NOT a standard target! THEY ARE A REFERENCE TARGET: something, unlike skin for example, that doesn't change much over either a short period of time or a long period of time. They ARE NOT consistently 18% or middle gray, nor do they need to be. They don't relate directly to the cameras calibration, which incidentally might not actually be 18%/middle gray either! You set exposure off a gray card 'directly' at your own peril! More appropriately, you set exposure of any handy *reference target* by knowing how much to correct from the meter reading to make the reference look normal. THIS REQUIRES CAREFUL EXPERIMENTATION AND NOTE KEEPING AS IT VARIES FROM CAMERA TO CAMERA AND LENS TO LENS. {I will not apologize for shouting! This is important material! Ignore it at your own risk! Continue the myth, NOT!} Well its interesting to have a discussion around this topic, I am very interested in this topic these days and I very much welcome others with input. Now, I was a bit confused about your post, but if I understand you correctly, you agree on what has been said about wb references for setting wb, but you disagree about the use of greycards for exposure? Exposure is not really the topic of this thread but its a topic I am interested in so I dont mind discussing it. But I dont really see your conclusion. You are saying that if someone sets the exposure straight off the greycard then they are not very clever, but if they set the exposure of the greycard and then correct it, then they are doing the appropriate thing. Altho if the greycard is correct then there is no reason to correct it? afaik, the meter will give you the correct exposure for an object that is middle grey. now if what you are metering is not middle grey, say a white cloud, then you need to use your brain to put in a compensation for that. Another thing is that because its a reflective metering, the meter does not know how reflective the object is and highly reflective objects will again give the wrong reading. Now you are saying if you have a reference that you know of, then you can use that. Nothing against this reference being a greycard then. But what you are saying is that you should not assume that a greycard is correct. Cameras do differ a bit, I guess partly due to the fact that their iso values are not consistent, some have actual iso values different from what you set, ie iso 100 is not really iso 100. lenses should not differ unless they are broken? some lenses have a bit faulty aperture levers that will give you actual aperture slightly different than what you have. I must admit I have been entertaining the thought of getting a lightmeter....