[FHPhotographer]

My idea was, rather than hunt around for the WB point in the RAW image, why not have it as a preset.

I created a CS4 "greycard" file using 192 for R/G/B, then used that file in Bridge as a baseline WB preset. I used it on an image, then compared it to the "non-grey" original. I see a difference, but it seems more a difference in contrast and saturation, but I don't know what, if anything, it signifies. Any thoughts?
First the original:

Now, the "greycard" version

[mithrandir]

I think you have merely changed the temperature of the shot. Your greycard is an after-the-fact treatment and has no connection to the color of the light at the time you took the photograph.

[Eruditass]

I don't really understand what you're doing - trying to use one WB for all pictures in different lights? Or have a starting point?

[FHPhotographer]

I think you have merely changed the temperature of the shot. Your greycard is an after-the-fact treatment and has no connection to the color of the light at the time you took the photograph.

If I open a PEF file, use the WB tool to select a representative point and click on it, it resets the white balance. The tint and the temperature change, but that's what happens in the camera if you change the WB setting. The light doesn't change, but the way the camera records it changes and that shows up on the LCD. Or am I getting this wrong?

My question was, could I create a neutral grey preset that could be applied to images taken under like conditions to get a consistent WB? The more I think about it, it seems redundant to the existing WB tools,
Brian

[mithrandir]

I think what would work best is to use a grey card at the beginning of a sequence of shots (in the same light). Use this to create a preset (WB) to be applied to all the shots in the sequence.

[ChooseAName]

I prefer the non grey card version. I like the deeper colors; the other one looks a bit washed out. Pardon if that's what you were shooting for.

[egordon99]

Are you saying you created a NEW image (JPG/TIFF/whatever) that is just a solid (192,192,192) color background, and then "eyedrop" THAT image to get a white balance for any random picture?

If so, this will absolutely do NOTHING to get an accurate white-balance for a specific picture taken in specific lighting.

What you need to do is take a PHOTOGRAPH of a grey-card in the SAME lighting as the rest of the shots for a particular scene/shoot/whatever. And then use the eyedropper on THAT image, and use that WB setting (temp/tint) for the remaining images taken under the SAME lighting.

As for the two pictures, I do NOT see any (major) white-balance difference between them; just a difference in saturation.

Or just find the neutral gray in the photo at hand.

[FHPhotographer]

Are you saying you created a NEW image (JPG/TIFF/whatever) that is just a solid (192,192,192) color background, and then "eyedrop" THAT image to get a white balance for any random picture?

If so, this will absolutely do NOTHING to get an accurate white-balance for a specific picture taken in specific lighting.

What you need to do is take a PHOTOGRAPH of a grey-card in the SAME lighting as the rest of the shots for a particular scene/shoot/whatever. And then use the eyedropper on THAT image, and use that WB setting (temp/tint) for the remaining images taken under the SAME lighting.

As for the two pictures, I do NOT see any (major) white-balance difference between them; just a difference in saturation.

That seems to be the consensus. Thanks everybody for the feedback,
Brian