[Na Horuk]

The bottom is warmer, yeah. I prefer the top one for this type of photo. If you got a cheap gray card, then I assume its the bottom one (cards might have a bluish tint)

[Edgar_in_Indy]

The bottom is warmer, yeah. I prefer the top one for this type of photo. If you got a cheap gray card, then I assume its the bottom one (cards might have a bluish tint)

I'm not spilling the beans just yet, but here's the card I bought:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001KNP3MQ/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

It's $9, so I don't know if that is cheap or not, considering it is just a small square of plastic or some similar material. But it has good user reviews, for whatever that's worth.

After work tonight, I'll try to get one of my daughters to stand in as a model, to do a demonstration on skin tones...so if that effects people's guesses, one way or the other.

[TimesShadow]

I'm only guessing that it was used on the bottom because it's too warm for the type of photo. Since a human is able to think and adapt, I will say that the top is your preference because it's also mine. You are a better judge of WB than a card that is supposedly 18% gray and a software program's eye dropper.

I also guess that your next images will be harder to determine which used the card!

Thanks for this post by the way... Very cool

[Edgar_in_Indy]

Here's another pair of pictures. Didn't get a chance to have one of my daughters pose, so I grabbed one of their dolls.

Again, shot in RAW, developed in ACR, identical post-processing except for White Balance. Same order as first set; top doll pic matches WB of top soda pic, bottom pic matches bottom.

[pacerr]

An interesting demonstration that different components produce different results, but I'm not inclined to be overly concerned with which produced the "best" or most "valid" results. There's simply too many undocumented and uncontrolled variables involved.

Without an absolute, repeatable STANDARD of control for comparison there's no reason to believe an attempt to reproduce these same results next week/month/year would provide identical results.

My personal approach would be to make periodic comparisons using the various gear and procedures at hand at that time to determine which results I preferred at that time. I simply don't have the means, or the resolve, to freeze the variables in any meaningful manner.

I suspect the variations we have available today in digital post-processing used to produce desired results would cover most, if not all, of the differences over time.

I prefer your warmer results regardless of how produced but if challenged to do so I suspect I could find a 'gray card' (or other standard) that produced repeatable results using post-processing comparisons of standardized scenes to control the 'drift' of variables over time.

Incidentally, I took the same approach to 'standardizing' the options available in my light metering equipment using periodic comparisons by metering the mid-day north sky. Corrections were accommodated using the ASA dial as a controllable variable. A useful WB comparison has been made using the same translucent body cap on various bodies with test shots of a mono-color wall in nominal day light.

[Kerrowdown]

Another vote for the first can image being the grey carded... are we right?

[stevebrot]

An Xrite Colorchecker Passport is $99 US right now at B&H, but if you watch the deals section, it comes up pretty regularly. I think I paid $75 for mine a few years back. The software is included with the CCPP. You can also buy it bundled with several of the Xrite Colorimeters.

I would not dream of presenting my work to a client without using my Colorchecker. I use it and my light meter for every shoot. (Though I do have fall-back profiles for every one of my lenses in case I'm in a run-and-gun situation)

This is so true with the big implication that not all gray (grey?) cards are created equal. There is a wide variance in color mix between card brands, particularly the cheap ones. Not all are intended for white balance reference, though most work fine as reference for exposure metering. The venerable Kodak R-27 is a good compromise of price and utility:

KODAK: Gray Cards


Steve

[Kerrowdown]

The venerable Kodak R-27

Aye it was the Kodak card that I used to use too, these days I now use the colorchecker passport for this.

I'm not spilling the beans just yet, but here's the card I bought:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001KNP3MQ/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

It's $9, so I don't know if that is cheap or not, considering it is just a small square of plastic or some similar material. But it has good user reviews, for whatever that's worth.

After work tonight, I'll try to get one of my daughters to stand in as a model, to do a demonstration on skin tones...so if that effects people's guesses, one way or the other.

$9 is cheap, bought this 6 or 7 years ago Whi-Bal, lives in my vest pocket with my incident light meter. Caught the Black Friday Special at B&H for this last year X-Rite Color Checker , takes it up a notch. Very handy with DNG's from camera.

And unless my monitor is out of cal, it's the top image that was made with your grey card.