White balance tips

Only one person here has mentioned Lightroom. If you're not an uber-Photoshop user, Lightroom is the perfect alternative. You can still do batch processing of white balance, exposure, or any other component of the photos. I agree with what beerguy said with respect to one thing - get as much right as possible, in camera, but don't obsess over white balance, because it is one of those things that is very easy to change with software. Just my two pennies worth... thanks for listening. :)
 
Wait your going to pay over $200 for a couple of filters you have to screw on and off before each shot, which in the end will have less realistic results than a couple of clicks of a mouse anyway?

I'm totally confused.

"Photographers... now seem content to leave their digital cameras in a white balance mode that is at best a crap shoot and at worst completely inaccurate... Thankfully, a company called ExpoImaging is working very hard to make the process of getting a custom white balance so easy that it would be criminal to avoid the process."

Yes well...its the late 2000's. Technology is to the point that we can be perfectly content. For the guys stuck in the 90's...try this product. Wait. Editing software was up to speed by the 90's. For the guys stuck in the 80's...try this product.
 
Last edited:
mikeintosh- One thing that has not been mentioned yet, that can have a DRAMATIC effect on your images is that most aquarium lighting "flickers" whether it is halide or Fluorescent. This flicker can ruin white balance for one image, or all of them... Have you ever taken a series of pictures in a high school gym? Ever get that one image that is just way off in color? Same thing can happen at your aquarium.

I think it is great that you are trying to minimize computer time, to increase shooting time, but at some point it becomes counter productive. I use both Lightroom and CS4 to process my Wedding images, and I would never be able to set a perfect WB for the ever changing conditions that I am presented with.

Please don't develop an aversion for post processing, it is a tool, and it is there to help you. ;)
 
Buying an Expodisc was much cheaper than buying Photoshop CS4 to automate converting several thousand RAW images to the same white balance setting (I can't find a way to do this in Elements). You can achieve a similar result by pointing your camera at something white with your light pointed at it if you don't want to waste 100 bucks.

Using Expodisc gives me a accurate picture with zero post production and very little hassle. I don't use it for stills for the exact same reason, because I can make my images look much better by doing the post production.

I would love to be able to do the RAW conversion for the whole time lapse sequence manually as it would result in a better video.

-Tre
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14275660#post14275660 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh
I would much rather spend more time composing and color adjusting behind the camera ONCE so all my shots in that session come out fine...
You do realize that screwing on that filter, or setting up white balance with any other method are only effective if the conditions in the shots are identical right? ONCE you figure out what to set in camera, you must redo everything from scratch every time the conditions change.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14278217#post14278217 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh
Re: batch processing, it really is only effective if the conditions in the shots are identical.
Very simply, you are asking how to batch process before the photos are recorded. I hope your shooting a brick wall, because anything will legs will be gone by the time you figure out what your doing and are ready to take a picture.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14275660#post14275660 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh
TWallace: I may have to try your RAW trick. I've been trying to avoid shooting RAW because of file size, but I may have to give this one a try. Thanks.
You realize RAW is what we are referring to when we say Photoshop right? He tricked you. =) Its very funny because a RAW image MUST be edited and converted to a JPEG before the image is usable. So much for your editing time.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14278217#post14278217 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh
If you ask any Professional Photographer (who's job is not image manipulation), they would tell you, as well, they would rather spend much less time on Photoshop and more time shooting.
I bet your average professional photographer spends at least double the time in Photoshop than they do shooting. Take a Wedding photographer, unless they are specifically going for speed, I bet they spend 10 times the amount in Photoshop than they did at the wedding. If the wedding photographer is going for speed, the images are likely being downloaded remotely to a van in the parking lot where multiple editors are busy like elves in Santa's workshop.
 
Last edited:
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14279056#post14279056 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh
With respect to Photoshop, I am in total agreement that it is an invaluable tool in photography. Unfortunately, most people jump in to post-production before they've even understood the basics. Even Ansel Adams learned to be well-versed behind the lens before composing in the dark room.

I don't think you get it. What your wanting to do is dark room work. It is post production work. This has nothing to do with understanding the basics. Perfect colors are well beyond the basics.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14279056#post14279056 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh

And, sorry, I forgot to include my comment that when white balancing, conditions change on different shoots; so batching wouldn't necessarily apply.
HELLO?! Of course they change. Five seconds of mouse clicks is time better spent than 2-5 minutes of adjustments every time this change occurs. Heck if you came shooting with with me tomorrow you'd never take a picture. The light changes faster than you could figure out what setting to use. I can't even change my exposure fast enough.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14279056#post14279056 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mikeintosh

I am really surprised to hear so little support for understanding how to shoot great photographs BEFORE jumping into Photoshop. Back in the dark room days, I would never advise someone (who's learning) to practice in the dark room before being able to understand how to take good shots, much less know how to use their camera. Photoshop is more of an abused tool nowadays.
You have your priorities sooo mixed up. I find it hard to believe you use Photoshop for a living as a graphic artist and can't grasp this.
Back in the dark room days you would never advise someone to practice in the dark room before being able to understand how to take good shots, much less know how to use a camera?
Sir, if you don't understand exposure, metering, composition, and all of the other bare bones basics which aren't even related to white balance, why are you so worried about color correction? White Balace may not be difficult, but it isn't basics.

People didn't piddle around dark rooms for many reasons.
A. Dangerous chemicals take married with children out of the equation.
B. You have to fully and completely dedicate a room in your house for this purpose.
C. Aside from the fact of loosing a room in your house, dark rooms are very expensive.
D. The knowledge required to edit film color photographs in a dark room is scary.

Photoshop, compared to a dark room, is VERY easy, VERY inexpensive, and it consumes VERY little time.

Now that I have told you why nobody but the most dedicated had their own color-capable dark room (black and white dark rooms don't count in this white balance thread.) I want you to look at some color pictures taken in the 60's, 70's, or early 80's. I bet they have a reddish cast to them hu? You see to correct for white balance in film, the film itself has to be tailored to the white your balancing to. Most film has a reddish cast because of the typical bluish lighting. Now those who had a dark room could correct for these discrepancies on their own, those who did not got lots of orange pictures from the lab.

As you can see, "Back in the dark room days, I would never advise someone (who's learning) to practice in the dark room before being able to understand how to take good shots" is a sill thing to say.

"In the Photoshop era, I would advise someone (who's learning) to practice after each shoot before being able to understand how to take good shots" makes a lot more sense.
 
Last edited:
Man, you guys are some angry cats...

The original question asked for help pre-production. Didn't think it would strike a nerve with a couple of you.

Much thanks anyways to the rest of you guys.
 
What I am getting at is you are a self proclaimed post-production pro. Your are literally a professional by trade and definition. Why are you so determined to solve a post-production issue with pre-production? Especially after knowing it will cost more money and take more time for results which won't come out as accurate by comparison, it just doesn't make any sense at all.
 
i skimmed through this thread so ill offer my opinion.. i shoot raw mostly, but still try to get the WB as accurate as possible so i dont spend as much time in PP. To answer your question about the "coffee filter" trick, you simply place a clean white coffee filter over the end of your lens and take a picture of a bright part of your tank. use that picture to set a custom WB. ive tried it once and was pretty impressed how well it worked. Good luck!
 

Similar threads

Back
Top