Whibal

[aparmley]

Well, I got my Whibal - you know the over priced grey card that I bought . ;) I'm impressed and think its worth every penny. The reason I purchased it was I needed a product like this - Like what? I need something I can carry and not worry about getting [I]bent up or stained or anything like that, but something I will carry - the pocketsize Whibal is a great size for me. another reason I liked it was because of the online video manual. I thought that was a great idea. It really served its purpose by not only informing owners about their product but selling the Whibal as well. It sold me. They simply showed you how easy it is to work into your RAW workflow. I am just now really starting to do RAW seriously and this makes a world of difference for me. Setting a custom WB in JPEG mode was nothing hard to do - but this is a breeze compared to JPEG shooting. One thing I really like is knowing if you don't get your WB shot first, it doesn't matter. Sure, this is not exclusive to the Whilbal but I had never thought about it like that before. Another reason they got my business.

I have to throw up an image. . . Before/After - one click after I was done shooting - Thats a lot better than setting my camera to manual, check my EC, check my WB, check my ISO, grab my white sheet, take a shot, set custom white balance, change WB to custom - I never found that to be a hassle. But this is much nicer - oh ya the image - there ya go.

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/65228387-L.jpg

That is just a sample of the product and the results. After taking that "Whibal shot" as they coined it, I can take as many shots in that lighting as I want or better yet - I take all my shots in whatever lighting then after I know I have my shots, then I can do a "Whibal Shot" as long as the lighting didn't change I can get my Custom White point whenever. I dig that. Its not some big cumbersome disc or large floppy sheet either. . . I dig it.

What do you think of yours Toney?

[timmciglobal]

Which one did you buy? I plan to order one, just unsure of which I want.

Would be nice to be able to click a raw shot off for a WB and then just know what to dial in for the rest (IE: get an exact color temp of the hotselector for the card)

Tim

[timmciglobal]

Oh and mind trying to use the outside of the frame the white area in the pictures with the 3 girls at wedding it looks like to set white balance point in ACR?

I'd love to see the difference between the card vs that area (which seems to be the "whitest" area of your image.

Tim

[Bluedog]

What do you think of yours Toney?

I finally got mine on Monday but haven't had too much time to mess with other than a shot like yours but like you I like it. Makes shooting in RAW and setting WB a breeze.

tim _ sure you could use just anything white in the scene but not all shots have a white or gray subject to adjust from. I think Andy's image looks very accurate on my Monitor.

[cwphoto]

Looks good mate - welcome to the dark side, Padwan...

..now to work on Don,

...then Jamie,

...then Rhys...

...
...
...

Forget Rhys; too hard.:rolleyes:

[cdifoto]

Looks good mate - welcome to the dark side, Padwan...

..now to work on Don,

...then Jamie,

...then Rhys...

...
...
...

Forget Rhys; too hard.:rolleyes:

LMAO :eek: :D

[aparmley]

Oh and mind trying to use the outside of the frame the white area in the pictures with the 3 girls at wedding it looks like to set white balance point in ACR?

I'd love to see the difference between the card vs that area (which seems to be the "whitest" area of your image.

Tim

I see what your saying. . . I'll have a go give me a little bit. . .

[aparmley]

Forget Rhys; too hard.:rolleyes:

Well if we can find a way to store RAWs on AAs, hes in like sin!

[jamison55]

Well if we can find a way to store RAWs on AAs, hes in like sin!

Ha ha, as long as he can use his old Nikon MF lenses to take them!

[aparmley]

Seriously Rhys - All in good humor!

Tim - heres your comparison

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/65268356-L.jpg

As you can probably see - the two are very close - they measures within 50 degrees of eachother - But the point is - I won't always have a consistent white point to measure in each image. But I did the comparison because you asked! ;)

[aparmley]

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/65287575-L.jpg

here is a sample of outdoors conversions.

The XT does a great job with AWB outdoors.

Here the AWB gave me - 4900 temp | +20 tint
Here the WHIBal read - 4900 temp | +2 tint

Very close. . . you can see a magenta [look in his beard] I think was removed from the image and greens appear more true. so far so good. these were taken with flash too by the way in case you didn't see the subject line.

[Bluedog]

I really like this little $29.95 piece of plastic.

Canon EOS 30D Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM 1/20s f/4.5 at 22.0mm iso640 > handheld using Standard Picture Style

Auto Balance in Camera

http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/58923801.jpg

One click with White Balance Tool in RawShooter Premium

http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/58923713.jpg

[aparmley]

I really like this little $29.95 piece of plastic.

Canon EOS 30D Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM 1/20s f/4.5 at 22.0mm iso640 > handheld using Standard Picture Style

Auto Balance in Camera

http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/58923801.jpg

One click with White Balance Tool in RawShooter Premium

http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/58923713.jpg

nice blue!

It makes it a breeze.

[cdifoto]

Screwit I ordered one. Guesstimating is for the birds.

[aparmley]

Screwit I ordered one. Guesstimating is for the birds.

Toney - Send 'em back then?

:eek: ;) :D

[Bluedog]

after all is does include a handy dandy detachable lanyard, self supporting stand, nice pretty red pouch and some heavy duty zip lock bags _ one of those big enough for a sandwich. .... :p

[aparmley]

after all is does include a handy dandy detachable lanyard, self supporting stand, nice pretty red pouch and some heavy duty zip lock bags _ one of those big enough for a sandwich. .... :p

LOL - I have my CF cards in one of the small ziplock baggies, my blower bulb in the other small zip lock baggie, and my Camera manual and flash manual in the large zip lock baggie! LOL!

I don't have my whibal attached to the lanyard - it may be usefull when I'm doing more serious stuff - but for now I just slide the pocket size whibal in the "ID" badge compartment of my camera bag - it first perfectly! [its own little pouch!]

[Vich]

The aparmley shots of the indoor table were only 50 degrees apart yet the tinting is way different. Hmmm.

I shall admit to never resolving my long standing confusions regarding white balancing.

1. RSE has a "tint" that changes along with the Kelvin Temp when clicking on a reference point (presumably a white/grey card). That implies the two are married somehow. The Kelvin Temp is simple, its just a number like 6200K. However "tint" seems to be relative (+-). Is that relative to something on that photo, or is it relative to some universal median point? In other words, is zero always "whatever it is already on this photo" and +20 is 20 higher relative to what AWB decided on?

I've noticed that an unedited photo can have a + or - tint setting so that can't be true. double hmmmm.

2. What is "tint"? Near as I can guess, it is the "G" of the RGB bands, yellow vs. green. That seems like a lame guess.

3. If it does vary between different AWB shots, will it always be the same for any 6200K shot? If not; it would follow that you should always set your camera to CWB (or anything except AWB) to achieve a consistancy between the shots. True?

4. Do you know if it matters whether we use the grey card or white card in RSE?


Anyone else wondering along the same lines? Anyone wanna spell it out and tell us "why daddy?" (you know, just in case my 4 year old asks :D )

[cdifoto]

The aparmley shots of the indoor table were only 50 degrees apart yet the tinting is way different. Hmmm.

I shall admit to never resolving my long standing confusions regarding white balancing.

1. RSE has a "tint" that changes along with the Kelvin Temp when clicking on a reference point (presumably a white/grey card). That implies the two are married somehow. The Kelvin Temp is simple, its just a number like 6200K. However "tint" seems to be relative (+-). Is that relative to something on that photo, or is it relative to some universal median point? In other words, is zero always "whatever it is already on this photo" and +20 is 20 higher relative to what AWB decided on?

I've noticed that an unedited photo can have a + or - tint setting so that can't be true. double hmmmm.

2. What is "tint"? Near as I can guess, it is the "G" of the RGB bands, yellow vs. green. That seems like a lame guess.

3. If it does vary between different AWB shots, will it always be the same for any 6200K shot? If not; it would follow that you should always set your camera to CWB (or anything except AWB) to achieve a consistancy between the shots. True?

4. Do you know if it matters whether we use the grey card or white card in RSE?


Anyone else wondering along the same lines? Anyone wanna spell it out and tell us "why daddy?" (you know, just in case my 4 year old asks :D )


That stupid tint slider is why I went ahead and belched for the WhiBal. According to Andy's comparisons, it eliminates the tint guesswork. I can never get it quite exact.

[Vich]

That stupid tint slider is why I went ahead and belched for the WhiBal. According to Andy's comparisons, it eliminates the tint guesswork. I can never get it quite exact.Yeah, but read carefully on point #3. I've read several posts by regulars at POTN recommending using WB reference shots and changing to any WB setting except AWB to ensure consistancy. It sort of adds up in a vague way, so I'd really like to understand what tint is so I know for sure. Also; I'll be more inclined to follow a rule if I know its for real and not someone's guesswork.

I suppose devising a series of tests on this matter wouldn't be too difficult.

[aparmley]

The aparmley shots of the indoor table were only 50 degrees apart yet the tinting is way different. Hmmm.

I shall admit to never resolving my long standing confusions regarding white balancing.

1. RSE has a "tint" that changes along with the Kelvin Temp when clicking on a reference point (presumably a white/grey card). That implies the two are married somehow. The Kelvin Temp is simple, its just a number like 6200K. However "tint" seems to be relative (+-). Is that relative to something on that photo, or is it relative to some universal median point? In other words, is zero always "whatever it is already on this photo" and +20 is 20 higher relative to what AWB decided on?

I've noticed that an unedited photo can have a + or - tint setting so that can't be true. double hmmmm.

2. What is "tint"? Near as I can guess, it is the "G" of the RGB bands, yellow vs. green. That seems like a lame guess.

3. If it does vary between different AWB shots, will it always be the same for any 6200K shot? If not; it would follow that you should always set your camera to CWB (or anything except AWB) to achieve a consistancy between the shots. True?

4. Do you know if it matters whether we use the grey card or white card in RSE?


Anyone else wondering along the same lines? Anyone wanna spell it out and tell us "why daddy?" (you know, just in case my 4 year old asks :D )

From my experience the tint slider is as you put it "Married" to the temperature only in that it is tied to color of the available light the same way as temperature is. You see when you click on a white object in the scene both temp and tint are changed together - because both settings tie to the color of light illuminating the scene - I never touch tint after making a white balance setting - I've never had the need or desire to - tint is simply magenta on the right green on the left. Which ever setting it settles on after click my white balance setting - I believe the value to be the perfect fit given the temp setting and the color of light from the image. I see it more as a - if you want you can tweak it, but generally I never do. I can't offer you any more information than that.

That stupid tint slider is why I went ahead and belched for the WhiBal. According to Andy's comparisons, it eliminates the tint guesswork. I can never get it quite exact.

This is true!

Yeah, but read carefully on point #3. I've read several posts by regulars at POTN recommending using WB reference shots and changing to any WB setting except AWB to ensure consistancy. It sort of adds up in a vague way, so I'd really like to understand what tint is so I know for sure. Also; I'll be more inclined to follow a rule if I know its for real and not someone's guesswork.

I suppose devising a series of tests on this matter wouldn't be too difficult.

I'll see what I can do for us Vich as far as testing is concerned. . .

Meanwhile I have a few images on my laptop here shot in RAW. Lets take a look at what we find:

Here we have 10 images I'd do screen shots but I can't upload at work do to my firewall - it slips the packets up and smugmug doesn't like that!]. These 10 images were all shot in the same room, of the same general subject [cooper who else!] and there was only one light source.

Here are the AWB settings of the ten shots[temp | tint]:
------------------------------------------------------

3650 | +14 - [whibal shot]
3700 | +17
3650 | +11
3550 | +2
3650 | +12
3600 | +8
3650 | +12
3750 | +20
3750 | +21
3750 | +19


Ok again we have 10 different shots, under the same lighting. Only two settings were Identical - what can I tell you about those two shots? They weren't identical - shot from different angles - As were all ten shots. They all had the same light source - one lamp - but all shots were from different angles.

What happens when I use whibal to set custom WB?

Here are the WHIBAL WB settings of the ten shots[temp | tint]:
------------------------------------------------------

2650 | +5 - [whibal shot]
2650 | +5
2650 | +5
2650 | +5
2650 | +5
2650 | +5
2650 | +5
2650 | +5
2650 | +5
2650 | +5


Thats to be completely expected though right? After all I did apply the WHIBAL shot's CWB setting to all my photos. So here we have the same temp and tint applied to images that had a mutlitude of varying temps and tint readings. . . How did that affect picture color? Colors are completely consistent! All the imags of cooper rendered his fur and the wall behind him and the chair he was sleeping on exactly the same color. Were my AWB shots different? Nope! They all showed Cooper and his surrounds exactly the same way. So the only thing that changed here is how the light was recorded! The same light in all the shots - AWB detected it and recorded it at a much "Warmer" tempterature - upper 3000's - every image was "Gold" tinted. Now after adjustment - all the colors are identical, consistent, all temps are 2650 and tints are +5 and all the images look just as my eyes saw the scene - they look natural.

So to my findings here show that Yes the POTN members are right and they are wrong! How so? Well, they are right that any WB setting other than AWB will give you the same temp and tint - we just saw me prove that with using the Whibal. However, when you use AWB - it adjusts temp and tint on a per shot basis using which ever temp/tint settings it needs to record the light consistantly each time! As long as your light source does not change! Sure, if you shoot AWB in an array of different lighting venues your temp/tint settings are going to be different - all over the chart - that doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing. The only thing that will be messed up is how accurately the light was recorded - [I]unless you use the exact same gauge to measure the true light in each venue - enter a grey card such as the whibal! you'll need a whibal shot for each light source. As the true WB settings will vary with the light.

did that help at all???

[Vich]

I'll see what I can do for us Vich as far as testing is concerned. . .

Meanwhile I have a few images on my laptop here shot in RAW. Lets take a look at what we find:

Here we have 10 images I'd do screen shots but I can't upload at work do to my firewall - it slips the packets up and smugmug doesn't like that!]. These 10 images were all shot in the same room, of the same general subject [cooper who else!] and there was only one light source.

Here are the AWB settings of the ten shots[temp | tint]:
------------------------------------------------------

3650 | +14 - [whibal shot]
3700 | +17
3650 | +11
3550 | +2
3650 | +12
3600 | +8
3650 | +12
3750 | +20
3750 | +21
3750 | +19


Ok again we have 10 different shots, under the same lighting. Only two settings were Identical - what can I tell you about those two shots? They weren't identical - shot from different angles - As were all ten shots. They all had the same light source - one lamp - but all shots were from different angles.

What happens when I use whibal to set custom WB?

Here are the WHIBAL WB settings of the ten shots[temp | tint]:
------------------------------------------------------

2650 | +5 - [whibal shot]
2650 | +5
2650 | +5
2650 | +5
2650 | +5
2650 | +5
2650 | +5
2650 | +5
2650 | +5
2650 | +5


Thats to be completely expected though right? After all I did apply the WHIBAL shot's CWB setting to all my photos. So here we have the same temp and tint applied to images that had a mutlitude of varying temps and tint readings. . . How did that affect picture color? Colors are completely consistent! All the imags of cooper rendered his fur and the wall behind him and the chair he was sleeping on exactly the same color. Were my AWB shots different? Nope! They all showed Cooper and his surrounds exactly the same way. So the only thing that changed here is how the light was recorded! The same light in all the shots - AWB detected it and recorded it at a much "Warmer" tempterature - upper 3000's - every image was "Gold" tinted. Now after adjustment - all the colors are identical, consistent, all temps are 2650 and tints are +5 and all the images look just as my eyes saw the scene - they look natural.

So to my findings here show that Yes the POTN members are right and they are wrong! How so? Well, they are right that any WB setting other than AWB will give you the same temp and tint - we just saw me prove that with using the Whibal. However, when you use AWB - it adjusts temp and tint on a per shot basis using which ever temp/tint settings it needs to record the light consistantly each time! As long as your light source does not change! Sure, if you shoot AWB in an array of different lighting venues your temp/tint settings are going to be different - all over the chart - that doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing. The only thing that will be messed up is how accurately the light was recorded - [I]unless you use the exact same gauge to measure the true light in each venue - enter a grey card such as the whibal! you'll need a whibal shot for each light source. As the true WB settings will vary with the light.

did that help at all???
Thanks Andy. It does answer 1 thing for sure. The AWB sets tint, and therefore CWB would set the tint.

My real question is; what does the tint setting mean? What is it relative to, that photo or some general guideline? My thinking says it must just be a general measurement. +20 means so many (20%?) Magentas vs. Greens, regardless of what the Red/Blue Temperature is.

Anyway, if that's true, then it won't matter if your AWB chose +20 or -60, if you set it to a reference of +5 then it will look just as if the AWB originally chose +5. So the POTN guys were wrong, a series of AWB shots can be adjusted exactly the same as a series of CWB shots, provided you have a WB reference shot for that lighting. Ahe?


Thanks!

[cwphoto]

My real question is; what does the tint setting mean? What is it relative to, that photo or some general guideline? My thinking says it must just be a general measurement. +20 means so many (20%?) Magentas vs. Greens, regardless of what the Red/Blue Temperature is.

Thanks!

Could be mireds?:confused:

[aparmley]

Thats to be completely expected though right? After all I did apply the WHIBAL shot's CWB setting to all my photos. So here we have the same temp and tint applied to images that had a mutlitude of varying temps and tint readings. . . How did that affect picture color? Colors are completely consistent! All the imags of cooper rendered his fur and the wall behind him and the chair he was sleeping on exactly the same color. Were my AWB shots different? Nope! They all showed Cooper and his surrounds exactly the same way. So the only thing that changed here is how the light was recorded! The same light in all the shots - AWB detected it and recorded it at a much "Warmer" tempterature - upper 3000's - every image was "Gold" tinted. Now after adjustment - all the colors are identical, consistent, all temps are 2650 and tints are +5 and all the images look just as my eyes saw the scene - they look natural.

I wanted to clarify this statement - Were my AWB shot's colors of the varying temp/tint settings showing different colors? The answer to that is no. Let me try again to say that clearer - As you saw in my orginal 10 AWB shots their respective temp/tint settings were all different - but all the colors were consistent - they all were gold tinted. the walls were all the same color and cooper was the same color in all 10 of the shots. It was the wrong color, but they were all consistent.

Hopefully that helps too incase the orginal statement was as clear as mud.

[aparmley]

So I thought I'd play with the whibal and the 28-105, 85, flash, and an ice cold budweiser.

Heres what resulted. . . .

Tripod used, flash with omni bounce, whibal correct WB, remote shutter, double knot on the left shoe for balancing purposes. . .

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/66598819-L.jpg

Theres just nooooo match for a prime! ;)

Ya ya the sun popped on me on the right image - darnit, but I think you can tell which is which, if you cant the answer is at the bottom of the page

thgir eht no 58 | ftel no 501-82 :rewsna

[TheObiJuan]

Looks good mate - welcome to the dark side, Padwan...

..now to work on Don,

...then Jamie,

...then Rhys...

...
...
...

Forget Rhys; too hard.:rolleyes:

if the card took double AA's he'd buy it. :p

This thing has been on my mind for a while... It seems realy useful.

[aparmley]

if the card took double AA's he'd buy it. :p

This thing has been on my mind for a while... It seems realy useful.

I dig it. Altough Obi, I have to admit - I wish I would have gotten in on it when it was the three cards. The sticker worries me. . . its fastened pretty well or glued nicely whatever, but still - its a sticker. :(