do you use a white balance?

[Needa]

Not to get too far afield here... but most Nikon cameras that I'm aware of, allow you set a custom WB in the camera based on the current lighting... and all you need is a #2 drip coffee filter with a rubber band...

Got to give that one a try but I will need a white filter, mine are brown.

 

[WayneF]

My notions:

First, anything you do for WB in the camera isn't going to be enough for raw images. Camera WB is not in raw files. Nikon raw software might handle it (dunno), but it is sort of proprietary, and Adobe raw gets close, but always misses it a little. And of course, it's a poor goal just to match the crummy camera WB (it is the problem you want to fix), the real goal is to simply fix it right. Adobe raw has its own better tools. Basically, in raw, we don't care about camera WB, because in raw, we are now setting WB for the first time, after we can see it. The white card is a great tool to help do that.

Auto WB: a camera method, surely better than doing absolutely nothing, but far from fail safe. Many of us apparently don't care.

Setting Incandescent or Daylight or Cloudy or Shade, whatever, in the camera, as appropriate. Good commendable try, but very far from precise. Too many possibilities, too few solutions, and of course, we don't even actually know what we're trying to match.

Custom WB in the camera, on a white or gray card, or through a coffee filter or expodisk (Pringle lids were considered good at one time, but I think they changed the lid now to be more transparent). It's pretty fiddlely diving into camera menus, and still an in-camera method.


Placing a gray card in the scene, in a test shot, in the same light.. Works for raw, but 18% cards are not color controlled, and are too dark to be best for WB. WhiBal brand cards are much better than 18% cards, a very light shade of gray, and pigments are supposedly checked for color neutrality (the small less-expensive one works fine).

White card in the scene, in a test shot in the same light.. A good plan, including for raw. It is called White Balance, and make a known neutral white card actually be neutral white, and you've got it, the best it can be, no color tint. Easy and fast, raw allows fixing many similar session shots with one click. I like the $5 Porta Brace White Balance card, 5x7, washable, durable, accurate, cheap enough to own several. It is just plastic, with no pigments to calibrate.


In lieu of any of that, if unprepared with nothing, then when we have a serious WB problem, look for something actually white in the scene. An envelope or paper, a white plate or T-shirt or shirt collar, or a dot on the pajamas, or a sign, or something plastic, or a church steeple or picket fence, etc. Indoor walls are usually off-white though. Works best if it is actually intended to appear white, and the odds are that it will work far better than doing nothing. Much closer then the first problem anyway. If somehow ever not, then cancel out, you're no worse off, but you'll normally be grateful you found it.

If you have good WB tools (like in raw editors), with both Temperature and Tint sliders, just slide them back and forth individually, and watch for the right value to pop out.

 

[wombat]

Good deal. I left my camera set in AWB until I attended a seminar on portrait photography and lighting last month and learned about the ExpoDisk. The instructor demonstrated how AWB frequently doesn't work right when taking photos in mixed lighting. In every scenario, the instructor proved to us that the ExpoDisk produces more accurate WB a higher % of the time than your camera's AWB.

I think you'll like it. If you have any questions on how to use it, don't hesitate to ask. Once you start using it, I predict you will never go back to using AWB or any othr WB modes on your camera, unless you want to intentionally skew WB to get some color cast for creative effect. AWB often gets WB wrong, especially on skin tones inside buildings with multiple light sources (such as inside a church) having different Kelvin temps.

Yes, if you shoot in RAW and AWB, you can always just tweak WB in post, but all your colors will be more correct and more vibrant the closer you get WB right in-camera at the onset, and it saves time in PP.

Hi T-Man, I have a D800 what should I set the camera WB to then use the ExpoDisc, can't wait for it to arrive, anybody seen the postman.

 

[T-Man]

Hi T-Man, I have a D800 what should I set the camera WB to then use the ExpoDisc, can't wait for it to arrive, anybody seen the postman.

You just press the WB button on the upper left side of the camera, then rotate the rear dial until you see "PRE" in the lower RH corner of the top LED display. Press and hold the WB button again until "PRE" blinks. Then put the Expodisk over the lens, aim the camera in the general direction of the dominant light the camera will see where your subject will be, press the shutter button, and when the LED display reads "GOOD," you're done; WB is now set for the scene.

 

[T-Man]

My notions:

First, anything you do for WB in the camera isn't going to be enough for raw images. Camera WB is not in raw files. Nikon raw software might handle it (dunno), but it is sort of proprietary, and Adobe raw gets close, but always misses it a little. And of course, it's a poor goal just to match the crummy camera WB (it is the problem you want to fix), the real goal is to simply fix it right. Adobe raw has its own better tools. Basically, in raw, we don't care about camera WB, because in raw, we are now setting WB for the first time, after we can see it. The white card is a great tool to help do that.

If I'm understanding you correctly in that you're claiming that in-camera WB settings have no effect on RAW files, that's just not true. I shoot in RAW exclusively and always have, and I've taken many series of shots with varying WB settings, then imported into Lightroom and they have very distinctly different tints/color temps.

It's true that the "Vivid, Landscape, Portrait, etc" camera profiles don't affect RAW files, WB definitely does.

As for "custom WB in the camera, on a white or gray card, or through a coffee filter or expodisk...It's pretty fiddlely diving into camera menus, and still an in-camera method..." with all due respect, this tells me you've never actually used the Expodisk with a current generation Nikon camera, as there is no diving into camera menus at all. You simply press and hold the WB button, snap the Expodisk over the lens, and press the shutter button while aiming at the dominant light. That's it. It literally takes less than 10 seconds, and I have proven to myself that it is more accurate than AWB. It also does indeed affect RAW files. I just took a course by photographer David G. Maynard, a very well-known and respected portrait photographer, and he proved in the class without a doubt that it absolutely affects the RAW files in-camera and is the most accurate method of setting WB of the other in-camera options.

This doesn't mean WB will never need to be adjusted in your PP RAW editor, but it's best to get it as correct as you can in-camera before you get started, especially when dealing with skin tones.

 

[WayneF]

If I'm understanding you correctly in that you're claiming that in-camera WB settings have no effect on RAW files, that's just not true. I shoot in RAW exclusively and always have, and I've taken many series of shots with varying WB settings, then imported into Lightroom and they have very distinctly different tints/color temps.

Yes, Adobe does something there, but is it right? I'm thinking you may not have experimented much with this? Have you tried correcting it after that As Shot try?

Yes, Adobe raw does try WB in their As Shot WB choice, but color temperature is not in the Exif. Nikon puts a RGB multiplier in the Exif, but it does not come out real close in Adobe. It is ballpark, enough that non-critical users may not know or care, but it can always be done better. I rule out As Shot 100%. It's not Adobe's fault, it's a difficult problem, and Nikon raw software possibly might actually know how to do better, I don't know, but of course, the really big deal is that matching the standard camera WB choices couldn't be right even if it did know.

All lighting varies, esp including flash pictures vary with flash power level and flash unit (which makes WB correction be critical), so this is only one example, mileage surely varies, but I'm looking at one right now. Two SB-800 (with new flash tubes) in white umbrellas with D800 Commander.

Try setting Flash WB in the camera, and shoot Raw with flash, and then the Adobe As Shot choice might say 5500K Tint -12. In my example, kinda of thin bluish color, thin color, not pleasing color.
Use a different flash, and get a rather different result (but it can all be corrected).

Select Adobe Flash WB, and it changes to 5500K Tint 0, and looks slightly better. This Abobe Flash WB is like the camera Flash WB, just a constant number, wishful hoping without actually being related to the actual flash color.

Select Auto WB in Adobe, and 5900K +5 Tint, and looks better yet (which is frankly surprising, but maybe Auto wins one now and then.)

Click on a white card in the test picture, and 6200K +10 Tint, and best yet, very natural color. I also select Neutral color in Adobe for this, it does portraits best. Because the ladies don't like the strange hair colors in either Adobe Standard or Camera Standard. They really know hair color, and see things that I never notice.

The numbers don't matter, the lighting is always what it is, the numbers just show the change. But a pleasing natural result is pretty important. The images seem to really snap in and come to life when we get it right.

It's true that the "Vivid, Landscape, Portrait, etc" camera profiles don't affect RAW files, WB definitely does.

As for "custom WB in the camera, on a white or gray card, or through a coffee filter or expodisk...It's pretty fiddlely diving into camera menus, and still an in-camera method..." with all due respect, this tells me you've never actually used the Expodisk with a current generation Nikon camera, as there is no diving into camera menus at all. You simply press and hold the WB button, snap the Expodisk over the lens, and press the shutter button while aiming at the dominant light. That's it. It literally takes less than 10 seconds, and I have proven to myself that it is more accurate than AWB. It also does indeed affect RAW files.

I suspect it takes more than 10 seconds just to fiddle with getting the diffuser on the lens. And off again, and stored away, etc. But you can only aim it at one light source. And it's not actually about the subjects location. So sorry, I'm not convinced.

I just took a course by photographer David G. Maynard, a very well-known and respected portrait photographer, and he proved in the class without a doubt that it absolutely affects the RAW files in-camera and is the most accurate method of setting WB of the other in-camera options.

This doesn't mean WB will never need to be adjusted in your PP RAW editor, but it's best to get it as correct as you can in-camera before you get started, especially when dealing with skin tones.

No disrespect meant for David, I know nothing about him other than that he sells a DVD. But I am not a believer, and I already have a solution that works well. The diffuser seems an indirect method, where a known white card that is actually in the light with the subject is a very direct method. If using the camera custom method, I would trust it aimed at a white card actually at the subject more than the plastic diffuser aimed at one light. But even then, I still have to get it into Adobe, a big step making the card in the test picture be much easier and more correct, to simply do it in raw later.

Just one opinion, everyone has their notions. We gotta do what we believe is best. The most important thing is to do something.

 

[T-Man]

Wayne --
Have you actually used an Expodisk? Use whatever works best for you, but I'm sorry friend; many of your assumptions are incorrect.

To say you can only aim it at one light source is incorrect. You aim it anywhere in the general direction of the environment where you're shooting, and it picks up light from multiple sources/directions, if there are multiple sources of light in the environment (such as inside a church, where you have ambient light through windows combined with fluorescent and incandescent lights). It has pyramid shaped prisms on the surface that picks up light in all directions. It's not like putting a coffee filter over the lens, as the coffee filter is unidirectional. I've used it inside some really weird lighting conditions like restaurants with multicolored lights, and I promise you, it's way more accurate than AWB. And yes, I'm being generous when I say it takes 10 seconds because when I'm planning to take photos, I already have it out. I wear it around my neck by a lanyard. All I have to do is reach down at my chest and move it over to the front of the lens. You literally just press the WB button, slap the Expodisk on the end of the lens, and press the shutter button. The point is, there is no "fiddling with menus." It really is that simple. But, for argument's sake, let's say it takes 1 minute to do. I still have a better starting point for WB in post when I use it, and it still saves a BUNCH of time, especially when I've taken dozens of photos in the environment. Seldom do I have to do much WB adjustment in post. More often than not, I find that I leave the WB "as shot" when I use this method.

My daughter plays the violin, so I've taken photos of her performing inside dimly lit auditoriums with mixed lighting. When I've used AWB, her skin usually has a greenish tint in the RAW images I import into LR from the mixed lighting in the auditorium. Lighting inside many churches have some of the same issues. When I use the Expodisk method, her skin looks natural. Why would I not prefer that as my starting point for editing the image? If I took dozens of photos, how does that not save me post-processing time, when it literally takes seconds to set a custom WB beforehand with the Expodisk? How is that not a good thing?

As for the Speedlight example you gave...simple, you just calibrate your custom WB with the Expodisk while taking a sample using the flash. What's the big deal? You're trying to make this more complicated than it is. Even if WB isn't perfect, it's closer to being right than what you get with AWB. The closer your WB is correct right out of camera, the less time you spend adjusting it in post.

I have experimented TONS with WB adjustments in LR, both with the WB adjustment eyedropper tool that you use to click on a medium gray color in the image and the temperature and tint sliders. I've used all the presets in the camera. I finally just settled on AWB and left it there and relied exclusively on adjusting WB in post...until recently. I'm telling you that after I started using the Expodisk, I spend way less time monkeying with WB in post, because it's either correct as-is or closer to being correct to my eyes than what AWB gave me. Yes, with RAW, of course you can alter WB any way you wish in post non-destructively, but I get a higher % of photos with WB that looks more natural as imported when I use custom WB calibrated by the Expodisk. When you import a RAW file into Adobe LR or PS, the software picks up the WB temp from the embedded JPEG within the RAW and you see whatever your WB starting point was in-camera as your starting point for processing the image. If you use that WB starting point and make no further adjustments, then export the image out of LR/PS, the resulting TIFF or JPEG file you exported retains that WB tint. Again, Mr. Maynard demonstrated AWB vs. the WB presets vs. gray card vs. the Expodisk and SHOWED all of us in attendance the difference right out of camera, while photographing a model using broad, short, clamshell, and butterfly lighting setups, right there, right in front of us. I promise you, it works better than your AWB setting in-camera. When someone is obviously more skilled than me and has the portfolio and the notoriety to prove it, I try to listen to what they say. In this case, he didn't just say it, he proved it.

 

[Felisek]

Hi [MENTION=22038]T-Man[/MENTION], you got me really interested in Expodisk. I understand how it can help with portrait photography. But what about, e.g., landscape? The light illuminating your distant subject can be quite different from the light where you are. Also, if it is near the sunrise/sunset, there is a colour cast in the light, which you do not want to correct for.

What, in your opinion, are the limitations of Expodisk? Where is it most and least useful?

 

[T-Man]

Good question, Felisek. The thing is, WB is much less critical with landscapes than it is with skin tones in portraits, because we're all accustomed to knowing what skin is supposed to look like. The human eye notices skin having the wrong tint more readily than landscape elements, which is much more varied in colors, especially as ambient light color changes with time of day, weather, and season.

I use the Expodisk for portraits, indoor lighting, and any situation where I expect the lighting won't change AND I want to neutralize the light temp, not emphasize it. Keep in mind, the goal is to get the WB corrected for the INCIDENT light in the environment, not for a direct, colored light source that you're trying to emphasize in the photo.

When you're taking a photo of sunrise/sunset, you're not after color neutrality, you're trying to capture the intense colors. If your in-cam WB of a sunrise/sunset is off a little, it's no big deal because you're trying to obtain YOUR vision of what that sunrise/sunset looked like in post, and so there's no right or wrong interpretation provided you don't get too crazy with the sliders. I'd even argue that you may not WANT "correct" WB. In that situation, either just set to AWB or set your Kelvin to something like 5300 - 5600 or so before shooting, then tweak in post. Portraits are a different story, as nobody wants their likeness shown with green or orange tinted skin, unless you're intentionally doing something crazy for creative reasons.

I can see several limitations with the Expodisk. One is obviously if you're taking photos in ever-changing lighting, such as at a concert where you have constantly varying colored lights. The other is when you want to emphasize a dominant color bias in the scene for creative reasons. In those situations, just put the camera in AWB and correct WB the way you want it in post. In many situations, getting CORRECT WB isn't necessarily the goal; it's getting the WB you PREFER the image to have. Again, the big exception is portraits. Skin is supposed to look like skin, and wedding dresses are supposed to be white. The main limitation with the ED I've encountered is when you're shooting in very dim light. Since it further restricts light through the lens, it can sometimes be difficult to get a good reading, even when you open the lens aperture all the way and increase ISO. The camera will tell you whether you got a good reading or not, as the LED control panel will either blink "Good" or "No Good" after you press the shutter button.

The main advantage to the Expodisk is with portrait photography and when you want to keep WB CONSISTENT through a series of shots taken in the same incident light temp. Sometimes consistency is as important as being technically "correct." It's not always about being "correct" so much as achieving the look you want. AWB can and will cause variations in the tint of photos in a series depending on shooting angle to the light and the texture and color of surfaces the light is being reflected off of. Setting custom WB with WB cards is less consistent than the Expodisk because you're introducing more variables that influence what the camera "sees" than when using the Expodisk method. The angle you tilt the card slightly changes the tint the camera sees, and the card may not be reflecting the correct light temp representative of the combination of the light sources in the scene.

As with everything else, your mileage may vary. I've found the Expodisk to be a very useful tool, and I use it in most situations now. It isn't a cure-all and obviously isn't the best method of setting WB in all situations, but if you shoot in RAW, no big deal; all isn't lost. What it does do is give you a much more consistent, more accurate WB starting point in your RAW files than what AWB provides, and it's much better at getting skin tones right in-camera.

 

[Felisek]

Thanks, T-Man, this is more or less what I was thinking. I didn't really think about changing light, but I can see this being an issue e.g., when taking outdoor portraits in natural light with clouds passing above. From the moment I take the Expodisk measurement to the actual shot the light can change significantly. Something to remember about!

I agree entirely with you about grey cards. I started using them recently and I was surprised how inconsistent they are. Even small changes of the angle at which I held the card resulted in very different white balance measurements. This is what I find attractive in the Expodisk: it averages incident light over all directions and eliminates the problem I had with grey cards.

I think I'm going to get one!

 

[WayneF]

To say you can only aim it at one light source is incorrect. You aim it anywhere in the general direction of the environment where you're shooting, and it picks up light from multiple sources/directions, if there are multiple sources of light in the environment (such as inside a church, where you have ambient light through windows combined with fluorescent and incandescent lights). It has pyramid shaped prisms on the surface that picks up light in all directions.

We can only aim a camera in one direction.

And of course, if you instead aim the Expodisk at the scene, it is falsely affected by colors in the scene, green trees or blue sky, etc. Have you thought that out? The design is that its diffusion averages (blurs) all the color it sees into one color (like the Photoshop Average filter). Then this one color can be processed by Custom WB (which is just AWB) to serve as white balance. That can work if you aim it at the one light source, away from the subject.

I experimented a few years back, and with several things, but I have not used the 2.0 Expodisk. I can think about it though, and frankly, I see it as a marketing opportunity, just something to sell.


Your version is not even what the Expodisk instructions say about using it:

http://www.expoimaging.com/MediaFiles/instructions/EN_62.pdf

5. Aim the Camera (Measure Incident Light).

Aim the camera towards the dominant light source (just like an incident light meter). Note: The light illuminating your subject must pass through the ExpoDisc, which may require you to stand at your subject’s position
​

Incident meters at least have the full hemispherical dome on them, but they measure total intensity, NOT concerned with the color of multiple light sources. The incident meter plan is to aim it at the camera, AWAY from the subject, to not be affected by the subjects color reflectance, which mess up our reflected meters. Should affect the Exposdisk too. Instruction says aim it at the light.

White cards are not aimed, they sit in the subjects lighting and reflect what's there, the non-white color cast they pick up. And it is called White Balance.


What the camera manual says about how to use preset white balance is:

D800 manual page 154 and 155:

Direct measurement: Neutral gray or white object is placed under lighting that will be used in final photograph and white balance is measured by camera.
​

All of the camera manuals say the same. The idea is to eliminate the influence of the subject (like incident light meters too). And that instruction ought to work as well as any white card method, for JPG, except that we do still have to get it into Adobe Raw. WB is not in raw files. It is in JPG.

Direct sunshine can be consistent since we only have one sun, if no shade or reflections or other light is involved. But if using two lights, each can be very different color. Even if two of the same flash model and assumed equal, one may be at high power and one at low power. The high power one is dominant, but it is not alone. Window light and interior light are extremely different, etc. Mixing is not a good plan, but it often happens.

Sorry, I am not a believer. Seems fiddly to mess with all the time anyway, probably better than nothing, but certainly questionable as the best way. Especially since a major part of the problem is that we still have to get it into Adobe raw (camera WB is not in raw images, previously mentioned). But the white card placed in the subject's same scene lighting reflects what light gets there, and it is already automatically in Adobe. Then it only takes a click. Raw can do all the session images in the same one click.


And sorry, it was not my plan to knock anything. I am only answering because of your direct messages to me bringing it up.

I use a different method. Because the raw WB tool is of course designed for the white card system. So is the camera Preset WB method.

In truth, I don't shoot JPG, so I only mess with the white card for any critical or important work, certainly for flash sessions, or sometimes obvious difficult cases, or where there will be many pictures in same lighting. But for the many walk-around vacation snapshots, I skip the white card, and totally ignore WB in the camera, and enjoy the vacation. I do set camera AWB, only something fast just for the camera rear LCD and histogram, but I never intend to use the AWB. Then later on, when and if Adobe standard Daylight or Flash WB fails, I usually rely on finding other white things in the subjects area of the picture. Maybe not easy on our first try, but we can get pretty good at this pretty quick. Now and then I might take an extra picture of a good white target at the location, if it seems difficult. Or might pull out the white card sometimes. I might even check Adobe AWB for really tough cases. Or I may just tweak by eye if necessary (using the good raw tools). All this admittedly is a poor second, and maybe a little experience helps, but convenient, and still better than Auto WB, which is not in raw files anyway.

But when I will want it right, I use the white card. In worst case, the wife just holds it near subject (in the same light), and I click an extra test frame for later comparison and correction. Easy, it's just a shutter click to take it, and a mouse click to fix it. And it is correct.

I've used it inside some really weird lighting conditions like restaurants with multicolored lights, and I promise you, it's way more accurate than AWB.

No one is arguing for Auto WB. I readily agree that some attempt at correcting WB is a good thing, to be commended.

 

[T-Man]

Ok, Wayne.

I'm not trying to make you into a convert. I'm just sharing what works for me. I'm pointing out that you're criticizing something you haven't actually tried. I'm addressing the fact you're making several incorrect assumptions. And you are incorrect on several fronts, as I've already noted.

You're incorrect about in-camera WB having no effect on a RAW image, because when you import the image into LR or PS, the WB setting in-camera is your default starting point. I prefer to have that starting point correct or as close to correct as possible before I get started processing the image. There is no downside to that, and I don't get why you insist on telling me my eyes don't see what they plainly see and why you keep assuming that since I disagree with what you've said, that means I haven't tried anything else or "haven't thought that out." I have indeed directly compared all of the various methods for setting WB in-camera thus far discussed, and have had the advantages plainly demonstrated to me, back to back, in the same environment and have seen the results side by side, firsthand. You have not, per your admission.

You said: "And of course, if you instead aim the Expodisk at the scene, it is falsely affected by colors in the scene, green trees or blue sky, etc. Have you thought that out?"

No, it is not "falsely affected," because all of those colors contribute to the incident light temp in the scene. It is "correctly affected." Sorry.

You said: "I use a different method. Because the raw WB tool is of course designed for the white card system. So is the camera Preset WB method.

In truth, I don't shoot JPG, so I only mess with the white card for any critical or important work, certainly for flash sessions, or sometimes obvious difficult cases, or where there will be many pictures in same lighting."

Wrong. The camera preset WB isn't "designed" for anything other than to receive light information from a neutral white/gray colored surface as affected by the environment you're shooting in. The camera doesn't care what source it uses to receive that information.

I don't shoot JPG either. At all. Ever. That's a non-sequitur. I just explained why setting custom WB is useful for RAW as well. I can't speak to how in-camera WB settings affects or doesn't affect a RAW image imported into any other RAW processing software other than Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop, as that's all I ever use. I can tell you your in-camera WB setting accompanies the RAW image imported into those 2 applications. The same situations where you say you use the white card for are the same situations where the Expodisk shines, and in fact has proven to me to be superior to the white/gray card. But wait, I thought you just said it wasn't useful to set a custom WB when you're shooting RAW. If you believe that to be the case, why even bother using the white card in any situation? And if you do use the white card, then you should know there is no "fiddling with menus" involved. That's the advantage us Nikon shooters have over the Canon shooters, with our handy dandy little "WB" button. Once you're in WB preset mode to begin with, changing to a different WB preset involves a simple press of the white balance and shutter buttons. Hardly daunting.

And, the instructions you quoted do not contradict what I said. I only said the Expodisk is picking up light from multiple sources and directions, not a single light source. If you do not wish to neutralize a particular light source, don't aim directly at that source. You can point it in any direction you wish, and as long as you are aiming it somewhere in the environment you're shooting and not into the shadows, you'll get a good result. Even if you didn't, so what? It's not as if you can't adjust in post. I also said it isn't required or even desirable for all situations and plainly explained its limitations. It's a useful tool to have, and I believe it's the best tool to use for in-camera WB for interior shots and portraits. Even if I used it in only for portraits, in controlled interior lighting exclusively, it's still worth the $50 I spent on it TO ME, as skin tones have always been the most difficult thing for me to get adjusted correctly in all situations.

Sorry, but it just irks me when people criticize stuff they've never actually tried.

Use whatever you have confidence in and works for you. Again, your mileage may vary...

 

[WayneF]

Ok, Wayne.

I'm not trying to make you into a convert. I'm just sharing what works for me. I'm pointing out that you're criticizing something you haven't actually tried. I'm addressing the fact you're making several incorrect assumptions. And you are incorrect on several fronts, as I've already noted.

I'v played with the Expodisk version, but it's been a long time, not the 2.0 version. Also with acceptable substitutes, like coffee filters and older Pringles lids. No way I'm going to spend $50 on it now. Reminds me of the $50 Gary Fong flash domes.. people buy them and defend them as the best thing since sex. For $50, it must be something. But the Expodisk seems too awkward, and I still have to get the image into Adobe raw.

And I have tried the camera Preset method too. I don't fault it at all, if done as Nikon describes it (using neutral cards in the same light), but then I also still have trouble getting it into Abobe raw accurately. Should work better for JPG.

You're incorrect about in-camera WB having no effect on a RAW image, because when you import the image into LR or PS, the WB setting in-camera is your default starting point. I prefer to have that starting point correct or as close to correct as possible before I get started processing the image.

Not incorrect. It is Adobe As Shot that is not correct. Not greatly wrong, just normal WB problems, just not quite an actual match for the camera value. It doesn't take much looking to see that. Except for Preset, it seems pointless even trying to match the camera, the camera didn't know what color the light is.
The point of raw is to set WB after we can see it, and know what we need to do.

You may not be aware, but Nikon does not help Adobe to do that. Nikon really wants to consider the Manufacturers section of the Exif as their proprietary property (they would prefer it not even being the customers property in their images). Back abound 2005, Nikon had a new WB scheme, and they ENCRYPTED it in the D2X and D2HS camera files, for the purpose of keeping third party raw software out of it. There was of course a big customer uproar, and they don't encrypt it now, but they don't help to access it.

Color temperature degrees K is not in the Exif. Cameras don't use degrees K, because 100 degrees difference at 4000K is a greatly larger color change than 100 degrees K at 7000K. They use Mired units, which is 1,000,000 / Temperature, which is more uniform over the range. That's in the camera manual too, menu white balance tweaking is in mired units. But mired is not in the exif either, instead a RGB matrix multiplier. WB is absolutely NOT in the raw file. Some hints are in the Exif, but it has to be interpretted.

You said: "And of course, if you instead aim the Expodisk at the scene, it is falsely affected by colors in the scene, green trees or blue sky, etc. Have you thought that out?"

No, it is not "falsely affected," because all of those colors contribute to the incident light temp in the scene. It is "correctly affected." Sorry.

Come on, really, you're joking, right? The point of the Preset custom setting is to provide it with a neutral area, for Auto WB to then in fact make it be neutral. Any general scene is not neutral. The Expodisk instrutions say to aim it "like an incident light meter".

Have you ever used an incident light meter? We aim them AWAY from the subject, to keep the subject from reporting wrong things. Incident meters are pretty much simply just accurate, reading the light directly, where camera reflected meters aimed at the subject are known to have many problems. It is a Classic problem, which is because the reflectance from the subject colors reflect differently. In the case of WB, it's not about intensity, but about requiring neutral color . If we are going to a neutral WB, we require a neutral area to do it. But intensity is also a factor, dark areas (like 18% gray cards) are really too dark to support much color cast. They do sort of work (altho 18% cards are not spec'd for color neutrality), but WhiBal brand cards made for white balance are a much lighter shade of gray, not far from white.

Auto WB (used in the Preset method) has no knowledge what color the light is, or how the scene ought to look. It's just dumb computer. It can see light blobs, but no clue what is or how it ought to be. Early Auto WB tries (in Photoshop Levels for example) just tried to shift the RGB histogram channels so the bright end points all aligned together. This assumed white there, and called it white balance because equal RGB at the bright end is white. Later better methods in editors now provide the tool to click a KNOWN neutral gray or white area in the picture, and it was made to be neutral, removing the color cast. The cast is NOT recognized, but instead a human operater is saying "this spot should be neutral, so make it be neutral". The computer has no other knowledge of it. It takes our word for what was there, it has no clue about what it is or should be.

Click a green leaf with the WB tool. It is not allowed to go bizarre, off scale of the histogram, not to all the way to neutral, so it won't look as poor as the plan is poor. But clearly not the right plan. I shouldn't say green, it is not really worse case. Click red and the image goes green. Click blue and the image goes yellow. Click the orange sunset you mentioned, and it goes deep blue (was that your plan?). Because it tries to neutralize whatever is at that click spot.

You really want to aim Preset WB only at a neutral color. Or the Expodisk at the dominant light source (from the subject). Exactly how all the instructions say to to do it. Except your instructions of course. When we find all about us are wrong, it's a good time to examine our own notions.


So cameras see a lot of green foilage or a lot of blue sky and their goal is to try figure out what color it should really be. But all they know is it is green or blue, etc. Should it be, or not? They all keep their WB algorithms very secret, proprietary, away from competitors, which led to the encryption problem.

You said: "I use a different method. Because the raw WB tool is of course designed for the white card system. So is the camera Preset WB method.

Wrong. The camera preset WB isn't "designed" for anything other than to receive light information from a neutral white/gray colored surface as affected by the environment you're shooting in. The camera doesn't care what source it uses to receive that information.

This is getting too silly to argue with you. Both the current Adobe WB tool and also the Nikon camera Preset tool expect to see a neutral card. The Nikon manual describes very clearly to aim the camera a neutral card in the same light as subject. Expodisk clearly says aim it at the dominant light source.
That way, a human is telling it "this area is neutral, or to be neutral, so make it be neutral". Then the Auto WB does that.
If it was neutral, it ought to work fine.
But if you aim it around at various mixed scenes, there is no rational way you can argue it should work right.

But wait, I thought you just said it wasn't useful to set a custom WB when you're shooting RAW. If you believe that to be the case, why even bother using the white card in any situation?

What I said is this:
Maybe both use the same white card, but for raw, we have to get the custom WB result through the Adobe As Shot mess. WB is not in raw files. JPG ought to get by , but JPG has less range to work with.

Using just the white card, it is already in the picture, already in Adobe , and ready to be clicked. Same white card, but that is a big difference, at least for raw.

And if you do use the white card, then you should know there is no "fiddling with menus" involved. That's the advantage us Nikon shooters have over the Canon shooters, with our handy dandy little "WB" button. Once you're in WB preset mode to begin with, changing to a different WB preset involves a simple press of the white balance and shutter buttons. Hardly daunting.

Changing the WB setting to Custom may be simple, but it only works if after every new scene :

1. you get out the Expodisk.
2. you remove the hood and install the Expodisk.
3. you aim camera at the dominant light from subjects position, and do the thing.
4. you remove Expodisk and reinstall lens hood.

Then OK, you're ready to go with the Preset menu, until your scene or lighting changes again... which I call serious fiddling.

Using the white card, you just place it in the scene, one way or another. In sunlight, you can just hold it arms length in front of the camera (focus is not necessary), but otherwise, it does need to be at the subject, in the same light.
Or as I mentioned, many casual scenes already have something white enough which often can work. Not precise, but often adequate, better than no try at all.

You can point it in any direction you wish, and as long as you are aiming it somewhere in the environment you're shooting and not into the shadows, you'll get a good result.

Just be sure to aim it to fill the frame with something neutral gray or white. ROFL.

Even if you didn't, so what? It's not as if you can't adjust in post.

So what was the point of doing it wrong?

I also said it isn't required or even desirable for all situations and plainly explained its limitations. It's a useful tool to have, and I believe it's the best tool to use for in-camera WB for interior shots and portraits. Even if I used it in only for portraits, in controlled interior lighting exclusively, it's still worth the $50 I spent on it TO ME, as skin tones have always been the most difficult thing for me to get adjusted correctly in all situations.

Go for it then, but it is not for me. Not sure I would be interested even without the Adobe As Shot issue.

It seems neither one of us is listening to or understanding what the other is saying, so I think we're done here.

 

[T-Man]

You may not be aware,

I find your continual use of that phrase and similar phrases peppered through your posts to be condescending and annoying. You don't know what I am and am not "aware of" or have or "have not considered."
It's not just an opaque piece of plastic you put over the end of the lens, it is in fact a spectrometer-calibrated gage, and a calibration card is included detailing the actual transmission % and color space values measured on the actual ED you bought, hardly equivalent to a Pringles lid or coffee filter. Not only have I now tested it vs. other methods extensively, but I watched a highly respected professional photographer demonstrate all the WB setting methods back to back, using the same subject in the same lighting, and he proved TO ME without a shadow of doubt that -- at least in that conference room -- the Expodisk produced a more natural looking WB result. There wasn't a soul in the room that disagreed with that conclusion after comparing the images on his monitor, right in front of their noses. They were RAW files, not JPEGs.

Since then, I've proven to MY satisfaction that it works very well FOR ME. So, no matter how many times you endeavor to "instruct" me with lengthy, tortured technical treatises on the pitfalls of "Adobe as-shot issue(s)" reiterate how "WB is not in RAW files," regale me with scenarios I "obviously" haven't considered, and introduce strawman arguments and non-sequiturs I never addressed, we unavoidably arrive back at the basic premise that you haven't actually tried that which you criticize. No matter how many different ways you lecture me on how my eyes cannot possibly be seeing that which they very clearly see, the simple fact remains that when I import a RAW file into Lightroom, an "as shot" WB temp and tint -- that's directly the result of settings I made to WB in-camera, whether right, wrong or indifferent -- appears before my eyes...ostensibly through magic, since "of course," no WB information could possibly migrate over from my camera into LR via any component of a RAW file. The "point of doing it wrong" is that my "as shot" WB is more consistent and more consistently to my liking when I calibrate WB with the Expodisk vs. using other methods. Whether that occurs because the EMBEDDED JPEG WITHIN EVERY RAW FILE does, in fact, communicate in-camera WB to Adobe's software, or because there are little fairies inside every Expodisk that sprinkle magic dust into the light entering my camera, I don't give a damn. Perhaps I'm just delusional and the power of suggestion has skewed my chromatic perception. If so, again, I don't give a damn; ignorance is bliss. The thing works FOR ME. I explained very clearly that it isn't a panacea for all situations. I explained very clearly where and how I use it and where and how I've found it to be a very useful tool. If you doubt its usefulness, that's perfectly o.k., but I don't get your need to continually "tell" me stuff that's contrary to my FIRSTHAND experience from actually using the product.

Nice touch adding the "remove and reinstall the lens hood" part in your attempt to make the process seem so incredibly daunting and inconvenient, when in fact I seldom ever use a lens hood, especially in situations where I would typically use the Expodisk -- indoors and portraits. If I habitually used a lens hood, I would get the larger 82mm version rather than the 77mm version and just hold it in front of the lens objective, which is perfectly viable. I've already said repeatedly that the entire angst-inducing "process" takes me a whole 10 seconds...if I'm lollygagging. I know this firsthand, because unlike you, I'm not guessing.

If you don't believe me, fine. I highly recommend you not buy one, as you have your mind made up. It must be nice to know everything even without actually trying it. One day, I hope to get there.

 

[WayneF]

It's not just an opaque piece of plastic you put over the end of the lens, it is in fact a spectrometer-calibrated gage, and a calibration card is included detailing the actual transmission % and color space values measured on the actual ED you bought, hardly equivalent to a Pringles lid or coffee filter. Not only have I now tested it vs. other methods extensively, but I watched a highly respected professional photographer demonstrate all the WB setting methods back to back

Sorry if I struck a nerve. That is just style I suppose, but I thought it was just discussing the facts, and the instructions.

Yes, it's not just me, but I do compare it to the Pringles lid. (the old ones, the new lids are more transparent). It is just an averaging filter, with the result of one average color value, which Preset Auto WB can and will adjust to be neutral color (remove color cast). Hopefully what it sees was in fact neutral, so it can work and correct properly. But my major complaints are only two, your instructions to wave it around the scene instead of aiming it at the light as instructions specifically say, and then my getting a calibrated response into Adobe raw (fiddley would be more of a minor complaint, not a technical issue)

Also curious, did your highly respected professional also advise to ignore the instructions of both Expodisk and Nikon, and say to instead aim it willy-nilly around the scene, instead of at a reference source? Or is that your addition? I do find that rather offensive to common sense. Expodisk correctly says at the light, since that's how their product can work, and Nikon correctly says at a neutral card, since that was their plan. But if not aimed at a reference, how would you predict what it will do?

Nice touch adding the "remove and reinstall the lens hood" part in your attempt to make the process seem so incredibly daunting and inconvenient, when in fact I seldom ever use a lens hood, especially in situations where I would typically use the Expodisk -- indoors and portraits.

​

Again we differ. Seemed natural to me, portraits are my main use of a lens hood, to keep the hair light out of the lens. It is not that high back there, and aimed right at the lens. I think the hood is advised. Also my main use of the white card. My family and friends just know to pick up the card when they first sit down. IMO, portraits are the most important white balance work.

 

[T-Man]

Here you go...

3 images of an egg sitting on my living room couch cushion, taken in the exact same spot, back to back, under the exact same lighting conditions. Lighting in my living room is incandescent bulbs directly above and to the left of the subject, combined with some filtered light coming through a window further to the left.

All 3 images were shot in RAW, straight out of my D800 w/ Voigtlander Nokton 58mm lens @ f/2, ISO 400, 1/15 shutter, on a tripod. NO post-processing adjustments were done whatsoever except cropping, since the lens was unable to focus close enough for the egg to fill the frame. Images were simply imported into Lightroom, cropped, then exported, again with no other adjustments done whatsoever.

The first image is using AWB. As you can see it is very obviously warmer than the other 2 images, and less natural. The egg has a yellowish tint.



The second image is with custom WB calibrated using an 18% gray card. It is certainly more "correct," but the couch cushion is a little cooler in the image than in reality...



The third image is with custom WB set using the Expodisk. Whew...I had to sit down and rest for awhile after enduring that grueling setup procedure!

You'll just have to trust me when I say the couch cushion color is more correct in this photo than in photo #2.



Wait a minute... these 3 images have obvious WB differences! But...how can that be, since WB data isn't carried into Adobe software products with a RAW file! Wayne F told us so, and he knows better than those of us who actually use the product being discussed!

 

[T-Man]

Also curious, did your highly respected professional also advise to ignore the instructions of both Expodisk and Nikon, and say to instead aim it willy-nilly around the scene, instead of at a reference source? Or is that your addition? I do find that rather offensive to common sense. Expodisk correctly says at the light, since that's how their product can work, and Nikon correctly says at a neutral card, since that was their plan. But if not aimed at a reference, how would you predict what it will do?

Yes, as a matter of fact, he DID! His exact words: "the first thing you need to do, before anything else, is thrown the *&$% instructions in the trash, because they're WRONG! I've conveyed this to them and demonstrated it in person to them. The instructions are written by non-photographers."

And, you don't "aim it willy-nilly," you aim it in the general direction of the dominant light. However, the point is, you don't want to aim it exclusively at a very dominant light source or get the camera too close to a dominant light source, unless that's the only source of light in the environment, because there may be a combination of multiple types of artificial lighting along with natural light coming through a window, all of which will affect the color cast on your subject. You want to also capture the other sources of light in the environment. It's pretty forgiving by virtue of the prisms on the front of the filter capturing light from multiple angles, and I've found it doesn't make that much difference in the result as long as you're not aiming it into deep shadows.

Though, you go on putting words in my mouth, as you're the expert not only on this topic, but in knowing what I "obviously" meant by things I didn't say.

But it matters not, because I'm wrong and you're right. Feel better?

 

[WayneF]

Wait a minute... these 3 images have obvious WB differences! But...how can that be, since WB data isn't carried into Adobe software products with a RAW file! Wayne F told us so, and he knows better than those of us who actually use the product being discussed!

I didn't say that. And I use ACR a lot, for a long time. I said there is certainly no WB in the raw file data, but the Adobe raw default (which can be changed) is to try to obtain As Shot WB, where it tries to decipher camera WB (which is not in raw) from the Exif (where it is, even if it is not in raw data), which it applies to the RGB image we see in ACR.

And my belief is that it has difficulty deciphering that just right. Not grossly wrong, but just not right. At least not to my satisfaction. Which I do not blame on Adobe.

Other camera settings (Picture Control color, contrast, etc) are not in raw either, and Adobe does not try to match them, but Adobe does have its defaults for them (which can be changed). One raw difference is we make such settings later after we see the image, instead of hopeful wishing long before we even see the scene.

So camera WB is totally unimportant to me anyway, it's easier to work with it in Raw, after we can actually see what's needed, and see what helps, and try different things, etc. Its easier and better.

 

[T-Man]

I didn't say that. And I use ACR a lot, for a long time. I said there is certainly no WB in the raw file data, but the Adobe raw default (which can be changed) is to try to obtain As Shot WB, where it tries to decipher camera WB (which is not in raw) from the Exif (where it is, even if it is not in raw data), which it applies to the RGB image we see in ACR.

Nice crawfish there, champ.

Really, who gives a sh** what's going on in the background and why, and whether or not WB is "in the RAW file?" That's a silly semantic exercise you seem hung up on, obviously to further obfuscate the fact you're very clearly talking out your azz about something you've never tried. You've got some congenital need to prove stuff to anonymous people on the internet for some perceived power trip. Were you picked on a lot in grade school? What matters is WB certainly gets imported over to Adobe somehow. Osmosis perhaps? Who the &*$! cares how; it manages to magically get imported, as I demonstrated above. If I consistently get a more accurate WB result using the ED vs. other methods (and I most certainly DO, despite your hand-wringing protestations to the contrary), why do I care how it magically happened? Whether WB is absolutely correct 100% time or not is certainly debatable, but I consistently prefer the result I get with the ED, and I tweak skin tones in post much less after I began using it. Why is that not a desirable outcome? What is the disadvantage to using it? if it works, it works; why should I care why? On the rare occasions it didn't work out, what's the big deal? Hell, I spend more than $50 on a typical evening at the movies with my wife and daughter!

I highly recommend you DO NOT buy one of these Expodisk pieces of sh**!!!!!!!!!! Is that better? I thought you were through commenting on the topic by the way.

You really told me off! I'll somehow recover and manage to carry on with some shred of dignity intact.

 

[T-Man]

So camera WB is totally unimportant to me anyway, it's easier to work with it in Raw, after we can actually see what's needed, and see what helps, and try different things, etc. Its easier and better.

So...setting WB in-camera is mutually exclusive to editing same in post? It's either one or the other; you can't do both? Why wouldn't I want WB closer to what I perceive as reality upon import, especially if I'm importing a long series of photos shot in the same environment. That fact doesn't preclude me from further tweaking WB in post. Where did I say I never tweak WB in post at all, ever? All I said is I've found the ED works better than the other in camera WB methods, and I prefer to get it as close as possible in-camera so editing is easier, especially with regards to skin tones. Those temp and tint sliders and the WB eyedropper tool still work the same regardless of the "as shot" WB color cast. And again, I am "work(ing) with it in Raw," so your statement makes no sense. At worst, even if I'm relatively unconcerned with in-camera WB, at least the ED gives me better consistency along a series of shots, which is a time saver if for no other reason than to make more effective use of the "sync" function in LR after getting the first image in a series adjusted to my liking. I'm no worse off by setting a custom WB in-camera with my cool little disk even if it's just because I'm dazzled by shiny objects.