# Custom White balance vs ColorChecker Passport White Balance



## Zanthe (Mar 15, 2017)

Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere. I searched and searched and didn't find the exact discussion I was looking for.

So, I am on my way to the Masters Golf Tournament early next month. This is kind of a one time thing and I don't want to screw this up.

I have read discussions about setting a custom white balance on the day you are shooting and it's not a complicated procedure (Canon 80D)...

But I also have the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport which I intend to use to get the color right and then created a custom profile in Lightroom CC and then sync the set of the days photos to the new profile (as opposed to using Lightroom's Adobe Standard). 

My questions is this: Is it better to actually set a custom white balance using a gray card before shooting OR use the ColorChecker Passport's White Balance "squares" on the second half of the passport (see attached) to adjust the white balance after the fact using the Passport Photo that I will take a the beginning of the day? 

I suppose either will get the job done but am wondering if anybody has recommendation on this issue?


----------



## clee01l (Mar 15, 2017)

Your question suggests that you are NOT shooting RAW and need to set the WB in the camera prior to shooting.  The only solution IMO is to shoot RAW and Preshoot then postshoot a gray card. RAW CR2s have no WB baked in and you can set it to any temperature you need in LR.
It does not matter whether you use the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport or a standard gray card. One of the grays on the X-Rite ColorChecker will match the standard gray card. With these two reference images before and after the shoot you can let LR pick the WB  and also note if it changed during the outdoor shoot  and adjust your LR develop accordingly.
Any WB set in the camera is going to only apply to the JPEG or the JPEG thumbnail. When shooting RAW, your can set the camera to AWB and get reasonable back of the camera estimates of the shot.


----------



## Zanthe (Mar 15, 2017)

I will be shooting RAW. 

So I guess using AWB and then choosing the white balance square with the ColorChecker would be the way to go. Then I can sync the rest of the photos...have I got it right? 

I was not aware that setting  custom white balance would not affect the RAW image.


----------



## Cerianthus (Mar 15, 2017)

As golf is mostly outside taking up space where nature used to be, light will change with time, weather(think of passing clouds)  direction of shooting etc. So unless you have that much with lots of light control each shot, I would say just white balance on a grey bit of rock. 


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Mar 15, 2017)

Be aware the area you circled are different temperatures, some warmer, some cooler.

I shoot sports a lot, and I find trying to use a fixed white balance (whether by a custom temperature in the camera or copying and pasting a fixed white balance later) is pointless.  Even in pretty uniform lighting, like cloudless sun, the shadows on athlete's faces (or not), reflections off of bright uniforms, how close they are to the grass, the angle of the sun on grass relative to me... it varies a LOT.  The automatic white balance in the camera, even when it is not all that good, tends to be better than just one fixed WB for a whole shoot.

Now if I were doing something like awards at a podium, where I was in one place, they were in the same light, I'd love to get a grey card shot before it, and I would blow that WB into all of them to be uniform.

But that's so rarely the case.

What I do recommend is to get a grey card shot against any really common colors you will have in your actual shots, for example (not applicable to golf) team uniforms, or signage that is everywhere on the field.  What this lets you do is see the "right" color for (say) a uniform jersey with the grey card, and put that image up on the screen beside another image with the same jersey color, and you can adjust by eye if in doubt.

But fundamentally if shooting raw, turning on fixed white balance takes away useful information -- the cameras' measurement.  There's no advantage to the fixed white balance as you can always blow it in after the fact (with raw).  With AWB if it works, great; if not blow in your own.

And if shooting JPG... well, ask someone else.


----------



## Gnits (Mar 15, 2017)

Zanthe said:


> I was not aware that setting custom white balance would not affect the RAW image.



That is one of the big advantages of shooting raw.  It is also great to have a shot at a grey card (or equivalent), so you are comfortable and confident of setting the white balance later in post.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Mar 15, 2017)

Gnits said:


> That is one of the big advantages of shooting raw.  It is also great to have a shot at a grey card (or equivalent), so you are comfortable and confident of setting the white balance later in post.



It may be obvious but it is worth noting that the set white balance (automatic or preset) is carried over into post processing.  So if you preset it to a given number you get that, so it "affects" the raw file in passing that setting through.  But it does not affect the image data itself, you get exactly the same quality image by setting it later and setting it ahead of time.

This is why I always prefer automatic -- the camera's best guess is passed through and if I like it I can use it, but with no loss if I really wanted a preset one and apply it later.

Most other settings (with regard to lightroom) not only do not affect the raw image, they are not carried through.  So sharpening (as an example) set in camera is ignored by Lightroom.  White balance is not ignored, but it is not "baked in" either, it is applied purely at post processing so you can change it.

The main other setting that does affect raw is (if your camera does it) long exposure noise reduction.  All the rest (what Nikon calls picture controls) like sharpening, contrast, shadows, etc. are not part of the raw image, and are ignored by Adobe.  They DO affect the JPG preview you see on the LCD though (or if you use something like Photo Mechanic). 

Incidentally, this means if you do not use the manufacturer's software (which does not ignore it), you can then abuse these settings to help you.  I set sharpening to maximum.  WAY too much sharpening for real use, but it means if I glance at the LCD, the in focus area kind of jumps out at me.  Makes for easier evaluation of whether I got the shot in focus.


----------



## Fred Stephenson (Mar 15, 2017)

Gnits said:


> That is one of the big advantages of shooting raw.  It is also great to have a shot at a grey card (or equivalent), so you are comfortable and confident of setting the white balance later in post.


----------



## Paul B (Mar 15, 2017)

Ferguson said:


> Incidentally, this means if you do not use the manufacturer's software (which does not ignore it), you can then abuse these settings to help you.  I set sharpening to maximum.  WAY too much sharpening for real use, but it means if I glance at the LCD, the in focus area kind of jumps out at me.  Makes for easier evaluation of whether I got the shot in focus.


Interesting idea ... might play with that!


----------



## Fred Stephenson (Mar 15, 2017)

Shooting RAW is the only way to shoot. I also use AWB because of shifting light then it can edited in LR or PS if you don't like it.


----------



## Gnits (Mar 15, 2017)

I use a Black & White preset when using Manual Lens on my Sony A7 and set the Focus Peaking colour to Yellow..... so the edges in focus jump out of the evf  against the B&W scene when adjusting focus.  I have the best of everything ... as I still have the colour info within the raw file.


----------



## Paul B (Mar 15, 2017)

Gnits said:


> I use a Black & White preset when using Manual Lens on my Sony A7 and set the Focus Peaking colour to Yellow..... so the edges in focus jump out of the evf  against the B&W scene when adjusting focus.  I have the best of everything ... as I still have the colour info within the raw file.


Yeah, my Sony bridge camera has focus peeking and it's awesome isn't it ... *really* wish I had that on my 5D!


----------



## Cerianthus (Mar 15, 2017)

You have. It's called magic lantern. 


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk


----------



## Paul B (Mar 15, 2017)

Cerianthus said:


> You have. It's called magic lantern.


Really? Hmmm, maybe that's an incentive to get hacking.


----------



## Cerianthus (Mar 15, 2017)

I almost never use life view so to me it is not that useful. You'll have to look into it and decide yourself. I've used it for a bit on my 70d but not at the 
moment 


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk


----------



## Zanthe (Mar 15, 2017)

After reading through all this I guess it's just as appropriate to use the ColorChecker Passport white balance (netural chip) as setting the custom white balaance from shooting a gray card. 

if the WB isn't just right i can always NOT sync the rest of the photos and adjust each as necessary. 

Truth be told i'm still a little confused. Although the RAW files won't have a custom WB "baked in" the custom WB will be sent over to LR as light room as to start somewhere, right?. At least that is what I got from this discussion. 

In any event it seems it would be better to have the option to sync a WB that I pick off the colorChecker after shooting a test shot in the day's lighting conditions since there seems to be more control of my options, i.e. use the ColorChecker WB or not.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Mar 15, 2017)

Zanthe said:


> Although the RAW files won't have a custom WB "baked in" the custom WB will be sent over to LR as light room as to start somewhere, right?



It's not baked in (as in, it's not applied to the pixels) but it's stored as a set of coordinates that LR can understand... just like the capture date or other exif data. No massive advantage or disadvantage to setting a custom WB in this kind of scenario. 

Outdoors, auto WB is pretty close, and can be tweaked in PP using the shot of the color checker (or just done by eye). Indoors, a wildly incorrect WB might throw your histogram off a little, which could influence your exposure, so there's a bit more of an advantage to a camera-set custom WB in that situation. 

If you were shooting JPEG, that would be different. Raw gives you flexibility, so just try to get your exposure as close to correct as possible and deal with the rest later.


----------



## Zanthe (Mar 15, 2017)

Victoria Bampton said:


> It's not baked in (as in, it's not applied to the pixels) but it's stored as a set of coordinates that LR can understand... just like the capture date or other exif data. No massive advantage or disadvantage to setting a custom WB in this kind of scenario.
> 
> Outdoors, auto WB is pretty close, and can be tweaked in PP using the shot of the color checker (or just done by eye). Indoors, a wildly incorrect WB might throw your histogram off a little, which could influence your exposure, so there's a bit more of an advantage to a camera-set custom WB in that situation.
> 
> If you were shooting JPEG, that would be different. Raw gives you flexibility, so just try to get your exposure as close to correct as possible and deal with the rest later.


OK cool. Thanks for the additional clarification.


----------



## Paul B (Mar 15, 2017)

Cerianthus said:


> I almost never use life view so to me it is not that useful.


Yeah likewise; that's why I wouldn't actually bother with a hack. The nice thing with an electronic viewfinder is that you get the peeking there, which is where I would actually like it, but that's not going to happen.


----------



## Tony Jay (Mar 15, 2017)

I thought a bit about whether to contribute to this thread.
A lot of advice has already been given and it all has its applicability.

However, as someone who shoots mainly outdoors, and also gives advice to pro sports photographers I think it might be worth putting some of the advice in perspective.

First off, as already amply suggested in this thread, shoot raw.
This allows the ultimate flexibility in post-processing white balance issues if and when required.
As both Victoria and Cletus have said - when shooting raw the white balance is recorded as a metadata item and not applied across RGB data. This makes altering white balance in post very simple without the strange colour shifts one can get when an image has white balance incorporated into the RGB data.

Shooting on AWB.
This can work.
Pro sports photographers who shoot multiple thousands of images on a daily basis when on assignment generally do not have the time to make individual white balance and colour corrections to all the images. 
Not every image will be perfect (as far as white balance is concerned) - but very close.

Setting a specific white balance in-camera.
This can also work.
Yes, as already mentioned, in an outdoor setting the light is always changing, and hence white balance.
However, when shooting sports one shoots in batches, often as fast as the shutter mechanism of the camera allows.
What this means is that multiple images share the same white balance characteristics and these various batches of images can be also be batch processed in post.
Slightly more work, in post, than shooting in AWB (there one is just obliged to accept the camera's judgement), but arguably a better result.

Either way, one still has the flexibility to give much more attention to any hero images for ultimate image quality.

Tony Jay


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Mar 15, 2017)

I keep meaning to compile a comprehensive list but here's a starter for those interested (and I'm sure I am missing Canon stuff).

When shooting raw, the following items DO affect the raw image data irreversibly, i.e. are "baked in":

Shutter speed
Aperture
ISO (lots of asterisks here depending on camera, but it does)
Long exposure noise reduction
(Nikon) Medium or higher Active D lighting (reduces auto-exposure in some cases) 
Image size (if applicable)
Image compression (relevant to image content if there is a lossy compression)
Bit depth​
The following camera settings are recorded and honored by Lightroom and most other 3rd party products in the initial develop settings, but do not affect the image in any permanent way, they are not "baked in" (i.e. changes in post processing are just as good as if applied originally); they also affect the embedded preview and LCD image: 

White balance​
The following camera settings in camera are ignored by Adobe (and most other 3rd party) products entirely; they do affect the embedded LCD image:

High ISO noise reduction
Nikon "PIcture controls" such as Sharpening, Contrast, etc. (presumably canon has similar) 
Color space (in some workflows this might change image name, and/or cause an export to default differently)
Lens distortion control (including vignette)​
Corrections and supplemental data welcome, I often wonder if there shouldn't be a "cheat sheet" of all settings and which category they call into, as this is often misunderstood.


----------



## clee01l (Mar 16, 2017)

Zanthe said:


> I will be shooting RAW.
> 
> So I guess using AWB and then choosing the white balance square with the ColorChecker would be the way to go. Then I can sync the rest of the photos...have I got it right?
> 
> I was not aware that setting  custom white balance would not affect the RAW image.


Yes Shoot RAW and shoot references cards when ever you detect a change in light conditions.  If it is a sunny day you might not need too many reference shots. I don't usually use a reference card for events, relying instead on finding a suitable gray/white area in the image to let LR compute a WP.


----------



## PhilBurton (Mar 16, 2017)

Ferguson said:


> I keep meaning to compile a comprehensive list but here's a starter for those interested (and I'm sure I am missing Canon stuff).
> 
> When shooting raw, the following items DO affect the raw image data irreversibly, i.e. are "baked in":
> 
> ...



Ferguson,

Not a correction, but a question.  What does Nikon Active D Lighting do?  And why and how does this setting affect auto-exposure?

I really liked your compilation of what is and is not baked into an image when shooting RAW.

Phil Burton


----------



## clee01l (Mar 16, 2017)

PhilBurton said:


> ...What does Nikon Active D Lighting do?  And why and how does this setting affect auto-exposure?...


I'm not Ferguson but I'll give you an answer.    Think of Active D Lighting as an ISO adjustment that can differ at each photo site.   
A Photosite is a discrete location on the camera sensor that measures light as a numeric value. Setting the ISO in the camera assigns a global multiplier to the numbers recorded  at each of the photo sites.   In low light situations the value measured  barely moves from zero. When you add a multiplier (ISO) to that "dark" photo site it becomes a larger number (brighter). Active D Lighting is an in camera process that evaluates the bright areas from the dark areas on the sensor.  So to the ISO multiplier, a positive or negative boost value can be applied brighten dark areas and darken bright areas.  These get recorded as an additional numeric (multiplying) value at each photo site.  So an RGB pixel created from each photo site will be  three values (recorded, Active D, and global ISO) with recorded, Active D combined to produce the photo site value written to the data block. When Nikon's software is used to convert the photo site to an RGB pixel it can remove the effects of the Active D adjustment or tweak it further. The recorded value at the photo site when Active D Lighting is turned off applies a constant multiplier value instead of Active D.   Adobe Camera RAW only uses two of the three values (recorded and ISO)  So if recorded, Active D has already been applied and Adobe Camera RAW uses it own process to evaluate highlights and shadows on the RGB image, Adobe is in effect boosting shadows that have already been boosted and dampening highlights that have already been modified.  For this reason you want to turn off Active D Lighting. when processing with ACR.   Many Nikon professionals also have a negative opinion of Active D Lighting even when used with Nikon's own software.   So even the consensus among Nikon professionals is to leave it turned off in the camera.  Personally, I can see where this would be useful IF you shot only JPEG and wanted a boost to shadows in the image that comes from the camera.


----------



## PhilBurton (Mar 16, 2017)

clee01l said:


> I'm not Ferguson but I'll give you an answer.    Think of Active D Lighting as an ISO adjustment that can differ at each photo site.
> A Photosite is a discrete location on the camera sensor that measures light as a numeric value. Setting the ISO in the camera assigns a global multiplier to the numbers record  at each of the photo sites.   In low light situations the value measured  barely moves from zero. When you add a multiplier (ISO) to that "dark" photo site it becomes a larger number (brighter). Active D Lighting is an in camera process that evaluates the bright areas from the dark areas on the sensor.  So to the ISO multiplier, a positive or negative boost value can be applied brighten dark areas and darken bright areas.  These get recorded as an additional numeric (multiplying) value at each photo site.  So an RGB pixel created from each photo site will be  three values (recorded, Active D, and global ISO) with recorded, Active D combined to produce the photo site value written to the data block. When Nikon's software is used to convert the photo site to an RGB pixel it can remove the effects of the Active D adjustment or tweak it further. The recorded value at the photo site when Active D Lighting is turned off applies a constant multiplier value instead of Active D.   Adobe Camera RAW only uses two of the three values (recorded and ISO)  So if recorded, Active D has already been applied and Adobe Camera RAW uses it own process to evaluate highlights and shadows on the RGB image, Adobe is in effect boosting shadows that have already been boosted and dampening highlights that have already been modified.  For this reason you want to turn off Active D Lighting. when processing with ACR.   Many Nikon professionals also have a negative opinion of Active D Lighting even when used with Nikon's own software.   So even the consensus among Nikon professionals is to leave it turned off in the camera.  Personally, I can see where this would be useful IF you shot only JPEG and wanted a boost to shadows in the image that comes from the camera.


Cletus,

You may not be Ferguson, but your answer was very helpul to me.  Now I understand what Active D Lighting is, and why I should not be using it.  I shoot RAW only.

Phil


----------



## Zanthe (Mar 15, 2017)

Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere. I searched and searched and didn't find the exact discussion I was looking for.

So, I am on my way to the Masters Golf Tournament early next month. This is kind of a one time thing and I don't want to screw this up.

I have read discussions about setting a custom white balance on the day you are shooting and it's not a complicated procedure (Canon 80D)...

But I also have the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport which I intend to use to get the color right and then created a custom profile in Lightroom CC and then sync the set of the days photos to the new profile (as opposed to using Lightroom's Adobe Standard). 

My questions is this: Is it better to actually set a custom white balance using a gray card before shooting OR use the ColorChecker Passport's White Balance "squares" on the second half of the passport (see attached) to adjust the white balance after the fact using the Passport Photo that I will take a the beginning of the day? 

I suppose either will get the job done but am wondering if anybody has recommendation on this issue?


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Mar 17, 2017)

Yeah, what he said.  

My answer was going to be much more boring: it can actually reduce your exposure if in any auto-exposure mode.

So Cletus, you are saying that a raw image shot in Active D (let's say a high version), and one shot in manual exposure at the identical shutter/aperture/ISO but with active-D off, will actually be different when rendered with Adobe.


----------



## clee01l (Mar 17, 2017)

Ferguson said:


> So Cletus, you are saying that a raw image shot in Active D (let's say a high version), and one shot in manual exposure at the identical shutter/aperture/ISO but with active-D off, will actually be different when rendered with Adobe.


That is my understanding. I've never really tested to observe the differences. While I've over simplified the technical parts by analogy to ISO, this is essentially what happens when Active D Lighting is turned on.  ADL and ACR both attempt to address Highlights and shadows at the pixel level.  And "double dipping" is never a good idea. 

Originally, this recommendation to turn off ADL came from someone else (I don't remember who) on the LR forum.  Later I came across the recommendation to never use ADL in a Nikon Users forum.
Here is a link to several trusted (non Adobe) sources:
Nikon Active D-Lighting and Raw Files: Pro Digital Talk Forum ...
Nikon Active D-Lighting, Raw and Lightroom - DON'T!! | PhotoNet ...


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Mar 17, 2017)

Thanks for the links.

I agree with the advice, by the way -- just don't use it when shooting raw (except for Nikon software post processing).

But I remain unconvinced that the adjustment to raw is anything other than a reduction in exposure.  Some of the very definitive sounding posts seemed more about the misleading aspect the histogram and LCD display.

When I get some time I'll experiment.  Find a high contrast subject that's as still as I can make it, and take a with ADL, then adjust to manual exposure and get the same without and see if I can see a difference in the resulting image.

My original impression when this first came out and there was a lot of discussion is all that ADL did to the raw was, potentially (based on dynamic range I think) reduce the exposure to protect the highlights; the idea that it is also doing adjustments on different areas of the image differently in the raw image is... different.

Though again, I agree with the general advice, if using Adobe, just keep it turned off to reduce confusion.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Mar 17, 2017)

Ferguson said:


> all that ADL did to the raw was, potentially (based on dynamic range I think) reduce the exposure to protect the highlights; the idea that it is also doing adjustments on different areas of the image differently in the raw image is... different.



I should preface this with saying I haven't shot anything Nikon since the film days... but I understood from Eric Chan that ADL is boosting the shadow detail in the JPEG image but not the raw file, and since that "edited" version is what you see on the back of the camera and histogram, that can cause you to not realize the photo is actually underexposed. This was a few years ago (August 2009) so I'll be interested to hear the results of your testing Ferguson.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Mar 19, 2017)

I think we've polluted this enough with ADL discussion, so if you want to see the results of my experiment look here: Active-D Lighting, Nikon, Affect on Raw


----------

