White Balance Question

[marginal]

Hello,

I'm starting to discover my newly bought canon hf g10. In spite of being a newcomer to cams, I was aware of the white balance issue through photography, though I never gave it the importance it deserves. But now I do. I was reading many posts and articles on the net and everybody more or less agrees that for a consistent work you should manually regulate the white balance by using a white surface. And here is where opinions seem to diverge. Some advise the use of a simple white sheet of paper, some of a grey card, others say the paper should have 18% grey in it, and so on.

Is there some rule that can be used for white balancing or are we facing here experience and personal taste?

Thank you
Nuno

[smrpix]

18% Grey is technically correct, but anything truly white -- with no color in it -- will work fine. Generally you should set your exposure to auto while you're doing it.

In mixed lighting or ambiguous situations (like a sunset) you may want to use a manual preset, or even use automatic until it looks pleasing and then lock that setting in. Cameras are very good at guessing right these days.

Be aware that your camera viewfinder is a good ballpark indicator -- but they are generally more colorful and contrasty than the actual video.

[sanlyn]

You are both incorrect. "white balance" has to do with color balance and lighting temperature. 18% gray cards are used to find a proper exposure for average shadow areas (which include shadowed skin tones) or a 60% gray card for middle skin tones for general exposure in brightly lighted shadow areas such as standing under a tree on a bright day, or under direct overcast light. Most shrubbery also has about the same luminance value as a gray card. A white card can also be used to check the range of contrast between exposure required for darker shadows and exposure required to prevent blown-out highlights. Gray cards are also used with color meters to check the color balamce for either 18% or 60% neutral gray colors.

Anyone who says that taking an exposure reading off a plain piece of bright white paper in direct light doesn't know what they're talking about.

While it might seem like a very antique and even far-fetched idea nowadays, try reading through some photography books that go into better detail about proper exposure and color balance. Most of the info found on the web is b.s.

[marginal]

Ok Thanks!

[smrpix]

"white balance" has to do with color balance and lighting temperature.

No one said any different.

18% gray cards are used to find a proper exposure for average shadow areas...

A grey card with no color in it is perfectly acceptable for white balancing. Even a greyscale chart will work.

Anyone who says that taking an exposure reading off a plain piece of bright white paper in direct light doesn't know what they're talking about.

No one is suggesting that. I suggested putting the exposure on auto so the camera will stop down (or open up) and make an accurate color measurement. I've been doing it in a pinch professionally for years. The paper should of course be in a representative part of the scene.

A handy rule for determining dcent exposure in to take a light reading off the palm of your hand held away from a light source, not held toward bright light.

Fine advice -- but that's not what we're talking about here.

[_Al_]

I used to use white walls , or there is always something white indoor (which is never white 100% but more like gray anyway). Even clouds outside, yes, shoot it up in the clouds, got that advice years back and used that too.

Now I have just little older cam but Canon also, HV30, and there are presets that just work, daylight, shade, cloudy, different lighting condition, awb even manual, important thing is you start with a decent tone and then you keep it the same.

[sanlyn]

Sorry, _Al_, but you're incorrect as well. No one in the movie business uses a piece of white anything to set basic exposure, nor is it used to set color balance (which is what "white balance" means). That's not a bad idea for color grading after the fact (and many pros do it that way in post-processing, but amateurs never do it). In-camera presets can help because they set color temperature levels for average conditions. Autocolor ruins it, and autogain ruins exposure calculations. Watching the usual home video with autogain and autocolor pumping luma and chroma is annoying to some viewers, while advanced camera users find it amusing but usually don't want to embarrass the maker -- and then there's the average viewer, who will watch anything no matter what it looks like, if it doesn't take too long.

[_Al_]

Who is talking about movies and coloring here so far?
I'm talking home stuff, HF G10 , what is it good for anyway ..., I tend to have colors right, manual exposure, etc., no post whatsoever, it is waste of time and it ruins footage (to me). BTW if not coloring means amateur, if you say so, but 100 years later nobody is gonna be interested to see some "Matrix" tone and such ...

edit: I see you mentioned coloring with different thought, but anyway, op. wants to give it some effort mentioning wb and all, I presume no auto mode for shooting (or it would be good idea to set exposure manually) , because I agree,..., auto mode ruins pretty much everything, some folks really need to be forced to turn exposure down indoor for example, they seem to not get that there is no Sun present inside , that it should look "indoory"etc., and exposure forced down indoor or low light in general, proper term, always keep decibels in single negative digit, not to go over -9dB, keep noise down, is it too dark then? Good. It suppose to. And outdoor too it always looks tons better, colors are real.

[sanlyn]

Nope, you mentioned white. Taking your exposure off the brightest parts of an image? Suit yourself. I wouldn't advise the O.P. do that. I'd advise avoiding it.

[_Al_]

Overexposure is stopped or restrained with exposure, not WB, I don't get that. I'd rather want colors real.

[smrpix]

Nope, you mentioned white. Taking your exposure off the brightest parts of an image? Suit yourself. I wouldn't advise the O.P. do that. I'd advise avoiding it.

???

[sanlyn]

The exposure meters of most cameras, whether digital or analog, are set to calculate an average exposure value whose luminance equates to the standard luminance value for 60% gray. In other words, an exposure for a bright white object will give the exposure setting for rendering the bright white as 60% gray. Many users today prefer underexposure, oversaturation, and crushed shadows (they could get proper saturation more realistically by using polarizing filters and not shooting into bright light, but that's a bit ahead for most users). That "look" is popular today. I don't know why, I guess people pick that up from TV showroom displays and think everything is supposed to look that way. In the end, everyone suits themselves. That's what it's all about.

[_Al_]

As for that Canon, it might work like that,
There is daylight, cloud, shadow (HV30), I'm happy with just that for outdoor (remember amateur shooting ), but one has to be careful .... you set Sunny shooting on Sun, good, you go into shadow and it might start to look differently, washed out. You set Shadow and shooting in that shadow it gets fine, but you forget and go on Sun and everything is oversaturated, so flipping might be necessary. For partly cloudy day better to set it to cloudy and when Sun comes out briskly go down with exposure.
I'm using 0.9 ND filter constantly outdoor. Certain extremes like surrounding is overwhelmingly filled with red or blue color can be weird, do not remember now if camcorder fixes it in time or not, I think not ...

Indoor, there is stronger hunt to get right color, meaning there HAS to be certain color tint, because white being really white indoor under artificial light doesn't look ok. It looks somehoe washed out. AWB ussualy works, maybe it takes a bit time. If you want to set it right away TUNGSTEEN might work for examle, but it depends of course on light, every light is different, so you can quick White Balance on jeans (pants) for example, nice washed out jeans gives a bit better warmer color (slightly, try it). But as I said awb ussualy works also.

[budwzr]

You're all wrong . White balance is a Post Production procedure. Changing WB in the camera for every shot complicates post correction.

The only time it helps in the camera is for gas lamps that burn weird temperatures.

ND filters enable lower f-stop values. Nothing to do with colors.

[_Al_]

Who color correct at home?
You have to have in manual mode set Sunny or Shadow or Cloud for right condition otherwise it just looks different. I'm not talking every shot, outside you just flip two modes back and forth and use correct exposure, if there is condition partly present (sunny and part shadow for example) you just stick to one mode at all times.

[budwzr]

I certainly do correct everything at home. When I'm shooting, I go for dynamic range, whatever exposure is necessary to capture the most range. Everything else I can do in post.

I forced myself to learn to always shoot manual, so it's automatic to me now. I decide the type of shot first, and the order of the exposure elements right away, then proceed to dial them in, starting with the priority.

Once you get the first two settings, you can diddle one of them as conditions change.

Example: I need a DOF shot with a blurred background. So I start with a big iris, and bring the EV down with the shutter speed and leave the ISO at 200.

I rarely shoot over 400 ISO.

I can't imagine using a preset program on my camera. Not saying it's not useful, I'm just stuck mentally in manual mode. I need complete control at the flick of a finger without ever looking away. Guess I'm anal retentive. I hate fussy photographers, but I've become one.