Whi-Bal vs. Gretag Macbeth ColorChecker

Mrs F · May 27, 2007

I was all set to purchase a set of Whi-Bal white balance reference cards, but I'm hesitating because I read a few reviews that said the white card and black card have been eliminated and replaced by a paper label on the gray card. Some of the reviewers were complaining that it's a cheaper-made product for the same price (about $30). I know there are a lot of happy users of Whi-Bals on DGrin. Maybe the change is no big deal? :dunno

Then last night I was reading in Photoshop Restoration and Retouching by Katrin Eismann that after doing numerous comparisons, she recommends the Macbeth ColorChecker as the ultimate reference for adjusting white balance during RAW processing. She mentions the Whi-Bal as a valid substitute as sort of an afterthought. I really respect Eismann's talents and opinions, so I was ready to run out and buy the Macbeth Mini ColorChecker. However, at $60, I'm rethinking that idea. Is there anyone out there using the Gretag Macbeth ColorChecker for adjusting white balance? Is it the ultimate reference? I'd appreciate some input from any one that has a Gretag Macbeth ColorChecker.

CatOne · May 27, 2007

You could over-analyze this until the cows home, but the fact is that both will get you results that are quite accurate (and FAR better than just "winging it" using color temperatures and presets).

You may be +/- 50 K on either of them, in a variety of lighting conditions, but that's just no big deal, given there's no real certification for "absolute right" color temperature anyway -- often people want things a bit warmer than true.

When I was on the trip to Antarctica, a bunch of the folks did some comparisons of various white balance aids -- Whibal, GMB color checker, and the snap-on lens thing that I have (sorry, name eludes me). These were checked against ambient light readings from a GMB spectrophermoter. The Whibal tended to be the most accurate, at say +/- 30K, the GMB was +/- 50K, and the lens snap-on was +/- 100K (also the most expensive). I think either the Whibal or GMB would be fine.

wxwax · May 27, 2007

CatOne wrote:

GMB spectrophermoter.

Who dat? My search yielded no results. Typo, maybe?

Mrs F · May 27, 2007

CatOne wrote:

You could over-analyze this until the cows home, but the fact is that both will get you results that are quite accurate (and FAR better than just "winging it" using color temperatures and presets)...

I think either the Whibal or GMB would be fine.

Thanks CatOne. That's great information. It seems to me it would make sense to just buy the less expensive item.

Kari

Mrs F · May 27, 2007

wxwax wrote:

Who dat? My search yielded no results. Typo, maybe?

Spectrophotometer?

CatOne · May 27, 2007

Mrs F wrote:

Spectrophotometer?

Yep. Sorry, bad latin.

The thing that actually measures the incoming light and tells you want it is. From Gretag Macbeth (I'm going to get carpal tunnel from typing that damn name ;-)

arodney · May 28, 2007

Ideally a white card is known as spectrally neutral. If you used a Spectrophotometer (its a device that measures the wavelengths of light), it would be flat. Some items will show spikes in the spectrum in some places.

The Macbeth card is ideal as a color reference. Not sure I'd say its #1 for a white bal card as there's one that's far more spectrally neutral and has a very, very high L (lumanice) value. Not inexpensive but this is the best product I've measured with my EyeOne Pro Spectrophotometer for use as a white balance product:

http://www.babelcolor.com/main_level/White_Target.htm

pathfinder · May 28, 2007

arodney wrote:

Ideally a white card is known as spectrally neutral. If you used a Spectrophotometer (its a device that measures the wavelengths of light), it would be flat. Some items will show spikes in the spectrum in some places.

The Macbeth card is ideal as a color reference. Not sure I'd say its #1 for a white bal card as there's one that's far more spectrally neutral and has a very, very high L (lumanice) value. Not inexpensive but this is the best product I've measured with my EyeOne Pro Spectrophotometer for use as a white balance product:

http://www.babelcolor.com/main_level/White_Target.htm

Andrew Rodney, Welcome to dgrin.

The White Balance target you linked seems to be very desireable.

Enough so that I ordered one:D

It is small, lightweight, and seems spectrally ideal. More accuarate than the WhyBal card I already possess, but the WhyBal is larger and heavier to carry in the field. And apparently less accurate as well.

Thanks you for this link and information.

arodney · May 28, 2007

This is an especially good target for figuring out the correct exposure for shooting raw. But first, its important to understand the idea of 'expose to the right' explained here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

What I do with this target is take an Ambient reading using a good meter and bracket shots with this target. Then in my raw converter (ACR or LR) I examine the highlight values with the converter are my default looking for images where it is just shy of blowing out (254/254/254 would be ideal but you may be a few points lower). That's the correct exposure! Compare that with what the meter in camera suggested. You can then shoot images using this new exposure compensation, then, build a LR or ACR preset to bring the images into the converter so they look 'normalized'. That is, you may find that you are now 'over exposing' the image 2 stops compared to what the in camera says it should be. This will of course look awful on the LCD (can't do anything about that, this is the JPEG representation built by the camera from the Raw, something you're not doing). But in LR, if the image appears too light, import using this normalization preset, the image will not look over exposed but just right. Plus you've got better data in the shadows.

wxwax · May 28, 2007

Great stuff, Andrew, glad to have you here!

pathfinder · May 28, 2007

Andrew,

I understand the theory and most of the practice of shooting to keep the histogram to the right, since the data is strongly encoded in the higher ( whiter) parts of the histogram. I will keep this in mind in learning to use the device you mentioned in your previous post.

Mrs F · May 29, 2007

This is interesting stuff. Thank you for sharing the links! I'm going to bookmark the luminous-landscape site and get some "study time" in tonight.

Whi-Bal vs. Gretag Macbeth ColorChecker

Comments