DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> DONT BUY A WHIBAL!!!!
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 40 of 40, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/14/2007 08:02:26 PM · #26
Better measured by what? Just looking at them I prefer the first row result better and the first of the two click pics but without knowing what the original looked like I can't really tell you which is better. Better means more accurate. If your white balance isn't correct your images could take on a blue cast as the second row and second click pics seem to have. Or to the contrary, a poor white balance could reduce the amount of blue in your images so that they no longer show a vibrancy that may have existed, as could be the case with the first row and first click pics.

The point of the white balance reference is accuracy or trueness to the original subject captured. Again without a true reference, in this case seeing the bedding you took the photo of in the light it was taken in, a third party observer cannot really give you a good answer.

Just my 2 cents.
 11/14/2007 08:13:27 PM · #27
Originally posted by krafty1:


Just my 2 cents.


Add my two cents to yours :-)
 11/14/2007 09:45:29 PM · #28
that makes 4 cents! were rakeing in the cash now!
 11/15/2007 07:18:43 PM · #29
Originally posted by geoffb:

The only time all three RGB numbers are the same is a shade of gray (or white or black). Any "colour" will have at least one number that's different. You're correct that the camera is looking for a neutral gray (all three RGB numbers are the same) when trying to determine white balance, but this does not include "neutral colours" as you've defined them. There is no shade of blue, green, or red (or any other colour for that matter) that will satisfy the camera as "neutral" for white balance purposes.

For exposure purposes, the meter doesn't care what colour it's dealing with--only lightness values. Perhaps that's what you were referring to.


You are right, Geoff... that's what I get for typing to fast while at work. Depending on who you talk to in the graphic, publishing, photo world, there are colors that are considered neutral but they won't have the same RGB numbers.

I'll throw in a couple of pennies too.

Mike
 11/19/2007 08:22:30 PM · #30
[thumb]614923[/thumb]

Sorry about the horrid lighting, but wanted to show what it can do under bad lighting conditions.

This series was shot consecutively under a compact florescent bulb. To make things worse, the walls of the room are blue and a computer monitor is in the background. The room has a brown tile floor too.

The first shot is the camera's chosen Auto WB. Not too good.

The second is using a WhiBal card and most resembles my flesh tone.

The third, while close, does exhibit a bit of a cast.

I was going to do a forth using a preset in ACR, but couldn't find a preset that looked anywhere near correct.

Message edited by author 2007-11-19 22:07:36.
 11/19/2007 08:48:47 PM · #31
That WHIBAL looks like it kicks ass, does anyone have one that they are wanting to trash because of this thread???

Teacher: (taking attendance) Bueller?....... Bueller?.......Bueller?
Girl: Um, he's sick. My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Message edited by author 2007-11-19 20:54:00.
 11/19/2007 10:04:14 PM · #32
Okay, after reading this thread and the other WB thread, could someone please change the title of this one to "DO BUY A WHIBAL!!!!"
 11/19/2007 10:18:13 PM · #33
im afraid not... i mean the results are clear that there isnt drastically much of a differece... and the object of the thread is to save other people money... i do own a WHIBAL and its great, but the cloth is another approach, yes a little harder to achieve but cheaper (MUCH CHEAPER)
 11/19/2007 10:23:06 PM · #34
What is the cost of the WhiBal?
 11/19/2007 10:28:21 PM · #35
from 26 i believe to 60 if im correct.. but you probobly will want some accesoriec with the pocket or studio so the minimum cost is about 50$ and up...so when ou think about it the cloth is 10x cheaper than the cheapest whibal
 11/19/2007 10:29:37 PM · #36
Originally posted by Lowcivicman99:
What is the cost of the WhiBal?


$26 for the pocket version $32 for the studio version that I'm seen holding. The gray card you see cost $7 for a pack of two 8x10 cards.

I do agree with Jib to a point, but if you are going to take the time to make sure your color is correct, balance it off something worth balancing from.
 11/19/2007 10:48:18 PM · #37
okay look I have a 1989 Upper Deck Ken Griffey, Jr. Rookie Card that I will trade you for your WHIBAL. Whata say?
 11/19/2007 10:58:09 PM · #38
lol hmmmm let me think...
 11/20/2007 12:09:10 AM · #39
But... if the cloth gets dirty, faded, stained, wrinkled, the kid blows his nose on it a few time, etc., etc. and you have to replace it 10 times more than the WhiBal, the WhiBal comes out cheaper. :D

Mike

Message edited by author 2007-11-20 00:09:57.
 11/20/2007 09:44:16 AM · #40
Originally posted by MikeJ:
But... if the cloth gets dirty, faded, stained, wrinkled, the kid blows his nose on it a few time, etc., etc. and you have to replace it 10 times more than the WhiBal, the WhiBal comes out cheaper. :D

Mike


ANd the WHibal is the same color all the way through...and plastic, so it won't change color when wet also.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 07:17:59 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 07:17:59 AM EDT.