Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: ColorChecker Passport vs SpyderCheckr  (Read 19756 times)

Robert Boire

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 265
    • www.robertboire.ca
ColorChecker Passport vs SpyderCheckr
« on: October 16, 2014, 11:09:30 pm »

I am looking around at products that I can use to improve color accuracy and especially white balance, particularly for situations like night shots, night shots with street lighting..or even worse night shots with snow. I am considering ColorChecker Passport, SpyderCheckr + that nifty SyperCube and even ExpoDisk. Being able to take the solution out into the field is an important consideration.

Any thoughts? Recommendations?

Thanks

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8910
Re: ColorChecker Passport vs SpyderCheckr
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2014, 04:47:42 am »

I am looking around at products that I can use to improve color accuracy and especially white balance, particularly for situations like night shots, night shots with street lighting..or even worse night shots with snow. I am considering ColorChecker Passport, SpyderCheckr + that nifty SyperCube and even ExpoDisk. Being able to take the solution out into the field is an important consideration.

Any thoughts? Recommendations?

Hi Robert,

Just a thought. What's wrong with using a daylight (or dual illuminant) calibrated profile, and using that at night? As a neutral reference for the local color balance you can then use something as physically rugged as a WhiBal.

The ColorChecker Passport will allow to make such an excellent output referred profile if you are using an Adobe centric workflow, which requires creation of DNG file based profiles. You can also use the camera's built-in daylight WB.

You then White balance on the test shot at night of the Whibal and shift the color temperature slider in your Rawconverter to whatever look pleases you.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: October 17, 2014, 05:01:58 am by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

deejjjaaaa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1170
Re: ColorChecker Passport vs SpyderCheckr
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2014, 10:19:58 am »

I am looking around at products that I can use to improve color accuracy and especially white balance, particularly for situations like night shots, night shots with street lighting..or even worse night shots with snow. I am considering ColorChecker Passport, SpyderCheckr + that nifty SyperCube and even ExpoDisk. Being able to take the solution out into the field is an important consideration.

Any thoughts? Recommendations?

Thanks

you need to strart with saying which raw converter you are using -> it will define the tools that you can use to build profiles... if you have the light with spectrum very different from whatever sun delivers (with or w/o clouds, etc) then it might make sense to build such custom profile (otherwise just a proper WB and proper sensor saturation will do the work)...

for example if you are using ACR/LR and hence talking about .dcp profiles then SpyderCheckr OEM software does not build .dcp profiles - so unless you are a software developer capable to write your own code you are out of luck (OEM software for SpyderCheckr creates recipes, not profiles - unless something changed recently).
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19573
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: ColorChecker Passport vs SpyderCheckr
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2014, 11:19:54 am »

Stick with the Passport for creating DNG profiles. And you only need to build a few.
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

Robert Boire

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 265
    • www.robertboire.ca
Re: ColorChecker Passport vs SpyderCheckr
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2014, 04:52:31 pm »

Thanks all. I think my particular issue is WB, though creating a calibrated profile can't hurt.


What's wrong with using a daylight (or dual illuminant) calibrated profile, and using that at night? As a neutral reference for the local color balance you can then use something as physically rugged as a WhiBal.


Well, nothing is wrong other than I did not think of it :).

Thanks I will look into the WhiBal.  Any comments on the ExpoDisk?  This seems so easy to use, especially for the field, that I wonder if I am missing something.

R

deejjjaaaa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1170
Re: ColorChecker Passport vs SpyderCheckr
« Reply #5 on: October 17, 2014, 07:10:49 pm »

Thanks all. I think my particular issue is WB, though creating a calibrated profile can't hurt.
how do you intend to create a "calibrated" profile in a uncalibrated profile creation workflow ( when tools used for dcp profiles do not allow you to enter measurements of your particular target  ;D , that is if you have tools /calibrated ?/ to measure it in the first place ) ... do you really think you are getting a "better" profile for a daylight ? no - you just getting a different profile (by removing some part of what Adobe thinks your colors shall be)... you can argue about taste, but not about "precision".


Thanks I will look into the WhiBal.  Any comments on the ExpoDisk?  This seems so easy to use, especially for the field, that I wonder if I am missing something.

http://rmimaging.com has some tests of WB targets (in terms how neutral they are, with a usual fine print about variations between items) - for example http://www.rmimaging.com/information/ColorChecker_Passport_Technical_Report.pdf has info about a dedicated WB target in xrite passport.
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8910
Re: ColorChecker Passport vs SpyderCheckr
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2014, 03:45:15 am »

http://rmimaging.com has some tests of WB targets (in terms how neutral they are, with a usual fine print about variations between items) - for example http://www.rmimaging.com/information/ColorChecker_Passport_Technical_Report.pdf has info about a dedicated WB target in xrite passport.

FYI, I measured the spectral reflectance of my Whibal card, and of a BabelColor White reference, some time ago. The Whibal is pretty good:


The Whibal is more than 2x brighter than a standard (18%) greycard, which helps in getting a lower (shot-)noise image to sample the White balance on. It also has a White and a Black patch to judge exposure levels.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: October 18, 2014, 03:50:53 am by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

deejjjaaaa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1170
Re: ColorChecker Passport vs SpyderCheckr
« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2014, 11:16:53 am »

and of a BabelColor White reference
which unfortunately ceased to be sold because of some patent dispute (???)
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19573
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: ColorChecker Passport vs SpyderCheckr
« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2014, 11:43:43 am »

which unfortunately ceased to be sold because of some patent dispute (???)
According to Danny, it was simply too expensive to produce and sell at that cost.
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

deejjjaaaa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1170
Re: ColorChecker Passport vs SpyderCheckr
« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2014, 12:53:52 pm »

According to Danny, it was simply too expensive to produce and sell at that cost.
he could simply cut Teflon sheets into smaller chips with a hole in a corner... done.
Logged

Robert Boire

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 265
    • www.robertboire.ca
Re: ColorChecker Passport vs SpyderCheckr
« Reply #10 on: October 18, 2014, 06:01:08 pm »

how do you intend to create a "calibrated" profile in a uncalibrated profile creation workflow ( when tools used for dcp profiles do not allow you to enter measurements of your particular target  ;D , that is if you have tools /calibrated ?/ to measure it in the first place ) ... do you really think you are getting a "better" profile for a daylight ? no - you just getting a different profile (by removing some part of what Adobe thinks your colors shall be)... you can argue about taste, but not about "precision".

Ummm.... I read this several times and still cannot figure out what you are suggesting...

What I am suggesting is that I could use ColorChecker to create a dng profile.  However I still need something that allows be to easily set custom wb in the field. I am not sure gray cards are the most convenient thing to do this.

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8910
Re: ColorChecker Passport vs SpyderCheckr
« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2014, 05:12:56 am »

However I still need something that allows be to easily set custom wb in the field. I am not sure gray cards are the most convenient thing to do this.

Hi Robert,

Gray cards, especially spectrally neutral ones (not ones for determination of average scene brightness exposure) are the best for determining the actual WB at the spot they are used. One still needs to angle them correctly though, perpendicular to the optical axis, assuming they have a surface that has a somewhat Lambertian diffusion pattern.

The only drawback is that you cannot measure the WB at a long distance away with such a card (but then nothing can, not even the Expodisc), or at multiple spots at the same time. The card must be placed in the scene itself, although it can be done on a separate occasion, or at a location with similar lighting (no need to ask the lion to pose next to the graycard).

One typically wants to establish a known/neutral reference under a given illumination, and then adjust for color temperature to achieve a certain atmosphere. With lots of bright effect colors (e.g. neon light or gelled light) or colorful ambient reflection surfaces, one would not want to totally neutralize that, so the photographer still needs to think about what he/she is doing. This is no different than e.g. shooting with a blue sky, which will give blue shadows if we measure in the light and not in the shadows. Similar thing would be when shooting under a heavy tree leaf canopy, one can remove the green color cast but that would kill the atmosphere (although it would improve the color of e.g. human skin).

So in practice, one needs a neutral WB for colors that need to be exact, or only shifted a bit in color temperature, but it is possible to do that only locally where it matters and let local ambient colored reflections or light-sources do their thing elsewhere.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

JRSmit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 921
    • Jan R. Smit Fine Art Printing Specialist
Re: ColorChecker Passport vs SpyderCheckr
« Reply #12 on: October 19, 2014, 10:30:40 am »

Ummm.... I read this several times and still cannot figure out what you are suggesting...

What I am suggesting is that I could use ColorChecker to create a dng profile.  However I still need something that allows be to easily set custom wb in the field. I am not sure gray cards are the most convenient thing to do this.
CCP has a lightgrey card incorporated as well. So that can be used to eyedrop the color balance.
Logged
Fine art photography: janrsmit.com
Fine Art Printing Specialist: www.fineartprintingspecialist.nl


Jan R. Smit

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19573
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: ColorChecker Passport vs SpyderCheckr
« Reply #13 on: October 19, 2014, 03:34:43 pm »

he could simply cut Teflon sheets into smaller chips with a hole in a corner... done.
So what he specifically wrote about the cost and price for consumers isn’t accurate or you have something solid about some patent dispute?
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19573
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: ColorChecker Passport vs SpyderCheckr
« Reply #14 on: October 19, 2014, 03:35:24 pm »

What I am suggesting is that I could use ColorChecker to create a dng profile.  However I still need something that allows be to easily set custom wb in the field.
Use the same Passport target.
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

Hening Bettermann

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 945
    • landshape.net
Re: ColorChecker Passport vs SpyderCheckr
« Reply #15 on: October 19, 2014, 05:11:52 pm »

Hi Robert,

the built-in logic of the grey card method is to render the scene as if it was shot under standard light. If you want to white-balance the scene as you saw it, you need no cards. Here is how:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=73620.0
further discussion here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=82738.0
post of october 04th, 2013

And if you are the lucky owner of a Sony a7(r), it's even easier and better: This camera allows you to set the WB in real time in live view - no need to make test shots; and you can adjust BOTH the yellow-blue AND the magenta-green balance!
Nobody seems to have praised Sony for this, so I will use the opportunity: BRAVO SONY! A great step forward towards a more true color rendition in landscape photography!

Good light - and true color! - Hening.

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
Re: ColorChecker Passport vs SpyderCheckr
« Reply #16 on: October 19, 2014, 05:49:59 pm »

I'm actually starting to use the AWB influenced ACR/LR green/magenta Tint slider as an indicator of how much green is in the actual scene shooting indoors under fluorescent and landscapes at my local park at dusk which looks more green than I'ld thought.

If in ACR/LR I get a huge Tint of +20-30 toward magenta I know my eyesight wasn't playing tricks on my perception of the amount of green I was seeing. My workstation is close to these two shooting locations allowing the look of color temp to stay fresh in my mind.

It acts more of a training mechanism and AWB tester for post processing afterward when I view how magenta ACR/LR renders these shots. I no longer carry my WhiBal card because I know my camera's AWB and ACR/LR agree with each other on what R=G=B should look like which is what I don't want in most of my shots especially if wanting to preserve ambiance within the scene.

I can tell you snow looks gorgeous lit by direct sunlight using AWB on my Pentax K100D with Sony sensor and ACR/LR "As Shot" WB interpretation. It's when I start changing contrast and attempting to expand the DR of the image is when I have to resort to using the HSL panel especially on overly blue shadows.
Logged

Robert Boire

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 265
    • www.robertboire.ca
Re: ColorChecker Passport vs SpyderCheckr
« Reply #17 on: October 19, 2014, 09:05:16 pm »

Use the same Passport target.

Yea, I got that. But is there anything wrong with the ExpoDisk as a WB target? Other than the additional cost?

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8910
Re: ColorChecker Passport vs SpyderCheckr
« Reply #18 on: October 20, 2014, 02:49:48 am »

Yea, I got that. But is there anything wrong with the ExpoDisk as a WB target? Other than the additional cost?

Hi Robert,

Suppose you want to take an image of a red tomato on a red backdrop. What would the Expodisc (which is intended to average the scene Luminance) see? How would an Expodisc (or similar) be of use to set the White balance in a way that Red stays red, but also potentially other colors as they should? All it would do is create a blurry red dominated impression of reflected subject colors, which will get color corrected by a shift to Cyan, in order to neutralize the color 'cast'.

The goal of a White balance tool is to get an impression of the spectral qualities of the illuminant(s) of the scene, the lightsource(s) and ambient reflections, that will determine how the subject color reflections will look.

Remember, illumination spectrum, minus subject spectral absorption, is reflected color spectrum. A spectrally neutral subject (e.g. a graycard) will allow to determine the illumination spectrum (an approximation due to the limitations of the tri-chromatic measurement and assumption of a continuous (blackbody like) spectrum), which is the input required for White balancing. We do not want to measure the subject colors, but we want to measure the illumination spectrum/color in order to approximate correct rendering of any color reflection.

Also remember that the scene illumination mostly comes from illumination sources that are behind the camera and to it's sides. Measuring (averaging color reflection) of what's in front of the camera only makes sense if it is of a subject with known spectrally neutral reflection (of that illumination behind the camera), or the same color as the illumination.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19573
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: ColorChecker Passport vs SpyderCheckr
« Reply #19 on: October 20, 2014, 10:14:14 am »

But is there anything wrong with the ExpoDisk as a WB target?
It’s unnecessary. Use the Passport target for WB too!
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up