BTW: I have foud that AWB doesn't get Tunsten light right. MWB does, seemingly.
Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 10. marts 2005 22:53 Til: [email protected] Emne: RE: Setting White Balance (was: NorCal First Pic) John F wrote: >your camera can't tell >the difference between a white card under dim lighting and a >grey card under bright lighting. Sounds about right to me... Unless accurately exposed, any white is gray. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 10. marts 2005 18:54 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: Setting White Balance (was: NorCal First Pic) [EMAIL PROTECTED] mused: > > For setting white balance, you should use a pure white card, > not a neutral gray card. > Paul In theory it should make no difference - your camera can't tell the difference between a white card under dim lighting and a grey card under bright lighting. In practice there usually *is* a difference, although usually ony of interest to gear heads. I've seen some colo(u)rimetric results that suggest white cards are just a little more prone to discolouration, so a gray card is a slightly better choice. (The difference, though, is hardly noticeable - under 1%). Far more important is to make sure that your test object fills a significant amount of your total field of view.
