Colour meters
p.2 #1Colour meters
msadat wrote:
Given that we nearly all shoot digital these days, you might think what's the point of a colour meter. But, getting the white balance correct in camera, even when shooting raw, makes things easier in post.
Anyway, whilst looking at the colour meters that are available now, used, and new, Google suggested using an app on my iPhone instead. And so I installed one - Kelvin Meter. And I am extremely impressed. It seems very accurate - certainly accurate enough for my needs. £30 for the app vs a lot more for a dedicated meter.What appIt's called Kelvin Meterthx, it seems to be some listed on the app store, why did you choose this one?
In all honesty, I found it through a google search, and when I looked at it in the app store, I thought 'yes', that does exactly what I want, so I downloaded it
pr4photos wrote
msadat wrote
pr4photos wrote
I started looking at colour meters, specifically the Minolta colour meters, as I do a lot of ambient light interiors.Given that we nearly all shoot digital these days, you might think what's the point of a colour meter. But, getting the white balance correct in camera, even when shooting raw, makes things easier in post.
Anyway, whilst looking at the colour meters that are available now, used, and new, Google suggested using an app on my iPhone instead. And so I installed one - Kelvin Meter. And I am extremely impressed. It seems very accurate - certainly accurate enough for my needs. £30 for the app vs a lot more for a dedicated meter.
In all honesty, I found it through a google search, and when I looked at it in the app store, I thought 'yes', that does exactly what I want, so I downloaded it
Feb 21, 2026 at 06:12 AM
p.2 #2Colour meters
CharleyL wrote:
" Thanks Charlie.
I do find, when I forget to shoot the white balance target, that Auto White Balance on my R3 and R5II do a good job in "normal" conditions. It's the early morning and late evening light and other tricky situations where it can get confused.
Years ago, I did a test of AWB. I shot a gray card as a reference. Then, within the span of only a few minutes, I shot a number of shots in 'identical light' in AWB mode, all in different directions. Then I interrogated all EXIF to determine what numerical WB setting was used for each shot...the results were numerically ALL OVER THE MAP...yet all looked 'perfectly acceptable'!
60% of the shots deviated from the ideal value (determined by gray card shot). Values from 4424K thru 5895K resulted (vs. the 'ideal' 5000K value. That is rather poor consistency from shot to shot, although all shots were made in identical illumination (sunlight) in the brief duration of the test.
IMG_6021, with color balanced to 'neutral', has a WB value which should work 'best' for all 16 other shots taken (identical light), yet each shot has a different WB value, only a FEW of which matched IMG_6021 in value.
IOW, what looks to be 'acceptable' will often depart from 'ideal' WB setting. If accuracy/neutrality of color reproduction is necessary, use of a fixed WB setting, not AWB, is necessary.
The range of deviation in WB from the one 'ideal' is even wider in variation as shown in this series...
due to the high saturation colors in the frame. This second series (B) was shot under identical circumstances to series A, and the deviation from 'ideal' is far wider in series B than it was in series A. Ten rapid shots in AWB, with same 5000K 'daylight' light, with results of WB value from 2028K thru 5916K. An 80% error rate, with the greater deviation in range from the 'ideal'
" Thanks Charlie.
I do find, when I forget to shoot the white balance target, that Auto White Balance on my R3 and R5II do a good job in "normal" conditions. It's the early morning and late evening light and other tricky situations where it can get confused.
Years ago, I did a test of AWB. I shot a gray card as a reference. Then, within the span of only a few minutes, I shot a number of shots in 'identical light' in AWB mode, all in different directions. Then I interrogated all EXIF to determine what numerical WB setting was used for each shot...the results were numerically ALL OVER THE MAP...yet all looked 'perfectly acceptable'!
60% of the shots deviated from the ideal value (determined by gray card shot). Values from 4424K thru 5895K resulted (vs. the 'ideal' 5000K value. That is rather poor consistency from shot to shot, although all shots were made in identical illumination (sunlight) in the brief duration of the test.
IMG_6021, with color balanced to 'neutral', has a WB value which should work 'best' for all 16 other shots taken (identical light), yet each shot has a different WB value, only a FEW of which matched IMG_6021 in value.
IOW, what looks to be 'acceptable' will often depart from 'ideal' WB setting. If accuracy/neutrality of color reproduction is necessary, use of a fixed WB setting, not AWB, is necessary.
The range of deviation in WB from the one 'ideal' is even wider in variation as shown in this series...
due to the high saturation colors in the frame. This second series (B) was shot under identical circumstances to series A, and the deviation from 'ideal' is far wider in series B than it was in series A. Ten rapid shots in AWB, with same 5000K 'daylight' light, with results of WB value from 2028K thru 5916K. An 80% error rate, with the greater deviation in range from the 'ideal'
May 13, 2026 at 08:57 AM