determining correct kelvin settings

[movingex]

"I took some shots on the floor before the games started and all of us decided that a Kelvin setting of 3900 looked "correct", so that's what we went with. Worked like a charm ... everything (and we were shooting jpg's) had the right exposure and color balance right out of the camera ..... "

The quote above is from a old post on another forum that I ran across. It is referring to shooting HS basketball in a gym and getting correct color balance. Just wondering if anyone can explain how you could determine the correct Kelving settings by taking shots of the floor. What would you do with the shots?

Just curious.

Thanks!

[Asylum Steve]

Hi movingex. Welcome to the site...

Not sure if your question is suppose to be funny or not. Ok, I'll assume it's a real question. By using the term on the floor, they mean shots standing or sitting at floor level (not shots OF THE floor). The equivelent at a football or baseball game would be shots on the field...

IOW, they did some test shots at the viewing point they would be shooting duing the game and evaluated the results to determine the color balance...

[movingex]

Hi movingex. Welcome to the site...

Not sure if your question is suppose to be funny or not. Ok, I'll assume it's a real question. By using the term on the floor, they mean shots standing or sitting at floor level (not shots OF THE floor). The equivelent at a football or baseball game would be shots on the field...

IOW, they did some test shots at the viewing point they would be shooting duing the game and evaluated the results to determine the color balance...

Steve,

I guess in this case I'm too ignorant on this topic to have known that this would be viewed as a joke. I do not post jokes. When I post I am only interested in learning or trying to help someone else learn.

I do apologize for posting in such a way that you would think that I was joking.

I am simply trying to learn the method the guy used to "evaluate the results to determine the color balance.

[another view]

I'd guess he just took an educated guess on the color temperature in the room, then took some test shots and fine-tuned the white balance (by looking at the LCD monitor) to get it right. Sounds kind of strange.

If you're shooting jpegs, getting the white balance (WB) correct is really important. Auto WB doesn't always give you what you want (just like auto exposure...) and chances are that auto WB won't be very close in artificial lighting. I'd personally do a custom white balance if your camera does this. The process will be outlined in the instruction manual, and note that some cameras use white cards and some use grey (the manual will tell you which). Basically, this is taking a picture of something that's a known color so the camera can figure out how to render that color correctly based on the light that you're in.

There's also a thing called an Expo Disc which looks like a big filter that you screw onto the lens. It's white and you can't see thru it, but screw it on the lens and set your WB as though you're taking a picture of the room. it's a way to get the custom WB without having to deal with a white card (regular cheap-o copy paper works fine). Or if you're really cheap like me, you can try a trick I saw on another forum - use the lid from a can of Pringles. Hold it in front of the lens, set your WB and you'll be surprised how accurate it is.

[JCPhoto1]

You face the camera pointing at the floor. Take a shot look in the LCD screen and see if it matches the view of the floor. It's not a perfect way to do it but works as a quick white balance method. You can always fine tune later if shooting RAW.

[Asylum Steve]

"I do not post jokes..."

Well, I hope there was no offense in what I said, as certainly none was intended. I think you'll find one of the best features of this site is that there are many members with a good sense of humor. It's the lightheartedness of many of the posts that keeps the atmosphere here relaxed.

Nothing at all wrong with posting funny comments or topics...

"I do apologize for posting in such a way that you would think that I was joking..."

Not neccessary. If you reread my reply, I was going on the assumption that you were serious...

In any event, I turns out I misunderstood the original quote. It never occured to me that they really did mean pointing the camera AT the floor to get a color reading. Makes sense when you think about it.

Still, I think the whole mixup is a question of semantics, and I stand by my original reply. Taking shots ON the floor and AT the floor are two very different things. If the person you quoted had said AT THE FLOOR, I think we all would have had a better understanding of what they were doing.

Anyway, I hope you got an answer to your question...