Pro Review: Datacolor SpyderCube

By Stan Sholik

I’m sure most professional photographers have some device in their camera bag to white balance their digital captures by now. The majority of these devices, ranging from an ExpoDisc to a coffee filter, provide a white balance by correcting the color temperature of the light before you begin shooting, saving it as a preset for the session.

While this approach yields excellent results for white balance, these devices do nothing to assist us in adjusting midtone brightness, shadow density and contrast to ensure we are taking full advantage of the dynamic range of the capture.

Datacolor, with the introduction of the $59 SpyderCube, takes a different approach to white balance and in doing so provides a device that addresses all of the visual elements we need to extract the maximum tonality from our images. Standing only a little over three inches tall, the SpyderCube is the Mighty Mouse of color balance.


Also included in the SpyderCube box is a cloth carrying bag, not shown.
©Stan Sholik

Unlike the majority of white balance devices, the SpyderCube isn't designed to give you a camera white balance setting for the photo session. Rather, it is a postproduction tool geared for working with RAW files, but usable with JPEGs within the limitations of available adjustments to JPEG files.

The SpyderCube really is a cube, with a polished sphere at the top and a short cylinder at the base. The sphere at the top provides a specular highlight and the cylinder at the base houses a standard ¼-20 threaded fitting for mounting the unit on a tripod or other compatible support.


The base of the SpyderCube houses a threaded insert for tripod mounting.
©Stan Sholik

Three faces of the cube are designed to face the camera. The top two are divided diagonally with white and gray surfaces for highlight and 18-percent gray balance. The lower face is black with a fairly deep black hole in it. The black surface provides an area for shadow density control. The black hole is used to provide an absolute black, even in a high key scene.


The SpyderCube.
©Stan Sholik

The SpyderCube is placed anywhere in the scene. Placement doesn’t seem to be at all critical. I’ve had it out of focus in macro photos and small in the scene with large sets and portraits in the studio. What is critical is positioning the SpyderCube so that the three important faces are seen in the camera.


The SpyderCube can be placed anywhere in the scene. Before a portrait session I place it on a stool in subject position and shoot so that it will be large enough in the frame to get good readings. ©Stan Sholik


The SpyderCube doesn’t need to be in focus. Here I held it close to the flower that I would be photographing. ©Stan Sholik

If you’re capturing RAW files you can be as sloppy as you want with white balance. While I would normally white balance accurately by creating a white balance preset, for the purpose of this review I just used a camera setting close to the white balance of my light source.

You need to be precise with highlight exposure of course. By previewing the SpyderCube image with camera set to show flashing highlights on the LCD and adjusting exposure so that the white surface facing your main light is just beginning to flash will yield an optimal exposure.

The rest of the adjustments are carried out in post production. The Datacolor website has videos showing a Lightroom and a Photoshop Camera Raw color balance workflow using the SpyderCube. I go about it slightly differently, so let me briefly explain my process.

After opening the image with the SpyderCube included, I zoom in so that the SpyderCube is large enough for the eyedropper to accurately read the surfaces. If you use Camera Raw, use the color sampler eyedropper and click on each of the important areas of the SpyderCube to set info points.


In Camera Raw I use the sampler eyedropper to place info points in the important areas. Point 1 (with which I don’t usually bother) is in the specular highlight on the sphere; point 2 is in the lighter 18% gray patch; point 3 is the darker 18% gray patch; point 4 is in the lighter white patch; point 5 is in the darker white patch; point 6 on the dark face; and, point 8 is in the dark trap.

I use the white (gray) balance tool to read the brighter gray surface. Then I adjust my highlight exposure sliders until there is no longer any clipping on the brighter white surface. The specular highlights on the ball at top will still be clipped, but let them go.

Next I set the maximum black by clicking on the black trap and using the black slider (or whatever device the software you use provides) to set this value to 0, 0, 0. Then I use the Shadows tool (Tone Curve tab) to ensure there is separation between the black trap and the black surface surrounding it.

Finally, I use the Brightness tool to adjust the value of the brighter gray surface to 128, 128, 128. The Datacolor videos recommend doing this step before the shadow adjustment, but I found that both the highlight and shadow adjustments will change the midtone value, so I leave that for last. It’s a good idea to check all your points one more time to ensure they are still where you want them, and then zoom out to see the full image. Save the adjustments as a preset (if you’re in Camera Raw) and you are ready to apply the adjustments to the rest of the images in the session.


After making all of my adjustments, the screen looks like this. I save the adjustments to apply to the captures in the session.

Once you have made the image neutral with highlights and shadows set “by-the-book,” you can adjust the image to look pleasing to your creative taste. I’ve yet to shoot a portrait that looks good to me when it is dead neutral. But having portraits dead neutral each time allows me to apply a color correction on which I have standardized so that my results are consistent session after session.


For a studio still life, I set my D2x on ‘Flash’ white balance, set the SpyderCube at the edge of the set and made a capture. For high angle shots like this, the design of the SpyderCube is less than ideal. A flat surface on the back would be better, but then it wouldn’t be a cube! ©Stan Sholik


In post production I corrected the image with the SpyderCube and applied the correction to the final capture. ©Stan Sholik


The final corrected still life. ©Stan Sholik


The flower image here is “correct” according to the SpyderCube, but too low key for my taste. So I made a few other adjustments in Camera Raw and created an image more to my liking (below). ©Stan Sholik


Very few scenes or subjects will have a full range of tonal values and a reliable neutral available to you. With the SpyderCube, you will have them. It’s found a permanent home in my camera bag.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (11)

That's an interesting tool! Definitely maximizes your ability to capture the full dynamic range compared to most white balance tools.


Totally Photoshopped. It's obvious to people who have seen quite a few 'shops, as I have in my time. Just look at those pixels--they're a dead giveaway.

I'm not sure what the commenter above (Dave) is implying since the reference shot with the SpyderCube is supposed to be used with Photoshop Camera Raw (or Lightroom) adjustments, so of course it's Photoshopped.

For the record, these images have also been downsized with Save For Web for faster viewing online. The larger views are not full-res.

The cube offers extra facility in post production WB, by adding the specular silvered ball and the dead black hole. As Stan notes, the cube shape without a flat side makes the unit much less practical.

Of course the WhiBal, Ed Pierce's Targets and the Lastolite Tri panel (available only over seas) already offer the same highlight, shadow and midtone references. Most photographers and light scientists would say that specular and full black readings are interesting, but they have little practical effect on the finished exposure. We already set our Photoshop defaults to 5-5-5 for not quite full black shadow and 245-245-245 on the other end. (Or some figures close to these by personal preference.) Mid tone setting choice does vary, expert to expert.

Stan's so right in saying that we generally don't "like" fully neutral images, preferring a bias that emphasizes the feel or atmosphere of the subject at hand. Color consistency in an image series is very desirable, yet I for one would never want each and every portrait session or commercial still life to have the exact same color balance.

It's not possible to agree that you can "be as sloppy as you want with WB" in camera. This is is dead wrong. Image degradation through negligence of WB in capture is easily proved by watching what happens to the histogram when you have to do major tweaks of color in post. Careful in camera WB, and of course exposure, provide the basis from which we add artistic touches of color and tone without degrading the image. Then postproduction become the artist's prerogative, not playing catch up because you didn't know your craft.

WB is a 2-part deal: in camera and in post.



Stan Sholik mentions that after the adjustment with the cube he had to make additional adjustments. It would be intersting to know what they were. If the final image is not the same as the one adjusted with the cube just what does the cube?
If the cube gets to a uniform point what is it that is needed afterward and could the settings be adjusted to conform to that change?
Also does it zero the color adjustment or does that need further adjustment?

Sara, if the photographer is shooting jpgs, you are correct that adjusting color balance degrades the image. But in raw, adjusting color balance is a non-destructive process.


After the white balance adjustments, a photographer might want to apply sharpening to the entire image or specific areas in portraits, there could be a contrast boost or filter applied to make it more dramatic, skin retouching, teeth whitening, overall warming. As he said, the things that are applicable to the photographer's creative taste.

"...could the settings be adjusted to conform to that change?"

If you do all of your post-neutral changes to the same frame, you can synch all of the other images from the same shoot (same lighting, same exposure settings) to that frame, and they'll be adjusted with the same settings.

If you use the same lighting setup and exposure all the time, I suppose that if you saved your preferred settings as a preset in Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom, you wouldn't need to reshoot the SpyderCube every time.

I imagine there would be exceptions if the dynamic range or subject matter changed in a way that would call for different choices, like an accidentally orange-tanned bride who would look better if the warmer tone wasn't applied.

When shooting raw, the color can altered with no difference whether it is done in-camera or in raw software. Either way, jpgs or tifs are produced AFTER the raw data has been captured and recorded.

Sara's premise that the histogram changes as you vary the color temperature does not "prove" that image degradation is occurring. The histogram MUST shift as you change color temp!

Email me at and I can explain a simple test to prove what I'm saying.

Here's the test:

1) Camera (set to "raw") on a tripod in your camera room.
2) Place a Macbeth chart on a table and light it with the tungsten modeling lights in your studio strobe.
3) Set your camera's color temp to 2,900K or so... close to the color of the modeling lamps.
4) Photograph the chart.
5) Now set your camera's color temp very high, say 10,000K.
6)Photograph the chart.
7) Open both in any raw conversion software
8) Click balance both files using a light gray patch on the chart.
9) The 2,900K file shouldn't change much if any. The 10,000K file should shift a lot. But... both files will now look virtually IDENTICAL in histogram, noise, and visual qualities.

The only differences would come in camera movement for the two exposures.

Case closed!

>Sara, if the photographer is shooting jpgs, you are correct that adjusting color balance degrades the image. But in raw, adjusting color balance is a non-destructive process.

>The only differences would come in camera movement for the two exposures.

Fuzzy is correct. White Balance plays absolutely no role on the actual Raw data. Raw is Raw. The only effect is that from ISO and exposure. You can shoot Raw and have the WB set any way you wish, it will not have any effect on the Raw data. The LCD preview, which is based on an in-camera JPEG yes. But not a lick on the Raw data. Such tools are of little if any use to Raw shooters.

For the record, Tom Hogarty, Adobe Senior Product Manager for Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw, confirms that Andrew Rodney is correct on this matter. In-camera white balance settings have no impact on the raw captured data.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on July 1, 2009 3:57 AM.

The previous post in this blog was Pro Review: Portrait Professional v9.0.

The next post in this blog is Tips for Greener Photography: 7 Ways to Pool Resources.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by
Movable Type 5.2.7