'Reference' RAW Conversion

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks Jamie.

Now if we for an instance way that you are right, then why are your pages too red and the skin tones too? This is also the case if I measure the values.

 

I like Kodak much better than Fuji :-)

 

No Henrik, the skin tones (forehead with illumination on the upper quartertone) on my shot read:

 

34Y 26M 11C

 

in a 5 * 5 point average, which is just about right for Caucasian skin (being brown, not cyanotic or red). That may be not magenta enough, or too much cyan, or too yellow, but it's definitely not too red.

 

The pages themselves in a halfway point at the open page are:

 

6Y 5M 5M

 

(or R235 G235 B236 in sRGB).

 

They are quite close enough to neutral.

 

So if you're seeing "red" then your monitors are incorrect (or your point sample in Photoshop isn't set up to average pixels... sorry!). I shot Kodak (portra, VPS, and many more) myself for years.

[jaapv]

On my monitor (fullycalibrated) the shot looks neutral enough.

[ammitsboel]

To me it looks as if it has a tint.

I used the mac color picker on my laptop, that might be wrong. But what's most important is what I see on my monitors, both the calibrated NEC and the two not calibrated + my EIZO work monitor adjusted to sRGB.

 

Was the background of the scene really light brown/yellow/red'ish?

I'm sorry, it just looks weird or twisted in the color adjustment. It's not clear as I would want it to be.

 

H

[ptarmigan]

Thanks everybody for an interesting insight into RAW conversion.

 

Here is what I believe is my best effort. What have I learned, well the C1 IS the way to go for high ISO images, It produces way less noise and better rendering of finer detail. Oh and that I still have a lot to learn when it comes to RAW conversion, C1 and PS CS3!

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Jamie Roberts]

To me it looks as if it has a tint.

I used the mac color picker on my laptop, that might be wrong. But what's most important is what I see on my monitors, both the calibrated NEC and the two not calibrated + my EIZO work monitor adjusted to sRGB.

 

Was the background of the scene really light brown/yellow/red'ish?

I'm sorry, it just looks weird or twisted in the color adjustment. It's not clear as I would want it to be.

 

H

 

Henrik--no need to apologise, and YMMV. I'm just trying to give you a clue that your whole colour system may be off.

 

Anyway, you're bumping up against the first rules of colour correction: you can only correct what you know.

 

It doesn't matter what the walls look like on your monitor. For that matter, for print, it doesn't really matter what the neutrals or skin "look" like either.

 

I'm not going to get into this too much--there are dozens of great books written on this--but your visual system--no matter how your monitors are set-up or how many you have--can be fooled // will adjust to weirdness very easily.

 

So here's the key point in a "reference" colour correction: you can only correct for what you know

 

Since I have no idea what colour the walls were, I let them go where they went when I made the blackpoint and whitepoint neutral.

 

And yes, I strongly suspect they're brownish-red, but they may not be. In my work, that would be considered insignificant.

 

But I *do* know the colour of her skin (or at least the plausible colour of her skin). Equally importantly, I know what the colour of her skin will NOT be

 

I'm also 99.99% sure the books she's reading don't have blue or cyan pages!

 

In truth, they're actually probably NOT neutral, but warm, but since they're nearly blown (not quite) I adjusted for neutral, which I think is a defensible decision at least.

 

Finally, I don't know exactly what her shirt looks like, but I suspect it's a "red / pink" and white stripe Some of the files posted here actually have that shirt (on the highlight side) as cyan / blue with purple-red stripes, and we *know* that's wrong too.

 

So if the wall colour ends up wrong, so be it--I'd rather have the walls off by a shade than her face, no?

 

BTW, I could fix the wall if someone told me it wasn't right.

 

What you may be reacting too as well is my dodge and burn job--which was under a minute, and gave the whole shot a vignette, more or less. If you don't like that then fine, but that has nothing to do with the colour correction per se.

 

Anyway, all of the things I know about in the shot I can measure in C1 and Photoshop as well. That tells me, by the way, exactly how they will print regardless of colour space or how something "looks" due to monitor or system weirdness.

 

(BTW--one more tip... if the file I posted looks noisy or streaky or any of that, then all your monitors have their luminance set too high and the blackpoint will be off--you'll be seeing detail where none would print (and that's an issue with 99% of LCDs and many colour calibration programs out there, too).

[ptarmigan]

To me it looks as if it has a tint.

I used the mac color picker on my laptop, that might be wrong. But what's most important is what I see on my monitors, both the calibrated NEC and the two not calibrated + my EIZO work monitor adjusted to sRGB.

 

Was the background of the scene really light brown/yellow/red'ish?

I'm sorry, it just looks weird or twisted in the color adjustment. It's not clear as I would want it to be.

 

H

 

No the background is a chocolate/reddish brown - though a flat/matt colour not garish or bright.

[ptarmigan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Henrik--no need to apologise, and YMMV. I'm just trying to give you a clue that your whole colour system may be off.

 

Anyway, you're bumping up against the first rules of colour correction: you can only correct what you know.

 

It doesn't matter what the walls look like on your monitor. For that matter, for print, it doesn't really matter what the neutrals or skin "look" like either.

 

I'm not going to get into this too much--there are dozens of great books written on this--but your visual system--no matter how your monitors are set-up or how many you have--can be fooled // will adjust to weirdness very easily.

 

So here's the key point in a "reference" colour correction: you can only correct for what you know

 

Since I have no idea what colour the walls were, I let them go where they went when I made the blackpoint and whitepoint neutral.

 

And yes, I strongly suspect they're brownish-red, but they may not be. In my work, that would be considered insignificant.

 

 

 

The wall is a chocolate/reddish brown - though a flat/matt colour not garish or bright.

 

 

 

 

I'm also 99.99% sure the books she's reading don't have blue or cyan pages!

 

In truth, they're actually probably NOT neutral, but warm, but since they're nearly blown (not quite) I adjusted for neutral, which I think is a defensible decision at least.

 

 

Correct.

 

 

Finally, I don't know exactly what her shirt looks like, but I suspect it's a "red / pink" and white stripe Some of the files posted here actually have that shirt (on the highlight side) as cyan / blue with purple-red stripes, and we *know* that's wrong too.

 

It's a white blouse with pinkish/red pin-stripes.

[ammitsboel]

Interesting, maybe I'm trying to twist the image into something it isn't.

Colours look differently when I work with them compared to when I evaluate them.

 

This is my problem usually, I do one version and then somebody says that the colours are off. Then I or somebody else "correct" the colours and then I don't like the picture anymore.

 

H

[ptarmigan]

Interesting, maybe I'm trying to twist the image into something it isn't.

Colours look differently when I work with them compared to when I evaluate them.

 

This is my problem usually, I do one version and then somebody says that the colours are off. Then I or somebody else "correct" the colours and then I don't like the picture anymore.

 

H

 

My final image above is pretty close (on my monitor) to reality though with the background darkened (vignetted). Of course Jamie may have something to say about the skin tones but the wall and blouse are close.

[jaapv]

Interesting, maybe I'm trying to twist the image into something it isn't.

Colours look differently when I work with them compared to when I evaluate them.

 

This is my problem usually, I do one version and then somebody says that the colours are off. Then I or somebody else "correct" the colours and then I don't like the picture anymore.

 

H

I would say that the only correct colours are the ones the photographer deemes to be right.

[ammitsboel]

My final image above is pretty close (on my monitor) to reality though with the background darkened (vignetted). Of course Jamie may have something to say about the skin tones but the wall and blouse are close.

Sure, but the light hitting her arm and face looks weird and yellowish.

Not like a yellow filter was used in the light source but more like artifacts from processing and white balance problems. I know that Jamie will scream that all my monitors are off, but I question this myself since one of the monitors I'm using is a monitor with dedicated hardware calibration and a DTP94. I can see that yours and Jamies are more "pleasing" or has a warm tint to them, but I think it ruins the expression of the image and makes it more distorted.

 

How was the light source? is it all natural or mixed?

If it's all natural, has the window got colour differences in it?

 

My question is, why would you make the picture look this way just to make the colours look more like the original as they will never do?

[ptarmigan]

Sure, but the light hitting her arm and face looks weird and yellowish.

Not like a yellow filter was used in the light source but more like artifacts from processing and white balance problems. I know that Jamie will scream that all my monitors are off, but I question this myself since one of the monitors I'm using is a monitor with dedicated hardware calibration and a DTP94. I can see that yours and Jamies are more "pleasing" or has a warm tint to them, but I think it ruins the expression of the image and makes it more distorted.

 

How was the light source? is it all natural or mixed?

If it's all natural, has the window got colour differences in it?

 

My question is, why would you make the picture look this way just to make the colours look more like the original as they will never do?

 

Don't forget the exercise here was to get a great raw conversion - not just focusing on colour. Jaapv is correct of course.

 

The lighting was natural from a window behind the camera providing 'broad lighting' to the RH side of the subject. It was a sunny day with the shot taken mid evening (7.38pm) and so the light was quite warm but no sun directly on the subject. The window faces roughly ENE.

[ammitsboel]

Don't forget the exercise here was to get a great raw conversion - not just focusing on colour. Jaapv is correct of course.

I don't and thanks for posting your picture, it has been great fun to play with!

 

Sorry if it seems I'm very picky on the subject, I'm just wondering...

[Jamie Roberts]

I would say that the only correct colours are the ones the photographer deemes to be right.

 

While that's artistically correct of course, it's not usually culturally applicable except where the photographer is deemed an absolute artist

 

IOW, what the photographer might find artistically pleasing is not necessarily what the client will.

 

So it's easy enough to be subjective and declare a fondness for cynotic or green faces; convincing a client that's a realistic or flattering depiction is another thing entirely

[Jamie Roberts]

Sure, but the light hitting her arm and face looks weird and yellowish.

Not like a yellow filter was used in the light source but more like artifacts from processing and white balance problems. I know that Jamie will scream that all my monitors are off, but I question this myself since one of the monitors I'm using is a monitor with dedicated hardware calibration and a DTP94. I can see that yours and Jamies are more "pleasing" or has a warm tint to them, but I think it ruins the expression of the image and makes it more distorted.

 

{snipped}

 

My question is, why would you make the picture look this way just to make the colours look more like the original as they will never do?

 

Well, first of all, Henrik, I'm not screaming in the slightest . And it might not be your monitors--it could be your eyes Just kidding--really!

 

But there are a million ways that a calibrated system can be off. Way off. So let's not go there. I use a dedicated hardware calibration system in the closed-loop CG19 system with the GM Spectro, but three different software systems will give me three different results, not to mention gamma or luminance constraints, and matching the black point to print with an LCD is very difficult (it was much easier on the CRT Artisans).

 

So I was trying to show you that you can actually measure these things instead of just "looking" at them. And it turns out that the corrections I made to the skin and neutrals (which is standard practice among pros) actually dialled in the chocolate-brown walls pretty well, according to the person who was there.

 

And late afternoon light means that the warmth you don't like in the shot is also a more naturalistic representation of the light at the time (I don't say "realistic" because all of this is interpretation).

 

As for why correct the colour at all, well, in my business it's crucial, and happens to fit with my basic aesthetic for photography.

 

For people's faces, for instance, they generally like to look like they're alive, not dead (which means more yellow than cyan in lit areas), but again many artists have represented (for one aesthetic reason or another) in a completely opposite way. Edvard Munch comes directly to mind, though you'd hardly call his art "naturalistic" There are many other examples.

 

You also have to colour correct because digital cameras, while more or less "accurate" colorimetrically don't (and can't) take into account the way human beings see things.

 

Anyway, YMMV Truly...

 

BTW--FWIW, my goal is to get the quality of print I'm used to from Kodak Professional film process with the benefits of a digital workflow. I find it easier to go into the subjective when I know I can replicate a high-quality standard to begin with.

[ammitsboel]

Jamie, this a hobby for me so It's my opinion that counts.

I would guess that this is the same for pro's with some bits of adjustment to the clients needs?

 

I know about the "3 different calibration methods = 3 different results".

I've chosen Basic Color that works with my display and the Ugra certification tool. Without getting into details, the period of several month when I tested monitor calibration software was really a "dark" period since everything got shifted over and over again.

 

I haven't even tried printing yet and I'm guessing that there's a can of worms hiding there too. What I do know is that pictures for the internet and for viewing on a monitor in general needs a lot of clarity and a good balance of colours to really stand out. Maybe I look for something different than you?

 

Edward Munch is quite a guy, I would be proud if there was any similarities.

Picasso's blue period is a bit much though don't you think? ...maybe in a few years?

 

I find the blue/green look of some fuji films really disgusting, but I like Kodak even though some types can be a bit on the warm site. This confuses me as it seems that you are not far from this ideal? this leads back to the "maybe I'm looking for something different... or maybe not"?

 

H

[archi4]

Jamie,

I also check skin tones measuring cmyk in Photoshop but I get quite different values than 34y 26m 11c, although the proportions do not differ much from what I try for. My question is how did you measure the CMY. By the way my version of C1 only gives rgb so I have to go to CS4 to get CMY values.

 

regards, Maurice

[Jamie Roberts]

Jamie,

I also check skin tones measuring cmyk in Photoshop but I get quite different values than 34y 26m 11c, although the proportions do not differ much from what I try for. My question is how did you measure the CMY. By the way my version of C1 only gives rgb so I have to go to CS4 to get CMY values.

 

regards, Maurice

 

Hi Maurice--

 

I'm using Photoshop defaults for North America (US Web-coated (SWOP) v2) as my CMYK measure, so if you're using something else you would see a different set of numbers (but the same ratio of Y to M to C as you noticed).

 

I also have the colour picker set to a 5 * 5 average (you could perhaps go larger than that) which is crucial for looking at the colour....

 

And you would have to pick exactly the same place on her forehead to get exactly those numbers, but again, it's representative of the ratio I'm looking for.

 

Finally, in C1 click "View....Proof Profile..." and you can select the profile you want to proof in. If you pick the same CMYK profile as you have in PS, then you can see the picker numbers in CMYK, not sRGB.

[archi4]

Hi Jamie,

Thank you so much for the information.

I am indeed using a custom color setup - using prophoto instead of adobe rgb.

I also use 5x5 for checking skin tones.

Because of problems with the scanner driver for my Nikon 8000, I am still using OSX 10.4.11 amd not 10.5.x and my C1 is Capture 1 V4 pro running as Capture One, so I don't have the Proof Profile feature. ( do have it in C1 3.7.7 which is also available on my machine) As soon as I get my last slides scanned with my Nikon 8000 I will use my upgrade to C1 Pro.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ammitsboel]

I'm using Photoshop defaults for North America (US Web-coated (SWOP) v2) as my CMYK measure, so if you're using something else you would see a different set of numbers (but the same ratio of Y to M to C as you noticed).

Is this selected color measurement for your printing?

Does this mean that the whites would measure differently and not neutral in other measurement spaces?