'Reference' RAW Conversion

[ammitsboel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

ptarmigan, where can I download the photo?

Or can you email it to me?

[jaapv]

It's quite good on noise and tonal balance, but very smooth on detail--the skin looks "poreless" (and--the signature of ACR / Lightroom--skin is much too magenta for me, especially if this was further processed in Photoshop).

 

I was surprised by this, but I find C1 does a better job of managing high-iso noise that Noise Ninja does (it doesn't overdo it, in general).

 

The whiteness of the pages are still a distraction even if they're not clipped in rendering. Vignetting them down seems to work, though.

The face and arms should have been selected and the selection inverted to exclude it from NN. That would make for a far more natural result. I agree on the colour balance too.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[ptarmigan]

ptarmigan, where can I download the photo?

Or can you email it to me?

 

Here ya go

 

Done. Please post your results. I've since managed to do a better one but it's early days.

 

Try this: http://www.tunni.co.uk/L1000132.DNG.zip

[ammitsboel]

Thanks

[ammitsboel]

Here's my version:

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]

Jamie

 

Any comment on my last conversion #33 above?

 

Hey Ian--it's a lot closer, but the skin is getting into the orange range out of the brown range. Maybe take down the saturation or contrast a bit? (this is hard because of the exposure on the arm being brighter than the face... if you fix the arm in the RAW converter then you're going to push the face into the cyan again ... which is why it took me to Photoshop finally for some dodging and burning).

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here's my version:

[ATTACH]150995[/ATTACH]

 

Henrik, I like the overall tonal quality of the conversion (at web sizes, anyway) but it's still too cyan (especially in the face) for me (look at the book pages!).

[ammitsboel]

Henrik, I like the overall tonal quality of the conversion (at web sizes, anyway) but it's still too cyan (especially in the face) for me (look at the book pages!).

Thanks Jamie.

I think there's a problem either with the C1 profile, C1 itself or my 3 monitors. Your version is much too red for me. My version should be neutral, but I agree that it's either too blue or cyan, I don't know where the problem is. I don't want to just make it warmer because then it's just too red.

[Jamie Roberts]

Thanks Jamie.

I think there's a problem either with the C1 profile, C1 itself or my 3 monitors. Your version is much too red for me. My version should be neutral, but I agree that it's either too blue or cyan, I don't know where the problem is. I don't want to just make it warmer because then it's just too red.

 

The final version from C1 lacks contrast is all, so you should be looking at the final I did from PS.

 

Yes it too looks a wee bit too red (but only in the browser: )). If you then raise the contrast (or lower the saturation) all will snap into place.

 

I'll try to do a more finished version from C1. Trouble is, I'm used to creating a "RAW master" that then gets finished in PS

 

We're also all working with the fact that the face got less light than the arm (and the book) which creates the three-stage problem with the actual exposure. Since her face is in shadow, too much cyan is "normal," but it's not "desirable," if you get my meaning.

[tvBilly]

 

It's quite good on noise and tonal balance, but very smooth on detail--the skin looks "poreless" (and--the signature of ACR / Lightroom--skin is much too magenta for me, especially if this was further processed in Photoshop).

 

I was surprised by this, but I find C1 does a better job of managing high-iso noise that Noise Ninja does (it doesn't overdo it, in general).

 

The whiteness of the pages are still a distraction even if they're not clipped in rendering. Vignetting them down seems to work, though.

 

I think it should be pretty easy to save a camera preset that tells the CS4 RAW converter to change the red hue a little to the right (making skin more golden and less magenta). Or you could alter the color balance a little, adding a little green gamma (green = minus magenta). I find there's about a 10° range where a face looks right to me, and I agree that the picture as I converted it hangs pretty near the magenta side of that 10° wedge. No additional color correction was done in PS itself, btw, just Noise Ninja and resizing.

 

I don't agree with you about the detail (the lack of pores) in this case though. I think she looks better this way. I still see the freckles and such, but when I added detail to bring out more, I noticed her complexion (both on her arms and face) didn't look so good when i could see her skin more clearly. I do agree that it makes for a slightly softer looking picture. (Also, due to the ASA 3200 exposure, adding any more detail would require that I do it selectively, as the noise in the wall and the couch really slaps you in the face when you add more detail).

 

I didn't bother to dodge down the white pages (or her arm), though I guess it would help to draw your eye to her face; just being lazy!

 

I appreciate your comments; thanks!

 

Billy

[ammitsboel]

Yes it too looks a wee bit too red (but only in the browser: )). If you then raise the contrast (or lower the saturation) all will snap into place.

Hmm... I think it looks too red also without the profile in a browser and in PS.

Why would lowering saturation help on color cast? is the saturation slider nonlinear?

 

H

[ammitsboel]

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!

I don't agree with you about the detail (the lack of pores) in this case though. I think she looks better this way.

I've always thought that noise ninja looks like the texture that comes off cheap consumer cameras. In this case it's not a good thing since you erase some of the qualities that makes the picture unique IMO.

[jaapv]

I agree. It tends to go for "plastic fantastic" I prefer to blur the photograph on a layer and paint in the blurred image in the areas I want noise reduction. It looks very natural if one plays with opacity.

[epand56]

Here is my 2 cents.

Opened the DNG in ACR and darkened the exposure. setted up a little contrast and other couple cursors and opened in CS3 where blurred a little the background on a copi and erased the parts did not want. Then lightened exposure in Photoshop on the zones I wanted to be more brilliant. There was a LOT of noise in the original. I did it quickly, but this one seems better to me.

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!

Edited July 8, 2009 by epand56

[jaapv]

That is exactly what I meant, Enrico. Very nice, maybe a touch less green.

[Jamie Roberts]

Hmm... I think it looks too red also without the profile in a browser and in PS.

Why would lowering saturation help on color cast? is the saturation slider nonlinear?

 

H

 

Perhaps, but my finished version gives her face more yellow than magenta, and more magenta than cyan, and so it measures correctly (and actually looks brown on my EIZO, not magenta, in PS), so I know it will print properly despite any vaguaries of looking at things on the Web

 

Contrast, exposure and saturation are, of course, linked. If you lower the saturation, you will often decrease contrast and the ratio of colours. Conversely, when you raise contrast, you also increase saturation.

 

For instance, here's my "finished" PS version with a simple desat layer added in PS (and the profile stripped). This will probably look better on the Web, because browsers tend to over-saturate things, but in truth it's not the one I'd send to print.

 

(FWIW, in this one the highlights and black points are still neutral or very close--they measure that way--and her face is still brown, not cyan or magenta--or green, as from Lightroom!)

 

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!

Edited July 8, 2009 by Jamie Roberts

[ammitsboel]

(FWIW, in this one the highlights and black points are still neutral or very close--they measure that way--and her face is still brown, not cyan or magenta--or green, as from Lightroom!)

Thanks Jamie, also for the outlining of exposure, contrast and saturation.

Maybe it's just me, but I think your last version looks noisy and has a kind of 70'ties yellow/brown tint to it. I guess it's on purpose, I just don't like it. Maybe I would like something in between your version and my own.

 

H

[ammitsboel]

Here's one with the correct color profile(IR) and different settings:

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]

Thanks Jamie, also for the outlining of exposure, contrast and saturation.

Maybe it's just me, but I think your last version looks noisy and has a kind of 70'ties yellow/brown tint to it. I guess it's on purpose, I just don't like it. Maybe I would like something in between your version and my own.

 

H

 

It's probably just you Henrik, though I have noticed that many Europeans prefer a very cyan skin tone (which is actually pretty 70s if you've shot Ektachrome ) Brown is "correct" in NA.

 

Just look at any issue of Vogue and you'll see that even in Europe, skin is printed quite "brown" (but there is a difference between, say, Annie Lebovitz's skin tones and some fashion photogs from northern Europe, where sometimes even African-heritage women look quite white

 

ETA--your last post is better, but the highlights are hardly neutral. That should be a clue that the skin is also going to be wrong. Of course, YMMV

Edited July 8, 2009 by Jamie Roberts

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ammitsboel]

ETA--your last post is better, but the highlights are hardly neutral. That should be a clue that the skin is also going to be wrong. Of course, YMMV

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 :-)