Jamie Roberts Posted August 28, 2009 Share #21 Posted August 28, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) F{snipped}I use C1 to for my workflow, but some pictures require this little help from good old Dan Margulis! He’s a legend in color correction as to HCB was with street photography! Bernard I couldn't agee more Bernard @ Bernd: Ok, here's a little trick to tweak a shot like this. I didn't fix the blue background, though Bernard is quite right about that being a pretty simple fix in LAB (in the B channel). Anyway, I made some assumptions about the look you are going for. I increased the contrast in the mids and shadows, but rolled the highlights off very gradually. I also increased the saturation you had to show this as a worst case for the "arm"--I'd likely print this a bit less saturated BW--it's looking more saturated in my browser than it does in PS, so you probably want to open it up there. If you want *more* detail in the shadows (not less), then that's a different curve, but not impossible at all given a good shot like this! Your skin tones were very close to right on throughout except for the arm; I chose to bury the shadow and get rid of the "sunburn", but there's still the smallest bit of orange there (that of course could easily be masked out). I just didn't want to take more a minute on this. The trick I used to change the tonality is an easy one, and a great way to experiment quickly. You probably know this one, but since we're sharing for other folks (and this is also something Margulis recommends all the time as well)... Since you have Alien Skin, add a BW layer over the image without grain (find a "film" where you like the tonality). They set the layer mode to luminosity and adjust the transparency. Finally, I tweaked the resulting highlights to roll out gradually to around RGB 242 for highlights (no more) and did a quick CMY check on the skin. Make sense? It took way longer to write the post than to do this. Again, I don't know if this is a look you like or not But it shows how quickly you can take even a JPEG somewhere else... 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/94671-m9-cannot-replace-my-m7/?do=findComment&comment=1008201'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 28, 2009 Posted August 28, 2009 Hi Jamie Roberts, Take a look here M9 cannot replace my M7. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jamie Roberts Posted August 28, 2009 Share #22 Posted August 28, 2009 Jamie, I'll send you the image tonight when I get to my drives. As you can imagine, I have used the hue and saturation layer extensively and brushed in different areas. It's not offensive the way it is now, but you know what I'm talking about. Don't even bother using the JPEG, it's definitely more subtle than that. K--oops--I posted something from the JPEG, but the RAW file will definitely help. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaryink Posted August 28, 2009 Share #23 Posted August 28, 2009 Bernd may suggest you try the demo of viveza? It is the most sophisticated masking, adjustment tool I have seen. These issues are constant for me in digital painting. I tried this plug in and purchased it after the expiration. I believe you could adjust this to your liking within a few short mouse clicks. Be sure to use the app as a mask layer using the brush tool versus applying to the whole image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshore Posted August 28, 2009 Share #24 Posted August 28, 2009 If the M9 has a heavy duty IR blocking filter on it it won't replace my M8. Many M8 users (and more non users) complain about having to use a screw on UV/IR but for me not having the filter on the sensor allows a camera that does B&W, color and B&W/ color IR. A lot of versatility in one camera and I won't give it up. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/94671-m9-cannot-replace-my-m7/?do=findComment&comment=1008326'>More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 28, 2009 Share #25 Posted August 28, 2009 Don't jump on me, but thus thread would be better in the Post Processing subsection. And just my 2 pence worth, I have yet to see an Ektar shot that makes me want to go and buy some. The reds are just outrageous to my eye. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted August 28, 2009 Author Share #26 Posted August 28, 2009 Jamie, thank you very much for your work and explanation. I really like the improvement. I will play with your method this weekend if I get a chance. Scary, I will have to give Viveza another spin. Janice Wendt, who is a rep for Nik, actually came to our office to demonstrate the program. Some of my colleagues are absolute post-production wizards, yet with different styles from mine, and they still seem to prefer their own selections and brushes. I don't do extensive post work that often, usually only when I print for exhibitions, and then only on about twenty or so images, but I will definitely try the software again. Also, this is actually a very helpful thread. Hopefully not just for me but alot of other users. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 28, 2009 Share #27 Posted August 28, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I use Viveza and I think that it's an incedible tool. Using selections and masks one could achieve the same thing in Photoshop I'm sure, but Viveza is just so intuitive and the results are very impressive Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markgay Posted August 28, 2009 Share #28 Posted August 28, 2009 Taking photographs with film is different from digital imaging. Everybody knows it is, and the experience is not simply to do with the result. It is also to do with the medium and physical celluloid is simply not the same as a series of 010111010100010010010010011110100. Trying to compare the result on your computer screen is the same as indulging in the megapixel race - something that people now admit to be totally misleading. Just as a good image has absolutely zilch to do with resolution. But talk is cheap. I have an M7, an M8 and, for what it's worth, an HPX-170. There is a gulf between each of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted August 28, 2009 Author Share #29 Posted August 28, 2009 Mark, agreed. But the last couple of posts have, in a very constructive manner, been dealing with trying to eliminate a specific shortcoming of the digital medium that film doesn't have. And trust me, as far as the shortcomings of film are concerned, I fir one have given up on fast color negatives in 35mm, so at night, it is M8 all the way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted August 28, 2009 Share #30 Posted August 28, 2009 One of the examples that you posted looks as though the IR filter was not fitted? I don't use Capture One so I am completely unqualified on that. If you have access to Adobe Camera Raw in Photoshop or Lightroom, you may like to consider making a custom profile for your camera with the DNG Profile Editor. In my experience the default profiles for the M8 are very conservative. They are only meant to be a starting point when you develop an image of course. You probably know that 'profiles' are used differently in the two converter programmes. (C1 and ACR) I have a set of comparison images here using the Color Checker card which is a standard. You can see considerable differences in the way the more saturated colours are rendered. The three conversions are from the same original and have otherwise identical processing. I recommend that conversion always be to ProPhoto RGB and conversion to sRGB for your web versions for example only be done on copies. M8CameraStandard M8AdobeStandard M8DNGProfileCalibrated Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
footnoteblog Posted August 28, 2009 Share #31 Posted August 28, 2009 I'm curious why people don't use a workflow software like Aperture or Lightroom, when it's essentially Capture One with a better interface (opinion, naturally) and more importantly, file management?? To keep this on topic: film-- haha! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted August 28, 2009 Author Share #32 Posted August 28, 2009 I do use Lightroom but C1 blows it out of the water as far as file quality is concerned. I wish I didn't have to mess with more than one program, but when I print at 24x16 it becomes painfully obvious that Lightroom alone doesn't cut it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Clair Posted August 29, 2009 Share #33 Posted August 29, 2009 Does anyone have a DNG shot of the Macbeth color chart from an M8 that they could PM me? Or a 'Recipe' that has been color corrected from the Macbeth color chart. I don't have one of those charts but am very interested in playing around with a color corrected profile in the DNG editor for Adobe camera RAW to see what the actual differences are in processing some of my images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted August 29, 2009 Author Share #34 Posted August 29, 2009 I don't have a shot of a color chart, but the problem is that you need to shoot the chart in every lighting scenario you shoot in. As soon as the lighting changes, you need a new shot of the chart and then a new profile. In mixed lighting such as the shots I posted, you would have to adjust either for the sunlit areas or for the shadows. That's why in motion pictures, you shoot a color chart at the beginning of every single roll for later reference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
footnoteblog Posted August 29, 2009 Share #35 Posted August 29, 2009 The quick and dirty way of doing things is to at least shoot a WhiBal card to figure out where your white balance is going to be. After that, post processing is in the eye of the beholder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted August 29, 2009 Share #36 Posted August 29, 2009 Hi there. In order to perform a custom calibration you need to shoot the chart with your own camera. Ideally you should shoot it under measured colour temperature light sources. One chart shot under 6500K and one under 2850K (Tungsten). That is how Adobe do it in the first instance. That is how I did it as well, using a borrowed colour temp meter and a tungsten light source at my pro dealers. However it is possible to perform a calibration with a shot just under the daylight source. The Adobe site gives the instructions. You need the (free) DNG Profile Editor. If you would like to install the profile I made and try it out you are welcome. Just send me an email address. It is not a large file. I am happy to share without restriction of course. I only ask that you let me know how it works for you. In my experience my custom profile works very well in common light but less well in very warm low light. Does anyone have a DNG shot of the Macbeth color chart from an M8 that they could PM me? Or a 'Recipe' that has been color corrected from the Macbeth color chart. I don't have one of those charts but am very interested in playing around with a color corrected profile in the DNG editor for Adobe camera RAW to see what the actual differences are in processing some of my images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted August 29, 2009 Share #37 Posted August 29, 2009 Jamie, thank you very much for your work and explanation. I really like the improvement. I will play with your method this weekend if I get a chance.Scary, I will have to give Viveza another spin. Janice Wendt, who is a rep for Nik, actually came to our office to demonstrate the program. Some of my colleagues are absolute post-production wizards, yet with different styles from mine, and they still seem to prefer their own selections and brushes. I don't do extensive post work that often, usually only when I print for exhibitions, and then only on about twenty or so images, but I will definitely try the software again. Also, this is actually a very helpful thread. Hopefully not just for me but alot of other users. Bernd, you're welcome... that was only a really quick play but that BW luminosity trick can work wonders on JPEGs (and it doesn't matter how you get a great BW either, Alien Skin or NIk is just a shortcut. You could even do a merge with two RAWs (one in color and one BW) if you know how to get the BW mix you like. But if you post me the RAW I'll try something else. Anyway, there are many ways to skin the tonality + skin tone cat to get a result that's high quality enough to stand next to film in print. But a lot seem counter intuitive because it's all about compressing the DR--intelligently--you have with film or digital into a print. I haven't used Viveza yet, but I have other Nik stuff that uses the same control types. It certainly looks interesting. I also like Jeff Ascough's photoshop actions, which I've been playing with for the last month or so. ascough silver actions They are less expensive than either of the other main options, and while I can get where they take me manually, they're lightening quick and can be batched easily. When I get a moment next week I'll write them up, because they deserve special mention for value and quality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted August 29, 2009 Author Share #38 Posted August 29, 2009 That's because you'd have to shoot another chart in very warm low light to get it calibrated for that situation ... then one in fluorescent, sodium vapor, a mix of the two etc. etc. The color chart just gives you a reference point of what the color values should be. The camera profile will interpret this only for the very specific situation you have it calibrated (in your case Tungsten and daylight at two specific Kelvin values.) This is why when you look at the Phase One Profiles provided with C1, they included about five or so different profiles for different lighting situations. If you even just stick with the continuous spectrum lighting such as tungsten and daylight, and leave out fluorescents etc., which are a whole different beast, you'll end up with a huge number of possibilities. Late afternoon sunlight can be warmer than tungsten light, especially where I am with the pollution from the fires, whereas the color temperature on an overcast day can exceed 10,000 degrees Kelvin. Then when you have a combination of both, one person in the sun, one in the shade, as in my shot, the profile is almost useless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted August 29, 2009 Author Share #39 Posted August 29, 2009 Jamie, will the Ascough Actions run in CS3? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted August 29, 2009 Share #40 Posted August 29, 2009 Jamie, will the Ascough Actions run in CS3? Bernd--I have CS4, but from what Jeff says all of them will run *except* the ones specifically mentioned CS4, which are all batch actions. The BWs run perfectly ok in CS3 (and you could easily make your own batch action from that too). Ascough Silver Actions Update - Jeff Ascough's Blog BTW--Bernd--I hear you on the near impossibility of getting a good profile in tungsten, daylight, sunset, etc... But a C1 modified profile also lets you control saturation, and colour shifts. So, for example, you can start with the M8 profile supplied (which isn't bad) and tweak the skin tones and specific reds, say. That can go a long way to making people happier with the overall performance of the camera. But it is time consuming, for sure. Personally, I've found getting a daylight and evenly lit-tungsten profile are the only "color balances' I need to care about too much and I'm picky in relation to skin tones and neutrals (but then again I'm not doing product photography or anything truly color critical, like the guys with the phase backs. I also think some of Phase's extended profiles are for lessening IR under tungsten, a case we all know too well with the M8). In my experience, though, digital is here a bit more flexible than film (because matching a film to a specific light temperature is really just so damn physically and chemically tricky. I do a little bit of that with gelling flashes and such throughout the tungsten CTS / CTO range, but I can only imagine what it's like these days on a set. It's no wonder they use color charts on every shot in a movie!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.