Fixing color.

DRT-Maverick

Today I decided to mess around with both LAB and RGB color spaces as well as the Selective Color feature. I used a photo that was otherwise trash. I managed to bring back the vibrant colors that were lost due an incorrect white balance setting on the camera that could not be fixed as it was shot as jpg.

The original:



(Sorry Kasey, I was trying to autoset the white balance on you again).

I went into LAB mode and used the B channel to bring out some of the blue that was impossible to recover in RGB mode. Now that I had recovered that lost color, I went back to the RGB mode, and used selective color to enhance the blues and cyans, as well as bring down the yellows and bring out the cyan in the greens, and balance the color out, as well as darken certain colors.

It turned out pretty good:



I still need to darken the shadow of the trees and remove the blue from there.

Opinions or suggestions or comments would be helpful. Also if you know of ways that would help speed up the color correction, then feel free to add.

Sam

That looks like a very good job!


Sam

Shay Stephens

I try to avoid LAB mode editing just because it's a hassle. You can do what you did all in RGB mode by using a color filter and bumping the saturation a bit:



In Photoshop CS, I used the photo filter "Cooling filter (82)" at 40% and bumped the saturation 15. Quick and easy :-)

DRT-Maverick

Shay Stephens wrote:

I try to avoid LAB mode editing just because it's a hassle. You can do what you did all in RGB mode by using a color filter and bumping the saturation a bit:


In Photoshop CS, I used the photo filter "Cooling filter (82)" at 40% and bumped the saturation 15. Quick and easy :-)

...
Well that makes things a LOT simpler haha! Thanks. I now feel a little slow. ;P

I use filters occasionally, but not enough to get to know them. Thanks!

DavidTO

Shay Stephens wrote:

I try to avoid LAB mode editing just because it's a hassle.

Hey, how can you say that?

I like LAB, because I find RGB a hassle!

Really, LAB's powerful, but I think the best thing about it for me is that it thinks how I think. So it's not a hassle.

There's a lot of ways to skin a cat, and one man's hassle is another man's haven. Or something like that.

DavidTO

DRT:

It's hard to help with the LAB thing if you don't give us an idea of what you did. Curves are helpful.

pathfinder

I understand where Shay is coming from - as a working pro, time spent processing images is not terribly rewarding financially for him. For him, time IS money spent.

If I were shooting weddings I would want to do the least amount of PS work I could - jpgs straight from the camera would be ideal if I could capture the quality I wanted thay way. I spent over 50 hours post-processing shots from a wedding - that is just not practical if I had to do it for a living.

The problem with using a PS filter is it is a global correction and will only work if you want to correct the entire image the same all over. LAB will let you correct the highlights and the shadow colors differently simultaneously withut a grdient or a mask. That is kinda cool, ya gotta admit Shay.

Shay Stephens

Talk is cheap
So let's see those simple and effective lab edits ;-)

Pathfinder was correct in that, for me, time is money, and the faster I can get acceptable results, the better for me. I am not saying LAB is wrong, or that no one should use it, just that for me, and perhaps some others, there is another way to get to the same place without ever having to crack open LAB mode.

pathfinder

One of the things Murgulis discusses is that Photo editing encompasses a range of professionals - some who don't want to spend any more than 30 secs on a single image, to some up-scale printing houses which might spend weeks editing a single image. Obviously, keeping all these foks in the same tent is a challenging task.

Shay's right, for many working pro's, time spent processing, is time not spent shooting and, hence, money lost. But a hobbyist may enjoy time spent creating and polishing an image - and that for him or her may be money saved. Neither is right or wrong, just different needs and desires.

It is always a good thing to know more than one way to skin a cat.

Margulis in his book even suggests that images with great saturated color and good sharp shadows and highlights will probably not profit much from a path through LAB. These are the shots that Shay wants to capture in camera of course! I wish I were always successful at that too. :

DavidTO

Shay Stephens wrote:

So let's see those simple and effective lab edits ;-)

Pathfinder was correct in that, for me, time is money, and the faster I can get acceptable results, the better for me. I am not saying LAB is wrong, or that no one should use it, just that for me, and perhaps some others, there is another way to get to the same place without ever having to crack open LAB mode.

K, you laid down the gauntlet! (Although I'm with you, really, Shay. I've never been able to get my head around RGB correction like I have LAB. I use LAB now because it WORKs for me.)

I doubt this took me any longer than it did you, Shay.

ian408

Just looking at the two images, I'd say that Shay's rendition is a bit sharper
and has more punch in the blues. But this is more than likely PS experience.

I always like learning new things and the filter application is one. Thanks
Shay!

Ian

DavidTO

ian408 wrote:

Just looking at the two images, I'd say that Shay's rendition is a bit sharper
and has more punch in the blues. But this is more than likely PS experience.

I always like learning new things and the filter application is one. Thanks
Shay!

Ian

Well, I'd say you're smoking something, because if anything the blues in my version are too much...

DRT-Maverick

I did shay's idea, but still messed around with the selective color, along with some dodging, burning, and history brush.



Her neck doesn't look like a white sheet of paper in that one, and the colors on her jacket, as well as the grass, are a lot better in tone. The pathement is more grey from burning.

I SHOULD mention, my monitor is not correctly calibrated, so it might not look as good to you as it does to me. Higgmeister's gonna help me calibrate it with his new spyder2. I should get good results after that.

rutt

LAB curves + sharpening is a quick and easy workflow that will take 90% of images 95% of the way or better in 2 minutes or less. Learn this and it will save you time in the long run. Maybe it's a hassle to learn? But not to use once you have learned.

LAB curves, or whatever, it's pretty easy to get the warm cast out of this image. The real question is what to do with that patch of flesh on her neck. Cool the image with LAB curves or whatever, and it gets a green cast because it was so nearly neutral to begin with. If you don't like hassles, forget it at this point. Otherwise, here is a trick.

The neck has the good feature of being surrounded by areas of very different color. So I made a very inaccurate quick and easy selection and then used LAB curves to warm just the neck. I started with David's edit, just becaue it was at hand:





I wrote both of these curves by Command-Clicking (Control-Clicking, PC) on the areas within the selection around the neck which I didn't want to change: hair, tree, shirt. This set lock points on the curves. Then I clicked in the skin found the point on the curve and pulled it down until I got plausible flesh values for magenta and yellow.

DRT-Maverick

I think the main problem I'm seeing with only using LAB's curves is take a look at the shadows. They're all tinted blue. There is no actual black in the photos, just dark dark tinted blue shadows. LAB is a great way to quick-fix stuff, but when it comes to bringing back colors that were lost, LAB needs a combination of other features to correctly bring those colors back.

rutt

DRT-Maverick wrote:

I think the main problem I'm seeing with only using LAB's curves is take a look at the shadows. They're all tinted blue. There is no actual black in the photos, just dark dark tinted blue shadows. LAB is a great way to quick-fix stuff, but when it comes to bringing back colors that were lost, LAB needs a combination of other features to correctly bring those colors back.

That's very true. LAB is like the Big Bertha in a golf bag. For lots of shots you can hit a hole-in-one with it, but often you need a chipping wedge or putter to finish the job. I'd take this shot to CMYK and steepen the K curve, then fix the resulting ink mess with selective-color/black.

rutt

Like so:



This is the same image I posted, took converted to CMYK, Steepen the K curve a lot, selective color/black, reduce C, M, Y until black measures neutral in LAB.

TristanP

Shay Stephens wrote:

In Photoshop CS, I used the photo filter "Cooling filter (82)" at 40% and bumped the saturation 15.

At the risk of sounding too noobish, where do I find this filter? I have CS and looked all over the Filter menu with no luck.

Andy

TristanP wrote:

At the risk of sounding too noobish, where do I find this filter? I have CS and looked all over the Filter menu with no luck.

image>adjustments>photo filter

ginger_55

David, et al, I don't even like taking the time to keep and photo the curves. If I spend time on an image, I tend to play with it. I don't do a curve and say, "cool", I will photograph it. I think, well, I will see how it goes.............

Then to download the workspace, which I really don't know how to do (if my PC and PS were working correctly which they are NOT). That is time I really don't want to spend. And I know it would be helpful for people who are trying to help me to know the "steps", but I often don't know the "steps" I took to get where I did. Unless I do the most basic...........and I do hope for the most basic. I am really a "shooter", not a darkroom person. I used to say that I would have labs do all my stuff, like some of the pros I knew about did. But that did not work out and some of the time I really enjoy photoshopping. But it is play, a dab here and there.

LAB is like cooking with an exact recipe to me, and it really hurts my brain to "sit" still long enough to follow the recipe. I am the type cook who just starts throwing stuff in the pot. I am just fortunate that I can take it back out again, unlike "real food".

ginger (I do wish I knew LAB, I seem to need that stuff they give hyperactive kids, I can't do the steps to learn it. I agree that it is a valuable tool. And it would fit in with my style. "Oh, this is a LAB problem", that would be cool to be able to throw in my soup.)

DavidTO

Well, looking over this thread in the morning, I have to say that for a quick and effective color correction, Shay wins the prize.

So for this thread: RGB-1; LAB-0 (sorry, Rutt)...

rutt

Shay and you both got rid of the yellow cast pretty easily. Shay did so without getting a lot of blue into the blacks. I showed how to fix, but that was another step. Nobody figured out a way to fix the skin on the back of her neck without a selection; it's too neutral in the original and anything that cools the shot will turn it cyan. I showed an easy way to fix without a careful selection.

Really it isn't a RGB vs LAB shootout. For me it's really about flexible workflow applied intelligently. If you know what you are trying to accomplish with an image and you are in command of a wide range of tools, you can pick the ones that work best for the image. In this case:

1. The original has a horrible yellow cast. That's the first order problem.
2. The skin on the back of the subject's neck is too neutral, so fixing the global cast (by whatever means) will push it into the impossbile cyan range.
3. The blacks in the original are neutral and we want to preserve that. LAB's impossible color feature allows us to make them blue while fixing the yellow cast, which in this case isn't what we want.

Shay's fix avoided 3 but didn't address 2. 3 wouldn't happen in an image that started off with color balance on the right planet. For my own shots, I usually make the grossest color balance adjustment in the raw converter and then I don't have this problem. When that option isn't available, maybe using a filter before/instead of a trip to LAB is a good idea. But filters are such a hassle, don't you think? I just go for the workflow I know because it's quick and easy for me.

Higgmeister

rutt wrote:

Really it isn't a RGB vs LAB shootout. For me it's really about flexible workflow applied intelligently.

It's about having a set of tools that you can work with. If you compare a mechanics toolbox with what I have around the house, there are quite a few differences in the number of tools. If I don't have the right tool, then I compromise and use a bigger hammer (chisel optional). If I had more tools at my disposal, then I may be able to finesse the fix without having to resort to brute force. Whether you prefer LAB or RGB makes no difference. But, it doesn't hurt (if you have the time) to learn the other for those circumstances where the other may work better. If one method was the "Holy Grail", then we would only have one method.


This is spewing from someone who is not a PS pro, but from someone who is constantly trying to learning new ways of doing the same thing, but easier.


Just my .02,
Chris

rutt

The final chapter in Dan Margulis' other book, Professional Photoshop is called "Every Image has 10 Channels". This really is Dan's big point. Each colorspace has strengths and weaknesses. CMYK has that black channel. RGB has intuitive powerful blending modes without a lot of printer specific strangeness. LAB is completely different and has a seperate L channel. To be a master color retoucher is to know how to use all the channels to their best advantage. It's also implies knowing when not to use the wrong tool. Chapter 6 of the LAB book deals with some of the limitations of LAB and Chapter 7 fits LAB into an overall workflow.

Following Dan's work on an image can be dizzying. He blends channels from different colorspaces in unexpected ways to get dazzling results. He writes curves in each of the colorspaces as easily as most people use "auto levels". He is always experimenting with new ways to get that extra bit of improvement out of an image or to streamline his workflow or to be able to fix a new kind of damaged image.

But Shay is right. Dan isn't a photographer, and he (Shay) isn't a master color retoucher. In fact, this is something I know that Dan is actually proud of. I'm sure Shay is also proud to be a professional photographer instead of a prepress professional. When we all become famous and have our photos published in a book or in a photography magazine, some prepress professional will do a final post processing pass with knowledge of the specific press and final image size. Most of us aren't looking for that level of perfection and really the effort isn't justified for images which are going to be viewed on different output devices at different sizes. And it's only fun if you think it's fun and what are we here for anyway.

But I find it quite interesting to learn about all the magic these guys can do, even if it isn't really my bread and butter.

DRT-Maverick

Well I'm neither a Professional Photographer or Professional Photoshopper (Though I'd like to be a pro photographer someday), so I make all sorts of mistakes, though so far, my knowledge of both photography and photoshop helps out with fixing these issues, so combining both knowledges together is a good way for me.

Also, I noticed using both lab and RGB is a great way to get correct results from certain images, as well as sometimes using CMYK to bring other tones out. I used all three in a different image and fixed it up okay (Though I don't think I can manage to get it perfect, as my knowledge of photoshops tools aren't the greatest... yet). RGB I couldn't manage to get blue in the image that I posted here, so I had to go to LAB, got that, then went to RGB and used that.

All of them have great strengths and weaknesses.

rutt

DRT-Maverick wrote:

Also, I noticed using both lab and RGB is a great way to get correct results from certain images, as well as sometimes using CMYK to bring other tones out. I used all three in a different image and fixed it up okay (Though I don't think I can manage to get it perfect, as my knowledge of photoshops tools aren't the greatest... yet). RGB I couldn't manage to get blue in the image that I posted here, so I had to go to LAB, got that, then went to RGB and used that.

All of them have great strengths and weaknesses.

I agree very strongly with this. But it isn't only this. Combining knowledge of all three colorspaces and using them together gives more capability than is possible using them one at a time. Examples of this are coming up in the LAB book discussions. Get Professional Photoshop if you want to see this taken to the Nth degree.

DRT-Maverick

Aww, I'm broke.