Just a note here. Baldy and Andy are right about this. DavidTO, Edgework, and I all struggled with correcting this image in post, and not even Edgework, who is an actually really really good at this and is an actual pro, was able to ring the bell. So the "make my baby look good button" is science fiction for now, at least for this shot as posted. One very boring but possible implementation is to make that button outsource the job somewhere that has people who are willing to use tablet, brushes, whatever to retouch, even if it means making a photo realistic drawing as the first step. Not very appealing, but some shots are worth anything to fix.
Edgework wonders if there isn't a better original to work from?
I suppose that at this point, my advice to the father would be: shoot film. This is cheap to do, most people have an old film camera, maybe even a good one. If not disposable cameras are very cheap. And as Andy points out film->digital developing is widely availble and cheap. Unless the father is an actual photogeek of the sort we have around here, this is the quick and easy shoot-time fix.
Edgework wonders if there isn't a better original to work from?
I suppose that at this point, my advice to the father would be: shoot film. This is cheap to do, most people have an old film camera, maybe even a good one. If not disposable cameras are very cheap. And as Andy points out film->digital developing is widely availble and cheap. Unless the father is an actual photogeek of the sort we have around here, this is the quick and easy shoot-time fix.
am the father – thanks to everybody for the advice. To tell you the truth I noticed the pictures made her skin look blotchy, but I remember her actual skin looking kind of blotchy that day as well, so I didn’t think it was the camera’s fault. In hindsight, no doubt that the photos exaggerated it – especially if you brighten them up to make them look better.
Since you asked for a better original, I made a public gallery available here:
You should be able to download the original there. I also shared several other pictures from that day which I thought may be of interest. They all show different aspects of the problem we are discussing. Some of them were only taken a few seconds apart – but the camera came up with something completely different (probably just auto white balance - I have since learned to shoot in raw and adjust the white balance after the fact, so could probably fix this problem). Also note that these are the original, unedited versions – so in some cases they are a bit dark and you have to brighten it before you see the redness. The other one that was posted had already been edited slightly.
About the shoot-time fixes, there seem to be two pieces of advice: use film, or use a filter. I have a film SLR, and I could certainly buy a new filter – what I don’t understand is when it will apply. When should I expect these skin tone problems, and then use film or the filter? If I bought the filter, should I just leave it on the camera all the time instead of the UV filter I typically use right now? I have taken thousands of shots since her birth day, and I don’t generally to see the same problems, so I am struggling with when this filter will be applicable to see if it is worth the cost.
I don’t generally to see the same problems, so I am struggling with when this filter will be applicable to see if it is worth the cost.
It depends on the camera. Nikon's dSLRs with the exception of the D2X have a relatively weak IR filter. IR is fairly omnipresent: sun light, incandescent light, flash light all have a fair amount of IR illumination.
IR always pollutes the D70's images under the lighting conditions mentioned. On rare occasions it is just plain obvious for all to see: the pictures of your newborn, for instance. The most obvious case I've seen was a Chrismas tree that had turned purple next to each of incandescent lights dissiminated among the branches.
In typical situation the difference is much more subtle. Still it is enough to remove a lot of a picture's appeal. That's because often the colors saturation suffer, in addition to a small effect in the hues. That's also because the image is affected unevenly: some type of vegetation reflects IR more than others for instance, so a correction to the whole image may end up spoiling part of the image at the expense of another.
The rule of thumb about UV is: if you may get a sun burn, than you need a UV filter (flash is also a source of UV). Conditions were UV is an issue are much less prevalent with digital than for IR. But the recommended filter, B+W486, gets rid of them both anyway.
I've recommanded B&H for buying this filter because of the on-going special. But B&H considers the order of this filter as a special order, and will accept no return. Order from Adorama if you'd like to have the opportunity to try it and have a chance to return it if this is not what you're looking for: http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?page=searchresults&searchinfo=b+w%20486
Thierry
Note: Adorama's before and after pics are as bad if no worse than BH's ...
Comments
Edgework wonders if there isn't a better original to work from?
I suppose that at this point, my advice to the father would be: shoot film. This is cheap to do, most people have an old film camera, maybe even a good one. If not disposable cameras are very cheap. And as Andy points out film->digital developing is widely availble and cheap. Unless the father is an actual photogeek of the sort we have around here, this is the quick and easy shoot-time fix.
Since you asked for a better original, I made a public gallery available here:
http://koopmans.smugmug.com/gallery/1008559/1/46677479
You should be able to download the original there. I also shared several other pictures from that day which I thought may be of interest. They all show different aspects of the problem we are discussing. Some of them were only taken a few seconds apart – but the camera came up with something completely different (probably just auto white balance - I have since learned to shoot in raw and adjust the white balance after the fact, so could probably fix this problem). Also note that these are the original, unedited versions – so in some cases they are a bit dark and you have to brighten it before you see the redness. The other one that was posted had already been edited slightly.
About the shoot-time fixes, there seem to be two pieces of advice: use film, or use a filter. I have a film SLR, and I could certainly buy a new filter – what I don’t understand is when it will apply. When should I expect these skin tone problems, and then use film or the filter? If I bought the filter, should I just leave it on the camera all the time instead of the UV filter I typically use right now? I have taken thousands of shots since her birth day, and I don’t generally to see the same problems, so I am struggling with when this filter will be applicable to see if it is worth the cost.
Thanks again for all the help,
Chris
First of all congratulations on your daugher's birth. She is very precious.
It depends on the camera. Nikon's dSLRs with the exception of the D2X have a relatively weak IR filter. IR is fairly omnipresent: sun light, incandescent light, flash light all have a fair amount of IR illumination.
IR always pollutes the D70's images under the lighting conditions mentioned. On rare occasions it is just plain obvious for all to see: the pictures of your newborn, for instance. The most obvious case I've seen was a Chrismas tree that had turned purple next to each of incandescent lights dissiminated among the branches.
In typical situation the difference is much more subtle. Still it is enough to remove a lot of a picture's appeal. That's because often the colors saturation suffer, in addition to a small effect in the hues. That's also because the image is affected unevenly: some type of vegetation reflects IR more than others for instance, so a correction to the whole image may end up spoiling part of the image at the expense of another.
The rule of thumb about UV is: if you may get a sun burn, than you need a UV filter (flash is also a source of UV). Conditions were UV is an issue are much less prevalent with digital than for IR. But the recommended filter, B+W486, gets rid of them both anyway.
I've recommanded B&H for buying this filter because of the on-going special. But B&H considers the order of this filter as a special order, and will accept no return. Order from Adorama if you'd like to have the opportunity to try it and have a chance to return it if this is not what you're looking for:
http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?page=searchresults&searchinfo=b+w%20486
Thierry
Note: Adorama's before and after pics are as bad if no worse than BH's ...
I hope this is what you seek.