RAW and saturation

DavidTO

So I've been having some trouble with my images, which have been turning out too saturated, even though I've not bumped the saturation up, but left it as is.

Anyway, I re-processed some RAW images. Are they better?

Original, saturation set to 0:




De-saturated version, set to -19:

lynnma

DavidTO wrote:

So I've been having some trouble with my images, which have been turning out too saturated, even though I've not bumped the saturation up, but left it as is.

Anyway, I re-processed some RAW images. Are they better?

Original, saturation set to 0:




De-saturated version, set to -19:

David.. I'm looking back and forth, back and forth.. and yes I can see a very slight desaturation in number two but I can't honestly say I think the original is over saturated...number two is lovely tho....

gubbs

I don't think the first is over stuaurated either

cmr164

I don't really see an oversaturation either. Can you make the raw file available? I would like to look at it with Canon's DPP.

ginger_55

David, I do like both of them. I can see a marked difference, particularly in the green stuff behind the girl.

It is brighter in the first one, IMO. Is that good or bad, I don't know......is it natural?

Does it compete with the girl? That would be a problem, maybe since it is a picture of the child, not the green stuff, I like the second one best.

ginger

DavidTO

cmr164 wrote:

I don't really see an oversaturation either. Can you make the raw file available? I would like to look at it with Canon's DPP.

On my monitor it didn't look oversaturated, either. This is probably not the worst offender, but I think that what is happening is that small problems become magnified with the intense saturation.

Here's an example that shows up worse on the prints--my parent's faces are too yellow.

Original:


reduced saturation:


The problem on the first is more apparent, as I can see now.

One last. This shot is too saturated for the print:


I guess the answer is that I need to pay more attention to saturation. I like my pictures to be rich and vibrant, so I don't necessarily see when they're oversaturated. There's just not as simple a rule as there is for levels, and it's not as obvious to me as contrast.

So my current experiment is to see what happens when I pull back saturation overall, maybe I will get better results with my shots because the prints are more forgiving with decreased saturation.

I'm also glad to get all of your feedback on how they look to you. Thanks.

I am happy to make a RAW file available. Just let me know which you want.

tmlphoto

All of your uncorrected images look good on my monitor. The desaturated ones all look a little desaturated as expected. Not sure why your prints are off. I have noticed some of your other images are at the top end of saturation on my monitor, but none look out of range really.

ginger_55

On those facial tones, they look fine to print to me. My photos tend more to the red side, and I have read that people like them like that, I have to tone the red down, though.

I still see enough red in your shots, even your parents, and I don't see a large amt of yellow.

We will learn that I do not like green, in most cases, anywhere, (even in grass).
Yellow is a part of green, it is a problem for me, and I do not see it as being a problem in your photos. In the faces, as you are not dealing with green, and I do see some red, I would have sent them in that way for prints, too.

When you have shots, such as the one of your daughter for the last challenge, the brightness, or saturation of the green, I think detracts from your subject. In this case, I don't see the problem.

Just my opinion and my monitor.

ginger

Baldy

Hi David,

fwiw, I thought the originals looked fine saturation-wise. Following the rules of thumb about flesh tones, however, would put your parents with quite an over-abundance of magenta.

Usually fleshtones should have at least as much yellow as magenta. Light-skinned caucasians would have maybe 2 points more yellow than magenta. For someone dark-skinned, 15c50m65y is in the range, whereas someone light could be 6c30m35y or so.

Your dad's nose is 25c60m46y and his head is 11c28m23y. Your mom's nose is 5c28m17y.

The top shot is your original and the second one narrows the gap with yellow and magenta: there is still more magenta on the noses than yellow, but most of the rest of their faces are higher in yellow.

Andy

now, my head hurts

Baldy wrote:

Hi David,

fwiw, I thought the originals looked fine saturation-wise. Following the rules of thumb about flesh tones, however, would put your parents with quite an over-abundance of magenta.

Usually fleshtones should have at least as much yellow as magenta. Light-skinned caucasians would have maybe 2 points more yellow than magenta. For someone dark-skinned, 15c50m65y is in the range, whereas someone light could be 6c30m35y or so.

Your dad's nose is 25c60m46y and his head is 11c28m23y. Your mom's nose is 5c28m17y.

The top shot is your original and the second one narrows the gap with yellow and magenta: there is still more magenta on the noses than yellow, but most of the rest of their faces are higher in yellow.

leave it to baldy to ruin my freakin' day do you mean i have to learn this now? is it okay if i don't, and just wait till someone tells my my pics are outta whack? i think i'll live longer

Guzzler

Me thinks it might be time for a lesson on monitor calibration. Anyone want to give it a shot? (not me, I'm still confused with what I've read so far on the subject)

DavidTO

Well, I got the prints back from the de-saturated images I posted ealier in this thread. Much better. Could use a touch more saturation, perhaps, but much, much better than the first set.

One thing I noticed was that there was a marked difference in saturation between the easyprints.icc color profile and srgb. I'm going to try using the srgb profile and see if I have better luck with that.