Share your skin color workflow!

urbanaries

I swear, there must be a big memo I never got. Everyone around here seems to get such consistent, natural color shots, particularly in the skin tones. Meanwhile I struggle.

I started finding neutral points of each shot using Lightroom to set the WB, as it was suggested that was my issue...improper WB. While this seem to work at first it is not very accurate or consistent. My next step is to use a WhiBal card, but it seems that I'd have to have my subject carry it around the entire time, as shooting from one moment and angle to the next is in slightly different lighting mixes. For example, shooting a couple dancing, there's one wall with windows, the rest of the room lit with a mixture of tungsten and flourescent. Every step they take changes the direction of lightfall, thus a distinctly different color mix. One would think a white dress and a black tux would generate good points, but one shot looks green, the next orange, and the next blue.

I am also wondering if the auto rendering Lightroom does is messing up my shots. Any idea how to turn this off? (I looked everywhere). Generally when I open a shot, skin looks natural for a split second, then gets rendered to a mucky, over saturated orange.

So, what are you guys doing?

Swartzy

I use RAW
Using DPP (Canon software), white click, adjust before conversion. Once in Photoshop I make sure the yellows are a higher percentage than magentas....in the how to section here there is the skin tone tutorial...but I will sometimes use the Kelby method using threshold finding black/white points, then make a new layer set to difference/fill with 50% gray, then threshold to find a nuetral gray point. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Sometimes it's simply black & white point, or black only.

Generally white balance in RAW fixes it....the trick is to where to click...if you click on a white dress that light from the window is illuminating and you used a flash over on the other side for fill...well.....click around till it's right...some help I am huh?

I wrote up a tutorial on our local board for the color balance should you want the link I can find it.

photogmomma

When I remember, I use my WHIBAL. but I forget half the time and use the Lynne Method. I don't always do a great job (as you've noticed!) so I'll be watching this thread!!!

Seneca

Photoshop CS3 works for me. Plus shooting RAW is a safe way to go.

urbanaries

Seneca wrote:

Photoshop CS3 works for me. Plus shooting RAW is a safe way to go.

yeah...i shoot RAW, and would prefer not to have to pull each individual shot into Photoshop (I'm still on CS2).

I also will work up individual skin tutorial curve adjustment layers to ensure a final print is right. But on 1000 shots? There has to be a better way to get them closer before getting to that point.

schmoo

I'm glad you asked! I had a terrible time with my last shoot balancing skin tones. I figured it was because I am a n00b at it.

I did find that if I had set my WB temp to just a smidge cooler than I wanted the final photo to be (in RAW editing), it wouldn't jump around quite so much when I played with the curves. Yellow! Red! Ack!

But I don't know if that was cheating or not. Certainly this method won't work under all lighting conditions (it was a warm, sunny morning that shoot.)

Wish I could be of more help. I too will be keeping an eye on this thread!

Scott_Quier

urbanaries wrote:

yeah...i shoot RAW, and would prefer not to have to pull each individual shot into Photoshop (I'm still on CS2).

I also will work up individual skin tutorial curve adjustment layers to ensure a final print is right. But on 1000 shots? There has to be a better way to get them closer before getting to that point.

Looks like it's time for me to send back to you a lesson you taught me a couple of months ago - with additions and refinements:

• When I shoot a wedding I end up with 500, 1000, 1500 shots - the number doesn't matter.
• Before I even attempt to adjust WB, exposure, contrast, etc - I review the images to determine if it's worth the effort of further work. If not, I toss it in the Culls folder for later second review
• OK, now I should be down to less than 400 photos - even for a 12 hour job unless there was lots and lots of really exciting stuff going on all day long.
• I go through them again. This should remove another 30 - 50. I'm brutal about it. I don't delete them, just put them in the Culls folder. Remember, our job isn't to document the day in minute detail but to portray the emotion and excitement and special events of the day in a time-sequence of photographs. If they wanted the minute detail, the client would have hired an entire video crew to produce 30 or 60 hours of video from the 5 or 10 hours of the day.
• At this point, I have small bunches images that will be adjustable in smaller groups. Do it.
• Now, I review them, one at a time, to be sure things are cool. Tweak those that are off a touch.
• Crop and finish to taste.

As for shooting in mixed lighting - you will never get the WB spot on. Can't be done. If you get it right for one point in the image, it will be wrong in another because that other point is/was exposed to a different mixture of light. I treat these situations as a classic Min-Max problem - where is the point in my workflow where I have invested the minimun input to attain the maximum output, understanding that this issue is also a "point of diminishing returns" problem.

Finally, I leverage the power of the SmugMug printing process and their use of i2e - think about it.

urbanaries

Scott_Quier wrote:

Looks like it's time for me to send back to you a lesson you taught me a couple of months ago - with additions and refinements

haha, I should have been more clear. I am fine with my workflow for the shoot/images themselves (glad it's working well for you too ). I meant 'what folks are doing in camera and and in post to get consistent skin colors.

Scott_Quier wrote:

As for shooting in mixed lighting - you will never get the WB spot on. Can't be done.

I accept this truth. However when I look at other folks' work (specifically, indoors) they are working with the same equipment as me, yet producing much cleaner results. Swartzy, you, and Shay come to mind. All using APS-C Canons. All of you are heads and shoulders above me in image consistency and quality.

Scott_Quier wrote:

Finally, I leverage the power of the SmugMug printing process and their use of i2e - think about it.

I want to leverage this, no question. But I have had mixed results with auto color. If I process images at all, the I2E on top of it sometimes produces weird color shifts and bands. Its almost as if I send shots SOOC to smugmug, they turn out better, but look unfinished/soft/flat. Does anyone else have issues with contrast adjustments mucking up skintones?

pyrtek

urbanaries wrote:

My next step is to use a WhiBal card, but it seems that I'd have to have my subject carry it around the entire time, as shooting from one moment and angle to the next is in slightly different lighting mixes.

Your subject certainly doesn't have to carry the card around all the time.
There's a finite and, typically, rather limited amount of different lighting
conditions during any one shoot. You only need to take a couple of shots
of the card, one for each of these conditions, and then forget about it. For
example, if it's daytime and you're shooting indoors you will sometimes
probably shoot near a window. Take a WhiBal shot in that area and then
forget about it. Later in post you can select all images taken around the same
area and use that one WhiBal shot to balance them all. Take several shots
of other similarly characteristic spots and you can rest assured that you
have your WhiBal bases covered later.

urbanaries

pyrtek wrote:

Your subject certainly doesn't have to carry the card around all the time.
There's a finite and, typically, rather limited amount of different lighting
conditions during any one shoot. You only need to take a couple of shots
of the card, one for each of these conditions, and then forget about it. For
example, if it's daytime and you're shooting indoors you will sometimes
probably shoot near a window. Take a WhiBal shot in that area and then
forget about it. Later in post you can select all images taken around the same
area and use that one WhiBal shot to balance them all. Take several shots
of other similarly characteristic spots and you can rest assured that you
have your WhiBal bases covered later.

Exactly the level of specificity and tolerance I'm looking for regarding the shoot itself. Thanks!!!

If you're setting WB in post (ACR? LR? Aperture?), are you using Smugmug's I2E on top of that?

colourbox

I click the WB tool, but often use that as a starting point for nudging the WB sliders.

One thing you can sometimes do in mixed lighting is use the Hue/Sat sliders in Lightroom/Camera Raw to take just one color and pull it back. In a case where, for example, grass is bouncing all kinds of green into the skin, it can help. Try to drain out enough of the wrong color, but not so much that the rest of the photo looks wrong. But since it's not a cure-all, you should definitely recognize when you're starting to spend too much time on it and then move on, like Scott said.

ShepsMom

First of all, i usually try to avoid situation when shot would be less then desirable, due to lighting, clutter, or what not. If that's unavoidable, i try to do my best in shooting and hope for the good outcome. As I shoot RAW, i use adobe raw to adjust WB and whatever else needs to be adjusted. My final touches are done with CS2 after conversion to JPEG. It can be tedious work, but each image requires special touch, so i can not set everything to do auto processing, unless i don't know something. I must rely on my monitor to have corrected colors that look best to me. I'm also aware that people see pictures different with different monitors, that might be challenging, but just do my best and stick with what appears to be best for me.

Scott_Quier

Have you read this thread (link). If not, there's a discussion concerning flourescent lighting that might shed some light on the subject (yes, the pun was intended!).

jeffreaux2

Raw is ...well Raw, and I think it has been hammered on by everyone pretty good so far. I generally shoot Jpeg plus Raw, and IF I get and image that has great big issues with exposure, or WB then I will work the RAW file. Otherwise I use the jpeg and make my final touches to it. Is this a mistake?

There are many ways to skin a cat. I use PSCS still, but also have PSE4 that came bundled with my Adobe Premiere video editing software. PSE4 I have found to be very very useful for skin tones, and color casts. There is a "remove color cast" tool that can be used to set a white, black, or grey point. Also a " adjust color for skin tone" tool that can be used to do just that. It actually gives very good, quick results.

gluwater

Go to the library or local book store and check out "Skin: The Complete Guide to Digitally Lighting, Photographing, and Retouching Faces and Bodies" By Lee Varis. It has a wealth of knowledge on getting correct, or more importantly, pleasing skin tones.

Sam

Quick question:

Does anyone gel his or her flashes to match the indoor lighting?

I just reviewed of a co-workers daughters weeding. They are pretty sad.

Biggest issue is skin tones, and total inconsistency in lighting temps. It looked like horrible mixed lighting overall, and even if the people in the flash were ok the background was so far off. If no flash was used the people were from red and yellow land.

Also I don't think I saw any really sharp photos. All were taken at very wide apertures, and slow shutter speeds. Looked like very limited dof, and camera shake.

I can salvage most from a color, exposure, levels standpoint, but of course the camera shake, and overall soft image can't be fixed. (At least by me.)

Sam

Scott_Quier

Sam wrote:

Quick question:

Does anyone gel his or her flashes to match the indoor lighting?

Yep. I look for the dominate light source and, using gels, try to match the flash output to that.

I just reviewed of a co-workers daughters weeding. They are pretty sad.

Biggest issue is skin tones, and total inconsistency in lighting temps. It looked like horrible mixed lighting overall, and even if the people in the flash were ok the background was so far off. If no flash was used the people were from red and yellow land.

Also I don't think I saw any really sharp photos. All were taken at very wide apertures, and slow shutter speeds. Looked like very limited dof, and camera shake.

Sounds to me like a case of a photog with insufficient flash and/or a mental inability/fear to boost the flash output.

I can salvage most from a color, exposure, levels standpoint, but of course the camera shake, and overall soft image can't be fixed. (At least by me.)

Sam

Sometimes, you can take a soft image and make it softer and come up with a pretty good image. Of course, you can't do that to all of them - you have to be selective.

LAB.rat

urbanaries wrote:

I swear, there must be a big memo I never got. Everyone around here seems to get such consistent, natural color shots, particularly in the skin tones.

Everyone secretly uses SkinTune, didn't you know...?
I used to laugh too, but seriously: give it a try (do read the manual)

It can occur that it will change the surroundings too much because it doesn't seem to use a skin mask. You can largely automatically prevent this by having something else in your SkinTune action lay an inverted skin mask (you do have to click one skin tone manually). Even if those masks are not perfect it will often be more than enough. Shouldn't it fulfill your very highest standards, it sure is handy for the quickies.

An ok automatic skin mask can be made with the Imagenomic Portraiture plugin, but it's expensive. I will be looking into how some of the mask scripts on this page might be able do it:
www.thelightsrightstudio.com/photoshop-tools.htm

If you have other automatic skin mask solutions besides selecting the reds, let me know

Also, the Curvemeister plugin has some tools/library options to ease skintone regulation, but I'm not too familiar with those.

Tanuki

urbanaries wrote:

I swear, there must be a big memo I never got. Everyone around here seems to get such consistent, natural color shots, particularly in the skin tones. Meanwhile I struggle.

I started finding neutral points of each shot using Lightroom to set the WB, as it was suggested that was my issue...improper WB. While this seem to work at first it is not very accurate or consistent. My next step is to use a WhiBal card, but it seems that I'd have to have my subject carry it around the entire time, as shooting from one moment and angle to the next is in slightly different lighting mixes. For example, shooting a couple dancing, there's one wall with windows, the rest of the room lit with a mixture of tungsten and flourescent. Every step they take changes the direction of lightfall, thus a distinctly different color mix. One would think a white dress and a black tux would generate good points, but one shot looks green, the next orange, and the next blue.

I am also wondering if the auto rendering Lightroom does is messing up my shots. Any idea how to turn this off? (I looked everywhere). Generally when I open a shot, skin looks natural for a split second, then gets rendered to a mucky, over saturated orange.

So, what are you guys doing?

I use the technique recommended by George Jardine in this video. He recommends moving the WB slider back and forth, slowly narrowing in on the setting that looks best to your eye.

At first this technique didn't appeal to me because I feel Lightroom is in dire need of a way to do skin "by the numbers". I even put in feature requests at Adobe to that end. But after giving in and trying George's technique for a while, I'm finding that I am getting a more refined eye for skin tone. I'm glad I gave George the benefit of the doubt and stuck with his method.

For me, this is a much better option than using Photoshop. I just don't have the time for Photoshop when Lightroom can do it so much faster.

I generally avoid mixed lighting whenever I can, but sometimes it's unavoidable. My approach in Lightroom is to adjust white balance for one light source or the other. Usually I prefer to white balance for the bluer or greener light source because this results in the other light looking orange or magenta, which looks more natural to me than when the other light source is blue or green. But I also give consideration for whichever light source is affecting my subject the most. And if I don't like the result, it's off to Photoshop for a difficult cleanup job.

You mentioned "auto rendering", which I take to mean that your Lightroom default settings put your WB to "Auto". You can configure your defaults in Lightroom... mine is set to "As Shot".

Hope some of this helps.

Regards,
Mike

urbanaries

Tanuki wrote:

You mentioned "auto rendering", which I take to mean that your Lightroom default settings put your WB to "Auto". You can configure your defaults in Lightroom... mine is set to "As Shot".

My WB setting defaults to "As shot" as well. I have to manually click "Auto" to get Lightroom's AWB. however, there is still a distinct change in the coloration of an image between when LR starts loading an image and when it is "done." This only occurs during the first import.

Does anyone else have this experience?

urbanaries

Sam wrote:

Quick question:

Does anyone gel his or her flashes to match the indoor lighting?

I just reviewed of a co-workers daughters weeding. They are pretty sad.

Biggest issue is skin tones, and total inconsistency in lighting temps. It looked like horrible mixed lighting overall, and even if the people in the flash were ok the background was so far off. If no flash was used the people were from red and yellow land.

Sam

Scott and I have had several conversations on this very topic. I am not sure how many weddings you've shot, but this is the most technically challenging aspect of wedding photography for me. Many of the suggestions in this thread to avoid bad lighting, etc are just not relevant to weddings. And shooting in RAW is a given, but it does NOT help when you have a mixture of lighting temperatures, because if they're not consistent temperatures...fixing one throws the others out of whack.

At the wedding i shot Saturday, there was one side of the room lit nicely by window light, but with some sodium vapor and/or tungsten lighting overhead. (It's not like I could get up to the vaulted ceiling and undo the fixtures to look at the bulbs themselves to be 100% sure!) Then you add on the other side of the room, the near zero window light, but more tungsten/sodium lighting, and the colored lights from the DJ booth, and you have a real mess.

LiquidAir

For Lightroom, here is my quick and dirty method if I don't have a calibration for my light source:

Nominal Caucasian skin tone properly exposed is about 80% red, 70% green 60% blue in Lightroom. More generally, for correct skin hue (ignoring saturation and lightness) the difference bewteen the red and green channel be about the same as the difference between the green and the blue. So if red-green = 10%, I also want green-blue to be 10%.

I start by setting the green-magenta slider to zero.
Then I adjust the temperature until relationship between red, green and blue indicates the proper hue (more or less--to some degree let your eye be a guide).
Now I evaluate the entire image for a green/magenta cast. If there is one, I correct for it with the appropriate slider and then go back and fix the skin hue with the temperature slider.
Next I adjust either the saturation or vibrance slider to taste.
Finally, I use the contrast, brightness, and tone curve to put the lightness where I want it.

This process makes the assumption that the green magenta adjustment will be minor. If the situation requires a bigger adjustment there (say flourescents), you'll want to get it close first.

I usually get close enough this way that I can handle that last few minor tweaks by eye.