Blowing out myshots in Post but my workflow hasent' changed a bit

SloYerRoll

Picture says everything.

All I do w/ my shots is crop and a basic curves adjustment.
I cosider basic curves adjustment to be:
color adjustment and setting the black and white point in the shot.
On this specific all I did was:
Bring up curves and alt click my input sliders towards the center of the histogram until clipping shows then I back off a step (unless it's useless data then I continue to taste...

What gives?
On my dng the shot looks perfectly exposed then I save as jpeg (using save for web & devices)for others to view and it ends up looking blown out. The histogram says it's spot on though. :splat

ShepsMom

They both look blown to me, DNG and JPEG, i never save my images via "save for web". For some reason it lightens up image, i can't explane the phenomenon of this.

LiquidAir

The DNG looks about a stop overexposed to me. Remember, not every image should have a 255,255,255 white point. If the luminosity of your skin tones gets much brighter than about 200 your image is probably too hot.

SloYerRoll

Thanks Marina and Ken,

The skin tones are at about 225. I thought 240+ for pixel luminosity value would be too hot. Didn't realize that it went so low as 200....
That would make sence since this os one of the first time I used the on board flash for lighting at night. I was looking to just take some pics. Not make photographic visions of excellence. (which still elude me mostly anyway)

All the best,
-Jon

LiquidAir

SloYerRoll wrote:

Thanks Marina and Ken,

The skin tones are at about 225. I thought 240+ for pixel luminosity value would be too hot. Didn't realize that it went so low as 200....
That would make sence since this os one of the first time I used the on board flash for lighting at night. I was looking to just take some pics. Not make photographic visions of excellence. (which still elude me mostly anyway)

All the best,
-Jon

There isn't much room for color up at a luminosity of 240. An easy to remember reference color for Caucasian skin is 200 R, 175 G, 150 B

arodney

The DNG looks blown out too but I suspect you have PLENTY of real data to work with. Move the exposure slider down (assuming you're using Camera Raw or Lightroom) and I'll bet dollars to donuts you have plenty of detail to work with.

SloYerRoll

I wave the :bs at all of you but Marina!

While the last shot had some spots that were almost blown due to direct flash. I found out through Marina's statement that my "what gives?" was too generic and extracting the wrong answers.

Here is a scren cap of the PSD, JPEG (save as) and JPEG (save for web & devices).

There is an obvious difference between the three in regards to overall brightness.

BTW the original DNG I provided wasn't blown out. I ran it through a screen grab app, then ran it on save for web. So of course the shot is going to look blown. The highest WP i could find on the original image was 232, and I'm still not convinced that you can't have a higher wp on white skin than 200. I've shot tons of ppl that have a wp way higher than 200. I need to research this further though.

*no need to coment on the current image. I was half way done then got the brainstorm to test Marina's statement and was excited about the results.

arodney

What's the color space of the doucment?

SloYerRoll

arodney wrote:

What's the color space of the doucment?

I used Adobe RGB until about 6 months ago when I read one of Bruce Fraiser's recent publications, 'Real world Color Management' . Then I switched over to ProPhoto RGB.
I liked the book, but as w/ any other publication like this. They can't assume you know jack about color management and have to treat you like a 10 year old. (Just the nature of these books I guess)
I'm pretty well versed in color management Andrew. SO if you want to toss me in the deep end. Feel free

arodney

SloYerRoll wrote:

I used Adobe RGB until about 6 months ago when I read one of Bruce Fraiser's recent publications, 'Real world Color Management' . Then I switched over to ProPhoto RGB.
I liked the book, but as w/ any other publication like this. They can't assume you know jack about color management and have to treat you like a 10 year old. (Just the nature of these books I guess)
I'm pretty well versed in color management Andrew. SO if you want to toss me in the deep end. Feel free

Well Save for Web doesn't convert to sRGB so did you feed it a file in ProPhoto RGB?

pathfinder

I wondered if the color spaces were the same for all three images also.

LiquidAir

SloYerRoll wrote:

BTW the original DNG I provided wasn't blown out. I ran it through a screen grab app, then ran it on save for web. So of course the shot is going to look blown. The highest WP i could find on the original image was 232, and I'm still not convinced that you can't have a higher wp on white skin than 200. I've shot tons of ppl that have a wp way higher than 200. I need to research this further though.

Luminosity is not equally balanced between R, G and B. Usually the computation for Luminosity is about L = 0.3*R + 0.6*G + 0.1*B. Since in a skin tone the red channel is always brighter than the green, the Luminosity of skin needs to be darker than you'd think because otherwise you end up blowing out the red channel even when you haven't blown out the Luminosity. As you push up the brightness of skin tones you'll notice that they first start looking too yellow as you hit the limits of the red channel, and eventually start looking white. In the picture you posted, the skin in both versions looks very pale to me which makes think it is too bright. I think if you pull back on the exposure a bit you will get much more natural skin tones.

SloYerRoll

arodney wrote:

Well Save for Web doesn't convert to sRGB so did you feed it a file in ProPhoto RGB?

All files are managed in the ProPhoto color space except for Save for Web. (I'm not sure how to attach a color profile when using Save for Web. I'll be in debt to you if you enlighten me though.) I don't understand why the differences in Luminosity exist when I output as "save as" when I know they share the same color space.

LiquidAir wrote:

Usually the computation for Luminosity is about L = 0.3*R + 0.6*G + 0.1*B

Thanks LA. I just had an epiphany thanks to your spelling it out for me.

I genuinely appreciate everyones feedback and patience on this.

-Jon

SloYerRoll

LiquidAir wrote:

you end up blowing out the red channel even when you haven't blown out the Luminosity.

This would be a good situation to use the "colors" channel of the histogram so you could see when your clipping out the red then?
Isn't the histogram a cumulative average of all channels when you looking at it in RGB?

LiquidAir

SloYerRoll wrote:

This would be a good situation to use the "colors" channel of the histogram so you could see when your clipping out the red then?
Isn't the histogram a cumulative average of all channels when you looking at it in RGB?

I always look at an RGB histogram when I am processing.

Look at is this way: You start with a color which is 200R 175G 150B and start pushing up the luminosity. At some point it will no longer be possible to add any more R, so beyond that point you can only add G and B. While you can still preserve texture and other details beyond that point, you must lose saturation. There are many different ways of handling the math; some will hard clip the red early and others will approach 255 more gently; but at the end of the day there is no escaping the inevitable trend to white.

arodney

SloYerRoll wrote:

All files are managed in the ProPhoto color space except for Save for Web. (I'm not sure how to attach a color profile when using Save for Web. I'll be in debt to you if you enlighten me though.)

In CS2, you had to first convert to sRGB before using Save for Web (Convert to Profile, select sRGB). In CS3, there's an option in the drop down for converting to sRGB. Make sure its on. There's also a check box to embed the ICC profile (not really necessary for web work, its not color managed expect on a rare few browsers).

SloYerRoll

arodney wrote:

(not really necessary for web work, its not color managed expect on a rare few browsers).

thanks andrew

LiquidAir wrote:

start with a color which is 200R 175G 150B and start pushing up the luminosity. At some point it will no longer be possible to add any more R, so beyond that point you can only add G and B.

I'm going to do some research before I ask any dumb questions then probably get abck to you on this.


So is there any reason that the native file and the save as file (which share the same color space) have different brightnesses? (great word huh )

All the best,
-Jon

SloYerRoll

Sorry to :deadhorse

But I still have no idea why when I save my file as 'save as' to jpeg, the image looks over exposed. I can provide all the samples you need.
Use a single color space through the entire process.
Have a color calibrated monitor.

Any idea why this happens?
-Jon

[/COLOR]

arodney

Why don't you email me a copy of both versions giving you fits so I can look it over.

SloYerRoll

Check your andrew@DD.net account.

The dng I sent you was converted to the PP color space when I open it in PS. This is the original file w/o xml data.

SloYerRoll

Your mailbox was at it's quota.
I sent it to:
thedigitaldog@earthlink.net

Thanks again.

arodney

SloYerRoll wrote:

Your mailbox was at it's quota.
I sent it to:
thedigitaldog@earthlink.net

Thanks again.

Nothing has come through and as far as I know, there's no email at quota.

You can also put it on my iDisk (see below). But tomorrow I'm off to Photoshop World to teach, not sure what I'll be able to do if I don't see it by then.

My public iDisk:

thedigitaldog

Name (lower case) public
Password (lower case) public

Public folder Password is "public" (note the first letter is NOT capitalized).

To go there via a web browser, use this URL:

http://idisk.mac.com/thedigitaldog-Public

arodney

SloYerRoll wrote:

Check your andrew@DD.net account.

That's not my account....

SloYerRoll

arodney wrote:

That's not my account....

HUH?
I truncated your domain if that's what your talking about.
I sent an email to andrew@digitaldog.net and a mail daemon returned my mail saying the box had reached it limit. (Usually limits are dictated my MB not numbers of email though. You can get a few more hundred email and still not be close to the 7mb email I sent you.

Not sure how this isn't your address. I got it off your website w/ the subject line "fwd to Andrew"

pathfinder

Just upload it to his iDisk. That should work fine, Jon.

I am interested in the answer to this question also.

arodney

I don't see the file.

SloYerRoll

"Gorilla Glue" DNG, PSD, & JPEG uploaded to your idisk account.

FYI:
I shoot in Adobe 1998 (since this is the best option on my meager camera) using Nikons propitary .NEF file.
Upload through Bridge for sorting culling.
Open any images deemed keepers in ACR.
After RAW adjustments are made I open in PS3 attaching my color profile there. (I attach color profile by imbeding ICC color profile when saving)

I'm sure to a seasoned vet like yourself. You gasp at this workflow. While I have a good understand of color management. I'm still learning color management as a digital photographer.

I look forward to hearing what you come up with.

-Jon

Here is the Gorilla Glue shot I sent Andrew using the "save as" dialog:

arodney

SloYerRoll wrote:

"Gorilla Glue" DNG, PSD, & JPEG uploaded to your idisk account.

Got em. OK, I open both Gorilla Glue PSD and JPEG, they preview identically in Photoshop. They are both in ProPhoto RGB and embedded as such. So what's the problem again?

arodney

If I render the DNG with your instructions in sRGB (Workflow options), it appears exactly like the other two files you sent (even though it's in sRGB which is correct).

IF I render the DNG into ProPhoto RGB, as it appears you've done, convert to sRGB (either using Convert to Profile or the Convert to sRGB in Save for Web), the resulting file matches everything (as it should).

I don't see a problem here.

SloYerRoll

arodney wrote:

They are both in ProPhoto RGB and embedded as such. So what's the problem again?

Here is a screen cap of the EXACT same files viewed through Bridge on the same color calibrated monitor.

The problem is that the overall brightness isn't the same on both images.

How can I do all my post production work and not know how bright my shots are until I view them as a jpeg??

arodney

Forget Bridge, what about Photoshop? We'll worry about Bridge later.

They are identical on my end.