Color Check?
rwdfresno
Registered Users Posts: 65 Big grins
What do you all think about the color in this photo? Particularly the skin tones. I read the Dgrin tutorial about mastering skin tones and tried it out on this shot. What do you guys think? It looks possibly a tad yellow but tried to stay within the guidlines that lesson suggested.
Thank you,
Ryan
Thank you,
Ryan
Ryan Davis
my flickr
my flickr
0
Comments
A very small curve in the blue channel, say moving B155 to B160, kills a little of the yellow and makes the image more pleasing, IMO.
EDIT: the forehead and the neck are often the best places to evaluate skin tone, I've found.
The photo does have an overall yellow cast. I would adjust the skin tones on a separate layer from the rest of the photo and mask each.
Skin is difficult. I think it is why I'm considering shooting only animals, architecture, and landscapes.
My Images | My Lessons Learned and Other Adventures
Before we even think about 'fixing' this with curves in Photoshop, the question should be, do you have a Raw or is this an existing rendered JPEG. Because if you have a Raw, you'll be far, far better off altering the rendering instructions than trying to 'fix' pixels in Photoshop. The source of the data should always be the first question, then a 'fix' or a re-rendering. There's a significant difference.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Can you post an unretouched version too? That would help a lot!
Thanks!
my flickr
Because I'm trying ot get a teaching gig here's a quick lesson.
Wrap a can with a 'white' piece of paper. and place it near the subjects so it gets the same lighting as the subjects. Take a picture. One with and one wthout flash Now go outside on a sunny day and do the same thing. Don't shot this one in the golder hours of morning or evening.
Take the image into Photoshop.
Use the eyedroper and create 3 points on the can at the lightest, darkest and middle gray tones.
Using Layer >> New Adjustment Layer >> Curves. Try to make the white paper as neutral as possible at all 3 points. a fwe points here or there is fine. You probably wont get them all neutral due to reflective color casts and different color lighting.
Once you have a reasonably neutral numbers on the can you should have a reasonably accurate skintone.
Or forget that convoluted process, calibrate your display, make the image appear as you think it should! And again, if you can, do this when rendering the image, not after in Photoshop. You'll spend a lot less time and have a lot more control over the process, a process which truly is non destructive. One that allows you to build dozens of iterations (to teach yourself what you want to achieve) from a single document (the Raw).
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
You might be able to get good results on this picture with ACR, but you also might be able to get good results using PS methods. I don't see the reason for dismissing methods which can help, and which are sometimes useful when ACR, for some reason, does not give the results you are looking for. I've had pictures where everything seems OK in shadow and highlights, but skintones, in the midtones are too red. There might be a way to correct that sort of thing in ACR, but in PS its a piece of cake. So why dismiss the PS methods?
There are several things in this picture that look like they should probably be neutral -- the rabbit logo on the sweater, and some of the tissue wrapping paper are noticeable examples. But they don't share the same casts. The rabbit has a purple cast, while the wrapping paper tends toward yellow. To my eye, the whole thing looks too yellow, and the numbers on the skin bear this out. An additional problem with trying to correct this picture is that there isn't anything that is clearly black. The darkest areas are the tree, but they are obviously green. How green is a matter of judgment.
Hope this helps some.
Duffy
So you think telling someone to use simple controls to make an image appear as they see it, with the hope of producing that on output (or the output is what they are looking at) is harder than using some arbitrary numbers? The OP doesn't seem to be having luck working by the numbers (for good reason).
The goal of even simple color management is what you see is what you get. Its quite doable. Unless the person is color blind, something we've not heard, lets work with the premise that a color display is a pretty easy thing to look at (like a print), that one simply alters simple rendering controls to produce a color appearance they desire. It doesn't have to be rocket science, despite those who wish to complicate the process with trips into odd color spaces, or using numbers that have no relationship with the numbers the document happens to currently be in.
You might make the image appear better by mucking around with the display controls, what's your point?
The OP said the technique was problematic in plain English.
They looked too red?
Its a piece of cake if you know how to do it and I would submit, if there's an issue, it should be addressed earlier in the imaging process because its faster, it causes no damage to the data and it allows unlimited iterations which are nothing more than tiny text files. Not rendered 'fixed' pixels.
Its like saying "why expose the image correctly, we have a tool in Photoshop to lighten and darken images". That's counter productive and the wrong tool for the job. GIGO:Garbage In Garbage Out!
I don't dismiss PS methods that are appropriate uses of the PS tools. There's huge difference in pixel rendering and pixel correction which most people who have either been using (or writing about) Photoshop fail to grasp based on new tools we have been provided over the last year or two.
The ONLY person who can answer this is the person who created the image. And even if what you say is true, global neutrality should be done at the rendering stage not after, just a proper exposure should be done in camera, not in Photoshop. Its simple best practices using the right tool for the right job.
You can use a knife as a screwdriver, but if you have a screwdriver, you're foolish to use a knife instead.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
We've been through this before. You seem to think that its close to criminal to make a global change after "baking" the pixels. And you also seem to think there is something horrific about destroying any data. I'm not as concerned with either of those things, at least in the abstract. I don't think either of us is "wrong" in any meaningful sense, and I think its less likely that either of us will convince the other -- and certainly not by being snarky.
My point about the neutral colors here is that there are several things that I suspect are neutral, and they seem to have conflicting casts. If I'm right about that, it means that a global solution using sliders is not going to make everything neutral that appears to be neutral. If that is so, then its possible that ACR is simply the wrong tool for this job.
On the other hand, its possible that part of the problem with this shot is a result of the "baking" process. In general, casts in jpg's tend to get less severe towards the extreme highlights and shadows. This creation of graduated casts by the jpg process is a natural result of any RGB space defining white as 255, 255, 255 and black as 0,0,0. With that in mind, I agree that, where casts are involved, its always a good idea to start with the RAW file, if possible.
Duffy
As I didn't shoot RAW of this all the editing was done in photoshop. I realize the advantages or shooting in RAW and how much more can be done in the redering process. That all aside I know that acheiving a decent color balance isn't reliant on redering from RAW and a decent result can be done using photophop. Really I guess my big curiocity is that when I follow the SmugMug Skin Tone Tutorial I seem to get results that aren't very pleasing. I am trying to figure out if I am missingthe boat of if just the uneven and improper exposure etc is so ff that following the tutorial is just not somthing that will work out in that situation.
my flickr
Criminal? No, slow, damaging and not best practices IF you could have done it earlier at rendering yes.
No more than I think there's something silly about shooting an image under exposed due to poor technique or sloppiness and then instead of trying to avoid that next time, just say "screw it, I'll fix it in Photoshop".
Let's continue to discuss best practices using the tools at our disposal OK?
You can suspect and assume. You might be right. It reminds of a seminar I saw recently at Photoshop world where the presenter said something like "well its clear the cement in this image is neutral". Why? Because cement is neutral no matter the time of day? No, because the really piss-poor baked JPEG had a severe color cast. And because the presenter said cement in this image should be neutral. And you know what, when he neutralized the cement, the cast was greatly reduced and the After image looked better than the Before image. But that didn't mean:
1. The presenter didn't ask "Where did this ugly cast come from?" Could it have been I didn't render the Raw correctly (or worse, shot JPEG and the camera gave me this)?
2. The presenter didn't take the image, wasn't at the scene so he can't say with any certainty that the after represents what the photographer wished to express with the image, only that there's far less a cast.
If you look at the image above, there is a yellow wall behind the tree. It may very well have an effect on the stuff you suspect should be neutral. What about the lighting? Is it supposed to be daylight balanced? Does having the areas you suggest should be neutral make the rest of the image more appealing? More appealing to the person who took the image?
I don't see why not.
Yes I'd agree IF a selective area in the image SHOULD be neutral and doing so globally would affect the rest of the image in a way we (or the photographer) dislike, ACR or LR is the wrong tool. We need a selective tweak. And we know this how? By simply LOOKING at the image. Its very possible you would use a set neutral eyedropper and then alter the tint or temp slider to warm it up to make it more pleasing. Then if you really feel those objects need to be totally neutral, do so in Photoshop.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
And on my calibrated display and color management aware browswer (Safari) it looks quite good, certainly an improvement over the original. Enough said.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
The original poster was referring to the dgrin tutorial on skin tones, which, as far as I can see, does not involve Raw. Raw was never part of the original discussion. I don't think anyone is arguing that editing in Raw isn't preferable, if the raw file is available.
Maybe you could spend some of your time and effort writing your own tutorials for dgrin to host? I'm sure they'd love to have them ...
EDIT: unnecessary comments removed.
A tutorial I've commented on as being somewhat suspect in usefulness (both here and in other posts).
There's no reason to jump through such hoops in a Raw converter, most are smart enough to distinguish a output color space from an RGB working space and don't provide these values (which are useful WHEN you know what CMYK device you're printing to, your document is in that CMYK color space and you're actually going to print to that CMYK device).
This is very old school thinking as well. Its time for more modern approaches to rendering pleasing color, then fixing unpleasing color.
Until I raised the question about if a Raw original exists. Since the answer is yes, then it should be part of the discussion since the issue here is color appearance that isn't acceptable and how to produce acceptable color.
No one is. But some don't seem to recognize when one should throw away the rendered poorly accepted image and go back to Raw versus trying to fix the baked pixels in Photoshop at a global level.
IF the OP had spent hours retouching the image then decided it needed color correction (and the first thing a teacher would do is tell them to do the work in the opposite order) or there was no Raw, we could discuss how to attempt to fixed the baked pixels in Photoshop. The problem is, so many people have been using Photoshop for so long, the see Photoshop as a hammer and everything as a nail. That's not a very good idea.
You're more then welcome to read as many as you wish that are posted on my web page which is updated regularly. dgrin is more than welcome to reference those URLs.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
The second version of yours veered way too strongly toward magenta.
You did something else differently as well, because the contrast in the two versions is pretty different. I played with color mode for the new layer, but decided to leave it simple.
Duffy
I can defintely see how it may have too much magenta for many people, however your version looks a bit on the yellow side to me and yet the yellow to magenta ratio on the skin tones is still high on the magenta side according to what the tutorial says should be correct. That is why I am just not sure what to trust as far as skin tones.
Ryan
my flickr
How about trusting your eyes? Do what pleases you and forget the
silly by-the-numbers methods.
http://bertold.zenfolio.com
This Dgrinner may be on to something...
My Webpage - http://www.3n-out.com
Well, the biggest problem is that, if you look at a bad image long enough, it starts to look good. I think everyone has had the experience of trying to "eyeball" an image they've been working on for quite some time, only to come back the next day and go
Then they can have another go the next day. Do you think a by-the-numbers
method rids you completely of those
http://bertold.zenfolio.com
I don't even know if another day is necessary, a few seconds viewing something else would do.
The numbers as you say, don't help all that much. Its useful to see where highlight and shadows may fall, you've got a fixed range here. Its somewhat useful to know if something is or isn't neutral. And you can FORGET about that in CMYK! It's an output color space. The only way to know a neutral is neutral is in a well behaved RGB color space (what Adobe designed and calls a working space). Input and output color spaces are not necessarily neutral when R=G=B. CMYK? All bets are off. Just convert 128/128/128/ in any RGB working space to 5 different CMYK output color spaces and read the values. And then we then discuss how GCR affects the numbers.
The CMYK by the numbers stuff was useful back in 1993, especially when you worked with a device you KNEW. Great for old drum scan operators (drum scanners so old, they could only produce CMYK, there was no way to actually turn off the conversion on what is a true RGB capture device).
Then you hear the argument "well its the ratio of CMYK" which doesn't work until you define the CMYK profile used to build the ratio from the current RGB data. And what about just looking at the RGB ratio of your favorite RGB working space? One less number to worry about, a color space you'll be using over and over again, not based on an output device you're never going to use, not based on anything that needs to be tied to an output color space (that's WHY we have synthetic RGB editing spaces in the first place).
This CMYK numbers game is similar to the Histogram game so many are now playing. Years ago, most Photoshop users didn't know what a Histogram was. Now that every DSLR has one (one I'll add that has absolutely no relationship to the data captured, the Raw), everyone agonizes over the Histogram. A Histogram IS somewhat useful, on either end of the scale or if you're viewing individual channels for saturation clipping (in a Raw converter). But with modern 21st century tools, its not something to continuously reference.
This CMYK by the numbers for skintone idea reminds me of one of my favorite quotes by my good friend and mentor, Bruce Fraser:
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Andrew,
I'm not sure where you've commented on that tute, or what you've said, I've just read though this thread, and I think you have a lot of valid points about working by the numbers.
There is this, though, something that I do believe someone with your experience has already forgotten: when starting out that by the numbers approach is an incredibly useful learning device. In the long wrong it's not all that useful, since your eye and a calibrated system can spot skin tone problems a mile off, but in the beginning, when you're training your eye and getting a handle on processing in general, those by the numbers approaches are really valuable. They not only train your eye, but really help with an understanding of the relationships between R,G and B, or C,M,Y and K, or whatever.
I still remember how difficult it was for those concepts to lodge in my brain, and it was numbers that got me there. In my case, LAB numbers. Somehow, reading about LAB it all clicked, and now I understand it all (RGB, CMYK) much better. There are still huge gaps in my knowledge, but numbers are helpful. Very helpful. Until they aren't any longer.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
I have problems teaching people to view numbers that have no relationship to what they are working with and with a color space that's got one extra value that like the other three, is totally dependent on some printer.
I haven't forgotten nor stopped using numbers in my work. The number scale in Lightroom is totally different from Photoshop and both are RGB based. Its simple to use ether IF you understand the scale of the numbers and what they represent. CMYK is not the color space to be using, that's my point. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water here. If you believe I don't think using numbers is useful, let me say clearly that's not what I'm saying.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Cool. Got it. Thanks for clarifying, because that IS what I read in what you wrote. Although, like I said, I didn't read (don't know where they are) the other posts you've made on that tute.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Andrew, do you have any handy web links to tutorials for adjusting skin tone for beginners that you think are good? I know the only end result that really matters is something that's pleasing to the eye, but a lot of folks that are relatively new to digital image manipulation need some help training their eyes to recognize skin that's "too yellow" or "too red". It just doesn't really help them much when we tell them to just adjust it until it looks good because the problem is their eyes aren't very well trained to know what "good" or bad skin tone looks like.
I know in my own development, I went through three phases. First, I needed to learn the tools and how to make a desired change. Second, I had to learn how to evaluate images and recognize problems that needed correcting. Then, third I had to learn what actually looked good after I'd applied changes from the previous two skills. Learning the tools came really easy. The other two were not so easy and I found that some of the by-the-numbers techniques really, really helped. At first, they helped me identify issues. Then, they helped serve as one of several guidelines when evaluating a change. And, now I mostly just use them as one of several different clues that go into forming an opinion about whether an image has a cast that needs fixing, what kind of cast it is and how much of a change to make.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Well here's a simple technique (I'm a fan of Hue/Sat or better, HLS in LR):
http://www.layersmagazine.com/color-correcting2.html
The other technique that's real simple. Once you output (to your device or other) skin tone you like IN your RGB working space, keep a small, low rez versions which you can open in Photoshop as BOTH a visual and numeric reference. You open a few such files and place them below the one's you're working on. You have both the numbers and the color appearance you know has produced good skintone output.
But keep this in mind, its critical. There are tons of different types of skin tone values. The lighting makes a huge difference. I've had the fun of using an actual Spectrophotometer to measure the color of various human skin (in CIE XYZ) and its all over the planet.
Lastly, there are all kinds of test images on the web of skin tone that are of known, good color appearance, one (in ColorMatch RGB) on my site. Use them as references for numbers and for visual reference.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
The problem is "Can you trust your eyes"?
Rather than display someone else's images, just try this link, and tell me again about trusting your eyes:D
Even with a carefully calibrated monitor, one has to be very careful. I prefer inspecting neutrals, and presumed known color values. But even then, edge effects within an image can fool you.....
I give you, from rutt's site, his favorite editing optical illusion - John has posted this here previously, so I don't think he'll begrudge us looking at it again
I know they do not look the same shade of gray, but both A and B measure 107,107,107 - they are exactly the same shade of gray. That is why, in addition to a well calibrated monitor, one needs to have an understanding of what the numbers mean in RGB, or LAB. As Andrew said, the numbers are very much harder to evaluate in CMYK. precisely because CMYK is an output space, and the numbers will vary according to the printing press used.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Andrew, that video of Matt using the Hue/ Saturation sliders for the Red and Yellow colors is just too easy.
Very neat little trick, that anyone can easily do. Thank you for that.
I do agree with David, that having an idea of what are normal skin tone numbers can certainly help beginners begin to train their eye/brain to evaluate their images more astutely. Along with known neutrals, like whites, black, and grays.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Duffy