Options
Color Correction as never before
manta1900
Registered Users Posts: 68 Big grins
Hi all, I just advanced my AutoWhiteBalance filter (8bf plug-in) into version 2. It color corrects your photos without changing the original exposure. You don't have to give any input since it does everything automaticly (not even search for grey areas in the photo). You can download it from Adobe Exchange site: http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/exchange/index.cfm?event=extensionDetail&loc=en_us&extid=1496020 To install it if you have Adobe PhotoShop you just copy it into filters subdirectory (e.g. c:\program files\adobe\photoshop cs2\plug-ins\filters\) and you restart PhotoShop. You will find the filter in the menu (Filter->AphtoPhoto).
Hope you like it... and maby donate my research.
Hope you like it... and maby donate my research.
0
Comments
Actually there is no support from FilterMeister (the program that I use to create filters). In the future I plan to use another program which supports MAC (I hope soon).
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
arodney,
Have you tried it? (it works for 16bit RGB also)
If you are a master of white-balance then you propably don't need it. It's mostly for those that make mistakes on white-balancing or don't want to spend time on color-correction or for those that don't know how (or don't want).
Please try it (your opinion will be very useful).
Why would I? I render the correct and desired color appearance from Lightroom. That's the point of my question. And further, why are users ending up in Photoshop with images that are not properly color balanced at least at a global level? Of course some people have workflows whereby the get from others, rendered images that need to be fixed. Clearly this would be useful for them. But lets talk about everyone else; those that have either Raw files or are scanning originals. Why not address the problems from the start?
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
I agree with you. But... try "fixed" images with this filter and compare (and share with us if possible). If you have the same opinion then I will fully agree with you.
Without a Mac version, even testing it isn't in the cards.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
You wouldn't, Andrew ... and more than likely I wouldn't since I can almost "instinctively" color balance normally or in LabColor with PhotoShop. But I know a ton of people, and have had bunches of students, who have never mastered nor do they choose to master their copies of PhotoShop ... and several are still using version 6.
This is especially true with several of my students who surpass my six decades on this earth and are even having problems mastering the computer (shoot, they even say "Mac? What is that???") to aid in their new digital photography hobby.
This filter is for them ... and it will help them until they (hopefully) begin to see AND USE the power they already have in PhotoShop.
Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
You wouldn't. You're using raw data.
Other people aren't and might find this useful.
Sorry, don't think it's ready for prime time. Tried it on some landscapes, still lifes and portraits. Basically, it added yellow to everything. Kind of like a warming filter.
On portraits with skin tones already well balanced, it added a bunch of yellow. So I forced a yellow cast on one portait and then ran the plugin. It added even more yellow.
Finally, I used a MacBeth color checker image. First as is, then with various color casts added first. Results = yellow, yellow, yellow.
http://www.kellyphoto.smugmug.com/
Haha. Tell those people there's a T-Rex over their shoulder and it's about to devour them. They're obviously strolling around in the Jurassic age
Then there are shots where you really don't want the neutrals being neutral, where you want the soft light of early morning or late afternoon to do its thing. In these cases, you can control the warmth in post.
A tool is a tool is a tool. If someone comes up with a new way of doing something, it's worth investigating it's usefulness, rather than dismissing it out of hand with snide responses.
There are still cameras and scanners out there that don't support raw formats or in-camera custom white balances. In addition, raw converters don't always nail wb precisely, see here for an example.
Yes, one can use a kitchen knife as a screwdriver. Not recommended.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
The flaw in your logic is here:
Then understanding that using Kelvin to define color is a pretty poor metric and should be dismissed as a target value of what is correct, since many DIFFERENT colors correlate to the same kelvin value. 5000K is a range of colors.
There's nothing correct nor incorrect other than you wanted a warmer skin tone.
And lastly, rendering is subjective. The right skin tone is the one you, the image creator prefer. The numbers are in that respect, meaningless. What IS a problem is when you bake a rendering into pixels, don't like it, then have to unbake that appearance using Photoshop, instead of rendering the skin tone (or other elements) as preferred from the scene referred Raw data from the get go.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Well, until the OP creates a version that can be tested on a Mac, I won't know whether he's invented a kitchen knife or a swiss-army knife. And neither can you, based on your previous post.
What would help this discussion would be an objective, intelligent analysis of this tool's strengths and weaknesses, rather than sniping at it from afar. So far only one person in this thread has actually made any attempt to evaluate this tool. (Thank you, redcrown.)
My comments are NOT directed solely at this product but tools and best practices in general.
There is however, no question in my mind that should a global color or tone issue need to be handled, it should be done long before the image is opened in Photoshop, by rendering (or scanning) the original. That's the best use of the tools we have today.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Version 2.0 adds sunlight color to the images (5780K which is color if light in mid-noon). Version 1.0 is the same without the "yellow" color of the sun. I made this "correction" to the filter cause most of the times lighting is similar to sunlight... and not pure white. Download v1.0 instead.
This doesn't sound particularly practical unless all of your shots are in direct sunlight, unless I'm missing something.
Now if you only had "people skills" to go along with your vast irrefutable knowledge of color management.
I have better tools for this job (iCorrect Editlab), but just for the hell of it I tried yours. I use Corel PhotoPaint and have other 8bf plugins (some developed with filter meister) that work fine. Yours made the program crash. End of story.:D
Civility is still a virtue that is not only appreciated on dgrin, it is required for membership
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
That is the main idea. I don't want all this research to go in vain. That's why I am asking your opinion to make things better. I'm not narrow minded and I think that negative critisism from people that know photography better than me along with my skills can make a difference. I'm a computer programmer with photography as a hobby. I started making these filters for personal use. I will never stop sharing and trying to make them perfect with your help.
Ric,
You are right it crashed on vista machines. I released version 2.1 of the filter (http://aphtophoto.50webs.com) which has vista support and an option to use sunlight color or not.
Well...I hope you get it to work...because it would be usable for many. Not everyone is a pro that shoots exclusively in raw. I am one of them. Color management can be a pain when you don't understand it...I think I do. On the other hand, some don't care to know. They just want to take pictures...so you CAN help with your plugin.
I've tried developing in raw more than once and can easily see the advantage of doing so.
However; the other day while on a shoot when the moment of truth finally came, while camped out by a Great Blue Heron nest, I missed my best opportunities because I was shooting continuous and in raw. The buffered filled up and I had to wait. It's JPEG for me from now on.
Oh! BTW my machine was running XP pro with SP2.
And...now you have done exactly the same thing that I did.:D
Sometimes it's hard to bite the tongue.
I think you need more color management study! The plug-in has nothing to do with color management. You can run it, it might do an excellent job, if you don't have your color management act together, it will either look poor or output poorly.
Color management is simple, its number management. It tries, as best as the technology allows, to do some simple things: Make a pile of numbers on multiple users systems appear the same. Make a pile of numbers that do appear as you desire, appear that way when you output the numbers to some other media. All computers understand are big piles of numbers. The plug-in may produce the correct numbers, if you don't have your color management act together, it might look incorrect to you (based on the numbers) or output correctly (again, based on the numbers).
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
I never said it did. But, I can see how you got that idea with the sentences run together. Next time, I'll be careful where to start a
new paragraph.:D