Photoshop Lab Color: Ch. 1

1246

Comments

  • ruttrutt Cave canem! Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited November 21, 2005
    You know, the odd way I learned to use PS shows. I learned it from reading Dan's Professional Photoshop. And one thing he hates is levels. He's a downright snob about it, and I guess I caught the disease from him.
    If not now, when?
  • DavidTODavidTO Mod Emeritus Thousand Oaks, CARegistered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited November 21, 2005
    rutt wrote:
    You know, the odd way I learned to use PS shows. I learned it from reading Dan's Professional Photoshop. And one thing he hates is levels. He's a downright snob about it, and I guess I caught the disease from him.


    Levels are good for simple moves. Easier than curves, but not much. If you know you're just going to set your black, gray and white points, or change your output levels, they're fine. Just not as elegant or versatile as curves.
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • pathfinderpathfinder Drive By Digital Shooter western IndianaSuper Moderators Posts: 14,648 moderator
    edited November 21, 2005
    jfriend wrote:
    By way of making sure I what you're doing here, is this conceptually similar to "pushing in the ends" to the edges of the histogram in a levels adjustment layer?

    Yes, I think it is. Rutt is finding the darkest spot and the lightest spot and using them to anchor a curve's outer limits. Pushing the sliders in frm the ends on the histogram is accomplishing the same thing without the ability to vary the slope of the curve, just the two endpoints.
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • Tom K.Tom K. I post, therefore I am. Registered Users Posts: 817 Major grins
    edited November 22, 2005
    Should look a lot better. Does it?

    45421531-L.jpg
    Full size

    Bravo!!! Thank you for this educational experience. I'm getting this slowly but surely. You rendition is just perfect. I am curious as too how much sharpening you did to the final large image. Many thanks for this extremely generous and helpful guide you have provided. I'll be practicing this LAB technique until I can do it with confidence. I'll be the first to admit that make take a while.......but.......I'm determined to get there.
    Visit My Web Site ~ http://www.tomkaszuba.com/
  • ruttrutt Cave canem! Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited November 22, 2005
    Tom K. wrote:
    I am curious as too how much sharpening you did to the final large image.

    No sharpening at all in the interest of not complicating the lesson. It looks sharper because it has good contrast. Now if you go ahead and sharpen it carefully, it will look even better. But you'll need a light hand. Grass like that has a lot of fine detail and contrast and is easy to oversharpen. Might try the light/dark halos technique.
    If not now, when?
  • Tom K.Tom K. I post, therefore I am. Registered Users Posts: 817 Major grins
    edited November 22, 2005
    rutt wrote:
    No sharpening at all in the interest of not complicating the lesson. It looks sharper because it has good contrast. Now if you go ahead and sharpen it carefully, it will look even better. But you'll need a light hand. Grass like that has a lot of fine detail and contrast and is easy to oversharpen. Might try the light/dark halos technique.
    Oh yes. I have been reading that sharpening method and gave it a try. It's the defacto technique IMO and although I'll need much more experience with it..........once mastered will be my sharpening method of choice.

    I am still waiting for the Canyon Conundrum book to arrive from Amazon.com. I blew it when I choose free shipping. That extended my delivery time several days. :(
    Visit My Web Site ~ http://www.tomkaszuba.com/
  • Tom K.Tom K. I post, therefore I am. Registered Users Posts: 817 Major grins
    edited November 23, 2005
    I took another image and gave it a go. In fact I have been going through image after image and applying the techniques in this thread. The fact that I'm color blind saps some of my confidence because in reality I just don't know whether the colors are accurate or not. My eyes lie to me. I have an image here that I wanted to get the contrast in the sky much more pronounced than I ended up with. It's the L channel that I believe is making me ineffective on this shot. If I may be so bold I am posting a link to the original photo and the downsized final image I finished with. I really wanted to improve the contrast in the overcast sky. I just couldn't figure out how to do it. Unfortunately I forgot to do screen caps of the curves I applied in a b and L channels.

    52649955.nor_final.jpg

    Original

    I still have a lot to learn. Book should be incoming next week.
    Visit My Web Site ~ http://www.tomkaszuba.com/
  • ruttrutt Cave canem! Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited November 23, 2005
    Tom K. wrote:
    I took another image and gave it a go. In fact I have been going through image after image and applying the techniques in this thread. The fact that I'm color blind saps some of my confidence because in reality I just don't know whether the colors are accurate or not. My eyes lie to me. I have an image here that I wanted to get the contrast in the sky much more pronounced than I ended up with. It's the L channel that I believe is making me ineffective on this shot. If I may be so bold I am posting a link to the original photo and the downsized final image I finished with. I really wanted to improve the contrast in the overcast sky. I just couldn't figure out how to do it. Unfortunately I forgot to do screen caps of the curves I applied in a b and L channels.


    I still have a lot to learn. Book should be incoming next week.

    Getting detail in the sky while maintaining daylight below in this shot is well beyond the scope of Chapter 1 technique. I'll go through it, mostly as a plug for later chapters and to help you and others see the rewards for hanging in there.


    Before I do, I want to reiterate somethng. You've come to the right place if you want to learn how to color correct in spite of color blindness; but, you've come to the wrong place if you want to use it as an excuse. The calibrated monitor, color management people will be very sorry for you.

    Your color blindness doesn't cut it as an excuse for not being able write L curves. You still see contrast just fine, it's the A channel that you have trouble with. Do this: go to the Channels Palette and click on the L channel. Now you will see a B&W. Adjust the L channel to make it look good. No excuses. As for the color blindness, you've come to the right place. Learn the by-the-numbers technique and you'll be able to do a good job in spite of your disability.

    OK. So what about that sky? The best you can do with Chapter 1 technique is just to make the L curve very steep in the highlights where the sky lives:

    45691499-S.jpg

    That gets you to here:

    45691489-L.jpg

    Nice sky, but the foreground is now way too dark. You need a way to treat the sky and foreground separately.

    The easiest way is to take use the highlight half of the shadow/highlight adjustment before converting to LAB. It will bring back sky detail very easily and then you can go on and correct according to the Chapter 1 recipe:

    45695998-M.jpg

    45695976-S.jpg45695980-S.jpg45695986-S.jpg

    with this result (before sharpening)

    45696083-L.jpg

    Well, a little Chapter 4 crept in there because I think there is a slight yellow cast in the highlights on the ground. But forget I said that.

    You can get better control over the treatment of ground and sky by using the Chapter 8 technique of working on them in separate layers and then using blending options and perhaps a little layer masking to apply what you want to the parts of the image you want.

    I started in LAB mode by making a duplicate of your image and then applying the L curve shown above to bring out the sky detail. Of course, this made the foreground too dark. So I opened the Blending options dialog for the duplicate layer (double click on the layer, carful not to click on its name.)
    And moved the blend if slider for the L channel and the lower layer to exclude all but the lightest parts of the image from the blend:

    45691496-M.jpg

    After this, I added a layer mask and zapped a few annoying light spots in the foregrounds that were showing the blend. Then following the chapter 1 (well, a little chapter 4 here again) recipe to get this:

    45691448-L.jpg

    After lighten/darken USM, I got this:

    45691543-L.jpg
    If not now, when?
  • ruttrutt Cave canem! Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited November 23, 2005
    BTW, where was that picture taken. Looks so familiar.
    If not now, when?
  • Tom K.Tom K. I post, therefore I am. Registered Users Posts: 817 Major grins
    edited November 24, 2005
    rutt wrote:
    BTW, where was that picture taken. Looks so familiar.
    The photo was taken in Norwich, Connecticut. Your edit is exquisite.

    Many thanks for the time and effort you have taken with my images and this advice you are providing me is solid gold. No more excuses from me. Full steam ahead.

    Still waiting for the book to arrive (that's not an excuse ;) ).
    Visit My Web Site ~ http://www.tomkaszuba.com/
  • vangoghvangogh Major grins Registered Users Posts: 353 Major grins
    edited January 9, 2006
    Hi

    I've just read the tutorial for curve work & working with LAB colour & just had a couple of queries. I work as a designer & use photoshop CS2 everyday. I work mainly in CMYK or RGB if certain effects such as lens flare or whatever are being used. How do the comments for adjusting curves in LAB apply to CMYK or RGB? I normally adjust curves directly in CMYK, ususally on an adjustment layer. Should I change everything to LAB & then change back to CMYK? If so, how does the continual converting affect the final image for print?

    Many thanks
    Nicola
    Iconic Creative
    http://iconiccreative.smugmug.com
    Nicola
    Iconic Creative
    http://iconiccreative.smugmug.com

    "To be creative means the ability to remain thirsty and to want more, never be content...you keep on seeing, discovering and understanding the joy of creativity"
    Raghu Rai
  • edgeworkedgework Major grins Registered Users Posts: 257 Major grins
    edited January 9, 2006
    vangogh wrote:
    Hi

    I've just read the tutorial for curve work & working with LAB colour & just had a couple of queries. I work as a designer & use photoshop CS2 everyday. I work mainly in CMYK or RGB if certain effects such as lens flare or whatever are being used. How do the comments for adjusting curves in LAB apply to CMYK or RGB? I normally adjust curves directly in CMYK, ususally on an adjustment layer. Should I change everything to LAB & then change back to CMYK? If so, how does the continual converting affect the final image for print?

    Many thanks
    Nicola
    Iconic Creative
    http://iconiccreative.smugmug.com

    Keep reading. Good things await you.

    I am an image retoucher working primarily in a prepress setting and so CMYK is the coin of my realm. However, since diving into the lab techniques so ably discussed in these various threads, and reading Dan Margulis' latest book (the source of these threads) my use of CMYK has drastically diminished—at the end of a job, primarily to fine tune skin color or work with the black plate. For all major contrast moves, color cast removal, color enhancement and sharpening moves (definitely sharpening moves!), I work exclusively in LAB, converting back at the end.

    Most of the images I use come in RGB, sometimes a CMYK scan. Either way, moving to LAB involves no loss of color since LAB encompasses both spaces, with hefty room to spare. Keep in mind, also, that LAB is Photoshop's mother tongue. RGB and CMYK are conveniences arranged for the sake of the user, but even then, Photoshop is working translations on the fly based on the profile setup for each space. Internally, the colors are always in LAB.

    There can often be a loss of color after a series of moves in LAB, owing, again, to the possibility of creating colors in in that space that far exceed the CMYK and RGB gamuts. It's crucial that you do not convert directly from LAB to CMYK. There are numerous situations where you suffer a serious hit to shadow detail, as well as unexpected and unwanted color shifts. But remember that whatever you see on your monitor, even in LAB, is already within the RGB gamut, since that's all the monitor has available. A quick stop into RGB on your way to CMYK will eliminate the possiblity of truly bizarre shifts.

    Even so, I have managed miraculous color transformations in LAB when starting with a dull, drab CMYK image, and while I cannot always move the full scope of the effect back to CMYK, I can produce a result that would never have been possible in CMYK alone.

    Essentially, the techniques here are rewriting the conventional wisdom of what is involved in normal image enhancement. If you're not familiar with the inner workings of LAB, be prepared to treat curves, at least as they relate to color, like something from another planet. But the ideas are really quite simple, just different. Check out the various threads linked from here: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=18203 and enjoy!
    There are two ways to slide through life: to believe everything or to doubt everything; both save us from thinking.
    —Korzybski
  • ThusieThusie Major grins Registered Users Posts: 1,818 Major grins
    edited January 10, 2006
    Thank you Rutt for your time and the wonderful tutorial, it makes some sense now.
  • ruttrutt Cave canem! Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited January 10, 2006
    Thusie wrote:
    Thank you Rutt for your time and the wonderful tutorial, it makes some sense now.

    It will make lots more sense if you read on a bit starting here: http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=18308
    If not now, when?
  • ThusieThusie Major grins Registered Users Posts: 1,818 Major grins
    edited January 10, 2006
    I do have a dumb question. Is there anyway to have the a & b boxes up on your monitor at the same time? Or is there some reason they shouldn't bene_nau.gif
  • OsirisPhotoOsirisPhoto Major grins Registered Users Posts: 367 Major grins
    edited January 10, 2006
    Thusie wrote:
    I do have a dumb question. Is there anyway to have the a & b boxes up on your monitor at the same time? Or is there some reason they shouldn't bene_nau.gif

    Don't think it is possible, unfortunately. headscratch.gif

    Would be nice, though. Just like being able to adjust the a & b curves symmetrically in one go - I'd like to see that possible.
  • DavidTODavidTO Mod Emeritus Thousand Oaks, CARegistered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited January 10, 2006
    Hyperbaric wrote:
    Don't think it is possible, unfortunately. headscratch.gif

    Would be nice, though. Just like being able to adjust the a & b curves symmetrically in one go - I'd like to see that possible.


    That is, in a way. Set your curves and then save them. Then all you have to do is load them. I"ve saved a bunch of options:

    LAB05
    LAB10
    LA-5B10

    etc.
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • OsirisPhotoOsirisPhoto Major grins Registered Users Posts: 367 Major grins
    edited January 10, 2006
    Practice makes...
    Well, maybe not perfect.. but much better than the original posted on the whipping post here, and before & after here.)

    pull.jpg

    'After' version on before & after used basic symmetrical steepening and USM. After applying these LAB curves + some USM, this is what I have.

    pull4.jpg

    If you look at the a & b curves, they're more than just symmetrically steepend. Don't know if this is the correct way to look at things, but while roaming around the image with the colour sampling eyedropper looking for areas on the curves to adjust, I noticed that much of curve seemed 'unused', hence the freedom to allow the shape of the curves. ne_nau.gif

    I think it works. From what I have read, the whole point of adding POP and using LAB curve adjustment to do it, is to have a resulting image that takes the photographer right back there.
  • ruttrutt Cave canem! Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited January 10, 2006
    Hyperbaric wrote:
    Well, maybe not perfect.. but much better than the original posted on the whipping post.

    Give yourself a pat on the back for being adventurous! But, please, can you explain what your were trying to do when you varied the basic recipe and how the curves you wrote achieved it?

    I just applied the basic recipe to your original, with 10% steepening of the A and B curves. My L curve looks a lot different than yours. I found a good shadow near the crotch of the guy on the viewer's right. What I didn't find was a good highlight. The lightest thing I found was the brightest patch of the arm of the second guy from the viewer's right. So I moved the light endpoint of the L curve toward the center so it was just to the left of this point. I added a bit of steepness through the mid tones with those two interior points. I didn't sharpen, as that's not really the issue here.

    Here is what I got:

    51848853-O.jpg

    Here are the curves I used:

    51848832-S.jpg51848841-S.jpg51848844-S.jpg

    Compare my result side by side with yours. Here are the things I think are better about mine.
    1. The shadows didn't plug (lose detail), especially in crotch area.
    2. The grass is a greener than in the original, but more believably so.
    3. Generally there is better detail throughout the men and their clothes.
    4. That tag hanging from the rope is bright, but a believable color.

    Note: My favorite way to compare before/afters like this is to load them both into photohop and copy one into a layer of the other. Then you just click on the layer eyeball to toggle back and forth and you'll see them in place. If this tip doesn't make sense, speak up and I'll go into detail.

    Anyway, I don't mean to discourage experimentation. In fact you have skipped ahead a couple or 10 chapters here. But you should learn to crawl before you run with this one. Get the basic recipe just as I described it in the tutorial to work for you first and then start working through the more subsequent chapters and more advanced techniques here: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=18203
    If not now, when?
  • jfriendjfriend Scripting dude-volunteer Registered Users Posts: 8,097 Major grins
    edited January 10, 2006
    rutt wrote:
    Give yourself a pat on the back for being adventurous!

    I just applied the basic recipe to your original, with 10% steepening of the A and B curves. My L curve looks a lot different than yours. I found a good shadow near the crotch of the guy on the viewer's right. What I didn't find was a good highlight. The lightest thing I found was the brightest patch of the arm of the second guy from the viewer's right. So I moved the light endpoint of the L curve toward the center so it was just to the left of this point. I added a bit of steepness through the mid tones with those two interior points. I didn't sharpen, as that's not really the issue here.
    First, I'd like to point out that the original posting for this image is in aRGB so that's one reason why it looks so washed out in all non-color-aware browsers. Just moving it to sRGB helps quite a bit.

    Second, I agree with the Rutt's basic philosphy of sticking with the recipe unless you are sure you are making it better.

    I did basically the same thing as Rutt (followed the basic chapter 1 LAB color enhancement recipe of pusing in the A and B curves 10% symmetrically on each end), but I added the following things afterwards (just because this is a fun image to play with and learn from):
    1. A steeper L-curve, but used blend-if and curve shape to keep from making the blown highlight areas worse.
    2. A small amount of shadow correction in shadow highlights to bring a little detail back in the darker parts of the blue jeans.
    3. A separate A-curve for just the faces (using a mask) to pull some magenta out of the faces while not affecting the arms.
    4. Slightly brightened the faces with an L-curve on the same face mask.
    5. Fixed blown highlights on the arms with both the impossible color fix and a little cloning
    6. Tried to fix some of the blown highlights on the shoulders (though I was less successful here)
    7. No sharpening added.
    Here's what I ended up with:
    51879309-L.jpg
    --John
    HomepagePopular
    JFriend's javascript customizationsSecrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
    Always include a link to your site when posting a question
  • mercphotomercphoto Bill Jurasz Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited January 10, 2006
    Need advice on color correction run
    Another thread in the whipping post that I started led me down the path of trying to add color punch through the LAB color space for the first time. I'm looking for advice on whether it is an improvement to what I am doing now so I'm posting three photos here: the original, what I normally do, and what I am thinking of doing.

    Specifically, the color punch phase is done in LAB with curves. Lightness channel sets the black point to 9 (probably too high), and then the A and B channels brings the white point down to 104 and brings the black point up high enough to get it to pass through a middle neutral gray once again. Then back to RGB for the sharpening pass.

    Thanks in advance for any thumbs up or down.

    51911704-M.jpg

    What I usually do for color and sharpness:
    51911853-M.jpg

    What I am thinking doing from now on:
    51912040-M.jpg
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • DavidTODavidTO Mod Emeritus Thousand Oaks, CARegistered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited January 10, 2006
    Can you post your curves? That would help. I need to see them.

    Yes, your black point on the L looks to be too far, as you've plugged up the shadows.

    The colors look better, IMO, in LAB, but it's hard to be sure when you've plugged up the shadows....


    Also, I'm moving this to the Chapter 1 discussion....
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • ruttrutt Cave canem! Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited January 10, 2006
    I didn't follow your description of your LAB curves. A picture is worth a thousand words; perhaps you could post a screen shot of the curves you are talking about.

    And once you have the image in LAB, why not sharpen the L channel there? Sharpening in RGB will often introduce unwanted color artifacts which can't happen in LAB. My sharpening tutorial shows this. See: http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1104535/1/51379922/Large

    Anyway, this image has a complexity which makes the simplest LAB recipe not work quite right. Those reds are very magenta, almost out of gamut as it is. So just blindly steepening the A curve won't work here. And there is a blue cast in the 3/4 tones and shadows. You can either deal with that first with RGB curves or at the very end in CMYK.

    So I'm very curious to see what you actually did.
    If not now, when?
  • mercphotomercphoto Bill Jurasz Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited January 10, 2006
    Curves
    rutt wrote:
    I didn't follow your description of your LAB curves. A picture is worth a thousand words; perhaps you could post a screen shot of the curves you are talking about.

    51922694-S.jpg
    51922699-S.jpg
    And once you have the image in LAB, why not sharpen the L channel there?
    Because I'm sharpening with a high pass filter, not with USM.
    Anyway, this image has a complexity which makes the simplest LAB recipe not work quite right. Those reds are very magenta, almost out of gamut as it is. So just blindly steepening the A curve won't work here.
    Dang. :( Looking for a standard recipe for this type of shot. Does not need to be ideal, just needs to be good, and also have little risk of doing anything strange to a photo. Its what got me to my current way of doing things.
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • ruttrutt Cave canem! Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited January 11, 2006
    Well, for starters, you could try an L curve more like this:

    51919745-S.jpg

    (Note the reversed axis, with lightness to the left.)

    Next I'd steepen just the B curve and not the A curve for this one because of that extereme magenta. That's going to make it a little orange, but better than not doing it. There are many better things, but this one is simple. I steepened the B curve by 10% on each end, used the L curve above, and USM'ed in L and got this:

    51919789-M.jpg
    If not now, when?
  • mercphotomercphoto Bill Jurasz Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited January 11, 2006
    rutt wrote:
    Next I'd steepen just the B curve and not the A curve for this one because of that extereme magenta.
    Thanks for the help, but that particular statement makes me want to abandon this for my racing photos. Reason is simple: I need a standard recipe. Can't hand-edit 1,000+ photos in that way. But its a good exercise to learn from nonetheless.

    I think what I will do is simply add a shadows adjustment to what I normally do. That does seem to make some difference, to adjust the shadows to about 5, as you did as well.
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • OsirisPhotoOsirisPhoto Major grins Registered Users Posts: 367 Major grins
    edited January 11, 2006
    rutt wrote:
    Give yourself a pat on the back for being adventurous! But, please, can you explain what your were trying to do when you varied the basic recipe and how the curves you wrote achieved it?

    The more I fettled with the curves, the more I came to like the 'punch' of the highly saturated colours. It was a very bright day, and the high contrast image really reminds me of the day. Although TBH, your version does have more detail and I appreciate that it is a better image and more natural. thumb.gif

    It was fun to manipulate points inside the A & B curves, just as with the L channel, by using the colour sampler eyedropper to pick areas where I wanted to exagerate the colour.
    rutt wrote:
    Note: My favorite way to compare before/afters like this is to load them both into photohop and copy one into a layer of the other. Then you just click on the layer eyeball to toggle back and forth and you'll see them in place. If this tip doesn't make sense, speak up and I'll go into detail.

    Got that, cheers thumb.gif

    rutt wrote:
    Anyway, I don't mean to discourage experimentation. In fact you have skipped ahead a couple or 10 chapters here. But you should learn to crawl before you run with this one. Get the basic recipe just as I described it in the tutorial to work for you first and then start working through the more subsequent chapters and more advanced techniques here: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=18203

    Fair point about starting with the basics. I'm going to have a final go at this image from the start, using the basic method and your curves as a starting point, with maybe just a little tweaking... just a little mwink.gif
  • OsirisPhotoOsirisPhoto Major grins Registered Users Posts: 367 Major grins
    edited January 11, 2006
    jfriend wrote:
    First, I'd like to point out that the original posting for this image is in aRGB so that's one reason why it looks so washed out in all non-color-aware browsers. Just moving it to sRGB helps quite a bit.

    Thanks for the tip thumb.gif I think I need some color-aware eyes rolleyes1.gif

    jfriend wrote:
    I did basically the same thing as Rutt (followed the basic chapter 1 LAB color enhancement recipe of pusing in the A and B curves 10% symmetrically on each end), but I added the following things afterwards (just because this is a fun image to play with and learn from):
    1. A steeper L-curve, but used blend-if and curve shape to keep from making the blown highlight areas worse.
    2. A small amount of shadow correction in shadow highlights to bring a little detail back in the darker parts of the blue jeans.
    3. A separate A-curve for just the faces (using a mask) to pull some magenta out of the faces while not affecting the arms.
    4. Slightly brightened the faces with an L-curve on the same face mask.
    5. Fixed blown highlights on the arms with both the impossible color fix and a little cloning
    6. Tried to fix some of the blown highlights on the shoulders (though I was less successful here)
    7. No sharpening added.
    Your version certainly has some significant improvements over the original, particularly the fine details (blades of grass, boots, jeans, etc).

    I think your right that the blown highlights on the arm / shoulder need fixing - I would normally blend a couple of different exposure compensated versions from RAW (still to try with this image, so may well try your method instead).

    I must admit though, I prefer the faces a little magenta... this day was a (very rare) hot, hot, day, and these guys were really going for it. Like a row of grunting beetroot! :D
  • ruttrutt Cave canem! Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited January 11, 2006
    Hyperbaric wrote:
    I must admit though, I prefer the faces a little magenta... this day was a (very rare) hot, hot, day, and these guys were really going for it. Like a row of grunting beetroot! :D

    Yeah that rule about yellow and magenta balance in faces, I've come around to the conclusion that you have to be very careful about it in unusual cercumstances, such as this one. When it's cold, when people exert themselves (as here), you need a very light hand here. If the color balance is correct otherwise, maybe it's time to resist the temptation to make a mask to turn up the yellow in faces when there really is a reason for the faces to be hot colored.

    In this particular case, there's additional evidence that leaving the magenta in the faces is the right thing. The flesh of the people in the background does seem OK.
    If not now, when?
  • DavidTODavidTO Mod Emeritus Thousand Oaks, CARegistered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited January 11, 2006
    rutt wrote:
    Yeah that rule about yellow and magenta balance in faces,


    What I remember (that backs up what rutt's saying here) is that you are supposed to measure a representative area. An area that represents what you think would be normal skin tones. That means that people can have patches of red (like a birthmark) and you can ignore it. It also means that people exerting themselves are not representative of normal skin tone at all...but the people in the background are.
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Sign In or Register to comment.