Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Achieve better reds  (Read 12359 times)
nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461



WWW
« on: December 06, 2006, 08:32:38 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm working on a fashion editorial -- all the garments are red, various fabrications. I've never liked the way Lightroom seems to render red -- it's more orange/vermillion than fire engine. In Bibble, the red is much more accurate and "neutral", but Lightroom has much better skin tones and snap -- sharper too.

Has anyone figured out a way to better/more accurate reds, either in LR or PS? I fooled around with the color sliders for red & magenta, but, unfortunately, it ends up affecting the skin tones. Anyone have any thoughts?

Nemo
Logged

tgphoto
Guest
« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2006, 09:54:11 AM »
ReplyReply

After reading Dan Margulis' excellent book, "Photoshop LAB Color: The Canyon Conundrum and Other Adventures in the Most Powerful Colorspace", I now do a fair amount of my color work in Lab.  

I've found that working in Lab mode allows me to increase saturation without introducing many of the problems that seem to lurk their ugly heads when working in RGB mode.

Depending on your sharpening (& digital) workflow, this may or may not be the way to go.  I use Photokit Sharpener, which doesn't play well with Lab mode, so I have to flatten layers after applying Capture Sharpening, which eliminates one level of customization.  However, I find it a small trade given the gain in color I get with Lab.

Hope this helps!
« Last Edit: December 06, 2006, 09:54:56 AM by tgphoto » Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2006, 09:15:26 PM »
ReplyReply

I have the same complaint with Bridge/ACR. Lightroom is essentially Bridge and ACR combined with a better interface and more tweaks, so the same orange reds are not surprising. Flames look particularly awful developed via  ACR.
Did some 'macro' snots of a bonfire recently [you had to work quickly!!  ]. The pics look absolutely great in Photomechanic, but awful out of ACR.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2006, 09:17:58 PM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
dlashier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 518



WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2006, 10:44:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have the same complaint with Bridge/ACR. Lightroom is essentially Bridge and ACR combined with a better interface and more tweaks, so the same orange reds are not surprising.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
ACR has always had a problem with hue torquing with saturated reds caused by channel clipping. Here's an old [a href=\"http://www.lashier.com/home.cfm?dir_cat=20456]old example[/url].

- DL
Logged

nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461



WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 07, 2006, 09:28:45 AM »
ReplyReply

It's funny, RAW Converters have become the "film types" of today. Just as I sometimes use to choose a film based on what I was shooting (though it was usually a Fujichrome), every converter has it's own flavor or take on color. I hated shooting Ektachromes because I never liked their skin tones and saturation and general tones. Conversely, I loved Fuji, especially RMS when it was available. I suppose this explains why I have and use four different converters.

TGPHOTO, thanks for the suggestion regarding working in LAB. I've read some of Dan's columns, but never really sat down to try his techniques.
Logged

N Walker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 291


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2006, 06:17:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Nemo,

ACR and Lightroom's reds, especially from Canon camera's, are poor. I have attached sample images to highlight this.

All you need to do is simply record a Gretag Macbeth Colorchecker and run this script http://www.xs4all.nl/~tindeman/raw/acr-calibrator-l.html.

Save out the suggested values in ACR's Calibrate tool. If performed 'correctly' it will assisit greatly in amending the hues and saturation. See accurate testing of three such scripts at -

http://www.photoactivity.com/Pagine/Artico...l%20sole_en.asp

The motorcycle leathers, which I own, were snapped to demonstrate Canon's problem reds. The camera was pre-white balanced. The closest match, whilst viewing the leathers in a light booth, in cave conditions, against an accurately calibrated minitor, are the Tindreman(ACR) and C1 Pro using the generic profile. All other conversions are unsatisfactory.

I have been using Tom Fors and Tindemans scripts for sometime with very good effect. I also use C1 Pro. With the script I prefer ACR, without the script C1 Pro wins hands down, regarding colour quality, so I never discount C1 Pro. Both converters provide slightly different colour and contrast flavours, out of the box.[attachment=1377:attachment][attachment=1378:attachment][attachment=1375:att
achment][attachment=1374:attachment][attachment=1379:attachment]
« Last Edit: December 14, 2006, 01:29:19 PM by Nick Walker » Logged

mattbrush
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2006, 06:43:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm curious as to what this script actually does??  I've been using ACR for a long time now (with Canon), and I'm always pissed off about the results.  I've debated using c1 pro but have decided not to with the release of lightroom coming.  hopefully this will be solved in lightroom.  Anyway, you mentioned that you like ACR with the script better than c1.  Does this script screw up your calibrated monitor profile??
Logged
N Walker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 291


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2006, 06:39:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm curious as to what this script actually does??  I've been using ACR for a long time now (with Canon), and I'm always pissed off about the results.  I've debated using c1 pro but have decided not to with the release of lightroom coming.  hopefully this will be solved in lightroom.  Anyway, you mentioned that you like ACR with the script better than c1.  Does this script screw up your calibrated monitor profile??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90606\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Its does not affect your Monitor profile and doesn't screw up anything.
Logged

rdonson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1421


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2006, 10:02:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm curious as to what this script actually does?? 

Basically you're tailoring the Camera RAW "Calibration" tab to match the results of your camera shooting a standard target.  In this case its the Gretag 24 patch color checker.

Bruce Fraser's original article:  http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/21351-1.html

A good article on the current state:  http://www.photoactivity.com/Pagine/Artico...l%20sole_en.asp
Logged

[span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'][span style='font-family:Arial'][span style='font-family:Geneva'][span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']Regards,
Ron[/span][/span][/span][/span]
seanmcfoto
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #9 on: December 21, 2006, 11:19:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Bruce Fraser's original article:  http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/21351-1.html
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91609\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

May he rest in peace, still providing us with light..
Logged

X-Re
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #10 on: December 21, 2006, 11:52:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have been using Tom Fors and Tindemans scripts for sometime with very good effect. I also use C1 Pro. With the script I prefer ACR,

     Of course, I can't use said scripts because I made the mistake of upgrading to ACR 3.5...        d'oh...
Logged

Jani Westman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #11 on: January 04, 2007, 05:58:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Of course, I can't use said scripts because I made the mistake of upgrading to ACR 3.5...        d'oh...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91866\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There is an upgrade for ACR 3.5 and 3.6 available for download now "ACR-Calibrator-L-v25.jsx" (last updated on 1 January 2007)

Changelog
2.5:  Updated for compatibility with the release of ACR 3.5 and ACR 3.6.


// Jani
Logged
X-Re
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #12 on: January 04, 2007, 09:15:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Sweeet  Thanks for the pointer, Jani!
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3635



WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 09, 2007, 04:55:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sweeet  Thanks for the pointer, Jani!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93634\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just to be rude - I have a fix for ACR and Canon, it's called DPP

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1533


WWW
« Reply #14 on: January 09, 2007, 05:02:07 PM »
ReplyReply

"After reading Dan Margulis' excellent book, "Photoshop LAB Color: The Canyon Conundrum and Other Adventures in the Most Powerful Colorspace", I now do a fair amount of my color work in Lab."

Here here.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8036



WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 09, 2007, 05:22:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
All you need to do is simply record a Gretag Macbeth Colorchecker and run this script http://www.xs4all.nl/~tindeman/raw/acr-calibrator-l.html.

Exactly, it's not an inherent issue with ACR but rather then need to tweak the calibration pane.

If many users are seeing this with Canon's, it means that these sensors behave differently than the one or two samples Thomas Knoll used to build his profiles for ACR/LR. That's why the calibrate tab exists. Think of it kind of like a profile editor.

Fix the problem rather than converting (and losing data and time) messing with Lab. Too many are intrigued by converting to an exotic color space and changing the rendered numbers when the issue should and can be corrected while you render the initial data from Raw.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
tgphoto
Guest
« Reply #16 on: January 09, 2007, 05:32:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Fix the problem rather than converting (and losing data and time) messing with Lab. Too many are intrigued by converting to an exotic color space and changing the rendered numbers when the issue should and can be corrected while you render the initial data from Raw.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94838\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Normally, I would agree with you on this point, but, pardon the pun, you're "barking up the wrong tree".  It's not the end users who should be spending their time tweaking at all.  This is an issue that should have been caught by: A- the manufacturer (Canon) or B- the software engineers at Canon, Adobe, et al.

If we the end users are to blame at all for this (and I am not saying we are), it is for not causing enough of a stink about the issue in the first place.  I think we need to yell and scream a little louder now, because it's obvious Canon can't yet hear us.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2007, 05:32:55 PM by tgphoto » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8036



WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 09, 2007, 05:46:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Should all the Canon sensors behave identically? In a prefect world yes. So should all printers, presses and displays. We're getting closer to that goal but I don't know that I'll see it in my lifetime. Until then, there is a simple mechanism in ACR and LR to fix the issues and I'll add, nearly all the tools necessary to produce any rendering you can dream up.

Converting into LAB to fix what can be done in the converter is counter productive is my point. But then, if every image came to us as we desire, we would have little need for Photoshop and clearly that's not the case. At this point, its about using the right tools to fix the issues, not expecting perfection in capture and output devices.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
tgphoto
Guest
« Reply #18 on: January 09, 2007, 05:59:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
At this point, its about using the right tools to fix the issues, not expecting perfection in capture and output devices.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94847\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Interesting point you make, as it opens the door to some things to ponder...

1) What are the right tools? ACR? LR? Photoshop? Aperture? Something else?  

2) The right tools according to whom? You? Thomas Knoll?  

3) Are these tools the right ones regardless of photographic specialty?  Or are they only the right tools if I am a wedding photographer?  photojournalist?  fine art photographer?

The point I'm trying to make here is what's right for one photographer isn't necessarily so for the next.  Put 10 accomplished photographers in a room and ask them how to do a black and white conversion and you'll get 10 different answers.  Who's right?

I say use what works for you and what you are comfortable with, instead of trying to adapt your workflow to fit inside somebody else's preconceived notion of what that should be.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8036



WWW
« Reply #19 on: January 09, 2007, 06:06:37 PM »
ReplyReply

All very rhetorical questions.

The reason we have so many options is we don't live in a one size fit's all world. Some folks love Aperture while others love LR and still others Capture one. The right tools are what you feel are the right tools. Doesn't matter if we're talking cameras, cars or computers. Some find OS X to cutsy while others fine Windows ugly. Who's to say which person's tastes are good or bad? So, I don't disagree with your point about using what you are comfortable using assuming you (and I don't mean you personally) have some experience trying differing things and how they affect your happiness and in this context productively.

That said, makes a heck of a lot more sense to me that IF you're using ACR, you use it as designed and fix the red issue (in this example) there, then open high rez files in RGB, convert to LAB and mess around. But if you prefer to work that way, fine.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad