Reading mode: Light Dark

5D/5-way RAW Skin Tone Test

Go to last post
You say some are too contrasty? It depends on the final use.

All of them are too flat for repro even on good quality paper stock in higher end magazines or books - I am not suggesting trying to replicate Velvia either.

They may look just about okay on a monitor but would require more contrast for repro; it therefore depends on whether you are judging the contrast in relation to, a monitor or print?
 
I am not surprised you like Bibble for the reasons provided as its default settings are flat and lifeless, the conditions you are concerned about are there waiting to be enhanced when normal contrast is achieved.

I hope you would not print directly from this lack lustre result?
 
I'm curious - please define "normal" contrast. Are you suggesting a photo has an "ideal" contrast and all other interpretations are somehow wrong?

Joe
steve constable said:
I am not surprised you like Bibble for the reasons provided as its
default settings are flat and lifeless, the conditions you are
concerned about are there waiting to be enhanced when normal
contrast is achieved.

I hope you would not print directly from this lack lustre result?
Click to expand...
 
Who are you replying to? I mentioned in my original message that I used a WhiBal to set a custom WB. It's better than an ordinary gray card and by setting custom I save the step of clicking on it in RAW and applying to the rest.

I think you might be missing the point. The variance in skin tones is PURELY a result of the RAW conversion. WB is exactly the same in camera which is an ideal test for RAW converter interpretation of that data.

Joe
FrankD7 said:
Hi,
Maybe a strange question but start shooting with a graycard.
First shot take with the graycard before the face, next shots without.

When doing the conversions first sample the one with the graycard
and use that correction on all conversion, if the software is
correct they should ALL be exactly the same.

Or the software is wrong and than you can delete it :D

I use C1 and Camera Raw and both give me the same skintones in this
way.
It will give you a much faster workflow anyway :D

But when you change something do a new test shot.
Click to expand...
 
Okay, this makes more sense to me than your other post above. The goal is to print on an Epson 4800. I do notice that while these shots look great on screen they print a little flat. What do you suggest? I'm honestly not sure what a good print should look on screen without trail and error and wasting a bunch of paper. :) Just to be clear - I'm not talking color - I'm talking POP. The images do lack pop when printed.

Joe
steve constable said:
You say some are too contrasty? It depends on the final use.

All of them are too flat for repro even on good quality paper stock
in higher end magazines or books - I am not suggesting trying to
replicate Velvia either.

They may look just about okay on a monitor but would require more
contrast for repro; it therefore depends on whether you are judging
the contrast in relation to, a monitor or print?
Click to expand...
 
As Stephen has stated add more contrast.

Add a curves layer and apply an S shape curve slightly over doing the contrast - pull back the contrast to a point of satisfaction using the layer 'opacity' slider.

After altering the curve change the layers blending mode from normal to luminosity to only adjust the greyscale and not the hue/saturation - flick back and forth as you may like a boost in hue/saturation especially if the image was shot under very flat lighting - there are no golden rules, it depends on the lighting.

Try adding a layer then apply the highlight shadow 'midtone contrast' facility - Shadow and highlight settings (unless of course required) set to zero. Set the highlight/shadow layer to luminosity and adjust opacity as necessary.

Whilst I am not suggesting you try to emaulate Velvia all of the time shadows are an important dimension to an image. Many famous artists such as Michelangelo Carravagio choose to paint with heavy shadows yet he used a medium which could, if so required, recreate how the eyes tonal range observed a scene

See http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=caravaggio&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=ii&oi=imagest

I am not suggesting you have to be so dramatic with the lighting although I prefer the look of Velvia or Provia in comparison to Astia - that's just me personal preference!

Dont try and hang onto the full tonal range of a digital raw file as if it is precious and must not be lost, shadows reveal more than they hide!
 
Joe Marques said:
I know how to use ACR (been using it since it first came out) - the
point of my comparison is that ACR does a poor job converting the
image "as caputred". The top 3 conversions are untouched so ACR is
off the list. Why should I touch a slider when the captured image
is exposed extremely well?

PS - ACR doesn't show red channel clipping on this image prior to
conversion. It clips the red channel WHEN converting.
Click to expand...
If you aren't going to use the tools 'correctly' (IE, adjust them to give the best picture) why bother to use them at all? Just shoot JPG.

If the red channel clipped, then the exposure/contrast sliders, or curve, or destination color space were wrong. See my previouw sentence...

I can KIND of understand why a pro would want to use C1, if he's taken over the job of his film processor-he needs to save time. But all the pro posts I've seen, the pro took the time to set up the RAW converter to give him what he wants...
 
Larry Lueck said:
Larry Lueck said:
I know how to use ACR (been using it since it first came out) - the
point of my comparison is that ACR does a poor job converting the
image "as caputred". The top 3 conversions are untouched so ACR is
off the list. Why should I touch a slider when the captured image
is exposed extremely well?

PS - ACR doesn't show red channel clipping on this image prior to
conversion. It clips the red channel WHEN converting.
Click to expand...
If you aren't going to use the tools 'correctly' (IE, adjust them
to give the best picture) why bother to use them at all? Just
shoot JPG.

If the red channel clipped, then the exposure/contrast sliders, or
curve, or destination color space were wrong. See my previouw
sentence...

I can KIND of understand why a pro would want to use C1, if he's
taken over the job of his film processor-he needs to save time.
But all the pro posts I've seen, the pro took the time to set up
the RAW converter to give him what he wants...
Click to expand...
Glad to see you've missed the point. Nothing is WRONG. You're babbling pure conjecture. The sliders are untouched for a REASON. The red channel is clipped by the RAW converter itself - I was testing to see how the RAW converters interpret the RAW data and which does the least "damage" in a straight conversion. I've been using all kinds of RAW converters for years. What is your experience? As I mentioned at RG site - you shouldn't assume I don't know how to process RAW properly. You only stand to embarrass yourself.

Joe
 
I do not think that any given converter will get unanimous acclaim. I like the ACR rendering. It is a bit more contrasty but not excessively so.

Stephen Eastwood is 100% correct. You can always modify color and contrast of your converter or get more automated rendering by changing your "as shot" settings of your camera.

So long as the result is pleasing to you and to you clients and the interface is comfortable to you, it is purely a measure of personal preference.

Personally, I prefer the ACR rendering better than the others in the test above.

--
Vance Zachary
http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach
http://www.photoworksbyzachary.com
 
Again, the beauty of RAW is to be able to get away from automated renderings like those available with JPG.

I am able to get from JPG what automatic rendering I get with RAW. The beauty of RAW is that I can tweak away from this with very little if any loss in image quality.

I agree. RSP is a bit disappointing in that there appears to be a magenta to red cast in the shadows and a bit more contrast than is my personal preference for the subject matter I shoot. I also see a bit more moire. I find the Chaney profiles to work a bit better than Magne's for handling this.

Except for the magenta cast, the RSP images do print as well the ACR and DPP ones; that is, there is not as much differrence in print as there is on the computer screen when I print at my pro labs.

Interesting test but choice of converter is still a matter of personal taste. What matters in photography is that the results are most pleasing to you.

--
Vance Zachary
http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach
http://www.photoworksbyzachary.com
 
Joe,

I also meant to state do as much adjustment in the raw converter as possible to take advantage of the raw data in 16 bit. The exposure and cuves combination are very powerful in ACR.

Make any final adjustments, should be fairly small if the majority of the work has been done in the raw converter, for output.
 
I'm not sure either who FrankD7 was replying to. I assumed you used the same file for each conversion, otherwise you wouldn't be isolating the converter. That said, what was the K of the CWB? And how did you determine it with the WhiBal?
Joe Marques said:
I think you might be missing the point. The variance in skin tones
is PURELY a result of the RAW conversion. WB is exactly the same
in camera which is an ideal test for RAW converter interpretation
of that data.

Joe
FrankD7 said:
Hi,
Maybe a strange question but start shooting with a graycard.
First shot take with the graycard before the face, next shots without.

When doing the conversions first sample the one with the graycard
and use that correction on all conversion, if the software is
correct they should ALL be exactly the same.

Or the software is wrong and than you can delete it :D

I use C1 and Camera Raw and both give me the same skintones in this
way.
It will give you a much faster workflow anyway :D

But when you change something do a new test shot.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
K varies from converter to converter - that's part of the problem. There is no standard K values. In Bibble the K is 4850 tint 7. I set WB in camera by shooting the WhiBal card full frame and setting a custom WB (I didn't set a custom K temp - perhaps that's what you're thinking?). The other method is the click set the WB on the WhiBal card in post work.

Joe
DPNick said:
Joe Marques said:
I think you might be missing the point. The variance in skin tones
is PURELY a result of the RAW conversion. WB is exactly the same
in camera which is an ideal test for RAW converter interpretation
of that data.

Joe
FrankD7 said:
Hi,
Maybe a strange question but start shooting with a graycard.
First shot take with the graycard before the face, next shots without.

When doing the conversions first sample the one with the graycard
and use that correction on all conversion, if the software is
correct they should ALL be exactly the same.

Or the software is wrong and than you can delete it :D

I use C1 and Camera Raw and both give me the same skintones in this
way.
It will give you a much faster workflow anyway :D

But when you change something do a new test shot.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Seems there is no interest as expected.

Joe,

Could you please give us a link to the raw file? I'm sure some others are interested in converting it with C1 as well.
Jack_DC said:
I'd 2nd the RIT sample request, using some different picture styles
would be interesting.

Also, is it possible to post the RAW image?

While out of the box performance is interesting, I've found RAW's
advantage is being able fine tune on a per picture basis?
Click to expand...
 
I just converted using C1 and will do another with RIT and post. Not sure why you wrote "no interest as expected". Curious negativity when I'm simply busy today.

Joe
Edward Karaa said:
Joe,

Could you please give us a link to the raw file? I'm sure some
others are interested in converting it with C1 as well.
Jack_DC said:
I'd 2nd the RIT sample request, using some different picture styles
would be interesting.

Also, is it possible to post the RAW image?

While out of the box performance is interesting, I've found RAW's
advantage is being able fine tune on a per picture basis?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top