When I wrote that I found it warmer that was only after looking at the photos on my monitor.
Irrelevant. We were looking at and speaking of different things, as you should have known since I spelled it out very clearly.
I measured in Photoshop to prove my point after it was contested - and the numbers don't lie. Is your monitor calibrated?
What a snarky comment. You had to have seen where I wrote "I don't doubt the numbers that Photoshop has reported", so where do you come off implying that I ever even
hinted anything about numbers lying? And yes, my monitor is calibrated, but that's also irrelevant because you confirmed what I saw. (see below)
I think you may be mistaking the processed photo's higher contrast for what you think is a cooler balance. as you mention "paleness" as if it is a function of color temperature, which it is not. "Paleness" is a function of luminance and is not a function of color.
Think again. The higher contrast was obvious but that had nothing to do with how I judged the color. I mentioned paleness as in "I was in shock. The blood drained from my face." Or if that's not enough, think vampire. Bloodless. It's ok to live by the numbers, but not if it keeps you from seeing the big picture. It can't simply be due to being clueless because I explicitly told you that when I mentioned color I wasn't referring to anything but the face when I wrote :
To me the cheek (the entire face, actually) looks paler and the unprocessed face (look at the nose) appears to have more red in it, and I'm not the only one that saw it that way. I wasn't talking about the other parts of the photos
If you look at the subject's hair in the non-processed photo, you can clearly see hints of blue from the sky. This isn't present in the processed photo and is clearly indicative of a cooler color value.
What does that have to do with anything? I have no idea what the real hair color is and I never said that the hair was too warm, too cool or too anything else. My comment was only about what I felt was an unnaturally cool skin coloration; pale, with shadows around the eyes that gave the "Goth" appearance that I spoke of.
Additionally, the flesh tones of the unprocessed photo do look, to me, pinker and less yellow than the processed photo
TaDaaa !!! Yes, that's what I was referring to. If you see what I saw, maybe your monitor's calibration is also suspect. Ya think?
but that doesn't mean the unprocessed photo has a warmer color balance, in fact, just the opposite - there is more blue in those pink tones than in the processed photo when measuring the same area of the image. My eyes saw this and Photoshop confirmed it.
But not enough blue to overcome the pinker flesh tones that we both saw. If you take any photo and increase the blue by 5% but increase the red by 45%, based on your logic that would make the photo more blue. I have a strong feeling that most people would see the changed photo as being much redder.
I think you are mis-using some terms here.
Could be, but if I did, I'm sure that it wasn't an egregious enough misuse for most people to not know what I meant. As long as you didn't deem it worth identifying the actual "misuse", it probably wasn't worth mentioning at all.
