Unreal blue sky color with the lx5

These photos were taken with the lx5.

This is a little town that it is going to disappear under a dam under construction. The 2 pictures were taken using iA and JPG mode but as you can notice the blue color of the sky is unreal (almost a kind of royal blue). What went wrong?? That is, the idea was to have pictures as real as possible before that town goes under water but it seems the JPG lx5 machine didn't make a good job.

Yes, you could said that the pictures could have been taken in raw and then post-processing but who has time for that?? Besides, isn't it that post-processing raw files either could improve a picture, or also potentially create very different colors to the ones in the real scene??

Is it possible in iA mode to chose the "standard" color mode rather than the "vivid" one (after all it seems that it is a possible explanation).

In order to edit JPG files: is it a good idea to convert them to .png and then edit them (with all the implied limitations)??
Regards

Not really sure what your problem is - that sky looks relatively natural on both my desktop and netbook computers. Is your monitor properly calibrated?

--

Zone8: Although I am a handsome geniearse, when I stand in front of a mirror, I vaguely recognise the ugly idjit standing on the other side!

LINK: For B+W with Epson 1400 (and other models) using black ink only PLUS other useful tips:
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS/epson1400-B&W.htm
Cleaning DSLR Sensors, including Kodak DSLR Factory Cleaning method:
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS/KodakDCS-sensorcleaning.htm
Solving back/front focus problems on Sigma DSLRs
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=35565277

It doesn't look 'unreal' to me as far as I've seen skies that can look like that. As the other poster mentioned, is your monitor calibrated? If so, then maybe your problem is that the sky doesn't look like it did to your own eyes when you took the shot - which is possible. However, realize too that different lenses and filters can affect how the sky looks, and a camera sensor can be more or less sensitive to color ranges well beyond that of your eye - how much ultraviolet or infrared was impacting the sensor can create very different skies than your eye can perceive...sensors vary as to how sensitive they are to these spectrums.

--
Justin
galleries: http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg

@ zone8

Check the flickr stream:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotosplaneta

In there you can see several JPG pictures with a more "real" blue sky color. Take for instance the balloon pictures taken in Albuquerque. Those pictures were taken with the Zs1 (iA mode and JPG). Then it seems the problem is not a bad calibrated monitor.

Any other ideas

The colour of the sky doesn't bother me, it looks quite natural.

What I find more disturbing is the extreme tilt of the horizon. Were these shots taken from an aircraft or were you trying to achieve some effect?
--

zackiedawg said:

To err is Human. To really foul things up you need a computer.

Click to expand...

fotosplaneta said:

In order to edit JPG files: is it a good idea to convert them to .png and then edit them (with all the implied limitations)??

Click to expand...

PNG is a loss-less compression algorithm. If you frequently open, edit, save, and close the files, it would be the preferred workflow, at a large size difference. However, using Photoshop, you should probably be using .psd for larger image surgery operations.

Applications such as Picasa, Lightroom, Aperture provide non-destructive editing - the source file is never touched, the program just keeps track of a set of steps it took to get to the current version of the image. As such, there is no need to make a PNG or intermediate format (since its virtual).

But I saved it off and fiddled with it in PP. There's a HUGE bunch of blue at the high end (right side) of the histogram. You can cut it a little by selectively desaturating blue.

I do PP in PhotoLine. I started by doing Filter / Automatic Correction (WB, Brightness, Color) which actually intensified the blue a little along with other colors (your original is a bit washed out apart from the blue), then I went to Tool / Color / Hue/Saturation and pulled the blue saturation down to about -40, the cyan saturation down a bit, and boosted other color saturation by about 10.

The result is considerably better balanced, I think.

This heaviness towards the blue end of the spectrum is a bit of a signature of these wonderful little cameras. I had a similar problem when shooting with an LX3 a couple of years back.

Give that kind of manipulation a try! If your PP app doesn't offer selective saturation controls, download PhotoLine from http://pl32.com -- they offer a fully functional 30 day trial.

Work in JPEG -- just be careful to set a high percentage figure when you "save as" at the end of the process -- I would suggest about 90% to retain quality.

By the way -- the Panasonic Talk forum would probably be a better forum for this kind of question.

Cheers, geoff
--
Geoffrey Heard
http://pngtimetraveller.blogspot.com/2011/10/return-to-karai-komana_31.html

The sky's colour could be partly due to your perception of colour being different from the camera's ( quite different "processing" and dynamic range interpretations happening ).

You may also have a poorly adjusted display. Have a look at these sites to check :

http://www.displaycalibration.com

http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test

It is worth remembering that simply because you perceive something as having a particular brightness and colour, that's not an absolute thing. This is why we process files - to match the data recorded on one device to our more complex and sophisticated visual system's perception.

fotosplaneta said:

In order to edit JPG files: is it a good idea to convert them to .png and then edit them

Click to expand...

PNG is a hopeless format for editing. Do not use it. Use TIFF, JPEG or PSD.

--
StephenG

fotosplaneta said:

These photos were taken with the lx5.

This is a little town that it is going to disappear under a dam under construction. The 2 pictures were taken using iA and JPG mode but as you can notice the blue color of the sky is unreal (almost a kind of royal blue). What went wrong?? That is, the idea was to have pictures as real as possible before that town goes under water but it seems the JPG lx5 machine didn't make a good job.

Click to expand...

Unless you buy a custom specialist camera for science use or specially work out a setup procedure for a consumer camera - including post processing, we don't get reality or near reality with consumer cameras.

Especially iA - consumer cameras are biased towards making snap shooters happy by making bigger than life photos and it is not just digital - the famous song about Kodakchrome was that photos would look happy, bright, sunny.

This is a Panasonic signature jpeg and I think, a bit vivid at that. Some scenes I could not tell the difference between brands, this one, the sky is a bit too strong.

Why use iA? It's a mode for "I don't care" and you do care.

Use "P" and that is similar to iA and you can go into the menus of most cameras and change colour saturation, contrast settings that iA won't allow you to.

fotosplaneta said:

Yes, you could said that the pictures could have been taken in raw and then post-processing but who has time for that??

Click to expand...

There are reasons to shoot jpeg and reasons to shoot Raw. The amount of time to get into Raw is actually pretty short just to preset a certain signature of colour. If you want to spend 20 mins on Raw per pic, then it is a user choice, not a mandatory time - the actual time process Raw once you already have a preset could be as low as 5 secs.

fotosplaneta said:

Besides, isn't it that post-processing raw files either could improve a picture, or also potentially create very different colors to the ones in the real scene??

Click to expand...

But that's what you want - create a different blue colour to what the camera gives.

fotosplaneta said:

Is it possible in iA mode to chose the "standard" color mode rather than the "vivid" one (after all it seems that it is a possible explanation).

Click to expand...

Use "P" and you can then change.

fotosplaneta said:

In order to edit JPG files: is it a good idea to convert them to .png and then edit them (with all the implied limitations)??

Click to expand...

.png is a web file proposal. Photo editing software use jpg or tiff more commonly or proprietary formats.

--



Ananda
Rate your own photo yourself:

http://anandasim.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/anandas-10-point-photo-critique-rating.html
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6861540877/a-compilation-of-tips-for-beginners
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/
http://gplus.to/anandasim

'Enjoy Diversity - Live a Little or a Lot'

fotosplaneta said:

Besides, isn't it that post-processing raw files either could improve a picture, or also potentially create very different colors to the ones in the real scene??

Click to expand...

With JPEG, the camera needs to pick a color temperature for white balance when the image is taken. You can either select this manually (to "Sunlight" if it's sunny) or cross your fingers that the camera makes the right guess. Sometimes it doesn't.

With RAW, the camera or software can still guess a white balance, but it can be easily changed later - if you decide the camera was wrong.

This is the sort of blue I often find calls for desaturating with the blue HSL control.

It's a very subjective call. I believe it looks correct (as polarizing glasses might offer the same to one's eyes), but I've always felt it on-screen and in print to be over the top. [shrug]

--
...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.

Here in Colorado that blue is normal. It would be abnormal in say New Jersey
--
Ken Eis
http://keneis.zenfolio.com

The horizon is tilted beyond belief, you can see that, I hope?
(if you were smoking something funny at the time, can I have some?)
;-)

fotosplaneta said:

These photos were taken with the lx5.

This is a little town that it is going to disappear under a dam under construction. The 2 pictures were taken using iA and JPG mode but as you can notice the blue color of the sky is unreal (almost a kind of royal blue). What went wrong?? That is, the idea was to have pictures as real as possible before that town goes under water but it seems the JPG lx5 machine didn't make a good job.

Yes, you could said that the pictures could have been taken in raw and then post-processing but who has time for that??

Click to expand...

Me and all those that want high quality photos.

fotosplaneta said:

Besides, isn't it that post-processing raw files either could improve a picture, or also potentially create very different colors to the ones in the real scene??

Click to expand...

Raw files enable you to correct colour balance if the camera got it wrong.
You can also ruin any photo you want, if you want to.

fotosplaneta said:

Is it possible in iA mode to chose the "standard" color mode rather than the "vivid" one (after all it seems that it is a possible explanation).

In order to edit JPG files: is it a good idea to convert them to .png and then edit them (with all the implied limitations)??
Regards

Click to expand...

The first thing that struck me was that they were a tad magenta, so I opened the file in camera raw and shifted the tint over a few points. It seemed to fix the colour problem with the sky.

I saw a lot of this working as a photofinisher. For some reason, magenta shifts were more common than yellow or cyan, or at least made themselves more noticed.

Wheatfield said:

The first thing that struck me was that they were a tad magenta, so I opened the file in camera raw and shifted the tint over a few points. It seemed to fix the colour problem with the sky.

I saw a lot of this working as a photofinisher. For some reason, magenta shifts were more common than yellow or cyan, or at least made themselves more noticed.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Do you usually address the magenta globally in such cases?

I think I can discern well enough when an outdoor cast has too much magenta (but my threshold for discernment might come into effect much later than yours [g]), but I don't really see it here. If I had to guess, I'd pick the 2nd image as the one with a more significant problem with magenta.

Here's where you tell me if I have ANY clue, and why?

Thanks.

--
...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.

fotosplaneta said:

These photos were taken with the lx5.

This is a little town that it is going to disappear under a dam under construction. The 2 pictures were taken using iA and JPG mode but as you can notice the blue color of the sky is unreal (almost a kind of royal blue). What went wrong?? That is, the idea was to have pictures as real as possible before that town goes under water but it seems the JPG lx5 machine didn't make a good job.

Yes, you could said that the pictures could have been taken in raw and then post-processing but who has time for that?? Besides, isn't it that post-processing raw files either could improve a picture, or also potentially create very different colors to the ones in the real scene??

Is it possible in iA mode to chose the "standard" color mode rather than the "vivid" one (after all it seems that it is a possible explanation).

In order to edit JPG files: is it a good idea to convert them to .png and then edit them (with all the implied limitations)??
Regards

Click to expand...

First, I would be much more concerned about learning how to get level horizons. I was thinking maybe they had been done by aerial photography from an RC plane, but then I noticed that nearly all of your photos on your Flickr page have the same annoying problem. Do you shoot like that all the time??!!

Second, on my monitor they don't look unrealistic. The blue of the sky varies by time of day and camera angle to the sun so there is no "right" or "wrong" color in my opinion, only what is pleasing to you.

Third, you mentioned iA mode. I certainly would not shoot in a mode that is trying to adjust automatically. Shoot in the most basic mode you have available.

If you need to adjust them, the only advice would be to shoot RAW and do PP. It takes no more than a few seconds per photo to do a basic change in color or saturation.

Bob Tullis said:

Wheatfield said:

The first thing that struck me was that they were a tad magenta, so I opened the file in camera raw and shifted the tint over a few points. It seemed to fix the colour problem with the sky.

I saw a lot of this working as a photofinisher. For some reason, magenta shifts were more common than yellow or cyan, or at least made themselves more noticed.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Do you usually address the magenta globally in such cases?

Click to expand...

Generally I will, since it is usually a global issue, it's just that we only notice it in colours that are more prone to being affected.

Magenta skies look "hot", but foliage may just look slightly less green (green being the opposite of magenta).

Really hot, ruddy flesh tones can generally be tamed somewhat by pulling some magenta as well.

Bobo Hodls said:

I think I can discern well enough when an outdoor cast has too much magenta (but my threshold for discernment might come into effect much later than yours [g]), but I don't really see it here. If I had to guess, I'd pick the 2nd image as the one with a more significant problem with magenta.

Click to expand...

The second one is a bit worse, but both are on the magenta side.

Bobo Hodls said:

Here's where you tell me if I have ANY clue, and why?

Click to expand...

Sure you do, but you may not be 100% willing to trust your eyes (I'm presuming you have a good monitor and keep it calibrated). I spent some 30 years working as a printer/ QC tech in the lab industry. I learned that the human eye was the final arbiter of quality.
The picture needs to please me, not a sensitometric reference chart.

Just replying to OP. I would LOVE to get this shade of sky in my pictures. Dont know what you are so unhappy about.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28498283@N00/

Azfar said:

Just replying to OP. I would LOVE to get this shade of sky in my pictures. Dont know what you are so unhappy about.

Click to expand...

Play with the tint slider in ACR, or add a little magenta to the colour balance.

Thanks, Wheatfield. I also process for my own eye, but since I rarely chase after skin (which to my mind requires more accuracy of tint/hue) I doubt myself. But I've also found on this journey that it's only after other 'issues' are sorted out that I then can turn attention to more subtle things (like how for a long time typical CA never caught my eye, now I can't help NOT to see it everywhere).

Below, the first is processed for pale pleasure. The 2nd for realism. I felt the magenta was a little strong, but that made the difference for the foliage. In both I pulled back on the blues of the sky with the HSL sliders. Side by side, with the monitor I'm in front of now being a little past due for a calibration update, I get the sense I should have toned down the magenta overall. . . then I tell myself "eff it", and decide to point obsessiveness elsewhere,









And now I'm curious as to how you'd interpret the same, if you don't mind a little more indulgence.

--
...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.