How do I improve the color of photos?

digidog wrote:

photonius wrote:

digidog wrote:

photonius wrote:

digidog wrote:

photonius wrote:

kevinNYC wrote:

Based on the replies in the thread, I tried the following:

1. Custom White Balance. This turned out to be harder than I had imagined. I used a blank page from my printer, but the custom white balance photos turned out to have too much green.

2. Preset White Balance. The Sunlight preset had the best results. It is still a little warm, but it is close.

3. Raw vs JPG. Although I believed I was shooting in RAW, the settings were actually in JPG. Switched to RAW & installed DPP. DPP provides some good tools to correct the green.

4. IS & Filters. As expected, IS options didn't have any impact. Filters (UV and CP) did not have any impact on the color.

My best bet seems to be to use the Sunlight Preset White Balance and then color correct using DPP.

You can modify settings in the camera more, i.e. you can create your own custom picture styles. Or you can completely customise your WB (white balance correction), see page 137 of the manual for the 650D.

Also, as a side note, which color reproduction range is set (p139)? sRGB or Adobe, that makes a difference.

Not that he's switched to raw (#3 above). Those settings have zero effect on the raw data, just the JPEG.

Yes, but the sample images were done in jpg (he initially thought it was RAW).

And now he should continue to capture raw and my post remains factual.

My point was actually, he doesn't necessarily have to go to RAW.

Yes he should. Please don't recommend he go back to JPEG for so many reasons!

I thought we live in a free world, where the OP can choose himself.

He can. Based on good or poor advise! He's now shooting raw; good move on his part based on understanding the massive advantages of a raw workflow,

Of course RAW is better IQ, I never denied that. However, it requires extra time, it requires more harddisk space. I just read the article and comments on Adobe's profits, but that their software (lightroom) is slow as molasses even on a top modern computer.

If you don't need RAW, only want to adjust white balance, it's another option.

There should be enough settings to customise the white balance in the body, so that jpgs look like he wants. - This is assuming his only reason to use DPP is to change the white balance. If that is the case, the OP can save time and storage space by just getting the jpg in the camera right.

Moot with raw.

Again, to the OP, check your monitor as well - that's an important part of the equation. I find auto white balance usually quite ok.

Check also your monitor. Compare the same image on different monitors if you can.

I presume you cannot directly compare 350D and 650D shots anymore? (take exactly the same scene at the same time).

-- hide signature --

*** Life is short, time to zoom in *** ©

-- hide signature --

Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

-- hide signature --

*** Life is short, time to zoom in *** ©

-- hide signature --

Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

-- hide signature --

*** Life is short, time to zoom in *** ©

-- hide signature --

Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

However, it requires extra time, it requires more harddisk space.

Actually it can end up using less space which considering the cost of disk space today, versus ending up with a baked image seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

How can shooting RAW use less disk space?

digidog wrote:

Exit10 wrote:

However, it requires extra time, it requires more harddisk space.

Actually it can end up using less space which considering the cost of disk space today, versus ending up with a baked image seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

How can shooting RAW use less disk space?

Well a DNG takes up less disk space than a proprietary raw and a rendered JPEG and certainly a layered TIFF can take up more space. In some raw workflows, you NEVER have to render the raw; you print through say LR's print module. You export a rendered low resolution JPEG for the web directly in the product. When I make a web gallery in LR, it renders a JPEG and uploads that data directly; it never needs to be saved on my hard drive.

But seriously, is disk space an issue

Nope its not an issue but if you're wrong about that..........

compared to baking a JPEG from a camera and throwing away the actual high bit, potently wide gamut data that you, the image creator can now render as you please? An 8TB USB-C drive is a mere $399 today. What do you consider the worth of just ONE image you capture? Assuming too, you're even a pro.

Nope - I'm not even a pro

Let's see; transparencies and neg film take up space. I'll make a print and then throw them away so I have someplace to store socks. NOT.

After they get scanned - the socks get priority.

digidog wrote:

Exit10 wrote:

digidog wrote:

Exit10 wrote:

However, it requires extra time, it requires more harddisk space.

Actually it can end up using less space which considering the cost of disk space today, versus ending up with a baked image seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

How can shooting RAW use less disk space?

Well a DNG takes up less disk space than a proprietary raw and a rendered JPEG and certainly a layered TIFF can take up more space. In some raw workflows, you NEVER have to render the raw; you print through say LR's print module. You export a rendered low resolution JPEG for the web directly in the product. When I make a web gallery in LR, it renders a JPEG and uploads that data directly; it never needs to be saved on my hard drive.

But seriously, is disk space an issue

Nope its not an issue but if you're wrong about that..........

Work with Virtual Copies? Virtually zero disk space.

Which Canon Rebel shoots virtual copies?

compared to baking a JPEG from a camera and throwing away the actual high bit, potently wide gamut data that you, the image creator can now render as you please? An 8TB USB-C drive is a mere $399 today. What do you consider the worth of just ONE image you capture? Assuming too, you're even a pro.

Nope - I'm not even a pro

Some of us are....

Hmmm

Let's see; transparencies and neg film take up space. I'll make a print and then throw them away so I have someplace to store socks. NOT.

After they get scanned - the socks get priority.

So you throw away the film?

Actually not but the chances of ever needing it again are slim

digidog wrote:

Exit10 wrote:

However, it requires extra time, it requires more harddisk space.

Actually it can end up using less space which considering the cost of disk space today, versus ending up with a baked image seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

How can shooting RAW use less disk space?

Well a DNG takes up less disk space than a proprietary raw and a rendered JPEG and certainly a layered TIFF can take up more space. In some raw workflows, you NEVER have to render the raw; you print through say LR's print module. You export a rendered low resolution JPEG for the web directly in the product. When I make a web gallery in LR, it renders a JPEG and uploads that data directly; it never needs to be saved on my hard drive.

But seriously, is disk space an issue compared to baking a JPEG from a camera and throwing away the actual high bit, potently wide gamut data that you, the image creator can now render as you please? An 8TB USB-C drive is a mere $399 today. What do you consider the worth of just ONE image you capture? Assuming too, you're even a pro.

I'm amazed that a pro would make such a flawed statement. I've had enough hard drives fail over the years. You need to invest more for save storage.

Let's see; transparencies and neg film take up space. I'll make a print and then throw them away so I have someplace to store socks. NOT.

-- hide signature --

Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

digidog wrote:

photonius wrote:

digidog wrote:

photonius wrote:

digidog wrote:

photonius wrote:

digidog wrote:

photonius wrote:

kevinNYC wrote:

Based on the replies in the thread, I tried the following:

1. Custom White Balance. This turned out to be harder than I had imagined. I used a blank page from my printer, but the custom white balance photos turned out to have too much green.

2. Preset White Balance. The Sunlight preset had the best results. It is still a little warm, but it is close.

3. Raw vs JPG. Although I believed I was shooting in RAW, the settings were actually in JPG. Switched to RAW & installed DPP. DPP provides some good tools to correct the green.

4. IS & Filters. As expected, IS options didn't have any impact. Filters (UV and CP) did not have any impact on the color.

My best bet seems to be to use the Sunlight Preset White Balance and then color correct using DPP.

You can modify settings in the camera more, i.e. you can create your own custom picture styles. Or you can completely customise your WB (white balance correction), see page 137 of the manual for the 650D.

Also, as a side note, which color reproduction range is set (p139)? sRGB or Adobe, that makes a difference.

Not that he's switched to raw (#3 above). Those settings have zero effect on the raw data, just the JPEG.

Yes, but the sample images were done in jpg (he initially thought it was RAW).

And now he should continue to capture raw and my post remains factual.

My point was actually, he doesn't necessarily have to go to RAW.

Yes he should. Please don't recommend he go back to JPEG for so many reasons!

I thought we live in a free world, where the OP can choose himself.

He can. Based on good or poor advise! He's now shooting raw; good move on his part based on understanding the massive advantages of a raw workflow,

Of course RAW is better IQ, I never denied that.

Better as in far more flexible in rendering the image as desired. Not letting some chip in a camera bake that rendering into an 8-bit per color limited color gamut document.

However, it requires extra time, it requires more harddisk space.

Actually it can end up using less space which considering the cost of disk space today, versus ending up with a baked image seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I just read the article and comments on Adobe's profits, but that their software (lightroom) is slow as molasses even on a top modern computer.

All generalizations are false, including this one.-Mark Twain

You read this, do you actually own the product?

I've been using photoshop since 1992, no further comment.

Trust but verify or in this context, verify then trust.

If you don't need RAW, only want to adjust white balance, it's another option.

WB is baked into a JPEG and VERY difficult to undo.

Try this: shoot a scene indoors, under tungsten as a JPEG and set the camera for Daylight WB. Try fixing it.

Now shoot a raw and do the same.

Test, verify then trust.

-- hide signature --

Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net