Workflow pet peeves: Anyone HATE color balance editing?

[scathew]

Yep! C's the one for me!

Thanks! ;-)

--
Matt Fahrner
http://www.boinkphoto.com

 

[CaptD]

I think B is better, I like A, and I find myself doing A quite a bit, but it's too warm... nobody nowhere in real life is it that wonderfully warm.

B is closer to the real thing, or is it coke.
--
Dennis
http://dennislee.smugmug.com/gallery/2516942

 

[huyzer]

Dear claypaws,

That is so true! I ACTUALLY forgot how I was going to do that simple move to achieve "C". So I just went to the original .psd and slid the fill/opacity slider to 50%. Dang, I haven't doing anything too creative on PhotoShop, and I've lost practice. Yikes, something as simple as that and I forget. Thanks for the reminder.

Take care,
Huy (sounds like "we")

P.S. Yah, I hate how you can only do the fade move one time.

P.P.S. I'm trying out that Curves gray point color balance technique. It'll take some practice.

Hmm..

P.P.P.S. After rereading what you said again, maybe you mean adjustment layers. If so, "Oh! I do that." ;D Yah, I do that a lot. Now, I have to get used to Layer Comps. I don't remember if you can save the different compostions in the same file or not. ... more practice. It would've come in handy for the b&w adjustment I had, after I had done the color adjustments. But then again, it might not be as handy as just saving a file specifically for b&w, and another for color, as I run a batch action, and need that separate files. Anyways... just blabbering.

It is easier and much more controllable to have the adjusted image in
a layer over the top of the unadjusted image.

Instead of fade, just alter the opacity of the layer with the slider.

You can instantly achieve anything from 0% to 100% of the effect of
the adjustment and it is instantly alterable and reversible.

I make all my adjustments in layers and I never use the fade tool.

 

[huyzer]

Hi scathew,

hahahahhahaha. Too funny. Glad you liked it, and you're welcome.

I haven't made up my mind on either. I like both warmer versions. The only reason I don't like the colder version is because, as had been mentioned, she'd be a hybrid (lobster). It is my fault though, I could fix it (maybe) if I had the desire.

Take care,
Huy

Yep! C's the one for me!

Thanks! ;-)

 

[huyzer]

Hi CaptD,

I think B is better, I like A, and I find myself doing A quite a bit,
but it's too warm... nobody nowhere in real life is it that
wonderfully warm.

I know what you mean. It's hard striking the balance between making it nice AND natural... or just go all out and do it purposely overboard.

B is closer to the real thing, or is it coke.

It's coke, here's proof:

Take care,
Huy (sounds like "we")

http://www.flickr.com/photos/e06158/547819905/sizes/o/

 

[huyzer]

Dear claypaws,

No, I mean a 5x5 sample from the dropper. It does have an averaging
option within the dropper. Like many things in Photoshop, it isn't
obvious!

OMgoodness, I'm so blind. I don't explore as much as I should it looks like. Blah on me.

Photoshop will then use a 5x5 pixel average whenever you use a
dropper in any dialogue at all, including the droppers that show up
on the curves dialogue.

I can verify this, I read it in the PhotoShop "Help". But I was quickly doing a test with the different sizes, and I don't see such a drastic difference. I'm gonna devise a little test for myself, just to verify it. ... I'm a bit much, ain't I? haha.

The 5x5 average will remain in force unless you change it, even if
you close photoshop.

Hmm... good... but probably bad for me, as I'd probably forget. Doh!

I'll pick up some of your other points shortly. But I thought you
would like to see this quickly

Thank you very much for doing all this: Uploading picture example/screen capture, taking the time to reply and all. Sorry I didn't get back sooner to make use of this tip. Gotta still finish some photos around here for tomorrow.

Take care,
Huy (sounds like " w i i "... yesh... I'm famous. Didn'chaknow?)

 

[huyzer]

Hi Cwilt,

I glad to see you joining in here on the conversation. But (confused empression on my face) I don't quite under "by the numbers, neither". Do you mean with the numbers showing up in the Info box when hover over different areas of the image? If so, what numbers are you looking for, and where? I JUST read, in the Help section of PhotoShop, that in the Curves layer adjustment box, we should NOT click on specular highlights, as they should be white/255. It suggested 244/244/244. Of course what have I been doing, but clicking on exactly those areas (and getting no effect of course.. hahaha). I actually have been checking that box "Show Clipping", just to find the spots I'm not supposed to be clicking on! What a NEWB! hahahaha. Anyways, getting that technical in PhotoShop is quite new to me, even if I've been PS for quite a long while. I'm just skimming its surface and power. I just do the basic retouching and cb, sat, con, crv adjustments.

Take care,
Huy

 

[claypaws]

Photoshop will then use a 5x5 pixel average whenever you use a
dropper in any dialogue at all, including the droppers that show up
on the curves dialogue.

I can verify this, I read it in the PhotoShop "Help". But I was
quickly doing a test with the different sizes, and I don't see such a
drastic difference. I'm gonna devise a little test for myself, just
to verify it. ... I'm a bit much, ain't I? haha.

The 5x5 average will remain in force unless you change it, even if
you close photoshop.

Hmm... good... but probably bad for me, as I'd probably forget. Doh!

It can often make a very big difference and it is not a bad thing at all to leave it set to a 5x5 average. That is how I have my dropper set.

First of all, here is a picture to show just how small a 5x5 area is. The green arrow points to a red square that is 5x5 pixels. When you take a 5x5 sample, you are averaging only over a tiny square like that.



The reason a 5x5 pixel sample is much more useful than a point sample in almost all uses is to do with artefacts and noise. If you take a point sample of one pixel, there is a high probability that the pixel you sample will bear no relation at all to how the image looks. On a pixel by pixel level, values change due to things that you do not want to base any decisions upon. For example, you are quite likely to hit a pixel that is noise. So in a dark green plant, you may hit a noise pixel that is light green or dark red. Or you may hit a white sharpening halo. By choosing a 5x5 average, you average out all those little high frequency spurious variations and get a value which is much more representative of the context you intended to sample.

To see the variation in a real image, simply zoom into the image in photoshop until you are viewing at 1600%. You can then see how crazily regions of the image vary on a pixel by pixel view. (Note that viewing at 100% is not viewing individual pixels at all. 100% just maps one image pixel to one screen pixel - and screen pixels are too small to see).

The point sample has very limited use. You might be editing an image at 1600% view and wish to alter individual pixels. (Have you ever needed to do that? No, neither have I.) In that case, you might want a point sample.

If Adobe had chosen to set the default for the dropper to 5x5, most users would never notice it.
--
******************************************************
I have a home on pbase
http://www.pbase.com/claypaws/
If you have the time to look
******************************************************

 

[claypaws]

Dear claypaws, (!!!)

Gosh darn you're a wealth of knowledge! Thank YOU for your
suggestions!

Thank YOU!

Always go with emotion. Technical correctness, even if you could
define it, has no relevance to the emotional impact of an image. And
I really don't think technical correctness can be defined anyway.

This makes total sense. For some reason, I'm stuck on having the
image resemble what I think I remember of the scene.

I think that is a good aim. What we think we remember may have little resemblance to what would be measured, say, by a spectrophotometer. But the thing we really remember is the emotional impact. Unless you are illustrating a scientific textbook, it is normally the emotional impact that you are trying to recreate for the viewer.

strive to make it as dark as I recall the scene to be, as the camera
often brightens a dark environment, and I like it to be "real" (and
moody if need be). I come across images nowadays as I'm looking at
wedding photographers' portfolios, and they seem so bright. Don't
get me wrong, some are still awesome looking, but I'm stuck on dark,
or natural, not brighter than what I think I myself would do. I'm
thinking it might be psychology; wedding photography should be bright
and happy.

The brightness/darkness issue is a whole can of worms. So much depends on what type of monitor a viewer is using and how they have it set up. And, if you print, the print will almost always come out a bit to a lot darker than the monitor display, if viewed in normal room light.

Also, most viewers of a website will view each image for no more than two seconds. To create an impact in two seconds requires a fairly bright image. The dark ones will probably be skipped by the majority of viewers.

I also like dark, rich images. A lot of people post dark and rich images on this forum. But I would suggest that the viewers on this forum are not typical of the general public who provide most of the wedding-photographers' customers.

I find image B simply much too cold. Taking all the yellow out of the
light has made the model look like a lobster.

HAHAHAHA! That last statement was classic.

Colourful subject - colourful language!!

My CWB method usually makes colour correction unnecessary anyway.

Awesome! I still haven't done this... one day.... one day. haha.

You may be interested to see what Steve (Triple Trans Am) said here

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=29463056
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=29465157

Take care, you've been of great help.

Thank you.
--
******************************************************
I have a home on pbase
http://www.pbase.com/claypaws/
If you have the time to look
******************************************************

 

[huyzer]

Hi claypaws,

I apologize for the late reply. I've been meaning to do a test of the dropper size thing, but my laptops monitor went kaput, and I'm dealing with it right now. Darn pesky laptop has caused me some headaches: 2 crashes drives, and now this! Anyways, I wanted to answer back so that I don't want you to think I'm not appreciative of your response.

First of all, here is a picture to show just how small a 5x5 area is.
The green arrow points to a red square that is 5x5 pixels. When you
take a 5x5 sample, you are averaging only over a tiny square like
that.

I did a test myself with the other sizes, and around sharp delineations of color (like the green skirt), to size if it would eschew the look horribly. To my surprise, it did not. That has made me wonder if that function even works in the adjustment layer of "Curves". I'll have to do more tests, and show similar illustrations like yours.

in almost all uses is to do with artefacts and noise. If you take a
point sample of one pixel, there is a high probability that the pixel
you sample will bear no relation at all to how the image looks.

Great points you made about the value, or lack thereof, of using the 1x1 dropper: jpeg artefacts, halos from sharpening, camera noise.

The point sample has very limited use. You might be editing an image
at 1600% view and wish to alter individual pixels. (Have you ever
needed to do that? No, neither have I.)

Haha, not really. I do zoom somewhat close for retouching, but not to that point.

Take care,
Huy

 

[huyzer]

Gosh darn you're a wealth of knowledge! Thank YOU for your
suggestions!

Thank YOU!

You're welcome.

claypaws wrote:

The brightness/darkness issue is a whole can of worms. So much
depends on what type of monitor a viewer is using and how they have
it set up. And, if you print, the print will almost always come out a
bit to a lot darker than the monitor display, if viewed in normal
room light.

Yah, this gets me worried when I have the customers preview their proofs online. I worry that they get used to what they see on their monitors, be it lighter or darker than my own, and then their prints don't resemble what they had seen.

On a different note, I would have to throw in this. Say I like to make an image look like the dark evening it was, when we were towards the tail end of a sunset, where the sun had already gone down. I myself like to remember how it was, but I'm guessing that most would like the image brighter. In this case, personal taste and clients taste dictates two versions. haha.

Also, most viewers of a website will view each image for no more than
two seconds. To create an impact in two seconds requires a fairly
bright image. The dark ones will probably be skipped by the majority
of viewers.

I think you're correct in this, especially if the images are on a white background. I like the dark backgrounds for a website myself, but I may change in the near future.

I also like dark, rich images. A lot of people post dark and rich
images on this forum. But I would suggest that the viewers on this
forum are not typical of the general public who provide most of the
wedding-photographers' customers.

Makes sense.

I find image B simply much too cold. Taking all the yellow out of the
light has made the model look like a lobster.

HAHAHAHA! That last statement was classic.

Colourful subject - colourful language!!

Haha.

My CWB method usually makes colour correction unnecessary anyway.

Awesome! I still haven't done this... one day.... one day. haha.

You may be interested to see what Steve (Triple Trans Am) said here

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=29463056
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=29465157

WOW! I've read just those links directly. I'll have to get back to the whole post. But having to never have to go back to color balance tweaking REALLY has me prioritize this. I better go out and get my 3rd gray card (I've missplaced 2 already! hahaha).

Thank claypaws.

Take care,
Huy

 

[Leen Koper ABIPP ARPS QEP]

Yah, this gets me worried when I have the customers preview their
proofs online. I worry that they get used to what they see on their
monitors, be it lighter or darker than my own, and then their prints
don't resemble what they had seen.

It might be important to take care of a large black border when using dark, rich colours.

Moreover, I always warn my customers their monitor most likely isn't profiled correctly, so colours are just an indication and the final print might be quite different.
I never have any problems.

Leen Koper
http://www.fotografieleenkoper.nl

 

[claypaws]

Hi claypaws,

I apologize for the late reply. I've been meaning to do a test of
the dropper size thing, but my laptops monitor went kaput, and I'm
dealing with it right now. Darn pesky laptop has caused me some
headaches: 2 crashes drives, and now this! Anyways, I wanted to
answer back so that I don't want you to think I'm not appreciative of
your response.

Thank you. You had said you were busy editing so I did not worry. I agree it is annoying when someone asks a question and then seems to ignore replies. I know that you don't do that though.

I did a test myself with the other sizes, and around sharp
delineations of color (like the green skirt), to size if it would
eschew the look horribly. To my surprise, it did not. That has made
me wonder if that function even works in the adjustment layer of
"Curves". I'll have to do more tests, and show similar illustrations
like yours.

It does work in the adjustment layer of "Curves".

Consider your posted image B. Look at the region near the top of one of the fence posts. I have shown it with a green arrow:



Now zoom into that part of the image until you are viewing at 1600% so that you can see exactly which pixel the dropper is over.

Before you open the curves dialogue, set the dropper tool to point sample.

Then open the curves dialogue.

The curves dropper that I mean in the curves dialogueis in the one you get from the centre selection box. They call it "Set Gray Point".

You can see it selected in the screenshot below:



If you click around in the region, the effect on colour changes a lot as you hit differently coloured pixels.

Now close the curves dialogue, open the dropper tool on the tools palette and set it to 5x5 average.

Then open the curves dialogue as before and repeat the experiment. You will see that the colour does not change so much as you move from one pixel to the next because photoshop is using the 5x5 average.

The same thing would happen if you were at 100% rather than 1600% but it would be much more difficult to understand what is going on.

The fact remains that the dropper tool should be set to a 5x5 sample unless you have a particular reason to need a point sample.

--
******************************************************
I have a home on pbase
http://www.pbase.com/claypaws/
If you have the time to look
******************************************************

 

[claypaws]

claypaws wrote:

The brightness/darkness issue is a whole can of worms. So much
depends on what type of monitor a viewer is using and how they have
it set up. And, if you print, the print will almost always come out a
bit to a lot darker than the monitor display, if viewed in normal
room light.

Yah, this gets me worried when I have the customers preview their
proofs online. I worry that they get used to what they see on their
monitors, be it lighter or darker than my own, and then their prints
don't resemble what they had seen.

On a different note, I would have to throw in this. Say I like to
make an image look like the dark evening it was, when we were towards
the tail end of a sunset, where the sun had already gone down. I
myself like to remember how it was, but I'm guessing that most would
like the image brighter. In this case, personal taste and clients
taste dictates two versions. haha.

We can never know what people will see on their monitors. One thing I am fairly sure of is that most people's monitors will be brighter than mine if for no other reason than that mine is a CRT and most viewers use LCDs. Except on this forum, the majority of LCD users will be using laptops or other low end LCDs and those are always uncontrollably bright.

Sometimes I wonder whether to turn my brightness (which actually sets the black point) up high when editing for the web and right down when editing for print. But that would be an awful hassle.

Also, most viewers of a website will view each image for no more than
two seconds. To create an impact in two seconds requires a fairly
bright image. The dark ones will probably be skipped by the majority
of viewers.

I think you're correct in this, especially if the images are on a
white background. I like the dark backgrounds for a website myself,
but I may change in the near future.

I agree with Leen. Dark backgrounds are better for dark images. Personally, I don't think white backgrounds are good for any images at all on the web. White is too dazzling. On LCDs, white is almost painful. Gray or black are much better. If you look at my pbase, you will see that I have set a textured grey background. And when I post on the forum, I have a black matt around the images. (I didn't bother with matts in the illustrations I used in this thread).

My CWB method usually makes colour correction unnecessary anyway.

Awesome! I still haven't done this... one day.... one day. haha.

You may be interested to see what Steve (Triple Trans Am) said here

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=29463056
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=29465157

WOW! I've read just those links directly. I'll have to get back to
the whole post. But having to never have to go back to color balance
tweaking REALLY has me prioritize this. I better go out and get my
3rd gray card (I've missplaced 2 already! hahaha).

I am very grateful to Steve for that completely unsolicited enthusiasm!
--
******************************************************
I have a home on pbase
http://www.pbase.com/claypaws/
If you have the time to look
******************************************************

 

[huyzer]

Dear Mr. Koper,

I definitely appreciate your thoughts and input (on any matter).

It might be important to take care of a large black border when using
dark, rich colours.

I don't understand what you mean here. What I'm thinking is, if there is a dark/black border, then I have to make sure I have blacks in my prints, otherwise it would look washed out in comparison? Well, a general rule, but doesn't apply 100%; say high-key images for instance.

Moreover, I always warn my customers their monitor most likely isn't
profiled correctly, so colours are just an indication and the final
print might be quite different.
I never have any problems.

That's good to hear. I did not mention this, but I think I will. I do mention they are proofs though, but that doesn't say anything directly.. sort of.

Thank you for your input!

Take care,
Huy (sounds like "we")

 

[huyzer]

Dear claypaws,

I tried it, and yuppers, it worked as you stated. I'm using the CS2 version, so it only goes up to 5x5. I had tried it with the bigger selection area with CS3, and hadn't seen such a dramatic difference, I thought it didn't work. But either way, thanks for you time again.

On a different note, did you go to the Adobe site and looked at the new features in CS4!? The resizing/stretching/compressing of an image (Content-Aware Scaling) is crazy good. I think there was a news post on dpreview, a while back, that a program could do this, but I guess Adobe got to them. ;P The smooth rotate and zooming is neat too, along with the pixel lines.. not sure how handy it will be though. Oh, and in regards to the scaling... I guess with anything, overdoing it can easily ruin an image (I'm thinking Shadow/Highlight here), as it might be easily spotted. Autoblend is cool too.

Thank you. You had said you were busy editing so I did not worry. I
agree it is annoying when someone asks a question and then seems to
ignore replies. I know that you don't do that though.

Yah, I know what you mean. I think I did this once with Cyrus, and he was rather surprised, and I think, perturbed. But of course, I did reply.. it just took way longer than expected... or something like that.. it was a long while ago.

Thanks again for the step-by-step. I should've done that in the first place.

See you in the very next post,
Huy

 

[huyzer]

Hi claypaws,

Except on this forum, the majority of LCD users
will be using laptops or other low end LCDs and those are always
uncontrollably bright.

Yah. Dang LCD monitors. Hate 'em! Stupid viewing angles and all. I don't know about the expensive ones though. I work on a CRT also.

Sometimes I wonder whether to turn my brightness (which actually sets
the black point) up high when editing for the web and right down when
editing for print. But that would be an awful hassle.

It would be. But I'm sure there might be a little software program that might be able to do that with one click. I was using the Huey that came with the S5 Pro. It's probably not the best, but it can even compensate for ambient room light. Anyways, there's an option where you can choose to apply the calibration or not. I'm sure you can set the brightness that one time during calibration, to fool it, and there you go, a one click adjustment. Actually, I'm sure you have a calibrator that would do just that.

I agree with Leen. Dark backgrounds are better for dark images.
Personally, I don't think white backgrounds are good for any images
at all on the web. White is too dazzling. On LCDs, white is almost
painful. Gray or black are much better. If you look at my pbase, you
will see that I have set a textured grey background. And when I post
on the forum, I have a black matt around the images. (I didn't bother
with matts in the illustrations I used in this thread).

Yah, that's why my two photo websites have black backgrounds. I might move to gray though. Or I could have the option where the viewer can choose the background "color" (I'll just give black, white, and maybe two shades of gray.. lol). I'll just have to figure that out first.

I am very grateful to Steve for that completely unsolicited enthusiasm!

Yup, it's always good when we hear such praise.

Take care,
Huy

 

[claypaws]

Dear claypaws,

I tried it, and yuppers, it worked as you stated. I'm using the CS2
version, so it only goes up to 5x5. I had tried it with the bigger
selection area with CS3, and hadn't seen such a dramatic difference,
I thought it didn't work. But either way, thanks for you time again.

Glad you found it works!

On a different note, did you go to the Adobe site and looked at the
new features in CS4!? The resizing/stretching/compressing of an
image (Content-Aware Scaling) is crazy good.

Hard to see how it differs from the "free transform" that is already available in CS2. I have used that a few times but I am much more interested in colour manipulation than that kind of thing.

Autoblend is cool too.

I would rather have direct control over blending via layers and masks.

Adobe are extremely good at marketing. That is not to say that their products are defective. But their marketing is stellar!

I shall stay with CS2 until I find something I need to do that CS2 cannot do.

Thank you for pointing out the features though.

Thank you. You had said you were busy editing so I did not worry. I
agree it is annoying when someone asks a question and then seems to
ignore replies. I know that you don't do that though.

Yah, I know what you mean. I think I did this once with Cyrus, and
he was rather surprised, and I think, perturbed. But of course, I
did reply.. it just took way longer than expected... or something
like that.. it was a long while ago.

I would be upset if I had ever offended Cyrus. His instruction is pure gold.

Thanks again for the step-by-step. I should've done that in the
first place.

You are welcome.
--
******************************************************
I have a home on pbase
http://www.pbase.com/claypaws/
If you have the time to look
******************************************************

 

[claypaws]

Sometimes I wonder whether to turn my brightness (which actually sets
the black point) up high when editing for the web and right down when
editing for print. But that would be an awful hassle.

It would be. But I'm sure there might be a little software program
that might be able to do that with one click. I was using the Huey
that came with the S5 Pro. It's probably not the best, but it can
even compensate for ambient room light. Anyways, there's an option
where you can choose to apply the calibration or not. I'm sure you
can set the brightness that one time during calibration, to fool it,
and there you go, a one click adjustment. Actually, I'm sure you
have a calibrator that would do just that.

Brightness (black point) is a hardware setting, not a software calibration. The only way to set it is to twiddle some buttons or knobs on the monitor. The black point is what the monitor displays when the input signal is zero. Software cannot reduce the input to below zero.

Yah, that's why my two photo websites have black backgrounds. I
might move to gray though. Or I could have the option where the
viewer can choose the background "color" (I'll just give black,
white, and maybe two shades of gray.. lol). I'll just have to figure
that out first.

Personally, I would not offer white at all.
--
******************************************************
I have a home on pbase
http://www.pbase.com/claypaws/
If you have the time to look
******************************************************

 

[huyzer]

Hi claypaws,

image (Content-Aware Scaling) is crazy good.

Hard to see how it differs from the "free transform"
that is already available in CS2.

Claypaws! Wow, didn't you get to see the video? Free transform would distort everything, but Content-Aware Scaling doesn't distort the subject (e.g. surfers and surfboards), but only the background elements stretch.

Autoblend is cool too.

I would rather have direct control over blending via layers and masks.

Yah, complete control is always good. But I'm wondering if they do allow control of the opacity, and/or masking of it. I haven't tried it.

Adobe are extremely good at marketing. That is not to > say that their products are defective. But their marketing is stellar!

LOL. ... on a separate, though related note.. I wish MY marketing was stellar!

I shall stay with CS2 until I find something I need to do that CS2
cannot do.

Thank you for pointing out the features though.

Anytime.

he was rather surprised, and I think, perturbed. But of course, I
did reply.. it just took way longer than expected... or something
like that.. it was a long while ago.

I would be upset if I had ever offended Cyrus. His instruction is
pure gold.

Yah, I definitely appreciated his time and knowledge. Too bad he doesn't come in here anymore.

Take care,
Huy