Colour cast issues - can anyone help me edit this image?

[peter_wang6]

<p>At the risk of sounding a bit like a broken record, I think the edits in this thread can be roughly grouped into two categories: (1) those who are trying to make the image look like what you captured (i.e., the "fixers"), and (2) those who are trying to interpret the image into what they would consider their ideal (i.e., the "changers").</p>

<p>I cannot even begin to stress how crucial it is that everyone understands that these are two entirely distinct goals. The first group isn't going to retouch the irises or bring out the golden tones of the hair, or digitally smooth the texture of the skin, because these edits are entirely subjective. That's not to say they're wrong--after all, if done well, the result is <strong>very</strong> pleasing (and I'm sure the model would prefer it!), but the point is that in any photo, it is up to the original photographer to elicit his/her own vision of what to "bring out" in the image; e.g., what mood to convey = what alterations to make. This is a debate that comes around every so often--what constitutes the "original" image? Arguably, every step of the photographic process, whether it be film or digital, is a subjective interpretation of the reality of that instance of reflected photons captured. But I think it's a fair thing to say that there is a reasonably well-defined line between recovering what one might have actually seen, versus what one would have <strong>liked</strong> to have seen.</p>

<p>Again, I'm of the school of thought that in order to achieve the latter, one must first get to the former--within reason. (Every rule has exceptions, of course, but as this is a teaching opportunity, that's a topic for another time.) If I start with an incorrectly calibrated image, how can I hope to make informed decisions about retouching to bring out what I want? I could fuss with it, but I opted to make a single, easily reproducible change that addresses what I believe to be the underlying cause of the problem (and it is likely to appear in the original poster's other photos as well!). The remainder of the retouching is not up to me, but to the extent to which I observed a technique that could be improved (use of the clone stamp), I also showed how that could be achieved.</p>

<p>To the original poster, I hope this has been quite the learning experience. When you ask a bunch of different people how to color correct, every person will give a different answer, because people might use their own tools and techniques to achieve the result they would have wanted had they taken the image. In the end, it's really up to you how to manage your edits, because it's just another part of the workflow.</p>

[bill poole]

<p>See the article in the current Photo Techniques magazine on correcting skin tones. The author -- Mark Dubovoy -- starts with the assertion that the percentage of yellow and magenta in any skin are approximately the same and then uses curves to make the alignment. More to it than this, of course, but an interesting and very scientific approach to a sometimes difficult correction problem. </p>

<p>Bill Poole</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>my attempt,</p><div></div>

[macmoss]

<p>OK, on the subject of broken records, when are contributors going to acknowledge that color correction of any kind in this photograph is going to be skewed by the subjective ruination of the cool, natural photograph sans flower, and the big, hot, orange flower, both in the same image? It's just impossible for the eye/brain to reconcile this conflict.<br>

Simply removing the flower (laborious, but can be done) would make the entire subject a moot point. Being fully aware of this kind of conflict would have prevented the photo from being taken this way in the first place. It is almost analogous to a figure/ground optical illusion.</p>

 

[june_daley]

<p>Thanks to everyone who has contributed - I really appreciate all the advice and the edits which, as above posters have mentioned, are varied as each person has a different perspective. The flower was a bad idea - I just didn't realise at the time! Would have been MUCH better if the flower was yellow, I might have a go changing the colour and see if it looks OK.</p>

<p>Sorry for the short response compared to all the excellent posts above but I have a deadline to finish this image and am getting stuck into it right now - will repost when I've edited an am happy.</p>

<p>PS - I am very much an amatuer photographer and it's a hobby for me, not so great at the clone tool for all those who noticed. I'll put more effort into it this time around. Thanks again for all the input it's been fantastic!</p>

<p>June</p>

[june_daley]

<p>OK so it's not perfect, but I've taken everyone's ideas into practice here and hope that it looks OK. I'm happy with a warmer look to this photo and wanted it to appear sunny and bright. I think I'll leave the flower out next time or choose a better colour!</p>

<p>Thanks again for all the advice and any comments/suggestions on my edit are welcome :)</p><div></div>

[tore]

<p>the problem is magenta, not red it easy to mix up this too, the oposite channel to magenta is green, change the tint walue in the raw file towards green and it will be nice.<br>

You get that effect when the green and blue walue ar too close in the rgb value</p><div></div>

[JRCrowe]

<p>From my uncalbrated monitor. I used auto color in Camera Raw turned down vibrance, saturation, and clarity. IMHO that orange flower really sucks and take your eye away from the models face.</p><div></div>

[tore]

John, to calibrate the screen would be a good idea, the picture looks blue skin in the skintone and blue has the highest rgb value in your post. <br /><br />The recipe for skin in the rgb value is a maximum of Red ® Green (G) is lower, and Blue (B) is the lowest value.

The distance between R and G are often larger than between G and B:

If the G and B come too close to each other you get magenta stick.

If your screen is not good you can always check the numbers to see if it will look right.

[william_supko]

<p>My solution</p><div></div>

[jammer_jammer]

<p>June,<br>

I think your last edit looks VERY NICE! I won't name names, because I wouldn't want to hurt any one feelings but I'm EXTREMELY surprised a what a few folks HERE thought looked better than your original. Yikes!</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>I think I found a way in ACR to make the flower look correct without glowing or turning yellowish orange or dark red while getting rid of most of the magenta skin.</p>

<p>ACR settings:</p>

<p>Color Temp: +13/-5<br /> Exposure: -35</p>

<p>HSL Panel:<br /> Hue: Red +7, Orange +10, Yellow -10<br /> Saturation: Red -10<br /> Luminance: Red -10</p>

<p>The first three Split Tone sliders: 218, 30 and 0 on the Balance slider.</p>

<p>See if that looks right. Probably looks too yellow now.</p><div></div>

[sketch_tbhotmail.com]

<p>LOL too true, of course color management may be playing a big role there. Great job on your last edit June, looks great. I especially like the flower being yellow instead of red, it plays off her hair much better.</p>

[june_daley]

<p>Thanks Jammer and Ryan! I'm pretty happy with it now... looks much better in yellow and I certainly learnt my lesson. There were some interesting edits here but soem great ones too so thanks again to everyone who helped me out :)</p>

[nhut-nguyen]

<p>my take</p><div></div>

[mark_tran]

<p>ill give it a go ... woot!</p><div></div>

[robert_k1]

<p>One more won't hurt. Done by the CMYK numbers in PS, similar to how I handled another one here:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00Sm7r">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00Sm7r</a></p>

[robert_k1]

<p>One more won't hurt. Done by the CMYK numbers in PS, similar to how I handled another one here:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00Sm7r">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00Sm7r</a></p><div></div>

[roger_smith4]

<p>This thread is the best argument for monitor calibration I've seen in a while and not uploading files in AdobeRGB. <br>

Sinh- she looks a bit red. Mark T- light pink. John- blue. Robert K- jpeg artifacts. For the web, try to save at compression at least 6/12 if not better (10/12 is appropriate for printing).</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Couldn't agree more, Roger.</p>

<p>But I can't help but think it must be more than just calibration. Most displays out of the box from what I've seen are pretty close to sRGB and certainly not so color biased to induce someone to make blonde hair look green, cyan and any of the other color variants seen in this thread.</p>

<p>I also can't believe folks see that differently. I've seen the same variations from different posters in similar threads in the past. Or could it be adaptation as the cause. I know I fight that a lot and I often underestimate its potential to make me screw up a color edit like I did here. I even recalibrated and it didn't change my perception of what I'ld done or what others have posted.</p>

[mark_tran]

<p>Roger- that's actually the look I was going for as I don't think her face looks good with the redness or even the orangeness that your version has. Most people here still have the flower oversaturated to the point where no details can be seen. I guess to each his own.</p>

[bernardwest]

Roger and Tim, I agree. I am constantly surprised by images posted by people with supposedly calibrated monitors. I don't have a colour calibrated monitor, but without any adjustment at all, it matches fairly well with what I print. The tiny differences don't come close to matching some of the bizarre colours some people post in these threads. There are a number in this thread with green hair! Roger, I almost think this is an argument AGAINST monitor calibration, as almost any monitor I view photo.net on images are consistently ok between the different uncalibrated monitors. As Tim says, most monitors seem to do a pretty good job out of the box. I know I've never turned hair green on my uncalibrated monitor.

[robert_k1]

<p>This thread is about color correction and not about image quality. If artifacts exist in my rendition, they are probably due to the jpeg not saved at the lowest compression, for a smaller upload file. Nor did I sharpen, etc. My monitor is calibrated, but it has little to do with the artifacts.<br>

Monitor calibration is an important part of a digital workflow, but it is certainly not the *key* for correcting this image. Skin tones of different ethnicity/age, under natural lighting, have specific rgb/cmyk values. Knowing what these values are is the *key*, and there are many ways to hit these targets. In many images, once the skin tones are corrected to these values (or within ball park), the colors of other elements would fall into place, i.e. without green hair, etc. OTOH, correcting without knowing what these values are is like shooting in the dark, with or without a calibrated monitor.</p>

[gen_b.]

<p>Here's my version.<br /> <br /> <img src="http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee242/venividibitchy/HowAboutThis.jpg" alt="" /> <br /> <br /> Please keep in mind that I tend to favor vintage photography tones and textures -- retouched skin reminds me of pageant photos.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>I think an optometrist needs to see this thread.</p>

<p>What's even more puzzling are those that posted off looking renderings have great looking gallery images. The only answer for that is they must've performed the least amount of processing as possible.</p>

<p>And Robert K,</p>

<p>Forget about CMYK mixes. Color temp perception will throw that formula right out the window as demonstrated in this thread and in other threads that correct skintone.</p>

<p>I have a 24,000 CMYK color patch formula guide that shows no difference in color change going from 5 to 10 percentage number increases in any of the channels except black and this applies only to skintone anyway.</p>