Which models are these 2 Nikons?

[BeBu Lamar]

Well I say nothing to the couple and I share all of the images I took. I simply want to say that using the flash in such a fashion would do no good.

[ben_hutcherson]

For what it's worth, I do prefer your choice of white balance, but having run through a long sequence of images in varying unflattering light recently I can say it's at least easy to get a bit colour blind - several times I went back through and shifted everything, and I'm still not sure whether I made everyone a bit pink or a bit green. And some film would have had the same effect, so it might have been a cho

 

Don't discount the difference a calibrated monitor makes.

 

Also, LCD panels with fluorescent backlights do drift in color more than many folks realize, and after the backlights age it can be impossible to get them to calibrate correctly. I'm using a pair of ancient acrylic 23" Apple Cinema displays on the PM G5 where I do my scanning, and even with fresh calibration they look different. I'm in the process of upgrading this entire set-up(from the computer itself to the monitors) and will be using a couple of modern LED monitors when all is said and done.

 

Fortunately, the LED screen on my MBP never seems to drift.

[Andrew Garrard]

I do have a calibrator, but honestly I've never used it on my MBP. I'm reasonably confident the screen hasn't drifted much - my issue is more eye adaptation, and when you've been adjusting fifty images all of which started with a wildly bad white balance, it's easy to end up with the result being "better" but not "good". Say this, which was under fluorescent lights in a room with coloured walls, which I had to submit to someone recently:

 

 

Stared at in the right circumstances it's fine, but in retrospect the player's hair wasn't supposed to be green and a tiddlywinks mat is traditionally very pale beige, not so much pink. My eyes had lost their ability to colour balance properly after staring at too many images, and picking something white in the scene didn't help because the lighting changed across the room.

 

When editing wedding photos recently, I did go out of my way not to do so under my living room's natural lighting, which is at the whim of the CFL lights. But accommodation to the images you're actually editing is still a problem.

 

Which isn't really an excuse for a wedding photo delivered with an odd colour balance (in my case, I just came back to the images multiple times until they were vaguely acceptable), but I can see how it can happen.

[mike_halliwell]

Fluorescent top lights and coloured walls... the worst! :(

 

Short of including an x-rite passport in EVERY shot, good enough is good enough....:)

[mike_halliwell]

Interesting 6593K Custom WB

 

........and a huge amount of colour tweaking inc -34 Sat and the various amount of + Sat for various RGB colours.

 

<crs:WhiteBalance>Custom</crs:WhiteBalance>

<crs:Temperature>6953</crs:Temperature>

<crs:Tint>-9</crs:Tint>

<crs:Saturation>-34</crs:Saturation>

<crs:Sharpness>25</crs:Sharpness>

<crs:LuminanceSmoothing>26</crs:LuminanceSmoothing>

<crs:ColorNoiseReduction>25</crs:ColorNoiseReduction>

<crs:VignetteAmount>0</crs:VignetteAmount>

<crs:ShadowTint>-5</crs:ShadowTint>

<crs:RedHue>+20</crs:RedHue>

<crs:RedSaturation>+20</crs:RedSaturation>

<crs:GreenHue>+45</crs:GreenHue>

<crs:GreenSaturation>-6</crs:GreenSaturation>

<crs:BlueHue>-10</crs:BlueHue>

<crs:BlueSaturation>+22</crs:BlueSaturation>

<crs:Vibrance>+3</crs:Vibrance>

<crs:HueAdjustmentRed>+6</crs:HueAdjustmentRed>

<crs:HueAdjustmentOrange>+5</crs:HueAdjustmentOrange>

<crs:HueAdjustmentYellow>-4</crs:HueAdjustmentYellow>

<crs:HueAdjustmentGreen>+28</crs:HueAdjustmentGreen>

<crs:HueAdjustmentAqua>0</crs:HueAdjustmentAqua>

<crs:HueAdjustmentBlue>-5</crs:HueAdjustmentBlue>

<crs:HueAdjustmentPurple>+25</crs:HueAdjustmentPurple>

<crs:HueAdjustmentMagenta>+25</crs:HueAdjustmentMagenta>

<crs:SaturationAdjustmentRed>+2</crs:SaturationAdjustmentRed>

<crs:SaturationAdjustmentOrange>-19</crs:SaturationAdjustmentOrange>

<crs:SaturationAdjustmentYellow>-50</crs:SaturationAdjustmentYellow>

<crs:SaturationAdjustmentGreen>-77</crs:SaturationAdjustmentGreen>

<crs:SaturationAdjustmentAqua>-35</crs:SaturationAdjustmentAqua>

<crs:SaturationAdjustmentBlue>-15</crs:SaturationAdjustmentBlue>

<crs:SaturationAdjustmentPurple>-25</crs:SaturationAdjustmentPurple>

<crs:SaturationAdjustmentMagenta>-25</crs:SaturationAdjustmentMagenta>

<crs:LuminanceAdjustmentRed>-3</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentRed>

<crs:LuminanceAdjustmentOrange>-7</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentOrange>

<crs:LuminanceAdjustmentYellow>-14</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentYellow>

<crs:LuminanceAdjustmentGreen>-10</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentGreen>

<crs:LuminanceAdjustmentAqua>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentAqua>

<crs:LuminanceAdjustmentBlue>-10</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentBlue>

<crs:LuminanceAdjustmentPurple>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentPurple>

<crs:LuminanceAdjustmentMagenta>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentMagenta>

 

Where-as BeBu's is pretty much stock!

 

<crs:Temperature>5650</crs:Temperature>

<crs:Tint>+13</crs:Tint>

<crs:Saturation>+26</crs:Saturation>

<crs:Sharpness>59</crs:Sharpness>

<crs:LuminanceSmoothing>0</crs:LuminanceSmoothing>

<crs:ColorNoiseReduction>25</crs:ColorNoiseReduction>

<crs:VignetteAmount>0</crs:VignetteAmount>

<crs:ShadowTint>0</crs:ShadowTint>

<crs:RedHue>0</crs:RedHue>

<crs:RedSaturation>0</crs:RedSaturation>

<crs:GreenHue>0</crs:GreenHue>

<crs:GreenSaturation>0</crs:GreenSaturation>

<crs:BlueHue>0</crs:BlueHue>

<crs:BlueSaturation>0</crs:BlueSaturation>

<crs:Vibrance>0</crs:Vibrance>

<crs:HueAdjustmentRed>0</crs:HueAdjustmentRed>

<crs:HueAdjustmentOrange>0</crs:HueAdjustmentOrange>

<crs:HueAdjustmentYellow>0</crs:HueAdjustmentYellow>

<crs:HueAdjustmentGreen>0</crs:HueAdjustmentGreen>

<crs:HueAdjustmentAqua>0</crs:HueAdjustmentAqua>

<crs:HueAdjustmentBlue>0</crs:HueAdjustmentBlue>

<crs:HueAdjustmentPurple>0</crs:HueAdjustmentPurple>

<crs:HueAdjustmentMagenta>0</crs:HueAdjustmentMagenta>

<crs:SaturationAdjustmentRed>0</crs:SaturationAdjustmentRed>

<crs:SaturationAdjustmentOrange>0</crs:SaturationAdjustmentOrange>

<crs:SaturationAdjustmentYellow>0</crs:SaturationAdjustmentYellow>

<crs:SaturationAdjustmentGreen>0</crs:SaturationAdjustmentGreen>

<crs:SaturationAdjustmentAqua>0</crs:SaturationAdjustmentAqua>

<crs:SaturationAdjustmentBlue>0</crs:SaturationAdjustmentBlue>

<crs:SaturationAdjustmentPurple>0</crs:SaturationAdjustmentPurple>

<crs:SaturationAdjustmentMagenta>0</crs:SaturationAdjustmentMagenta>

<crs:LuminanceAdjustmentRed>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentRed>

<crs:LuminanceAdjustmentOrange>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentOrange>

<crs:LuminanceAdjustmentYellow>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentYellow>

<crs:LuminanceAdjustmentGreen>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentGreen>

<crs:LuminanceAdjustmentAqua>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentAqua>

<crs:LuminanceAdjustmentBlue>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentBlue>

<crs:LuminanceAdjustmentPurple>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentPurple>

<crs:LuminanceAdjustmentMagenta>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentMagenta>

 

P.Net seems to have formatted the EXIF Table, and I can't get it to show normally or edit it!

Edited May 2, 2018 by mike_halliwell

[BeBu Lamar]

I do have a calibrator, but honestly I've never used it on my MBP. I'm reasonably confident the screen hasn't drifted much - my issue is more eye adaptation, and when you've been adjusting fifty images all of which started with a wildly bad white balance, it's easy to end up with the result being "better" but not "good". Say this, which was under fluorescent lights in a room with coloured walls, which I had to submit to someone recently:

 

[ATTACH=full]1243676[/ATTACH]

 

Stared at in the right circumstances it's fine, but in retrospect the player's hair wasn't supposed to be green and a tiddlywinks mat is traditionally very pale beige, not so much pink. My eyes had lost their ability to colour balance properly after staring at too many images, and picking something white in the scene didn't help because the lighting changed across the room.

 

When editing wedding photos recently, I did go out of my way not to do so under my living room's natural lighting, which is at the whim of the CFL lights. But accommodation to the images you're actually editing is still a problem.

 

Which isn't really an excuse for a wedding photo delivered with an odd colour balance (in my case, I just came back to the images multiple times until they were vaguely acceptable), but I can see how it can happen.

 

Your color balance is good in my opinion. Whatever the reason the pro who did the wedding likes her kind of color balance. I think she likes it because you can see her other images here.

Christina Elliott Home – Houston Family + Maternity + Newborn +Engagement Photographer

[Andrew Garrard]

Thank you, BeBu. I'll accept "not as horrible as it could have been", but I don't think I've entirely achieved "flattering". :-) Live and learn.

 

Mike: I used to ignore white balance in the camera and just rely on clicking on a grey patch on the scene with a white balance dropper. I'm now getting a bit more picky, having got used to the "grey patch" being under weird lighting for everything else - but sometimes it's just hard. It does look like a deliberate "look", though - and I'm not sure it's a mile off what you'd get from a "film emulation" mode used with an odd choice of film.

 

Well, the web site's not very well-behaved, but that could be because we've swamped it by looking from this forum! If that colour balance is what she usually does, I think we have to assume that the happy couple saw it and chose it deliberately. The pixel-level detail did look a bit odd (unless that was my phone processing the image), but most people won't look - quite a few of the images I delivered to my friends are in the "sorry, at pixel level this isn't sharp, but it was worth giving it to you for the pose" category, and they look fine at screen size.

 

I'm not blown away, but I still think the safe move is not to rock the boat. The problem with knowing something about a subject is that it's easy to criticise professionals who are "good enough". My wife got some posed photos done for me, which turned out to be shot by a "professional" using a low-end Canon with the kit 18-55. To be fair, they weren't awful, but they certainly weren't amazing. I'd gain nothing by complaining, though - and at least she got raw files for me to post-process.

[Dieter Schaefer]

If that colour balance is what she usually does, I think we have to assume that the happy couple saw it and chose it deliberately.

A very valid assumption IMHO.

the safe move is not to rock the boat

Indeed. Pretty much the only people who need to be happy with those images are the newlyweds - and as already pointed out, they may have chosen that particular style of processing deliberately.