My browns seem a bit red - What can i do?

[Michael11]

Hi, thanks for the reply.

If you scroll up you'll see i've uploaded some examples to my Microsoft OneDrive. Take a peek please.

If you need the Raw file i can upload that too. In fact there's numerous Raw files i could provide, and some are even more redder.

Hi,
after taking a look at the converted images I came to similar conclusions as SFA.
Since I'm having a similar issue with a slight magenta cast in dark areas / shadows in my RX10 files I was interested in this thread. After some experimenting I found a work around to get rid of the cast and now I'm wondering whether it works also for just to tame down at bit the red/magenta to get to a colour rendition closer to the real fur of your dog. I'm on C1Pro though and I don't know whether one could work in Express on individual RGB Levels (Exposure tag, Levels). Here I select the Red levels (instead of the "normal" RGB) and rise the left zero to just 1 or 2. For my needs this removed in most images all of the cast. In some very few I went to 3 or 4 but that's it because higher values meant already a too cool, almost greenish tint. Perhaps it works also for you - and it's quick and easy w/o the need of fiddling around with the WB (which seems to be more sensitive / changes too fast / changes the overall look).

[Ian3]

Sorry - didn't realise it was a Pro only feature. Pro is quite inexpensive at the moment, isn't it?

Ian

It is nearly always on sale. 50% off most of the time. IF you download the trail version your most likely going to have a sale within the 60 day trial period.

Yes - I knew that and I have been using the Pro version for years.

Ian

[NNN635103620282925392]

Ok, i thought i had deleted the original NEF, but luckily i found it inside the Capture One Catalogue.

I've uploaded it again to my Microsoft OneDrive:

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=F587D73C02F4DBBB!9956&authkey=!AJ8EeMMorfaC3vI&v=3&ithint=photo%2cNEF

The thumbnail for it looks redder than it did, does Capture One update the thumbnails too?

[SFA]

Well, that's interesting.

The NEF file, as displayed in Firefox, looks slightly Orange!

It looks like you used flash for the shot but were there other light sources around at the same time. Is there a possibility of reflected colours from some nearby surface?

The white card seems to give different results depending on where one samples it. Mostly small changes but in this case enough to make obvious differences to the brown areas in the image.

I loaded the file into another convertor I have used for some years and saw a different result to anything previously - but not by much.

Going to C1 I changed the Base Characteristic to "Linear" and then compensated with about 1 stop increase on the exposure slider as normal. This reduced the redness of the original somewhat as I anticipated.

Being unconvinced about using the white card as a consistent source I decided to use the light patch on your dog's front as a colour source and the result was, pretty much, identical to the other software. The readout suggests that the patch is being interpreted as a grey card approximation - which is probably about right in fact.

(However I should mention that the other application has an over all WB setting and an individual WB adjustment tool and using their samplers on the dog's patch or the white card can give different results and adjustment each time. Small adjustments but still enough to be significant for this image.)

Obviously I still have no way to compare the result to the dog! However it looks "balanced" to me. Not too red, yellow, orange or blue (although the white card as sampled tends to show higher values for blue readings than the other colours.

Try the Linear route and see what you think when you compare the result to the live subject! Have I guessed the colour somewhere close?

When I sampled on the White card the typical value seemed to be around 8600k. Sampling for WB on the patch gave around 7450k. I suspect that a better value would be somewhere between the two.


HTH.


Grant

[Michael11]

Hi,

aftr downloading your NEF file I run it through Auto Adjust as a starting point, then correctiong exposure as needed. After that I generated two reduced size output version, one with the Red Level at zero and the second with the Red Level at 2. The change is pretty visible and red/magenta is reduced. Does the second come close to the real colour?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/r1v ... C_0012.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/ii2 ... %29%20.jpg

[NNN635103620282925392]

Hi,

aftr downloading your NEF file I run it through Auto Adjust as a starting point, then correctiong exposure as needed. After that I generated two reduced size output version, one with the Red Level at zero and the second with the Red Level at 2. The change is pretty visible and red/magenta is reduced. Does the second come close to the real colour?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/r1v ... C_0012.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/ii2 ... %29%20.jpg

Yes, definitely the 2nd one looks more like it.

Although an amateur photographer, I'm going to try and be a bit more professional about this i think. I'm going to take a/some photos of my dog with just one light source, i.e outside (with a white card next to him). Then see if the problem is still there or not. I should be able to see if it is or isn't caused by faulty photography technique on my part or not.

Back soon.

[Peter]

Hi there

This is a gem of a thread. Hopefully Phase will produce their take on it in due course.

I have downloaded the doggy images and analysed them for RGB settings using Adobe CC. This software has a very useful feature of enabling an average RGB reading for a selected, blurred part of the image. The following data was obtained directly from the jpg files of the OP (i.e. no processing by me).

Firstly, the RGB values for each whole image and the white card:

LR4 102 88 84 WB Card: 217 218 218
NX 103 88 82 WB Card: 201 204 203
Cap1exp. 102 86 81 WB Card: 220 220 220

My interpretation of this table is that, overall, there is little to choose between the different renditions. While the WB card is much too light to provide useful colour information it does point up differences in luminosity, with NX the darkest and Cap1 the lightest.

Next, the RGB values for a selected portion of the settee. Each selection is the same size (675x611 pixels) and is in the same position, bottom right:

LR4 135 115 110
NX 135 115 110
Cap1exp. 104 111 106

Again, little to choose between LR4 and NX but this time the Cap1 luminosity is clearly the lowest.

Next, the RGB values for a selected portion of the dog's flank. Each selection is the same size (675x611 pixels):

LR4 76 57 44
NX 82 60 43
Cap1exp. 77 55 42

This time all three renditions are quite close, surprising though this may seem! And note how dark they are compared with the settee.

So the most significant finding is that it is the apparent colour of the settee that is varying, not the dog; and Cap1 is the odd one out.

Other, qualitative tests where I have selectively changed the luminosity of the whole image and parts of the image, have shown that the darker the settee, the redder the dog! Also, the original raw image is at least a half-stop under-exposed.

So all in all I conclude that in this case, for this image, the colour issue is more perceptual than real, due to apparent changes in the colour of the settee which surrounds the dog. This colour shift effect in juxtaposed blocks of colour is well-known in artistic circles. Also, part of the problem is an unsuitable WB card that faces the incident light rather than the light reflected from the subject, in an environment where the two light sources are very different. I would also query the main colour tone of the ambient indoor light, which is what the WB card is picking up.

I agree with Grant that the best WB is presented by the dog's white patch, because it is a truly representative non-reflective sample of the 'in dog' colouring.

I hope this somewhat pedantic analysis is a useful contribution to this thread.

Peter

[NNN635103620282925392]

Ok, as promised, here is a picture of my dog Jasper in the garden, under just one lighting condition (i.e just daylight, no flash or light bulbs). The outputs had no enhancements done (i.e white balance untouched, no contrast adjustment etc etc).

I've developed the outputs with both Capture 1 and Lightroom 4, and included the original NEF raw file too.

If I'm honest the reddish problem doesn't seem quite so bad in this image (although i can still see it a bit).

Hope this helps clarify things a bit.

Paul.

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=F587D73C02F4DBBB!9963&authkey=!ACx-6N1DC2qi4Ss&ithint=folder%2cjpg

[Drew]

I'd like nothing more than to take a thorough technical look into any color complaints that there may be with a specific file or camera.
I further think that Jasper is quite a handsome pup, however having never met Jasper and without any accurate measure as to Jasper's complexion to obtain a base for a known value, his red tone remains unfortunately subjective.

If you have a Colorchart that you can photograph in the midday sun and provide the RAW, we'd be happy to continue chiming in on this thread. Without it however, I am afraid that we (Phase One) can't be of much more assistance here.

[NNN635103620282925392]

Fair enough, ty

[Michael11]

Hi,
at the risc of stating the obvious but shooting RAW is this: tweaking, adjusting, editing until the result meets your "vision" - which doesn't need to be necessarily the clostes possible to reality, but may be any type of artistic interpretation, from B/W edits to special enhancements. That's part of the potentials and also part of the fun of RAW - and no harm done when an edit doesn't work and is discarded other then your labour time.

[NNN635103620282925392]

Hi,
at the risc of stating the obvious but shooting RAW is this: tweaking, adjusting, editing until the result meets your "vision" - which doesn't need to be necessarily the clostes possible to reality, but may be any type of artistic interpretation, from B/W edits to special enhancements. That's part of the potentials and also part of the fun of RAW - and no harm done when an edit doesn't work and is discarded other then your labour time.

Yes, you make good points.

Having said that though. If its true that Capture One gives you what they think are better colours compared to what the camera itself wanted you to have then i believe that should be an option rather than forced upon you, instead of no way of choosing the latter.

I for one (in Express at least) have found it very hard (or impossible) to get the colours exactly back to what i believe the true colours should of been, that Nikon intended me to have.

Thats the only point i'd make.

[FredBGG]

Hi,
at the risc of stating the obvious but shooting RAW is this: tweaking, adjusting, editing until the result meets your "vision" - which doesn't need to be necessarily the clostes possible to reality, but may be any type of artistic interpretation, from B/W edits to special enhancements. That's part of the potentials and also part of the fun of RAW - and no harm done when an edit doesn't work and is discarded other then your labour time.

Yes, you make good points.

Having said that though. If its true that Capture One gives you what they think are better colours compared to what the camera itself wanted you to have then i believe that should be an option rather than forced upon you, instead of no way of choosing the latter.

I for one (in Express at least) have found it very hard (or impossible) to get the colours exactly back to what i believe the true colours should of been, that Nikon intended me to have.

Thats the only point i'd make.

+1

[FredBGG]

Hi,
at the risc of stating the obvious but shooting RAW is this: tweaking, adjusting, editing until the result meets your "vision" - which doesn't need to be necessarily the clostes possible to reality, but may be any type of artistic interpretation, from B/W edits to special enhancements. That's part of the potentials and also part of the fun of RAW - and no harm done when an edit doesn't work and is discarded other then your labour time.

This is not what RAW is about. The whole concept behind a RAW file is to preserve everything the sensor has collected.
For much of professional work where very much is done infront of the camera.

Casting the perfect model with beautiful skin.
Using a brilliant makeup artist that preserves a natural skin tone or changes it significantly depending on the job.
Lighting etc etc
When all is as close as to what is desired the shots are taken.
IMO the best starting point in post processing at that point is accurate colors. From there the process can be taken to where it is desired. Having to "reverse" an "opinionated" default RAW conversion is not IMO the way to go.

[Drew]

No one is ever forced to use Capture One.
If you do not like the color that Capture One provides you, please be proactive. Capture Images of a known value under universal lighting conditions. Create a support case and provide the files to support asking for a new profile or change to an existing profile. From the numerous posts on this thread, I can see that no one has done this.

Anyone that has done this in the past, as color workflow is a common source of opinion, can tell you that within a rather timely manner, they've received either an ICC profile made just for them based on that image or have been provided adjusted ICC profile to use in Capture One. Again, we're here to help but in order to get what you want you need to be proactive.

And to clarify, anyone that wants "accurate" colors really needs to take it upon themselves to calibrate all aspects of their workflow. Simply having a software that "looks accurate" is not enough. It's certainly fine to have an opinion that software A gives colors that are "right" as appose to software B, but ALL software color is an interpretation.

I'm going to go ahead and close this thread as it simply seems to be going round and round with no substance.

If you would like to see a change to Color Render in Capture One, please contact support with appropriate files and we'd be happy to look into it.