My browns seem a bit red - What can i do?
I'm fairly knew to Raw file processing and so any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Further info:
My camera is a DSLR Nikon D3100. My Software is Capture One Express 7. The problem happens even when all image settings are at defaults (i.e straight after import). The ICC profile (in base characteristics) says Nikon D3100 generic.
A lot of my photos seems fine. However i have a brown dog (chocolate colour), and most of the photos of him come out with him looking slightly red!. It's not a lot, but is noticeable. What's the best way to deal with the problem? Apologies as i'm fairly knew to all this.
Thanks.
Further info:
My camera is a DSLR Nikon D3100. My Software is Capture One Express 7. The problem happens even when all image settings are at defaults (i.e straight after import). The ICC profile (in base characteristics) says Nikon D3100 generic.
A lot of my photos seems fine. However i have a brown dog (chocolate colour), and most of the photos of him come out with him looking slightly red!. It's not a lot, but is noticeable. What's the best way to deal with the problem? Apologies as i'm fairly knew to all this.
Thanks.
0
-
Do I understand you correctly when I Say that the colors in CO7 are fine, but the processed (exported) file is not? How do you view the processed file? 0 -
[quote="Paul_Steunebrink" wrote:
Do I understand you correctly when I Say that the colors in CO7 are fine, but the processed (exported) file is not? How do you view the processed file?
No, the browns seem a bit red in both the program (during editing) and when exported too.
Thanks.0 -
It is possible that the camera's auto white balance is confused at times. I find that I rarely get good colours when I take photos in a wood for example (on a Nikon D7000). Is it possible to take some photos of the dog say with a piece of white paper by it, or a grey card, or something that is a known neutral grey? Then adjust that photo in C1 using the eye dropper on the neutral object. That way you know you have the colour balance right. What does the colour of the dog look like then?
Ian0 -
[quote="Ian3" wrote:
It is possible that the camera's auto white balance is confused at times. I find that I rarely get good colours when I take photos in a wood for example (on a Nikon D7000). Is it possible to take some photos of the dog say with a piece of white paper by it, or a grey card, or something that is a known neutral grey? Then adjust that photo in C1 using the eye dropper on the neutral object. That way you know you have the colour balance right. What does the colour of the dog look like then?
Ian
Hi, I've just done a test shot with a white card next to my brown dog. I've processed the file with 3 programs (Capture 1 Express 7, Capture NX-D from Nikon, and Lightroom 4). I've adjusted the white balance via the white card. Again, in the Capture 1 version the dog looks reddish, but not in the versions from Capture NX-D or Lightroom.0 -
Worth trying. Let's see what anyone else has to suggest.
Ian0 -
I've made 3 rough outputs from 3 different processing programs (note: all I've done is adjusted the white balance via a white card next to the dog). I've used Capture 1 Express 7, Capture NX-D (from Nikon), and Lightroom 4
I've uploaded them to my Microsoft OneDrive, if anyone wants to view them:
Thanks0 -
Sorry for posting 2 replies in a row....
I've noticed that i can change the ICC profile in the 'base characteristics' tool. In doing a quick random sample of the other options within it, i found 'Nikon D50 generic'. When i choose that instead of the proper D3100 generic for my camera, the colours look much better and how they should be.
What effects does changing the ICC profile have on the image in Capture One. Is it only the colour that's effected, or does it effect other values under the hood, like the default starting point for the amount of noise reduction, or light fall off etc.0 -
I've noticed - and mentioned here - that for a long time now, newer cameras profiles all seem to be biased towards warm red/orange: it's the Capture One "look".
Two options: create a new default profile with the reds pulled back a bit; or use an older camera profile (maybe the D300 profile?) which will probably have less of a warm bias.
This latter option works for "Express" users too, and once you've found a profile that suits, it's easy enough to rename it (via the computer file system/OS) to become the default for the D7000.
(Added: ah - seems you've found the same solutions yourself! 😉)
The ICC profiles are just ICC profiles: everything else like default NR etc. is Exif/camera ID-based.0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
I've noticed - and mentioned here - that for a long time now, newer cameras profiles all seem to be biased towards warm red/orange: it's the Capture One "look".
Two options: create a new default profile with the reds pulled back a bit; or use an older camera profile (maybe the D300 profile?) which will probably have less of a warm bias.
This latter option works for "Express" users too, and once you've found a profile that suits, it's easy enough to rename it (via the computer file system/OS) to become the default for the D7000.
(Added: ah - seems you've found the same solutions yourself! 😉)
The ICC profiles are just ICC profiles: everything else like default NR etc. is Exif/camera ID-based.
Thank you so much Keith, i just needed it all confirmed.0 -
So, if I understand these exchanges correctly, it is now accepted that Cap1 output colours are not only out of step with other raw converters, but they have a definite red cast. I can confirm this with my own Sony RX100M2 ARW files.
Another source of aggravation for Cap1 users, I suggest!
Peter.0 -
Keith (or anybody else)
Can i ask 1 more question.
I'm migrating from a Lightroom user to a Capture One user now.
You know the light falloff slider. Is it the same thing as the Vignetting slider in Lightroom (not the post crop one)? Am i also right in believing that Capture One automatically under the hood knows which values to play with for any given lens at any given aperture etc., and sliding this slider to 100% is the same as totally & accurately removing the vignetting caused by the lens (but no over correction). In other words, if i don't like the natural vignetting that any lens will produce for any of my images can i just whack this slider up to 100% for every image?0 -
[quote="Peter" wrote:
So, if I understand these exchanges correctly, it is now accepted that Cap1 output colours are not only out of step with other raw converters...
Well no, it's not "accepted" - no two converters (and I use lots of them) interpret colour the same way: they're all out of step with each other, because none of them are definitively "right".
But it is a matter of record - confirmed by Phase One staff on here - that Capture One's profiles are not meant to be colorimetrically accurate, but to be pleasing; and in that regard, mission accomplished, because one thing above all others that people compliment Capture One for its how it renders colours.
As to this being a source of aggravation - not for me, it isn't.
Beginning with the understanding that Phase One doesn't exist purely to make me my own perfect converter, I accept that everyone's idea of a good colour starting point is likely to be different, and that Phase One's defaults are therefore as good as anyone's - as a starting point.
Doesn't mean we've all got to like them, though - but sorting it out is easy enough.0 -
[quote="NNN635103620282925392" wrote:
You know the light falloff slider. Is it the same thing as the Vignetting slider in Lightroom (not the post crop one)?
Yep, pretty much - the Lr "Lens Vignetting" slider and Capture One's "Light Falloff" tool are both intended to make up for lens aberrations.Am i also right in believing that Capture One automatically under the hood knows which values to play with for any given lens at any given aperture etc., and sliding this slider to 100% is the same as totally & accurately removing the vignetting caused by the lens (but no over correction). In other words, if i don't like the natural vignetting that any lens will produce for any of my images can i just whack this slider up to 100% for every image?
Not sure about that, to be honest: Capture One's lens profiles might get into that level of analysis, but I've got precious little experience of working with light falloff in Capture One because - as a wildlife/sport photographer, using long lenses - I'm only really interested in the centre of the frame, and rarely even notice lens-produced vignetting.
Added: from here:This effect is most common with wide-angle lenses that are used with a wide-open aperture. If you have a profile for your lens, set the amount to 100% to get a completely flat and even looking image. Otherwise, use a generic profile and manually set the desired amount with care.
0 -
[quote="NNN635103620282925392" wrote:
I've made 3 rough outputs from 3 different processing programs (note: all I've done is adjusted the white balance via a white card next to the dog). I've used Capture 1 Express 7, Capture NX-D (from Nikon), and Lightroom 4
I've uploaded them to my Microsoft OneDrive, if anyone wants to view them:
Thanks
There are differences between the Capture NX-D version and the Lightroom version too, I'd say. Nice dog!
Ian0 -
[quote="Ian3" wrote:
[quote="NNN635103620282925392" wrote:
I've made 3 rough outputs from 3 different processing programs (note: all I've done is adjusted the white balance via a white card next to the dog). I've used Capture 1 Express 7, Capture NX-D (from Nikon), and Lightroom 4
I've uploaded them to my Microsoft OneDrive, if anyone wants to view them:
Thanks
There are differences between the Capture NX-D version and the Lightroom version too, I'd say. Nice dog!
Ian
Agreed. However, he is definitely a brown dog rather than reddish. So, i feel Capture One's colours were the most obviously wrong. However, i'm able to counter that now just by using the ICC from the D300 instead. I kinda wish Capture One gave true colours rather than giving you what they think would be a more pleasing set, because in my case my dog no longer looks the right colour (if i use the default ICC), lol.
One thing i'm loving about Capture One is i somehow seem to be producing photos that have more detail and look clearer whilst still looking natural. Not too sure how im doing it, but i must be doing something right, lol
Ps. thanks for compliment. He is a lovely dog. A bit neurotic outside (i.e there's a prediction of danger around every corner), but inside he is a different animal and so playful 😊0 -
[quote="Ian3" wrote:
As an alternative to using the ICC for a different camera, you can also tweak the ICC profile for your own camera and save it.
You can't do that in Express, Ian - it is, bafflingly, a Pro-only option. That's why I suggested the idea of using a different pre-existing profile (the OP is using Express, as far as I can tell):Two options: create a new default profile with the reds pulled back a bit; or use an older camera profile (maybe the D300 profile?) which will probably have less of a warm bias.
This latter option works for "Express" users too, and once you've found a profile that suits, it's easy enough to rename it (via the computer file system/OS) to become the default for the D7000.0 -
Sorry - didn't realise it was a Pro only feature. Pro is quite inexpensive at the moment, isn't it?
Ian0 -
Yep, it's half-price at the moment, Ian.
http://www.phaseone.com/en/Online-Store ... Pro-7.aspx
http://www.phaseone.com/en/Online-Store ... grade.aspx0 -
[quote="NNN635103620282925392" wrote:
Agreed. However, he is definitely a brown dog rather than reddish. So, i feel Capture One's colours were the most obviously wrong. However, i'm able to counter that now just by using the ICC from the D300 instead. I kinda wish Capture One gave true colours rather than giving you what they think would be a more pleasing set, because in my case my dog no longer looks the right colour (if i use the default ICC),
I totally agree. A professional RAW converter should by default have an accurate RAW conversion.
No problem adding other so called "pleasing" alternatives.
I also find that older profiles are more accurate and that in particular the profiles of higher end 35mm DSLR's are
given these altered "so called pleasing" profiles.
For example the d800 profile gives people a fake tan of sorts, and the v2 of the d800 profile is too reddish in the skin tones.
Phase One claims "precise colors" in their wording on their website:
.
Capture One Pro 7 is the world’s best raw converter rendering precise colors and incredible detail with support for leading high-end cameras.
But what you get is somewhat stylized/subjective. Most commercial product clients will not be happy with altered colors.0 -
[quote="Ian3" wrote:
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.0 -
I am with FredBGG on this one. Colour-conscious photographers will have gone to some trouble to calibrate their computer screen and printer to accurately reflect 'what is' in the image file. Surely the least they can expect from a raw converter is an accurate colour starting point? Personally I find DPP (Canon) and IDC (Sony) very good in getting the default colours right, to my eyes. Then I can compare with other raw converters if needs be.
However I suspect there may be some play on words when describing the colour of raw exports. What do we mean by 'right', 'accurate' and 'precise'. I suggest these words have different meanings despite their everyday use as quasi-synonyms. In scientific circles there has been much discussion on the difference between 'accurate' and 'precise'. Try this:
'right' is a subjective, personal preference based on memory recall or what is intended
'accurate' is an unbiased replicate based on a defined benchmark - but it may not look 'right'
'precise' means closely defined and controlled - but not necessarily 'accurate' or 'right'
I suggest Phase's use of 'precise' neatly circumvents the reality that Cap1 colours are (deliberately, we are told) not accurate. In my experience it is definitely Cap1 that is out of line (i.e. inaccurate) in their reds compared with other raw converters. So Cap1 users have to fiddle about to try to get back to their view of 'accurate/right'. I think aggravation describes this process very well - we are fighting against Cap1 instead of working with it.
My solution? Phase should offer a preset that allows users to select an 'accurate colour' rendition, alongside the other options that are available in Cap1 (too many perhaps?). Personally I am very dubious about what Phase describes as 'generic' camera profiles. These indicate to me that Phase has very few specific camera profiles that are colour-accurate. Hence the Cap1 'look', perhaps?
In the meantime, I find LR5 outputs are more acceptable in establishing a starting point for refinement. On the rare occasions that I want to see what Cap1 can do I have created my own user styles that selectively show me the effect of step-changes in colour temperature and desaturation (yellow and red) to reduce the amount of fiddling about. User styles are so easy - just hover the mouse pointer and see a new rendition instantly! Full marks here to Phase.
Peter0 -
[quote="Peter" wrote:
I am with FredBGG on this one. Colour-conscious photographers will have gone to some trouble to calibrate their computer screen and printer to accurately reflect 'what is' in the image file. Surely the least they can expect from a raw converter is an accurate colour starting point? Personally I find DPP (Canon) and IDC (Sony) very good in getting the default colours right, to my eyes. Then I can compare with other raw converters if needs be.
However I suspect there may be some play on words when describing the colour of raw exports. What do we mean by 'right', 'accurate' and 'precise'. I suggest these words have different meanings despite their everyday use as quasi-synonyms. In scientific circles there has been much discussion on the difference between 'accurate' and 'precise'. Try this:
'right' is a subjective, personal preference based on memory recall or what is intended
'accurate' is an unbiased replicate based on a defined benchmark - but it may not look 'right'
'precise' means closely defined and controlled - but not necessarily 'accurate' or 'right'
I suggest Phase's use of 'precise' neatly circumvents the reality that Cap1 colours are (deliberately, we are told) not accurate. In my experience it is definitely Cap1 that is out of line (i.e. inaccurate) in their reds compared with other raw converters. So Cap1 users have to fiddle about to try to get back to their view of 'accurate/right'. I think aggravation describes this process very well - we are fighting against Cap1 instead of working with it.
My solution? Phase should offer a preset that allows users to select an 'accurate colour' rendition, alongside the other options that are available in Cap1 (too many perhaps?). Personally I am very dubious about what Phase describes as 'generic' camera profiles. These indicate to me that Phase has very few specific camera profiles that are colour-accurate. Hence the Cap1 'look', perhaps?
In the meantime, I find LR5 outputs are more acceptable in establishing a starting point for refinement. On the rare occasions that I want to see what Cap1 can do I have created my own user styles that selectively show me the effect of step-changes in colour temperature and desaturation (yellow and red) to reduce the amount of fiddling about. User styles are so easy - just hover the mouse pointer and see a new rendition instantly! Full marks here to Phase.
Peter
I don't completely agree with you here, CO1 generic profiles dó quite often suffer from color casts, or simply one part of the color spectrum suffering from a shift. Still I find the results much more true to life, or life-like, then e.g. Lightroom or camera raw or most other raw converters. It's a pity about the often so very obvious color casts though, i.e. obvious on my calibrated Eizo screen. For that reason alone I would applaud, as I suggested earlier, that Phase one would include a similar to DxO optics "neutral color, neutral tonality", option.
You can customize your way out of, or into most anything with CO1, and also here it is superior to other raw converters i.m.o., but a good neutral starting point regarding color and tonality would really be a bliss.
Chris0 -
A color conscious photographer, and there are thousands, DEMAND accuracy. It's a requirement, not a preference.
That being the case, no "factory" solution is going to give them the 100% accuracy they need. A custom measured and calibrated ICC Profile, under the controlled lights, from the specific Camera, using the specific lens, is the only answer.
There are many reproduction companies that we work with who have a specific profile, for a specific Nikon or Canon, out of dozens that are "identical" from the factory. So even production from one camera to the next is not always bulletproof (so yes, your X Camera will look slightly different form another users "identical" camera). Custom Measure and calibration is the only option if you want 100% accuracy... and even with what is rendered as accurate, it's no guarantee that you'll actually LIKE the results.
So, if you are serious about accuracy you will make your own ICC profile.
Unfortunately most other color render arguments are quite subjective and regardless of what anyone feels Phase One should do, it will not work for everyones workflow. In the wise words of the Mr. Jagger ... "You can't always get what you want" 😉
If anyone has specific color render questions or concerns, please simply provide us a Capture of a known value under rather universal lighting. For example, an X-Rite chart in the bright, cloud free, midday sun. With that we can certainly investigate color concerns. Without it however, we are simply arguing preference of the user or variances of their equipment.0 -
Hmmm, ^ long reply.
Maybe i was expecting too much then, to simply load my raw file into Capture One, and expect my brown dog to still brown and not red, lol0 -
[quote="NNN635103620282925392" wrote:
Maybe i was expecting too much then, to simply load my raw file into Capture One, and expect my brown dog to still brown and not red, lol
Sometimes brown hair looks red at sunset or sunrise 😉
Is your Dog a Burnt Umber shade of brown? Perhaps a bit more of an Iron Ore?
Sometimes "red" and "brick red" are argued to be different colors, one wrong and the other right... so all things considered it's important to keep in mind that "correct" color can be subjective and the only way to address the concerns accurately is to provide a RAW file under standard conditions.
I'm all for a lively discussion of color render, but without examples that can be reproduced, it's a conversation that will just go around and around... etc0 -
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.0 -
[quote="NNN635103620282925392" wrote:
Hmmm, ^ long reply.
But it's a good reply.
Look: I'm no Phase One apologist (track down the "CO 7 Express someday?" thread and you'll see that) but Phase One has been entirely above-board about the nature of its profiles; and has provided a tool (in Pro anyway) which allows us easily to create any profile/look we might want.
And I'll say this again, too: Capture One sells on the "look" of its output, and the way it renders colours is a big part of that.
Now, it may be that other converters might get your dog's colour closer to right "out of the box", but you're going to be tweaking all sorts of parameters in any converter you use before you're satisfied, and (say) having to pull the reds back a bit in the Colo(u)r Editor tool isn't exactly onerous, especially given how easy it is to copy and apply adjustments across a number of files (if you're not going to (or can't) create a new profile/can't find a pre-existing one that suits).
Yes, we all agree that later profiles seem to bias towards warmth - and yes, I would sometimes rather they didn't (for me that's simply because I prefer a cooler look to my images, not because I'm bent out of shape about the "inaccuracy" per se - I even correct "Golden Hour" images to look less like they were shot in the Golden Hour! 😉)
But I don't consider it to be a problem, because I'll be adjusting just about every other thing in the files I process anyway, and see making colour adjustments as just another necessary evil which I'd be making in one way or another whether I was in Capture One, Lightroom, Photo Ninja, ACDSee, DPP or any other converter.
Capture One gets a lot of other things right by default though (I'm usually done quicker in Capture One than I tend to be in other converters), so I'm inclined to be pretty relaxed about the idea that I might sometimes have to tweak the default colour rendition.
Oh - and despite some of the comments up the page, I've yet to see it written anywhere that a converter's colours "must" be colorimetrically accurate...0 -
[quote="NNN635103620282925392" wrote:
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.
I think the colour of your dog is one of the more challenging colours to render. Very small adjustments can produce huge differences as can lighting conditions, especially in the regular 'incandescent' range of non-natural lighting and at different times of the day when outside.
Your samples, as converted and then seen through my screen (high end notebook) and browser (Firefox) look, to me, as follows.
Left image the possibly a bit red (I don't know the dog of course but I have a feel for the general colouring that is likely).
Middle image - strikes me as rather yellow especially the edges of the dog's outline.
Right Image - a bit 'flat'. Looking at the leather cushions I would say it has a very slightly blue tinge. But then the amount of different could just as easily be related to the back lighting in my screen.
There are so many possible variable in the mix, not the least being the way out eyes 'see' what we call colour and our brains interpret the signals the eyes pass on, that we might go around and around here.
Nevertheless I for one would find it interesting to be able to have access to the original RAW file in order to run some comparisons on a couple of software products.
Grant0 -
[quote="NNN635103620282925392" wrote:
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).0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
44 comments