Aller au contenu principal

Files are Over Saturated

Commentaires

23 commentaires

  • Paul Steunebrink
    [quote="NNN635018233259472077" wrote:
    I'm shooting with a D810 and I'm finding that the files with CO12 are looking more saturated as normal.

    What is normal, I mean, you apparently compare it to something else. What are you comparing with what?

    Are you comparing the output with the preview, for example?
    0
  • SFA
    Just for info.

    If you are using an output recipe that is set to sRGB and you set the Proofing to the recipe (Set Recipe Proofing) then the ICC profile from the Recipe will be used to emulate the appearance.

    What are you using for the Curve setting in the Base Characteristics tool?



    Grant
    0
  • Paul Spatafora
    So I have been auditioning other raw converters since CO increased there prices for the upgrade with very little in return except for bug fixes and a "New UI". So I'm looking for a replacement for CO and have been looking at Exposure X4 as a potential replacement. Comparing the two, I have noticed that the CO file with the default settings (Auto curve and Generic D810 profile) requires -20 to look good compared to the X4 rendition.

    Since I wrote that note, I discovered that if I increase the exposure to the file in CO, it diminishes the over saturation but it doesn't really remove it. I discovered that the X4 rendition is a bit brighter than the CO's so perhaps that was the problem. However, overall, I have found since CO11.3 and 12, the saturation in the files has increased. The other thing I noticed was that if I adjust the color temp, it seems to remove the saturation. The X4 did not require any color temp or saturation modifications to look good. Of course I'm focusing on skin tones and nothing else so maybe for other types of photography it works well.

    So far, the X4 image quality is almost as good as CO's and it offers many of the options I have been begging CO over the years to improve such as the watermarking feature, a better brush tool and adding styles as a freebie. To my amazement, they were all in X4.

    I'd like to know if anyone else has the over saturation issue, or if it's only me. Maybe there is a bug in the color temp when opening a file when reading the files color temp.

    Thanks for the responses.

    Paul
    0
  • IanS
    [quote="NNN635018233259472077" wrote:
    So I have been auditioning other raw converters since CO increased there prices for the upgrade with very little in return except for bug fixes and a "New UI". So I'm looking for a replacement for CO and have been looking at Exposure X4 as a potential replacement. Comparing the two, I have noticed that the CO file with the default settings (Auto curve and Generic D810 profile) requires -20 to look good compared to the X4 rendition.

    Since I wrote that note, I discovered that if I increase the exposure to the file in CO, it diminishes the over saturation but it doesn't really remove it. I discovered that the X4 rendition is a bit brighter than the CO's so perhaps that was the problem. However, overall, I have found since CO11.3 and 12, the saturation in the files has increased. The other thing I noticed was that if I adjust the color temp, it seems to remove the saturation. The X4 did not require any color temp or saturation modifications to look good. Of course I'm focusing on skin tones and nothing else so maybe for other types of photography it works well.

    So far, the X4 image quality is almost as good as CO's and it offers many of the options I have been begging CO over the years to improve such as the watermarking feature, a better brush tool and adding styles as a freebie. To my amazement, they were all in X4.

    I'd like to know if anyone else has the over saturation issue, or if it's only me. Maybe there is a bug in the color temp when opening a file when reading the files color temp.

    Thanks for the responses.

    Paul


    Judging saturation is always difficult as what is oversaturated to one person on their monitor may be viewed differently by another on their monitor. Perhaps post some examples as that would help?

    The other aspect is that colour/saturation is impacted by the tone curve/contrast. This is why C1Pro has the luma curve which allows contrast to be varied without impacting colours. Most raw converters do not have this kind of control and previously you needed to go to PS for example and use luminosity blending.

    There was a thread on DPR about this some time ago and when I looked at the supplied raw file it appeared that the Auto curve was raising saturation. Although it has to be said that when I showed the two images to people everyone preferred the C1default. That is not to say the C1Pro is correct simply that nuances like this are very personal and it could always be down to differences with monitors etc. Try this experiment and see if it sheds any light on the issues you are having. Change the curve under base characteristic from Auto to linear. Then use the Auto adjust button on the top toolbar to set your levels, HDR and Exposure and then tweak the curves/contrast to taste.

    Ian
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="NNN635018233259472077" wrote:
    I'm shooting with a D810 and I'm finding that the files with CO12 are looking more saturated as normal.


    I don't recall any notes for changes in the processing engine between V11.3/V12 compared to V11.2 and earlier.

    And I have not observed the same changes as you have described.

    I'm not processing D810 files but I can't imagine that would have been a factor for change - it's not exactly a new camera these days and I would doubt that it would still be attracting "under the hood" changes for settings and file interpretation.

    If you have older images created with previous versions of C1 using an earlier engine you can open them create a cloned variant and then for the newly created variant update the processing engine to V12 to see if it looks any different. From V11.2 to 11.3 or 12 I would not expect to see much change unless the image has a lot of advanced processing and layers that might have been subject to some sort of tweaking in the processing. (I can't think to which that comment might relate at the moment.) For the layers one could simply turn them off to see if a difference is visible in the background layer.

    Another possible variable to consider would be Windows updates.

    I'm running V7 so nothing much changes. If you are running V10 it's possible that there are more variables to consider.

    Also, do you use Auto settings for exposure, WB, etc. or do you stay with the default results offered on import?


    Grant
    0
  • Paul Spatafora
    Thanks for all the useful suggestions and tips. Frankly, it's just easier to note that there is a change, perceived or not, and work with the files to get the look I'm looking for. Adjusting the saturation to -20 is much faster than sleuthing an issue for Phase One. I have seen changes to the images from one version to another since V7 when I started using CO. Is it me or is it CO? Who knows? I just see it on my calibrated monitor and now I know just to deal with it!

    Thanks for all the help and suggestions.

    Paul
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="NNN635018233259472077" wrote:
    Thanks for all the useful suggestions and tips. Frankly, it's just easier to note that there is a change, perceived or not, and work with the files to get the look I'm looking for. Adjusting the saturation to -20 is much faster than sleuthing an issue for Phase One. I have seen changes to the images from one version to another since V7 when I started using CO. Is it me or is it CO? Who knows? I just see it on my calibrated monitor and now I know just to deal with it!

    Thanks for all the help and suggestions.

    Paul


    If the Engine version changes then that is CO advising that something is different in the way processing is performed and there may be noticeable differences to previously edited images. Which is why the processing engine is not automatically updated for every image opened with a newer version.

    So long as you have a way of dealing with the apparent problem that is all that matters - you are right. Doing a little investigation might help you to identify when you might expect to apply certain changes and when they are unlikely to be needed. Of course there may be other approaches to the perceived problem. Saturation alone seems like an odd thing to be a cause of a processing anomaly from one version to another.

    Calibrated monitors are only one part of a long chain of variables in a processing system. Are you running at the same brightness that you have always used?

    Grant
    0
  • Paul Spatafora
    Paul[/quote]
    Calibrated monitors are only one part of a long chain of variables in a processing system. Are you running at the same brightness that you have always used?
    Grant[/quote]

    Hi Grant,

    I have a i1Display Pro to calibrate all my monitors and laptop to 120 Cd/m2. I feel confident that my monitors are calibrated properly. They are calibrated to a wide gamut color profile. Both my monitors are Adobe 1998 color space. My 4K laptop is sRGB color space.

    In my journey to potentially replace CO this year, I have discovered how raw converters open my "old" D810 camera files. It's been an interesting journey of discovery. I've learned that each raw converter addresses the files differently, and I would have to adjust my workflow no matter what. If CO didn't piss me off so much by charging me double the cost and giving me nothing in return, I wouldn't have discovered this.

    Anyways, CO is still my preferred converter for this year, and then I'll see what happens to Alien Skin Exposure. If CO actually looks at it's competition and see what tools everyday photographers need, and maybe they'll actually throw resources to truly update it,and catch up to the competition. There's lots of good raw converters now out there to choose from.

    Best Regards,

    Paul
    0
  • Peter Brockhausen
    [quote="NNN635018233259472077" wrote:
    If CO actually looks at it's competition and see what tools everyday photographers need, and maybe they'll actually throw resources to truly update it,and catch up to the competition.


    That statement makes me smile...
    For their target group, CO1 is the best raw converter on the market, I think. I won't say that it can't even be better.
    Or do you know a raw converter which is better for tethered shooting, studio work, medium format Phase One cameras, etc. ...

    They don't want to be "THE" Lightroom or Aperture replacement - like On1 or Skylum claim e.g. I have never read this by Phase One, may be I missed it.

    And may be, your are just not part of the target group? That is nothing which is good or bad. At some point, when on has realized this, one should look for something different. Good luck!

    --peter
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="NNN635018233259472077" wrote:
    There's lots of good raw converters now out there to choose from.



    Maybe so but if one looks at camera sales other than those included with mobile devices, it may be that there are fewer and fewer people interested in the converters.

    My kids bought decent Canon consumer dSLRs a few years ago. They only ever use their phone cameras.

    I don't think they are unrepresentative of the market. And of course it was pretty much like that in the days of film. Many cameras sold rarely saw film (or rarely saw a new film loaded.)


    Grant
    0
  • Paul Spatafora
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    [quote="NNN635018233259472077" wrote:
    There's lots of good raw converters now out there to choose from.



    Maybe so but if one looks at camera sales other than those included with mobile devices, it may be that there are fewer and fewer people interested in the converters.

    My kids bought decent Canon consumer dSLRs a few years ago. They only ever use their phone cameras.

    I don't think they are unrepresentative of the market. And of course it was pretty much like that in the days of film. Many cameras sold rarely saw film (or rarely saw a new film loaded.)


    Grant

    Hi Grant,

    I completely agree with your assessment. My kids are the same. Even I use my camera phone for quickie moments and then get made because the image quality sucks. I enjoyed taking photos with my compact 110 camera too.

    Paul
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="NNN635018233259472077" wrote:
    Please let me know if anyone else is running into this issue.

    Yep - some of us have been complaining about it for years.

    Try a profile from an older camera - there's definitely a trend that "newer" (in relative terms) camera profiles are far more biased to overly warm than the profiles from older bodies.

    Try the D700 profile, say.
    0
  • Paul Spatafora
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    [quote="NNN635018233259472077" wrote:
    Please let me know if anyone else is running into this issue.

    Yep - some of us have been complaining about it for years.

    Try a profile from an older camera - there's definitely a trend that "newer" (in relative terms) camera profiles are far more biased to overly warm than the profiles from older bodies.

    Try the D700 profile, say.


    Hi Keith,

    WOW! I'm not imagining this issue! It's nice to see that Phase One is listening to the voice of the customer. You've only been asking for this several years? I've been asking for an update for the Watermark tool since V7. Wonder how long that is? I wonder which customers Phase One is listening too?

    I'll try to use a different profile and see how it goes. More importantly, is there a way for me to modify a CO profile and save it for myself for use with my workflow. Really, I want to take the D810 profile and make it -20 saturation. That would solve my problem.

    Any advise would be great!

    Paul
    0
  • SFA
    Paul,

    As an example using the Exposure tool ...

    Change your Saturation to the level you feel you usually need to adjust by.

    Click on the "..." symbol in the top right corner of the tool.

    Then select "Save as defaults for ...."

    C1 will then use those values whenever you import images from that camera.

    If you don't want to reset the Defaults click on the symbol to the left of the 3 dots and save as a Preset.

    You can then load the preset by default whenever you import a RAW file from the camera.

    Or for more flexibility when editing you could add the preset as a Layer when editing.

    I suspect you might get even better results adjusting a few other tools and the saving the whole lot as a "Style" but we can come back to that later if you want to.


    HTH.


    Grant
    0
  • C-M-B
    Hi Paul!

    You could get something like a Colourchecker Passport and create your own profiles - or maybe a different Curve would be a solution for you?

    For my PhaseOne Back I've found that "outdoor portrait" curve delivers much more neutral colours than the "Fash v2" curve - even though I'm using it for flash photography in a studio.
    0
  • Ian Wilson
    The trouble is that there are not so many curves for most cameras.

    Ian
    0
  • Paul Spatafora
    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:
    Hi Paul!

    You could get something like a Colourchecker Passport and create your own profiles - or maybe a different Curve would be a solution for you?

    For my PhaseOne Back I've found that "outdoor portrait" curve delivers much more neutral colours than the "Fash v2" curve - even though I'm using it for flash photography in a studio.


    HI C-M-B,

    I figured out how to generate the ICC with with X-Rite passport, but I'm not entirely sure how to use it after it's done. In the Color panel I select the new ICC in the Base Characteristics ICC Profile drop down box, but do I leave the Curve section to Auto or Linear? Also, do I leave the White Balance to Shot or something else?

    One more thing, can I adjust the exposure in the color checker file before I create the TIFF? For example, let's say I over or under exposure the color checker and make the corrections in CO before exporting the image. Will that affect the overall look and accuracy of the ICC?

    There are few profiles to choose from for the D810. The option to set default settings with my own adjustments might be the best option. I've set a preset and I'll see if that will work.

    That's for the advice.

    Paul
    0
  • C-M-B
    Well White Balance naturally depends on your light, so change it to whater suits your light source (and the final image) best.

    Same goes for the curve - genereally "Auto" should be the most usefull or at least a good starting point.

    I think slight exposure variations aren't really that big of a deal - but I'd say just try and see whether you like the results. Experiment.

    As long as your own profile delivers a better result and you can work with that's, you'll be alright
    0
  • Paul Spatafora
    In my pursuit of my on going efforts to figure out why all my D810 files look over saturated I think I may have found the solution. I downloaded a few photos today and there again the over saturation. I was fooling around with some alternate profiles and on a fluke, I chose No Color Correction and the curve to Auto. The Skin tones were perfect!!!!! I couldn't believe it!

    Question, why selecting No Color Correction or Color View resolve this issue. Can Phase One address this question? What does No Color Correction actually do? I'm going to do more research on this but it looks like the solution to my issue.

    Thought I'd share.

    Paul
    0
  • Ian Wilson
    [quote="NNN635018233259472077" wrote:
    In my pursuit of my on going efforts to figure out why all my D810 files look over saturated I think I may have found the solution. I downloaded a few photos today and there again the over saturation. I was fooling around with some alternate profiles and on a fluke, I chose No Color Correction and the curve to Auto. The Skin tones were perfect!!!!! I couldn't believe it!

    Question, why selecting No Color Correction or Color View resolve this issue. Can Phase One address this question? What does No Color Correction actually do? I'm going to do more research on this but it looks like the solution to my issue.

    Thought I'd share.

    Paul

    Does this thread from a while back help explain?



    Ian
    0
  • Paul Spatafora
    [quote="Ian3" wrote:
    [quote="NNN635018233259472077" wrote:
    In my pursuit of my on going efforts to figure out why all my D810 files look over saturated I think I may have found the solution. I downloaded a few photos today and there again the over saturation. I was fooling around with some alternate profiles and on a fluke, I chose No Color Correction and the curve to Auto. The Skin tones were perfect!!!!! I couldn't believe it!

    Question, why selecting No Color Correction or Color View resolve this issue. Can Phase One address this question? What does No Color Correction actually do? I'm going to do more research on this but it looks like the solution to my issue.

    Thought I'd share.

    Paul

    Does this thread from a while back help explain?



    Ian

    Hi Ian,

    Thanks for the link! That was an awesome thread and explained about the color management pipeline within CO.

    Sadly, that really doesn't resolve the issue of over saturation that I'm experiencing, but clearly explains the rationale behind using CO and using the base characteristic profiles. I've gone through all the Nikon profiles to see which one I liked the best, but I think I'm going to create a Style for my files and see if I can come up with one that works for me. Currently, the CO profile for the generic D810 is too saturated. My clients expect something normal or neutral and not what CO thinks is best. I wish CO would put out a profile that is less dramatic and allow us to add what we think is our look.

    Thanks for digging that one up, very informative.

    Paul
    0
  • Ian Wilson
    Can you not create a preset that reduces saturation by, say, 15%, and apply that on import automatically?

    Ian

    Edited to add: or go to an image taken with the camera in question, reduce saturation by the desired amount, -15%, -20% or whatever, then click the ... on the exposure tool and choose set as default for [your camera name her].
    0
  • Paul Spatafora
    [quote="Ian3" wrote:
    Can you not create a preset that reduces saturation by, say, 15%, and apply that on import automatically?

    Ian

    Edited to add: or go to an image taken with the camera in question, reduce saturation by the desired amount, -15%, -20% or whatever, then click the ... on the exposure tool and choose set as default for [your camera name her].


    Hi Ian,

    Those two ideas to import my files with a preset is an awesome idea! I figured out how to do it too! I didn't know that I could do that at import. I will try and see it that technique works for me. I definitely want my workflow to be properly color managed.

    Thanks for the help.

    Paul
    0

Vous devez vous connecter pour laisser un commentaire.