Histogram conflicts with PS and 'over-tweaking'
Hadn't noticed this before as I rarely go into Photoshop(PS) these days, but I've had to to do some complex post and noticed that the image in C1 looks nice and crisp with a good histogram, but once it gets converted to TIFF and opened in PS, the histogram invariably requires some work to reduce the tonal flatness of the image, namely applying a small, but nonetheless impactful S in the curve.
Am I doing something wrong in the export, is Photoshop coded to read images overly flat?
I have to say I am kind of OK about this as I'd rather send a client an image he/she can 'bump' the contrast in (additive?), rather than one he/she has to flatten (subtractive?), but most of my clients are designers and they understand this. But if I am supplying images to an archive for a client, to be used as a pool of imagery that can be drawn on by people who do not know to apply changes to suit their production needs, should I do a general 'tweak' to get them somewhere near a good looking file for general output purposes?
If so this is gong to be a drag as it will require me to output everything through PS to do the tweak. I don't want to do that. Should I then 'over-tweak' the C1 output to compensate (but knowing this is essentially a 'blind' adjustment), or is there something more readable that I can do.
Any thoughts?
I use an Eizo ColorEdge CG275W monitor that calibrates itself with the usual Swedish efficiency.
The output setting on this current edit are set at:
16bit
up-resed to 120%
sharpening set to (from the top) 180-0.8-1.0
histogram is analysed and adjusted for clipping and mid tone balance to my eye, on this monitor before and after adjustments
output ICC profile is Adobe RGB (1998)
Am I doing something wrong in the export, is Photoshop coded to read images overly flat?
I have to say I am kind of OK about this as I'd rather send a client an image he/she can 'bump' the contrast in (additive?), rather than one he/she has to flatten (subtractive?), but most of my clients are designers and they understand this. But if I am supplying images to an archive for a client, to be used as a pool of imagery that can be drawn on by people who do not know to apply changes to suit their production needs, should I do a general 'tweak' to get them somewhere near a good looking file for general output purposes?
If so this is gong to be a drag as it will require me to output everything through PS to do the tweak. I don't want to do that. Should I then 'over-tweak' the C1 output to compensate (but knowing this is essentially a 'blind' adjustment), or is there something more readable that I can do.
Any thoughts?
I use an Eizo ColorEdge CG275W monitor that calibrates itself with the usual Swedish efficiency.
The output setting on this current edit are set at:
16bit
up-resed to 120%
sharpening set to (from the top) 180-0.8-1.0
histogram is analysed and adjusted for clipping and mid tone balance to my eye, on this monitor before and after adjustments
output ICC profile is Adobe RGB (1998)
0
-
and what are your "Color Settings" in PS ? How you do the output is just a half of the story - the other half is what PS does on input 0 -
And have you not, even if I think that this wouldn't be enough, disable the sharpening on your recipe?
Since you up-resed to 120%...
But if this happens every time, it should not be this...0 -
Hi Thanks for the speedy responses.
Interestingly, if I look at the C1 histogram it shows a similar curve to PS, with a small gap in the dark end, but if i increase the contrast to get detail into this gap, the picture starts to look decidedly odd, far too contrasty. But looks better in PS, however there IS still a gap in the black end, where this is none in C1.
@NN2370000UL: The colour settings in PS are the same as the output (Adobe RGB (1998)), and
@deejjjaaaa: I didn't think there was enough sharpening to affect the image, although I am happy to be told that it's best to turn it off/down.0 -
Normally I would turn down the accentuation sometimes when processing jpeg, if the accentuation combined with the jpeg compression is affecting the quality of the picture.
What is your size of preview in Capture One?0 -
Hi nn[...]
the preview size is 2560.
I'm not exporting to JPGs though, just TIFF in they instance (well, nearly every instance except when I include a lo res JPG for the designers to work with as a proxy image thats easier to handle in the design, or for editing and/or presentation purposes where the quality is not necessarily a factor).
I have to say this issue is self propelled. I've never had an image commented on as 'a bit flat', although when asked once, a designer told me all he ever did with my images was adjust the 'levels'.0 -
Hi John, cannot change my name for now... but I will!
What I thought, when I asked you your preview size, was that maybe you had a small preview size and that you had a screen render a bit more contrasty than the tiff you processed after. But with 2560 it shouldn't be the case.0 -
Hi
I got it resolved, I changed the colour setting in Photoshop, to see what happened, which was nothing better, until I turned it back to Adobe1998 and all of a sudden it was absolutely bang on, so much so that when the image opened in PS, the same size as it was in C1, I didn't realise immediately that it was the PS version, it was so identical.
I guess there was a glitch in PS.
All good now, I can go back to my workflow that excludes PS except in rare cases when I need to do tasks C1 isn't built for.
Thanks for the pointer to Color setting in PS. That eventually led me to a solution.
cheers0
投稿コメントは受け付けていません。
コメント
7件のコメント