Critique for skin tone adjustment

[Bev Sampson]

I have two photos that represent most of my problems with skin tone as shot in mixed light with flash. The subjects that I am working with are older, overly tanned. In some instances, the couple in the photos have two different skin tones and both need correcting. I have tried various RAW converters and would like expert advise as to whether a suitable correction is even possible.

May I post two images in this form added to this thread? I have the RAW but would prefer to post a converted tiff or jpg because the RAW needed slight rotation. tiff files are approaching 40 MB each.

I would be interested in seeing what the experts could do using various RAW converters and tone corrections. I have access to PSCS ACR (not 2), bbPRO, DPP 2.2, and the trial version of RSP.

Bev

[StuartRae]

I would be interested in seeing what the experts could do using various RAW converters

Bev,

In that case you will have to provide the RAW file(s). As well as being much smaller than the TIFFs, it's better to do WB, EC, etc. in the RAW converter. (Just my opinion - I'm by no means an expert).

Regards,

Stuart

[Bev Sampson]

Bev,

In that case you will have to provide the RAW file(s). As well as being much smaller than the TIFFs, it's better to do WB, EC, etc. in the RAW converter. (Just my opinion - I'm by no means an expert).

Regards,

Stuart

This is true Stuart. What was I thinking. What if I provide the tiff or jpg and ask what can be done in PS. I am reluctant to provide RAW because I am embarrassed to show how I had to rotate the RAW. I must have had too much wine that evening. Fact is that the RV park likes me to photograph their parties and events indoors. I am willing but need to spend so much time correcting skin tones that I am likely to say no to them this year.

Bev

[Don Lashier]

I agree - RAW please. Often WB is the best way to get skintone correct. Don't worry about a tipsy shot - I've taken plenty even when not tipsy (and I even bought the focus screen with lines).

- DL

[Bev Sampson]

I agree - RAW please. Often WB is the best way to get skintone correct. Don't worry about a tipsy shot - I've taken plenty even when not tipsy (and I even bought the focus screen with lines).

- DL

I have never uploaded a RAW image. I don't think I can upload to pbase to create a link. Can I direct link to the file on my harddrive?

Bev

[Don Lashier]

I have never uploaded a RAW image. I don't think I can upload to pbase to create a link. Can I direct link to the file on my harddrive?

Bev
Not unless you're running a web server and have a public IP. If you send it to me I'll host it for you.

If your ISP allows big emails, send it to dl at newportnet dot com and I'll host it for you.

or my website has a file upload facility http://www.lashier.com/home.cfm?dir_cat=35877 (http://www.lashier.com/home.cfm?dir_cat=35877)
Login with your email address and password "upload". I haven't used it in a while - hopefully it still works.

ps: just tried file upload and it still works.

- DL

[Bev Sampson]

OK Don, it's uploaded. Thanks Bev

[Don Lashier]

OK Don, it's uploaded. Thanks Bev

Great, the raw file is available at http://www.lashier.com/images/temp/_bevsampson.cr2 (http://www.lashier.com/images/temp/_bevsampson.cr2). I won't leave it up forever (unless you want me to), but probably a couple weeks?

- DL

[Asher Kelman]

Bev,

I'm so pleased you discovered this issue. It's one of the most annoying things in trying to fast process shots taken at a social event. Some elderly ladies seem to use fluorescent powder from 1837!

Asher

[Bev Sampson]

Great, the raw file is available at http://www.lashier.com/images/temp/_bevsampson.cr2 (http://www.lashier.com/images/temp/_bevsampson.cr2). I won't leave it up forever (unless you want me to), but probably a couple weeks?

- DL

Thanks Don. I think that until this coming Sunday or Monday should do it. Anyone who wants to try improving it will probably do it by then. All suggestions will be very much appreciated.

[Asher Kelman]

Bev,

I think we need it rather longer. People tend to hold back until they see what is already contributed. Some like to gauge what they have to offer according to what has already been posted.

So let it float for now and we'll deal with it when it is appropriate! :)

Asher

[Don Lashier]

Ok, here's a quick fix using both WB and tonality, all done in C1. Unadjusted shot to right, adjustments I made listed below. Note that it's not ideal to present the two shots next to each other as they bias one another (I've moved them a bit apart).

http://www.lashier.com/images/temp/_bevsampson-5.jpg . . . . . . . . . . . . . http://www.lashier.com/images/temp/_bevsampson-1.jpg

CaptureOne

WB 4700K/8 - as shot was 5550K/7, there is room to play with this depending upon the look you want.

EC -0.15, CC 0, CS -3.0%, WP set at 210 in levels.

- DL

[Bev Sampson]

Bev,

I think we need it rather longer. People tend to hold back until they see what is already contributed. Some like to gauge what they have to offer according to what has already been posted.

So let it float for now and we'll deal with it when it is appropriate! :)

Asher

OK Asher.

Bev

[Asher Kelman]

Don's version is obviously a great inprovement.

Still, on my 15" Apple monitor there's a cyan-blue hue. I'll recheck it with a claibrated monitor, but Bev, what was the color of the lady's sweater? If it is white, I'd try color correcting to that, or else to the pants, the white of the eyes and see which looks best.

This shows the benefit of a little pocket WhiBal or gray card. Never leave home without it.

Asher

[Diane Fields]

I can't contribute much here since I'm in Maine on laptop and wouldn't even attempt anything on it. I don't think you said what camera. I know that Ron Purdy, a pro doing fashion shooting, really likes DPP best for skin tones (Canon 5D and 1DsMkII). Now--I don't know what/how he's doing it---but they DO look good--and his clients love them. Personally, I don't use DPP but I rarely shoot people. Don's certainly look better on this laptop monitor (calibrated--sort of LOL--you know laptops). Someone else's work to look at is Steven Eastwood--now that's who you need to ask--if anyone knows, he surely does.

Diane

[Don Lashier]

Still, on my 15" Apple monitor there's a cyan-blue hue. I'll recheck it with a claibrated monitor, but Bev, what was the color of the lady's sweater? If it is white, I'd try color correcting to that, or else to the pants, the white of the eyes and see which looks best.

I see the cyan-blue sweater on my uncalibrated LCD at work also, it was much slighter on my calibrated CRT where I did the work. I perhaps over-cooled the WB a bit. Another approach would be to cool less but desaturate more.

Actually, on this LCD the uncorrected one looks much better than on my calibrated CRT, and even in the uncorrected shot I see blue/green in the sweater shadows. Was this perhaps mixed lighting?

- DL

[StuartRae]

I must admit to dislike photographing people - anyone who wanders into one of my shots has to take their chance.

The following were all converted with RSP without any PP except resizing.

I used the Color Engine lo-sat profile as it's supposed to be kinder for skin tones.

The major setting was in line with an intersting technique suggested by one the many Steves who inhabit the RS forums - lower Saturation to -98 and increase Vibrance.

So the RSP settings were EC +1.2; SC +23; HC -30; Sat -98; Vib +16.

The next problem is what to WB on?

The first shot is WB'd on the gentleman's right eye (usually a good choice)
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/sw.rae/examples/bev-1.jpg

[Edit] And a gentle negative contrast curve.

The second is WB's on the gentleman's teeth.
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/sw.rae/examples/bev-2.jpg

The third is WB's on the lady's neck strap.
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/sw.rae/examples/bev-3.jpg

Stuart

[Edit] Forgot to mention a gentle negative contrast curve

[Bev Sampson]

I see the cyan-blue sweater on my uncalibrated LCD at work also, it was much slighter on my calibrated CRT where I did the work. I perhaps over-cooled the WB a bit. Another approach would be to cool less but desaturate more.

Actually, on this LCD the uncorrected one looks much better than on my calibrated CRT, and even in the uncorrected shot I see blue/green in the sweater shadows. Was this perhaps mixed lighting?

- DL

I see the blue cast also as compared to my original. But in my RAW file, the sweater did not photograph completely white. In ACR and also DPP, this RAW has a cyan/slight blue cast to the sweater.

Yes, mixed lighting and flash. I think there was a flourescent light directly above. This was shot with Canon 1DMKII and the newish Canon 24-105 F4 lens. My 1DII is one of the first produced and files, before any USM, taken with this camera are very soft as compared to my D60.

I was surprised to note that I had shot this image at F4. I should have used a smaller F stop to get more DOF so that both figures would be in better focus. I usually do use at least F8 but had the camera set up for later when the dancing began in a mostly darken setting, hoping that the larger F stop would extend the flash light a little further. I am not concerned about the skill quality of the photo but I am seeking a better workflow for all people pictures to gain more accurate skin tones. It seems to me that DSLRs do not do as well as film for people.

Bev

[Don Lashier]

Yes, mixed lighting and flash. I think there was a flourescent light directly above.

That's what's causing the problem - in particular the flourescent is adding a green cast, picked up mostly on the white clothing. When I get home I'll try a follow-up PS adjustment (masked) or dual (different WB) conversion.

- DL

[Asher Kelman]

Bev,

I would not worry about f 4.0, fine for this. Focus on her eyes. Focus is not the issue.

I always try hard to use a grey reference and process in Adobe RAW and generally all is fine. If possible go round the room and take 3, 4, 10 reference pictures for each part of the room. It takes all of 2 minutes but will save 100 times more. Better, I have them hold the card by a face. How simple!

I group shots according to part of the room in iview media pro, then open each group in Photoshop via Adobe RAW and adjust one perfectly and apply that to all of them.

Stuart,

Who said you aren't a whiz? The first attempt looks the most human! I like it. This is an endorsement for RSP and your practice with landscapes!

Asher

[Stefan Hellstrom]

My trial

The first one DxO V4 beta2: WB on lady's neck strap, +5deg Hue, Lighting at "Slight"
http://static.flickr.com/91/248622914_603000a6cb_o.jpg

The scond one SP 2: WB on lady's neck strap, Auto exp, Portrait 3 color profile
http://static.flickr.com/98/248622913_3fb1c47abf_o.jpg

/Stefan Hellstrom

[Don Lashier]

Ok, here's a retry mainly using desaturation rather than WB change. Again all done in C1:
EC -0.10, CC 0 WB 5500K/10 (on sweater), Sat -8.5%, WP set at 214
Note that the WB is almost exactly as shot, just a slight tint change.
Mixed lighting didn't turn out to be a problem afterall although that may be what threw the Camera AWB off a bit.

http://www.lashier.com/images/temp/_bevsampson-6.jpg

- DL

[Dierk Haasis]

I have just opened the original and have a few questions, specifically after considering the very differing results posted:

1. Do we want those people to look like they look or rather flatter them?
2. From what I see both wear light blue shirts; is this correct or have they been white [which would still mean a slight blue haze]?
3. Are the letters on the wall decoration white??

[Don Lashier]

2. From what I see both wear light blue shirts; is this correct or have they been white [which would still mean a slight blue haze]?
That's a question we've all been pondering. Initially I thought they both were pehaps a bit blue (which threw off AWB) but now believe the sweater is white. The gentleman's shirt I believe is very slightly blue, if nothing else from OB's.

I assume you usually want people pics to flatter. Usually this means warming the WB a bit as below.
Warm Version: EC -0.10, CC -5 WB 6100K/12, Sat -9%, WP set at 217
Note that all these settings interact and you can't change one in isolation.

http://www.lashier.com/images/temp/_bevsampson-7.jpg

- DL

[Asher Kelman]

Dierk,

Until Bev answers otherwise, one can reasonably assume that doe a social event, the people want to look great, and always like to be flattered but still not too much of a lie that it is obviously off track.

IOW, they want to look good, but realize you can't change the shape of their noses, but the metallic look, certainly, they don't want. According to Bev, the sweater had a slight blue hue perhaps.

The wood paneling behind should look like wood and not be anemic. The letters behind, I don't think are at this time critical, just keep near white I'd think would be great.

The emphasis is on a workflow that Bev might apply in future to similar situations. So it is not necessary to remove wrinkles etc.

This, BTW, is not an uncommon problem, to find several people with weird colors in an otherwise normally populated social event!

Asher

[Don Lashier]

I think another point to keep in mind is that (except perhaps for product photography) there is no single "correct" white balance. Under typical indoor (incadescent) lighting, things have a warm look, and even though flash may give a more neutral light it sometimes works to adjust WB warmer to provide the expected, less artificial, look.

My last example above is 500 degrees above apparant "true" WB. Here's an example of a shot adjusted up over 5000 degrees (http://www.lashier.com/home.cfm?dir_cat=27480) above "true" (note the "white" background).

- DL

[Dierk Haasis]

OK, here's my try, done a few things to get off the impression there's a deep colour cast [there isn't]. The main problem arises from a very uneven lighting due to the couple standing in a corner - look for the colour differences due to strongly varying luminance values in the two St. Patrick's gold pots. Another problem is the blue shirt and sweater, but if you look closely at the eyes, the teeth and the writing on the wall [I apologise to all religious people for this hollow pun, particularly Muslims].

I am very sure the attire is definitely not whitze, partially from other hints in the image [see above], and from my experience - people that age, class and awareness (of their own appearance) tend to avoid white but very often prefer light blue. Aczially the most often stay away from strong colours, going for slightly off or very light hues.


http://Foto.Write4U.de/Forum/OPF/bevsampson_corr.jpg

What I did in LightZone [there's several minor points that still need tweaking]:

0. LZ opens the RAW file with adjustments to the contrast and, in this case, a slight saturation boost.

1. Using the WB tool [called colour cast] I got rid of a slight greenish tinge that was in the photo. This greenish tint is due to the prominence of reddish-yello in the wall, the faces and through the man's shirt.

2. Using a ZoneMapper the overall contrast gets enhanced.

3. A ToneMapper [= contrast mask] gets some detail out of the man's trousers.

4. The midtones get a saturation boost, partly to enhance the [fresh] brown of the teint, partly to boost the green and gold in the pots [you need them or the photo has no counterpart].

5. Another ZoneMapper lightens the background to get rid of superfluous detail, change the colour slightly to a more friendly tone, and to extract the couple from the background. This boost gets rid of the perception of a cast much more than anything else I did.

6. The last ZoneMapper brightens the flashlight shadows.

7. Crop and rotate.

[StuartRae]

If I might be allowed to post one more effort, I'd like to make the following points:

1. I believe that there is some blue in the man's shirt. WB on the white of the eye seems to give the best overall colour. WB on the lady's top makes the pale green background of the St. Patrick's plaque too yellow. The top looks blue in parts because of reflection from the shirt.

2. If I apply a dose of the Shadow Illuminator plugin, I discover that the man's trousers are grey rather than black. It also brings out details in the lady's hair and the man's belt and watch strap.

3. The ugly part of the picture is the reflection on the lady's forehead and chin. Nothing I can do gets rid of it completely.

4. Sharpening doesn't do any favours to the skin texture, but I applied Focus Magic with a radius of 1 just to help with the softness introduced by downsampling.

RSP has a mind of its own when it comes to reporting WB settings - for similar renditions it never even closely matches those from other RCs.
For what it's worth, the WB on the man's eye is 4350/-4.

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/sw.rae/examples/bev-5.jpg

That's it - I promise I'll stop now :>)

Stuart

--------------------------
Edited to mention sharpening

[Bev Sampson]

Ok, here's a retry mainly using desaturation rather than WB change. Again all done in C1:
EC -0.10, CC 0 WB 5500K/10 (on sweater), Sat -8.5%, WP set at 214
Note that the WB is almost exactly as shot, just a slight tint change.
Mixed lighting didn't turn out to be a problem afterall although that may be what threw the Camera AWB off a bit.

http://www.lashier.com/images/temp/_bevsampson-6.jpg

- DL

Don, thank you. Here is the correction that I originally made back in March. Originally converted as tiff and I just reduced to jpg to show here. I think your rendition and mine are sort of similar.

http://www.pbase.com/image/67256363.jpg

I normally only correct exposure in RAW and make contrast, WB temp., sat., crop, straighten (a common problem with me) and sharpen in PSCS. I did not get the sweater white as you did. What do you think? I did, in my original editing back in March, correct the shine on both faces but that is not related to my original question relative to correcting skin tone. Bev

[Bev Sampson]

"" Aczially the most often stay away from strong colours, going for slightly off or very light hues.
""

Dierk, I agree and that is certainly true in my case. However these snowbirds in FL can be a slightly wild bunch in retirement. The sweater was white. Thank you for your contribution.

[Bev Sampson]

Stuart, you have pointed out some things that I was not aware of. I am a serious amateur and not a pro. So I appreciate your knowledge.

""1. I believe that there is some blue in the man's shirt. WB on the white of the eye seems to give the best overall colour. WB on the lady's top makes the pale green background of the St. Patrick's plaque too yellow. The top looks blue in parts because of reflection from the shirt.""

I must admit that I have never been very successful using the WB pointer. I had never thought to use the white of the eye. Thank you.

""3. The ugly part of the picture is the reflection on the lady's forehead and chin. Nothing I can do gets rid of it completely.""

This really helped. Being an amateur, I could not figure out why there was so much shine. My shooting technique (or lack of it) was the culprit. I had a stofen omnibounce on the flash with the flash position in the normal 90 degree angle. The shine was caused by that setup. If bouncing from the ceiling or nearby wall is not feasible, I am wondering if my small Lumiquest Big Bounce softbox mounted on the flash would have been better. The Omnibounce was on to help spread the light later during the dancing. I did manually remove some of the shine in PS. See photo above in response to Don.

""4. Sharpening doesn't do any favours to the skin texture, but I applied Focus Magic with a radius of 1 just to help with the softness introduced by downsampling.""

This looks very nice. I personally am not a fan of deep taning. But that is my preference and I always try to make my photos as close to real life as possible, understanding that those that have deep tans personally like the look.

In this rec. hall, there is never enough room to set up an umbrella or larger softbox. I do not like to be too conspicuous so I use just the camera with IS lens and whatever deflector will mount on the flash.

Thank you again and if you have any more comments, I will appreciate reading them. Bev

[StuartRae]

I am a serious amateur and not a pro. So I appreciate your knowledge.

Bev,

No-one here is more of an amateur than I am :-) And as I pointed out earlier, I very rarely make portrait shots, so this was a great opportunity for me to try out a few things I've seen mentioned, like the RSP Sat/Vib for skin tones.

One thing I've learned though is that it's best to do WB as early as possible in the Raw Converter. Once you've 'set' the wrong colours it's very difficult to get them right again. I believe that PP is much easier if you've got an accurate starting point.

The white of the eye tip was something I picked up in the RS forums. Preferably for digital photos it's best to have a light neutral grey rather than white, but if all else fails.......... BTW, the grey in the man's hair gave a very similar WB to the eye.

I'm hardly in a position to preach advice, but have you considered using something like a WhiBal grey card? If you just shoot the card under the lighting conditions prevalent at the time you'll at least have a fairly reliable reference for WB.

................ and I always try to make my photos as close to real life as possible

That's the problem I'm having - I wasn't there, so I'm guessing about the true colours. I would imagine the tan was deeper than I've made it. That's fixed by upping the sat. in RSP.

Regards,

Stuart

[Dierk Haasis]

The sweater was white.

Interesting, particularly when you look at those parts in the image - see my rendition and what I describe - that can be pinned down, like white of the eye or teeth's colour, are alright while the jumper is still blue [enhanced though]. Either the lighting was very mixed oryour memory, perhaps perception, plays tricks?!*

It doesn't really matter since a colour-true rendition [whatever that is] would render people ... unflatteringly.



*Do you wash your jumper with brighteners?

[Don Lashier]

Don, thank you. Here is the correction that I originally made back in March. Originally converted as tiff and I just reduced to jpg to show here. I think your rendition and mine are sort of similar.

Yes, they are nearly identical wrt color and tonality, especially if you desaturate mine a bit more. For portrait type shots I generally prefer a little warmer WB than "true" as in this example (http://www.lashier.com/home.cfm?dir_cat=26101) (not my image). I agree with Stuart that it's much easier to get the basic look in the RC via WB/saturation and tonality controls than it is to fixup later in PS.

- DL

[Stefan Hellstrom]

*Do you wash your jumper with brighteners?

I did some washing of the jumper and the shirt for my above DxO version:
PS -> LightMachine plugin -> pre set color filter, blue to white

http://static.flickr.com/83/249259049_23719ccae8_o.jpg

LightMachine has a number of pre set filter for cleaning up surfaces that are close to white, very usefull sometimes. The color of the shirt is now a lie but the jumper I guess is close to the truth.

/Stefan Hellstrom

[Asher Kelman]

What is it about these pictures that makes the skin look metallic?

Stuart seems to have escaped it to a fair degree.

But what is the cause?

If anyone can get rid of it I'll be impressed!

Asher

[Dierk Haasis]

How about this:

http://foto.write4u.de/Forum/OPF/bevsampson2.jpg

He jumper is now white as asked for [not becoming], the teint has been adjusted to dampen the harsh reflections and make it less natural looking [in a technique I call flat ironing].

[Tim Armes]

What is it about these pictures that makes the skin look metallic?
Asher

Are you referring to the direct flash?

[Asher Kelman]

Tim, I'm referring to the look of the skin like oil floating on water giving iridescant colors or a blow torch on a piece of brass simialr colors. It is like a lot of pseudo colors are in the file, perhaps from the mixed lighting.

For all the effort, as good as they are, this file is proving difficult.

Probably the thing to do in this circumstance is to have a poweful flash and overwhelm everything.

I haven't as yet had time to spend on the file, but apart from Stuart's pictures the people do not look very healthy and there is to my mind no easy solution to Bev's question yet.

This is a tough job!

[Tim Armes]

Tim, I'm referring to the look of the skin like oil floating on water giving iridescant colors or a blow torch on a piece of brass simialr colors. It is like a lot of pseudo colors are in the file, perhaps from the mixed lighting.

For all the effort, as good as they are, this file is proving difficult.

Probably the thing to do in this circumstance is to have a poweful flash and overwhelm everything.

I haven't as yet had time to spend on the file, but apart from Stuart's pictures the people do not look very healthy and there is to my mind no easy solution to Bev's question yet.

This is a tough job!
Yes. There's a reason that it's hard to remove, and you've already stated it.

This photo contains mixed lighting. The ambient light is florescent and the flash is dalylight balanced. The flash isn't overpowering the ambient, and the result is a odd mix of light that's proving impossible to remove in Photoshop.

The proof of this lies on her jumper. If we use that to determine he white point then we find that the white point changes considerable depending on the point chosen. The flash has had more effect in the middle of the photo than at the bottom.

Furthermore, the direct flash is making the problem worse since it's causing unsightly highlights on their faces.

Here's my attempt:

http://www.timothyarmes.com/OPF/BevSampson1.jpg

Note that I've only worked on the lady's face. I similar process would need to be done on the gentleman since the colour balance isn't even across the two faces.

Workflow:

1) From the RAW file, I chose a white balance based on the middle of the jumper.

2) I converted the result to CYMK and analysed a few points on the womans face. There was more yellow than magenta than cyan, which is correct, but there was far too much of each, resulting in very red faces. I reduced them to more normal values using a curves adjustment layer.

3) I created a mask to only appy this layer to the skin

4)I converted the result back to RGB.

5) I created another layer and painted over the overexposed areas using colours from just outside each area. I then changed the blend-if mode for this layer to only apply the "paint" over the highlights. Then I reduced the opacity of this layer and added a little noise to it.

5) I lightened the eyes and teeth a little.

For better results, Bev, you should do the following:

1) Use a coloured gel over your flash to convert the daylight flash colour to that of the ambient light.

2) Don't use a direct flash. Bounce it off a wall to give a better modelling light.

Here's a couple of sites that explains it all:

http://www.planetneil.com/faq/flash-techniques.html
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html

Tim

[Dierk Haasis]

[...] but apart from Stuart's pictures the people do not look very healthy [...]

I disagree. Either we have very different monitors, totally out of sync with any colour profile ....

Both subjects have a very tanned look, not easily photographed, particularly towards white [or very light-coloured] attire; the rather dark wood panelling and trousers further complicate lighting. Nevertheless, bleaching may be alright for Michael Jackson but not for these two - they don't look very good, for instance, in Stuarts work-out . Changing the brightness of the skin too much simply blows out highlight and even moderately light skin patches, as can be seen in several tries to render the couple rosier than they are.

Look at the hair in Stuart's image, it is far from anything I see in the original; the trousers are very light [they may even have been that light but my venture is they were a very [i]dark grey].

Although the lighting may not be optimal, I don't see that much difficulties in the photo proper. Looks to me as if we fall into the trap anybody falls in when portraits of himself are discussed - only we substitute them for us in this case. Hence one of my original questions: Resembling reality or looking good.

[Bev Sampson]

"""Hence one of my original questions: Resembling reality or looking good."""
Dierk, that is exactly my question. I don't like the look of the skin tone. It is too tan on the lady but that is my preference. She must not agree or she would not have allowed her skin to become this tan. Then the genteman is far more fair and both are in the same picture. In situations like this previously, I have masked in PS and worked on them separately. The other objection I have with digital is that if there is the least bit of natural red in the skin, it is magnified in the digital and with some RAW converters as well. That is why I am looking for a Kodak Portra profile. My own husband has very red skin and he does not photograph well with digital.

I am really glad someone pointed out that the shiny on the skin was flash reflection because I did use a Stofen on the flash and did not consider that explanation . But because the flash was in the 90 degree position even with Stofan and the camera was relatively close, about 10 feet, lens at 75mm, I now know I should have bounced or used a bigger deflector.

I just wonder if these folks who spend hours on the beach coloring their skin know when they look at their photograph, this is not a natural thing to do.

Tim, thank you for the links. I just got out of bed this morning, it is 7:30 am here and I will, in an hour or so read your links.

Also, Asher, I purchased the Studio WhiBal yesterday and will try that when we get back to FL in late November.

I wonder if WhiBal would/could help in this rec. hall environment?

There is another lady who photographs in this lighting using a Nikon D70 and her skin tones seem to have less red and less saturation. Could some of this be a factor of Canon algorithms?

Bev

[Bev Sampson]

Asher and Tim could I post the second photo that I referred to in my initial post? If yes, Don, could I put it on your server?

This second couple are much less tanned and both have about the same skin tone. They fly to FL from England for the winter.

Bev

[Tim Armes]

I am really glad someone pointed out that the shiny on the skin was flash reflection because I did use a Stofen on the flash and did not consider that explanation . But because the flash was in the 90 degree position even with Stofan and the camera was relatively close, about 10 feet, lens at 75mm, I now know I should have bounced or used a bigger deflector.


The Stofen Omnibounce is a stunning example of marketing at it's best.

Here's are some basic lighting facts, based on physics:

1) If the light source is big relative to the object, then the object's shadows will be soft
2) If the light source is small relative to the object, then the object's shadows will be hard

These are the rules. They cannot be broken.

No clip on diffuser will ever soften the light source by itself, since is doesn't change its size. What they will do is diffuse the light. If you point the flash straight on the diffuser will have two effects:

1) It will drain your batteries
2) It will slightly soften the edges of the hard shadows

If you want soft light from a small light source, then you need to use a much bigger diffuser, such as a wall, softbox, umbrella, etc.

Notice that the manufacturers of small flash diffusers don't tell you to point it straight at the subject, they tell you to point your flash at the ceiling.... hold on a sec - won't that result in soft light anyway, since you're bouncing off the ceiling??

Well, yes it will. So now you're not only asking your small flash to light up a ceiling (which is better than pointing it straight on), but you're also going to increase the required power output by sticking a diffuser in front of it! I wonder if these companies are owned by Duracel?

Now I know what you're saying - the diffuser will also send some light forwards, lifting the shadows. Well, we can see the result of that reasoning in Bev's photos. It looks like direct flash again, because the side of the diffuser is still small. Furthermore, since the diffuser is sending light in all directions there can be no hope of having directional light, the very thing that gives us a nice modelling effect.

Conclusions:

1) Don't use a diffuser without thinking about it. Indoors it's rarely if help, and outdoors if eats power. If you use it, understand why you're doing so.
2) Try to bounce off of walls and ceilings to give a soft directional light. Bare in mind that if you bounce straight up you'll get dark eye sockets. Think about the direction of the reflected light.
3) Flash diffusers are mostly useful where you want to achieve a bare bulb effect from a strobe - that is, you want to throw light in all directions. This isn't often the case.

Sorry, drifted slightly off topic.

Tim

[Bev Sampson]

Tim, thank you for the detailed explantion.

I asked in a previous post, what about the Lumiquest, Big Bounce, that mounts to the flash head and is about 12 in. wide and 8 in. long? I will say that in the darkened room for dancing, the Stofan seams to spread the light much better than direct flash.

Bev

[Asher Kelman]

Bev,

James Russel, a ghost of RG forums often complained about skin with Canon and prefers the Nikon when not using his MF cameras. Shooting with your Canon, how do you set the flash and what power do you use?


Dierk,

I'll check your comments on a calibrated monitor.


Asher

[Don Lashier]

Asher and Tim could I post the second photo that I referred to in my initial post? If yes, Don, could I put it on your server?
Bev

Sure, go ahead and upload it. (sorry, had a late night and just got up).

- DL

[Bev Sampson]

Asher, Canon 550 ETTL and with Stofen on +2/3 on the flash and cf 14 ETT: 1/ average in camera. I don't ever use the flash indoors without some sort of diffusion. But in this situation, there is no room for an off camera softbox or umbrella.

[StuartRae]

I disagree. Either we have very different monitors, totally out of sync with any colour profile ....

..........the rather dark wood panelling and trousers further complicate lighting. ...............they don't look very good, for instance, in Stuarts work-out . Changing the brightness of the skin too much simply blows out highlight and even moderately light skin patches................................

Look at the hair in Stuart's image, it is far from anything I see in the original; the trousers are very light [they may even have been that light but my venture is they were a very [i]dark grey].




Dierk,

You're quite right about the over-lightening. I've just returned from a week-end away, and looking at my post in the light of your comments, I realise I may have uploaded the wrong image. I had a series of renditions, all based on the same RSP conversion, and the version I should have posted shows the trousers much darker (although the black belt can still be distinguished).

In the RSP conversion I made sure that no highlights were clipped in sRGB colour space.

I'm not sure the wood panelling is dark. To my eyes it looks like oak, which can be rather grey, and definitely not a chestnut brown.

Regards,

Stuart

[Ron Morse]

I had shoulder surgery almost 2 weeks ago and can't lift my camera. This exercise is a little break for me. Since the title says " Critique for skin tone adjustment " that is all I paid attention to.
I open it in C1 and after trying for white balance didn't like it. I went to DPP, something that I have been using more and more lately, and clicked on the ladys sweater. I believe it was 203,202,203 and turned back the brightness 0.17. For skin tones I am likeing DPP more all the time. I think RSP is horrible with skin tones for me.
I opened in CS-2. Used shadow-highlight with shadows 46%-highlight 9%, resized and used a sharpening action that I have at 80%.
Since this is a highly subjective topic I'm sure many won't agree with it. I made no attempt with the glare on the ladys face or any thing else since this was about skin tones.

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5710/dpp0038da0.jpg

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Dierk,

Looking at the images on my calibrated Eizo CG210 instead of my Apple 15" LCD, I now see a great improvement and much less of the metallic effect.

Thanks for pointing that out. This shows how the screen can lead one astray!

Asher

[Bev Sampson]

A huge thank you to all who participated in tone correction for this image. As Asher pointed out, it was a very difficult photo.

Thank you, Tim, for providing the links on lighting. They are very helpful. On camera flash, with or without a bracket has eluded me forever. So I am now reading all that I can and practicing on my husband who is very red skined.

I did not vote in the other related thread because I am very interested to see the preception of which is most appealing. Thank you Asher and Tim for setting up the poll. I am watching with great anticipation.

Bev