Canon 20D colors - Pink lips

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:12:16 +0000 (UTC), in
<d4o33g$6ge$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, "Jack"
<No@mail.Please> said:

>Here's a link to show the sort of picture the 20D produces in full auto mode
>
>http/www.moled.cwc.net/Pics/IMG_2198-Sm.jpg
>
>Is this right?

Looks fairly normal to me, on my calibrated monitor. The boy's collar
looks a touch bluish in the shadowed area, so the automatic white
balance may have erred a little on the cool side, which might explain
the paleness you mentioned. It's not a big error, but if you really want
the WB to be perfect straight out of the camera, you should use a grey
card to set the WB at the start of the shoot. Personally, I shoot photos
like that in RAW, then set WB from something white in the shot, such as
the boy's collar in your example.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Larry]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <d4qav8$osq$1@pita.alt.net>, usenet@imagenoir.com says...
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:12:16 +0000 (UTC), in
> <d4o33g$6ge$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, "Jack"
> <No@mail.Please> said:
>
> >Here's a link to show the sort of picture the 20D produces in full auto mode
> >
> >http/www.moled.cwc.net/Pics/IMG_2198-Sm.jpg
> >
> >Is this right?
>
> Looks fairly normal to me, on my calibrated monitor. The boy's collar
> looks a touch bluish in the shadowed area, so the automatic white
> balance may have erred a little on the cool side, which might explain
> the paleness you mentioned. It's not a big error, but if you really want
> the WB to be perfect straight out of the camera, you should use a grey
> card to set the WB at the start of the shoot. Personally, I shoot photos
> like that in RAW, then set WB from something white in the shot, such as
> the boy's collar in your example.
>
>

I agree.

If this shot were just a TOUCH warmer it would look great to me.

The face is not so much "pale" as "cold".

A very small move toward warmer will make his face look healthier without any
additional saturation.
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jack" <No@mail.Please> wrote in message
news:d4r79r$ojb$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> Thanks for your suggestions but I was getting this problem with indoor
> flash
> as well. (It's ok with my new adjustments)

Each lighting situation has it's own white balance setting.

If you don't care to make even this most basic adjustment, then, in spite of
the fact that you bought great quality equipment, you are destined for
photographic mediocrity at best, with worse being the more likely outcome.

Choose to learn or stop asking for help.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Xyhce.118$%p.94@fed1read04>, Mark² < here)@cox..net> wrote:

> "Jack" <No@mail.Please> wrote in message
> news:d4r79r$ojb$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> > Thanks for your suggestions but I was getting this problem with indoor
> > flash
> > as well. (It's ok with my new adjustments)
>
> Each lighting situation has it's own white balance setting.
>
> If you don't care to make even this most basic adjustment, then, in spite of
> the fact that you bought great quality equipment, you are destined for
> photographic mediocrity at best, with worse being the more likely outcome.
>
> Choose to learn or stop asking for help.

If you shoot RAW, then you don't need to set color balance ahead of
time.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:280420052032510426%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <Xyhce.118$%p.94@fed1read04>, Mark² < here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> "Jack" <No@mail.Please> wrote in message
>> news:d4r79r$ojb$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>> > Thanks for your suggestions but I was getting this problem with indoor
>> > flash
>> > as well. (It's ok with my new adjustments)
>>
>> Each lighting situation has it's own white balance setting.
>>
>> If you don't care to make even this most basic adjustment, then, in spite
>> of
>> the fact that you bought great quality equipment, you are destined for
>> photographic mediocrity at best, with worse being the more likely
>> outcome.
>>
>> Choose to learn or stop asking for help.
>
> If you shoot RAW, then you don't need to set color balance ahead of
> time.

Sure.
But the OP doesn't seem inclined to lift a finger to make any adjustments at
all...as he said...he doesn't have the time in those situations
(photographing a boy's face).

Go figure...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:qclce.163$%p.137@fed1read04...
>
> "Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
> news:280420052032510426%rag@nospam.techline.com...
>> In article <Xyhce.118$%p.94@fed1read04>, Mark² < here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Jack" <No@mail.Please> wrote in message
>>> news:d4r79r$ojb$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>> > Thanks for your suggestions but I was getting this problem with indoor
>>> > flash
>>> > as well. (It's ok with my new adjustments)
>>>
>>> Each lighting situation has it's own white balance setting.
>>>
>>> If you don't care to make even this most basic adjustment, then, in
>>> spite of
>>> the fact that you bought great quality equipment, you are destined for
>>> photographic mediocrity at best, with worse being the more likely
>>> outcome.
>>>
>>> Choose to learn or stop asking for help.
>>
>> If you shoot RAW, then you don't need to set color balance ahead of
>> time.
>
> Sure.
> But the OP doesn't seem inclined to lift a finger to make any adjustments
> at all...as he said...he doesn't have the time in those situations
> (photographing a boy's face).
>
> Go figure...

OK. I take that back, as I see him stating now that he's playing with
settings.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:04:11 +0000 (UTC), in
<d4qcer$q3b$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, "Jack"
<No@mail.Please> said:

>This was shot on Full Auto mode, where zero adjustments are available on the
>20D.

Bumping up the red a little in Photoshop should help considerably, if
you really must shoot in JPEG mode.

>I have adjusted the "Color Tone" in the so called "Processing Parameters" to
>+1. (seems to take the edge of the red/pink face)
>This (interesting) control adjusts the skin tone, -2 more Red and +2 more
>Yellow.

Ick.

>(Adjusting colors in the White balance is not a practical solution for me as
>I don't always have the time to WB in a fast working setup.)

That's why I shoot RAW.

>Thanks for all your help and suggestions as this encouraged me to experiment
>with the cameras different settings.

Glad we could help.

BTW: Did you know that you can bracket on WB as well as exposure? - It's
waste of disk space when you're shooting RAW, but it'd certainly solve
your WB problems in JPEG mode.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <d4sg84$btu$2@pita.alt.net>,
Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote:

>BTW: Did you know that you can bracket on WB as well as exposure? - It's
>waste of disk space when you're shooting RAW, but it'd certainly solve
>your WB problems in JPEG mode.

Now that you've mentioned it, I am thinking that perhaps the best way to
shoot JPEG and get near-perfect white balance is to blend the two
closest bracketed conversions that are warmer and cooler than what you
want, after converting each to 16-bit. There should be much less
posterization than white-balancing a single JPEG with the traditional
tools.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Jack]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

HI
I hear what you are all telling me, to concentrate on the White balance
settings or post production adjustments.

I do event photography, taking formal shots is fine, plenty of time to set
up take white balance etc. but, when shooting candid and casuals one has to
very quick on ones feet and keep things as simple as possible or you will
quickly get knotted with all the different settings available on today's
digital slr cameras.

There are some basic settings on the canon 20D that should be set before
anything else. i.e. Sharpening, Contrast, Saturation and Color Tone. Unless
somebody tells me otherwise, these setting on the 20D should be set Before
anything else.

To my way of working the fewer things to adjust the better, less room for
error, and if the camera can do it, get it right from the beginning.

What do you think?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 20:32:51 -0700, in
<280420052032510426%rag@nospam.techline.com>, Randall Ainsworth
<rag@nospam.techline.com> said:

>In article <Xyhce.118$%p.94@fed1read04>, Mark² < here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> "Jack" <No@mail.Please> wrote in message
>> news:d4r79r$ojb$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>> > Thanks for your suggestions but I was getting this problem with indoor
>> > flash
>> > as well. (It's ok with my new adjustments)
>>
>> Each lighting situation has it's own white balance setting.
>>
>> If you don't care to make even this most basic adjustment, then, in spite of
>> the fact that you bought great quality equipment, you are destined for
>> photographic mediocrity at best, with worse being the more likely outcome.
>>
>> Choose to learn or stop asking for help.
>
>If you shoot RAW, then you don't need to set color balance ahead of
>time.

Eaxctly.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <d4t58o$82a$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
"Jack" <No@mail.Please> wrote:

>HI
>I hear what you are all telling me, to concentrate on the White balance
>settings or post production adjustments.
>
>I do event photography, taking formal shots is fine, plenty of time to set
>up take white balance etc. but, when shooting candid and casuals one has to
>very quick on ones feet and keep things as simple as possible or you will
>quickly get knotted with all the different settings available on today's
>digital slr cameras.
>
>There are some basic settings on the canon 20D that should be set before
>anything else. i.e. Sharpening, Contrast, Saturation and Color Tone. Unless
>somebody tells me otherwise, these setting on the 20D should be set Before
>anything else.
>
>To my way of working the fewer things to adjust the better, less room for
>error, and if the camera can do it, get it right from the beginning.
>
>What do you think?

If you're shooting in JPG, then yes, you should get all those things the
way you need them before the shot. If you're shooting RAW, though, they
have no effect on the RAW image data. On the Canon DSLRs, only
aperture, shutter speed, and ISO setting affect the RAW image. With
some Nikons, WB affects the RAW image, if I have heard correctly.

If you shoot RAW, just using a good WB reference in an iamge in each
lighting situation can help you WB easily.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 07:23:38 GMT, in
<vtn3711b3vca2je8jiprshh8vea0dkl52g@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm said:

>In message <d4sg84$btu$2@pita.alt.net>,
>Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote:
>
>>BTW: Did you know that you can bracket on WB as well as exposure? - It's
>>waste of disk space when you're shooting RAW, but it'd certainly solve
>>your WB problems in JPEG mode.
>
>Now that you've mentioned it, I am thinking that perhaps the best way to
>shoot JPEG and get near-perfect white balance is to blend the two
>closest bracketed conversions that are warmer and cooler than what you
>want, after converting each to 16-bit. There should be much less
>posterization than white-balancing a single JPEG with the traditional
>tools.

Nice idea for static subjects, but it won't work on people shots.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <d4v2ta$c2l$0@pita.alt.net>,
Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote:

>Nice idea for static subjects, but it won't work on people shots.

I'm sorry; I assumed that the WB bracketing used a single exposure and
rendered three different JPEGs from it.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:19:52 +0000 (UTC), in
<d4t58o$82a$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, "Jack"
<No@mail.Please> said:

>HI
>I hear what you are all telling me, to concentrate on the White balance
>settings or post production adjustments.

Yep.

>I do event photography,

So do I, & under very difficult lighting conditions where any brand of
AWB usually gets the WB badly wrong:
<http/lo.ve.ly/gallery/NightClubs>

> taking formal shots is fine, plenty of time to set
>up take white balance etc. but, when shooting candid and casuals one has to
>very quick on ones feet and keep things as simple as possible or you will
>quickly get knotted with all the different settings available on today's
>digital slr cameras.

That's the exact reason I shoot RAW.
I have standard Shutter/Aperture/ISO settings that I know work well in a
particular venue, & after a little tweaking at the start of the event,
leave alone for the rest of the night. I set WB & Exp comp when
post-processing my work on the computer, giving me the exact results I
want - with no loss in image quality - unlike post-processing JPEGs.

>To my way of working the fewer things to adjust the better, less room for
>error, and if the camera can do it, get it right from the beginning.
>
>What do you think?

I couldn't agree more. When I have a 5 second photo-op, I don't want to
miss it to twiddle with the camera settings, but I want to get it right,
too.
Quite seriously, if you haven't tried shooting RAW yet, you'll be
astounded at how much more flexibility & image quality you'll gain over
shooting JPEGs. My favourite RAW processing app is Phase One's
CaptureOne DSLR Pro, which I find much more 'photographer-orientated' &
efficient than Photoshop. I strongly recommend that you download their
trial version, shoot a few dozen RAW test photos of people, etc, & give
CaptureOne a good trial:
<http/www.rawworkflow.com/> (If you run Windows, you want v3.6, or the
v3.7 beta version, which I'm using right now.)

Give it try, Jack, & let me know how you go.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 13:02:30 GMT, in
<m90771th8n84g3akda1vl2mclkous2aidb@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm said:

>In message <d4v2ta$c2l$0@pita.alt.net>,
>Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote:
>
>>Nice idea for static subjects, but it won't work on people shots.
>
>I'm sorry; I assumed that the WB bracketing used a single exposure and
>rendered three different JPEGs from it.

<blushes>
You know something John? - The fact that it's totally unnecessary to
take multiple exposures to bracket WB in JPEG didn't even occur to me
when I wrote that. Having checked the 10D manual, you are completely
correct - it takes *one exposure* & outputs 3 JPEGs with different WBs.
So yes, your suggestion of blending WB-bracketed JPEGs should work just
fine on any kind of shot.

Thanks for not laughing at my stupid mistake, even though I completely
deserved it.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Lionel" <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
news:d520i5$ml9$2@pita.alt.net...
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 13:02:30 GMT, in
> <m90771th8n84g3akda1vl2mclkous2aidb@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm said:
>
>>In message <d4v2ta$c2l$0@pita.alt.net>,
>>Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Nice idea for static subjects, but it won't work on people shots.
>>
>>I'm sorry; I assumed that the WB bracketing used a single exposure and
>>rendered three different JPEGs from it.
>
> <blushes>
> You know something John? - The fact that it's totally unnecessary to
> take multiple exposures to bracket WB in JPEG didn't even occur to me
> when I wrote that. Having checked the 10D manual, you are completely
> correct - it takes *one exposure* & outputs 3 JPEGs with different WBs.
> So yes, your suggestion of blending WB-bracketed JPEGs should work just
> fine on any kind of shot.
>
> Thanks for not laughing at my stupid mistake, even though I completely
> deserved it.
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------


That's ok, Lionel, I didn't know that, either. After I get done here, I'm
going to go down and get my manual out of the bag and read it!

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jack wrote:
>
> I'm using a "spider" calibrated monitor and the white balance is auto WB.

Sine you mention the D100, could you make a shot of the same
face with the D100 as well, same time, same focal length?

Thomas

>
> "Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4FPbe.7438$dh.3451@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> > Jack wrote:
> > > I got this result
> > > http/www.moled.cwc.net/Pics/IMG_2201-Sm.jpg
> > >
> > > in P mode with the color tone set to + max
> > >
> >
> > They both look a little cool for my taste on my monitor. What kind of
> > white balance are you using? It looks like it may be locked on daylight
> > and the images look like they may be in the shade giving you the usual cool
> > effect that in film photography you would use a skylight filter to correct.
> >
> > You could try using a gray card or changing the white balance setting.
> > Does it do this on all images, or just the ones posted?
> >
> > --
> > Joseph Meehan
> >
> > Dia duit
> >
> >

 

[lcd]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Use Av, P2 and use partial metering using the central AF. The camera has
overexposed your shot due to the very dark background and you maxed the
colour - it averages the exposure to 18% grey. The camera can only *guess*
at what you want. The point of a DSLR is that you can tell it what you want.
Photoshop or other will allow you to play with colours. If you shoot RAW,
then you get even more control - www.pixmantec.com for a free RAW converter.
You might want to go over to www.photozone.de and look at the info there.
Also try www.dpreview.com for general info.


"Jack" <No@mail.Please> wrote in message
news:d4o3jh$85m$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>I got this result
> http/www.moled.cwc.net/Pics/IMG_2201-Sm.jpg
>
> in P mode with the color tone set to + max
>
>
>
>
> "Jack" <No@mail.Please> wrote in message
> news:d4o33g$6ge$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>> Here's a link to show the sort of picture the 20D produces in full auto
> mode
>>
>> http/www.moled.cwc.net/Pics/IMG_2198-Sm.jpg
>>
>> Is this right?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> "Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:FeLbe.774$Eg.662@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
>> > "Jack" <No@mail.Please> wrote in message
>> > news:d4nq74$551$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>> > > Hi
>> > > Just bought a Canon 20d camera. It's a nice camera but I'm not happy
>> with
>> > > the face colors. My pictures of (white) men all have pink lips. And
> the
>> > > faces are pale.
>> > > I don't have this problem with my Nikon D100.
>> > >
>> > > Any ideas?
>> > >
>> > > Thanks
>> > > J
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > My first reaction to this is always the same. How are you
> displaying
>> > the results? Are you looking at them on a computer screen, a print you
>> made
>> > or a print commercially made?
>> >
>> > I suggest that your systems may be properly calibrated to your
>> > Nikon
>> > D100 but not to your new 20D. It may not be the camera, or it may be,
> but
>> it
>> > also can be a simple calibration matter on your computer.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Joseph Meehan
>> >
>> > Dia duit
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>