Color Correction

[ronocnikral]

We just purchased a color corrector (i1) and have put one of our monitors through the rigor of the correction. So...we still feel the colors are off a bit.

I was wondering if there is anyone out there whose monitor is color corrected or that gets excellent results from their printer (w/o them doing any color correction) that can take a look at a few pictures and tell us which ones look better. You should be able to notice which is which--before we got the i1 our pictures were coming back saturated (people looked sunburned)

Thanks to all who are willing to take a look at the photos and provide feedback.

[srwatters]

Color for portraiture is always a subjective issue. In my opinion, the first image in each set is more realistic, but is that what you want? I've seen some pretty orange/rosy skin that looks pleasing but certainly isn't accurate.

If you're asking what I prefer, it would be the first image from each set, but I prefer realistic skin tones. YMMV.

[paul48503]

NO. 1 is the best but all of them look too pink, too red to me. I like natural skin tones.

[ronocnikral]

Right, so we are seeing hardly any pink/redish skin tones on the monitor that has been color corrected...apparently we are going wrong somewhere.

Unfortunately, we may have to suck it up and pay the money for someone else to color correct our prints...

Anyone had any experiences with using an i1 color correction unit??

[srwatters]

Perhaps it's not your equipment, but rather your workflow that's the issue. None of these files have a color space assigned. They appear to be sRGB, but I'll bet that your Photoshop preference is set for a default workspace different from that. There are many different ways to color manage your workflow. My workflow starts with RAW files that I process with Adobe Camera RAW into 16 bit color depth, ProPhoto RGB data and saved in native Photoshop PSD. All of my editing is done in this space, then I will convert my master print files to Adobe RGB and 8 bit color depth saved in tif format. My final file version is for the web in 8 bit and sRGB color space jpg format. For final prints, I will soft proof with my printer/paper profile then deliver to the lab in their preferred file format.

I've had good luck with prints matching my display which is calibrated using the Gretag Macbeth Eye One Display 2 colorimeter. YMMV.

[srwatters]

Originally Posted by paul48503

NO. 1 is the best but all of them look too pink, too red to me. I like natural skin tones.

Unless you have seen the subject in person, I don't think you can make a judgement call on what is or isn't natural skin tones. I have seen fair people that can look rather rosy in the face when outside on a sunny day. I won't disagree that these images look to be a bit color cast in the reds, but I don't think you can be 100% sure unless you were there.

[carrbowl]

Originally Posted by ronocnikral

Right, so we are seeing hardly any pink/redish skin tones on the monitor that has been color corrected...apparently we are going wrong somewhere.

Unfortunately, we may have to suck it up and pay the money for someone else to color correct our prints...

Anyone had any experiences with using an i1 color correction unit??

I have an eye 1 and don't have issues with it. But I also know it depends on your monitor. I use it on my laptop and an acer monitor. The acer does not calibrate well at all. The laptop calibrates better, and I still don't completely trust the laptop because it is not all that adjustable.

[ronocnikral]

Originally Posted by srwatters

Perhaps it's not your equipment, but rather your workflow that's the issue. None of these files have a color space assigned. They appear to be sRGB, but I'll bet that your Photoshop preference is set for a default workspace different from that. There are many different ways to color manage your workflow. My workflow starts with RAW files that I process with Adobe Camera RAW into 16 bit color depth, ProPhoto RGB data and saved in native Photoshop PSD. All of my editing is done in this space, then I will convert my master print files to Adobe RGB and 8 bit color depth saved in tif format. My final file version is for the web in 8 bit and sRGB color space jpg format. For final prints, I will soft proof with my printer/paper profile then deliver to the lab in their preferred file format.

I've had good luck with prints matching my display which is calibrated using the Gretag Macbeth Eye One Display 2 colorimeter. YMMV.

Right, so you'll have to excuse me as I am a bit naive in the digital world (both me and my wife). A couple of details and questions about my simple (and maybe incorrect workflow).

I currently was not using 16 bit color or ProPhotoRGB. I used to save as psd files, but recently starting saving my fixed Camera Raw files as jpg. Mainly because that's the format I was using them in (I was working on website and wanted less space used on computer) I figured the changes I made in Raw are connected with the original file without saving another copy and could open from that. Should I never save as a jpg unless I am saving for the web or a format that specifically requires a jpg? Should I always print from a tif if possible, over a jpg? Should I only use sRGB for web viewing? A lot of the files I'm working on currently are being designed into spreads for photo albums. I take the fixed files, create a layered, psd and then a flattened jpg to upload. Are there different color settings or file types I should use instead of what I mentioned?

Thanks again for all the help!!

[srwatters]

Digital workflow from RAW to output has had many complete books written on the subject and I certainly don't profess to be an expert, but here is my suggestion...

I would suggest you save your master edited images in either PSD or TIFF format as both of those can retain layer data which you may want to come back to if additional work is needed. Once you go to jpg, you are limited to a flat image with only 8 bit color depth. The color space issue is related but somewhat tangential to the format of the file. Determined by the color gamut of your output media, you need your input file to have at least a color space large enough to encompass your printer/paper/display capability. Otherwise you will sacrifice some tonal range. The largest color gamut we generally have available is ProPhoto RGB. This gamut is so large that you must use 16 bit color depth or risk banding due to interpolation of the values. The next gamut in size is typically Adobe RGB. It can safely be represented in 8 bits of depth and is usually large enough for most printing processes and has more colors than all but the most expensive monitors can display. Finally sRGB is the standard gamut that most web content is presented in. 8 bits of color depth will fully display it's gamut.

You will absolutely lose image quality if you save a file in jpg, then open it again and edit that copy. Each time you run an image through the jpg process, you run the risk of degrading the quality much like making analog copies of prints from other prints. I would strongly suggest you save at least one master copy in a lossless format such as PSD or TIFF.

You might be wise to look at purchasing this book: http://www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor/ to learn about color management in digital workflows. I've only scratched the surface here...

[luis_relampago]

I have a color calibrated monitor and there is a very soft red color cast on the first images.
I totally agree with Scott.

[ronocnikral]

My wife has become very frustrated with this. And I had to explain to her that just ignoring the situation isn't going to help it any. So, after a "brief" conversation we have decided to confront the problem head on, at least I have. Anyone else have experience with the book recommended by Scott?? http://www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor/

Thanks for all who have helped so far. I feel we are going to have to settle for the slightly rosy/pinkish/red skin tones for now.

[srwatters]

Quick question for you Conor... What computer equipment are you using?

Computer model and maker (including video card model/maker)
Operating system (version too)
Monitor model and maker

[luis_relampago]

I was watching the image and the haze is what bothers me the most. When I shoot against the sun I usually put my polarizer to get a better contrast.
Conor I took the liberty to run a little action I made for hazy images on your first image I hope you don't mind.

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by ronocnikral

Anyone else have experience with the book recommended by Scott?? http://www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor/

I think the Fraser Book is a bad place to start because not only is does it get very technical, but that book was written more for graphics professionals and other users preparing files for offset press printing. It was not written for photographers as the primary audience, and while some of the content in the book will be useful there are other books that are IMHO better for photographers. "Color Management for Photographers" by Andrew Rodney is one of them, another good one is "Fine Art Printing for Photographers" by Uwe Steinmueller. That latter book is not just about color management but the entire printing workflow, and does cover display calibration, use of ICC profiles, and printing.

[ronocnikral]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

I think the Fraser Book is a bad place to start because not only is does it get very technical, but that book was written more for graphics professionals and other users preparing files for offset press printing. It was not written for photographers as the primary audience, and while some of the content in the book will be useful there are other books that are IMHO better for photographers. "Color Management for Photographers" by Andrew Rodney is one of them, another good one is "Fine Art Printing for Photographers" by Uwe Steinmueller. That latter book is not just about color management but the entire printing workflow, and does cover display calibration, use of ICC profiles, and printing.

Neither my wife or I have a graphics design degree, but we aren't completely out of the loop either. My wife actually has a degree in offset print and design, she just hasn't done it since the late 90's. It's more of the digital thing that gets us. She also worked at a souvenir company where she did design, somebody else did the color mgmt stuff...

With that said, would the Fraser book be way over our heads??? Based on comments on amazon, it seems to be right about at our level.

Scott, working on our computer specs. I know we have spectre monitors, 17", but I don't know much more than that. It is a "custom" (I call it home built, but it is pretty decent) computer run on vista home.