cast sometimes okay?

DD wrote:

We sometimes do special effort to remove a cast. And people like Mike, Hecate & the Kat under more, have helped people here to remove a colour cast from pictures.

Is it always necessary? Sometimes I have a cast in photos and do not remove it (totally) because it can add value. A place for instance where I can not make up my mind which is better, is at
http://finepix.95mb.com/ Pictures DSCF7897b & DSCF7897c with ‘b’ as the original, is an example. If it’s on your wall, which one?

Only you can decide.
On my main monitor one image is too cold for a sunset and the other has an unpleasant green cast.
Anyway, if you like photography don’t let things happen, be in control of your camera.
I recommend purchasing a gray card for starters, here is a very good one: http://tinyurl.com/4fdbm.

And DSCF8112b or DSCF8112c? Only personal taste of course, but I’d like to hear more views:-)

The palm frond looks processed in the lighter version

Is this page to slow loading? It is only 600 x 800 pixels X 72 ppi.

72 or 3 million ppi, makes no difference for monitor displaying, try and see.

Stephan

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 21:53:26 GMT, Stephan wrote:

DD wrote:

We sometimes do special effort to remove a cast. And people like Mike, Hecate & the Kat under more, have helped people here to remove a colour cast from pictures.

Is it always necessary? Sometimes I have a cast in photos and do not remove it (totally) because it can add value. A place for instance where I can not make up my mind which is better, is at
http://finepix.95mb.com/ Pictures DSCF7897b & DSCF7897c with ‘b’ as the original, is an example. If it’s on your wall, which one?

Only you can decide.
On my main monitor one image is too cold for a sunset and the other has an unpleasant green cast.
Anyway, if you like photography don’t let things happen, be in control of your camera.
I recommend purchasing a gray card for starters, here is a very good one: http://tinyurl.com/4fdbm.

thanks for the link. I’ll see where it leads to:-)

And DSCF8112b or DSCF8112c? Only personal taste of course, but I’d like to hear more views:-)

The palm frond looks processed in the lighter version

agree; the green doesn’t look natural

Is this page to slow loading? It is only 600 x 800 pixels X 72 ppi.

72 or 3 million ppi, makes no difference for monitor displaying, try and see.

except for enlarging the file size

Thanks anyway, I’ve asked therefore:-)

DD

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 00:09:45 +0200, DD wrote:

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 21:53:26 GMT, Stephan wrote:

Only you can decide.
On my main monitor one image is too cold for a sunset and the other has an unpleasant green cast.
Anyway, if you like photography don’t let things happen, be in control of your camera.
I recommend purchasing a gray card for starters, here is a very good one: http://tinyurl.com/4fdbm.

White Balance in Your Pocket

Thanx for this link, Stephen. Katwoman formerly
also suggested I must get a gray card. Maybe
she was to diplomatic:-)

Thanks therefore; it is long time in my mind to
start clicking in raw mode, and this may be
the convincing part.

Thanks again.

Dave

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 21:45:48 +0200, DD wrote:

We sometimes do special effort to remove a cast. And people like Mike, Hecate & the Kat under more, have helped people here to remove a colour cast from pictures.

Is it always necessary? Sometimes I have a cast in photos and do not remove it (totally) because it can add value. A place for instance where I can not make up my mind which is better, is at
http://finepix.95mb.com/ Pictures DSCF7897b & DSCF7897c with ‘b’ as the original, is an example. If it’s on your wall, which one?
And DSCF8112b or DSCF8112c? Only personal taste of course, but I’d like to hear more views:-)

Is this page to slow loading? It is only 600 x 800 pixels X 72 ppi.

I can’t tell because the images were blocked by Firefox.

However, a good general rule is to kill any casts which are unnatural. Skin with a green tinge for example (grass reflections) or a blue tinge (taken in shadow uncorrected). Otherwise, it’s personal taste. For things like skin though be aware that even the less colour aware will notice it 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

"DD" wrote in message

We sometimes do special effort to remove a cast. And people like Mike, Hecate & the Kat under more, have helped people here to remove a colour cast from pictures.

Normally a color cast is bad because it’s like a veil. It dilutes the effect of all the other colors in the image, and reduces the impact.

Is it always necessary? Sometimes I have a cast in photos and do not remove it (totally) because it can add value.

It can indeed, but as Stephen says it’s important to control the cast, and not let it simply run away with the image. It’s like a musicial playing in rhythmn – a skilled musicial can play sections of the music faster or slower to get a special effect, but this is effective only because the majority of the time a professional musicial plays very steadily in tune. Otherwise the song falls apart.

You have some very effective sunsets – and for images like this I, and others, recommend intensifying the colors for maximum impact, but not to the extent that it looks like a hallucination. If you’re going to go with a color cast, really go with it and don’t make it look like an accident. Also, sometimes in a sunset it’s effective to pick a neutral, and then intensify the other complimentary colors – I think of it as using a neutral as a see saw point around which the other colors are balanced.

A place for instance
where I can not make up my mind which is better, is at
http://finepix.95mb.com/ Pictures DSCF7897b & DSCF7897c with ‘b’ as the original, is an example. If it’s on your wall, which one?

The b version seems more like a sunset. The deep blue above and below the orange is dramatic, but it doesn’t sit right.

And DSCF8112b or DSCF8112c? Only personal taste of course, but I’d like to hear more views:-)

I like c better. More color.

Is this page to slow loading? It is only 600 x 800 pixels X 72 ppi.

Not slow at all.
—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

"DD" wrote in message

We sometimes do special effort to remove a cast. And people like Mike, Hecate & the Kat under more, have helped people here to remove a colour cast from pictures.

Normally a color cast is bad because it’s like a veil. It dilutes the effect of all the other colors in the image, and reduces the impact.

Is it always necessary? Sometimes I have a cast in photos and do not remove it (totally) because it can add value.

It can indeed, but as Stephen says it’s important to control the cast, and not let it simply run away with the image. It’s like a musicial playing in rhythmn – a skilled musicial can play sections of the music faster or slower to get a special effect, but this is effective only because the majority of the time a professional musicial plays very steadily in tune. Otherwise the song falls apart.

You have some very effective sunsets – and for images like this I, and others, recommend intensifying the colors for maximum impact, but not to the extent that it looks like a hallucination. If you’re going to go with a color cast, really go with it and don’t make it look like an accident. Also, sometimes in a sunset it’s effective to pick a neutral, and then intensify the other complimentary colors – I think of it as using a neutral as a see saw point around which the other colors are balanced.

A place for instance
where I can not make up my mind which is better, is at
http://finepix.95mb.com/ Pictures DSCF7897b & DSCF7897c with ‘b’ as the original, is an example. If it’s on your wall, which one?

The b version seems more like a sunset. The deep blue above and below the orange is dramatic, but it doesn’t sit right.

And DSCF8112b or DSCF8112c? Only personal taste of course, but I’d like to hear more views:-)

I like c better. More color.

Is this page to slow loading? It is only 600 x 800 pixels X 72 ppi.

Not slow at all.
—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

Certainly colorcast can be used to achieve dramatic effect. One example is the use of tungsten balance film to shoot winter scenes. The tungsten-balanced film will give a blue cast that adds a dramatic and cold feeling to the image. The same effect can be achieved with today’s digital cameras.

The same can be said many artifacts that are for the most part considered to be annoying distractions, grain, soft focus, blur, all can be used as artistic elements in your imagery.

Proper application of these effects is solely dependant on your imagination..

I recommend purchasing a gray card for starters, here is a very good one: http://tinyurl.com/4fdbm.

Does not get imported to South Africa. Have been at quite a few photographic shops this morning.
This is where I spend the morning http://www.thepav.co.za/aff/thepav/ and leading photographic shops tells me it does not get imported (anymore)! That I will find it now where here.

Easy enough though, I bought coulered paper, laminated it with my little business card laminator, and made my own:-) Is yours laminated? Thanks for the idea

Dave

"Mike Russell"

Is it always necessary? Sometimes I have a cast in photos and do not remove it (totally) because it can add value.

It can indeed, but as Stephen says it’s important to control the cast, and not let it simply run away with the image. It’s like a musicial playing in rhythmn – a skilled musicial can play sections of the music faster or slower to get a special effect, but this is effective only because the majority of the time a professional musicial plays very steadily in tune. Otherwise the song falls apart.

I like your way of describing it Mike:-)

You have some very effective sunsets – and for images like this I, and others, recommend intensifying the colors for maximum impact, but not to the extent that it looks like a hallucination. If you’re going to go with a color cast, really go with it and don’t make it look like an accident. Also, sometimes in a sunset it’s effective to pick a neutral, and then intensify the other complimentary colors – I think of it as using a neutral as a see saw point around which the other colors are balanced.

It is sunrises:-)
Thanks a lot for your ideas Mike – I’ll spend time experimenting on your ideas.

Not slow at all.

good news.

Dave

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 00:35:05 +0100, Hecate wrote:

I can’t tell because the images were blocked by Firefox.

try this site
http://k.domaindlx.com/davedup/sunrise/the_colour_of_sunrise /index.html I did not like the pop-ups there, and moved it to the other link.

However, a good general rule is to kill any casts which are unnatural. Skin with a green tinge for example (grass reflections) or a blue tinge (taken in shadow uncorrected). Otherwise, it’s personal taste. For things like skin though be aware that even the less colour aware will notice it 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Thanks Hecate (I suddenly realise yòu was the first person to suggest that I must use a grey card; remember Gambit the giraffe?:-)

Dave

With pictures DSCF7897b & DSCF7897c I would prefer somewhere between the two. With the other two pics I can see no difference between them except for the palm frond. The info palette returns identical data for the same corresponding pixel locations on each image. The palm frond looks better as a complete silhouette rather than with the coloured stripes. The frond as a silhouette is an adornment with the colour it becomes a distraction.

Were it not for the fact that the sun broke through the cloud cover of the last fortnight today, I’m not sure I would agree with the morality of posting pictures of tropical sunsets 🙂

Brian
(the other one)

"……..I’m not sure I would agree with the morality of posting pictures of tropical sunsets :-)"

I see you say they’re sunrises…..damn, that means you’ve got the whole glorious day ahead of you. Not fair.

Brian
(the other one)

"DD" wrote in message

"Mike Russell"

Is it always necessary? Sometimes I have a cast in photos and do not remove it (totally) because it can add value.

It can indeed, but as Stephen says it’s important to control the cast, and not let it simply run away with the image. It’s like a musicial playing in
rhythmn – a skilled musicial can play sections of the music faster or slower
to get a special effect, but this is effective only because the majority of
the time a professional musicial plays very steadily in tune. Otherwise the
song falls apart.

I like your way of describing it Mike:-)

You have some very effective sunsets – and for images like this I, and others, recommend intensifying the colors for maximum impact, but not to the
extent that it looks like a hallucination. If you’re going to go with a color cast, really go with it and don’t make it look like an accident. Also, sometimes in a sunset it’s effective to pick a neutral, and then intensify the other complimentary colors – I think of it as using a neutral
as a see saw point around which the other colors are balanced.

It is sunrises:-)
Thanks a lot for your ideas Mike – I’ll spend time experimenting on your ideas.

Not slow at all.

good news.

Dave

For me it’s an entirely artistic subjective decision. I often have shots with "incorrectly" balanced light and "correcting" them may look bad as the camera might have captured something far more interesting in the light than what is "real"
I mean that is the difference in a snapshot type photo and an artistic one. Art is not dependent upon the literal.

I often save several versions of the same image because I can’t decide which I like best.

I do not suggest laminating the gray card as you may get hotspots and reflections throwing off the readings. Unless you have some matte type laminate? It is not necessary to have a professional one, maybe tear off a piece of neutral gray from a seamless roll? or order from a USA shop over internet?

http://xs40.xs.to/pics/05310/karina-Cavalli.jpg
Here is another photo I’ve done the retouching and made 3 "afters" cannot decide which I like best
one is
Straight up, just corrected, flaws removed
second has feathers added to makeup over eyes
last one all crazy colored
(file is 225K better for speedy connections)
which version you all like best?

On 7 Aug 2005 11:49:35 -0700, "mono" wrote:

With pictures DSCF7897b & DSCF7897c I would prefer somewhere between the two.

completely agree here Brian. That is what I’ve done on (a) final, taking half the cast away. ‘A’ final I said, because like Katwoman, I often saves a few versions of the same pic. And like Stephen said, it looks to cold with the cast removed completely.

With the other two pics I can see no difference between them except for the palm frond.

That is the only dif Brian. Sorry, I should have mentioned it.

The info palette returns identical data for
the same corresponding pixel locations on each image. The palm frond looks better as a complete silhouette rather than with the coloured stripes. The frond as a silhouette is an adornment with the colour it becomes a distraction.

Thanks, I asume you right when saying the colour cause distraction. And the colour is not suppose to be so obvious there, because it is the shadow side.

Were it not for the fact that the sun broke through the cloud cover of the last fortnight today, I’m not sure I would agree with the morality of posting pictures of tropical sunsets 🙂

jealousssss!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dave

On 7 Aug 2005 11:53:40 -0700, "mono" wrote:

"……..I’m not sure I would agree with the morality of posting pictures of tropical sunsets :-)"

I see you say they’re sunrises…..damn, that means you’ve got the whole glorious day ahead of you. Not fair.

Brian
(the other one)

LOL….! You people brag with your photo skills, your editing skills, your PS knowledge…. allow the sun to shine over me as well… at least, there’s something I can tell you’s with my nose in the sky:-)))

Dave
(the same one)

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 15:01:55 -0400, "KatWoman"
wrote:

For me it’s an entirely artistic subjective decision. I often have shots with "incorrectly" balanced light and "correcting" them may look bad as the camera might have captured something far more interesting in the light than what is "real"
I mean that is the difference in a snapshot type photo and an artistic one. Art is not dependent upon the literal.

I often save several versions of the same image because I can’t decide which I like best.

I aggree with everything you said here, Katwoman. That, is why my photos has got a ‘b’ after the number which mean it is (only) the second version. Many of them are numberd ‘DSCF…b/c/d and saved like that. Luckily DVD’s & DVD drives became so afordable:-) Saving space is cheap.

I do not suggest laminating the gray card as you may get hotspots and reflections throwing off the readings. Unless you have some matte type laminate? It is not necessary to have a professional one, maybe tear off a piece of neutral gray from a seamless roll? or order from a USA shop over internet?

Same as what my wife said. I bought the paper in (packets of) A4 sizes, so I can somehow waste a bit. Tear off a piece of neutral gray you said? I realised this morning that I do not really know what grey looks like. There is so many different gray’s and one that is called ‘elephant’ was maybe a bit to dark. These I’ve bought seem to have a tendancy towards beige, but is called grey. My car is charcaol and I think thàt is more grey like.
(I also decided this morning, silver is grey in metalic:-)

http://xs40.xs.to/pics/05310/karina-Cavalli.jpg
Here is another photo I’ve done the retouching and made 3 "afters" cannot decide which I like best
one is
Straight up, just corrected, flaws removed
second has feathers added to makeup over eyes
last one all crazy colored
(file is 225K better for speedy connections)
which version you all like best?

difficult to say. I decided on one, after starring at Karina and Karina and Karina and Karina, turned back to tell you which one I prefer, turned back and decided on another one, turned back again and could not make up my mind:-)

Dave

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:18:47 +0200, DD wrote:

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 00:35:05 +0100, Hecate wrote:

I can’t tell because the images were blocked by Firefox.

try this site
http://k.domaindlx.com/davedup/sunrise/the_colour_of_sunrise /index.html I did not like the pop-ups there, and moved it to the other link.

However, a good general rule is to kill any casts which are unnatural. Skin with a green tinge for example (grass reflections) or a blue tinge (taken in shadow uncorrected). Otherwise, it’s personal taste. For things like skin though be aware that even the less colour aware will notice it 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Thanks Hecate (I suddenly realise yòu was the first person to suggest that I must use a grey card; remember Gambit the giraffe?:-)

Oh yeah, the green giraffe <g>

Sometimes, you’re not going to be able to use a gray card, and that is a good example. Is Gambit going to just stand there whilst you set up your tripod, wander over, stick a gray card on him, wander back and take a reading? 😉

Sometimes you just have to accept it’s going to happen and be prepared to change things post-production – the trick is to develop an eye for it – there was no way you were going to stop the colour cast on gambit because changing the white balance would have thrown his natural colour off. You just have to learn to spot when it isn’t right. 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

For purposes of color correction, particularly outside a studion setting, I question the usefulness of a gray card. This is because most natural subjects have mixed lighting – for example sunlight and blue sky.

This means finding something that should be gray, and making red, green, and blue equal (or a and b zero in Lab mode). For this purpose, any gray object will do, and there are generally naturally occuring gray objects in an image. white clothing, sidewalks, car tires, asphalt, newspapers, and any number of objects with no color.

Yes, as DD mentions, many things are called gray that are not, but this does not imply a neutral relativism. It is important to set a good neutral in most images, since forms a base around which the other colors of your image are organized. There are other important colors – flesh tones for example – that will set off alarm bells if they are incorrect, but having a good neutral is generally the key to getting your other colors showing their best. Katwoman’s final example with maxed out colors plays with this boundary very skillfully.
—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 15:01:55 -0400, "KatWoman"
wrote:

http://xs40.xs.to/pics/05310/karina-Cavalli.jpg
Here is another photo I’ve done the retouching and made 3 "afters" cannot decide which I like best
one is
Straight up, just corrected, flaws removed
second has feathers added to makeup over eyes
last one all crazy colored
(file is 225K better for speedy connections)
which version you all like best?

If it were me, the major correction I’d make on all of them would be the edge of the gown over the left breast. The colour is close enough to skin colour that it looks as if her left breast has an awful sprouting tumor. Hard to look at any other portion of the picture while that keeps drawing my eyes.

Other than that, I like the second one best, though if you’re going for the sultry sexy siren look, the third one does it a bit better.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: (strip the .invalid to email)

Mike Russell wrote:

For purposes of color correction, particularly outside a studion setting, I question the usefulness of a gray card. This is because most natural subjects have mixed lighting – for example sunlight and blue sky.

Au contraire mon ami, in your studio you know your light source.

This means finding something that should be gray, and making red, green, and blue equal (or a and b zero in Lab mode). For this purpose, any gray object will do, and there are generally naturally occuring gray objects in an image. white clothing, sidewalks, car tires, asphalt, newspapers, and any number of objects with no color.

You need to get out of the urban jungle and come visit Hawaii: square miles of blue ocean
and square miles of green mountains! 😉

Yes, as DD mentions, many things are called gray that are not, but this does not imply a neutral relativism. It is important to set a good neutral in most images, since forms a base around which the other colors of your image are organized.

That is precisely where a "true" gray card comes handy IMHO

There are other important colors – flesh tones for example –

that will set off alarm bells if they are incorrect,

Skin colors comes in so may variations, and worse, you spend a day outside and yours changes!
Is the pale or the tan correct?

but having a good

neutral is generally the key to getting your other colors showing their best. Katwoman’s final example with maxed out colors plays with this boundary very skillfully.

Yes good job katwoman on that last pic

Stephan

"Stephan" wrote in message news:uvCJe.4837
[re use of gray card in a studio to determine neutral]

Au contraire mon ami, in your studio you know your light source.

You have a point. In the studio you may know that your light source is a constant color temperature, but there is still no way to predict the effect reflected light from other objects will have – for a product shot use of a gray card or color checker may be beneficial, it will serve as a sanity check for the rest of your process, and may reassure your client since the color checker is such a familiar icon.

This means finding something that should be gray, and making red, green, and blue equal (or a and b zero in Lab mode). For this purpose, any gray object will do, and there are generally naturally occuring gray objects in an image. white clothing, sidewalks, car tires, asphalt, newspapers, and any number of objects with no color.

You need to get out of the urban jungle and come visit Hawaii: square miles of blue ocean
and square miles of green mountains! 😉

I’m there – where’s my ticket? Neutrals occur in natural settings as well. The lower margins of cumulis clouds, for example. You’re correct that there may be natural settings where no reliable neutrals may be found. In this situation, I think a gray card is not very useful because the distances can be so great, the lighting varies so much over a large distance, and in sun versus shade, and objects may filter the light, and reflect color on one another. Relying on knowledge of what good foliage, blue ocean, and sky looks like during subsequent color correction guarantees a good result, and is not really helped by having a gray card in a specific spot in the image.

That said, I see no problem with whatever method you use to get your images, since they turn out so well.

Yes, as DD mentions, many things are called gray that are not, but this does not imply a neutral relativism. It is important to set a good neutral in most images, since forms a base around which the other colors of your image are organized.

That is precisely where a "true" gray card comes handy IMHO

Except that it won’t really be true gray, and it will not necessarily have any relationship to the "true gray" that your eye seeks out when looking at the scene. This is the important difference, I think between injecting an artificial gray object into the scene, versus usng an actual object in the scene. For example, in a sunset with mixed reds and blues, it will not be practical to use a gray card because of the distances involved, nor will it be helpful because the card’s gray color may be illuminated by orange light from the sunset.

Skin colors comes in so may variations, and worse, you spend a day outside and yours changes!
Is the pale or the tan correct?

Both will have a hue angle close to 15 degrees, and a saturation of 10 to 30 percent. It turns out that this is the case for almost everyone on the planet. Skin brightness, of course, may vary, but that is not dealt with by the gray card in any case.
—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

Mike Russell wrote:

I’m there – where’s my ticket? Neutrals occur in natural settings as well. The lower margins of cumulis clouds, for example.

Mike, let me know when you are visiting, we’ll go have a drink. When over the ocean they have a bluish lower part, when over land they’ll pick up the ground color.
I’ve learned to trust a cumulus only when I am sailing, never when I shoot 🙂

You’re correct that there

may be natural settings where no reliable neutrals may be found. In this situation, I think a gray card is not very useful because the distances can be so great,
the lighting varies so much over a large distance, and in sun versus shade, and objects may filter the light, and reflect color on one another.

But the light temperature is the same, and the key light source is situated 150,000,000 km from your subject so a few km will not have a great effect.

Relying on knowledge of what good foliage, blue ocean, and sky

looks like during subsequent color correction guarantees a good result, and is not really helped by having a gray card in a specific spot in the image.

I use the gray card as a poor man’s thermocolorimeter, worked every time for me so far.

That said, I see no problem with whatever method you use to get your images, since they turn out so well.

Merçi!

That is precisely where a "true" gray card comes handy IMHO

Except that it won’t really be true gray, and it will not necessarily have any relationship to the "true gray" that your eye seeks out when looking at the scene. This is the important difference, I think between injecting an artificial gray object into the scene, versus usng an actual object in the scene.

I must be missing your point here, I don’t understand. Is the card not an actual object? I think it is, and better: it is a really gray object 100% artificial and controlled

For example, in a sunset with mixed reds and blues, it will not be

practical to use a gray card because of the distances involved, nor will it be helpful because the card’s gray color may be illuminated by orange light from the sunset.

Well yes, a color cast colorizes the gray. You tell PS: I know this is in fact true gray, make it true gray again, and gone is the cast. Even better if you have White, Gray, and Black.(works only when cards facing the lens at perfect angle BTW)
Of course for a sunset you want a cast, that’s the whole idea isn’t it?

Skin colors comes in so may variations, and worse, you spend a day outside and yours changes!
Is the pale or the tan correct?

Both will have a hue angle close to 15 degrees, and a saturation of 10 to 30 percent. It turns out that this is the case for almost everyone on the planet. Skin brightness, of course, may vary, but that is not dealt with by the gray card in any case.

I trust you on that one, I never measured myself.

Aloha,
Stephan

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

For purposes of color correction, particularly outside a studion setting, I question the usefulness of a gray card. This is because most natural subjects have mixed lighting – for example sunlight and blue sky.
This means finding something that should be gray, and making red, green, and blue equal (or a and b zero in Lab mode). For this purpose, any gray object will do, and there are generally naturally occuring gray objects in an image. white clothing, sidewalks, car tires, asphalt, newspapers, and any number of objects with no color.

Yes, as DD mentions, many things are called gray that are not, but this does not imply a neutral relativism. It is important to set a good neutral in most images, since forms a base around which the other colors of your image are organized. There are other important colors – flesh tones for example – that will set off alarm bells if they are incorrect, but having a good neutral is generally the key to getting your other colors showing their best. Katwoman’s final example with maxed out colors plays with this boundary very skillfully.
—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

thanks for saying I am skillful 😉

On the digital the built in settings work quite well. I mean most situations do fall into daylight or tungsten or strobes with a measurable temperature. Results on the pre-sets often looked better than custom settings with gray cards.
Color for me is not scientific I do most of my correcting "by eye" to my taste or memory of the "actual" colors.

"Cyli" wrote in message

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 15:01:55 -0400, "KatWoman"
wrote:

http://xs40.xs.to/pics/05310/karina-Cavalli.jpg
Here is another photo I’ve done the retouching and made 3 "afters" cannot decide which I like best
one is
Straight up, just corrected, flaws removed
second has feathers added to makeup over eyes
last one all crazy colored
(file is 225K better for speedy connections)
which version you all like best?

If it were me, the major correction I’d make on all of them would be the edge of the gown over the left breast. The colour is close enough to skin colour that it looks as if her left breast has an awful sprouting tumor. Hard to look at any other portion of the picture while that keeps drawing my eyes.

Other than that, I like the second one best, though if you’re going for the sultry sexy siren look, the third one does it a bit better.
Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: (strip the .invalid to email)

you see a tumor in that huh? strange, maybe your browser is doing something funny to the image’s colors?
her left? or the viewer’s left?
I don’t see that and so far no one else has.

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 17:01:36 -0400, "KatWoman"
wrote:

(snipped)

you see a tumor in that huh? strange, maybe your browser is doing something funny to the image’s colors?
her left? or the viewer’s left?
I don’t see that and so far no one else has.

Her left. To the right of the picture as I look at it.
Not likely my browser, more likely the way my mind is.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: (strip the .invalid to email)

"Cyli" wrote in message

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 17:01:36 -0400, "KatWoman"
wrote:

(snipped)

you see a tumor in that huh? strange, maybe your browser is doing something
funny to the image’s colors?
her left? or the viewer’s left?
I don’t see that and so far no one else has.

Her left. To the right of the picture as I look at it.
Not likely my browser, more likely the way my mind is.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: (strip the .invalid to email)

I suppose you mean the pattern in the fabric
It does have a "flesh" colored background but I think the bold edge gives enough clue that it’s part of the dress not her skin.

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:13:51 -0500, Cyli
wrote:

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 17:01:36 -0400, "KatWoman"
wrote:

(snipped)

you see a tumor in that huh? strange, maybe your browser is doing something funny to the image’s colors?
her left? or the viewer’s left?
I don’t see that and so far no one else has.

Her left. To the right of the picture as I look at it.
Not likely my browser, more likely the way my mind is.
Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: (strip the .invalid to email)

com’on Cyli, don’t be cyli 🙂 You are looking at a handkerchief sticking out her blouse. A pink hankie!

Dave

KatWoman wrote:

I suppose you mean the pattern in the fabric
It does have a "flesh" colored background but I think the bold edge gives enough clue that it’s part of the dress not her skin.

Nothing wrong with the wardrobe seen from here.
I have a problem with the fur on the forehead but I guess it’s only because I left the fashion scene (and Miami) too may years ago 😉

Stephan

"Stephan" wrote in message

I have a problem with the fur on the forehead ……

Stephan

Try Nair.

"Stephan" wrote in message

KatWoman wrote:

I suppose you mean the pattern in the fabric
It does have a "flesh" colored background but I think the bold edge gives enough clue that it’s part of the dress not her skin.

Nothing wrong with the wardrobe seen from here.
I have a problem with the fur on the forehead but I guess it’s only because I left the fashion scene (and Miami) too may years ago 😉
Stephan

I am still in Miami. LOL.
and I put the eyebrow feathers on her as I was also the makeup artist on this job. FWIW the photographer didn’t really like it either, we have many shots where I removed them. The model and I love it.

KatWoman wrote:

"Stephan" wrote in message

KatWoman wrote:

I suppose you mean the pattern in the fabric
It does have a "flesh" colored background but I think the bold edge gives enough clue that it’s part of the dress not her skin.

Nothing wrong with the wardrobe seen from here.
I have a problem with the fur on the forehead but I guess it’s only because I left the fashion scene (and Miami) too may years ago 😉
Stephan

I am still in Miami. LOL.
and I put the eyebrow feathers on her as I was also the makeup artist on this job. FWIW the photographer didn’t really like it either, we have many shots where I removed them. The model and I love it.

Say Hi to Miami for me and if you use Premiere Vue say bonjour to my friend Daniel.
Aloha,

Stephan

"Stephan" wrote in message

KatWoman wrote:

"Stephan" wrote in message

KatWoman wrote:

I suppose you mean the pattern in the fabric
It does have a "flesh" colored background but I think the bold edge gives enough clue that it’s part of the dress not her skin.

Nothing wrong with the wardrobe seen from here.
I have a problem with the fur on the forehead but I guess it’s only because I left the fashion scene (and Miami) too may years ago 😉
Stephan

I am still in Miami. LOL.
and I put the eyebrow feathers on her as I was also the makeup artist on this job. FWIW the photographer didn’t really like it either, we have many shots where I removed them. The model and I love it.

Say Hi to Miami for me and if you use Premiere Vue say bonjour to my friend Daniel.
Aloha,

Stephan

we used Reinhardt Pfunder over at The Lab in the Tides
But I do know Premiere Vue
haven’t been to any photo labs since we went digital
many have closed

KatWoman wrote:

we used Reinhardt Pfunder over at The Lab in the Tides
But I do know Premiere Vue

Reinhardt is also a nice guy and his wife used to live where I live now (Kailua, Hawaii)

haven’t been to any photo labs since we went digital
many have closed

Aren’t they offering new services (like prints), didn’t they see digital coming?