Matching Color

On Nov 13, 2:44 pm, tony cooper wrote:

The image athttp://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/color.jpg is two different photographs taken on the same background. I’ve merged them into one image just to post them as one .jpg.
The image is of a penny, but I just used that for demo purposes. I needed something to focus on.

The background color is slightly different in each. I would like the background to be exactly the same color in each.

Assuming that I mask the penny (no reason to adjust the subject color) and adjust only the background color, what would be the best way to do this? I’m using Photoshop 7.0.

—

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

In newer version of Photoshop they have the Color Matching Tools. You may have to do this as you describe. I would personally make the selection around the penny, invert the selection and then use "Image —

Adjust–>Selective Color" This will give you the most control over

the color and values.

"tony cooper" wrote in message

The image at
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/color.jpg is two different photographs taken on the same background. I’ve merged them into one image just to post them as one .jpg.
The image is of a penny, but I just used that for demo purposes. I needed something to focus on.

The background color is slightly different in each. I would like the background to be exactly the same color in each.

Assuming that I mask the penny (no reason to adjust the subject color) and adjust only the background color, what would be the best way to do this? I’m using Photoshop 7.0.

Set an info point on each background, using the max 5×5 sample size, and adjust with curves until the r, g, and b numbers match. A circular selection, inverted, is one way to mask the penny, but the easiest is probably to use the b channel of Lab, modified with levels or curves to bump the contrast. The blue channel of RGB looks like it would be a good mask as well.

But your faithful servant, der Curvemeister, says it’s an oversight to change only the background. The two pennies don’t really match – the left one is darker and a slightly different color. There’s a better way that gets the pennies and background to match, that does not rely on masking.

As is often the case, an RGB correction won’t work for this particular image, because the red channel values of the penny and background are too similar, and matching up the brightness of the penny makes the background too red. This problem can be avoided if you convert the image to Lab, select the left side of the image, and use the following curve:

;Lightness: (0,0) (65,69) (80,84) (100,100)
;a: (-128,-128) (-1,-1) (16,15) (127,127)
;b: (-126,-128) (6,4) (35,41) (126,127)

If you want to see how this curve was made, here’s more info: 70.231.243.160/tmp/TonyCooper (while my server is being cranky) www.mike.russell-home.net/tmp/TonyCooper (normally)
—
Mike Russell – www.curvemeister.com

tony cooper wrote:

The image at
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/color.jpg is two different photographs taken on the same background. I’ve merged them into one image just to post them as one .jpg.
The image is of a penny, but I just used that for demo purposes. I needed something to focus on.

The background color is slightly different in each. I would like the background to be exactly the same color in each.

Assuming that I mask the penny (no reason to adjust the subject color) and adjust only the background color, what would be the best way to do this? I’m using Photoshop 7.0.

If I am not mistaken CS2 (the one I tested) has several options, techniques to match-color from single or 2 separated layers, but I only tested it/them once to remember all detail.

But your seems pretty easy.

1. Mark the Penny

2. Inverse to select the background

3. Then using Level, Curves (whatever you know best) to adjust the brightness to match the other.

That’s it! the trick of mastering Photoshop is finding the easier way to master. Or with the penny vs background, select the penny then inverse to select the complect background.

"tony cooper" wrote in message

The image at
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/color.jpg is two different photographs taken on the same background. I’ve merged them into one image just to post them as one .jpg.
The image is of a penny, but I just used that for demo purposes. I needed something to focus on.

The background color is slightly different in each. I would like the background to be exactly the same color in each.

Assuming that I mask the penny (no reason to adjust the subject color) and adjust only the background color, what would be the best way to do this? I’m using Photoshop 7.0.

It might seem like cheating, but why can’t you just layer out the coin and stick it on the other background? The two backgrounds will match then, by golly ’cause they’ll be the exact same one. I suppose you could even rotate it 180 degrees if you want the background to vary a little.

—
dvus

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:17:24 -0500, "dvus" wrote:

It might seem like cheating, but why can’t you just layer out the coin and stick it on the other background? The two backgrounds will match then, by golly ’cause they’ll be the exact same one. I suppose you could even rotate it 180 degrees if you want the background to vary a little.

Been there, done that. The objects that I will be photographing are more difficult to extract than the coin used for illustration. When inverting the masked object, and tweaking the background slightly, the job is much simpler than extracting the object and placing it over a layer of new background.

I’ve also tried extracting the object, creating a blank layer, and brushing in a pattern with the brush set to "color". The separation of the object itself, though, is extremely time-consuming.

—

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

"dvus" wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message

The image at
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/color.jpg is two different photographs taken on the same background. I’ve merged them into one image just to post them as one .jpg.
The image is of a penny, but I just used that for demo purposes. I needed something to focus on.

The background color is slightly different in each. I would like the background to be exactly the same color in each.

Assuming that I mask the penny (no reason to adjust the subject color) and adjust only the background color, what would be the best way to do this? I’m using Photoshop 7.0.

It might seem like cheating, but why can’t you just layer out the coin and stick it on the other background? The two backgrounds will match then, by golly ’cause they’ll be the exact same one. I suppose you could even rotate it 180 degrees if you want the background to vary a little.

That would do, and there should be 1001+ different ways to solve this simple background issue.

tony cooper wrote:

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:17:24 -0500, "dvus" wrote:

It might seem like cheating, but why can’t you just layer out the coin and stick it on the other background? The two backgrounds will match then, by golly ’cause they’ll be the exact same one. I suppose you could even rotate it 180 degrees if you want the background to vary a little.

Been there, done that. The objects that I will be photographing are more difficult to extract than the coin used for illustration. When inverting the masked object, and tweaking the background slightly, the job is much simpler than extracting the object and placing it over a layer of new background.

I’ve also tried extracting the object, creating a blank layer, and brushing in a pattern with the brush set to "color". The separation of the object itself, though, is extremely time-consuming.

From what I can see at my end it should take you more than some seconds or shouldn’t be no more than 1-2 minutes the most. But the time is often depend on Photoshop skill and number of tricks each operator knows.

For the penny for example

– Draw a circle around the penny, and it wouldn’t take more than few seconds. If you worry about the edge then you can use FEATHER and Anti-Alias etc.. whatever you need

– Inverting the circle selection then you will have background selected

– Few seconds on Level or Curves or whatever then you will have darker/brighter background.

That’s it! and if you want the background match exactly the other then you use Layer, Mask etc.. then you will have the exact same background. Just pick your choice

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:38:41 -0600, Joel wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:17:24 -0500, "dvus" wrote:

It might seem like cheating, but why can’t you just layer out the coin and stick it on the other background? The two backgrounds will match then, by golly ’cause they’ll be the exact same one. I suppose you could even rotate it 180 degrees if you want the background to vary a little.

Been there, done that. The objects that I will be photographing are more difficult to extract than the coin used for illustration. When inverting the masked object, and tweaking the background slightly, the job is much simpler than extracting the object and placing it over a layer of new background.

I’ve also tried extracting the object, creating a blank layer, and brushing in a pattern with the brush set to "color". The separation of the object itself, though, is extremely time-consuming.

From what I can see at my end it should take you more than some seconds or shouldn’t be no more than 1-2 minutes the most. But the time is often depend on Photoshop skill and number of tricks each operator knows.
For the penny for example

– Draw a circle around the penny, and it wouldn’t take more than few seconds. If you worry about the edge then you can use FEATHER and Anti-Alias etc.. whatever you need

– Inverting the circle selection then you will have background selected
– Few seconds on Level or Curves or whatever then you will have darker/brighter background.

That’s it! and if you want the background match exactly the other then you use Layer, Mask etc.. then you will have the exact same background. Just pick your choice

I appreciate your input, but I find it mildly insulting that you would assume that I’d come here with a problem as simple as drawing a circle around a penny. I did state – very clearly – that the penny is in that image only as an example and as something to focus on. The actual objects do not have nice sharp edges and definite contrast.

The photographs I take – macro images – have only slight differences in color of background. Slight, but enough to bother me.

What I’m looking for is the best way to slightly adjust the two background colors (using the background material I feel is best) to be as close to identical as possible. With the gray background fabric, I’ve found that masking the object, using Selective Color in the Neutrals mode, and adjusting the Black gets me pretty close.

Like any dedicated Photoshop user, "close" is not always good enough. We always want better.
—

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

tony cooper wrote:

<snip>

I appreciate your input, but I find it mildly insulting that you would assume that I’d come here with a problem as simple as drawing a circle around a penny. I did state – very clearly – that the penny is in that image only as an example and as something to focus on. The actual objects do not have nice sharp edges and definite contrast.

Well, if you find my answer is insulting to you then just ignore it and do the way won’t insult you then. I am here to share what I know not to argue or to serve anyone.

You gave the sample and the best we can do is using the sample you give to provide you with the best answer we can come up with, then you need to adapt the idea to your own skill to come up with a better solution.

Me, I often work on very complex background, and I do for printing and LARGE print so I do know what I am talking about. And as I often suggest "practicing" and "practicing" and not only practicing the commands but practicing to adapt different idea’s to different work. Yes, I turn normal ugly background to digital backdrop to make them look like they are taken from studio.

Yes, I am a professional photographer, photo retoucher, and I do have studio.

If you don’t feel like being insulted then learn to use PEN which seems like a very useful and powerful tool, but it’s sad that I am not vey good with PEN TOOL (because I get so used with other techniques that Lasso is plenty good for me). Then learn to use Feather and Anti-Alias (sometime adapting feather and anti-alias from different command may give different result).

And if you want to learn faster and gonna pay for the lesson, then I would suggest to get a copy of Lynda Video Tutorial called Channels and Masks which is not only teach you how to create good Masking, but it will show you how to use PEN and many different tools/commands to solve the complex selection. Thenh then you may find how little you know about Photoshop .. and don’t feel insulting as that is what I feel when I find I still have so much to learn.

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:42:40 -0800, "Mike Russell" wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message

The image at
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/color.jpg is two different photographs taken on the same background. I’ve merged them into one image just to post them as one .jpg.
The image is of a penny, but I just used that for demo purposes. I needed something to focus on.

The background color is slightly different in each. I would like the background to be exactly the same color in each.

Assuming that I mask the penny (no reason to adjust the subject color) and adjust only the background color, what would be the best way to do this? I’m using Photoshop 7.0.

Set an info point on each background, using the max 5×5 sample size, and adjust with curves until the r, g, and b numbers match. A circular selection, inverted, is one way to mask the penny, but the easiest is probably to use the b channel of Lab, modified with levels or curves to bump the contrast. The blue channel of RGB looks like it would be a good mask as well.

I was hoping that you would reply, and hoping that I could understand your reply. I’ve printed it out and will spend some time with that technique. While I’ve worked with Curves quite a bit, Channels is new territory.

But your faithful servant, der Curvemeister, says it’s an oversight to change only the background. The two pennies don’t really match – the left one is darker and a slightly different color. There’s a better way that gets the pennies and background to match, that does not rely on masking.

Your solution will be tried, but the discrepancy in the object color is not a factor. Accuracy in representing the object is required, and the objects are two-sided. My objects are often further apart than this in color front and back though they are the same material, but my objective is to improve the background so the viewer doesn’t think the same difference in background may account for the difference in object color.

However, I’ll retain this and work with it. There may be occasions in the future where this will be useful.

Thank you.

As is often the case, an RGB correction won’t work for this particular image, because the red channel values of the penny and background are too similar, and matching up the brightness of the penny makes the background too red. This problem can be avoided if you convert the image to Lab, select the left side of the image, and use the following curve:
;Lightness: (0,0) (65,69) (80,84) (100,100)
;a: (-128,-128) (-1,-1) (16,15) (127,127)
;b: (-126,-128) (6,4) (35,41) (126,127)

If you want to see how this curve was made, here’s more info: 70.231.243.160/tmp/TonyCooper (while my server is being cranky) www.mike.russell-home.net/tmp/TonyCooper (normally)

—

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

tony cooper wrote:

The image at
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/color.jpg is two different photographs taken on the same background. I’ve merged them into one image just to post them as one .jpg.
The image is of a penny, but I just used that for demo purposes. I needed something to focus on.

The background color is slightly different in each. I would like the background to be exactly the same color in each.

Assuming that I mask the penny (no reason to adjust the subject color) and adjust only the background color, what would be the best way to do this? I’m using Photoshop 7.0.

Why not just copy the background from one, and paste it into the other?

tony cooper wrote:

The image at
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/color.jpg is two different photographs taken on the same background. I’ve merged them into one image just to post them as one .jpg.
The image is of a penny, but I just used that for demo purposes. I needed something to focus on.

The background color is slightly different in each. I would like the background to be exactly the same color in each.

Assuming that I mask the penny (no reason to adjust the subject color) and adjust only the background color, what would be the best way to do this? I’m using Photoshop 7.0.

Because you’re replacing the overall hue of a fine knitted texture, I would suggest there’s no real easy automated way to do this.
I’d personally open both images side by side in photoshop, then mask off the background in one of them, then use curves or levels to tweak the background until it matches.

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:19:27 -0000, "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam" wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

The image at
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/color.jpg is two different photographs taken on the same background. I’ve merged them into one image just to post them as one .jpg.
The image is of a penny, but I just used that for demo purposes. I needed something to focus on.

The background color is slightly different in each. I would like the background to be exactly the same color in each.

Assuming that I mask the penny (no reason to adjust the subject color) and adjust only the background color, what would be the best way to do this? I’m using Photoshop 7.0.

Why not just copy the background from one, and paste it into the other?

I’ve tried that, and it does work. If I knock-out the background I can put a layer underneath the object layer with a fill, an image of cloth background, or any other background.
—

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:07:41 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:19:27 -0000, "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam" wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

The image at
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/color.jpg is two different photographs taken on the same background. I’ve merged them into one image just to post them as one .jpg.
The image is of a penny, but I just used that for demo purposes. I needed something to focus on.

The background color is slightly different in each. I would like the background to be exactly the same color in each.

Assuming that I mask the penny (no reason to adjust the subject color) and adjust only the background color, what would be the best way to do this? I’m using Photoshop 7.0.

Why not just copy the background from one, and paste it into the other?

I’ve tried that, and it does work. If I knock-out the background I can put a layer underneath the object layer with a fill, an image of cloth background, or any other background.

(I hit send before I finished this)

The masking requirement is a little more difficult on the object since all the edges must be sharp to look right on top of the show-through layer.

However – and Photoshop users will understand this – changing the colors to match became a challenge. I know it can be done, and I want to be able to do it. Work-arounds are fine, but understanding how to use all the tools in PS becomes the challenge. Changing the colors means I get better with Curves, Levels, or Channels or whatever turns out to be the best solution.

If I mask and tweak, without doing a knock-out, the object mask can be a little less perfect because the edge isn’t going to be affected that much. The color difference isn’t great, and the object is a contrasting color.

If I learn something new, and end up knowing how to tweak the colors, I may be able to apply that process to some other, future, project.

I’ve got, maybe, six more image pairs where I have to do this. I can go the simple route and knock-out and drop-in, or I can learn something. A whole lot of bother for six more images that are for my own use and not a commercial project, but PS is a continual learning process. That’s rewarding to me.

—

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

tony cooper wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:07:41 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:19:27 -0000, "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam" wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

The image at
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/color.jpg is two different photographs taken on the same background. I’ve merged them into one image just to post them as one .jpg.
The image is of a penny, but I just used that for demo purposes. I needed something to focus on.

The background color is slightly different in each. I would like the background to be exactly the same color in each.

Assuming that I mask the penny (no reason to adjust the subject color) and adjust only the background color, what would be the best way to do this? I’m using Photoshop 7.0.

Why not just copy the background from one, and paste it into the other?

I’ve tried that, and it does work. If I knock-out the background I can put a layer underneath the object layer with a fill, an image of cloth background, or any other background.

(I hit send before I finished this)

The masking requirement is a little more difficult on the object since all the edges must be sharp to look right on top of the show-through layer.

However – and Photoshop users will understand this – changing the colors to match became a challenge. I know it can be done, and I want to be able to do it. Work-arounds are fine, but understanding how to use all the tools in PS becomes the challenge. Changing the colors means I get better with Curves, Levels, or Channels or whatever turns out to be the best solution.

If I mask and tweak, without doing a knock-out, the object mask can be a little less perfect because the edge isn’t going to be affected that much. The color difference isn’t great, and the object is a contrasting color.

If I learn something new, and end up knowing how to tweak the colors, I may be able to apply that process to some other, future, project.
I’ve got, maybe, six more image pairs where I have to do this. I can go the simple route and knock-out and drop-in, or I can learn something. A whole lot of bother for six more images that are for my own use and not a commercial project, but PS is a continual learning process. That’s rewarding to me.

I applaud that.
The idea about pasting th background was just a simple workaround. I think the only reliable way to alter the colour of the background in-situ is to mask and use curves or levels.

Having said that, I can think of another solution which doesn’t require photoshop jiggery pokery at all.
Take your photos in a controlled light environment. Set up a light tent in a dark room with a couple of spots shining onto it.
Place your macro objects and background inside the tent and photograph them all without changing the lighting setup or the exposure and apperture settings on your camera.
This should result in all your photos having the exact same coloured background.

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:46:08 -0000, "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam" wrote:

I applaud that.
The idea about pasting th background was just a simple workaround. I think the only reliable way to alter the colour of the background in-situ is to mask and use curves or levels.

Having said that, I can think of another solution which doesn’t require photoshop jiggery pokery at all.
Take your photos in a controlled light environment. Set up a light tent in a dark room with a couple of spots shining onto it.
Place your macro objects and background inside the tent and photograph them all without changing the lighting setup or the exposure and apperture settings on your camera.
This should result in all your photos having the exact same coloured background.

As a long-time poster to various newsgroups, I hate to see a poster come into a newsgroup, ask a question, and then argue with the solutions proposed. I get the impression that this kind of poster is looking for support that his/her pre-determined solution is the best rather than looking for new solutions.

That said, I *am* using a softbox. This particular set of images was taken in a home-made softbox using a translucent glass lampshade and a circular fluorescent light fixture placed over the neck. I also use a translucent parchment lampshade with external spot lighting. I love fabricating gadgetry, and use a home-made "copy stand" for other macro photos.

My current macros are of antique pocket watches. They are gold, and highly reflective. The original softbox worked fairly well, but the new one – with the circular fluorescent fixture – distributes the light in a more uniform manner.

While these watches are round (like the penny), the edges are not distinct like a penny. The rounded sides and depth of the watch blurs the edges since the light is from slightly above and the light does not reach all of the rounded surface. When photographing a hunter-style case (hinged lids that cover the face and back), the open lid is out-of-focus when the face or works are the focal point.

There’s the additional problem that the photographs are taken from above the watch. If the camera is directly above, there’s a reflection of the camera lens in the gold surface that appears as a large, black spot. The camera (mounted in a flat piece of foamboard with a lens-sized hole in it) has to be tilted to avoid this. Some distortion comes of this.

There’s an additional mystery factor since the background never appears to be exactly the same color in two shots (front and back) taken seconds apart with a fixed aperture setting and the same-exact setting and positioning. The eyedropper proves it.

The background would appear the same in a non-macro shot, but not using the macro distance. I haven’t figured out why.

I’ve experimented with various background materials and colors. Even black doesn’t change this. The gray I’m using is best because any color – even black – reflects in the gold surface and the bottom of the sides of the watch pick up that color. Photographing gold is like photographing a mirror, and photographing a gold pocket watch is like photographing a flattened mirrored ball.

One solution is to use a color illustration like a magazine page as the background. With a full-color illustration, the slight difference isn’t noticeable. But – hey – I’m determined to figure how to solve the cloth problem in Photoshop. What’s life without challenges?

This all for my personal use, by the way.
—

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

tony cooper wrote:

<snip>

Why not just copy the background from one, and paste it into the other?

I’ve tried that, and it does work. If I knock-out the background I can put a layer underneath the object layer with a fill, an image of cloth background, or any other background.

(I hit send before I finished this)

The masking requirement is a little more difficult on the object since all the edges must be sharp to look right on top of the show-through layer.

NO! NO! and NO! harder or easier is depending on the skill of the operator. Depending on different skill level of each user, some new technique may take days/weeks/months to master

Just some idea about MAKING! if you can’t get one good mask from single_mask then go for multiple_maskes on multiple_layers to get better mask of different_part’s of the image.

And as I mentioned in other message, if someone really need to learn more about Channels, Masking, Selection and anything relates to making a good selection for masking, then they may want to spend some $$$ on the video tutorial like Lynda Channels & Mask.

And NO, you know quite well I am not working for Lynda, and I don’t own the video myself. I just happened to see the videos at my nephew’s place and I find it’s very good, and seems more useful than most others I have seen some small clips now and then.

However – and Photoshop users will understand this – changing the colors to match became a challenge. I know it can be done, and I want to be able to do it. Work-arounds are fine, but understanding how to use all the tools in PS becomes the challenge. Changing the colors means I get better with Curves, Levels, or Channels or whatever turns out to be the best solution.

You are looking at YEARS of practicing, and with hard work you hope you may be able to master few technique(s).

If I mask and tweak, without doing a knock-out, the object mask can be a little less perfect because the edge isn’t going to be affected that much. The color difference isn’t great, and the object is a contrasting color.

Try not to think about thing you may not understand quite well, because masking is more than just knocking out something. It requires skill and knowledge of many Photoshop commands, technicques.

If I learn something new, and end up knowing how to tweak the colors, I may be able to apply that process to some other, future, project.
I’ve got, maybe, six more image pairs where I have to do this. I can go the simple route and knock-out and drop-in, or I can learn something. A whole lot of bother for six more images that are for my own use and not a commercial project, but PS is a continual learning process. That’s rewarding to me.

I would say, just give it 2-3 months of hard word with lot of researching on the project, then you can give yourself a pat on your back.

Years ago, I started with project converting old damaged B&W to COLOR which required reparing the damages and turnign B&W to color etc.. and it took me almost 3 months with lot of hard work (some days I spent many many many hours on it). I didn’t do a very good job on it, but I have learned lot of other techniques, commands that I didn’t try to learn (or had no idea of the existing). Well, I haven’t done B&W to Color converting for many years, but now I would be able to do fairy good job within few short minutes (for displaying or small print), or may be 20-45+ minutes for larger print.

tony cooper wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:46:08 -0000, "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam" wrote:

I applaud that.
The idea about pasting th background was just a simple workaround. I think the only reliable way to alter the colour of the background in-situ is to mask and use curves or levels.

Having said that, I can think of another solution which doesn’t require photoshop jiggery pokery at all.
Take your photos in a controlled light environment. Set up a light tent in a dark room with a couple of spots shining onto it. Place your macro objects and background inside the tent and photograph them all without changing the lighting setup or the exposure and apperture settings on your camera.
This should result in all your photos having the exact same coloured background.

As a long-time poster to various newsgroups, I hate to see a poster come into a newsgroup, ask a question, and then argue with the solutions proposed. I get the impression that this kind of poster is looking for support that his/her pre-determined solution is the best rather than looking for new solutions.

That said, I *am* using a softbox. This particular set of images was taken in a home-made softbox using a translucent glass lampshade and a circular fluorescent light fixture placed over the neck. I also use a translucent parchment lampshade with external spot lighting. I love fabricating gadgetry, and use a home-made "copy stand" for other macro photos.

My current macros are of antique pocket watches. They are gold, and highly reflective. The original softbox worked fairly well, but the new one – with the circular fluorescent fixture – distributes the light in a more uniform manner.

While these watches are round (like the penny), the edges are not distinct like a penny. The rounded sides and depth of the watch blurs the edges since the light is from slightly above and the light does not reach all of the rounded surface. When photographing a hunter-style case (hinged lids that cover the face and back), the open lid is out-of-focus when the face or works are the focal point.
There’s the additional problem that the photographs are taken from above the watch. If the camera is directly above, there’s a reflection of the camera lens in the gold surface that appears as a large, black spot. The camera (mounted in a flat piece of foamboard with a lens-sized hole in it) has to be tilted to avoid this. Some distortion comes of this.

There’s an additional mystery factor since the background never appears to be exactly the same color in two shots (front and back) taken seconds apart with a fixed aperture setting and the same-exact setting and positioning. The eyedropper proves it.

The background would appear the same in a non-macro shot, but not using the macro distance. I haven’t figured out why.

I’ve experimented with various background materials and colors. Even black doesn’t change this. The gray I’m using is best because any color – even black – reflects in the gold surface and the bottom of the sides of the watch pick up that color. Photographing gold is like photographing a mirror, and photographing a gold pocket watch is like photographing a flattened mirrored ball.

Wow, you’ve already put an awfull lot of thought and effort into this. It’s weird that the colour remains the same in wide mode, but varies in macro mode.
I wonder if this might be to do with the different levels and colours of ambient light reflected back from different watches, coupled with the increased proximity of the lens?
To be honest, I’m clutching at straws here, and I really can’t come up with an explanation other than that wild theory 😉
I’m intrigued by this now, and I’d be interested to see if anyone can offer you a better solution than those already proposed.
Personally, I think Mike Russell’s reply was the best.

One solution is to use a color illustration like a magazine page as the background. With a full-color illustration, the slight difference isn’t noticeable. But – hey – I’m determined to figure how to solve the cloth problem in Photoshop. What’s life without challenges?

Absolutely.

tony cooper wrote:

<snip>

There’s the additional problem that the photographs are taken from above the watch. If the camera is directly above, there’s a reflection of the camera lens in the gold surface that appears as a large, black spot. The camera (mounted in a flat piece of foamboard with a lens-sized hole in it) has to be tilted to avoid this. Some distortion comes of this.

There’s an additional mystery factor since the background never appears to be exactly the same color in two shots (front and back) taken seconds apart with a fixed aperture setting and the same-exact setting and positioning. The eyedropper proves it.

<snip>

It sounds like you need to spend few more months of the BOX project as well <bg> (or at least few days for on researching, few days to gather all marterial, and may be few hours to put together a box?). Cuz I just can’t image why you try to find an easier way to make thing more difficult to yourself (especially you seem to talk about some type commercial work or so).

1. Build yourself a small BOX, and find several *good* marterial to use as backgrounds. Or some marterial loves/hates camera more/less than other

2. Have multiple light sources around the box so there won’t be no shadow, no glare etc.. of course you may need to find a better way to control the light source if you want different effect’s

3. Using good camera with good lens to get better image to work with. Or try not to capture something like the pennies those ain’t worth to spend valuable to work on thing doesn’t have much value.

– Or I am trying to say (as photographer) is better to spend the valuable time to fine-tune a good photo instead of wasting the valuable time to repair the damaged photo. Or with good photo you usually get a greater photo, when with damaged photo you will have to spend much more time doing repairing (not retouching) and hopefully you may get a kinda ok photo.

4. Shoot using hi-rez to give you more room to work on, and the more room you have the faster you can fine-tune, and the better the result.

Me? I usually refuse to work on low-rez and usually don’t have much interest in low-rez image. For few very simple reasons.

a. I don’t have much time to waste on repairing, when I can get hi-rez to work on to improve my retouching technique instead of repairing (even I am pretty good with repairing as I started with repairing)

b. hmm I have few more reasons , but I think one is more than enough <bg>

"TheComputerGuy" wrote in message

On Nov 13, 2:44 pm, tony cooper wrote:

The image athttp://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/color.jpg is two different photographs taken on the same background. I’ve merged them into one image just to post them as one .jpg.
The image is of a penny, but I just used that for demo purposes. I needed something to focus on.

The background color is slightly different in each. I would like the background to be exactly the same color in each.

Assuming that I mask the penny (no reason to adjust the subject color) and adjust only the background color, what would be the best way to do this? I’m using Photoshop 7.0.

—

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

In newer version of Photoshop they have the Color Matching Tools. You may have to do this as you describe. I would personally make the selection around the penny, invert the selection and then use "Image —

Adjust–>Selective Color" This will give you the most control over

the color and values.

I would use image adjustment ..color match
I have got excellent results with this feature in the past

open both images
enable the one you wish to change
select the other image in the drop down box
adjust sliders

(use save as..so you don’t modify your original)

you can match portions of images using the select tools if this result is changing too much of the image

eyeballing the selective color may give a close but will not give an exact result

for exact color match you will have to use the Mike Russell method described measuring the color and using curves

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:34:12 -0600, Joel wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:34:12 -0600, Joel wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

<snip>

There’s the additional problem that the photographs are taken from above the watch. If the camera is directly above, there’s a reflection of the camera lens in the gold surface that appears as a large, black spot. The camera (mounted in a flat piece of foamboard with a lens-sized hole in it) has to be tilted to avoid this. Some distortion comes of this.

There’s an additional mystery factor since the background never appears to be exactly the same color in two shots (front and back) taken seconds apart with a fixed aperture setting and the same-exact setting and positioning. The eyedropper proves it.

<snip>

It sounds like you need to spend few more months of the BOX project as well <bg> (or at least few days for on researching, few days to gather all marterial, and may be few hours to put together a box?). Cuz I just can’t image why you try to find an easier way to make thing more difficult to yourself

Why do any of us do anything? Why does Mike Russell devote so much time to Curves and teaching about Curves? Surely, he can find an easier way to do a difficult project even though it’s not quite what he wants. Why does anyone here tweak and adjust and try new things when they can get an image or a project to be acceptable if you don’t look too closely?

(especially you seem to talk about some type commercial work or so).

I said it wasn’t commercial because some posters here actually work for a living and get paid for what they do. I’m past that. I’m retired and do what I want to please myself.

1. Build yourself a small BOX, and find several *good* marterial to use as backgrounds. Or some marterial loves/hates camera more/less than other

I have a stack of background material that I’ve experimented with, and will probably have a larger stack next week.

2. Have multiple light sources around the box so there won’t be no shadow, no glare etc.. of course you may need to find a better way to control the light source if you want different effect’s

I’ve got four spots now, plus a circular lamp. I’ve got blue bulbs, daylight bulbs, and fluorescent bulbs. I’d use Christmas tree lights if I thought they’d help.

3. Using good camera with good lens to get better image to work with.

Aye, there’s the rub. Ritz’s got Nikon D40s on sale. I’m trying to convince myself that I really, really need one.

Or I am trying to say (as photographer) is better to spend the valuable time to fine-tune a good photo instead of wasting the valuable time to repair the damaged photo.

I wasn’t aware that I had a damaged photo. I though I had a demo photo with a place holder to focus on.

In summary, Joel, it’s the chase. If you don’t understand that, you never will.

—

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

tony cooper wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:34:12 -0600, Joel wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:34:12 -0600, Joel wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

<snip>

There’s the additional problem that the photographs are taken from above the watch. If the camera is directly above, there’s a reflection of the camera lens in the gold surface that appears as a large, black spot. The camera (mounted in a flat piece of foamboard with a lens-sized hole in it) has to be tilted to avoid this. Some distortion comes of this.

There’s an additional mystery factor since the background never appears to be exactly the same color in two shots (front and back) taken seconds apart with a fixed aperture setting and the same-exact setting and positioning. The eyedropper proves it.

<snip>

It sounds like you need to spend few more months of the BOX project as well <bg> (or at least few days for on researching, few days to gather all marterial, and may be few hours to put together a box?). Cuz I just can’t image why you try to find an easier way to make thing more difficult to yourself

Why do any of us do anything? Why does Mike Russell devote so much time to Curves and teaching about Curves? Surely, he can find an easier way to do a difficult project even though it’s not quite what he wants. Why does anyone here tweak and adjust and try new things when they can get an image or a project to be acceptable if you don’t look too closely?

You just ask Mike and yourself WHY <bg>

(especially you seem to talk about some type commercial work or so).

I said it wasn’t commercial because some posters here actually work for a living and get paid for what they do. I’m past that. I’m retired and do what I want to please myself.

I don’t know if I would say "good for you" or "bad for you" because I am retired and don’t feel good most of the time. Or I have to swallow lot of pills daily to be alive.

1. Build yourself a small BOX, and find several *good* marterial to use as backgrounds. Or some marterial loves/hates camera more/less than other

I have a stack of background material that I’ve experimented with, and will probably have a larger stack next week.

Good! and as I said you only need few good working material cuz most often mass of mess may not worth the trouble.

2. Have multiple light sources around the box so there won’t be no shadow, no glare etc.. of course you may need to find a better way to control the light source if you want different effect’s

I’ve got four spots now, plus a circular lamp. I’ve got blue bulbs, daylight bulbs, and fluorescent bulbs. I’d use Christmas tree lights if I thought they’d help.

Whatever you do can give you good light source without glare, shadow will count.

3. Using good camera with good lens to get better image to work with.

Aye, there’s the rub. Ritz’s got Nikon D40s on sale. I’m trying to convince myself that I really, really need one.

Don’t stop at Nikon 40D as it’s an older generation. I would suggest to spend 3-4 months doing some research on DSLR camera system. Yes, I am talking about the whole system not just any specific model.

I am not Nikon user but if you really want to shoot for Nikon then I would say go for at least D80 or D2000 (I may have the number in reserved but you may know what I mean)

Or I am trying to say (as photographer) is better to spend the valuable time to fine-tune a good photo instead of wasting the valuable time to repair the damaged photo.

I wasn’t aware that I had a damaged photo. I though I had a demo photo with a place holder to focus on.

There are lot of things you are not aware of, and age doesn’t mean much but may give a bad taste <bg>

In summary, Joel, it’s the chase. If you don’t understand that, you never will.

I agree! there are things people will never know no matter what their age may be <bg>

In article ,
tony cooper wrote:

The background color is slightly different in each. I would like the background to be exactly the same color in each.

Assuming that I mask the penny (no reason to adjust the subject color) and adjust only the background color, what would be the best way to do this? I’m using Photoshop 7.0.

Color correction is one of the things Photoshop excels at. With a very simple color correction job like this, Image->Adjust->Curves is likely all you need.

—
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html