10D Flat washed out Colours - Help Appreciated

[michaelmorris]

I have had my 10D since the Summer, shoot in Raw and use Brezzebrowzer and PS7. I am now using PS CS for both RAW conversion to TIFF and post processing.

My problem seems to be that I have to do so much processing in PS to get vibrant realsitc colour. Most of the photos look washed out and when printed have a bluish purple tint. To get round the latter I have been experimenting with reducing the blue tint in the Camera Raw plug in by at least 20%. I normally have to increase saturation efore sharpening to get a decent finished product.

I would very much like to hearfrom other experienced 10 D users whether they have similar problems and how the cope with getting decenty colour vibrancy.

[RichardtheSane]

I can't help a lot with the implementation of it (still learning myself), but I would say you need to read up on colour management and make sure you have matching profiles across your system.

[michaelmorris]

I have set my camera to Adobe RGB 1998 as well as PS and have used the Adobe Gamma utility to try to get my laptop 1600 x 1200 res profiles properly.

My main problem is that out of camera shots just appear to lack colour vibrancy.

[defordphoto]

Michael: Is there any way you can upload a sample here? One thing I have found with the 10D is that it's pretty much spot-on on color saturation and accuracy with most photos right out of the camera. But not always.

Another thing I have noticed is that many people prefer over-saturated color, especially here in the USA. My wife works for HP in their R&D department for ink-jet priniting and she also says the same thing that USA customers prefer over-saturated color. I also see that when I visit someone else's home and watch their TV's. Most of the time the color is turned up way too high for my tastes.

Anyway, if you can post a sample photo here -- or email one to me -- that'd be a great help in resolving this issue for you.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Just out of curiosity,. let us know what lens you are using as well...

But ,. I am concerned like Richard and RFM that the problem may lie more in what you are viewing the images on rather than the images themselves.. (no gurantee of course,. but I do think we need to eliminate that as a problem)

Could you upload an image some where so that we can see the images on other monitors?

[maderito]

Michael,

I agree with Jim -- many prefer prints with pumped up saturation and are disappointed when their pre-processed shots look washed out.

I have several questions:

1. Are you using automatic white balance (AWB) or some other setting or white balance method.

1. Do the images look undersaturated (and bluish) on your monitor or on the final prints.

2. You say you have your camera set to Adobe RGB and use the same in PS. How do you manage the image when it is loaded into to PS (since it is not tagged)? Do you load it and then assign the Adobe RGB profile; do you convert to Adobe RGB before loading; or are you unaware of this issue?

3. What kind of printer (and settings) are you using.

4. Most generally -- what is your color management workflow?

By all means, upload a pre/post processed print.

[Jesper]

michaelmorris wrote:
I have set my camera to Adobe RGB 1998 as well as PS and have used the Adobe Gamma utility to try to get my laptop 1600 x 1200 res profiles properly.

My main problem is that out of camera shots just appear to lack colour vibrancy.

You have to know a few things about using Adobe RGB with the Canon 10D.

I don't know what RAW conversion software you're using, but the software supplied by Canon (File Viewer Utility) does not attach an ICC profile to the TIFF or JPEG file that is generated out of the RAW file. That means that if you open the TIFF or JPEG in Photoshop, Photoshop doesn't know it is in Adobe RGB and it will think the file is in sRGB. If you look at an Adobe RGB file as if it is in sRGB, the image will look undersaturated. You need to assign (not convert) the Adobe RGB colour space to the image in Photoshop.

By the way, if you're shooting in RAW it doesn't matter if you set your camera to Standard, Adobe RGB or any other parameter mode. When shooting RAW, the camera saves the data that comes from the sensor directly, without any processing applied. The processing (including converting the RAW data to an RGB colour space) is done on the computer.

I also used Adobe Gamma before, but I've just bought a Spyder at http://shop.colourconfidence.com/ - they are now available at incredibly low prices there (79 UK pounds, excluding VAT!).

[michaelmorris]

Firstly, let me thank everyone for your useful and helpful comments.

The following is a simple jpg extracted using Brezebrowser from A RAW file and with no processing at all withing PS:

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=1785993&outx=600&oq=0


My critique of this is that the colours are very dull and if printed without enhancement in PS, the result is muddy and unexciting.

On the other hand, converting from RAW into a 16 bit Tiff using the new Camera Raw plugin with PS CS, processing within PS, I end up with this:

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=1788102&outx=600&oq=0

It may be that it appears overblown in terms of saturation and contrast but on my Canon i950, the result is more spectacular.

Now in answer to some of the questions posed:

RFMSports:

I also don't really like oversaturated results and agree with you.

CyberdyeneSystems:

The lens I used was a Sigma 17-35mm f 2.8-4

Maderito:

1) I leave my camera and raw conversion on AWB
2) The bluish tinge/purple cast is predominantly a printer artefact. I have now taken to reduce the blue hue under the new PS CS plugin by 25%
3) Before using PS CS Raw plugin, I used to use Breezbrowzer but I see that I have not checked the Adobe RGB 1998 colorspace box. This may have accounted for something.
4) My printer is a Cannon i950 with windows selecting best profile under color management.
5) My workflow now is

RAW to 16 bit TIFF

1) Adjust exposure
2) tint +9%
3) Brightness 50
4) Contast and Saturation +25%

TIFF Processing in PS CS

1) Crop and set res to 300 dpi
2) Use Shadows/Highlight Filter to a pleasing effect
3) Saturation +15%
4) Variable setiing used on PS Unsharp Mask

All help is very genuinely appreciated.

[defordphoto]

Michael: Actually I prefer #1 over #2, but would prefer something in the middle. #2 looks a tick or two over-saturated on my screen and mine's calibrated pretty darn close. #1 looks more natural. A polarizer would have done that photo probably exactly what you were looking for.

If #1 was my photo, I'd also tweak the saturation up a notch or two, but not quite as much as you did with #2 for the color 'punch' you're looking for.

[CyberDyneSystems]

First off, just let me assure that from what I can see there is nothing wrong wth the color rendition of your 10D. It is right in line with what I would expect from any 10D,.. so I don't think you need to worry that you have a "dud".

I agree with RFM. To me it isn't dull,. the first image just looks pretty natural. And yes I would strive for an image between the two as far as color saturation. The second image also got a bit too warm as far as I can tell.
A little tweek in "levels" may do what you want as well.

Two things to consider.

1. The RAW images are really meant to be tweeked a little. When we use the as shot jpeg or raw with no post processing it is akin to trusting your images to the old photmat. By giving us the ability to tweek the RAW file we have ultimate control of saturation, contrast and overall "punch" of the image.

2. When the Canon 10D was reviewed by popualr photography they stated, "the Canon 10D has the most accurate off the shel color rendition of any camera we have tested,. digital or film" In the last 10-15 years the trend has been more and more color saturation in the films.. they are no longer in the realm of "real" or "natural" color,. they are in the realm of "supernatural".

[leony]

It's all subjective, but on my profiled monitor (with MacBeth Eye-One Display...borrowed from work - too expensive to buy at US$400) the second image looks a little over the top with colors. There seems to be more contrast over all, but that is just the distribution of the histogram curve - almost all images that come out of 10D need some adjustments in the Levels department. The image is also too warm - the whites aren't really white, they're orange. I don't print things myself as devices that can profile a monitor AND a printer are very expensive, and the ones that can profile CMYK printers are so expensive that it just scares me. Home printers are CMYK, so what I did was find a lab in the area that uses one of those Noritsu machines, but what they did is put their profile on their website...profile is updated every month. This way I have a complete color managed workflow from my monitor to their printer. I have set up their profile for soft proofing in Photoshop CS and am getting on paper what I see on my monitor - no need to mess with stuff. Not well known fact: Adobe Gamma is so far off that it's not even worth using it. Check out this site for info and calibration tables: http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/

I set my WB to sun - this way all images from the series need the same correction - makes it simple for me. I don't shoot RAW as from my experience if an image is properly exposed the benefits of RAW are outweighed by post production required. Hope this helps.

[maderito]

michaelmorris wrote:
Maderito:

1) I leave my camera and raw conversion on AWB
2) The bluish tinge/purple cast is predominantly a printer artefact. I have now taken to reduce the blue hue under the new PS CS plugin by 25%
3) Before using PS CS Raw plugin, I used to use Breezbrowzer but I see that I have not checked the Adobe RGB 1998 colorspace box. This may have accounted for something.
4) My printer is a Cannon i950 with windows selecting best profile under color management.
5) My workflow now is


First, I agree with the gist of the prior comments. The out-of-the-camera image looks pretty good. The processed image looks too contrasty with colors and overall color balance too warm (colors shifted to yellows, oranges and reds). My own experience is that over time, I found myself adding less contrast, sharpening and warmth during image editing.

I have the Canon i950. Here's what works for me -- but I've seen many different opinions. Unlike the Epson printers, there's isn't much online guidance on working with the Canon print driver.

1. In PS, edit your image in the Adobe RGB work space - that's what what your camera is set for. Edit->color settings->working spaces-> Adobe RGB 1998.

2. Assign (rather than convert the image) to the Adobe RGB profile: image->mode->assign profile, etc. (You'll get differing advice on this item).

3. When ready to print, in the print with preview options, check "show more options" and select color management. Set the Source Space to docuement: Adobe RGB and set the print space to "same as source."

4. In the Canon driver options (under properties), select the media (hopefully you're using Photo Paper Pro), check manual color managment, select "set..." and don't check ICM (which assumes sRGB) but do select Print type: none.

Unless you have good printer profiles and a good color management workflow, #3 seems to work out best. On #4, you can use the default settings ("auto") but you'll notice a difference. Either way, don't check ICM.

I can only say that the above works for me -- and it follows the recipe set forth by others. But like everything with color management, there are differing approaches. I have found the Canon printer to be particularly frustrating (inspite of its beautiful colors) since there is little documentation on what the printer driver is doing under various conditions.

It goes without saying that unless your monitor is well calibrated, all of the above suggestions may not help.

Good luck -- and don't trust everything I've said.

[michaelmorris]

Thanks everyone for your trouble and good advice. I think I need a better monitor than my laptop screen.

Regards

Michael

[defordphoto]

michaelmorris wrote:
Thanks everyone for your trouble and good advice. I think I need a better monitor than my laptop screen.

Regards

Michael

Most laptop LCD/TFT's pretty much suck for previewing/processing photos. I'd suggest a good flat screen CRT like a Sony Trinitron or something along those lines. These days they're pretty cheap and your post-processing will go much smoother.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Most Laptops will run an external monitor,. you give up space,. but a good Sony Aperture grill is like an "L" lens for your PC.. except they are a LOT cheaper! :D

[slin100]

maderito wrote:

3. When ready to print, in the print with preview options, check "show more options" and select color management. Set the Source Space to docuement: Adobe RGB and set the print space to "same as source."

4. In the Canon driver options (under properties), select the media (hopefully you're using Photo Paper Pro), check manual color managment, select "set..." and don't check ICM (which assumes sRGB) but do select Print type: none.

[...]

I can only say that the above works for me -- and it follows the recipe set forth by others. But like everything with color management, there are differing approaches. I have found the Canon printer to be particularly frustrating (inspite of its beautiful colors) since there is little documentation on what the printer driver is doing under various conditions.

I'm certainly no expert and it's great that your workflow produces reasonable results, but I'm a bit puzzled about some of your choices.

From my reading of Bruce Fraser's "Real World Color Management", selecting the print space as "Same as Source" means that Photoshop will send the image unaltered and without the image's colorspace profile to the printer. That would not seem like the best choice unless the your printer's colorspace is exactly the same as your image (unlikely).

Usually, there are two choices when making a selection for the Print Space:

1) Select the profile for the printer in the Print Space. This means Photoshop is performing full color management. Photoshop will convert the image into the printer's output space. You must disable all color management in the printer driver.

OR

2) Select Printer Color Management. Photoshop will send the image data to the printer driver along with an embedded profile. The printer driver must convert the image data to the printer's output space. If the driver has an "ICM" option, selecting it means that the driver will ask the operating system's color management module (Colorsync on the Mac, ICM on Windows) to do the actual conversion. Not selecting "ICM" means that the driver must do the conversion. You definitely do not want to select "No Color Correction" or equivalent if you choose option 2).

The essence of what I read in Bruce Fraser's book is captured in this article (http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/15310-1.html) that he wrote.