Is this the right way to cover up stage lighting?

[EveryMilesAMemory]

Covering a great Blues show over the weekend, I had a hard time adjusting for the stage lighting. The people running the show wanted to use alot of Reds and Oranges.

After a few hours of fooling around in photochop, the only thing I could really do to make the pictures look good without having a funky tint to them, was to hit 'Greyscale' and pull all the color out of them.

Does anyone know any tricks to combat the nasty stage lighting we find at some shows?

1. http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q190/Bonishphoto/DelbertMcClinton4.jpg
This is the shot with the original stage lighting

2. http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q190/Bonishphoto/DelbertMcClinton10.jpg
Here is another adjusted with the Greyscale

3. http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q190/Bonishphoto/KevinMcKendree1.jpg
This one isnt as bad with the reds, but

4. http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q190/Bonishphoto/KevinMcKendree.jpg
I still think the black & white version looks better

Any suggestions for ways to correct this without taking the color out?

By the way, the first set is Blues Legend Delbert McClinton, and the next set is his keyboardist Kevin McKendree both shot in Nashville TN at a HOG Rally (http://everymilesamemory.smugmug.com/gallery/5567449_WB82u#341265005_tBf4P). All were shot with a Canon 1Ds with a 70-200 IS USM f/2.8 Handheld with No flash

[tipsy]

Shoot in RAW and get your white balance sorted in PP so that you get the skin tones correct.

x

[EveryMilesAMemory]

That was my next question, I had the camera set to AWB. After trying numerous settings, I just figured I'd leave it on auto.

I wasnt sure if anyone had a way to adjust for the funky stage lighting with all the changing colors?

[tipsy]

AWB im afraid is about the worset thing you could do.
The best is shooting in RAW and then white balancing it afterwards in a program like capture one. But alternativelyu, if you do shoot in jpeg, set the white balance to 'tungsten' as this is the sort of bulb you'll find in stage lights.

It is by no means perfect, but it's much better and it'll look a bit more realistic.

x

[Roy Mathers]

Why do you want to change the stage lighting? Isn't that what the performers want - and what gives it the unique atmosphere?

[tipsy]

what i assume he means is get it as close to reality as the eye can see, and that means realistic skin tones which is achieved through good w/b
x

[taygull]

what i assume he means is get it as close to reality as the eye can see, and that means realistic skin tones which is achieved through good w/b
x

"as close to reality" would be what stage lights were on the performer. It is rare to see "proper" skin tones in this type of photography.

Now if you had the wrong setting or the images are oversaturated because of the way the sensor is more sensitive to colors then that is another thing.

Adjusting white balance is not real difficult if shot in RAW, it can be done with a jpeg file as well, just more difficult.

[Steve Parr]

My photo editing software won't handle RAW, but I've found that adjusting the individual color balances sometimes (strong emphasis there) works pretty well...

[blackshadow]

I wouldn't ever want to cover up the lighting - without the lighting I wouldn't have photos.

Stage lighting can and does do tricky things to the images we take.

The points about shooting RAW and getting the appropriate white balance settings are very useful.

I find the use of EC can minimise some of the degrading effects some stage lights cast on images and when post processing I don't have a magic rule I use a myriad of techniques to turn the RAW file into a final image I am happy with. I don't try to chase natural skin tones as a rule - most of the time the lighting effects change that anyway and I am not slavish about trying to make the final photo appear as I saw the performer on stage - I look to extract the best finished image I can; in my style - after all that's what the art of photography is about.

[bacchanal]

AWB doesn't do well with red imho. Shoot RAW and use Tungsten or Kelvin (as low as it will go) in camera to avoid clipping reds, and then adjust further in PP. Custom WB would probably work too, but I've never really tried it.

[tipsy]

Shoot RAW and use Tungsten or Kelvin (as low as it will go) in camera to avoid clipping reds, and then adjust further in PP. Custom WB would probably work too, but I've never really tried it.

I may be wrong here, but as far as i was aware, RAW files dont store any of the in camera WB settings, it's ALL done in PP. So when shooting RAW, what white balance your camera is set on makes no difference aside from for the small jpeg files in camera on the displace lcd.

x

[bacchanal]

I'm sure that could be true, but you can see where the red channel is clipping on the RGB histogram easier if you get the WB as close as possible in camera, in my experience anyway.

[taygull]

I may be wrong here, but as far as i was aware, RAW files dont store any of the in camera WB settings, it's ALL done in PP. So when shooting RAW, what white balance your camera is set on makes no difference aside from for the small jpeg files in camera on the displace lcd.

x


You need to study, you are way off.

[tipsy]

So RAW Does take into account the in camera WB settings?

x

[tipsy]

Quotes from Creativepro.com

Images in the Raw
To understand how raw image capture is valuable, let's look at how digital cameras usually process images. Your digital camera captures an image by exposing its image sensor -- either a CCD or CMOS chip -- to light, just as a film camera captures an image by exposing a piece of film to light. The image sensor is covered with a grid of millions of "photosites." Each photosite corresponds to a single pixel in your final image.

To capture color, each photosite is covered with a single color filter. Some cameras use a combination of red, green, and blue filters while others use cyan, magenta, and yellow. Though each photosite can only capture a single color, an on-board computer uses complex interpolation schemes to calculate the correct color for each pixel by analyzing all of the surrounding pixels.

That same internal computer then adjusts the image according to the white-balance setting you have chosen, in addition to applying any other exposure, sharpening, or color-correction features that the camera may provide.

Once the image has been tweaked and adjusted by the camera, it is JPEG-compressed and then saved to the camera's media card.

When shooting in Raw mode, however, the camera skips most of these steps. Instead of interpolating the color data and processing the image, it simply stores the raw data that comes directly off the CCD.

END QUOTE

So to me, that translates that RAW files do not store any in camera processing details such as the WB setting...

Where has my thinking gone wrong taygull? This information seems to confirm what i thought.

x

[gcobb]

Your camera settings are saved in a raw file, plain and simple. They are changable before saving as an image if necessary.

[tipsy]

See i always change the WB setting in PP, yet, i diddnt think (and apparently neither did the writer of that article i posted) that the RAW file held any of the in-camera setting preferences such as contrast, sharpening, WB etc.

x

[taygull]

See i always change the WB setting in PP, yet, i diddnt think (and apparently neither did the writer of that article i posted) that the RAW file held any of the in-camera setting preferences such as contrast, sharpening, WB etc.

x

contrast and sharpening are different than WB.........are you guys not paying attention to your PP work when you open different files?:rolleyes:

Go put your camera in AWB, go take a bunch of different shots indoor and out and look at the "temperature" setting in your RAW converter once you've uploaded your images, this is the WB setting.

[Nick_b]

Or you could shoot JPEG and PP with Lightroom. I find it does the trick for my modest abilities.

[taygull]

Or you could shoot JPEG and PP with Lightroom. I find it does the trick for my modest abilities.

and you get 1/3 less info to use, less flexibility.

[Nick_b]

and you get 1/3 less info to use, less flexibility.

Fair enough, but for my amature use JPEG works. Not to mention for me to PP RAW files I would need double the memory and a faster camera and a faster computer.... so I'll stick with JPEG for now. Oh ya, and if I did shoot RAW I wouldn't even know how to use that extra 1/3 of info available to me. It's a personal choice we all have to make.


On the ethical question of should we alter the stage lighting? I think if you are attempting to create the best photo possible then the stage lighting often has to be altered from reality. Lighting that might work in a club setting does not always translate well into a photograph. Not altering it because of "ethical" reasons is silly to me.

[skifurthur]

I am in the "try to make the stage picture capture the moment as realistically as possible" school of thought. The odd lighting is part of the reality of such things. Do I make some b & w versions? Of course I do. Usually when I can't make it look right in color though.

There is probably no correct answer to this dilema, only personal choice.

[bacchanal]

I am in the "try to make the stage picture capture the moment as realistically as possible" school of thought. The odd lighting is part of the reality of such things.

RAW's benefits really tend to become evident, not when things go right, but when things go wrong in an exposure. When you botch an exposure, RAW has much more information to help you salvage the image. The fact is that the camera doesn't have the dynamic range that the human eye has, so you aren't going to replicate the scene exactly. RAW gives the photographer greater flexibility to use the camera's limited dynamic range in the way he/she sees fit.

[skifurthur]

RAW's benefits really tend to become evident, not when things go right, but when things go wrong in an exposure. When you botch an exposure, RAW has much more information to help you salvage the image. The fact is that the camera doesn't have the dynamic range that the human eye has, so you aren't going to replicate the scene exactly. RAW gives the photographer greater flexibility to use the camera's limited dynamic range in the way he/she sees fit.

Agreed. A photo is always an limited reality, made somewhat more limitless by the skill and imagination of the photographer.

[taygull]

Agreed. A photo is always an limited reality, made somewhat more limitless by the skill and imagination of the photographer.

Agree but disagree....Raw will allow you to capture more data, uncompressed and convert to a mode that will print better thus giving better results. As well I'd prefer to make the decisions on what the image looks like rather than Canon.

[René Damkot]

I like the first two. Nice B&W conversion as well.
Don't mind the orange too much.
There are a bunch of ways to correct colors in PS: Hue/sat, Curves, levels, channel mixer.

I tend to go for 'pleasing' rather then 'accurate' skin color.

Shooting RAW does make this a whole lot easier.
I have the WB set to 'Tungsten' on camera, simply so 1) the RGB histogram is usable; 2) You get a close reseblence on the display to what you see; 3) iView DPP use the 'in camera' settings to display the file and as a starting point respectively. That way I can see what the image looks like uncorrected, and see what (if) I need to correct something.