Which colour cast?

[curiousgeorge]

I had a hard time processing this series, trying various adjustments of the RAW file of both WB and colour channels. I've just reprocessed a few.

Which looks better please:

#1
http://www.georgeandreou.net/storage/IMG_6182c.jpg


#2
http://www.georgeandreou.net/storage/IMG_6182f.jpg

#3
http://www.georgeandreou.net/storage/IMG_6182g.jpg

[agedbriar]

Ahh, but I know those troubles...

People like you and me should avoid RAW. We should do JPEGs and just correct the occasional obvious mistake.

For me, the RAW workflow is time-consuming not because I have to move a few sliders, but rather because many times it seems to be a never ending story.

Well, if I had to choose... no, forget it.


EDIT:: OK, OK, I would eliminate #2, but that's as far as I'm willing to go.

[PhotosByEric]

#1 looks to green

#3 looks to magenta/red

Guess which one I voted for:p

Eric

[jonnythan]

#2 has the widest range of color and looks the most natural and dramatic.

[PhotosGuy]

I think #2 is the correct WB. But #3 is what I'd call the right WB for that shot.
Really, it comes down to what you like the best.

[TheSonofDarwin]

Yeah, 2 looks like what it should be, but 3 gives you something a little magical in the water. I voted 2 for technical, but 3 wins for aesthetics.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I voted 3 but agree that 2 is likely more accurate.

[curiousgeorge]

Thanks everyone, this is very useful.

A summary of the processing for each:

#1 - use a white point for WB on the waves (not ideal but that's all there was) and move the B-A slider 3 or 4 points towards A (Amber I think).

#2 - same WB but leave the colour sliders to my usual setting of B1/M1

#3 - as for #2 and then increased the Colour Balance of the JPG.

I thought it would be more clear cut than this. I think the feedback is telling be that something in between #2 and #3 would be ideal, so take #2 and apply more subtle colour balance adjustment.

For me, the RAW workflow is time-consuming not because I have to move a few sliders, but rather because many times it seems to be a never ending story.
Actually you can say the same about JPGs, there are even more adjustments you can make there.

But I agree that the colour sliders should be adjusted with caution and by not more than 1 or 2 increments.

[agedbriar]

Actually you can say the same about JPGs, there are even more adjustments you can make there.



The point I wanted to make was that with JPEGs one mostly doesn't PP at all, while with RAW one gets involved in tweaking with every single picture, either shot correctly or not.

I'm surprised the dramatic look of #1 and the bronze reflections of #3 didn't get more votes. Those are the aspects that make my RAW processing time consuming, not the sheer technical correctness.

[curiousgeorge]

The point I wanted to make was that with JPEGs one mostly doesn't PP at all, while with RAW one gets involved in tweaking with every single picture, either shot correctly or not.
Really? All I generally do with RAWs is adjust the exposure. This series was a unique case. Then I adjust curves, levels, saturation etc on the jpg. Surely, this is what most people do.

To be honest I hate the colour cast of #1 and I'm kind of disappointed it got so many votes!

[agedbriar]

I do as much adjusting as possible in the Bibble RAW converter in order to benefit from the 12 available bits per channel. Then I convert to 8-bit TIFF (8 bit because my PhotoPlus editor doesn't work in 16 bit, and TIFF to avoid the JPEG lossy compression) and do in PhotoPlus the final few adjustments that Bibble didn't let me to. Often that would only amount to output sharpening with Focal Blade, which is a plugin for Photoshop & compatible editors.

I keep the TIFF file for some time, for printing and the possible final small adjustment. When done with the picture, I create a JPEG for later viewing on the monitor, and delete the TIFF.

As a rule my JPEG files are lossy-compressed one single time.