Blown Bright Colors - Is it Just Me?

[LW Dail]

I've noticed over the years that bright colors blow out for me. Usually pinks and reds. With the Rebel before and now with the 5D.

I'm sure there's something I could do to minimize the effect, but can't find it.

Help! I'm tired of tossing these images!

Here is one from today of a gorgeous scarlet red dahlia from a neighbor's yard. Every shot is blown and I don't know why! Shot in bright, direct evening sunlight.

Please don't critique the composition! I just used this one 'cuz it shows shadows, the full flower, and some leaves for reference.

Any help will be greatly appreciated!

Here is the EXIF data:

File name
IMG_6797.jpg
Camera Model Name
Canon EOS 5D
Shooting Date/Time
10/6/2008 06:10:15
Tv(Shutter Speed)
1/100Sec.
Av(Aperture Value)
F11
Metering Modes
Evaluative metering
Exposure Compensation
+1
ISO Speed
400
Lens
EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Focal Length
90.0 mm
Image size
4368 x 2912
Image Quality
Fine
Flash
Off
White Balance
Auto
AF mode
AI focus AF
Picture Style
Faithful
Parameters
Tone Curve : Standard
Sharpness level : -
Pattern Sharpness : -
Contrast : 0
Sharpness : 0
Color saturation : 0
Color tone : 0
Color matrix
-
Color Space
sRGB

[swampler]

I think this is your problem:

Exposure Compensation +1

You might also try a neutral picture style.

[Robert_Lay]

The image does not appear blown, but the histogram says that it is, and we have to trust that, because it is objective and it is fact.

Regardless of the exact character of the lighting, there can be exposure metering problems - usually when the lighting is harsh or contrasty. The image was intentionally given a full f-stop of exposure compensation - so, you surely had some reason for doing that, and yet you are saying that your shots are all blown. I hope you can see the inconsistency here. If your shots are consistently blown, why are you intentionally overexposing by 1 stop?

[midnitejam]

Swampler gets it. Try a -1/3 comp.

[Bill Boehme]

The problem is due to clipping (a condition where pixels in one or more of the the three sensor colors have reached their maxim value) and there are two likely contributors: the first, overexposure, has already been discussed and the second cause is due to another form of clipping, saturation clipping, which happens after capture when the sensor data is converted into a JPG file and results from using a small color space (sRGB) when the captured image has colors that are outside of that space. The best solution for the second problem is to shoot in RAW mode, but if you prefer JPG, then AdobeRGB would be much less likely to encounter saturation clipping.

BTW, saturation clipping is very likely to occur when photographing brightly colored flowers.

[LW Dail]

Well, I'm blaming the exposure compensation on old eyes and vanity.

I obviously ran the flywheel and changed the compensation on the fly and didn't see it because I wasn't wearing my glasses! I'll fix that one and reshoot.

And I'll try Adobe RGB. I think this is my root complaint, barring my screw up with the exposure compensation. You see it in the petals where the color just goes to pot.

Good thing the neighbor cut the flowers for me. Will post new shot with technical changes tonight. I'll even try to compose a shot!

Thanks all for inadvertently telling me to carry my danged glasses, and wear them! I obviously need to add them to my 'duck walk!'

[Walczak Photo]

And I'll try Adobe RGB. I think this is my root complaint, barring my screw up with the exposure compensation. You see it in the petals where the color just goes to pot.



Just a few thoughts on Adobe RGB from "the other side of the fence". A lot of folks recommend Adobe RGB because it has a greater color range (gamut) than sRGB but you also have to be careful here to as not many applications other than your camera and Adobe Photoshop actually support Adobe RGB. If you look thru these forums (as well as other photography forums on the net) you will see a great many discussions in regards to this issue. For example people will shoot and edit in Adobe RGB but then don't understand why when they print their images or post them to the forum, they don't look the same. Obviously the problem is due to using different color profiles.

Now before anyone flames me here, let me say that YES, Adobe RGB does have a larger color gamut. I do not debate this issue. But...does everything you shoot have to have this extra color space? sRGB does a perfectly fine job for most things and it's consistant across the board. I shoot with my camera set to sRGB, PS is in sRGB, my monitor and printer profiles are all sRGB and even the two labs I go to use sRGB. In other words, what I see on my camera is generally the same thing I see thru the whole processing process and is what I see at my final output, with little or no variation. More over, I don't think I've ever had a single person look at my images and say "gee...that looks under saturated" or "gee, your saturation looks blown out...you should have used Adobe RGB". You can achieve richly saturated colors with sRGB without blowing them out.

This is just my own personal opinion as always and should only be taken as such, but to me the difference between Adobe RGB and sRGB isn't significant. When you compare the same image shot in each side by side, yes, there is a difference, but that difference is NOT huge (and can usually be made up for in other ways). For most people I think this really just falls under the whole "greed" thing as well. That mental state that tells you "you have to have the most, the biggest, the best...". Think of it this way...a lot of folks even here on POTN will never print anything bigger than a 5x7 of their prints. For all intensive purposes, this can easily be done with even a 3 or 4 megapixel p&s camera (or smaller...you can print a decent 8x10 even from a 1 megapixel), yet a great many people are under the illusion that they have to have that 10 megapixel or higher DSLR and in a few years, those same people are going to be convinced that they have to have the 15 and 20 megapixel cameras that are coming out too just to do the same thing! The same thing is true with this whole color space debate...people want (or push) Adobe RGB because it's "bigger" but the difference really isn't all that extraordinary and considering the disadvantages in the lack of support for it...again just my opinion here, but I think it's a matter of people's greed outweighing their common sense.

The last thing I would say on this matter too is simply this; when you're looking at any given image you shoot, ask yourself "Will the image really be that much better simply by using a different color space on my computer?". Using the original shot as an example here, I would have to ask myself "Would using Adobe RGB as apposed to sRGB really have made that much of a difference?". I'm not trying to be deliberately mean or rude here, but to me the color space used on the camera or in pp would be the least of my worries...the lighting looks to be really harsh, there's some sort of funky shadows in the background and to be completely honest, it's not really that interesting of a flower to begin with. I'm honestly not trying to rude with this, but the "color space" really would not have made much of a difference at all in regards to this shot. It's an ok snap shot of an average flower. There are many other aspects to photography that I would worry about before I would even begin to worry about the whole Adobe RGB versus sRGB thing and again if anything the Adobe RGB is probably going to cause more problems in your processing work flow than it will fix. I would honestly worry more about things like composition and lighting rather than the academics of color space.

Again these are just my own opinions and should be taken as such but I do hope you find some wisdom in my words and I hope they help.

Peace,
Jim

[Bill Boehme]

^^ I would agree with much of your rationale for sticking to sRGB. Much (if not most) of the time, sRGB is completely adequate for printing. Another reason for doing everything in sRGB would be that it is a ralatively safe course to follow when for whatever reason the user doesn't intend to to set up a color managed workflow. The biggest area of difference between AdobeRGB and sRGB is in the green and near-cyan colors so the issue doesn't often rear its head if those colors are not a problem in an image.

One reason for considering AdobeRGB in a CM workflow is that most ink jet printers have a gamut that is larger than sRGB and many with more colors than just the CMYK ink set have gamuts that cover a very large portion of the AdobeRGB colorspace.

Another viable option is to do the initial RAW conversion post processing in a large colorspace in order to minimize the likelihood of clipping related to color space limitations. There is then some opportunity to perform tonal adjustments to reduce saturation when it is a problem. Then, when the image has been converted to a bit mapped format, it could be converted from a large gamut to sRGB with less likelihood of clipping.

[LW Dail]

Hey everyone, thank you SO much for making my head hurt!

I didn't get the shot last night, but you'll love why - a private session with an Elements tutor!!! It was a totally unrelated session, but we did discuss this, so thank you for even letting me know what to even ask.

One thing we noticed was that the photo looked much better on the LCD projector than it did on the screen. Almost as if the shot had too many shades of scarlet red. rrrr

Can't wait to reshoot this tonight with the following differnt parameters:

1. Exposure compensation set normally and -1/3
2. sRGB and AdobeRGB
3. RAW

Which is a whole other can of hurting head - I've tried to avoid RAW because it seems so 'grown up,' intimidating, and a real PITA. Now I have to grow up and face the scary moster! :twisted:

[PhotosGuy]

One thing we noticed was that the photo looked much better on the LCD projector than it did on the screen. More to make your head hurt! ;)

Your browser will affect the way the images look.
WEB BROWSER CHECK - Test Page - ALL FILES have embedded ICC profiles Photoshop Color Management
http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html
http://www.gballard.net/psd/srgbforwww.html

More BROWSER CHECK: Digital-Image Color Spaces, Page 2: Test Images
http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/color-spaces-page2/

Page 3: History of Color Mis-Management: Read about "Color Stupid"
http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/color-spaces-page3/

Firefox 3 "Enable Color Management" Trick. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=561719)

[Walczak Photo]

3. RAW

Which is a whole other can of hurting head - I've tried to avoid RAW because it seems so 'grown up,' intimidating, and a real PITA. Now I have to grow up and face the scary moster! :twisted:


RAW seems intimidating at first but once you get used to it you're probably going to love it. When I first moved into DSLR's, I too was very reluctant about using RAW. It seemed that the more I read about it in regards to the technical issues, the scarier it seemed! More over, I usually got decent results with jpeg and with my Photoshop skills, I didn't often run into things I couldn't "fix" if I needed to. That said though I also must add that once I took the plung into RAW...I haven't looked back since.

I know there are people out there who absolutely strive for perfection when they're shooting an image. They have to have the exposure, lighting and focus just exactly perfect beyond any and all other considerations. I'm not like that. Because I shoot mostly critters, I'm more concerned with composition than I am with academics and as such, tend to be a "ball park" shooter. This is where RAW is very useful in my opinion. If you miss the perfect exposure by 1/2 stop or so...no sweat (just remember to expose for those highlights!). Shadows too dark? Easy fix :D. Color off a little? No Problem! In my case the process of "creating an image" only starts at the camera by taking the picture...at least half of what I do I do in post processing and RAW makes so much of this a great deal easier and faster with better results all the way around. I do have stuff that I've shot in jpg that I'm quite proud of...and always will be, but RAW is just a much better and much easier tool to work with.

Maybe this will help... Don't think of RAW in terms of "data", "pixels", "information", etc.. Think of RAW in terms of a "hammer" and how that hammer would compare with a nice pneumatic nail gun! Yes, you can certainly build very nice things with a plain old hammer...just as you can create very nice images in jpeg, but that pneumatic nail gun is just sooooooo much easier on the arm...and a lot faster too boot! LOL!!! That's all RAW really is...it's a way to do what you need to do easeir, faster and with better results.

Seriously...don't let the idea of RAW intimidate you. As with things like "levels", "saturation", "curves" and all the other little goodies that make digital imaging so wonderful, RAW is just another tool and it really is quite easy to use once you get the hang of it!

Peace,
Jim

[LW Dail]

Well, I just read an excellent explanation of RAW v .jpg files. OUCH!

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

I'm vascillating between 'Oh Wow!' and longing for the days of simple little silver halides!

I'm leaning towards fighting the scary monster and shooting RAW (the crowd gasps!). Will try tonight and see what happens....

Saw a suggestion to let the camera shoot RAW & .jpg - then use the image as you need. That way you have the RAW file if you need it and the .jpg if you don't.

<thump>

That was my husband hitting the floor when I reminded him of his own words "Memory is Cheap!"

[LW Dail]

Okay, RAW did it, still a bit blown but minor adjustments brought it right back! The exposure comp changes didn't give enough change...

Here's the info and a final image. While still just a picture of a flower with nasty shadows, etc., I feel much better about the ability to walk by something so stunning and capture it, regardless of conditions. Except for the whole RAW thing and having to learn even more stuff!

Thank you all for your help! I love this forum for this reason and it wouldn't happen without each of you, your knowledge, and your willingess to share.

Thank you.

Lora

File Name
IMG_6907.CR2
Camera Model
Canon EOS 5D
Shooting Date/Time
10/8/2008 6:45:41 AM
Shooting Mode
Aperture-priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/10
Av( Aperture Value )
11.0
Metering Mode
Evaluative Metering
Exposure Compensation
0
ISO Speed
200
Lens
EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Focal Length
105.0 mm
Image Size
4368x2912
Image Quality
RAW
Flash
Off
Red-eye Reduction
Off
White Balance Mode
Auto
AF Mode
AI Servo AF
Picture Style
Standard
Sharpness
3
Contrast
0
Saturation
0
Color tone
0
Color Space
sRGB
Noise Reduction
Off
File Size
11508 KB

Oh yeah, haven't told hubby about the storage issues, yet!

[Robert_Lay]

Okay, RAW did it, still a bit blown but minor adjustments brought it right back! The exposure comp changes didn't give enough change...

Here's the info and a final image. While still just a picture of a flower with nasty shadows, etc., I feel much better about the ability to walk by something so stunning and capture it, regardless of conditions. Except for the whole RAW thing and having to learn even more stuff!

Thank you all for your help! I love this forum for this reason and it wouldn't happen without each of you, your knowledge, and your willingess to share.

Thank you.

Lora

File Name
IMG_6907.CR2
Camera Model
Canon EOS 5D
Shooting Date/Time
10/8/2008 6:45:41 AM
Shooting Mode
Aperture-priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/10
Av( Aperture Value )
11.0
Metering Mode
Evaluative Metering
Exposure Compensation
0
ISO Speed
200
Lens
EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Focal Length
105.0 mm
Image Size
4368x2912
Image Quality
RAW
Flash
Off
Red-eye Reduction
Off
White Balance Mode
Auto
AF Mode
AI Servo AF
Picture Style
Standard
Sharpness
3
Contrast
0
Saturation
0
Color tone
0
Color Space
sRGB
Noise Reduction
Off
File Size
11508 KB

Oh yeah, haven't told hubby about the storage issues, yet!
This latest image is quite a different picture from the first one. Not only is it less exposed, but the color saturation is way down from the first one.

[PhotosGuy]

This latest image is quite a different picture from the first one. And I like the first one better.

[swampler]

And I like the first one better.
Me too.

[griptape]

Your edit makes the colors spectacularly dull.

[form]

Agreed; you should sell that camera immediately. I'll buy your 5D from you for $1k! I promise to take photos of flowers for you.

Your issue is the light source and the angle at which you're shooting the subject.

[LW Dail]

Aw crud! I didn't explain my post at all, did I?

The ugly shot IS ugly and spectacularly dull. What I liked was the ability to mess with it; to modify the RAW file to change the color/detail. Shot after a full day at work, rushing to catch that same light, then marginally messing with it before feeding dogs, fixing dinner and all of the other joys of domestic life.

So yes, the shot is awful, I was sharing how excited I was that I'm on track to a solution!

Now to learn more about post-processing RAW files, work flows, and all that other stuff that will result in brain cramps! ;)

[Right Cranium Imaging]

Sorry, just going to go on a little rant here. What is it with people and thinking they ahve to do everything in Photoshop or Elements or whatever. People need to learn how to get it right in the camera.

Shoot RAW, get it off auto white balance, use a grey card (white card with 5D) and set a custom white balance. Expose properly, get a hand held light meter if you can, there is a world if difference between actual light and reflective light. put your color setting in standard.

If you do this you will not need to PP pretty much ever. Take the extra 2-5 minutes to get it right in camera and save yourself hours sitting in front of your monitor "fixing" everything.

[Robert_Lay]

Sorry, just going to go on a little rant here. What is it with people and thinking they ahve to do everything in Photoshop or Elements or whatever. People need to learn how to get it right in the camera.

Shoot RAW, get it off auto white balance, use a grey card (white card with 5D) and set a custom white balance. Expose properly, get a hand held light meter if you can, there is a world if difference between actual light and reflective light. put your color setting in standard.

If you do this you will not need to PP pretty much ever. Take the extra 2-5 minutes to get it right in camera and save yourself hours sitting in front of your monitor "fixing" everything.

You may be reading your 5D manual incorrectly. Yes, it says to use a white card for the Custom White Balance, but on the next page it says that you can get a more accurate CWB using an 18% Gray Card. Every Canon Camera that I have checked has this same caveat in the footnotes. Why, I don't know, but it is consistent across the board.

[PhotosGuy]

Yes, it says to use a white card for the Custom White Balance, but on the next page it says that you can get a more accurate CWB using an 18% Gray Card. Confusing, isn't it? I ran a test:
Gray Card…White Paper. What’s best? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=58677)

[Bill Boehme]

You may be reading your 5D manual incorrectly. Yes, it says to use a white card for the Custom White Balance, but on the next page it says that you can get a more accurate CWB using an 18% Gray Card. Every Canon Camera that I have checked has this same caveat in the footnotes. Why, I don't know, but it is consistent across the board.

My intuition tells me that a white card (or light gray) would make more sense than the standard gray card for a couple reasons -
The gray cards that I own or have seen are not the same gray. Some tend to look slightly blue while others have a slightly brown color.
Even with a truly neutral gray card, extrapolating white from something closer to actual white seems more reasonable than extrapolating from something that would fall halfway (in terms of human perception) between black and white.However, after saying that, I find that I often adjust white balance to make an image perceptually look right for the context regardless of what the technically neutral white balance might be. Besides, I have found that white balance varies with location in a frame so I don't believe that it can be precisely nailed down as the "right" value.

As far as what the manual is concerned, my theory about this ... based on lots of experience with tech writers, is that once something gets into a tech manual, it becomes boilerplate for all future manuals regardless of its accuracy. Tech writers don't seem to be fazed much by engineering reviews telling them to correct something, especially if the error has tenure.

[Robert_Lay]

My intuition tells me that a white card (or light gray) would make more sense than the standard gray card for a couple reasons -
The gray cards that I own or have seen are not the same gray. Some tend to look slightly blue while others have a slightly brown color.
Even with a truly neutral gray card, extrapolating white from something closer to actual white seems more reasonable than extrapolating from something that would fall halfway (in terms of human perception) between black and white.However, after saying that, I find that I often adjust white balance to make an image perceptually look right for the context regardless of what the technically neutral white balance might be. Besides, I have found that white balance varies with location in a frame so I don't believe that it can be precisely nailed down as the "right" value.

As far as what the manual is concerned, my theory about this ... based on lots of experience with tech writers, is that once something gets into a tech manual, it becomes boilerplate for all future manuals regardless of its accuracy. Tech writers don't seem to be fazed much by engineering reviews telling them to correct something, especially if the error has tenure.
Dear Bill,

You make good points, and here is my counter-argument.
What you say about gray cards possibly not being neutral is certainly a risk. However, My gray card comes from Kodak, and I trust it to have an appearance that is possibly not neutral, if it is in a light that is not neutral. Aha!

I do not trust a white card because white sits at a pointof inflection - i.e., value 255 in all three channels, nominally. If I illuminate the white card with light that is not pure white, will the non-linearity at white be a problem. Makes my head hurt to think about it, so I vote for something more in the linear region, like 18% gray.

Last but not least, every Canon user's manual that discusses Custom White Balance has this same equivocation - white is good but gray is better.

[Bill Boehme]

Normally, I adjust my exposure so that the white card will give a value in the vicinity of 235 to 245 in each channel which leaves some headroom for highlights.

But, I have also considered that another argument in favor of an accurate gray card could be that it might balance colors more precisely in the mid exposure area where we would be the most interested in getting proper skin tones.

My Kodak gray card is the one that looks brown to me -- but then it is rather old so maybe it really is brown. I have a GretagMacBeth card that is divided equally into white, gray, and black. When exposure is set right so that gray is at the mid point of the histogram, I find that I can set the WB with either the white or gray without seeing much difference. I have never done any quantitative measurements, but I tend to prefer using the white if it is not overexposed. I presume that I could do a comparison by using both for WB correction to see what the results would look like across the gray scale on a Color Checker card.

[PhotosGuy]

When exposure is set right so that gray is at the mid point of the histogram, I find that I can set the WB with either the white or gray without seeing much difference. Works for me, too, which is what I suggested in my link in post 22.

[Bill Boehme]

I made a test shot on a GretagMacBeth Color Checker card and then using ACR did a series of white balance adjustments using the white and gray patches along the bottom row of the card. There was essentially no difference in white balance from the five patches that I sampled. I suppose that I could have gone to the extreme and sampled the black patch, too. So, I learned two things:

My color checker card has good neutral gray patches
if you have a neutral sample in the image, it doesn't matter much what the luminosity value is.I should also mention that I have profiled my camera's response so that might have a small influence on the results.

[PhotosGuy]

if you have a neutral sample in the image, it doesn't matter much what the luminosity value is. True, as long as none of the images have blown the whites to 255, 255, 255.