Saturation problem with 1DMark4

Fairyscape wrote in post #12306107
Oh, guess I should have considered that when buying a new computer.:o The guy said my model was great for photography...doh! When I get a chance I will do as you suggest. Thanks for the input.

In better news I haven't seen ANY laptop screen good enough for photography. Get a really good external screen...be prepared to spend some $$$

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #12306082
If you want to test it and have color management set up, load a aRGB image in internet explorer and photoshop. If they look identical, you have around a aRGB monitor. If the photoshop one looks more saturated, then you have a sRGB monitor.

Do you mean if the photoshop one looks LESS saturated, then I have a sRGB monitor?...isn't the over-saturation the issue of the sRGB monitor?

Interesting thread. I have not been posted in recent times, but would like to suggest you examine color management all the way back to setting white balance at capture. Bright saturated yellows and reds, in direct reflected light, are difficult to hold in gamut without losing detail. They are easier to expose successfully with:
1. Good custom white balance. Did you set CWB? Did you save the .CR2 file to make WB adjustments to see if you could improve holding red in the histogram at RAW conversion?
2. -1/3 or -2/3 stop underexposure. When young, we underexposed highly saturated hard light colors with Kodachrome slide film to avoid this problem. Highly saturated color subjects are one of those situations when you ignore the "expose to the right" digital capture advice and rely on what judgment. Slight underexposure of the reds will let you get a higher shutter speed at lower ISO. Don't be a slave to expose to the right. While digital, like slide film, will block up shadow details with significant underexposure, highly saturated colors are one of the times to do it.
3. Higher ISOs makes it a bit tougher to hold over saturated detail.

Just some thoughts.

J Rabin wrote in post #12306326
Interesting thread. I have not been posted in recent times, but would like to suggest you examine color management all the way back to setting white balance at capture. Bright saturated yellows and reds, in direct reflected light, are difficult to hold in gamut without losing detail. They are easier to expose successfully with:
1. Good custom white balance. Did you set CWB? Did you save the .CR2 file to make WB adjustments to see if you could improve holding red in the histogram at RAW conversion?
2. -1/3 or -2/3 stop underexposure. When young, we underexposed highly saturated hard light colors with Kodachrome slide film to avoid this problem. Highly saturated color subjects are one of those situations when you ignore the "expose to the right" digital capture advice and rely on what judgment. Slight underexposure of the reds will let you get a higher shutter speed at lower ISO. Don't be a slave to expose to the right. While digital, like slide film, will block up shadow details with significant underexposure, highly saturated colors are one of the times to do it.
3. Higher ISOs makes it a bit tougher to hold over saturated detail.

Just some thoughts.

Great points. I always (unless using filters) use AWB, and adjust in Lightroom if needed. You are saying I should try CWB? Do you mean by actual temps, or one of the setting options, like 'cloudy'?

Next time I shoot a cardinal I will underexpose a little, will help with lower ISO too. Thanks.

Fairyscape wrote in post #12306219
Do you mean if the photoshop one looks LESS saturated, then I have a sRGB monitor?...isn't the over-saturation the issue of the sRGB monitor?

No. A aRGB image in photoshop on a sRGB monitor will be converted to look correct. On IE it won't be converted and will be unnaturally desaturated.

The problem if you tried to use a sRGB image is that if your monitor is sRGB and photoshop color manages, it will look roughly correct in IE AND photoshop.

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #12306418
No. A aRGB image in photoshop on a sRGB monitor will be converted to look correct. On IE it won't be converted and will be unnaturally desaturated.

The problem if you tried to use a sRGB image is that if your monitor is sRGB and photoshop color manages, it will look roughly correct in IE AND photoshop.

My brain is starting to hurt...in the end I'm probably still better off using sRGB, since I don't print my own stuff, and I don't want my images to look unsaturated on the web. Unless I spend $$$$ on a wide gamut monitor and my own printer, then I guess I can do it all.

Fairyscape wrote in post #12306549
My brain is starting to hurt...in the end I'm probably still better off using sRGB, since I don't print my own stuff, and I don't want my images to look unsaturated on the web. Unless I spend $$$$ on a wide gamut monitor and my own printer, then I guess I can do it all.

I am recommending you use sRGB. I'm just saying if you want to avoid this problem you have to desaturate the image so it resides within the sRGB gamut.

Fairyscape wrote in post #12306394
You are saying I should try CWB? Do you mean by actual temps, or one of the setting options, like 'cloudy'

Yes, I mean choosing a white/gray balance aid and using it religiously. Make it routine.
People too often suggest that when shooting RAW, pre-setting CWB does not matter, because you can correct it non-destructively by click-balancing a reference shot in RAW. They are correct as far as WB goes. But they miss the fact that WB errors lead to exposure errors of highly saturated colors. If you have color temperature set more accurately, you are more likely to judge exposure better, avoid over saturation detail loss.

The 1-D body is nice because we can repeatedly custom WB "on the fly," without accumulating a bunch of gray reference images, using the lower rear LCD:
1) press <FUNC.> button and select CWB icon with QC Dial
2) Turn shutter dial to select a No. under which CWB will be registered (1-5)
3) press Picture Style button and

I too use CWB very often & having both a 1D3 & 1D4 setting the CWB as described by J Rabin takes about 2 seconds each. I usually carry both cameras using a Black Rapid double strap - fantastic - you have both hands free when not actually shooting. Also use a ColorRight & swear by it.

J Rabin wrote in post #12307086
Yes, I mean choosing a white/gray balance aid and using it religiously. Make it routine.
People too often suggest that when shooting RAW, pre-setting CWB does not matter, because you can correct it non-destructively by click-balancing a reference shot in RAW. They are correct as far as WB goes. But they miss the fact that WB errors lead to exposure errors of highly saturated colors. If you have color temperature set more accurately, you are more likely to judge exposure better, avoid over saturation detail loss.

The 1-D body is nice because we can repeatedly custom WB "on the fly," without accumulating a bunch of gray reference images, using the lower rear LCD:
1) press <FUNC.> button and select CWB icon with QC Dial
2) Turn shutter dial to select a No. under which CWB will be registered (1-5)
3) press Picture Style button and

blinks on rear LCD
4) shoot a normal exposure gray card in the same light as the bird, or whatever subject.

Doing this, you do not end up recording a bunch of gray reference click-balance images, which while useful, slow down post processing. I used to use Whi-Bal. Cheap, rugged, repeatable. But it only works standing in same reflected light as subjects. Switched a couple years ago to ColorRight. While expensive, it works great. Superior in mixed lighting, as its reference is a combination of reflected and incident light. Most WB aids are either reflected or incident. ColorRight is better than ExpoDisc. There is a whole bunch of these products on the market. Any one is better than not using one.
Good luck. Jack

Thank you for sharing this information.

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #12306625
I am recommending you use sRGB. I'm just saying if you want to avoid this problem you have to desaturate the image so it resides within the sRGB gamut.

Yes, but even when I desaturate it and decrease contrast, etc., it still looks pretty bad. I actually painted over the blotchy areas with the smallest brush to add some feather texture...not ideal.

Fairyscape wrote in post #12309981
Yes, but even when I desaturate it and decrease contrast, etc., it still looks pretty bad. I actually painted over the blotchy areas with the smallest brush to add some feather texture...not ideal.

Is it a RAW file or a JPG?

If its RAW can you upload it to www.mediafire.com so I can see it? If its JPG that's the reason you can't fix it.

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #12310032
Is it a RAW file or a JPG?

If its RAW can you upload it to www.mediafire.com so I can see it? If its JPG that's the reason you can't fix it.

It's raw, and I worked it in Lightroom. I uploaded one of the raw files here:
http://www.mediafire.c​om/?t63cea55jmmpnm1

Hope that worked.