Brightness and Skin Tones

I just purchased an LG IPS231 but recently had a shoot before I could purchase a calibration tool.

I'm running the default profile for a MBP and Brightness as 30, Contrast at 75 on the monitor. These images look different on my LG and my MBP screen (brightness and tones somewhat), but DRASTICALLY different on a friends white MB.

Could someone tell me what they look like on a calibrated screen? A few are posted here and more on my flickr:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …crzyazninvazn/6​181567512/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …crzyazninvazn/6​181044015/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …crzyazninvazn/6​184089240/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …crzyazninvazn/6​181570740/

1. yellow tint (albeit not very warm) in the highlights and midtones; the woman's dress seems to be very dark purple?

2. light green tint

3. strong yellow-green cast

4. same cast as (1) on the windows

Hope this helps!

This is too hard to convey in words (a picture is worth a 1000 words).

The first one has little contrast and noisy as hell. The noise does not work on this one nor do the water spots on the lens.

As far as tone, it has the popular shot-uisng-a-Brownie tone to it.

Thanks for the comments! I'll try to take them back into Photoshop and play with it.

On the note of the water drops/spots, those were not actually on my lens. I think the wind blew some of the fountain spray and misted in front of the camera. Not sure it is noise.

I'll check some other frames and see if I can deliver better ones.

The lady looks jaundiced (yellow tinge to her skin) in your photos. It is hard to know an accurate representation (and I think this rendition is a bit cool in color balance, but the shot was probably made in open shade!), but I tried to make her appear less in need of a trip to a medical doctor! I'm not really happy with the color rendition even of this shot, but she doesn't look as if she has liver problems
(removed, no Image Editing OK)

Better yet, this color chart should appear quite neutral in the bottom row.

What kind of processing have you done to these shots? Without knowing that it would be hard to comment! Or, are these straight out of the camera shots and if so were these jpegs or run through a Raw processor?

Ahhh, these have been processed a bit. I guess the tones are supposed to be closer to film than true to life. I just wanted to know if they had any GLARINGLY bad deviations from human skin. Thanks for all the help guys!

Glueeater wrote in post #13160544
Ahhh, these have been processed a bit. I guess the tones are supposed to be closer to film than true to life. I just wanted to know if they had any GLARINGLY bad deviations from human skin. Thanks for all the help guys!

Hmm, well then, as has been mentioned, there is warmth that is tending to show up -- do you see that in your monitor?

Original:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Kurt, that looks "most natural" to me, and for my tastes, I find that the most appealing! I'm not much for the "processed" look!

tonylong wrote in post #13160911
Kurt, that looks "most natural" to me, and for my tastes, I find that the most appealing! I'm not much for the "processed" look!

I agree - Kurt's final edit looks closest to natural skin tones, although still a little off on my monitor. The originals all look pretty yellow from here, the fourth image being the closest to "natural". Also, Kurt (and Wilt), you might want to ask the OP to turn "image editing on" - technically, you don't have permission to re-post these images with or without further editing.