No 'punch' to my RAW images

Well, I finally decided to start shooting RAW for all of my pictures. I have noticed there are several different types of color depth and color modes. When I was converting before, I would just use Adobe RGB 1998, but noticed that when I was finished editing in JPG format after the conversion, that I was losing saturation and 'punch' to my picture. I switched to sRGB IEC61966-1 and the colors seems to be more accurate when I saved. My problem here is, that during my edit, I can't seem to make the colors or photos 'pop' like they should. Here are three examples, and feel free to try your own edit at them. These aren't anything special, but were taken inside with the 50mm f/1.8 wide open with crappy incandescent lighting.

1.

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

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

Up for some advice.

WB seems off and the first image is over-saturated in the reds. I used a Levels adjustment layer to fix the Green and the Blue channels, and then some USM for haze reduction. Some might want to soften her skin, but that is a preference thing. It still looks a little red to me, but maybe that's her skin tone.

mine:

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

The colors are accurate in the Adobe RGB images also, the problem (very probably) is that you're using color space unaware software (like web browsers) to view the images. Some (most?) viewers do not check for embedded color space information, and just assume the pictures are sRGB (or so it seems). When displaying AdobeRGB images this way, the colors will be muted. So, before saving for web, do a "convert to profile", target profile being sRGB.

Here's some information on why you might want to use a "wide" color space, such as AdobeRGB or ProPhoto RGB as a working space:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial​s/prophoto-rgb.shtml

As for added punch and/or saturation, check these links:
http://www.thelightsri​ght.com/TLRDigitalVelv​ia.htm (assuming you're using Photoshop)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com …als/restore-clipped.shtml (the three pictures at the bottom and text are relevant)
http://www.dynamicartw​ork.com/articles/satur​ation_mask
http://luminous-landscape.com …ontrast-enhancement.shtml (my favorite)

I would try adding a backlight to seperate the people from the background, that would help.

Well, I tried my hand at different levels adjustments in the raw editor, and used the white balance selection tool to get a base. This is what I came up with....

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

Nice job! It'll always be better if you can get it right out of the raw file.

I think she's a little red naturally? I don't know its hard to say. But this should be as natural to the look at the time of the photograph.

well, not to be rude at all, but since you brought it up, it reminds me of a saying..."crap in, crap out." so try better lighting? Anyway, I really don't think they're all that bad. I wouldn't mess with the Adobe RGB in the first place since it's of almost no benefit and I think your WB was just a bit off.

Yeah, when you don't have much to work with, you don't get much in return. But then again, these were taken in a small apartment, not as anything special, just something to kill time. My friend was having a birthday party and there were like 4 drunk guys around me, people playing video games, and talking, and I was just snapping pictures. The one of the girl was the only one I though turned out halfway decent. I am going to try some 'senior-type' portraits with her in a few weeks, so hopefully things will turn out a little better when I'm going for a specific photoshoot.

I think you may have missed the OP's second post, where the WB issue has been resolved. Not everyone can produce your caliber of crap when just starting out with raw format. There are many that would disagree with your assessment of aRGB colorspace. Just because you can't see it on the monitor certainly does not preclude it from showing up in print. A color managed, raw workflow is about compromises and understanding when and where output devices may deceive you. Using an sRGB colorspace as a soup to nuts solution is fine, but there are cases for alternative methods. I suggest that anyone interested in color management pick up a copy of Real World Color Management. For great information on using Adobe Camera Raw, I recommend Real World Camera Raw.

honestly didn't mean it as a slam...I thought you'd intentionally lit them that way and expected it to come out great. I suppose incadescent lighting could be fine if it was controlled. Anyway, she looks like a natural, so I'm sure you'll have fun!

jfrancho wrote:
I think you may have missed the OP's second post, where the WB issue has been resolved. Not everyone can produce your caliber of crap when just starting out with raw format. There are many that would disagree with your assessment of aRGB colorspace. Just because you can't see it on the monitor certainly does not preclude it from showing up in print. A color managed, raw workflow is about compromises and understanding when and where output devices may deceive you. Using an sRGB colorspace as a soup to nuts solution is fine, but there are cases for alternative methods. I suggest that anyone interested in color management pick up a copy of Real World Color Management. For great information on using Adobe Camera Raw, I recommend Real World Camera Raw.

it'd be pretty interesting to see how many people actually use it. I might be wrong, but I assume most labs are set up for sRGB, not aRGB...so where would the benefit be? It's fairly specialized, for commercial printers, right?

BTW...Seth...your second post did correct it. At least on my monitor.

I'd say that most places like shutterfly, winkflash, snapfish, etc. use sRGB exclusively. There are however more specialist services available, in addition to home printing. Personally, I mess around in Prophoto about 10% of the time, aRGB the rest of the time. There is something to be said for the smoothness of editing in a wider gamut using 16 bit/channel, and then converting to sRGB/8 bit/channel. The key is knowing where your specific image falls out of the range that can be displayed. It probably isn't a good idea to make drastic changes to deep greens if you can't see what those edits are going to produce. Color and color management is an interesting subjct to me, so I naturally monkey with it more than most - sometimes with horrible results. But not always. For instance, you can do some pretty dramatic things to an image using Curves or levels in L*a*b color mode. I think many have been convinced that this is too complicated, and anything more than very subtle shifts can cause image deterioration. Once you understand how the color is represented in the a* and b* channels, with the luminosity in a it's own channel, some very subtle corrections or effects can be added. Of course, a little information can be dangerous - so make sure you experiment on a copy of the image, and watch that histogram. Again, if your interested, check out the book.