Can I warm the tone of a photo?

After recently going digital with the rebel xt and a canon i9900 I have to say that I'm quite frustrated with the results that I'm getting.

My problem seems to be that the pictures are washed out in the skin tones or they have an overall greenish cast. Is there a way in photoshop cs to correct for this? I think what I want to do is actually warm the photo up a bit. I've adjusted curves and I've increased saturation and still don't get the desired results. The picture will appear fine on the monitor, nice and rich in color and tone but then it prints washed out and no where near as vibrant as the monitor. I sure hope the money I spent on the i9900 isn't wasted. I don't want to have to purchase a calibrator for the monitor so I'm hoping just to compensate in the program.

I shoot in the automatic modes mostly the green rectangle or the portrait mode. Here is an example of one that appears okay when I look at it in photoshop.

Any help/advice is GREATLY appreciated. Thanks!!!

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I do all of my colour corrections manually with curves.
Mostly, I just switch from RGB to each of the colour channels in the Curves dialog and play with a mid tone bend. Go back and forth until I find the sweet spot.
To warm it up (red tones) switch to the red channel in a curves adjustment layer and bend it slightly up towards the top left corner. Don't stop there though, make sure to always check every channel at least once.

Also, something I don't often play with... but there are photo filters in Photoshop... and there are several warming filters.
Add a photo filter adjustment layer and pick one of the first 3. Get creative and change the base colour even.

You will have trouble hitting colour "spot on" without a colorimeter based setup to calibrate your monitor, an accurate ICC profile for your printer / ink / paper combination and know how to use these profiles in colour managed software (in my case, Photoshop CS2, in your case, apparently, Photoshop CS). I have these things, and my soft proofs are as close as can be expected to my prints.

You should certainly get as close as you can with what you have - if that means the monitor manufacturer's profile and Adobe Gamma, that's better than nothing for your monitor. For the printer, if you're using Canon inks and Canon papers, there's profiles supplied with the driver (details on how to use them can be found here).


If you post a larger version of your image, those of us who are using calibrated monitors can comment on whether we see a colour cast or not. The image you posted is really small (you can attach an image that's up to 800 pixels in the longest dimension, and up to 100KBytes in file size).

One thing I did notice is that the image you posted is tagged as Adobe RGB. If that's correct, fine - but you must print from colour managed software, otherwise you'll probably get exactly the problems you're describing. If Adobe RGB is incorrect, something really has gone wrong in your workflow.


My impression from this small image is that the White Balance is too cold (colour temperature too high); you haven't allowed image editing in your profile, so I can't post an edited version, but in Photoshop CS2 on my system with a calibrated monitor, I tried a Warming Filter (85) at 50% density with Preserve Luminosity set, and that looked rather better.

Many monitors have the white point factory set to rather too high a colour temperature (image too cold), but I'd expect you to be making your image over-warm to compensate if that was the case. How did you set the White Balance, and have you adjusted the colour any in Photoshop?


The final thing I can see in the EXIF data is that the flash has fired. I don't know how the Portrait mode sets things up for fill flash in these situations (one reason why I don't like the icon modes is that you don't know what they're doing), but if negative FEC hasn't been used, you've potentially got mixed colour temperatures in the image, which can play havoc with colour perception. The flash is around 5000K, the background could be rather cooler than that, depending on the weather and time of day.

Somewhere around -1 1/3 to -1 2/3 FEC is typical for fill flash, and at those settings the fill flash will be gentle enough for mixed colour temperatures not to be a significant problem.


If I was shooting this I'd go to Av, probably somewhere around f/4 (which should give more than adequate depth of field at the 2.5 to 3m I guess you were away from the subjects at 50mm - though your camera has gone to f/5.6; if you're using the kit lens, that's the maximum aperture you have at this focal length), -1 2/3 FEC, and an ISO to get at least 1/60s shutter speed and maybe even a little higher (looking at the EXIF of this image shows that at f/5.6 and ISO 400 you had 1/125s; which means I'd be able to use ISO 200 to get 1/125s at f/4).

Metering - evaluative has done its job here, though you could have gone partial on the man's face and dialled in +1 EC (that's typical for Caucasian skin).

I'm willing for someone to take issue with my choice of aperture - at this time of night I can't envisage the distances in the shot in my head.

David

I guess I answered the first part... but reading closer now, I'm hoping you decided to capture your images in Adobe RGB and that's why they're coming out flat.

If you don't convert back to sRGB before posting on the web I've heard it gets a little flat, but will look fine in Photoshop. Probably the same thing happens with printing.

Wow - thanks for the responses! As I'm a beginner I don't think I understand half of what you all have recommended so I'm going to just ask this as I think it might be one of the issues I'm having.

The Adobe RGB thing - I'm assuming that is in Photoshop. I bought a book and it had me change the color setting from the sRGB default to the Adodbe RGB (1998) so now whenever I open a picture to work on it asks me whether to convert to the current workspace setting so I choose to convert - of course, not knowing what the heck I'm doing. So should I not do that?

I appreciate the help so much - I'm just so overwhelmed learning the camera and the software and then working with a 5 year old subject that cooperates intermittently. I'm going to stick this out. I wonder if should do one of the online photo classes or something.

Welcome back. I'm sorry if my reply was a bit technical - sometimes there's no way around the jargon. Hopefully, as you learn more, more of it will make sense.

We were all beginners once, and it is baffling at times, for sure. The best thing to do is Google (and use Photoshop's help) liberally, also set up the camera and try different settings. Keep re-reading the camera's manual periodically as well. Most of all, take pictures, then look at them in software that shows you the EXIF data, such as ZoomBrowser EX. That way, you can see what aperture, shutter speed, focal length, ISO and flash settings were used.


If you're shooting sRGB, stay in sRGB in Photoshop. There's no point converting to a wider gamut colour space such as Adobe RGB, as you'll not gain any more colours. They've already been lost by restricting the camera to sRGB. In 8 bit mode, you'll reduce the number colours available by converting an sRGB image to Adobe RGB (I'll spare you the explanation as to why).

If you're really doing things wrong, you'd have tagged an sRGB image as Adobe RGB, which will cast the colours. You should never assign a profile except to an image that hasn't got one, or you know has an incorrect profile. An image with an embedded profile should always be converted to a profile. Both operations are best avoided until you understand a bit more about colour management.


You can - at least in the non-icon modes (I'm not sure about the more automatic modes) - shoot JPEGs in Adobe RGB. This gives you a wider range of colours in the image, many of which are in gamut on an i9900, so you can print them. If you post Adobe RGB images to the web, you should really convert them to sRGB first.

A further alternative - though one probably better left until you've got familiar with other things, is to shoot RAW and defer the decision on which colour space you want to use until the RAW converter. RAW gives you a lot of power and flexibility, but it's one thing you can leave for now until you've understood more about other things.


A bit of reading about colour spaces and colour management is worth doing - see here for a lot of good articles. The August 2004 one will give you the basics, the February 2005 and June 2005 ones are also well worth reading.


As you've now allowed editing in your profile, I've made the change I mentioned in my first reply using Photoshop CS2's Photo Filter, also I've converted the image back to sRGB. Two colour space conversions like this isn't the greatest idea, but it should mean the image displays more accurately on the web (though most browsers aren't colour managed, the use of sRGB images on the web is standard).


There's a couple of sites around that will help that are mentioned fairly frequently in the forums. One is a virtual SLR camera, which allows you to see, visually, the effects of changing aperture and is a good introduction to depth of field. Another is a Canon tutorial guide to the 350D (Digital Rebel XT).

The virtual camera is here (click Virtual Camera) and the Canon digital learning stuff here. With the Canon site, it's the Digital Rebel XT Tutorial I had in mind, but some of the other content there may also be of interest. It's all free - have a play, and do come back here, read and ask questions.


Best wishes,

David

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Thanks DavidW - I will check out the articles and websites you have given me. And thanks for the color adjustment, too.

I'm now working on getting the printer profile set up from the first article that you attached.

Thanks again!

The warming effect on my version of your picture is very heavy, pretty much to make a point. I probably wouldn't warm it as much as that if I was going to print it. It looks as if there may be an element of mixed colour temperatures - the original shot is certainly too cold in the foreground, but look at the (presumably white) eaves at the top right in my corrected version - they've got decidedly cream.

I'd probably go part way in between your version and my exaggerated one, then if that didn't work out, consider masking the image and making two different colour corrections - one for the foreground, one for the background. For more information, read my earlier comments about using negative FEC for fill flash.


As well as investigating how to use the printer profiles, hunt down the manufacturer's profile for your monitor, install it, then run Adobe Gamma - that will get your monitor as near as possible without a colorimeter based setup. If none of the colour management articles in that series cover Adobe Gamma, there's other articles around that do (such as on Norman Koren's site - a good site, but the layout is busy and the information rather technical - as an alternative, read this article from the Adobe Support Knowledgebase).


There is an element amongst the learning that can be frustrating, but the experimenting as you begin to learn and progress can be very creative and enjoyable. I hope you get as much enjoyment out of the learning as I have.

Whilst I already had quite a strong background in digital graphics and a reasonable background in photography when I bought my Adobe Creative Suite 2 (initially for Illustrator, InDesign and Acrobat for paying work), followed shortly by my 20D and lenses back in July 2005, I look at my initial efforts and compare them to where I am now, and I realise, with satisfaction, that I've learned so much since then - almost all from this forum and experimentation.

Indeed, what I've learnt in Photoshop helps in Illustrator and InDesign; there's a lot of commonality between the various parts of the Creative Suite 2, especially in things like shortcut keys.

David

If you're a beginner, I'd suggest switching your camera to capture images in sRGB (not Adobe RGB) and set photoshop to sRGB as well so they're both in sync.
sRGB is web, and lab printing friendly... so for a beginner, it should work just fine without much effort.

Sure the AdobeRGB colour space is larger (so there are more colours) but for a beginner, it's just easier this way. Plus, images will look the same in Photoshop, the web, and your other image viewers.

In Photoshop, check Edit>Colour Spaces (I think that's what it's called). Make sure your camera is capturing in sRGB... should be in the menu system of the camera.

I'd endorse that - keep everything in sRGB until you understand the advantages and disadvantages of wider colour spaces. I can't give you set up information for Photoshop, as you're using Photoshop CS (according to the information in the picture you posted in this thread), and the only version of Photoshop I've owned and used is CS2, which is somewhat different.

David

Plus, even I just shoot and edit in sRGB. There are benefits to using the other colour spaces (more colours in the gamut) but there are extra steps required and a WELL ORGANIZED workflow to make sure you handle the files appropriately.

Everything in sRGB is easier for most people... yet most books and video tutorials recommend using Adobe RGB.

Isn't it true though that the pictures being printed out look better in RGB rather than sRGB?

I did find out that I have my camera set to sRGB and Photoshop was set to RGB. So now I know to keep them to the same.

And after hours yesterday of learning about colorspace and the printer profile along with running the Gamma thing on my monitor - I got the green cast out of the pictures (without having to edit anything at all). The colors weren't as bright and vibrant as I'd hoped but I think that's just me being a bit picky and maybe the fact that I shot and printed in sRGB????

Let me just say thank you so much to DavidW and RAitch for the help because I would not have been able to do this - just didn't know where to start.

So I'm thinking the brightness/saturation - not sure which terminology to use will be better if I shoot pictures in RGB and then set the Photoshop back to it but if that would make it more difficult for me then maybe I should hold off.

Do you know if anyone has posted their workflows anywhere?

Thanks again!!

For sure people have posted workflows around here... but really, it's best to build your own from what you learn rather than following somebody elses steps without understanding why you're doing them.

One of the biggest problems people have with their workflow is image management. Keeping their originals separate... and how to save images so they can be posted to the web with a small size, while being able to print out at different image ratios (4x6, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, etc...)
If you can manage that, you're ahead of the game from the get go.

When you say RGB above... I'm assuming you mean AdobeRGB (aRGB). think of RGB representing the method of producing an image by using Red Green and Blue channels... much like CMYK uses Cyan Magenta Yellow and Black channels to represent a picture.

Withing the RGB "representation" you can have colour spaces to represent colours... 2 examples are Adobe RGB (aRGB) and sRGB.

LAB is another representation method that consists of a luminocity channel and 2 colour range tables.

Set your camera to sRGB (not Adobe RGB) and set Photoshop to the same (sRGB). Then you're ready to rock. Sounds like you just have/had to change your Photoshop setting from your description above.

I don't think you'd notice a difference at all (naked eye) if you captured in AdobeRGB and processed in AdobeRGB... then converted to sRGB to post to the web. Images captured, and processed in sRGB should look darn near the same (again, naked eye).

With AdobeRGB, you should see more colour range in the deep toned greens for example... but to be honest, looking at a pure sRGB image, people wouldn't be able to pick up on that... and most would miss that detail looking at "perfect test images" side by side.

The question is... is the subtle increase of image quality due to the larger AdobeRGB colour gamut worth the agrivation of having to swap colour spaces back and forth? Also considering that most printing centres only print from sRGB?

Like I said, it's probably not worth it to take "advantage" of sRGB.

You shouldn't notice any difference with brightness/saturation between sRGB and aRGB... so I don't think this is your problem.

Perhaps you should reset the camera settings to factory. Maybe your profile has been altered to reduce the contrast/saturation/sh​arpness.

I'm more of a "learn by doing" kind of gal, so I thought following some workflows might help me and that I would learn along the way...I hate to get off track with the process just because I don't know what to do. Definitley not following blindly just need a road map is my thinking.

As far as image management goes, what I'm doing just cause it seemed to make sense (and these are just my family photos) is periodically (let's say at the end of the month), I burn a dvd with all of that month's pictures, before I've edited any of them. Then I edit what's on my computer and print things out, never editing the images saved on the dvd. I print a sampling of my shots (4 x 6) to put into a photo album. When I have a shot that I really love and want to display I may print that in 5 x 7 or larger. If I love what I've done editing wise then I will save a copy on my hard drive of the edited version since I know I have the original tucked away on dvd for future reference. Hope that is manageable and that I'm working wisely keeping the dvd "negatives".

About the RGB's color space - I had my camera on sRGB and had PhotoShop set to AdobeRGB. So now I've changed PhotoShop back to sRGB. I am printing my own pictures on a Canon i9900 - seems to do a comparable job to prints that I've developed at Ritz. So my question is, to the naked eye are the prints going to suffer from being shot and edited using the sRGB? From what I'm gathering that is your preference...so when you print, they turn out acceptable? Now that I've set the printer profile for the Canon paper I'm using, I don't know whether Photoshop is telling the printer which RGB to use - either Adobe or sRGB or whether the printer takes the lead on that. I'm comfortable shooting in sRGB and editing in sRGB as long as I won't see a noticeable decrease in color printing them myself and if that's best for a beginner than that's what I'll do....then I can concentrate on learning more about the editing software and the camera itself. I haven't really posted pictures on the web. I've e-mail a few but it's just friends to see and not print.

I just really want to continue to have pictures that I personally love of my little boy cause he's growing so fast. I don't want to have a space in the photo album of pictures that are just all messed up cause I switched to digital and didn't have a clue on how to get them printed, see what I'm saying. I waited as long as I felt possible before going digital because I didn't want to lose quality in my pictures and that's why I jumped on the Rebel XT - I knew I could grow into it. So that's why I feel like I've just got to get over this learning curve as quickly as possible.

Thanks for taking the time responding. I'm a bit embarrassed due to my lack of knowlege so I appreciate you overlooking anything I say that is just plain stupid.

sRGB has a smaller colour gamut (range of colours available) than Adobe RGB. At least some of the 'additional' colours of Adobe RGB will be in gamut on the i9900; the i9900's 8 ink system gives you a pretty wide gamut as printers go.

You could use all Adobe RGB in your workflow - but if you convert 8 bit Adobe RGB JPEGs from your camera to sRGB from the web, you may suffer quality loss. The reason is that the same 0-255 values for red, green and blue represent a wider range of colours in Adobe RGB than sRGB, so when you convert 8 bit Adobe RGB to 8 bit sRGB, you can't cover every possible sRGB colour.


There is a way around this sort of problem - which is to shoot RAW. RAW records the data directly off the sensor with no in-camera processing - you then process that into a finished image on your computer in a RAW converter, such as Canon's Digital Photo Professional software.

RAW gives you 12 bits of data from each pixel on the camera's sensor to work with, and you can get the output from a RAW converter in 16 bit format. You decide at the RAW processing stage whether you want Adobe RGB, sRGB, or a wide gamut colour space such as ProPhoto RGB (which only makes sense in a 16 bit file).

One slight snag is that the version of Adobe Camera Raw available for your Photoshop CS doesn't support the Rebel XT - the Rebel XT is only supported in Camera Raw 3.1 and above, and Camera Raw 3 requires Photoshop CS2. You can get round this by using DNG Converter 3.3, then feeding the resulting DNG into Camera Raw 2.4 under Photoshop CS - or using a separate RAW converter such as Canon's Digital Photo Professional or the free Raw Shooter Essentials.

Another snag is that you can only shoot RAW in the 'creative' modes - P, Av, Tv, M and A-DEP. It is worth looking at some of the links in my previous post which will hopefully nudge you towards Av mode for most of your photography.


I wouldn't bother with shooting Adobe RGB JPEGs. I'd shoot sRGB JPEGs; that's standard. Try to grow into using the 'creative' modes of the camera, at which point, assuming you have sufficient memory card and storage space, you can shoot RAW plus whichever JPEG quality you wish. That way, you have the JPEG files you already know how to deal with, and you can store the RAW files (which have a .CR2 extension, and need a card reader to be visible) safely for when you learn how to use RAW converter software. Be aware that a typical .CR2 file from a Rebel XT will be around 8MBytes.

RAW provides a lot of flexibility in post-processing - for example, if you chose the wrong White Balance in camera, so it's worth having RAW files if you can. If you get to the point where you can create them, you can worry later about what to do with them!

If you're serious about RAW, I'd suggest upgrading to Photoshop CS2 - having a version of Camera Raw that takes files from your Rebel XT directly, as well as the power of Adobe Bridge, is worth it. Another alternative is to hang on until towards the end of this year, when I suspect we'll see the next version of Photoshop (Photoshop CS3, perhaps?). CS2 is now getting towards a year old, and new versions of the Creative Suite applications tend to appear around every 18 months.


If you shoot JPEG in the camera, make sure you hold on to a copy of the JPEGs as they came out of the camera (unless you have a RAW file and are sure you don't want the JPEG), as that provides you with a clean copy if whatever you do in software such as Photoshop turns out to be incorrect. Don't edit the original files without keeping a copy.


Don't be embarrassed - the questions you are asking are very sensible, and represent intelligent questions from a new DSLR owner.

David