Hit me with a Salami and Call me Nancy - Tonal Uniformity Question

Hello friends,

Rather embarrassed to have to ask this question, though it only presented itself right now (not sure why not in years past) and I am trying to figure out the best way to proceed.

As I prepare a few galleries for my website (showcasing my past work as a journo), I am now seeing that the selection of images I have picked all seem to have rather different tones. Each photo -for the most part- looks good on its own, but when put together to create a somewhat seamless dynamic gallery, really shows the jumps in tone, temperatures, etc.

What process do you follow in PS or your workflow to make your finished product uniform when it comes to displaying it side by side? I haven't had this issue before, but it's really noticeable. I do recall a few steps involving a gray blending layer, luminosity, and being able to work with histograms in order to match photos, but was wondering if Photoshop for instance or the Interwebs have come up with a less time consuming way of approximating some photos to others.

*** EDIT: ADDED IMAGE ***
Here are some examples of the uniformity issues I am trying to mitigate, or attenuate. While photos from the same event were shot under similar conditions and do appear more alike, when I am creating an "Air Show" gallery, I'd like to be able to have the sky look somewhat similar, without ruining the photos.

(NOTE: I am sure some of this has to do with my substandard Photoshopping skills rather than anything else)

Nancy,

The only tone which can be truly uniform in appearance from shot to shot

a) requires that the same tone appears in all photos, and
b) is used as the basis for exposure measurement, and post processing

...the 18% gray midtone is the most commonly used 'reference' tonal area.

Differences between shots in the Contrast adjustment will affect tones. Difference in settings for Shadow or Highlight will affect tones.

If 18% gray is not inherently in a scene, you cannot truly expect 'uniformity' to exist in every shot.

One Macbeth card, shot under contrasty vs. less contrast lighting conditions, in 4 different kinds of light with different White Balance. All four shots processed to be less contrasty, normal contrast, and more contrasty in appearance

Nancy, the examples are missing.

Tones are expected to differ between a snow scene and a forest scene, between an air show and a football field, between . . . Examples of the images you want to juxtapose would help us respond.

Thank you! I did add them just now, sorry about that. And thanks for calling me Nancy (I have this thing about Thread titles and email subjects that causes me to often choose rather "interesting" titles).

Even if you ASSume that the sky is 'uniform' in tonality, in actuality it varies in brightness depending upon the angle relative to the sun position!

This is embarrassing indeed. And I thank you, as it does make perfect sense. I just couldn't get over those galleries I've been browsing where every photo appears to be shot under the same conditions, and displays ever so beautifully in a gallery.

At least it does bring me the consolation that what I am searching for, is not really 100% achievable in this context.

Thanks everyone for your comments.

PhotoJourno wrote in post #18639815
And thanks for calling me Nancy .

Beats being called Shirley. 8^)

I selected each frame separately and opened a selective color adjustment layer for each. Then tweaked mainly blues and cyans, just eyeballing for uniformity. Not perfect matches, but much closer than the original.

You CAN achieve somewhat 'uniform' sky tonality, but at the expense of 'adequate' exposure of your subject! You subject could be front lit vs. backlit, causing the subject relative brightness to change by 3EV in brightness even when the background sky is kept a uniform tonality.

Simple demonstration...the brightest direction of sky I established to be 0EV. As I aimed around the circle at different directions from the sun, the sky changed brightness by up to -2.2EV
I aimed at the palm of my hand, and the palm changed from 0EV to +3.2EV when measuring at the SAME angles to the sun~...the sky got darker while my palm got brighter, facing in the SAME DIRECTIONS around the circle.

If I opened up my aperture by 2.2EV to keep the sky a constant tonality, my skin would get brighter by 5.4EV (3.2EV lighting plus 2.2EV wider aperture) in the same compass direction!

I regularly shoot airshows, and as Wilt says it changes with both angle to the sun, and angle above the horizon, and that's just during a single pass! The sky can change a lot in the course of an afternoon, not forgetting that the sun also move across the sky at 15° per hour. Keeping any sort of consistent colour in the sky is nigh on impossible, unless the photographer is cheating and doctoring the sky in post to the point that they are just changing out the sky in most of the images.

Alan

Wilt wrote in post #18639874
You CAN achieve somewhat 'uniform' sky tonality, but at the expense of 'adequate' exposure of your subject! You subject could be front lit vs. backlit, causing the subject relative brightness to change by 3EV in brightness even when the background sky is kept a uniform tonality.

Simple demonstration...the brightest direction of sky I established to be 0EV. As I aimed around the circle at different directions from the sun, the sky changed brightness by up to -2.2EV
I aimed at the palm of my hand, and the palm changed from 0EV to +3.2EV when measuring at the SAME angles to the sun~...the sky got darker while my palm got brighter, facing in the SAME DIRECTIONS around the circle.

If I opened up my aperture by 2.2EV to keep the sky a constant tonality, my skin would get brighter by 5.4EV (3.2EV lighting plus 2.2EV wider aperture) in the same compass direction!

It's important in this case to distinguish luminosity from color. Look again at the sample images the OP posted. There are differences in luminosity for sure, but the most glaring differences are in color. Hue.* The main challenge is to make the hues more uniform; luminosity is secondary.

EDIT: *Hue and saturation.

Wow, that does show me what a gap I need to close. Well, the sooner I know the better, right?
Thank you so much, I think for a decent looking gallery, it is important to show this type of uniformity.
Much appreciated!

Thanks for explaining it like thus. I see it and understand it clearly.
Cheers,

The sky may indeed appear differently depending upon the elevation of the sky you are shooting, the sun, the weather, time of day. Think about grouping like images together (ie, images where the sky should appear the same) instead of trying to force legitimately different images to look uniform. If images where the sky should look the same show differences in the sky, then your camera settings or workflow needs some tweaking. Trying using a fixed white balance instead of auto, for example. At least the corrections you apply will lend themselves to batch processing rather than a potential for having to apply corrections on a per-image basis.

Kirk