I have to admit it: I need help with Color

Thanks, much better....actually, while being able to see the photos, I think overall color balance looks best with picture 2. A large portion of the photo is the white garage door (and it has more hues of greens or yellows in the other images). Perhaps some of the darkest skin tones in that image are to red....good thing we do have post processing.

davesrose wrote in post #18703044
Thanks, much better....actually, while being able to see the photos, I think overall color balance looks best with picture 2. A large portion of the photo is the white garage door (and it has more hues of greens or yellows in the other images). Perhaps some of the darkest skin tones in that image are to red....good thing we do have post processing.

Have another look...in photo 2 the lady with sunglasses is wearing a white shirt which now has a distinctive magenta tint in photo 2! Since I am married to her, I know the lack of color of that outfit!

Peano wrote in post #18703042
Two suggestions:

1. To sort out a color problem, you can't just describe it in words. You have to show the problem by posting an image.

2. Begin with a single image that you think has a color problem. Leave the batch stuff for later. First learn how to fix color in a single image.

It's not that any ONE image is uncorrectable.
It's when I step back and look at my portfolio, or IG feed and I go, "Well gee, none of them are out of line but they all look shot and edited by a different person."
Every photo "looked" or "felt" right in the moments of editing...but when viewed later alongside a passle of others it's like, "hooooo boy."

These two are partially what inspired the discussion...identical treatment in PS/ACR:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2aJh​TXj

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/283S​8RQ

Wilt wrote in post #18703061
Have another look...in photo 2 the lady with sunglasses is wearing a white shirt which now has a distinctive magenta tint in photo 2! Since I am married to her, I know the lack of color of that outfit!

Magenta or some color fringing? Well looking at 1 and 2 is an interesting comparison of "natural" color. Because the white garage door is a large portion of the image,my eye is looking for the most neutral in that. It seems 2 is getting closest, but some darker skin tones seem too warm. I suppose one person's idea of correct color also boils down to their own perceptions/ photo receptors/ monitor setup.

rogue.guineapig wrote in post #18703064
It's not that any ONE image is uncorrectable.
It's when I step back and look at my portfolio, or IG feed and I go, "Well gee, none of them are out of line but they all look shot and edited by a different person."
Every photo "looked" or "felt" right in the moments of editing...but when viewed later alongside a passle of others it's like, "hooooo boy."

With your two examples here, I see just a few differences, but a lot of commonalities. They have similar color temps and overall intent (and I think they're good executions). We can be our own worst critic. What I might see with one image here is something you might not have considered, and I'm suspecting you're seeing many things I don't. What are the the differences you see with these two examples?

You might be in error in the assumption that the 'door' is indeed neutral!
It is a side of a house.
I cannot tell you if it truly is 'neutral'...I know my wife's outfit is white.

Well at least on my monitor, your wife's shirt doesn't look unnatural in photo 2 (I have it calibrated with X-Rite). There might be just a slight hint of magenta in the hightlights, but with cool shadows it is overall reading as white to me. If I'm really critical, to me, neutral would be a color temp that's in-between 1 and 2. I haven't seen any houses that have off white siding towards green though

davesrose wrote in post #18703071
With your two examples here, I see just a few differences, but a lot of commonalities. They have similar color temps and overall intent (and I think they're good executions). We can be our own worst critic. What I might see with one image here is something you might not have considered, and I'm suspecting you're seeing many things I don't. What are the the differences you see with these two examples?

The guy (it's a husband and wife actually!) seems to be more yellowy-gold with weird reds in the skin.
The gal has a tad bit more pinkish feel and obviously smoother tones across. Is he too green? Or is she too pink?

These NOT how I originally edited them... it was after those original edits that I took a step back.
I remembered Peter McKinnon talking about having a consistent style and consistent editing technique rather than just "what I feel like today."

This is probably most obvious on my Instagram here. This really is what caught my eye on the "potluck of styles and colors" and made me want to evaluate myself and my color approach.

I'll ask my wife to ask her cousin what color is the side of her house!

rogue.guineapig wrote in post #18703081
The guy (it's a husband and wife actually!) seems to be more yellowy-gold with weird reds in the skin.
The gal has a tad bit more pinkish feel and obviously smoother tones across. Is he too green? Or is she too pink?

These NOT how I originally edited them... it was after those original edits that I took a step back.
I remembered Peter McKinnon talking about having a consistent style and consistent editing technique rather than just "what I feel like today."

This is probably most obvious on my Instagram here. This really is what caught my eye on the "potluck of styles and colors" and made me want to evaluate myself and my color approach.

That's interesting you say they'd ordinarily have different skin tones but are husband/wife. The posted images seem to have similar skin tones (I think you've nailed it to keep them consistent). The thing I was going to say was that compositionally there was some differences (his photo reminds me of classical portrait paintings from the perspective, but she's closer and more intimate).

Ah, yes.....whether to show a range of styles vs one consistent one. Well there's pluses and minuses about either way. If you have one style, you'll be shoe horned into that....people will only seek you out for that. But the plus side is that you can get commercially successful for a style...I've known artists that have ridden this high. It's good for a certain period: there will be others who will try to copy your style, and that one style will fall out of fashion at some point. I'm a bit biased the other way. I come from a family of artists and doctors...and have one great grandfather who was an influential painter. He decided not to be commercial but to be a painters painter: he produced great portraits and abstracts. While he didn't become a national figure, his paintings are still sought in the region of Pittsburgh and he's in the who's who for teaching Andy Warhol and Philip Pearlstein. The point is to not think too much about things: do what you enjoy.

You've got an interesting take...yes, his was shot "back" a bit. He was talking with someone so I just snapped a candid...she actually posed for her shot. I just try to get close with people and make them comfortable enough to relax and be themselves.

I do enjoy shooting of course... I guess it just seemed like I was being undisciplined with my color work and approach. It's easy to go thru ACR or PS and just be like, "what feels good today?" rather than
try to say, "this is my process and feel; I made it for me and it's my own."

On the other hand I see your point...styles come and go. There's at least 1-2 shooters I know that just CANNOT let go of an older style and I don't think that does them any favors.
And it may be that YT and IG have a negative influence on perceptions of what color grading should be?

That's interesting you've found getting close to people can make them comfortable. I've found staying further out with "classic" portrait focal lengths (100mm+) people will start to relax after a few shots. Probably differences in situations as well (recently have been shooting headshots at work with folks being scheduled....so not much time for me to chat and get to know). My background with the arts is also painting, so I'm used to classical compositions (maybe part of my take). The husband seems like a good example of tenebrism portraiture. Though you wouldn't see a crop like the wife.

As for day to day processing, I would suspect that if you were regularly processing every day, you'd find your photos would start having some more commonalities (IE you'd lock particular shooting controls and process particular settings). Personally, I just like judging individual photos and can praise someone if they just produce one outstanding photo....vs someone else who might have several competent photos.

It takes time for me... I've known this couple for years, so that helps but when I don't know someone that well I just try a little charm and a lot of focal length!
These are all the 70-200 for the latter reason! So yes, I'm right there with you...100mm plus! You probably have the edge on me for posing because of that painters background.

That's a good thought too... if I went and did a portrait a day I'd have daily color grading "exercise". Plus if I put them in a collection they'd all need to be graded in a way that made them look consistent.
mmmm that's a thought.


This portrait was also shot in the same church as the first two portraits...theirs were taken by the open door in the exact same spot.

Shannon here was taken by a very very yellowy-green stained glass window.
The color here is markedly different. I'll post Olivia below again for an easy A/B.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/29tW​YKR

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2aJh​TXj

You mind if look at these in Ps and repost with some additional info?

I skimmed through the post. I don't think anyone has mentioned something like Colourchecker Passport which will give you accurate colour that is an industry standard. You can create profiles or use it at each shoot. Then part 2 as was mentioned is white balance. CP also has WB squares as well. Simple to use.