They Might Be Giants, 5/12/07

It does look a little washed out in the resized one posted above, but look at a 100% crop:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

René Damkot wrote in post #3203215
They could be sharpened a bit for web however, depending on taste...

They might be 'accurate', but certainly not the best exposure: Green channel is totally blown... There is no detail whatsoever in the side of the face...
I prefer 'pleasing' over 'accurate' for this type of work, and I think that is what was referred to.

that is exactly what i was thinking. i find myself "taking the green out" or at least a little of it.

i think they are good shots and i'm happy to see images of this band. i was just trying to reply with something other than "nice shots".

thanks for posting.

Why would I want it to look any different than it actually did?

justchris wrote in post #3203534
Why would I want it to look any different than it actually did?

as rené said, sometimes accurate isn't always as pleasing. personal preference

Great images

René Damkot wrote in post #3204109
Great images

I'm not sure if this is supposed to imply an unwillingness to accept criticism on my part, but please understand that I'm not concerned with the quality of the images at this point. The argument is more of a philosophical one - is it better to portray a scene accurately, or make a picture that "looks nice?"

There were plenty of times during the show where the performers were lit with only (or mostly) white light, and those shots have a more "natural" coloring. If I'm taking pictures of the performers while they're illumated with a single color (such as green) and they're completely saturated with it, why should I try to make them look more like the ones that were taken under completely different circumstances? That seems like a rather unnatural adherence to what you perceive to be an ideal.

If the stage lights are green, the performers will look green, and the pictures of the performers will look green. They're supposed to. If you don't like it, then you're not a fan of the stage lighting. It has nothing to do with the way the photograph was taken or processed - it's an accurate representation of what we saw on stage that night.

Ehm, well. Yes, you did come across like you wanted praise instead of comment...

Anyhow, since that doesn't seem to be the case, let the discussion continue

IMO it's better to make an image 'look nice'. I don't mean it should be 'neutral'. It should be green, but in a pleasant way
I don't have too many 'green' images, since green is mainly used as backlight where I shoot, but here's an old one (shot as jpg, might even be off my 10D): click. And a newer one, shot Raw on the 1D2, corrected for less green in DPP: Click. That might convey what I mean...
A while back, I posted an example of a correction I did on an image with red lighting: Click. That's about the amount I mean; still red, but better IMO.

The human eye has a tendency to be *much* more forgiving then the camera when it comes to colored lighting. Specially when there is no contrasting color around. If you are in a 100% red lit environment, you will percieve both a red and white paper as (more or less) white...

Red is definitely the worst when it comes to washing out detail. I found green and blue to be the most forgiving in that regard.

So, just out of curiosity, what would you do with my "green" image, from a PP point of view?

My kids LOVE this band...

justchris wrote in post #3205997
So, just out of curiosity, what would you do with my "green" image, from a PP point of view?

Q&D:

Channel mixer layer, to get a lot of info from the red & (mostly) blue channel into the green. 'Restore clipped channels' action from Luminous Landscape. And a curves adjustment layer to give the image back a bit of green, without removing the detail.
Most adjustment layers masked to affect just the person.

Click the image for a .psd file

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

That does look a bit better... Thanks.

Welcome