OT: Lighting and RAW

[jwedehase]

Here's a quick off topic I'm hoping some of you might be able to help me out with.

This shot was taken with a Canon 20D in RAW+Small-JPG mode. I use the small JPG so I can see a thumbnail of the RAW for image selection. Today, I was shooting for a special event at a church for Easter, in case you were curious what the subject was. This shot was before the concert.

The image on the left is the RAW image, as close as I can get Photoshop CS2 to process it. The shot on the right is the unedited small JPG, and is much more accurate to what was there, though it also has some significant saturation clipping. All the lighting was purple, there were no blue lights in this photo.

Any ideas on how to resolve the extreme clipping in the RAW photo? How can I make the image look like the unedited JPG?

 

[gregr]

I see what you mean. I read your post before looking at the images and I didn't expect to see that big a difference.
Your raw pic looks like what happens when I open images in the CS2 raw converter (which I only use when I'm being lazy- normally I use Capture One) and all the boxes are checked for auto settings (exposure, shadows, brightness and contrast). I haven't figured out how to set the default so that the boxes are unchecked. Anyhow- when I uncheck all the boxes the images snaps back to what came out of the camera and I can make my fine adjustments to make the picture pop.
So if none of the boxes are checked you've got to figure out where the adjustments to those settings have been applied because they're coming from the software somewhere. If you can't find out where the problem is being introduced then I'd go to work in levels and curves.

 

[jwedehase]

So it sounds like the Photoshop CS2 RAW converter isn't so great, huh? I set it to "As Shot" and unclicked all the check boxes. Maybe I'll have to check out Capture One. Speaking of being lazy, where can I find out more about Capture One?

EDIT: OK, that really WAS lazy. First hit Google found it.

http://www.phaseone.com

 

[gregr]

ps does a good job- it's not bad at all. I just like c1 better.

 

[jwedehase]

It would also appear I'm having troubles getting all the profiles lined up. When I'm correcting in the RAW processor, I have to take into account that when it gets tossed into PS, it's going to be much cooler and have much higher contrast, yet less clipping of colors. Then, I have to discard the color profile as it enters PS.

I'm about done with my flat panel monitor, it's been way more of a mess than really seems reasonable. We may get off topic quite a bit here, but how much do you know about this part (profiles)? I'd like the RAW processor to look like the working space, and the jpg output in IE/Firefox, as well as in print. Here's what I'm used to:

CS2 Raw Processor: Warmer, saturation clipped, and less contrast
PS after discarding color profile: Pretty close, but usually a little more saturated
Web browser: This is what I'm assuming is standard.
Print: WAAAAY cooler than anything else, and usually WAY too much contrast.

WinXP Pro
Photoshop CS2 (Working space: Monitor RGB HS95)
CS2 Raw Processor (sRGB IEC61966-1)
ATI Radeon 9000 video card
HP Deskjet 960
Sony 19" SDM-HS95 LCD (Profile: HS95 L93)

Or shall I shoot this discussion over to a photo-dedicated forum? I don't want to bog down RC with non-related discussion.

 

[gregr]

Sorry for the delay. I think this is a totally appropriate topic for this forum so don't sweat that. Regardless, bringing it to a forum where people with knowledge specific to printing would be a good idea.
I know a fair amount about color profiles but I finally came to the point where printing myself was too much trouble because the effort I put into learning about this stuff, profiling my monitor and printer (for the papers I liked), the cost of the printer and ink and paper... all the hassles I was going thru in Photoshop... and the prints were just not what I wanted about 75% of the time. Add to that that prints from a professional lab are not [relatively] expensive and I just gave up on it. I may go back to it someday but for now I use a lab.
I had major profile troubles with C1 when I changed monitors last time. The settings I finally settled on were Adobe 1998 in the camera and Photoshop, a Color Spyder profile for my lcd (and I agree with you that lcd's are a pain) and in Capture One the camera is set to the generic profile for my camera, Adobe 1998 for everything else (except the monitor, which uses the profile I generated with the Spyder, of course). The printer can do whatever they want because they've turned out good so far and that's all I care about.
I think in the long run you'll be much happier using the same profile for the converter and photoshop. When they match and the picture looks good on your monitor it should continue to look good on down the line. Why are you discarding the color profile in Photoshop by the way?

 

[jwedehase]

I discard the color profile because if I either leave the profile, or convert the profile, colors go totally out of whack. If I discard the profile, color accuracy is much higher.

As for matching the profiles, I wasn't concerned a WHOLE LOT with print. Coming from a background in graphic design (a long time ago), I recognize all the pain behind printing. That used to be what we fought more than anything. For me now, I just want the image to look the same in CS2, the RAW converter, and a Web browser. The browser is where I share 98% of my photos. It would be nice if the image looked the same throughout the workflow, so I didn't ave to guess at what the output would be the next stage down the line.

I'm going to check the profile in my camera, and just make all profiles match across the board, and see how that works out. And, as mentioned, I may shift this over to a photo forum and play "newbie."

Thanks for the help so far!

 

[louist]

The others have already given you good advice.

You shouldn't just discard the color profile. My color profile work flow is identical to Greg's and that was what I found to be the most consistent and simple. There are most complicated workflows to fit individual needs, but you can go there once you have a good grip on what's doing what.

The left image (RAW) looks like saturation clipping to me. As suggested, you should try a different software. I never liked PS's RAW converters and have always used C1 Pro.

Adobe LightRoom also does a good job. I enjoy the workflow in that software also.

 

[gregr]

I took another look at the settings you're using and I think the source of the problem is the Photoshop color space. If the web is the most important viewing area the color space should be sRGB in the raw converter and editor. Give that a try and see if it solves the problem.

 

[jwedehase]

Greg, I swapped everything over to sRGB. No difference in the saturation clip. I'm looking in the right spot, right?

Here?

 

[gregr]

I've got "preserve embedded profiles" for all the Color Management Policy boxes. The other things are the same as mine.