Swamp Cat

[Russell Johnson]

I posted this image last year and had a huge issue with colour casts etc. A new calibrator, monitor, graphics card and some PP tips picked up here has hopefully done the trick.

1D mark IV
500 F4
1/400 @ F6.3

94344

[peter delaney]

Hi Russell

Sorry but you seem to still have some colour issues... picking up a lot of blue thru out cheetah , also your midtones are a little on the dark side and could do with some opening up..

I would recommend a minor CCW roatation and slight warming up of the image...

overall you have the makings of a lovely image just a few minor corrections needed..

[Steve Kaluski]

Yep, would concur with Peter here Russell, also the colours are 'quite' vibrant here. Regarding the CCW rotation, I think it's the stance of the Cheetah, it looks as if it's leaning, so visually a slight rotation should solve that, providing you have enough image, to the left & at the foot.

Again, as Peter says, this does have the marking of a good image Russell. :S3:

TFS
Steve

[Ofer Levy]

Agree with the previous comments - here is a quick repost where I selectively reduced the blue and adjusted levels. Working on the RAW files will make this image sing....:w3

[Grant Atkinson]

Hi Russell, agree with all three previous posters...this will be a strong shot with a rework of the raw. Like the cheetahs stance, the colour in the eye and the depth provided by the BG.

[Tom Graham]

Looks blue to me also, like your recent "wild dogs vs hyena" shot.
There may be a color management issue here? Not you personally s the manager :S3: but the mechanics - PP previews, PP proofing, PP monitor profile, web browser, that sort of thing.
Does what you see here on BPN look the same as what you on PP?
What web browser are you using, I'm using Firefox 3.6.
Tom

[Russell Johnson]

Thanks for all the feedback. I think I get so fixated on getting rid of the magenta cast, that I often ignore the others :2eyes2:

[Russell Johnson]

Quick repost.

94376

[Morkel Erasmus]

gorgeous light and subject Russel!

I agree on the rotation needed, and find that your repost still has some colour issues! :e3
It still has lots of magenta and blue where it shouldn't have (shadow areas) and it's even evident on the well-lit parts of the cat.

Have you tried selecting the cheetah and doing selective de-saturation as opposed to trying to balance it in "color balance"?

[Tom Graham]

Sorry,but seems to me with your last re-post you went the wrong color direction.
I've taken the liberty to try it myself.
In Photoshop CS2 first adjustment was "color balance" and I took blue down by -30. Cheetah shadowy side still looked bit blue so in "curves" lowered the blue some more at 82 input become 47 output. This took shadow blue down and also a bit less blue in rest of image. It may be to "warm" now, but I like it. Seems like it should be warm because the sun seems low.
http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=41j7caz3trdn1n6&thumb=6http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=41j7caz3trdn1n6&thumb=6http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/8b412c2a658116bcf509567d2fefcc746da74d46a9b00c5563 44df6949a1cb6f6g.jpg
hmm, maybe tinyurl will work?
http://tinyurl.com/44cazl9
YES - that seems to have worked!!!

Tom

[Russell Johnson]

Tom, those colours are way off base.

Night all...Thanks for the help. After dotting the image with sample colour checkers and agonising over the masking and curves, will call it a day.

If someone would like to become my full time image editor, please let me know. I have another 1500+ cheetah images to get through, and I don't enjoy the back end of shooting.

[Tom Graham]

Thanks RJ for responding to may try.
We are really seeing this differently!!! Would be most interesting to know why.
I hope we hear from others and they also do re-works. Or pick one and say its near perfect!!!
It's funny because I have color issues (too blue) -only- with your postings!!!
Hope we get it figured out, a learning opportunity, for one, two or all :S3:

Tom

[Russell Johnson]

I should be in bed!

94390

[Don Lacy]

Hi Russel, The easiest way I know to get rid of a color cast is to use the eye droppers in the curves adjustment layer. If you do not know how to do this let me know and I will explain it. In this version the whites have the following RGB values 133,133,134 so all color cast is removed. Now this might not be accurate to the color temp of lighting at the time of capture but it is free of all cast.

[Stan Cunningham]

I won't repeat any one above and their reposts are much better than I could do in PS, but I did play with enough to know this pic is a very nice B and W as well. Try it if you have time.

[Tom Graham]

Don, your re-work looks very good to me. Almost as good as mine :bg3:
On thing I did not mention to RJ is also his sky color. Looks wrong.
Notice the big diff in your (and mine) sky color from RJ, much better.
When I took only the blue down I saw what maybe was still blue in the cats shadowed side so I tried to take it out in "curves". This made whole image a bit on the yellow side.

I'd be curious about your setting the whites. But white is not 133,133,133? You mean neutral gray?
Most always you can't look at the image, especially wildlife, and say - this should be white (or gray). It may be close but hardly ever right on.
Here is a PS article on doing this to find middle gray 50%. But I haven't tried it.
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 9"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 9"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/ADMINI%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style>http://www.peachpit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1330224&seqNum=5
White balance is so subject, especially in nature, that I just tweak until I like it.

Tom

[Russell Johnson]

Thanks Don. I have no issues using a curves adjustment, though it is quite a blunt tool. Removing all colour casts is fine, but as you mention,'not representative of the scene.

[Russell Johnson]

As for the colour of the sky, they are actually storm clouds, so the colour is not that off.

[Harshad Barve]

love the pose , light and compo , can't comment on color as I am on laptop
TFS

[Morkel Erasmus]

Russel, your own repost is a vast improvement, though I am seeing a hint of magenta still in the shaded parts of the cheetah.

In the end, you also need to stay true to the scene you witnessed...with last light during and after sunset the colours can vary greatly based on atmospheric conditions. :S3:

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Russell, I think you best repost the image after your FINAL rework, having gone back to the RAW, it's a cracker. It looks pretty spot on, with no colour shift to me, and is probably now a truer reflection of how the image should have been presented, with great vibrant colours and a lovely setting.

I think you owe it to yourself. :w3

TFS
Steve :w3

[Ofer Levy]

...In the end, you also need to stay true to the scene you witnessed... :S3:
Hi Morkel,
I don't refer to this image in particular - it is more of a general comment: I wonder how can anyone really tell/remember what were the "true" colours/light of a scene on a particular day....You know whether it was sunny or cloudy, early morning or harsh light but you can't really tell how an image "should" look. It can be more of an educated guess with a big room for "mistakes".
I often hear photographers saying this is how light/colours/contrast were but I think it is basically impossible to know. We can assume and guess but nothing more. Based on that, when I process a picture, I don't try to make it look the way I think it should (according to what I saw when I took the image). I just go with what I have and try to make it look as natural as possible even if it looks different to what I think it should look.
Hope that makes sense...:w3
EDIT: a good example to what I mean is your recent post: http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/84728
Can you or anyone else really tell how this image "should" look? - does your repost or mine reflect the actual scene better? I don't think so....

[Russell Johnson]

Okay, Steve wins. This is the image he was refering to.

I went back to the RAW file and built it up from there.

94416

[Steve Kaluski]

Thanks Russell.

Now you are all set to go, what the next image? :bg3:

Cheers
Steve

[Don Lacy]

Russell, I really like your repost the warmer tones are appealing without being overdone much better then my neutral repost and a good example why a little color cast can be a good thing.


I'd be curious about your setting the whites. But white is not 133,133,133
When I did the correction I set the RGB values to 144,144,145 the whites looked to bright to me so i dropped the tonal values down with a curve adjustment and layer mask to 133 pull the image into PS and read the values and look at the whites are they white or grey :w3 the answer is they are a mid tone white.

[Hilary Hann]

Russell, your repost is just perfect to my eyes, well done for persevering, the image is certainly worth the effort.

[Tom Graham]

I like your repost #23.
Mine #10 is too yellow

Tom

[Morkel Erasmus]

Hi Morkel,
I don't refer to this image in particular - it is more of a general comment: I wonder how can anyone really tell/remember what were the "true" colours/light of a scene on a particular day....You know whether it was sunny or cloudy, early morning or harsh light but you can't really tell how an image "should" look. It can be more of an educated guess with a big room for "mistakes".
I often hear photographers saying this is how light/colours/contrast were but I think it is basically impossible to know. We can assume and guess but nothing more. Based on that, when I process a picture, I don't try to make it look the way I think it should (according to what I saw when I took the image). I just go with what I have and try to make it look as natural as possible even if it looks different to what I think it should look.
Hope that makes sense...:w3
EDIT: a good example to what I mean is your recent post: http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/84728
Can you or anyone else really tell how this image "should" look? - does your repost or mine reflect the actual scene better? I don't think so....

Hi Ofer

Thanks for your thoughts. I do agree with you, we will struggle to remember the exact quality of light and colour, especially if the image had been taken a while back. :t3

I think what I was referring to is more "nostalgic" and in terms of what the sighting/sunset/whatever meant to you and imprinted on your memories...for example with a flaming sunset you might remember it being a tad more vivid than what would look natural to others viewing the shot after you processed it. As you say - which is the correct one? The photographer remembering the scene in his/her mind or the viewer saying that it couldn't have looked like that? :bg3:

Now rightfully some would opt for your route and think "neutrally" (or "objective") about the image and try to make it looks natural as possible, and some would opt for the "subjective" route and process the way they remember it in their memory/imagination. Neither is wrong and both serve their purpose...it sure would be hard for me to pin my processing down and say I always process in either a "subjective" or "objective" way. (And I'm not saying we are "objective" about our images in the traditional sense as all our own images will almost always be viewed in a more subjective way).

Interesting discussion which we might do well in pursuing on the general forum...

Am I making sense? :2:e3


Apologies for the "thread-jack" here Russel...
Your last repost looks spot on to me!

[Tom Graham]

Yes Morkel, you and Ofer both make sense. I have to comment about this color "correct" thing and agree while seeming off topic it is really the heart and soul of this thread.

We have terrible color -memory-. (Our color -matching- ability is much much better).Have you ever gone to a paint store to buy a can of paint to match a color at home (without a color sample with you)? You don't even come close. And then we have the well know eye-brain system that does its own color correction, e.g. a piece of white paper seen in sunlight or with incandescent (light bulb) light. The only way you can start to believe the color accuracy of a photograph is if there is a known reference in it. Something like a gray card scale.

And as a viewer who was not even there, what do I know about the color of the scene !?!?! Basically nothing. Basically I have to draw on my memory of similar subjects and scenes. Perfect example of this here. Why did I say pane #16 "One thing I did not mention to RJ is also his sky color. Looks wrong." And RJ responded "As for the colour of the sky, they are actually storm clouds, so the colour is not that off." So why did I think the sky was not correct? Because of my experience with sunlit subjects with a sky with no apparent clouds. I expect the sky color to be within a certain range.

And not to even mention our computer monitor issues:bg3:

Tom

[Pieter de Waal]

Hi Russell,

Have followed this thread with great interest and one which is very topical for me.

Prefer your final posting and like the concentration and eye colour. Also like the BG and sense of environment it gives. Allround a lovely image.

[Robert Amoruso]

Russell,

I like the post in pane 23. Also looks like you sharpened it more which I was going to suggest.