Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Camera Raw Q&A => Topic started by: Vladimirovich on December 23, 2012, 06:25:40 pm
-
Rosco #002 gel 'ed light and Adobe's fail to handle such simple light (even lowly SilkyPix has no issues).
here are 2 DNG files (xrite passport's cc24 and WB patch) :
https://www.box.com/s/0noo1vdy6doum0hmnuv5
https://www.box.com/s/40na6yvk8njr34jjfxhd
please let me know how to get a proper WB in ACR or create a profile using regular Adobe (no QPCard or other 3rd party) tools ;) ... am I missing something here ?
PS:
(http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/1549/silkypixhasnoissues.jpg)
-
What is your light source in this example? 5500˚K strobe?
-
What is your light source in this example? 5500˚K strobe?
around that plus some residual ambient...
just to save time for readers =
(http://www.northernsound.net/Sales/Filters/filters/rosco/ecolour/ec002.jpg)
raw data is quite good, no clipping, good sensor saturation =
(http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/9841/goodrawdata.png)
and then what ? we bring N1 raw converter into action and ... epic fail
-
Hi,
That picture is extremely magenta. You would need quite a lot of green tint to compensate.
Do you have the latest versions of the Adobe tools?
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
That picture is extremely magenta. You would need quite a lot of green tint to compensate.
that was not the question, Erik... of course I know that it is magenta and I know what raw converter has to do - my light, my gel, my camera... it is magenta on purpose... that is the light and the raw converter shall be able to WB it in no time, like SilkyPix does (click and done) or like RPP... and ACR can't... and Adobe DNG Profile editor, touted as "you can build your own profiles for a non standard light", can't build a profile for a non standard light... so the question is (about ACR) - why (I know why - they put a hard limit in what your can do through UI) ACR can't work with a quite good (raw data wise) raw file to get me a properly WB'd image... so what was the purpose of that ? yet again Adobe knows better what we need or it is internal deficiency of Adobe's approach to profiles/WB'ing ? or just a mere bug... there is nothing wrong with raw file and noting wrong with the light... you can get that in a theater or some similar venues for example.
Do you have the latest versions of the Adobe tools?
ACR 7.3.0.71
Adobe DNG PE 1.0.0.46 Beta
-
Explain how I fixed this wacked out heavily green biased JPEG in ACR 4.6 in this thread?...
http://photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00YmG4
You're not telling the whole story.
Scroll down to my post user name Tim Lookingbill which is my real name to see the fixed version.
-
Explain how I fixed this wacked out heavily green biased JPEG in ACR 4.6 in this thread?...
I am sorry, what my question about 2 DNG files (posted above, you can download both and try to WB or build profile yourself) has to do w/ your heavily green biased JPEG files ?
You're not telling the whole story.
My story is very plain and simple - 2 DNG files provided - try to get a proper WB (WB patch from XRite passport is in one shot) or build a profile (XRite Passport shot is also supplied in another shot) using Adobe software (ACR/LR and PE)...
I was very amused that Adobe's software can't (won't allow) to work with a good raw data, from shots under a very simple illumination 8), are you ? I bet you can't read this in that DNG book, can you ?
-
What is the point you want to make?
-
I am sorry, what my question about 2 DNG files (posted above, you can download both and try to WB or build profile yourself) has to do w/ your heavily green biased JPEG files ?
My story is very plain and simple - 2 DNG files provided - try to get a proper WB (WB patch from XRite passport is in one shot) or build a profile (XRite Passport shot is also supplied in another shot) using Adobe software (ACR/LR and PE)...
I was very amused that Adobe's software can't (won't allow) to work with a good raw data, from shots under a very simple illumination 8), are you ? I bet you can't read this in that DNG book, can you ?
So you can't explain how I can fix a seriously botched WB in a cooked pixel jpeg?
I'm trying to understand what lack of WB functionality I've never seen anyone throughout the years ACR/LR and digital Raw processing has been in existence have a problem with. I've never had to read a DNG book because I've never had a problem fixing WB in the 1000 or so Raws I've shot and processed in ACR. And I've never had a problem fixing WB with jpegs and tiffs as well.
If you're under the impression that all Raw images WB should be able to be fixed with one click and it's done solution, then I have to assume you and I don't have the same experience processing Raw images. I don't have your problem and I'm pretty sure no one else does either.
And I shoot and process under the crappiest lights in existence with the green image I linked to being the worst but it took more than a one click and it's fixed WB solution as it did with the 1000 or so Raw's I've processed. I really don't even rely anymore on a neutral reference to click for WB because it doesn't give the desired results creatively speaking.
-
You've set up a situation that requires a complicated technical answer the majority of photographers don't have a problem with nor do they understand so I'll just take your word for it and agree with you that Adobe software fails to neutrally WB a rosco #002 filtered light source lit scene using a one click X-rite neutral reference target.
I can't explain why it does this because I don't understand the complexity behind it and don't use Rosco filters.
I suggest you use the SilkyPix software which I have a copy of that came with my Pentax K100D and NEVER use BTW because it's a very uncomfortable piece of software to edit Raws even after upgrading to the latest version for the Mac. The main thing I don't like about it is its interface and preview zoom function. It's unbearable.
I'll take the Adobe WB fail that you've pointed out very thoroughly any day over using SilkyPix.
-
What is the point you want to make?
that Adobe does not deliver to the extent that they should be able on a very basis, fundamental level - to be able to WB and to be able to build profile...
-
So you can't explain how I can fix a seriously botched WB in a cooked pixel jpeg?
I appreciate your best efforts to turn the table, but I do not care about the case when you can - THE problem is with the case where you can't... ;D
I'm trying to understand what lack of WB functionality I've never seen anyone throughout the years ACR/LR and digital Raw processing has been in existence have a problem with.
download the 2 DNG files (links were posted above) and you shall see, so simple...
If you're under the impression that all Raw images WB should be able to be fixed with one click and it's done solution, then I have to assume you and I don't have the same experience processing Raw images.
that is very true ;D
I don't have your problem and I'm pretty sure no one else does either.
of course you don't, because you do not understand the problem to start with (that example with your JPGs is telling).
And I shoot and process under the crappiest lights in existence with the green image I linked to being the worst but it took more than a one click and it's fixed WB solution as it did with the 1000 or so Raw's I've processed. I really don't even rely anymore on a neutral reference to click for WB because it doesn't give the desired results creatively speaking.
so please tell me how to build a profile and WB the DNG files that were posted... instead of filling the thread w/ non relevant mumbling.
-
You've set up a situation that requires a complicated technical answer the majority of photographers don't have a problem with nor do they understand so I'll just take your word for it and agree with you that Adobe software fails to neutrally WB a rosco #002 filtered light source lit scene using a one click X-rite neutral reference target.
and my posting was not addressed to the majority, why did you even think about that ?... but to the few who can understand and tell me what happened
1) Adobe knows better what do we need and this is not something that we need (what a heresy to have a raw file with all 4 channels exposed/saturated quite good... no, real photographers always have a good deal of underexposure in at least 2 channels or else !)
2) Adobe can't do this because their processing model can't work with such cases (hard to believe in that)
3) this is a simple bug in UI in ACR(LR) and PE and it will be fixed
4) this is a simple bug in UI in ACR(LR) and PE and it will not be fixed, because N1
-
Vlad, there's a saying, "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar." If you are actually seeking a useful response/discussion, you might want to check your attitude. Just sayin'
-
and my posting was not addressed to the majority, why did you even think about that ?... but to the few who can understand and tell me what happened
1) Adobe knows better what do we need and this is not something that we need (what a heresy to have a raw file with all 4 channels exposed/saturated quite good... no, real photographers always have a good deal of underexposure in at least 2 channels or else !)
2) Adobe can't do this because their processing model can't work with such cases (hard to believe in that)
3) this is a simple bug in UI in ACR(LR) and PE and it will be fixed
4) this is a simple bug in UI in ACR(LR) and PE and it will not be fixed, because N1
Hi,
I do agree that it is odd that ACR seriously fails to do a 'simple' WB where other converters (I just tried Capture One Pro V7 which had little problem rendering somewhat pleasing colors), although the Rosco did alter the illuminant's spectrum into something that doesn't look like a normal blackbody emission, and relative scene-color distances are significantly altered in the captured data (which is the function of a filter).
Color rendering, even after a 'successful' WB, will still suffer from an unbalanced scene illumination. Whether, and how reliable, a custom profile will be, remains to be seen (depends also on Bayer CFA characteristics and scene colors). What I don't completely follow is why one would butcher the illumination and then attempt to correct that with a profile, unless that illumination 'quality' is encountered commonly, and a post-capture fix is the only remedy possible (I'd prefer to do it pre-capture if color accuracy is that important).
Our sensors with their tri-chromatic color filtering already create potential Color Inconstancy and Metamerism issues, so why throw another spanner in the works?
Cheers,
Bart
-
What I don't completely follow is why one would butcher the illumination
butcher ? I have enough light to saturate all raw channels sufficiently - where is any butchering exactly in a raw histogram posted ? ... and then a normal raw converter shall allow me to WB that as I want...
Our sensors with their tri-chromatic color filtering already create potential Color Inconstancy and Metamerism issues, so why throw another spanner in the works?
I see only a raw converter (some of them) issue... gel used will not create any additional metamerism beyond what was already present w/o it.
-
Vlad, there's a saying, "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar." If you are actually seeking a useful response/discussion, you might want to check your attitude. Just sayin'
indeed... I was unfortunately irritated by a couple of green tinted JPG files example which is totally irrelevant to the issue that I have... my apologies.
-
butcher ? I have enough light to saturate all raw channels sufficiently - where is any butchering exactly in a raw histogram posted ? ... and then a normal raw converter shall allow me to WB that as I want...
Hi,
Enough signal in the different channels is not the issue with metameric color issues. It's the seemingly disrupted contributions between the Bayer filters that will cause potential issues, hence the 'butchering'. But that's probably not your original issue, because I presume that the CC pigments are chosen for their insensitivity to metamerism, and other converters do better (with a significant tint and temperature adjustment) than ACR.
I see only a raw converter (some of them) issue... gel used will not create any additional metamerism beyond what was already present w/o it.
Only for well chosen combinations of illumination and pigments. Our digital camera sensors are not spectrophotometers, but rather tri-chromatic sampling devices, so color inconstancy and metamerism is always a potential issue when pigments are not chosen carefully. Again, this is unlikely to be the issue with the CC profiling with a tri-chromatic sampling device here, because other Raw converters do a better job.
But even with Capture One Pro V7 (example attached), while the overall color balance is more acceptable, it is not perfect (because the light quality was compromised with a Magenta/Pink filter which changed the demosaicing balance between color bands for specific colors, especially those crossing CFA filter band boundaries).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart, could you assign your monitor profile to that screengrab, save and repost and even better yet if so desired convert to sRGB? There's no embedded profile in the image you posted.
-
I find it a strange coincidence that these Rosco filters are getting mentioned several times between two photo discussion forums within the last month namely at LuLa and Photo.net when I've never heard of the brand for the ten years I've participated in both forums.
In fact there's a discussion over at Photo.net started by a long time member in the Lighting forum having issues with Rosco's pinkish blue tint to neutrals which I pointed out to the OP.
http://photo.net/photography-lighting-equipment-techniques-forum/00bADm
A while back in another topic discussing gels/filters someone posted the video which was the first I heard of this brand. I'm not a long standing pro photographer going back to the film days (right now just a digital imaging enthusiast), so if Rosco says they've been around 100 years according to that video, I'll just take their word for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqxFvOOT7RY
Maybe complaints to Rosco's gel/filter formulation should be addressed to them rather in this thread and/or complain directly to Adobe about this.
-
Bart, could you assign your monitor profile to that screengrab, save and repost and even better yet if so desired convert to sRGB? There's no embedded profile in the image you posted.
Hi Tim,
Sure. Attached the same file and name, now as JPEG with my displayprofile attached (requires conversion to ones own profile or sRGB to be meaningful). Then I've attached the same Raw conversion saved directly from Capture One as sRGB JPEG output (the Reds/Oranges are less oversaturated).
I also tested the Capture One ProPhotoRGB 16-bit/channel TIFF converted to SRGB in Photoshop route, to satisfy my own curiosity and to see if Photoshop produces a different result from the direct Capture One sRGB output (different CM engines and potentially JPEG quality, but they are close).
Cheers,
Bart
-
I'm not a long standing pro photographer going back to the film days (right now just a digital imaging enthusiast), so if Rosco says they've been around 100 years according to that video, I'll just take their word for it.
Rosco (http://www.rosco.com/) has been the default gel supplier for motion picture and theatre for a really long time. I keep an entire cabinet stocked with color temp (CT) correction and color effects sheets and multiple rolls of CT for putting in windows. Only studio photographers (or others who do special lighting) would be likely to know the brand.
As for what the OP was doing by putting the 002 gel over the light and expecting to get a perfectly balanced WB results, I don't know...but if it hurts when you do that, I would suggest not doing that, ya know? I do know that ACR/LR's WB tool is designed to "tween" between D65 and Standard Illuminate A (2856 K) and to be used to correct WB spectral radiance of a black body following Planck's law...pretty sure it wasn't designed to correct for a whacked out pink gel that transmits very little light between just under 460-580 nanometer...spiky, incomplete spectral illumination is not really optimal for digital sensors...
Edited to change transmits "almost zero" to be "very little light" between just under 460-580 nanometer. I was looking at the wrong pink Rosco gel when I wrote that–my bad (but doesn't change the overall post).
-
Thanks, Bart. I'm going by Lab readouts in Photoshop to tell me how off the color patches are. I'm assuming the gold tinted yellow patch is a result of WB for the Rosco gels or did X-rite change the pigment formulation for yellow to a gold color? My GretagMacbeth CC chart shows yellow as L=82, a=4, b=80. Your posted image shows yellow L=70, a=25, b=73 with slight variances between the three image showing the same yellow.
Thanks, Jeff, for the clarification on the history of the Rosco gels. Now that quite a few Cinema styled video footage is being recorded off DSLR type devices which surely have better WB features, is the Rosco gels still useful by and large for other digital applications or are they still primarily useful and functional for film only?
That YouTube video doesn't give desirable results but it's better than the before but then I never get before shots that bad under fluorescent lights with my DSLR anyway.
-
Thanks, Jeff, for the clarification on the history of the Rosco gels. Now that quite a few Cinema styled video footage is being recorded off DSLR type devices which surely have better WB features, is the Rosco gels still useful by and large for other digital applications or are they still primarily useful and functional for film only?
CT gels are still as useful for digital as they were for film (still & motion) and every play I see at Steppenwolf (a theatre we go to here in Chicago) uses colored gels. They are useful for correcting mixed light scenes or to add effects. Say you are shooting tungsten interiors and you have window light coming in...no real good way to correct that in post but if you hang CT warming gels over the windows you can correct when shooting. Think if them being useful for "local" color corrections or effects. If your scene is from a single white balance though, there's no need to worry about the gelling–although I have added cooling CT filters over tungsten lights to cut down IR and help with the white balance–sensors under tungsten light get very little blue light which can lead to difficulties if you need real accurate color.
In any event, I don't suggest shooting with a really pink gel and expect do get a great white balance :~)
-
I find it a strange coincidence that these Rosco filters are getting mentioned several times between two photo discussion forums within the last month namely at LuLa and Photo.net when I've never heard of the brand for the ten years I've participated in both forums.
Rosco is a big name in that area... Rosco, Lee, GAM, Apollo... may be one, two more
-
Maybe complaints to Rosco's gel/filter formulation should be addressed to them rather in this thread and/or complain directly to Adobe about this.
there is no issue w/ the gel - it was selected on purpose... the only issue here is with a raw converter, which apparently is incapable to deal with the raw file where you have proper saturation in all channels... take RPP for example and you will get proper output.... or for example SilkyPix can WB the image quite pefectly just by using WB patch...
-
In any event, I don't suggest shooting with a really pink gel and expect do get a great white balance :~)
Jeff... the right text is "I don't suggest shooting with a really pink gel and expect do get a great white balance in ACR/LR" - proper converters have no issues at all.
-
spiky, incomplete spectral illumination is not really optimal for digital sensors...
on the contrary, Jeff, on the contrary... that gel makes spectral illumination matching CFA properties to get quite even raw channel saturation (albeit ideally the red channel shall be aligned with greens/blue channels - and I still have red trailing, but less than 0.5 EV - but that is not bad at all) than you have w/o it from the light source behind it (flash) and it does not make the original spectrum incomplete (as you can very clearly see from the gel specs posted).
-
Edited to change transmits "almost zero" to be "very little light" between just under 460-580 nanometer. I was looking at the wrong pink Rosco gel when I wrote that–my bad (but doesn't change the overall post).
not very little, not at all... I bet you were looking @ gel that cut part of green spectrum to zero - but the one that was used #002 - is just matches CFA on sensor to let more blue and red through relative to green... and by increasing the power from a flash the total amount of light across the whole spectrum is perfectly good, as you can clearly see from a raw histogram, and no gaps in spectrum, no gaps.
so what we have here is - we have good raw data and N1 raw converter does not work with it... that by itself is very very strange...
-
I do know that ACR/LR's WB tool is designed to "tween" between D65 and Standard Illuminate A (2856 K) and to be used to correct WB spectral radiance of a black body following Planck's law..
indeed and that is the issue... you have a real light, produced with a $6 gel that is being sold in any shop that deals with equipment, software and products for theater, film, television and architectural purposes, from a good source of light behind it and you can't WB it... how come ?
-
Hi,
Can you explain the intention?
Best regards
Erik
indeed and that is the issue... you have a real light, produced with a $6 gel that is being sold in any shop that deals with equipment, software and products for theater, film, television and architectural purposes, from a good source of light behind it and you can't WB it... how come ?
-
If the intention was correct white balance why not use a custom wb in camera? and why shoot with a pink gel in the first place? I', courious.
-
Why shoot with a gel on the lights that gives them an uneven spectral distribution in the first place and then try to white balance the colour shift away? Isn't the logical course of action to remove the filter from the equation? The filter is not shifting the colour temperature of the light, ie the 'white balance' of the source (note the listing for "MIRED shift" on the spec sheet posted), and even if the neutral grey patch was balanced out to grey, other colours in the image are still going to be off due to the distorted spectrum they are illuminated with. Your thread title is not quite accurate - because of the shape of the transmission curve, the colour of the light coming through the filter is anything BUT simple.
-
Why shoot with a gel on the lights that gives them an uneven spectral distribution in the first place and then try to white balance the colour shift away? Isn't the logical course of action to remove the filter from the equation?
Hi Steve,
I agree, unless the combination of the illuminant+gel produces something closer to a normal spectrum than the illuminant alone. In this example it clearly didn't, because it required a combination of 4813 kelvin and -28.8 Tint (!) in the above conversions in Capture One Pro V7 to get a bit closer to reality for the gray patches.
The OPs observation that ACR has more of a problem correcting this poor input quality of lighting is what it is, an observation (and maybe something for Adobe to look into).
Cheers,
Bart
-
And while Adobe's looking into that non-problem maybe they can explain how I could WB that jpeg of a heavily green color cast rock climbing wall in the linked Photo.net discussion I provided. We're not suppose to be able to white balance gamma encoded jpegs with editing tools engineered to operate their best on linear data, but apparently we can.
Epic fail on Adobe's part for spreading this kind of misinformation about the functionality of their own software. It's scandalous!
Wonder what the spectral distribution graph for that rock climbing wall image comprised. Apparently the OP's Rosco gel'ed DNG image must've been filtering a scene lit by a green/yellow light according to the Rosco provided spectrum curve. In what place on this earth would a photographer encounter such a light since the OP doesn't even mention the light being filtered.
Another solution looking for a problem.
-
The unusual lighting is causing the WB to fall outside the ACR/LR standard supported range, which is why the click-WB doesn't work properly. You can use Adobe's DNG Profile Editor to adjust for this by remapping the WB range. The key is to use the White Balance sliders in the Color Matrix tab (third tab) of the DNG PE. Please see Tutorial 4 in the DNG PE documentation, here:
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/cs6/DNGProfile_EditorDocumentation.pdf
The tutorial uses the example of an infrared-modified camera, for which similar issues arise.
-
...
thank you ! finally I can go back to using ACR now