Problem with color

[eve80]

Hi Everyone, I'm fairly new to photography and definitely new to this forum - I've read a lot of it but never posted.

Not so long ago I got a Nikon D5000 to shoot images of handmade products I sell. By now I think I found some good setting for shooting but two colors seem to be giving me a hard time: green and red.

I usually shoot in a light tent, then adjust the image slightly in photoshop - usually all I need is to adjust brightness and contrast - minor changes. But I can't get the greens and red right. Greens come out undersaturated (not enough yellow in them) and reds come out oversaturated - by a LOT!!!! While I can usually adjust the green in photoshop, reds are awful. I don't know what the problems is. Any suggestions?

Here's what I use for settings: Automatic Appreture and Shutter, no flash, no exposure adjustment, tungsten.

I know that vivid setting might not be perfect but it gets all the other colors just perfect - yellows are gorgeous, blues are fine, white balance is great - just the darn green - and even worse - red!!! I posted a pic to show you what I mean. No other colors are visible here but I have more products with multiple colors on them - all but reds and greens look fine.

Any suggestions? Thanks!

[freygr]

Did you shoot JPG or NEF(RAW)?

[eve80]

I used JPEG - don't have a large memory card to store RAW.

[SmartWombat]

Then sadly with jpeg you have less colour data to work with, and adjustments have to be relatively small. The major advantage with raw images is that you get all the colour information the camera captured, not 1/4 of it.

[eve80]

Would you advice to keep the settings the same and just shoot in RAW? I've never worked with this format. Is it easier to process it in photoshop? Or is it just easier to adjust settings on the camera. What's really the difference?

[eve80]

LOVE your avatar, by the way!

[Anbesol]

The consumer nikons tend to oversaturate reds by default setting. You can adjust the settings of the image processing if you want, or, use raw and make proper adjustments in conversion.

[freygr]

I used JPEG - don't have a large memory card to store RAW.

The cost of memory cards in my area is cheap. You should at least have two memory cards to being with. Mail order from Fry's the 2G 133mb high speed card is only $7.99. Check only there are some really good prices out there.

I use an OLD version of Photshop, and for may catalog I use Thumbs Plus, there are at least 4 other programs which do the same function last time I checked years ago. I use the editor inside Thumbs Plus and never lever the program 99% of the time. Even using JPG you can adjust the color and contrast but if you plan on doing extensive editing you need to save to a non-lossy file format like TIF, BMG, or ?

[freygr]

One adjustment - Gama (negative adjustment)

[eve80]

Thank you Everyone! I guess I will just get a larger memory card - worth the little money that it costs if it can save me the frustration. Freygr, I appreciate the help and info. At least now I have some starting point to work with.

I'm off to reading my beloved user's manual and more articles online about the various formats.

THANKS AGAIN!!!

[WesternGuy]

eve80, the other question that needs to be asked - are you using a calibrated monitor? If you are not using a calibrated monitor, then colours will never be really true. I may get some argument on this, but I do have some experience with this. It is particularly important if you are going to print your images. Just so you know, the whole business of colour mangement is a very large ball of wax, so to speak, but if colour is important to you then you will have to get involved in it sooner or later, not only with monitor calibration, but also with camera colour profiles. Here is a link to a discussion on monitor calibration on another site - there are lots of references around - just try a search for "color management" or " color calibration" on Google.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=707058

As noted previously, shooting raw, is just a start - it gives you a lot more "image information" that you can use to improve or adjust your colours, but without a properly calibrated monitor you still may not be satisfied.

Regards,

WesternGuy

[freygr]

I would not worry about color calibration if your printers output matches your monitor. It also depends on wither it's snap shots or 14 by 16 inch framed print for a client. If you are selling photos, then the color calibration tools are part of the cost of doing business.

[WesternGuy]

I would not worry about color calibration if your printers output matches your monitor. It also depends on wither it's snap shots or 14 by 16 inch framed print for a client. If you are selling photos, then the color calibration tools are part of the cost of doing business.

I said I would get some argument . It really all boils down to whether or not what you see is what you want and if that works for you, then that's all that is important. For me, I don't print for clients, just for myself and a few others, but maybe I am too fussy - I want my colours to match all round - thus calibration. I also use two monitors for editing in Lightroom and thus having them both calibrated to a "studio match" is important. I would also argue that if you want your monitor colours to match what you are seeing in the objects you photograph, then calibration is important. The usual reason that the monitor colours do not match what you are seeing in the real world, in this case the hand made items that eve80 sells, is that the monitor is not calibrated. In this situation, I would still argue that monitor calibration is necessary. Anyway, I do not want to start a long thread on "monitor calibration" - there is enough of that around already - simply adding my opinion FWIW.

Cheers,

WesternGuy

[freygr]

With Two monitors, the colors have to match, if you printer output does not match you monitor, or you feel that the monitor needs color calibration then you color calibrate.:aureola:

I never said NOT to do monitor calibration, but if you can't tell the difference, why spend the money and time.

The monitor calibration is an option, a tool. Saying all monitors need to be calibration is like saying all photographers need to have a wide angle lens. Birders, and wild life photographers would never use that short of lens.

[WesternGuy]

I never said NOT to do monitor calibration, but if you can't tell the difference, why spend the money and time.

The monitor calibration is an option, a tool. Saying all monitors need to be calibration is like saying all photographers need to have a wide angle lens. Birders, and wild life photographers would never use that short of lens.

I would agree - if you can't tell the difference...why spend the time and money - variation on that old adage - "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" (My english teacher would turn over in her grave!!). I do not believe that I said "all monitors need to be calibrated" and if I implied that, then I did not mean to do that either. All I really meant is that you do what works for you and if calibration is what works, then you do it, if you are happy with the way things are, then you probably don't need to do it.

Cheers,

WesternGuy

[esperanza1988]

Yeah, I have the same problem with you!Thanks for sharing!