I don't know whats going on.....

[timwaters77]

I took some portraits of my wife and kids...

In the viewfinder of my camera the pictures looked beautiful. Warm skin tones, bright colors. Just what I wanted.

But when I put the on the computer....the skin tones are all grey and the colors are washed out. I have to click the autofix feature on my corel paint shop pro to get the picture to look close to what it does in my camera view finder.

A little annoyed. Am I do something wrong or am I going to have to do this with all my photos?

[cozmocha]

What camera / settings are you using? How do you set the white balance?

[timwaters77]

Canon 50d.

I just used the portrait setting and the aperature settings on there. I didn't write down shutter speed and aperature though.

white balancing is on auto.

again, the photo's look really good on the view finder....exactly the way I wanted it to look. It's just when they transition to my computer that they screw up.

[timwaters77]

oh, one other thing. When I did the autofix in corel photo pro, the picture went from a 3mb file to a 1.3 mb file. don't know why it did that.

[cozmocha]

I also have a 50D.

I never have used the portrait setting before so I do not know what it does. I guess it takes a good guess at what needs to be done and tries it's best. Not always what is correct though.

My best advice would be for you to learn to use the AV (aperture priority) mode here is a link talking about it http://www.slrphotographyguide.com/c.../av-mode.shtml

The white balance will also really change the colors. It is best to take a reference picture of something white in the place you are shooting and go in to the white balance selection and set the custom white balance to that reference photo while making sure the camera is set to use the custom setting. Are you shooting in JEPG or RAW? You can change the white balance in photoshop of other programs when shooting raw.

This will get you started but a few more things can tweak your photo taking skills but I don't want to overload you!

[timwaters77]

Thanks. I will take a look at that link.

I guess I am just confused. I don't understand why the LCD on my camera would show the picture the way I want it, and then that same photo fades out on my computer (until I auto adjust it). Seems like if I wasn't shooting the picture correctly then that would show up on the camera lcd too.

[cozmocha]

Are you using LiveView?

[timwaters77]

no sir. I use the viewfinder for the pics. I don't look at the LCD until after the picture is taken.

[Medley]

Thanks. I will take a look at that link.

I guess I am just confused. I don't understand why the LCD on my camera would show the picture the way I want it, and then that same photo fades out on my computer (until I auto adjust it). Seems like if I wasn't shooting the picture correctly then that would show up on the camera lcd too.

It's likely that your monitor's color calibration is out of whack. The easiest way to tell if this is the problem is to make a print. If the print's colors look different than your monitor's, then calibrating the monitor is the first step to fixing the problem. Also, if you've adjusted any of the contrast or color controls on the monitor, I can just about guarantee that that's where you should begin.

- Joe U.

[timwaters77]

Thanks. I will look into that first off. How does one calibrate a monitor?

[Medley]

Well, it's either aggravating or expensive, depending on your approach.

There are software-only solutions out there. Adobe Gamma is one that comes right to mind. The upside is they're either free or dirt-cheap. The downside is that at best, you'll get color that's "in the ballpark" of where it should be. Adobe Gammas literature even admits that you may have to run the program a few times in succession to get a decent result. Red flags, anyone? Still, it may be worth a try. I mean, if it doesn't cost you anything, and by chance happens to fix the problem......

The other, more accurate solution is to invest in a calibration system, such as Gretag-Macbeth's Eye One or Spyder's system. These combine software that displays colors of a known value with an optical device that reads the actual color being emitted by the monitor. After hundreds (literally) of such comparisons, the software adjusts the monitor's output to display things correctly.

I started with Spyder's bottom of the line system. As I recall, it set me back about $90.00. I think the low-end ones are more than good enough for most photography hobbyists, unless you think you need deadly accurate color in varying light conditions on multiple monitors. This is one of those products where there's lots of bells and whistles, but the basic package does what it needs to do. A little research on the web should give you a good idea which one you want, and what you're likely to spend.

- Joe U.

[Chris350]

After you determine that your monitor is setup to your satisfaction, I suggest you double check the color space on the camera against the color space of Corel Photo Pro and your monitor. For example, if one is in sRGB and the other in Adobe RGB there will be noticeable color discrepancies. Your description of the images being flat on your monitor suggest it or your editor may be in Adobe RGB color space while the camera is not. Ideally it does not matter which color space you are using as long as they all agree. Most photos for web publication work best in sRGB, since it is the standard to which most browsers are designed.
Chris

[OldClicker]

Are you using RAW or jpg files? - TF

[MNRyan]

It really sounds like a monitor issue. I don't have it yet but I'm looking into getting the Spyder3Express. It's about $90 and from amazon it ships for free. I run a Lenovo W500 with ATI FireGL Graphics and I dual screen. I have to run Photoshop on my laptop monitor because the colors on my external monitor are so out of whack. (I've tried everything to fix it manually to no avail.) If you can try another monitor and see what happens or load the pictures on a friend or family members computer and see what changes. You could even put the images on a disk and go to a store like Walmart and look at them on their photo printing stations. Let us know what you get figured out, I'd be really interested to see what the outcome is.

[MNRyan]

I did some research on the Spyder3 line and found some great info right here in the forums.

Spyder3 express, pro, or?

Here is the comparison from Datacolor (the company that owns Spyder)

http://spyder.datacolor.com/s3compare.php

And here is the page from Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/ColorVision-S3P100-Spyder3-pro/dp/B000X4X37A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1275192335&sr=8-1