Colour correction of snow landscapes

Discussion in 'Photoshop' started by Peter, Mar 27, 2011.

  1. Peter

    Peter Guest

    Well I did a quick test yesterday. Went up to 7500ft looking for a
    blue sky to test a PL-C filter with but the cloud was just a little
    too high. However, these two pics show what a dramatic improvement a
    (appropriately rotated) PL filter does

    The difference is not just in the sky looking a bit better but also in
    the much richer colours on the wingtip.

    I stopped using PL filters many years ago - except in "dramatic" high
    altitude locations - because they lost so much light, but the very
    latest generation of DSLRs has good enough low light performance to
    make them generally useful again.

    The Pentax K5 is an order of magnitude better than the K200D and that
    was an excellent camera in itself. I think Nikon, Canon and others now
    all offer the same type of sensor, in their $1500-2000 cameras.

    If I use the camera in TAV mode (speed and aperture hold, ISO auto
    adjust) the PL filter drops the light from say 100 to 400. With goode
    olde film, ISO400 was basically totally crap. You could see the grain
    on an A5 printout :) But on the K5, you can't see the CCD noise until
    you get to ~3000.

    Its a start. The haze is the biggest problem with the stuff I shoot.

    BTW the reasons I don't shoot RAW is because Photoshop CS3 cannot open
    it (I used to convert the image using some Pentax prog), and it is
    very hard to see any difference against top-level Jpeg image.tif

    I do understand the reasons for RAW, with the appropriate tools,
    because you get the full 24 bits (+/- the sensor noise, etc) but for
    my usage there doesn't seem to be any point. I never print to a large
    size, some of my shots do go into glossy mags but only again small
    size, and the most I do is cropping and/or colour correction. Do you
    think colour correction on the type of shooting I do would benefit
    from RAW?

    Also the raw files are ~ 25MB and I already have ~ 60GB of images. I
    back them up to a 160GB DLT tape drive...
    Peter, Mar 30, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  2. Peter

    hbj Guest

    That blueish overcast can be minimised by going to Hue/Saturnation -
    Master - Blue and bring back the Blueslider slowly.
    hbj, Mar 30, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  3. Peter

    Peter Guest

    That is a really complicated function in PS. I would need to go on a
    Photoshop course :)

    Which of the 3 sliders would you suggest?

    There is also a slider on the bottom which moves a couple of markers
    Peter, Mar 30, 2011
  4. Peter

    Savageduck Guest

    I think this is a case of one thing at a time for Peter. All I was
    showing him was my way of dealing with WB issues in his particular case.
    He really does need to get a better grasp of all that PS has to offer.
    Savageduck, Mar 30, 2011
  5. Peter

    Savageduck Guest

    That is exactly the effect I would expect to see using a CPL filter.
    That should help you for future shoots, but you still have a batch of
    shot which need fixing in PS.
    A CPL is not going to solve that problem.
    OK! there are two things to consider here;
    First, CS3 will open DNG files, and your K5 gives you the option of
    selecting which RAW format to shoot in. "PEF" or "DNG". CS3 is not
    going to deal with the current version of "PEF" but it should handle
    the K5 "DNG" output without issue. So go back into your camera's manual
    & menus and select DNG as your RAW format.

    Second, RAW gives you so much more than an image which you can compare
    with the jpeg output. In fact in most cases the jpeg at first glance
    will appear acceptable, until you are faced with the type of issues you
    are trying to fix now. Remember when you are making that comparison you
    are looking at a RAW image with no adjustment, or correction vs. a jpeg
    which has already had in-camera processing applied.
    Memory is cheap.

    You should be able to get an outboard Hard drive with 500GB, 750GB, 1TB
    of storage for a very reasonable price, even in the UK. For example I
    use OWC Mercury-On-The-Go portable Hard Drives, a 1TB costing me
    $167.99, and it gives me Firewire 800 and USB connectivity.
    < >
    Savageduck, Mar 30, 2011
  6. Butt, of his qualifications, no pun in ten did!
    Not eben abel two use a spill chukker!
    Sir F. A. Rien, Mar 30, 2011
  7. The -=best=- learning course is to move the sliders and look!

    Curiosity beats formal 'tutorials' any day.
    Sir F. A. Rien, Mar 30, 2011
  8. Peter

    Savageduck Guest

    For Joel, it is a case of, "My hovercraft is filled with eels!"
    Savageduck, Mar 30, 2011
  9. No fair! You used an airplane. When I was in the service we never jumped
    from higher than 1000 feet .... unless we had a parachute.
    Only 14 bits with Leica's M9 DNG.
    John Stafford, Mar 30, 2011
  10. "Hovercraft", wasn't he the guy who wrote about the Cthulhu Mythos ?
    Sir F. A. Rien, Mar 30, 2011
  11. Peter

    Savageduck Guest

    Savageduck, Mar 30, 2011
  12. Peter

    Joel Guest

    Most professional don't use filter because they want the best quality they
    can get. And

    1. For protection, most if not all of them have learned how to protect the
    lens, and the hood provides plenty of protection.

    2. For the lens, probably only wildlife photographers who spend lot of time
    around dirt, mud then they use filter for easy clean up.

    Or polarizer filter that some landscape photograhers use to deal with
    bright sky.
    I don't care much about the color of sky or which can be easily change to
    whatever color you wish by using software. When I was using film, I
    sometime used a filter to brighten and adding warmer tone to the landscape
    (pretty much like some sunglasses). Or when I was using film, I did use
    filter and I had around 60-70 of them.
    I too stopped using fancy filter, and even lens protection when I switched
    to digital camera.
    I don't own any digital Pentax (except old film cameras), I am Canon user
    and besides the Sigma 50-500 f4-5.xx and 1 super wide angle lens all others
    are f2.8 and faster
    I am indoor photographer and never happy with most of my landscape photos
    so I am not pretty good with landscape comparing to indoor especially
    closeup portraiture. I am guessing you are talking about outdoor
    photography by reading you use "AT" and "TV" mode.

    IOW, when I was using film camera I did much more outdoor than indoor, and
    I did quite afew while using P&S, but not happy with the result of DSLR so I
    really do landscape. Even I have super wide angle lens for landscape but
    rarely use it (and I use it more indoor than outdoor)
    Haze is usually happen base on several things or combination

    1. The quality of the lens. Some manufacture may have brownish, greenish,
    muddy, cooler, or warmer color tone. And it often happen on cheapie lens

    2. Image quality is one of several ways to reduce haze. Top-Of-The-Line
    lens is one of them, then with the combination of Aperture, ISO, Shutter
    Speed etc.. Digital camera is different wth film camera, some do OK with
    ISO-100, some do fine or better with ISO-200 etc.. so you may have to play
    with your to see what it does its best and with which lens.

    You may want to try F-1x or even F-2x, and play with the shutter-speed
    depending on the lighting condition. Hmmm, it sounds like I am moving into
    MANUAL mode which doesn't work very well for me outdoor (in my mind I am
    looking at the pretty bright outdoor, different background brightness/colors
    that may cause some problem to some digital DSLR). Anyway, as indoor
    photographer I always use Manual Mode (I could say 99.9-100%) so my mind
    won't react very quick with outdoor situation.

    So, just work on the Aperture and Shutter-Speed those are the important
    parts of sharpness, quality, and it should help reducing haze. Then

    Below, the sample photos is not exacty what I have in mind, but the basic
    setting is pretty much the same with nearly all cameras/lenses
    LightRoom can do many RAW formats and popular graphic formats like JPG,
    TIF, BMP etc.. and I think newer ARC comes with newer Photoshop does too
    (not 100% sure). I started with ACR before LightRoom was born, but don't
    remember it was CS2 or CS3
    I looked at both of them and I can say that the color of salt/peper
    shakers (and part of the table) look pretty nice, colors are rich. But
    lighting is not evently. But that can be easily fixed..

    Now about you mention RAW vs JPG. It's a different ball game and it
    doesn't mean much or anything. Cuz

    1. The JPG displaying may depend on your camera and camera setting. JPG is
    a fully processed format.

    1. RAW is a semi-processed format, with option to undo most of the

    In general, RAW means not yet processed. But you know nothing will exist
    without being processed (created), and different cameras, models don't have
    the exact same result (same value) because they process different than
    other. Same with RAW Converter software, the same image may not display the
    same on different RAW programs or version. Because different software may
    set the default different than others, and it took some years for software
    developers to come up with a better displaying (or default setting whatever
    I don't pay much attention to it).

    When RAW was new, some RAW converter displayed RAW file in grayscale or
    something like that not in color. I don't remember much about it cuz I was
    playing with different RAW converters, and created the default setting
    (color displaying).

    IOW, with the photo of both JPG and RAW displaying. You should be able to
    use software to make the JPG to look like RAW photo and RAW to look like JPG
    photo. BTW, I zoomed in 300% and the photo look pretty good.

    And just by looking at the photo, I think if you just use LEVEL alone to
    adjust the brightness (white side) then the color-tone of the salt-peper
    shakers may look warmer/deeper color-tone (more wooden) than the RAW part.

    Also, if you only need to do those simple color/brightness adjusting then
    LightRoom, ACR, or any RAW converter etc. is a good tool for the job, and
    RAW format may be a better choice (not me but in general). But if you need
    to do more than some simple basic adjusting then Photoshop is the way to go.
    And I would suggest to stick with Photoshop instead of RAW fairy tale
    Some people may benefit from RAW, but as you know that many photographers
    doing their living on TIFF and JPG for decades before the first version of
    RAW was born. So, if you know Photoshop very well then you don't really
    need RAW to do all the tricks and much more than RAW can.

    I made good $$$$ using Photoshop (now retired), and I started learning and
    working with RAW when it was first available. But I am still using JPG and
    none of the photo goes to print without going through Photoshop (JPG).

    In general, if you know Photoshop well then you do not need RAW. If your
    photo is the top quaity and hi-rez then you do not need more than 8-bit. If
    it's in little poor shape and you need to do some modification then you can
    always switch your 8-bit JPG into 16-bit or 32-bit MODE to work on it.
    Remember that JPG is 8-bit format so it will return to 8-bit when you save
    to JPG

    The benefit of 16-bit or 32-bit mode (I never worked on 32-bit) that it
    will increase the number of pixel, so when fixing some damaged channel (I
    have seen quite afew RAW users overdone their RAWs and damaged the photos
    real bad) the fixing area will be smoother.

    CS3 comes with ACR (Adobe Camera RAW) and I think it can handle JPG too
    (pretty sure but not 100% sure). So you may want to give it a try. Then.

    1. Save to JPG, PNG, TIFF or whatever you wish

    2. Load it to Photoshop then ZOOM IN like 200-300-400+% to study the result

    3. You may want to try to print some of them see how you like it.
    25MB RAW file then your camera is about 20-2x MP camera? I don't do TIFF
    so never have any file so large. When printing 30-40" size I usually reduce
    the PPI to around 150-180 PPI and the size is usually in around 100-180MB
    range (depending on my mooth, and they are all JPG format).
    Joel, Mar 31, 2011
  13. Peter

    Joel Guest

    Those are pretty basic, but you will need quite a bit of practicing with
    combination of several different tricks to be able to solve the issue. And
    better yet, with the combination of photography technique will be a bonus.

    1. Because you may not be dealing with only object but could be many other
    objects. Or it may effect the color of some object in the photo, and that's
    why I don't want to get involved into this specific case (not normal, not

    2. Most Photoshop commands have sub-commands (sub-menus), and just for
    fixing/adjusting the casting color's you may find around 5-10 basic
    commands, then each command may have sub-commands.

    Not in all cases, but in general if you have BLUE casting issue then you
    may just pick one of the tools, then go to the sub-command to select the
    BLUE color then trying to reduce the BLUE. In some case you may need to
    increase other color to take over the blue.

    Example, when working on a closeup portraiture and you want to fix yellow
    color teeth, then you may use Dodge/Burn, Hue/Sat, Color Balance, Color
    Mixer whatever you know best, and most of the time you do not just need to
    remove the yellow color but you also need to change to some other color. So
    you may need to use multiple sliders, and combination of different tools.

    IOW, the basic idea is to reduce whatever color you want to get rid of,
    but you may need to replace it with other color for it to look normal.

    AGAIN - START with LEVEL tool
    Joel, Mar 31, 2011
  14. That os one philosophy. Another is to use the proper filters, stacked
    in the proper order so you get the very best on the film or sensor, and
    then you can post-process if necessary
    John J Stafford, Mar 31, 2011
  15. Peter

    Peter Guest

    OK, I thought RGB was 8 bits per pixel.

    12 bits with the newer 36-bit RGB?
    Peter, Mar 31, 2011
  16. An advantage to using RAW is that there is more processing power available
    on a PC to, errr, process it. Other benefits are listed at

    Using jpegs from the camera is almost like using a scan of a print from a
    negative: you're never really going to get all the information back.

    Using an appropriate filter on a camera gets you better data in the first
    Andrew Morton, Mar 31, 2011
  17. Peter

    Joel Guest

    It's your philosophy not ours.

    Some stupid may say s/he/it isn't us.
    Joel, Mar 31, 2011
  18. Peter

    Joel Guest

    This is your bible not mine.
    We don't have time and energy to make error, and most if not all
    professional don't repair damaged photo to begin with. So using program to
    fix error when you can avoid making error isn't my type of game.

    You seems to know more about filter than this old goat.
    Joel, Mar 31, 2011
  19. Learn up.
    John J Stafford, Apr 1, 2011
  20. Peter

    Joel Guest

    Rubbish! rubblish!
    Joel, Apr 1, 2011
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.