Color Anomaly

[Thlayle]

Shot with a Canon T2i in RAW format, this image is basically SOOC. It IS a stitch together pano of two images but otherwise I have made no adjustments. Yet it came out totally desaturated but for some small area that has a very faint colors.

Three images out of about 200 came off from the same SD card this way, all shot with the same basic settings during roughly the same time period.

Any thoughts as to what might be going on here?

[DanK]

Randy,

'A raw image SOOC' is an oxymoron. Raw images have to be rendered somehow to make them viewable. If you let the camera render it, making decisions about contrast, saturation, color balance, and sharpness, you get a SOOC jpeg. If you read the raw image into a raw editing program, like DPP or Lightroom, then ALL settings are up to you, including saturation, contrast, sharpness, etc. If you did the latter, then the settings you chose are what causes it to look this way. If you changed nothing, then the program is either using your picture style or one of its own renderings as default, and you then left it that way. So, for example, if you had the camera set to faithful or neutral and you used a program like DPP that uses that information, then you would get a rather drab image until you edited it, changing exposure, contrast, vibrance, sharpness, etc.

Dan

[Thlayle]

Well, Dan, all I did was download the RAW file & it came out with the faded/lost colors. The exact same process was used in getting the first look at all of the images from the card and only three came out this way.

Working the untouched RAW data, these three popped out this way. I did nothing. The two originals for this stitching look just the same, just different framing of course.

Your distinction on RAW SOOC and JPEG SOOC sounds pedantic & not really helpful. Just a hang up with the term SOOC?

[Manfred M]

Randy - I think what Dan is trying to tell you is that the image produced by the RAW data needs to be tweaked before it is usable. This has to be done during the RAW import process. The RAW data, is just that; no sharpening, contrast adjustment, clarity, vibrance, colour balance, etc. You need to bring these out before you can see them.

In camera jpeg processing does all this, but RAW is "a diamond in the rough", where the user has to coax these things out. SOOC RAW is a non-starter.

[dje]

Hi Randy

Not withstanding what Dan and Manfred have said I do wonder if there is some other issue here. I had a look at the jpeg in PS and pushing up the saturation had little effect. There seems to be very little colour in the image.

What raw processor are you using ?

Would it be possible to give us a link to one of the suspect raw files ?

Dave

[Mike Buckley]

I think the issue is that the scene, with little exception, is naturally a monochrome scene. (Imagine a scene of clouds with no blue sky for a similarly monochrome scene even though it is shot in color.) My proof is that when converting the image to monochrome using any choice of the entire spectrum of colors as a filter, the image is almost always the same as when desaturating the image.

[Thlayle]

Thanks, Manfred, and I do understand what you and others are saying about the processing & interpretation of RAW data. I used Lightroom 5 for this and made no adjustments to it before seeing this odd color display.

Dave: pushing the saturation when working with the original file in LR has effect only on the small area where there is some amount of color showing already. Everyplace else is unaffected. I can try uploading to site that will accept a file that large if I can think of an option for that.

Mike: I had that thought but the third image that came out like this was in a different setting from a different angle in relation to the early evening sun (about 6:30 p.m. EDT). Just these few images came out like this and it is the only time (so far!) I have seen this issue.

[Mike Buckley]

pushing the saturation when working with the original file in LR has effect only on the small area where there is some amount of color showing already. Everyplace else is unaffected.

That's to be expected. If you had instead desaturated the image, the only parts that would have been affected would have been the parts displaying "color." This confirms my thinking that the image is largely made up of grey-scale tones.

[Thlayle]

Mike: maybe that's it but I know the building has color to it, color that is showing partially lower story, especially along the right side. It should be more or less even but washes out totally.

So maybe it is indeed a result of less reflected light on a light color. It still seems like some color should have shown through.

I don't seem to be able to find a place to upload the original RAW (27 Gb or so).

Thanks for the input. Apparently, no one has seen a similar result that is explained another way, such as issues with an SD card or camera sensor.

[dje]

Dave: pushing the saturation when working with the original file in LR has effect only on the small area where there is some amount of color showing already. Everyplace else is unaffected. I can try uploading to site that will accept a file that large if I can think of an option for that.

Randy given what you've said about your use of LR, there is probably little to be gained by linking to the raw file. We would just see the same thing !

Sorry but I have no other ideas. Mike's explanation may cover it but I'm puzzled by the paving stones - they look like they have some colour in them but it doesn't change much with serious saturation adjustment.

Dave

PS: You cant load a large raw file to CIC, you have to use a file sharing site such as Google +.

[Mike Buckley]

So maybe it is indeed a result of less reflected light on a light color.

This is a change of subject, but consider that a black wall is black because it absorbs the most amount of colors in the spectrum and reflects the least amount of those colors. The corollary is that a white wall absorbs the least amount of colors in the spectrum and reflects the most amount. It's counter-intuitive (at least for me) to think that a black wall absorbs the most amount of colors and that a white wall absorbs the least amount, but that's a fundamental element of the physics of light.

[Mike Buckley]

I'm puzzled by the paving stones - they look like they have some colour in them but it doesn't change much with serious saturation adjustment.

I see considerable change on my calibrated and profiled monitor. To maximize the change, quickly switch from maximum desaturation to maximum saturation.

[William W]

. . .but I know the building has color to it, color that is showing partially lower story, especially along the right side. It should be more or less even but washes out totally.

Yes.

That's what you "saw" and how you remembered what you saw - that is to say how your brain interpreted the scene that you viewed with your eye.

I suspect that you even 'saw' the scene that way when you took the particular shot, which you are now questioning. It is not an easy task to train one's eye to 'see' the nuances of light and colour changes especially at dusk and dawn and in low light situations.


WW

[chauncey]

A couple of things come to mind...you don't mention which version of LR5 is in use...I mention this as it seems with every update that comes along, I get subtle changes in my default develop settings and sometimes the synchronize button doesn't always sync each image completely. Don't assume, ya gotta check every image that might be used in a merge process.

Additionally, assuming that you are photo-merging with Photoshop, oftentimes it will not consistently cough out the same results, even after using the same settings, and...your choice of which of the six photo-merge techniques can have a huge impact on the final product.

You say "roughly the same time period"...consider the simple occurrence as a cloud obscuring the sun in a different way, a subtle shifting of available light will change the available light on one segment of your image...sometimes a subtle tweak on one or more images can have a big impact.

[DanK]

Well, Dan, all I did was download the RAW file & it came out with the faded/lost colors. The exact same process was used in getting the first look at all of the images from the card and only three came out this way.

Working the untouched RAW data, these three popped out this way. I did nothing.

I think you misunderstand. You DID do something. By leaving everything as is after reading the image in, you left all parameters at their LR defaults. That's a decision about editing, and not a good one. These defaults, unlike the parameters in your in-camera processing, are NOT designed to produce a finished image. They are designed to give you a workable starting point for editing, that is, for changing the parameters to get the image to look right. To pick just one example, LR's default is to impose a very small amount of sharpening. This is intended solely to offset the softening from most cameras' anti-aliasing filters, not to provide an ideal level of sharpening. Similarly, depending on the profile you used to import (do you know which you used?), the image may be badly lacking in saturation/vibrance or contrast, both of which seem to be problems with your image.

Some of the issue may be with the capture itself, but that's a different issue, and in any case, with sufficient work, you can often overcome this with editing. The main point is that raw editors, including LR, are designed for you to do the work, not to produce good SOOC images without any decisions on your part.

[William W]

. . . By leaving everything as is after reading the image in, you left all parameters at their LR defaults. That's a decision about editing . . . etc [more detailed explanation about how the image is NOT SOOC, but is indeed a processed image]

I concur. The image must be processed in some fashion and using the defaults is a 'poor' choice especially for the scene and subject in shadow as shown in the sample image.

My post #13 is not in argument with this and your previous posts.

My post #13 should be read as an addition to them.

WW

[Thlayle]

Interesting input about the monitor settings. I will see what comes of that. I have calibrated recently.

Mike, I think you may be right & I am not one to argue (yes I am but you know far more about light & other issues than I do, so I will refrain (this time !)).

So my rational side says it's a byproduct of light & color conditions present at the scene. My intuitive side sticks with 'it's a mystery!'

[chauncey]

I think you misunderstand. You DID do something

It is my humble opinion that you are arguing semantics...I understood him to mean that he made no changes to the default develop settings prior to the photomerge...period. Granted the "SOOC" terminology might not have been technically correct, so what! Could you not comprehend his meaning?
Additionally...one does not need to make alterations in the default settings...it's a choice thing. The fact that one could/should make changes is another discussion entirely.

[William W]

Yes, but, the point about NOT being SOOC is most relevant . . .

The OP shot 200 images and I comprehend his meaning to be that those 200 images are NOT all from the same camera viewpoint; NOT all of exactly the same subject; NOT all framed EXACTLY the same way; NOT ALL in EXACTLY the same lighting conditions; NOT all captures at the same time - hence any post production that was used will affect each image, differently.

The sample in question (the OP states one of three of the original 200) presents as what appears to be a lack of saturation and colour.

Sure, the Post Production might have been applied as 'the same' to all, but that PP would have affected each, differently and arguably some adversely.

WW

[Mike Buckley]

My own take is that it will be nearly if not totally impossible to obtain a complete understanding of this situation that would stand up to the rigor of scientific scrutiny. So, I think we'll have to settle for a group of potential causes and acknowledge that we can't with any degree of certainty know the exact reason the image is different than Randy expected.