Need help with skin tones, etc

[TonyW]

We went to see two of our granddaughters playing netball the other day. I found it hard to get pictures that excited me and was doubtful about the skin ones as well as exposure. This is one example. It was a harsh light which I find difficult to deal with. What do you think?

[Manfred M]

Tony - the harsh light you are shooting under is definitely not being helpful.

The first thing that strikes me is that the black point and white point need tweaking to get rid of the "muddy" appearance of the image. The second thing that often helps is to drop the overall saturation of the image a touch. The third thing I notice is that the image has a bit of a blue colour cast, so bringing down the blue (or bringing up the yellow if you want to think of it that way) will help too.

I find that playing with the highlights and shadow sliders (quite aggressively in this case) using Photoshop's camera raw filter and then bringing a bit of the contrast back (I do this with curves) will help a bit too.



A bit of dodging and burning might be worth considering too, but that will require a very delicate touch.

[Shadowman]

There seems to be more local color in the player's legs than the upper torso, mostly highlights and shadows on face and arms, but then again each segment of our bodies get different levels of sun so your task is very challenging. Have you considering evaluating the skintones based on cmyk?

[TonyW]

Thanks, Manfred. I see what you mean about the blue cast now that I have yours to compare. I think the fundamental problem is that the skin is blown out in places so that the correct colour cannot be recovered easily. Simple burning just makes it go grey. I will work on it some more.

[TonyW]

John, Thanks for your comments. Your reply came while I was typing.

I have had this problem in other photographs in similar circumstances. I wonder sometimes whether it might be better to expose to the left. With a low enough ISO I could then bring up the darker areas without ruining the lighter ones.

[Shadowman]

John, Thanks for your comments. Your reply came while I was typing.

I have had this problem in other photographs in similar circumstances. I wonder sometimes whether it might be better to expose to the left. With a low enough ISO I could then bring up the darker areas without ruining the lighter ones.

Hi Tony,

Exposing to the right or left is dependent upon your ideal end use, if you expose to the left then your shadows go black and may not print so well, if you expose to the right then your highlights are blazing. I've read about a few tips for this type of lighting (harsh midday sun) and most remedies don't apply for a shot such as yours; although you can try the first.

Whenever I'm shooting a marathon, the first thing I'll do is arrive early enough to determine the best position for me in relation to the sun. I try not to have the subject backlit, but that is one suggestion for overcoming the harshness of the light, another closely related suggestion is to move the subject to the shade; having your subject move would be a bit difficult to do in your situation. I personally prefer a to have the subjects directly facing the sun and I'll adjust my camera settings appropriately.

Other suggestions I've read for controlling skintones in harsh light is: using fill flash or reflector, filtering the light, or using an ND filter. Flash may not be an option but you could try using a filter to control those annoying harsh highlights that can appear on a subject's skin.

[chauncey]

My experience usually dictates that any image taken in harsh light might benefit by a B&W conversion.

[Manfred M]

JWith a low enough ISO I could then bring up the darker areas without ruining the lighter ones.

This image already has blown highlights, so I would say that you were already shooting too far to the right... I did a bit of an inspection before I did some of the shadow recovery work.

[Mike Buckley]

the skin is blown out in places so that the correct colour cannot be recovered easily. Simple burning just makes it go grey.

My trick in dealing with that is to select the blown area. Then apply a color picker to a nearby area. Adjust the opacity (normally a low amount) until the newly applied color looks natural.

[IzzieK]

I do not know if this will help but here are some tutorials/videos to follow on overblown and underexposed images:

http://www.photoshopessentials.com/p...iply-exposure/



http://www.photoshopessentials.com/p...reen-exposure/

[chauncey]

Speaking for myself Izzie...great links.

[rpcrowe]

I wonder if fill flash might have evened out the lighting by filling in the shadows. That way the exposure ration might not have been so great.

[William W]

What do you think?

. . . I found it hard to get pictures that excited me . . .

Get closer.
Frame tighter.
If there is no ball, (or blood) then ALL the action is in the FACIAL expressions.
For sport, (and war) the shot always has to be tight. And then usually a bit tighter again.

*

. . .was doubtful about the skin tones as well as exposure. It was a harsh light which I find difficult to deal with.

My guesses are you are allowing the camera to make the exposure and the white balance. If I am correct on both counts, then (for the sample image) the camera’s TTL Meter was confused by the relatively small area of skin which is direct sun (and blown out), but rather made the vast majority of its exposure and white balance assessments predicated upon the RED TUNICS and the BACKGROUND SHADOW.

*

. . . I think the fundamental problem is that the skin is blown out in places so that the correct colour cannot be recovered easily.

If it is technically “blown out”, it can NOT be recovered. I didn't check; and I take Manfed's summation as fact - it is gone so it can now only be rebuilt and not recovered.

*

I have had this problem in other photographs in similar circumstances. I wonder sometimes whether it might be better to expose to the left.

That implies you are using the TTL Meter and probably an Automatic Camera Mode.

Judging by the shadows the shot was pulled between about 1000hrs and 1400hrs. We know the exposure so that no area of skin will ever be blown out for any shot that is pulled in that sunlight area of the netball court - Use F/16 Rule and M Mode.

If you want to get really technical and depending upon your camera, you can use an OVERexposure of ⅓Stop UNDER the upper limit of your camera’s recovery capacity (assuming you’re capturing raw).

*

With a low enough ISO I could then bring up the darker areas without ruining the lighter ones.

Good thinking.

Easier to bring up that which you have, than to remake that which is gone.

***

A few more points:

> the suggestion to use M Mode and the F/16 Rule may be useful to you if the WHOLE playing area is in sunlight and you have either front light or side light on the Subjects. Re-iterating using this technique the Photographer may also choose a consistent amount of blown highlight area, just as easily as choosing to have no blown highlight area. Also, in addition to having a second exposure position for when the Subjects enter Open Shade - there can be another exposure position for BACKLIT Subjects in full sun - this is usually 2 ~ 2½ Stops open, so in practical terms, I am often only using TWO Manual Exposure settings for the whole field no matter what the Camera Viewpoint, for the whole game.

In your shot, it appears that the far side of the court is in OPEN SHADE. In the case when there is a part of the playing area in shade and another part in sun, I usually have two M Exposure Settings which I flip between. That might seem odd and also cumbersome, but I find it is not. It is usually only two or three stops and that is only two or three clicks with my finger.

> the implication of the suggestion to use a Manual White Balance is to allow the SAME starting point for WB in Post Production - that's for easy continuity of WB.

> depending upon your camera and the lens(es) that you are using, don’t simply default to a low ISO (i.e. 100 ~200). You have quite a lot Chromatic Aberration in the sample image and my guess is your lens was closer to open than stopped down.

Also Subject Motion is a consideration.

Also BOTH are considerations if the play goes into an open shade area of the court.

Let’s assume next week the game is at the same time and you’ve got no cloud cover. So let’s start at: F/11 @ 1/1600s @ ISO800 for always having any area of direct skin tone NEVER blown out. We choose F/11 for a good lens performance regarding Image Quality and we choose 1/1600s for stopping the fastest of action at the tightest of framing. Now let’s assume that we need 2 Stops extra if the play goes into pen shade – we can easily crib one stop on the Av and open to F/8 and we can easily crib one stop on the Tv and slow to 1/800s for most shots . . . but if we had chosen (for example) ISO200, we could be in severe trouble unless we were using a very high quality F/2.8 (or faster) Lens.

> flash as adequate fill for that hard side light in the sample image, will not be useful unless we are shooting at or closer than about 8 to 10 feet from the Subjects.

***

For better results more of the emphasis should be on the Photography and not the Post Production: re-iterating that you do indeed have quality thinking by considering how you will go about exposing next week’s game. However, on the subject of post production here are a few things you might consider:

> There is the blue cast which was already mentioned, there is a bit of a cyan cast too

> Suggest concentrate on Post Production of the DARKER AREAS and forget the blown out skin – it is gone

> EXCEPT maybe rebuild the FACE where it is blown out because as already mentioned there is no “play” as such – the spirit of the image is in the two girls’ expressions

> reduce the OVERALL RED saturation and lightness, it will allow for better skin tone control

Quick and rough two minute A/B sample here:


However, as seen in this cropped version of the rough redo THE BLOWN OUT AREAS of the original were either:

> ignored

> removed (CROPPED OUT)

> rebuilt (the CENTRE’S face)

And the DARKER areas of the face and the background were worked on to ‘control the lighting’

This is an action shot which I can get more excited about:


***

Here are a couple of examples using the M Mode and F/16 Rule Technique to accommodate the highlights: both are at ISO 800 because the other end of the field was in shadow requiring 3 Stops change of Exposure. Both these are wider shots that how yours was cropped in the redo, but both these have a “play” going on within the frame – arguably though the second could be even tighter.

Sample 01

Image ©AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2015, WMW 1965~1996


Sample 02

Image ©AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2015, WMW 1965~1996

WW

PS: I would really like to know all the Technical Specs of the shot (Camera, Lens, Av, Tv, ISO) to:

1. Confirm beyond doubt that the Highlights are gone
2. Better advise re suitable Aperture and ISO ranges for you to consider

[Rob Ekins]

Bill,
I am also shooting kids sport for the first time now that my little fella is playing soccer, can I add to this tread by asking what drive and AF mode you would recommend for sports. I am using a Canon 6D and 70-200f2.8L Non IS

Thanks in advance.

[TonyW]

Thanks for all the replies. There is a lot to respond to and lots of ideas to try.

Firstly, the camera is the Canon 5diii, lens 70-200f/2.8L IS II USM at 70mm, f/8 SS1/750 ISO800 for this shot. I used Av mode with raw only so that the camera's white balance was irrelevant. I started with the white balance "as shot" in processing and worked from there. That is one place to experiment. As you can see from the following version of the shot, some of the court is in shade. It would be worthwhile to try manual mode to get the right exposure. It would have been easy to lighten up the background but I was concentrating on the players and didn't get round to that yet. This version shows the whole of the "play" at the time and I prefer it to the previous one which was chosen to highlight my granddaughter more.

This version uses many of the ideas that have been suggested, including Mike Buckley's, and I looked at the video that Izzie referred to. The colours are still not right though.



This is another shot that did not have so many problems and the colours look reasonable to me. I suspect the main difference is that the background is lighter to start with and therefore the exposure was closer to being right. The camera settings were the same except that the shutter speed was 1/2000 this time. I guess that the lesson to be learnt is that I should decide on the exposure settings and leave them there rather than rely on the camera to decide each time.

[chauncey]

I use a rather dated Canon 1Ds3 and have shot in manual mode since discovering Canon's inability
to nail proper exposure as your images indicates.

Taking into consideration that your live view screen is predicated on a jpeg representation of your image,
you must firstly neutralize, slide to left, all of your picture style settings to get rid of that jpeg bias.

Shoot in manual mode utilizing that LV screen while it displays the 3 channel histogram and expose to
the right taking care to not allow any color to touch the right edge.

I would drop my f/stop down to about 5.6 or so, SS about 800, then use your ISO to move that histogram
towards the left or right. You can adjust any of your three settings to move that histogram.

Adjust those setting prior to the game's start and leave them locked in during the game...they will be
close enough to adjust in PP if necessary.

When you are shooting people and proper color is paramount use a http://xritephoto.com/ph_product_ove...ction=overview

Your images are somewhat muddy looking due to canon's terrible ISO performance...
try to keep the ISO at or below 600...even numbers seem to work better for me.

Yeah it seems complicated, but will soon become 2nd nature.

[William W]

. . . I am also shooting kids sport for the first time now that my little fella is playing soccer, can I add to this tread by asking what drive and AF mode you would recommend for sports. I am using a Canon 6D and 70-200f2.8L Non IS.

Direct answer - Using a 6D (which I haven’t, but it’s similar to my 5DmkII): 99% of the time I would use AI Servo AF.

Expanded answer – Everything is related.

For Sport Photography, choices (or ‘limits’) are related to the type of sport and the ability of the players.

For example, I shoot a lot of Field Hockey and Swimming, both over a range of skill levels and ages – at the Starting Block, an Australian Representative Backstroke Swimmer requires a Tv of around 1/800s or faster to make a good image: so my ‘limit’ is 1/800s, preferably 1/1250s. For a metropolitan under 12years Representative Swimmer I could probably pull 1/500s, even 1/400s and get an adequate shot. The differences are wider for Field Sports. Obviously the Tv limit is predicated on the Athlete’s SPEED.

The same is relevant to AF selection. You mention “little fella“ - that implies “under 8’s” maybe “under 6’s”. Those children aren’t sub 10sec 100 meter runners and also their game skill levels are such that field position and tactical placement is like watching a swarm of bees, rather than predicting long passes and set plays; also most games under 12 are played on reduced sized fields – therefore the area of any single Photo-shot opportunity is well contained and the pace between (photo) shots is slower than shooting older and or more skilled players. So in this case single shot AF might be quite OK to use.

(Aside): Occasionally there will be an oddment, necessitating increasing one's Photography pace and technique, that is when an age player with extreme ability, who, by virtue of the age grading system, is locked into a particular age group well below their own capability.

Also AF selection is somewhat related to one’s own preference for AF Control. I use Back Button.

Also AF is related to one’s Framing Technique and that, in turn, is related to AF Point Section. On a 6D I would use Centre Point AF; Lock Focus; Recompose; Shoot (slightly) Wide and Crop in post.

Also AF (and AF selection point) is related to best technique for Accurate Auto Focus and, using Centre Point AF, I would nail the AF lock on the hard line of a Contrast in the Jersey or the hard line of Contrast where the Jersey meets the Shorts.

I would be reluctant to use Auto Selection AF point, even though it does follow the once established AF from the centre point, if that Subject moves to another AF point; I have been able to confuse that EOS AF System by recomposing, so whilst it is a good AF tool, it just makes my head hurt thinking about what the AF might do if I recompose too quickly - but for little kids's soccer that might be a very good AF point selection onteh 6D.

If your young chap is indeed between 3 and 10 years old, then I suggest that you will have ample opportunity (and time) to experiment - the kids will move around the field and it will be very different to shooting house interiors, and you’ll need to move around too: but at first, if he is young, nothing will be at lightning speed so I am sure that you would be able to handle all of this with a manual focus lens, disciplined thought and the backing of your good general photography experience and skills.

Good luck to both of you.

WW

PS – with that rig as they get older, more skilled, faster, and using a larger field - A Monopod and an x2.0MkIII Extender EF, are likely to be on your shopping list.

[William W]

. . . the camera is the Canon 5diii, lens 70-200f/2.8L IS II USM at 70mm, f/8 SS1/750 ISO800 for this shot.

Ta. That confirms that the highlights are gone: that exposure is about 2 Stops overexposed for the areas of Direct Sunlight: the EOS 5DMkIII cannot sustain that overexposure.

*

I used Av mode with raw only so that the camera's white balance was irrelevant. I started with the white balance "as shot" in processing and worked from there. That is one place to experiment.

Thanks for confirming Av Mode.

Note that there is an inherent danger in choosing Av Mode for Field Sports because the TTL Meter will select the Tv.

As an example, if the play moved to into shadow, still with dark backgrounds (let’s say that the TTL meter computes 2 Stops EV darker), then the camera would automatically set the Tv ≈ 1/160s and surely there would be Subject Motion Blur.

The camera’s white balance is not “irrelevant”, even when shooting raw.

Consider that ‘experimenting’ with the WB ‘as shot’ - that might be the beginning of your issues with skin tones. Also consider your Monitor and the Calibration of it; and also your Lighting Environment of the room where you post produce your images.

*

As you can see from the following version of the shot . . . It would have been easy to lighten up the background but I was concentrating on the players and didn't get round to that yet. This version shows the whole of the "play" at the time and I prefer it to the previous one which was chosen to highlight my granddaughter more. The colours are still not right though.

Understood.

*

This is another shot that did not have so many problems and the colours look reasonable to me. I suspect the main difference is that the background is lighter to start with and therefore the exposure was closer to being right. The camera settings were the same except that the shutter speed was 1/2000 this time.

There is an orange cast – (a guess) - Maybe you are increasing saturation because your monitor is not calibrated correctly?

F/8 @ 1/2000s @ ISO800 is about ⅔Stop Overexposed for Direct Sunlight, so yes, the 5DMkIII should be able to manage that recovery from the raw file.

***

I use a rather dated Canon 1Ds3 and have shot in manual mode since discovering Canon's inability to nail proper exposure as your images indicates.

The EOS TTL System (or any TTL System) is a tool with limits and parameters, it of itself, does not have ‘abilities’: the Photographer does.

As previously mentioned on other threads, I have a very strong point of view that all Photographers should make the effort to learn how EACH different METERING MODE works on their camera(s).

*

Taking into consideration that your live view screen is predicated on a jpeg representation of your image, you must firstly neutralize, slide to left, all of your picture style settings to get rid of that jpeg bias. Shoot in manual mode utilizing that LV screen while it displays the 3 channel histogram and expose to the right taking care to not allow any color to touch the right edge. I would drop my f/stop down to about 5.6 or so, SS about 800, then use your ISO to move that histogram towards the left or right. You can adjust any of your three settings to move that histogram. Adjust those setting prior to the game's start and leave them locked in during the game...they will be close enough to adjust in PP if necessary.

Four points apropos this proposed technique:

1. at F/5.6 an Half Shot of any Player will give DoF of about 12”, which may be insufficient, not much more DoF for a three quarter shot. (e.g. consider a play in progress between two players or a shot on goal in progress).

2. 1/800s is not safe to always arrest Subject Motion Blur of an Netball Athlete in that age group; especially transverse movement.

3. “Adjust those setting prior to the game's start and leave them locked in during the game’, will NOT be “close enough to adjust in PP if necessary", if the field is in part shade and part sun.

4. “Adjust those setting prior to the game's start and leave them locked in during the game’, will NOT be “close enough to adjust in PP if necessary", if the Camera Viewpoint changes from Front or Side-lit sun to Backlit.

*

Your images are somewhat muddy looking due to canon's terrible ISO performance...try to keep the ISO at or below 600...even numbers seem to work better for me.

What’s the first source evidence(s) of “muddy looking due to canon’s terrible ISO performance”?

The two sample shots in Post #13 were JPEG files (not raw) ex a Canon EOS 20D using ISO 800.

Those shots were pulled circa August 2005 at about 1100hrs, just a tad below the latitude of Brisbane – so that is a very similar lighting scenario to the OP’s samples, but with a way inferior camera to an EOS 5D MkIII. The two hockey shots are certainly NOT “muddy looking due to canon’s terrible ISO performance”.

The EOS5DMkIII is very capable of high quality imagery in hash sun, side-light, whilst using ISO well above ISO600.

The Colour Balance and Skin Tone issues with Tony’s images are certainly not ISO related and are most likely (almost definitely) related to Post Production Technique and/or Monitor and Editing Room calibration, irrespective of the blown out highlights.

WW

[TonyW]

Bill, I am still working on this but there are a couple of questions and comments arising from your last post.

Firstly, I don't see what relevance the in camera white balance has when I use a raw file only.

In the second shot, I did not play at all with the colours except that I might have changed the contrast and exposure in pp. There was definitely no deliberate use of saturation. I subsequently looked at what happened when I changed the white balance in ACR. The choices offered were as shot, auto or custom. Auto did not look right to me. In light of your comment about the orange cast, I will look at it again and try something in between as shot and auto.

In the first shot, I think the problems originate from the over-exposure and my attempts to recover from that which were clearly not successful. The over-exposure was worse in the first shot because of shadows in the background which the camera adjusted for. I agree that in this sort of situation it is best to use a manual setting and stick to it (provide you get it right in the first place). Both shots looked sharp enough to me and nobody has commented on that so that I don't think the shutter speed in itself was a problem except for its contribution to the exposure.

The 5diii I believe has good ISO performance and 800 is quite a low value under normal circumstances. It is only when there are dark areas that have to be lightened a lot and/or when I want to crop very heavily that I would worry about that.

[Manfred M]

The choices offered were as shot, auto or custom.

"As Shot" = whatever white balance your camera was set to. While you are correct that with raw files, you select any white balance setting you want, the metadata does record what your camera was set to, and often this seems to be a very good starting point if you are shooting either auto-white balance or have chosen one of the manual settings and it works well in the light conditions you are working under. Doing a custom white balance before shooti can give excellent results, as long as you do this correctly - shoot a target that fills the whole scene in the same light that is hitting your subject.

"Auto" - the software uses a bit of a blunt force approach, so far as I can tell. It seems to read the whole image (think of it as almost taking the image, applying an "Average Blur" and then white balancing that and applying it to the whole image. A bit brute force but it sometimes works.

"Custom" - Play with the "temperature" and "tint" sliders to get the effect that you want. I sometimes use this method if I want to tweak things a tiny bit.