Photographs under canopy during a cloudy day - how to fix colors

[darekk]

Because of the brain adaptation to the color of illumination we see everything normal, like it were illuminated by white light. But in photographs everything is green or yellow in autumn.
It can be fixed changing color temperature. Kodak card doesn't work too well.
Moreover when green color is removed by color temperature change, the bark is getting reddish.
And in autumn after color temperature change even if tree trunks are still only slightly yellow, leaves are to little yellow.
How to make color of trunks neutral not changing color of leaves ? Thank you.

[Black Pearl]

White balance would be uniform across the scene - can you pop an example of an image you're having issues with so we can see exactly what the problem is?

BP

[darekk]

4050K, tint +30, Auto


5000K, tint +30, this one is intermediate between
auto (leaves far too little yellow) and cloudy (trunks too much yellow)


5100K, tint +5, Daylight


5800K, tint +4, Cloudy.jpg


6450K, tint +9, gray card, but perhaps outside the park/forest

[Manfred M]

The simple answer is you can only correct to a single white balance setting and as the photographer, you get to figure out which trade off is most acceptable.

I asked a wedding photographer the same question once, and his answer was rather revealing. He works to get the skin tones of the subjects looking right and tries to get the bride's dress looking reasonably white and does not worry about anything else.

If you understand your colour theory, then if there is a green cast in your image, you remove it by adding magenta (which gives you the reddish tones you are referring to). Don't forget, that there will likely be a secondary colour cast as well, as the yellow / blue channel will likely adding secondary effects. The third channel (red-blue) won't playing any role (remember in RGB colour theory, you should only tweak two channels, as tweaking the third does nothing more than adding neutral density effect to the adjustments).

[Mike Buckley]

You mentioned a "grey card" and a "Kodak card." I wonder if you're referring to a card used to make an ideal exposure. If so, instead use a spectrally neutral card such as this one, which is made in various sizes and is designed to help achieve the ideal white balance.

Once you have achieved the ideal white balance, you can then individually change the color balance of the various parts of the image that are important but perhaps less important to you. Or, as Manfred suggests, leave those less important areas as is.

Bear in mind that fine tuning color details is pretty much a waste of time if you aren't using a profiled and calibrated monitor. Even when you are using one, be aware that one heck of a lot of people will be viewing your images on a monitor that isn't profiled and calibrated. In that case, the colors will be displayed differently on their monitors than on yours.

[Manfred M]

You mentioned a "grey card" and a "Kodak card."

Mike - the Kodak card has been around for decades and is spectrally neutral. I ran into one I have had since the 1970s when I was clearing out some old junk. It was the "Gold Standard" for photographers for many decades.

There are lots of gray cards around other than the WhitBal card. When I tested some of the other targets I have (gray / white targets from Lastolite, Kodak gray card, generic gray card. ColorChecker Pro target and WhitBal card), they gave me very similar readings. Even my piece of white foam core, that I use as a reflector is actually pretty neutral.

My WhitBal card is always in my camera bag, but more so because it is small and handy, rather than that it gives me superior results.

[pnodrog]

I do not know what the actual scene lighting was but personally apart from the first photograph I find the color temperature is far too high. The jump from 4050K to 5100K I think is too large.

What software do you use? In Lightroom I often use the HSL control to fine adjust the colours. Moving yellow hue slightly towards green and reducing the green saturation can help with this type of scene.

[Mike Buckley]

Manfred,

I'm reasonably confident that my information that most grey cards designed to achieve the ideal exposure are not spectrally neutral came from Colin's posts. Unfortunately, I find no way to conduct a search of any posts he wrote.

[bje07]

I'm surprised that nobody proposed the X-rite color checker?
I found a video (in English for most of people on this forum) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn5VvB32wVI
For a wedding I used this technique and I got quite good results.

[Manfred M]

Manfred,

I'm reasonably confident that my information that most grey cards designed to achieve the ideal exposure are not spectrally neutral came from Colin's posts. Unfortunately, I find no way to conduct a search of any posts he wrote.

I know as that is why I got the WhitBal card too. I was unable to replicate the issues Colin mentioned in my own tests.

I took shots of several different targets, all under the same lighting conditions (studio flash). My conversations with some other photographers suggested that Colin was probably incorrect. That being said, my tests were limited to the few targets I have sitting around and I'm quite sure that there are enough gray cards / white balance targets that are not spectrally neutral that are on the market to make this a real concern. The real issue is that targets do get exposed to the environment over time and dirt, airborne contaminants and even UV exposure (daylight) will make cards that started off as being neutral end up having a bit of a colour cast. X-rite (in perhaps a bit of a self-serving view) recommends replacing the ColorChecker every two years.

[Manfred M]

I'm surprised that nobody proposed the X-rite color checker?

Check post #6 - it is definitely one of the solutions I mentioned.

[darekk]

Thank you for your answers.
This is probably the problem noticed by impressionists which other painters and their customers didn't want to see.

spectrally neutral card such as this one

I think that I used Kodak Gray Card to set custom color balance outside that forest and this is why the last image is so yellow. Moreover the light was changing instantly because clouds were moving. The manual of that card says that it can be used i. e. to determine / set the white balance. The manual contains a graph entitled "Spectral Reflectance". It shows two curves - one for white side (reflecting 90% of the incident light) and one for gray side (18%). Both are almost parallel to the bottom axis over the entire range (between 400 and 700 nm).
When I used that card inside forest during summer in the past, it removed blue color of cloudy day and green color filtered and reflected by leaves. This second effect however was causing bark to be a little reddish and this is why recently I used it outside the forest to take images inside that forest. And this is why yellow color was not removed.

X-rite color checker

Yes, there are also such tools like colorimeters, measuring color temperature, but very expensive.

Perhaps using masks with separate color balances would be good. But what if number of masks is going into tens ? And appropriate software would be needed. Adobe Lightroom for example can change color balance of a mask, but color temperature and tint of masks in contrast to remaining part of the image are scaled in percent, not Kelvines and units of tint whatever they are. So they must be set intuitionally looking at the monitor. Moreover manual drawing mask covering trunks and branches is very difficult, actually impossible.

By the way - I noticed recently that Lightroom Calibration - Profile should be switched from Adobe Standard to Camera Standard to obtain more natural colors in many, maybe most of cases. Obviously this is very good software, we are talking here only about few minor disadvantages, and not about advantages.

[bje07]

Check post #6 - it is definitely one of the solutions I mentioned.

oups, I think I jumped from 5 to 7

[Mike Buckley]

Moreover manual drawing mask covering trunks and branches [using Lightroom] is very difficult, actually impossible.

It actually can be done. I've seen a tutorial explaining how to do it and, if I remember correctly, it actually used trunks and branches as the example. Having said that, I don't think creating such a mask is simple using any software.

I occasionally use masks to change the color balance. Based on that experience, my guess is that you will need only one or two masks to achieve the overall look you want.

[pnodrog]

Maybe using masks with separate color balances would be good. But what if number of masks is going into tens ? And appropriate software would be needed. Adobe Lightroom for example can change color balance of a mask, but color temperature and tint of masks in contrast to remaining part of the image are scaled in percent, not Kelvines and units of tint whatever they are. So they must be set intuitionally looking at the monitor. Moreover manual drawing mask covering trunks and branches is very difficult, actually impossible.

[/QUOTE]

There is a very good tutorial on using auto masks in Lightroom and I was surprised at effective it can be. (also relatively quick to do) It maybe worth you searching for it on the net. Basically in Lightroom you enable the automask option and drag the cursor down say the trunk with a large brush and adjust the colour temperature, saturation or add a colour filter over the selected area.

[xpatUSA]

How to make color of trunks neutral not changing color of leaves ?

Easy!

But first, the colors of the trunks are not the same as each other in the posted images. That means they can not all be made neutral. So first you pick a trunk that will be neutral, see arrow for example:



Then you color-pick that trunk to make it neutral:



Then you use a program that can change a hue or range of hues independently and thereby put the leaf colors back to where they were. Two exaggerated examples:

back to Autumn . . .




back to Summer . .



Notice how the selected trunk stayed quite neutral in spite of the leaf color-changes. Notice also how some of the trunks changed color meaning that, in the original scene, the trunks were not all gray. Of course, with a smaller adjustment, that big trunk in the middle would not have been so obviously red or green respectively.

I used the 'Auto' image and RawTherapee for this demonstration.

[darekk]

There is a very good tutorial on using auto masks in Lightroom

In the internet ?

you enable the automask option and drag the cursor down say the trunk with a large brush and adjust the colour temperature, saturation or add a colour filter over the selected area.

Yes, borders of masks can be set automatically, this is very good feature, but color temperature and tint automatically or manually in those strange percents ?

I used the 'Auto' image and RawTherapee for this demonstration.

Oh my, such a selective color editing ! The 'Auto' image option in the RawTherapee software ? I found it in Wikipedia. What do you mean "color-pick that trunk", because it means nothing to me. Which options did you use exactly ? Telling the truth I would like to do everything in Lightroom. Using several programs in not very handly. It can be done with Lightroom, it has such drop tool setting color temperature and tint. But you manually try to restore natural colors besides that trunk. This is not good too. And these colors are not natural. I did something similar, maybe not the same thing some time ago. Colors changed selectively but they were not natural.

Notice how the selected trunk stayed quite neutral in spite of the leaf color-changes.

But this is because that colors were set to neutral or that is the feature of that software ?

[DanK]

I think this is getting way too complicated.

The first one is the only one that looks to me to be anywhere close to natural colors.

In my experience, a scene like that, with uniform outside lighting, rarely requires anything complicated. A simple white balance adjustment, with a possible minor adjustment to taste, is usually sufficient.

You don't say if you are shooting raw or jpeg. If you are concerned about really accurate color balance, you are better off shooting raw. That gives you complete flexibility to change both temperature and tint at will after the image is captured. It also allows you to forget about custom white balance.

You wrote this:

I think that I used Kodak Gray Card to set custom color balance outside that forest and this is why the last image is so yellow.

Right. You have to use the card under the same lighting conditions as the image. Otherwise, it will give you the wrong white balance. However, if you shoot raw and forget to do this, it is trivial to fix it in postprocessing.

You wrote:

By the way - I noticed recently that Lightroom Calibration - Profile should be switched from Adobe Standard to Camera Standard to obtain more natural colors in many, maybe most of cases.

I don't know where you got this advice. I saw it recently in an article online. It's nonsense. The Adobe standard is Adobe's best shot at a neutral balance for your camera. If you want to be more precise, you can create your own profile using a color checker. The picture styles in your camera, which are emulated by the Adobe ones other than standard, are deliberately NOT neutral. Your camera manual should describe what each one is intended to do, and it probably tells you a little bit about the processing algorithm--for example, how much it boosts saturation and contrast. Also, if you are shooting raw, the choice of profile is mostly a convenience. It's just a starting point for editing and has no effect on the raw data.

So my advice is simple:

1. Shoot raw
2. Use a spectrally neutral card, as you are doing, but do it under the same lighting conditions
3. use the Adobe standard profile or one you create yourself.
4. Start by adjusting the WB using the image with the card.
5. Adjust white balance to suit your taste (I often go a little warmer.)
6. Adjust vibrance, and in some cases, adjust the saturation by channel (easy in Lightroom)

In outdoor shots with uniform lighting, I very rarely find any need to do more than this.

I hope this helps

[darekk]

I don't know where you got this advice.

From my experience. Grass in the sunlight has very frequently such unhealthy slight blue color, Sometimes color of water is not naturally blue. That disappears after switching to Camera Standard.

[DanK]

From my experience. Grass in the sunlight has very frequently such unhealthy slight blue color, Sometimes color of water is not naturally blue. That disappears after switching to Camera Standard.

I saw it in an article online last week, but I don't recall where.

Your experience seems odd. I don't recall having had that experience. using 4 different DSLRs, I never had a 350D, but I did have a 400D for some time, and I don't remember this problem. Is this on a calibrated monitor? One of the common ways that monitors are miscalibrated when they are sold is to be too blue. If you are using a calibrated monitor, I am at a loss to know what is happening.

The Canon "standard" style boosts saturation; see this link. Unfortunately, they don't say anything about color balance. But this suggests that using the standard profile should make all colors, including blues, MORE intense, not less.

I can't figure this out, and I am not at a computer with my software, so I can't test anything now. Sorry I can't be more helpful.