Capturing the correct colors

[smd]

I recently did a shoot for a local boutique and a few of the outfits the models were wearing were very bright, neon colors. One shirt was neon pink and in the end result looked more coral. What tips do you have for me to get the right colors? Also, I am taking a trip to the Canadian Rockies soon and want to be sure to capture correct colors in the landscapes. Thanks for your help!

 

[TCampbell]

At a minimum, you'll need something that can accurately capture the color cast of the lighting so that it can be controlled in post processing. The simplest way to do this is to use a "gray card". The card uses gray mid-tone shade which is guaranteed to be color neutral. You take a photo of the card in the identical lighting that you'll use for your shoot.

I shoot RAW... post processing software allows you to set white balance picking a color neutral point in the image and since the gray card is guaranteed to be color neutral, it will correct for any color casts created by lighting and neutralize them. This correction can then be copied to every other shot taken as long as it was shot with the same lighting.

For JPEG (but I'd avoid JPEG if you're really fussy about color management) you can use "custom white balance" with a gray card. The camera asks you to shoot the reference frame (or pick the photo that represents your reference frame) and it uses that (this would be the photo of the gray card) to neutralize any color problems.

There is one more thing you can do and it's usually not required for most situations but if you were shooting fabrics and needed to guarantee color accuracy then you'd ALSO shoot a frame of a color checker card. This is s card that has various colored squares or tiles which happen to be known to the post processing software. This is because while you may have already taken care of white balance via the gray card, your camera may be a bit more sensitive to, say... reds then it is to greens (I'm making that up as an example) and since the color checker card uses a set of known colors, post processing software can use the card to correct for every color... not just the white balance.

There are lots of gray cards on the market. If you're going to be doing fabric shoots where color accuracy is important, you might look at an X-Rite Color-Checker Passport. This includes software as well as the physical color checker -- the software plugs in to the post processing software (such as LightRoom) so that it can make color corrections. Again... just one frame is needed and the corrections can be copied to all other shots taken in the same lighting.

That guarantees the camera can capture and the computer can reproduce accurate color. Whether that color looks right on your screen or printer is another topic... and for that you'd need to calibrate the monitor using something like the X-Rite ColorMunki or the Datacolor Spyder. This device is placed on screen while software cycles through various colors and the checker detects how accurately your monitor can reproduce those colors -- it then builds a color profile for your computer to correct the display so that it displays accurate color.

Printers are a bit tricker because every single ink and every single paper combination will reproduce colors different. This means you'd actually need a profile for every ink type and paper type combination. Not all color calibration tools can handle printers (most handle screens... some also handle printers and projectors).


A gray card is relatively inexpensive and frankly every photographer who is even remotely serious about photography should own one. I don't necessarily let the gray card rule me... sometimes I deliberately want a color cast ... photos lit by a setting sun or by candle light should have a nice warm golden color cast and you wouldn't want to neutralize that. But I do have a gray card in my bag and I use it when I need accurate color. I also have a color checker but I tend to not use that. If I were shooting products where consumers expect to see accurate color portrayed then I would definitely use the color checker.

 

[Designer]

Don't use any "scene modes" and shoot both JPEG and RAW. When you get back to the computer you can make any adjustments as needed to the colors.

 

[tirediron]

Don't use any "scene modes" and shoot both JPEG and RAW. When you get back to the computer you can make any adjustments as needed to the colors.

providing that you are working on a corrected monitor; colour-calibrated workflow is critical to ensuring that the final result is accurate.

 

[KmH]

And that the scene you shoot is not lit by lighting having more than 1 color temperature.
As an example - light from a window will be a different color temperature than tungsten or florescent lighting in a room.

 

[photoguy99]

And keep in that none of it will actually work. The methods outlined above, and no doubt below, are mostly about ensuring that it looks on the monitor more or less as it looks in the print. Some of what's discussed (gray cards, color charts, anything where you actually shoot a known reference object) will be about making the color on your monitor closely approximate what you see.

In general, though, the best you are likely to do is get pretty close.

Note that, in particular, a calibrated monitor and color managed workflow have nothing to do with recording correct color. They're all about retaining color you've got, which it's not your problem. That will become your problem, once you solve the problem of recording a good approximation of correct color.

 

[bratkinson]

As TCampbell pointed out, a grey card is the easiest and most economical means of setting the White Balance properly in the camera (take a photo where the grey card is most, if not all of the frame, then set Custom White Balance (CWB) to that image). That will get the correct colors in the JPGs in the camera. If shooting RAW, then the White Balance can be set during post processing in a similar means.

The X-Rite Color Checker or similar products will give absolutely the best results because it has an exact 'known set' of colors on their multi-color card and the software that comes with it will set the colors in the computer to match the known set of the card in the photograph you set it to.

Using either method for WB will get the colors right in your computer...I'll call this step one.

Then one may 'fiddle' with the colors based on what they see on the screen. That's where having a calibrated monitor makes the difference. If, for example, your uncalibrated monitor makes everything a tad greenish, your eye will lead you to setting the WB to correct the greenish tint. The calibrated monitor will accurately display the colors that are 'in the computer', whether they are right at that point (set by grey card or color-checker) or not (Auto White Balance in the camera, typically). That's why 'step one' must be correct AND the monitor calibrated before adjusting the colors ever-so-slightly to, perhaps to tweak the blue saturation, or whatever. Call using a calibrated monitor and minor tweaking 'step two'.

Step three is printing. Mr Campbell also noted every ink, paper, and printer combination will render colors slightly differently. So, it's necessary to properly calibrate the printer/ink/paper combination the images are to be printed on. I have a calibrated monitor and use grey cards and/or Color Checker as needed. I don't do any 'critical printing' so what my Epson printer prints is usually 'good enough' for me and those who get my amateur prints.

Professional photographs used for publication by newspapers, magazines or online services usually have their own 'rules' about how they want the colors rendered, and even what 'color space' to use (I think that's the term, I've never fooled with it, personally) They will likely insist on using a Color Checker or other similar product to guarantee accurate color representation and THEY would likely be the ones to tweak the colors per their needs and desires for publication.

Lastly...as Photoguy99 alluded to, getting the colors perfect in every shot is very difficult. This is because except under controlled studio conditions, lighting perhaps 5 feet from where the grey card/color checker was photographed my be slightly different. Using the same settings as the previous picture, for example, may result in colors 'just a little off'. Throw in the 'cycling' of florescent lighting, and two photos taken not even 1 second apart will have different colors. I have to deal with that in some of the church events I photograph. That's when a flash is handy to 'override' the ambient lighting to control the colors.

Clear as mud? Add in the effects of over/under exposure that may 'degrade' colors slightly, and noise, it can get complex.

For what it's worth, my digital 'education' started with learning to get the best exposure results with what I had. That meant getting the exposure triangle 'automatic in my head' first. I didn't even know what RAW or White Balance was at that point, and had reasonably satisfactory color results with Automatic White Balance (AWB) on my camera. I sometimes spent too much time trying to fiddle with individual colors in post processing until it looked right, without understanding WB. That was my next big step in the process...WB. Then on to RAW and working with the 'full pallet' of colors rather than what the camera produced for JPGs. In short, I took one step at a time. I think if I tried to take on everything at once, I would have put the camera down and used my cellphone.

 

[ruben_c]

As some people here already mentioned, if you want to play back the color as if was in front of your lens, you need to create your own RAW camera profiles to apply the right color changes. I do that with a SpyderCheckr.

But at the end, be aware that you can't reproduce these neon colors, given that you can't reproduce them with the RGB system or print them with the CMYK color palette.

 

[astroNikon]

To add to the above, this past summer my kids teams used neon jersey colors.
I found that setting my Nikon's camera's Picture Control to "vivid" really helped in keeping the colors more accurate "as is" even before I got to post.
So check your cameras color capability. For instance Nikon uses Standard Neutral, Vivid, Monochrome, Portrait & Landscape as user selectable presets. If you have Canon or another brand read you manual.