Does this photo appear cool (color temp) to anyone?

[clanthar]

Actually this was printed in popular photography magazine....not the internet. Given that they own both American Photo, as well as Popular Science, their opinion holds a little more weight to me than a guy with under 200 posts on a photo forum.. I cant really do much with your previous post whereas I am not at my home comp. Unless you are using numbered values for tones when color correcting ( numbers = math = cut and dry method ) your eyeballs (manual method) is just as risky at adding a cast instead of removing one even more so if you factor that your eyes arent trained to see the slight colorcast. Therefore, if you wish to point out flaws, your entire argument is flawed. As stated, everyone is welcome to try my method. Never did I say" this is the only 100% effective way to remove a colorcast"

When you get to your home computer you can run through the proof I supplied. It is a proof and it proves I'm correct. You're welcome to prove me wrong, but not with a magazine article -- refute my proof. I've laid out the facts. Deal with the facts.

I'm not arguing that one method is better than another here. I'm identifying this specific method as faulty. I'm not attacking you personally. I've met scores of people who have picked up this method and use it and pass it around. As you've pointed out it's even shown up in print -- I've seen it in books. Now I've demonstrated to you that it's faulty; proof is proof.

I have to go to work now. One of the reasons I don't post too often on this forum is because I'm busy earning my living; This evening I'm teaching a class in Photoshop at a college here in the Midwest.

Take Care,
Joe

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

I know you arent attacking me and I agree that manually is better assuming you are capable of doing so with accuracy. My metgid however, in most cases wil make a beginners photo look better than if they opened curves and started randomly moving crap. It also works better than photoshops "auto color" function.

 

[clanthar]

I know you arent attacking me and I agree that manually is better assuming you are capable of doing so with accuracy. My metgid however, in most cases wil make a beginners photo look better than if they opened curves and started randomly moving crap. It also works better than photoshops "auto color" function.

I didn't say manual correction is better. I said the method you outlined doesn't work. I then provided proof that it doesn't work. Go through the proof.

I'd let this go except that the method you outlined is in common circulation and lots of people are trying in vain to use it and IT DOESN'T WORK. I proved that it doesn't work. If you want to claim that it does work you need to point out an error in my proof.

In your remark above you've identified what's most wrong with this method; it's a booby-trap for beginners. Given your assumption that a beginner can't see a color cast, they may try this method on a photo that doesn't have a color cast. If the photo also doesn't have a neutral gray then this method is guaranteed to add a color cast. If the photo does have a neutral gray this method is guaranteed to do nothing.

add color cast OR do nothing = doesn't work.

If a photo does have a color cast but also contains a neutral gray (very possible) then this method will find the neutral gray and do nothing.

If a photo does have a color cast and does not contain a neutral gray then this method will find the tones closet to neutral gray and clicking on those with the gray eyedropper will help remove a color cast only if those tones should have been gray in the first place -- no guarantee of that.

Back to the original post: If you use this method on the photo that started this thread it will find the girl's hair as the closest tones to middle gray. She's not old enough yet to have gone gray. Clicking on her hair with the gray eyedropper is a disaster = doesn't work.

Take Care,
Joe

 

[shaunly]

What did you do to adjust the WB? It looks nice.

learn to use Curve.