Red Flower

[jcdeboever]

I have a hard time with red flowers, getting the red to look like it does in real time. I got it this time as best as I know how.

 

[SquarePeg5 4]

I agree when it comes to flowers, certain reds are so difficult. I usually end up desaturating the red and even sometimes change the hue to a dark pink or purple if I can get away with it because the details seem to show better and the color is easier on the eyes than the original.

I like your slight angle composition here but the color is not soft enough for my taste.

 

[jcdeboever]

I agree when it comes to flowers, certain reds are so difficult. I usually end up desaturating the red and even sometimes change the hue to a dark pink or purple if I can get away with it because the details seem to show better and the color is easier on the eyes than the original.

I like your slight angle composition here but the color is not soft enough for my taste.

Thanks for the input. Is this any better?

 

[SquarePeg5 4]

A lot more detail visible in the revision.

 

[jcdeboever]

A lot more detail visible in the revision.

So that means when shooting red flowers, I will need to -EC and bump my apeture a tad smaller, correct?

 

[Ysarex122 116]

Ouch. You've uncovered a rather knotty problem. Did you shoot and try to process a raw file or did you shoot a camera JPEG?

Highly saturated colors, especially in the red range, are difficult. On board camera processors have an especially hard time with them but raw conversion software also struggles. Red flowers are the perfect example. Do a Google search on "red knockout rose" and you can look at a few thousand -- many thousands, of digital photos with nuked red channels. Or better yet search for your scarlet lychnis. Here's the histogram of the red channel from your photo:

You can't get detail in the flower petals until you get that red channel histogram off that right wall.
If you're shooting camera JPEGs you don't have a lot of options.
1. Set a custom white balance -- really helps to have the WB right in camera in this case.
2. You're going to be forced to drop exposure -- minus EC.
3. Consider the picture controls for contrast and saturation and lower them.
4. Problem with steps two and three is that those changes are going to effect the whole photo including all non-red data.

Although this goes against all that I know is holy in photography you do have petal detail in both the green and blue channels and it will help to edit the JPEG and pull back that red channel with a saturation mask which will expose the detail in the other two channels. Like so:

Best solution for this kind of problem is to start with a raw file. The JPEG options are both half-baked: bad idea to underexpose and bad idea to try and repair a JPEG.

If I may offer an illustration:

I've yet to see a digital camera that doesn't do this. On left you see the JPEG from my camera (I expose for my sensor not the camera JPEG so my JPEGs tend to look even worse -- red channel blown away). On right the processed raw file. If ever there was an argument for why you need to get a raw file, it's a red rose.

Joe

 

[jcdeboever]

Ouch. You've uncovered a rather knotty problem. Did you shoot and try to process a raw file or did you shoot a camera JPEG?

Highly saturated colors, especially in the red range, are difficult. On board camera processors have an especially hard time with them but raw conversion software also struggles. Red flowers are the perfect example. Do a Google search on "red knockout rose" and you can look at a few thousand -- many thousands, of digital photos with nuked red channels. Or better yet search for your scarlet lychnis. Here's the histogram of the red channel from your photo:

View attachment 123652

You can't get detail in the flower petals until you get that red channel histogram off that right wall.
If you're shooting camera JPEGs you don't have a lot of options.
1. Set a custom white balance -- really helps to have the WB right in camera in this case.
2. You're going to be forced to drop exposure -- minus EC.
3. Consider the picture controls for contrast and saturation and lower them.
4. Problem with steps two and three is that those changes are going to effect the whole photo including all non-red data.

Although this goes against all that I know is holy in photography you do have petal detail in both the green and blue channels and it will help to edit the JPEG and pull back that red channel with a saturation mask which will expose the detail in the other two channels. Like so:

View attachment 123654

Best solution for this kind of problem is to start with a raw file. The JPEG options are both half-baked: bad idea to underexpose and bad idea to try and repair a JPEG.

If I may offer an illustration:

View attachment 123655

I've yet to see a digital camera that doesn't do this. On left you see the JPEG from my camera (I expose for my sensor not the camera JPEG so my JPEGs tend to look even worse -- red channel blown away). On right the processed raw file. If ever there was an argument for why you need to get a raw file, it's a red rose.

Joe

Thank you for taking the time to explain a solution. Now it is making sense. Unfortunately, I have not found a program to open up the Canon Raw file. I haven't looked real hard, I use Linux.

 

[Ysarex122 116]

Ouch. You've uncovered a rather knotty problem. Did you shoot and try to process a raw file or did you shoot a camera JPEG?

Highly saturated colors, especially in the red range, are difficult. On board camera processors have an especially hard time with them but raw conversion software also struggles. Red flowers are the perfect example. Do a Google search on "red knockout rose" and you can look at a few thousand -- many thousands, of digital photos with nuked red channels. Or better yet search for your scarlet lychnis. Here's the histogram of the red channel from your photo:

View attachment 123652

You can't get detail in the flower petals until you get that red channel histogram off that right wall.
If you're shooting camera JPEGs you don't have a lot of options.
1. Set a custom white balance -- really helps to have the WB right in camera in this case.
2. You're going to be forced to drop exposure -- minus EC.
3. Consider the picture controls for contrast and saturation and lower them.
4. Problem with steps two and three is that those changes are going to effect the whole photo including all non-red data.

Although this goes against all that I know is holy in photography you do have petal detail in both the green and blue channels and it will help to edit the JPEG and pull back that red channel with a saturation mask which will expose the detail in the other two channels. Like so:

View attachment 123654

Best solution for this kind of problem is to start with a raw file. The JPEG options are both half-baked: bad idea to underexpose and bad idea to try and repair a JPEG.

If I may offer an illustration:

View attachment 123655

I've yet to see a digital camera that doesn't do this. On left you see the JPEG from my camera (I expose for my sensor not the camera JPEG so my JPEGs tend to look even worse -- red channel blown away). On right the processed raw file. If ever there was an argument for why you need to get a raw file, it's a red rose.

Joe

Thank you for taking the time to explain a solution. Now it is making sense. Unfortunately, I have not found a program to open up the Canon Raw file. I haven't looked real hard, I use Linux.

Raw Therapee, and I can help you process that raw file.

Joe

 

[jcdeboever]

Ouch. You've uncovered a rather knotty problem. Did you shoot and try to process a raw file or did you shoot a camera JPEG?

Highly saturated colors, especially in the red range, are difficult. On board camera processors have an especially hard time with them but raw conversion software also struggles. Red flowers are the perfect example. Do a Google search on "red knockout rose" and you can look at a few thousand -- many thousands, of digital photos with nuked red channels. Or better yet search for your scarlet lychnis. Here's the histogram of the red channel from your photo:

View attachment 123652

You can't get detail in the flower petals until you get that red channel histogram off that right wall.
If you're shooting camera JPEGs you don't have a lot of options.
1. Set a custom white balance -- really helps to have the WB right in camera in this case.
2. You're going to be forced to drop exposure -- minus EC.
3. Consider the picture controls for contrast and saturation and lower them.
4. Problem with steps two and three is that those changes are going to effect the whole photo including all non-red data.

Although this goes against all that I know is holy in photography you do have petal detail in both the green and blue channels and it will help to edit the JPEG and pull back that red channel with a saturation mask which will expose the detail in the other two channels. Like so:

View attachment 123654

Best solution for this kind of problem is to start with a raw file. The JPEG options are both half-baked: bad idea to underexpose and bad idea to try and repair a JPEG.

If I may offer an illustration:

View attachment 123655

I've yet to see a digital camera that doesn't do this. On left you see the JPEG from my camera (I expose for my sensor not the camera JPEG so my JPEGs tend to look even worse -- red channel blown away). On right the processed raw file. If ever there was an argument for why you need to get a raw file, it's a red rose.

Joe

Thank you for taking the time to explain a solution. Now it is making sense. Unfortunately, I have not found a program to open up the Canon Raw file. I haven't looked real hard, I use Linux.

Raw Therapee, and I can help you process that raw file.

Joe

Oh good. Now I can set the canon camera to raw. This pic was done in jpeg.

 

[Ysarex122 116]

Ouch. You've uncovered a rather knotty problem. Did you shoot and try to process a raw file or did you shoot a camera JPEG?

Highly saturated colors, especially in the red range, are difficult. On board camera processors have an especially hard time with them but raw conversion software also struggles. Red flowers are the perfect example. Do a Google search on "red knockout rose" and you can look at a few thousand -- many thousands, of digital photos with nuked red channels. Or better yet search for your scarlet lychnis. Here's the histogram of the red channel from your photo:

View attachment 123652

You can't get detail in the flower petals until you get that red channel histogram off that right wall.
If you're shooting camera JPEGs you don't have a lot of options.
1. Set a custom white balance -- really helps to have the WB right in camera in this case.
2. You're going to be forced to drop exposure -- minus EC.
3. Consider the picture controls for contrast and saturation and lower them.
4. Problem with steps two and three is that those changes are going to effect the whole photo including all non-red data.

Although this goes against all that I know is holy in photography you do have petal detail in both the green and blue channels and it will help to edit the JPEG and pull back that red channel with a saturation mask which will expose the detail in the other two channels. Like so:

View attachment 123654

Best solution for this kind of problem is to start with a raw file. The JPEG options are both half-baked: bad idea to underexpose and bad idea to try and repair a JPEG.

If I may offer an illustration:

View attachment 123655

I've yet to see a digital camera that doesn't do this. On left you see the JPEG from my camera (I expose for my sensor not the camera JPEG so my JPEGs tend to look even worse -- red channel blown away). On right the processed raw file. If ever there was an argument for why you need to get a raw file, it's a red rose.

Joe

Thank you for taking the time to explain a solution. Now it is making sense. Unfortunately, I have not found a program to open up the Canon Raw file. I haven't looked real hard, I use Linux.

Raw Therapee, and I can help you process that raw file.

Joe

Oh good. Now I can set the canon camera to raw. This pic was done in jpeg.

I maintain a Linux Mint system for various reasons. When I use that I have Raw Therapee and DarkTable installed for raw conversion along with the latest 2.9 version of GIMP.

Your Canon will save CR2 files and you can work with them using Linux.

Joe

 

[jcdeboever]

Ouch. You've uncovered a rather knotty problem. Did you shoot and try to process a raw file or did you shoot a camera JPEG?

Highly saturated colors, especially in the red range, are difficult. On board camera processors have an especially hard time with them but raw conversion software also struggles. Red flowers are the perfect example. Do a Google search on "red knockout rose" and you can look at a few thousand -- many thousands, of digital photos with nuked red channels. Or better yet search for your scarlet lychnis. Here's the histogram of the red channel from your photo:

View attachment 123652

You can't get detail in the flower petals until you get that red channel histogram off that right wall.
If you're shooting camera JPEGs you don't have a lot of options.
1. Set a custom white balance -- really helps to have the WB right in camera in this case.
2. You're going to be forced to drop exposure -- minus EC.
3. Consider the picture controls for contrast and saturation and lower them.
4. Problem with steps two and three is that those changes are going to effect the whole photo including all non-red data.

Although this goes against all that I know is holy in photography you do have petal detail in both the green and blue channels and it will help to edit the JPEG and pull back that red channel with a saturation mask which will expose the detail in the other two channels. Like so:

View attachment 123654

Best solution for this kind of problem is to start with a raw file. The JPEG options are both half-baked: bad idea to underexpose and bad idea to try and repair a JPEG.

If I may offer an illustration:

View attachment 123655

I've yet to see a digital camera that doesn't do this. On left you see the JPEG from my camera (I expose for my sensor not the camera JPEG so my JPEGs tend to look even worse -- red channel blown away). On right the processed raw file. If ever there was an argument for why you need to get a raw file, it's a red rose.

Joe

Thank you for taking the time to explain a solution. Now it is making sense. Unfortunately, I have not found a program to open up the Canon Raw file. I haven't looked real hard, I use Linux.

Raw Therapee, and I can help you process that raw file.

Joe

Oh good. Now I can set the canon camera to raw. This pic was done in jpeg.

I maintain a Linux Mint system for various reasons. When I use that I have Raw Therapee and DarkTable installed for raw conversion along with the latest 2.9 version of GIMP.

Your Canon will save CR2 files and you can work with them using Linux.

Joe

Super. I use Slackware, like Mint, are fantastic OS's. I usually install Mint on custom builds for people that don't care about OS. Mint is way prettier than Slackware but I am rarely logged into X. I need to do more editing, I usually just go into Gimp and rescale to post on here. My black and whites are the most edited. I am not a huge fan of post work but I guess I need to buckle down on it. Most things I post are right out of the camera.

I figured there was a raw converter out there for CR2 but I really have not had the time to research so thanks for that.

 

[bulldurham]

$10 a month will get you the complete Adobe package for editing..you can choose between LR or PS or both...might also want to make a small investment in a good luminosity masking program...yeah, you can do it without the program but for $40 why suffer through all the steps.

 

[jcdeboever]

$10 a month will get you the complete Adobe package for editing..you can choose between LR or PS or both...might also want to make a small investment in a good luminosity masking program...yeah, you can do it without the program but for $40 why suffer through all the steps.

I run Linux

 

[bulldurham]

Oh...well....LOL