Hangingon Loc: NW North Dakota

First let me thank all the Hoggers who have provided information to fellow members in the past. A couple of recent topics have made me rethink my photo processing. I am red/green color blind and do minimal processing. I use jpeg and leave the color affecting sliders alone and adjust the exposure, contrast and sharpness.

If I were to open a Raw (nef) file in Photoshop Elements and select "Auto" adjust, would the colors be better, worse or very similar to the camera's (Nikon) jpeg file? If they were the same I could use a raw file, auto correct and have more leeway when correcting for exposure, contrast and other non-color affecting elements. Would white balance present a problem?

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

There is a solution that may work for you. It involves using an XRite ColorChecker Passport calibration target to measure color before taking the picture, then create a camera profile which is then applied to all the images taken in the same light as the shot of the target. The color will be 100% accurate to neutral. It even has calibration patches should you want to slightly warm or cool down the resulting color and white balance.

When I have work that needs to be color-accurate, it's what I use. It takes the guesswork out of the workflow.

This video shows how it works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDtebpvATzc

Also it is good to know the range of RGB and CMYK values for skin tones

http://help.smugmug.com/customer/portal/articles/93363
http://newbornphotography.com/blog/using-the-numbers-to-correct-skin-tones
https://photography.tutsplus.com/tutorials/balancing-skin-tone-and-creating-skin-tone-references--cms-22231

Another trick I use that is surprisingly accurate for portraiture is to use the white balance eyedropper to measure the white of the eye. I would say that it is accurate about 95% of the time.

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

This is great advice for everyone and a reasonable solution for people with colorblind issues.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

Most people suggest that Raw looks washed out compared to the camera Jpeg, however if you are using an auto setting to adjust the colour of both a jpeg and a Raw then there should be little difference surely. I guess that auto colour should be done after contrast and any other recovery.
Canon and Sony give me a setting for saving Raw + L Jpeg . That will give you two images of the same thing when downloaded (Check the tic box on your software)! Try using both methods and either post on here or ask a friend where the difference lies. It would seem a cheaper 'work around' in the first instance but the equipment to assist in colour correctness 'in camera' may be a better long term solution. However, remember we all see colour differently so there is never going to be a 'colour correct' image.
Have fun

Pepsiman Loc: New York City

Thanks for posting...

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Thanks! I have a student with some color loss, and this works very well for her.

rfmaude41 Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)

DataColor has a very similar system (both 12 patch and 24 patch).

Hangingon Loc: NW North Dakota

Thanks everyone for your help. I have read the information provided and the color checkers would definitely work for portraits. BandH recently had them on sale and I did read up on them. However I shoot primarily sports and wildlife. I do include participants when the opportunity presents itself. In the past I have shown air show photos with pink clouds and wildlife with a green cast. Looked ok to me but it is somewhat embarrassing when someone points it out. Motor sports have not been a problem because as long as the car or motorcycle is recognizable everyone seems happy. For hockey I use an "ExpoDisc" to set white balance and shoot jpegs which limits the pp. Just trying to find an idiot proof solution to my problem.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

The color checker works in outdoor sports settings very well as long as the lighting isn't changing much. You have an open shade/blue sky condition, and a sunlight one. If shooting into late afternoon, the color temp of the sun will change, so you take another reading. If there are passing clouds, you take another reading when the clouds pass, otherwise, you can use the open shade reading. This works for sports, airshows, motorsports, etc. I use it for equestrian competitions and really fast indoor table tennis competitions - but under fluorescent lights there is the issue of cycling, which will make about 1/3 to 1/2 of the images different in color and lighting, because the lights will cycle. The only time it won't make a difference is if you can keep the shutter speed longer than 1/120 but with table tennis this is not an option.

Wildlife is similar - but you may have to walk a bit to get a shot of the target in the same light as the subject. You have basically four conditions - sunlight, open shade, and light filtered through the canopy if shooting in a forest, and a mix of filtered light and any of the above. The last case is difficult, since if you read light for the green canopy, any direct sunlight will come out with a heavy magenta cast. The only reliable method to address this is with a locally applied filter in post processing - which would be hard for you. You'd have to do it by the numbers - comparing say a green leaf under the canopy with one that is directly lit, then matching the RGB or CMYK values by adjusting them for the sunlit areas, and using either a locally applied filter in LR or ON1 or PS, or a mask and composite approach. It can be done but it's a lot of work.

Gibar

https://youtu.be/suAgMCcjZ8I
You may find this link interesting.