xamier Loc: Citronelle, Alabama

Good Morning,
I downloaded some images last night, portraits using hot lights. (I can't post, the model was underage and I don't have a release)

On the camera screen many of the photos seemed perfectly exposed. When I downloaded into light room on my laptop, I had to add at least one stop, sometimes more to get them light enough to see. I am using a Nikon 5300 and a Tamron 18-400 mm lens. I shoot in raw, the white balance was incandescent, picture control standard, color space adobe, ISO 500.

I am wondering if it is the adobe color space, my monitor, the hot lights......I have never run into this problem before and I would love to understand what is happening and any insight into the differences between what I see on the camera monitor and my computer.

Thank you .

SonyA580 Loc: FL in the winter & MN in the summer

Probably need to adjust your monitor to match the camera.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

A lot of this modern photography stuff requires the equipment to be synced. This could simply be a matter of your monitor not being calibrated. There are some great tools for this, Datacolor and Xrite both manufacture monitor calibration tools.

As for exposure, it's still pretty simple. The basic f-stop is equal to 1/ISO. The shutter speed is equal to 1/foot-candles to place the measured subject in Zone V.
--Bob

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

FYI...if you shoot RAW the picture control settings do not apply. That is only for JPG.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

Look at the histogram in Lightroom. If it show correct exposure, the problem could be that your monitor screen is not calibrated for brightness and color. For consistent editing, you need a calibration tool such as the Spyder Pro+ that will calibrate your screen and automatically adjust its brightness in various ambient lighting conditions.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It is probably a combination of factors. If your "hot lights" are type ECA photo lamps or quartz-halogen stage/studio lamps, they should be 3200K, and the "Incandescent" white balance setting should work.

When you save *raw* images at the camera, the color space is irrelevant when you process the *raw* data. But KNOW THIS: Your post-processing software or operating system will apply the proper *camera* profile to the raw file, and convert it to a 16-bit bitmap image in a wide gamut "connection" or "working" color space. THAT bitmap gets converted to monitor RGB (6, 8, or 10 bits per channel), and run through the appropriate monitor profile before display. That is why it is absolutely necessary to:

A) Use a monitor capable of displaying a wide color gamut (wide range of color saturation and brightness)
B) Use a monitor of at least 8-bits per channel display output (24 bits per pixel, or 16,777,216 colors)
C) Use a colorimeter or spectrophotometer and software to calibrate and custom profile your monitor

When you adjust images on a properly calibrated and custom-profiled monitor worthy of photographic editing, you are seeing the best representation of what is in your file. ASSUMING you're doing that, you may proceed to export images. That may be in any number of bit-depths, or color profiles.

The *camera's* profile setting only affects the JPEG preview image stuffed into the raw file, and/or any JPEG file you save separately. It MAY, based on the EXIF table tag, tell post-processing software to put the processed raw image into the Adobe RGB color space, but you can certainly change that when you export/save the adjusted file.

Even if you calibrate it and profile it with a calibration kit, it is highly unlikely that your laptop monitor can display enough of the Adobe RGB color space to be usable as an editing tool. Many laptop monitors are 6-bit monitors with extreme fall-off as you move left and right from the screen. While you may be able to calibrate and profile them, the result is no where near as accurate as a properly calibrated and custom-profiled *desktop* monitor.

I always advise people to use the sRGB color space at the camera. "8-bit JPEG files in sRGB" is the world standard for the Internet, and most photo labs prefer (less compressed, higher resolution) 8-bit JPEGs in sRGB as well. If you need to supply files in Adobe RGB, you need to evaluate them and adjust them ONLY on a monitor capable of displaying that wide gamut color space. Such monitors aren't cheap.

I also advise people to use Adobe RGB ONLY WHEN A LAB, PUBLISHER, OR SERVICE BUREAU SPECIFICALLY REQUESTS IT. The best way to do this is to work from raw images, adjust them on a calibrated and profiled monitor capable of displaying at least 99% of Adobe RGB color space, and export them to the exact specs required for bit-depth, file type, and profile.

The key to achieving realistic, "what I see on my monitor is what's really in my files and what prints" color is a combination of:

Exposure (nail it!)
White balance (Custom is best, based on a standard target used for both JPEG capture and raw file "click balance," but Kelvin and the camera's own choices can work. AVOID AWB.)
Raw capture
Raw conversion from the camera profile
Monitor quality, monitor calibration, custom monitor profile
Image adjustment by a person with accurate color vision (Take the Munsell Hue Test at http://www.colormunki.com/game/huetest_kiosk.)
Proper choice of output parameters (bit depth, file type, compression, resolution, color space required for the end use)
Printing with a properly calibrated and profiled system in good working order.

It may be interesting to note that many of the largest portrait producers in the world have all-JPEG, sRGB workflows. We did where I worked... We made millions of portraits every year using JPEG capture under controlled lighting, with exposure referenced to a standard target also used for custom white balance.

The Adobe RGB setting ON A CAMERA is primarily for press photographers who must submit JPEGs directly from the field to their editors/publishers for immediate use. The editor or publisher has a wee bit more information to play with when the photographer uses Adobe RGB. But their workflows are set up to accommodate it. They have the right monitors, calibrators, and other workflow components to make it work.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

An idea that is even better: look at the histogram on the camera for your test shots. You cannot effectively judge exposure from the image display on the camera's LCD. Many cameras automatically adjust the brightness of the display on the back of the camera so that you are not seeing how the image actually looks. The histogram shows you exactly the tonal distribution of the image. If you're underexposing your images, you will see this issue in the histogram while you can react and correct the exposure settings while capturing images rather than discovering the issue later.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Of course, you have to be careful with that, if you're photographing low key or high key subject matter.

A correct exposure of a low key subject (say, an African American in a black graduation robe and cap against a black Velcro background) will have a histogram skewed far to the left, because only a few tones define the subject. If you increase exposure of a low key subject much above that of a normally exposed gray card, you may just ruin the effect.

If you decrease exposure of a high key subject (Caucasian blonde in white dress against white wall) much below that of a normally exposed gray card, you may dull the background that you spent so much time lighting evenly to render it just barely white.

A histogram does not indicate correct exposure. It just tells you the *relative* distribution of tones in the image.

Know that tones between about 18 and 236 on the 0-255 scale will be printable on silver halide papers used by photo labs. High end inkjet extends that a bit (on the right glossy papers) to 12-242 or so.

A normal, correctly white-balanced exposure of an 18% gray card yields a spike in the histogram that reads about 119, 119, 119 to 124, 124, 124 for a JPEG. That leaves a little headroom for highlight detail retention. If you are using a raw file workflow, you can push that gray card histogram spike to the right a bit, but you have to experiment to know how far.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Well there’s your problem, you’re using a Nikon!!!
My Canon never does that!!!
Hey, just kidding....., just didn’t want to say I have no clue!!! LoL
SS

xamier Loc: Citronelle, Alabama

Wow, what great information. Thank you everyone.

I'm a beginner regarding manuel settings, lights ..... I am taking "enrichment" photo classes from our local college.

The monitor on my laptop has 105% of sRGB and 72% of adobe RGB . It has a 3840x2160 (UHD) monitor. (A new monitor is on my wish list) I don't know what the color Chanel's are or how to find them. I calibrated the monitor with software .

I will put my cameras settings back to regular sRGB. , I thought more would be better.

Do you'all recommend setting the raw recording on my camera back to 12 bit instead of14?

I am still learning to understand the histogram. It is sounding like correct exposure takes a lot of experience that I will be working towards , until then I guess under is better than over. At least I'm not blowing out details.

Sorry for rambling, I really appreciate the help.
Respectfully,
Betty

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Color channel is 0-255 Red, or 0-255 Green, or 0-255 Blue, assuming you have an 8-bit per channel monitor.

(An 8-bit binary number can count from 0-255. 0 in base 10 = 00000000 (black) in binary. 255 in base 10 is 11111111 (white or full saturation color). Computers use binary because they are boxes full of billions of on-off switches, and circuits to flip them.)

By all means, stick to 14-bit raw if your camera records it.

Your monitor should be fine for sRGB, but I would question the ability of software alone to do a photo grade calibration and custom ICC profiling. For that, you really need a hardware plus software solution from X-Rite or DataColor.

xamier Loc: Citronelle, Alabama

Thank you Mr Burk,
I will put the software/hardware solution on my list of things I need and I will continue to work towards increasing my understanding of photography and processing.

Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD

Please note right now I'm giving Burk the "I'm not worthy" bow but having also been in the school picture business and training hundreds of people without the ability to provide calibrated light meters to every photographer I came to use the following SIMPLE method with excellent results. Take a small (2-3 inch) piece of white paper, hold it directly in front of a test subject's face and purposely overexpose with the camera highlight indicator set to ON. Then reduce aperture or flash power in 1/3 stop increments. When the paper stops blinking, stop down an additional 1/3 stop. Once this is achieved you will have consistent Jpeg images without the need for post processing adjustment. This can be done in any fixed lighting situation in the studio or available light. The only variable is the color and density of the white paper. We were able to use a constant "camera card" which was part of the photographers paperwork. The back side of a Gray Card is a consistent white that can be used as well. Ratio lighting can be achieved by setting the camera aperture to the required light output and adjusting power independently with the white card in place.

xamier Loc: Citronelle, Alabama

Thanks Tomfl101,
A simple inexpensive method is very helpful, I will give it a try while I am saving up for the calibrated equipment. :)

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind