First time this happened
May 29, 2019 13:56:48 #
Norm W.
Loc: Southern CA
I have found that people with alcohol in their bodies have flushed skin which shows red in photos.
May 29, 2019 14:06:05 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
I see a several possibilities, but first need to ask... Is your computer monitor calibrated?
The reason I ask is because both images look pretty darned good on my calibrated monitor. In fact, based on what I see, I wouldn't adjust either one for the skin tones. (I am due for my monthly color calibration, though.)
And, I agree with CHG_CANON about establishing a color space. During post-processing it's your choice which to use... Pro Photo RGB, Adobe RGB or sRGB.... But sRGB should be used for JPEGs shared online. Other uses of the image may be able to use different color spaces... but they won't look "right" unless viewed with the same.
1. Both images have a lot of green in them, especially the second one. That can cause Auto White Balance to give a slight magenta bias to images. I don't see much of that happening here, though.
2. What are you using to view the images? Windows Explorer/Internet Explorer and Picture Viewer are uncalibrated. I'm viewing the images in Firefox, which is calibrated.
3. There can be some variance between lenses. The 70-200mm f/2.8 II uses fluorite, while the 24-70mm doesn't. Different types of glass can render some small differences in how color is renderd. There also can be some variance how different models of cameras render colors... though Canon of relatively similar age tend to be pretty consistent.
4. The "picture style" set in the camera might have some influence on your images, especially if post-processing using DPP and letting it convert RAW files "as shot", but also in other editing software. Most (all I'm aware of) ignore most camera settings... EXCEPT they "honor" the color temp and tint asset by the camera, even when shot RAW. Of course, especially with RAW you're free to change it as you see fit, but initially any display of the image will be based upon how the camera was set.
The EXIF of both your images shows you using "Standard" picture style. "Portrait" might be more to your liking for these shots (if shot RAW, you can experiment with changing it using DPP). I use "Faithful", but often override color rendition in post-processing as needed... it varies a lot depending upon the lighting whenever Auto WB is used. Among other things, the picture style establishes color saturation and contrast in images. You can edit and customize any of the picture styles, though, if you wish.
That said, I once had a large batch of shots show up with a magenta tint. It turned out that somehow the color shift had gotten set in one of the three cameras I was using that day, so every image made with it was biased slightly. It was super easy to fix using the "sync" feature of Lightroom.... I have no idea how the color shift got set in the camera. I never use that feature.
Finally, some people just have "ruddier" skin tones than others. Sometimes it isn't such that you notice it when looking at them, but a camera picks it up. In your two images... in the first both the men have somewhat more red in their faces than the woman... in the second the kid on the right has slightly redder skin tone. In none of them do I see it as a problem. The kid with the redder skin, for example, might just have been out in the sun more or running around and playing harder and a bit "flushed" from exertion.
The reason I ask is because both images look pretty darned good on my calibrated monitor. In fact, based on what I see, I wouldn't adjust either one for the skin tones. (I am due for my monthly color calibration, though.)
And, I agree with CHG_CANON about establishing a color space. During post-processing it's your choice which to use... Pro Photo RGB, Adobe RGB or sRGB.... But sRGB should be used for JPEGs shared online. Other uses of the image may be able to use different color spaces... but they won't look "right" unless viewed with the same.
1. Both images have a lot of green in them, especially the second one. That can cause Auto White Balance to give a slight magenta bias to images. I don't see much of that happening here, though.
2. What are you using to view the images? Windows Explorer/Internet Explorer and Picture Viewer are uncalibrated. I'm viewing the images in Firefox, which is calibrated.
3. There can be some variance between lenses. The 70-200mm f/2.8 II uses fluorite, while the 24-70mm doesn't. Different types of glass can render some small differences in how color is renderd. There also can be some variance how different models of cameras render colors... though Canon of relatively similar age tend to be pretty consistent.
4. The "picture style" set in the camera might have some influence on your images, especially if post-processing using DPP and letting it convert RAW files "as shot", but also in other editing software. Most (all I'm aware of) ignore most camera settings... EXCEPT they "honor" the color temp and tint asset by the camera, even when shot RAW. Of course, especially with RAW you're free to change it as you see fit, but initially any display of the image will be based upon how the camera was set.
The EXIF of both your images shows you using "Standard" picture style. "Portrait" might be more to your liking for these shots (if shot RAW, you can experiment with changing it using DPP). I use "Faithful", but often override color rendition in post-processing as needed... it varies a lot depending upon the lighting whenever Auto WB is used. Among other things, the picture style establishes color saturation and contrast in images. You can edit and customize any of the picture styles, though, if you wish.
That said, I once had a large batch of shots show up with a magenta tint. It turned out that somehow the color shift had gotten set in one of the three cameras I was using that day, so every image made with it was biased slightly. It was super easy to fix using the "sync" feature of Lightroom.... I have no idea how the color shift got set in the camera. I never use that feature.
Finally, some people just have "ruddier" skin tones than others. Sometimes it isn't such that you notice it when looking at them, but a camera picks it up. In your two images... in the first both the men have somewhat more red in their faces than the woman... in the second the kid on the right has slightly redder skin tone. In none of them do I see it as a problem. The kid with the redder skin, for example, might just have been out in the sun more or running around and playing harder and a bit "flushed" from exertion.
May 29, 2019 14:16:43 #
Phhfft.. everyone's blood pressure is up and it was humid that day just more reasons to be red faced.
May 29, 2019 14:19:03 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
Bokehen wrote:
Phhfft.. everyone's blood pressure is up and it was humid that day just more reasons to be red faced.
Speaking of "phhfft"... maybe the slightly red complexions are because they've just eaten a plate full of baked beans and are holding back a bit of gas.
May 29, 2019 18:14:51 #
John_F wrote:
The two men are somewhat ruddy faced, but the woman is not. So maybe the men are wearing their natural face colors and you made no mistake.
Yes, and the seated man has a pale hand, suggesting again that there's no mistake here
May 29, 2019 19:44:22 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Why start a guess game? Assuming you desire some actual help rather than simple amusement, post and store an example.
And why not say that in a nice way?
May 30, 2019 21:32:30 #
when you look the the speaker vs. the lady and the guy who are sitting you have about three different light and shade fall off. Clouds and trees create different light and shades........Normally you would adjust the white balance but in this case it's really difficult.......
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.