# Too dark- or OK?



## Peeb (Mar 3, 2018)




----------



## smoke665 (Mar 3, 2018)

I think the biggest issue is WB, it looks like there's to much red. Here's a quick edit, with a WB adjustment and only +12 on exposure. Might want to adjust your lighting to decrease the specular highlights on the right.


----------



## Peeb (Mar 3, 2018)

@smoke665 :  I dropped the reds -40 and moved the WB a bit 'bluer' and dropped the  highlights.  Also desaturated since I think it was over-saturation that was lending a 'darkness'.  Good thoughts!


----------



## Peeb (Mar 3, 2018)

And going warm with the WB


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 3, 2018)

Peeb said:


> dropped the reds -40 and moved the WB a bit 'bluer' and dropped the highlights. Also desaturated since I think it was over-saturation that was lending a 'darkness'. Good thoughts!



Going to the blue side was the wrong way, in the second you're getting there. I haven't calibrated my monitor since the update last week, but the last still has pink overtones. Here's the settings I used
    

EDIT: Just recalibrated monitor, no change in what I'm seeing.


----------



## gk fotografie (Mar 3, 2018)

I think the image looks pretty good, but if you want you could lighten the inside of the pan - so not the entire image - just a tiny bit and brighten (use your curves slider) the orange color a bit. Absolutely no need to start changing color of the fruit, it's fine. And...I sharpened the image slightly.


View attachment 154595


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 3, 2018)

@Peeb If you don't have one of these, I'd highly suggest getting one. I use mine frequently to double check myself

https://www.amazon.com/Cox-133343-C...coding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=R38TT5J50EWZWDS1R7M5


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 3, 2018)

@Braineack  was it your intention to disagree with my edit and if so what part specifically do disagree with?


----------



## Braineack (Mar 3, 2018)

Was bad; gets the stick


----------



## Braineack (Mar 3, 2018)

Still looks bad. Look how green everything is now. The wb wasn't a problem in the original shot.


----------



## jcdeboever (Mar 4, 2018)

I think the original is just fine.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 4, 2018)

espresso2x said:


> A quick levels adjustment Peeb, raise the midpoint to 1.10 or 1.20 or so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you forgot to make it really green.


----------



## terri (Mar 4, 2018)

Keep comments on topic and minus any snark.  It does nothing to actually help the OP to simply slap the "Disagree" button on posts without offering anything tangible in return. 

Thanks!


----------



## john.margetts (Mar 4, 2018)

I think the white balance is fine in the original post, but saturation is boosted too far.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 4, 2018)

@Peeb Adjusting WB in the absence of a reference (something white or a neutral gray) is always difficult. Usually I try to look for a known object to which I can sample for color, in this case the orange in the foreground. True orange (color wheel orange) in web color is a mixture of Red and Green, by the numbers, it is  RGB(255,165,0). Citrus orange on the other hand is not true orange it has some green and yellow in it (look at an orange on a tree and you'll see this).  Looking at the numbers on citrus orange, the red and green remain pretty close to the same but blue is introduced. The closest numbers I could find for Citrus Orange is RGB(255,176,37).

     When I sampled the orange in Peeb's OP I came up with an average of RGB(161,65,10). I could have pulled the image into PS and adjusted by the numbers from there, but instead I did a quick edit by eye in LR.  While I got closer to the citrus orange color (mine sampled RGB(221,107,26)) it still isn't quite the ideal, but I wasn't trying to correct the image merely give an example of the direction. With any significant color/hue shift the proper way would have been to use layers with masks, to limit the shift rather than apply it to the whole image.

     So, yes in the original image the WB was off. To some degree WB can also be affected by exposure and saturation, and vice versa. By  warming the temperature, and adjusting the hue, to the eye it looked brighter. Interestingly @espresso2x touched on a method of selective color adjustment with his suggestion of using a Levels adjustment. If you first open an info panel, then use the color sampling tool it will give you an RGB numerical benchmark. Then open the levels adjustment, select your red, green, or blue channel, and move the center point up or down while watching your info panel, you can see when you reach the RGB numbers you want. @john.margetts also touched on a point when he mentioned saturation. Saturation affects the RGB for any given color, so if you want an accurate color match you need to also watch your info panel while adjusting saturation by channel rather then master. 

      All this may be more than you asked for when you said  "To Dark - or OK", but I was merely trying to point out there was more to the answer than just a bump in exposure, and of course all of this is irrelevant, if the OP was your  artistic vision.


----------



## Peeb (Mar 4, 2018)

I found the WB discussion really helpful- thanks!

OTOH, maybe oranges are just too 'big' a topic- I'll drop down to a more manageable citrus...


----------



## Braineack (Mar 5, 2018)

terri said:


> Keep comments on topic and minus any snark.  It does nothing to actually help the OP to simply slap the "Disagree" button on posts without offering anything tangible in return.
> 
> Thanks!



but I love sass!

I don't find subjectively bad edits to pictures which made the image look worse that helpful either. The two following pictures that were posted by the OP were exponentially worse due to smoke's first edit...

IMO, slapping the disagree button on the edits expressed everything I needed ( I wasn't singling anyone out, I did on the OP's own, and LIKED the edit that I felt was actually good -- I'd disagree with john's above as well).

But yes, I was on my phone, and hate typing on it so I wasn't able to offer more.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 5, 2018)

Braineack said:


> terri said:
> 
> 
> > Keep comments on topic and minus any snark.  It does nothing to actually help the OP to simply slap the "Disagree" button on posts without offering anything tangible in return.
> ...



And again you seem intent on being nothing more than an antagonistic boor, by offering nothing constructive, only negativity. In response to the OP's question, I and others have not only shown suggestions, but explained our reasoning behind same, if you feel you have some hereto not revealed wisdom to share, then perhaps you will do so sans the negativity and drama, as I assumed we were all here to learn.


----------



## SquarePeg (Mar 5, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> And again you seem intent on being nothing more than an antagonistic boor, by offering nothing constructive, only negativity. In response to the OP's question, I and others have not only shown suggestions, but explained our reasoning behind same, if you feel you have some hereto not revealed wisdom to share, then perhaps you will do so sans the negativity and drama, as I assumed we were all here to learn.



I don't think name calling is appropriate.  Someone didn't like your edit, it wasn't a personal attack.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 5, 2018)

SquarePeg said:


> I don't think name calling is appropriate. Someone didn't like your edit, it wasn't a personal attack.



Have no problem with criticism on an edit, I welcome it, that's how I learn and grow going forward. Where the rub comes in is when someone offers up continued critical comments without explaining their position, nor offering alternatives of their own. FYI my edit wasn't the only one. I think Terry said it quite well above  _"Keep comments on topic and minus any snark. It does nothing to actually help the OP to simply slap the "Disagree" button on posts without offering anything tangible in return." _I'd determined to drop it and let it go, after Terry's earlier comment, and I'm perfectly willing to let it go again, and would view other edits  with an objective eye towards learning.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 5, 2018)

Some of the suggested edits posted here aren't good -- despite whatever justification might put behind it.

The WB on the OP's image was fine -- the reflection of light coming off the pot/pan handle looks good, looks about what I'd expect from the reflection of SS. And it's easily recognizable as an orange, albeit may a touch oversaturated and a touch too dark overall.

Smoke, your particular edit turned the entire image green, like a green color overlay has been screened over the image.. Look at the reflections on the pot: they are obtusely green, the stem is now green. I believe it ruined the shot overall in order to try to color correct the orange without regard to the rest, which I question even needed color correcting in the first place.

I gave it a "disagree" because as soon as I viewed it, I didn't want the OP to think that was the correct direction to take with and edit -- but down the rabbit hole the OP went: OP's following edit looked like a cross-processed preset; given the "disagree". And the following shot worse, and again, given the "disagree".  All three are not good edits and going down the wrong direction.

I then gave gk an "agree" as his edit is tasteful and headed in the right direction.  GK is also a boor who believed messing with the colors wasn't the right direction.

again, I was on my phone and really dislike typing on it -- so yes, that was a disservice, but at the time I really didn't think it needed much more explaining behind it.  I felt it was pretty clear I didn't agree with the edit.   My initial comment to you after you asked was completely in jest, but I can see how it was taken the wrong way.  When you gave me the disagree, I gave my explanation.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 5, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> ....I think Terry said it quite well above  _"Keep comments on topic and minus any snark. It does nothing to actually help the OP to simply slap the "Disagree" button on posts without offering anything tangible in return."_.


While she raises an excellent point, let's all try and remember that it is a "Disagree" button, NOT a "You're wrong you stupid donkey-hole" button.  Use of the "Disagree" button does not imply that someone is wrong, rather that someone else dimply disagrees.  You might think the saturation needs boosting, I don't; I disagree with you.  I'm lazy, and hit the "Disagree" button.  Please don't read anything more into it than that.  No one complains when people agree with them....


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 5, 2018)

Braineack said:


> Smoke, your particular edit turned the entire image green, like a green color overlay has been screened over the image.. Look at the reflections on the pot: they are obtusely green, the stem is now green. I believe it ruined the shot overall in order to try to color correct the orange without regard to the rest, which I question even needed color correcting in the first place.



Thank you for responding, I can appreciate and accept your opinion on the reason for this criticism. I also agree that the green tint in the handle was likely incorrect.  In the edit I said "_Here's a quick edit, with a WB adjustment and only +12 on exposure", _I assumed it would be understood that it was global adjustment, as I was only working the orange as a known color, that was wrong on my part. I went on to explain why I felt the color of the orange color was incorrect basing it on both the standard RGB for orange, and a sample RGB for Citrus Orange, which I still feel was correct. In any case the comments and opinions on this forum are what make it such a valuable source of knowledge and look forward to future discussions.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 5, 2018)




----------



## terri (Mar 5, 2018)

Braineack said:


> terri said:
> 
> 
> > Keep comments on topic and minus any snark.  It does nothing to actually help the OP to simply slap the "Disagree" button on posts without offering anything tangible in return.
> ...


I appreciate the extended reply.  I'm hoping you now appreciate that using the "Disagree" button alone, with no followup comments, can easily be taken the wrong way.

Perhaps just waiting for a better time to respond more fully might be best in the future.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 5, 2018)

I almost never use the disagree button, but I simply felt compelled to use it today because the editing suggestion offered was very,very much one I utterly disagreed with. Totally the wrong direction to go, and vastly worse than any of the (subsequent?) edits, or the original. I had reservations about using it....out of tens of thousands of replies on TPF, I've used the disagree button probably less than two dozen times. At least that's my impression of the count on that button's use.

*Received:* *Given:*





 15,246 17,625





 3,019 3,413





 39 54





 863 1,513





 265 953





 631 587





 256 18

I guess I'm wrong...*I have given 54 "Disagrees", and received 39*. I have given 17,625 likes, and have given 3,413 "Agrees".


----------



## SCraig (Mar 5, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> @Peeb Adjusting WB in the absence of a reference (something white or a neutral gray) is always difficult......



There IS white in the original photo.  There are neutral gray areas all over the place.  Most of the pan is neutral gray (actually a few points on the blue side), and when I set a gray point anywhere on it the white balance doesn't change significantly.  I agree with Braineack, there's nothing wrong with the white balance at all.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 5, 2018)

SCraig said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> > @Peeb Adjusting WB in the absence of a reference (something white or a neutral gray) is always difficult......
> ...



SO...I pulled the original image into Lightroom, and eye-droppered all over the pan's handle...multiple times on the white, diffuse highlight...multiple times on the stainless steel, in multiple places...in 15 different eye-dropped white balance efforts that I did, I got VERY little color shift on the orange's peel color. There is _nothing_ wrong with the white balance of the original. It was perfectly fine. As to the shadows inside the pan...a bit dark, yeah, in my opinion the image felt *a bit dark,* a bit 'heavy',so to speak. So, as to the OP's title, "Too dark or ok?" I guess I'd say just a bit too dark.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 6, 2018)

@Derrel Sometimes a thread comes along, that morphs into a good learning experience, such is the case here. My thanks to the OP for posting as it’s made me think, read and learn.

     In the OP is an image, that has garnered several different opinions on the direction needed to correct it, and even sparking a few tempers.  First there are no areas that you could assume would be either a true white, true black or 18% gray. As the color, finish, reflections, light, etc. of the pan is unknown, the only thing with any supposedly known hue would be the orange.

     Like the game where you put an object in a box and ask people to reach in and describe the object, the opinions tend to vary, but in the end,  you find there are similarities in each description.
,
     I first mentioned WB as a problem. Cambridge color defines WB as “the process of removing unrealistic color casts, so that objects which appear white in person are rendered white in your photo”. Understanding White Balance Color Temperature of the light source, can impart a coolness or warmth to the light, that while our eye can adjust for white the camera can’t and will impart unrealistic color of objects in the image. Color is the visual byproduct of the spectrum of light as it is either transmitted through a transparent medium, or as it is absorbed and reflected off a surface and is the light wavelengths that the human eye receives and processes from a reflected source. Consequently, the color of the light illuminating the object will ultimately alter the quality of the reflected light seen by the camera.

     The first image is a sample of the orange in the original image, note the rgb values in the info box.





The second image is the OP’s image adjusted to “standard orange” by channel via levels in PS. I apologize if my clipping tool has distorted the JPG, but I can assure you the numerical values are correct.  I used the orange, because there is numerical data out there to verify what it should be. Rapid Tables Orange color code - RGB orange color and others list the rgb for “standard orange” as rgb(255,165,0).  Again, note the rgb values in the info box.





I discovered by accident a year or so ago, that oranges are not orange, they are more accurately  described as Citrus Orange. Pantone PANTONE 14-0955 TPX Citrus - Find a Pantone Color | Quick Online Color Tool lists the rgb for “Citrus Orange” as rgb(255,176,37) which introduces a green into the color. The third image is a clip of the OP image adjusted via LR temperature adjustment only, note the numerical values. Is this the correct WB for the whole image, probably not, but you can see that WB has most certainly affected the color perceived, when you compare it the OP image clip above, as well as the brightness of the image.





     When discussing primary colors Reg, Yellow, Blue it’s important to remember that no white, gray, or black is added, and the saturation is 100%.  Colors found between the primaries (secondary) are comprised of three parts 1) Hue a combination of primary colors, 2)Value, and 3) Saturation.

     “Hue” is specifically described by the dominant wavelength and is the first item you refer to when adding in the three components of a color. Hue is also a term which describes a dimension of color we readily experience.  “Value” refers to the lightness or darkness of a color. It indicates the quantity of light reflected. Over exposing or underexposing an image will have a bearing on the color perceived by changing the quantity of the reflected light. In the OP the poster “perceived” the problem as one of exposure, which was in part a correct observation. The final component of a secondary color, saturation, defines the brilliance and intensity of a color. When a pigment hue is “toned,” both white and black (grey) are added to the color to reduce the color’s saturation, and which changes the “perception” of the secondary color. So those who commented that the problem was in saturation were also correct.

    I know this is rather long, but sometimes a simple answer isn’t always the correct one. In this case we all reached into the box, and came up with a different conclusion, but in the end we all hit on the right points.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 6, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> First there are no areas that you could assume would be either a true white, true black or 18% gray. As the color, finish, reflections, light, etc. of the pan is unknown, the only thing with any supposedly known hue would be the orange.



?????  the pan is OBVIOUSLY stainless steel and there are clear light reflections on it AND specular highlights on the orange.



I brought the image into polarr (I don't have editing software here), and pressed one button "auto enhance"





image brightness has been corrected, and you can see no touch to temp/tint, but a lot of vibrance was removed.  I'd say that's a nice and realistic looking orange color. Still probably a touch too much saturation on it, but again, I pressed one button.

Shadow, the two you posted just look too pale/yellow to be believable as an orange fruit.

when I bring this into MS Paint and check the color:






246, 108, 16 compared to 255,176,37






I *would not* be targeting that pantone color.  I eat an orange almost ever day and that simply looks way too yellow.  I just held up a banana to my screen and it's not far off...



so I took another 3 seconds and lowered the saturation a bit, and took out some of the reds:





orange is picking the same, but getting that red out of there is helping.  I think is still a little dark overall

So here's another look at the colors in the image, the only change I made is the exposure:





and compared to your pantone.


IMO, the exposure was the issue on this image, not the color.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 6, 2018)

Braineack said:


> I would not be targeting that pantone color. I eat an orange almost ever day and that simply looks way too yellow.



Couple of things come to mind, remember I said one of the parts to hue is value??? Raising the exposure (Brightness) changes hue. Changing saturation/vibrance will also alter the hue. I was trying to keep the data numeric for comparison, to eliminate the "other factor" that affects  perception  - "memory color". The color we have hardwired in our brain as to how we should recognize something.  As to the color of the orange you get from the store compared to the orange on the tree, its well.... "apples and oranges". LOL Check out the last photo on the link, that's a pretty good representation of a "real orange" Everything You Know Is Wrong; Oranges Aren’t Orange - Now You Know Like you most would turn up their nose at a green orange, but thanks to FDA allowance, that orange you eat every day, has likely had "makeup" applied  CPG Sec. 550.625 Oranges - Artificial Coloring . Get into the farmers markets and groves of FL and you see them in their natural state.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 6, 2018)

you can keep mansplaining all you want...


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 6, 2018)

Braineack said:


> you can keep mansplaining all you want...



If nothing else it's been an interesting journey!!! By the way that orange you eat everyday, it's not a Honeybell is it? Saw a lot of those being advertised last month as "oranges", when they aren't. They're actually a cross between a grapefruit and a tangerine,  have a really orange color when they're ripe, and taste like a sweet orange.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 6, 2018)

I just go for navel.  I want pink grapefruits actually, but I can never find them -- only ruby red.


----------



## Peeb (Mar 7, 2018)

Braineack said:


> I just go for navel.  I want pink grapefruits actually, but I can never find them -- only ruby red.


 Orange haters are gonna hate!  LOL. 

 Actually, now I’m dying for some grapefruit...


----------



## Derrel (Mar 7, 2018)

smoke665 said:
			
		

> *First there are no areas that you could assume would be either a true white, true black or 18% gray. As the color, finish, reflections, light, etc. of the pan is unknown, the only thing with any supposedly known hue would be the orange*.



Uh...NO.

The pan's handle is obviously steel-colored and is a neutral. And there's no need to have a "true" white, nor a "true" black, nor an "18% gray" to set a white balance: a NEUTRAL will do, and the pan's handle worked for me, and for another poster,and neutrals will help to set a WB quite easily. Sorry...but there were, very early on, some major blunders in trying to re-jigger an acceptably white-balanced image. I see this a lot here, and I saw your poker chip effort some time ago, where you white-balanced-away all the character in another poster's still life.

The OP asked if the shot was okay, or too dark.

The shot was, perhaps, a bit too dark. And the white balance was acceptably set.

Mathematically sampling color tones is a fun exercise, but in the end, it's the pictorial effect that counts.


----------



## birdbonkers84 (Mar 8, 2018)

shot looks fine to me Peeb, hence why I like it on flickr, I like the citrus reflection on the pan handle, I like the specular highlight and i love the glossy highlight of the orange skin.


----------

