• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname


    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Color Correction tools help!


New member
I'm currently using PS CS2 right now to correct my images and I find it time consuming and very tedious. I'm looking at Gary Fong's Bullzeye3 and Pictocolor iCorrect Edit Lab Pro 5.0 to help me out. Does anyone have any reccommendations for either of those products? Positive or Negative experiences? Please help.

I'm looking at both sites and the screen shots are almost if not identical. Are there any differences?



Personally, I just shoot with a daylight white balance (in all lighting) and tweak it to suit my tastes on a calibrated display. The only tweak I have considered is using a barely blue/cyan tinted white paint chip to get a warmer custom white balance.

As to casts, I rarely if ever get them if I cannot see them with my eyes. And if I can see them with my eyes, then I can always correct them in PS worst case. But for the small percentage that need changes in white balance I find that the RAW converter (I use several) handles it well 99% or more of the time.

In the end though, what I really want is the final image to be true to my mind's eyes and not to "reality". This is because I do not see color the same way a camera captures it and hence there is no reason to dwell on it.

As to minor tweaks to white balance, they are easily done in PS (Levels or Curves) and in the RAW converter for major tweaks.

Hence, if you are looking at buying software I might suggest exploring shooting RAW first.

some thoughts,


some thoughts,


Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi David,

I have used Pictocolor iCorrect Edit Lab Pro 4.0 not 5.0. The program may become less relevent if one has controlled lighting and use a grey card in your shots.

However, if one has picture from a vaction where one has no gear or wedding reception with 20 different Tungsten and Fluorescent lighting and a few windows, this plugin comes to life. One click can get rid of casts. It has its own ideas for contrast, Black and white points, saturation and what faces and grass should look like. Sometimes the face colors are pretty orange. It all depends on what and where one samples the skin.
This is why I always use this, like ANY filter on only one layer, and then blend back to taste.

However, it may still take you only so far. I find that I can select parts of the image to get white, black and grey even without this tool, just from my experience. Every so often, maybe when I get a bunch of jpg images from someone ele, out comes that plug in for the 5 second fix! For really difficult pictures, I do one correction with icorrect and then one by eye. Often they are different just by some hue. I find that blending the two versions gets a little more to something I am most pleased with.

There are others who use these programs in their regular workflow and I understand why, iCorrect Edit Lab Pro gets one a good part of the way without a lot of stress. However, with experience, is it faster than working with RAW? I don't think so!

The Picto icorrect software is useful for quickly dispatching a load of jpg's dumped on you from some one else with color casts from horrible lighting. It rapidly delivers greatly improved images that Walgreens or other Pharmacy can print in one hour. Most people will be happy.
On its own, it may be best for those who lack the time, energy or aptitude to correct by eye in RAW translation and in PS CS2.

Last edited:

Ross Stockwell

New member
Hi - for my 2 cents on this ....

I find when color correcting images, matters get quite circular and I end up chasing my tail, fixing this or that, only to find the image out of whack somewhere else. Worse - once I get the thing 'perfect', the next day I look at it and wonder 'what was I thinking?' I suffer from 'tweak-it-is' so I can waste a lot of time ....

I found references to the icorrect Edit Lab software and have used it successfully. It will easily get one 90% of the way to a satsfactory image with a few mouse clicks. I have found the portrait version of this plug-in especially simple to use and very effective in managing skin tones.

Having said that, I have learned to use a Whitbal/grey card/color reference as part of my shooting workflow. This by far has had the most impact on simplyfying my color correction issues. I set the white balance/temperature using the grey balance tool during Raw conversion as the first (and often the only) color correction. Very quick.

With a little planning using these cards is not nearly the hassle as it might sound. Even in situations where using the card reference is 'not possible' (e.g., distant landscapes; multiple light sources etc.) I shoot a few test frames placing the card in as many locations as I AM able to include it. At least it is 'some' reference point that gets me close to an overall 'correct' color balance (during Raw conversion). If this is still not 'good enough', I then use Edit lab for a further fix.

Also (and may be this is just me) I find it helpful to 'test' my image corrections seeking the reactions of others (who have a critical eye). I have found what I obsess about is absolutely inconsequential to the eye-balls and aesthetic sensibilties of almost everybody else! So I have learned to stop worrying and trust my Whitbal!

Michael Tapes

OPF Administrator/Moderator
I think it most important to nail the color in the RAW Converter, so you do not end up chasing your tail, as someone stated above. It can be done completely non-destructively in the RC to best possible outcome since the RAW unbalance data is available.

Don Lashier

New member
Michael Tapes said:
I think it most important to nail the color in the RAW Converter, so you do not end up chasing your tail, as someone stated above. It can be done completely non-destructively in the RC to best possible outcome since the RAW unbalance data is available.
I totally agree, particularly getting the WB correct at conversion time can save a lot of "tail chasing" as Ross put it. Even lacking a WB card simply manually tweaking the sliders can save a lot of fixups later. Here's an example "Do it in C1 or PS?" - I also did some tonal adjustments here because of the typical wedding dress - tux issues but the key to the color was simply adjusting WB.

- DL
Last edited: