• 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

    Register

    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!

The ColorRight MAX - new technical article

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
I have recently released a new technical article, "The ColorRight MAX Color Correction Tool". It has not yet been indexed on The Pumpkin, my technical information site, but is directly available here:

http://pumpkin.annex.home.att.net/articles/ColorRightMAX.pdf

Ordinarily, I like to think that my technical articles give useful information, answer pertinent questions, and illuminate the connections between science, art, and technique.

I have some malaise about this article, largely owing to the unique circumstances of the product.

Many of you may know that in the past, when I have commented on color correction tools in the Color Parrot/ColorRight family, I have bemoaned the lack of theoretical concepts, either previously known to me or provided by the manufacturer, that could explain certain claimed properties of the tool (such as how does having a narrow acceptance pattern allow the unit to successfully take measurements of incident light chromaticity from the "camera position", and how does masking all but a small diameter of the diffuser bring about such a narrow pattern.)

The unique feature of the ColorRight MAX, compared to earlier/more basic products in the line, is that it allows the photographer to easily, while doing what would otherwise be considered white balance color correction in post processing, apply one of six predetermined chromaticity shifts to the image (shifts compared to the result of "theoretical" white balance color correction). The objective is to have a rendition of human skin that is "more pleasant" than would result from theoretical color correction. These shifts are suggested, two-by-two, for use in the case of three broad ranges of skin color, light, medium and darker.

Although of course skilled photographers are experienced in making such "adjustments" by manipulation of the color controls in postprocessing software, following certain strategies they have learned though long experience, the ColorRight MAX is said to make available a beneficial "quick fix" for the less-skilled, or less patient, photographer.

This at first struck me like a kit of six secret spices in a "stew improvement kit", two of them especially for beef stew, two for lamb, and two for chicken, where by putting in exactly one teaspoon of one of them we could expect to consistently improve the perceived flavor of the stew, whether it was originally too spicy, or too bland, or too sweet, for some peoples' tastes.

But of course the whole matter of the "beauty" of skin renditions is so subjective and complex that it is impossible to say, based on any "theoretical' grounds, whether the ColorRight MAX "stew improvement kit" should be considered a boon or a fad.

I have neither the resources nor the patience to take an extensive series of photographs of people with different skin types (we certainly have, in our extended family, a great roster of such), apply six (or perhaps only the suggested pertinent two) secret spices to each image, and present the results to various juries to opine on whether beautification had in fact been attained.

So I had to content myself with making objective determinations of what the ColorRight MAX would probably do to the image (yes, you get to see the accursed du'v' chart again), and leave analysis of the value of the product, and its process, to others.

I don't complain here about the lack of a "scientific rationale" underlying the asserted success of the ColorRight MAX in skin beautification, because it isn't that kind of a deal (although there may in fact be such a rationale, understood by those who have done research in this complicated area).

Just remember, adding enough monosodium glutamate will make any stew taste like chicken.

Finally, I have to marvel at the exquisite irony of the fact that, that now that (according to our tests) Drew Strickland has now apparently brought the neutrality of his color correction tool (in its reflective target portion) to a new level of precision, he reminds us that the "theoretical" color correction this supports is not really what we need for much of our photographic work, but rather the ability to depart from that result in a few predetermined ways.

But if that indeed constitutes forward motion, then bravo.

In any case, fans of Cherokee skin will be able to see a bit of it in the single photographic test included in the article.
 

Drew Strickland

New member
From the article.

"In our single test made here of this functionality, versions of the same
original image “adjusted” using the two available adjustment vectors
for the skin category involved were both judged by the “patron” as
being more pleasing than the image as corrected in the “theoretically
ideal” way."

I guess Carla knows good skin tone when she sees it. :)

Thanks for posting this up Doug. Haven't had to chance to give it a proper reading, yet, but enjoyed seeing your overall findings.
 
I have recently released a new technical article, "The ColorRight MAX Color Correction Tool". It has not yet been indexed on The Pumpkin, my technical information site, but is directly available here:

http://pumpkin.annex.home.att.net/articles/ColorRightMAX.pdf

Ordinarily, I like to think that my technical articles give useful information, answer pertinent questions, and illuminate the connections between science, art, and technique.QUOTE]

Hi Doug,

Thanks for sharing this. If I may suggest, at the bottom of page 5 you mention "carefully-controlled exposures ... with the target array uniformly illuminated". For the sake of completeness, you might also want to describe whether your light source(s) was(were) of an incandescent nature. That might be relevant in case of metamerism, or the lack thereof.

Your (presumably BabelColor) reference target has a very good "color consistency" so the spectral distribution of the lightsource shouldn't matter much, but we don't know about the pigments/dyes used on the ColorRight Max.

As I'm reading your document, I see you mention the flash setup further on in the document, so perhaps that's what was used.

On page 6 you might want to specify which color model was used in the DPP Raw conversion, e.g. Standard, or Neutral, or Faithful (all valid choices for different uses).

Kind regards,
Bart
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Bart,

Thanks so much.

Your comments are all apt. My responses to some are embedded.

Thanks for sharing this. If I may suggest, at the bottom of page 5 you mention "carefully-controlled exposures ... with the target array uniformly illuminated". For the sake of completeness, you might also want to describe whether your light source(s) was(were) of an incandescent nature. That might be relevant in case of metamerism, or the lack thereof.

Indeed, I had meant to comment on this, but it just got way from me.

The illumination was late afternoon daylight, daylight, "filtered" through a wide East-facing window with venetian blinds into our kitchen/laboratory.

Your (presumably BabelColor) . . .
No, but made of a (presumably) comparable material (Spectralon).

. . . reference target has a very good "color consistency" so the spectral distribution of the lightsource shouldn't matter much, but we don't know about the pigments/dyes used on the ColorRight Max.

Absolutely, and I had planned to include a further discussion of that, but decided not to for this time.

On page 6 you might want to specify which color model was used in the DPP Raw conversion, e.g. Standard, or Neutral, or Faithful (all valid choices for different uses).

Indeed, I should have mentioned that the Faithful style was used.

I have not yet looked into how different choices there might have influenced the result.

My thought was that, regarding the "measurement" of the reflective chromaticity of the ColorRight MAX target patches, since they actually all have every similar chromaticity, the impacts of the different picture styles would have been quite small. Whether or not that is a justified outlook I can't at this point really say - but I adopted it!

With regard to the practical demonstration of skin "beautification", that is so subjective that I didn't feel it was worth the energy to do the tests under different "picture styles".

But a very interesting demonstration (which I might yet do) would be to just compare, even on the same "jury of one" basis, different developments, all using the "theoretical" white balance color correction but under different picture styles.

Thanks again for your ongoing inputs in this fascinating field.

Best regards,

Doug
 
Thanks again for your ongoing inputs in this fascinating field.

You're welcome. And the same for your thoughts on these matters which sofar seem to have received merely anecdotal coverage, not hindered by scientific principles, and therefore of limited use to learn from and improve. Your methodical coverage also help to get my thoughts more organized.

Bart
 
Top