Fun with a model! How bad can it look?

[Deleted member 55]

Asher this one is for you!

EF 50MM f1.2L Prime 1/80 f4.0 ISO 400 1DsMKIII MR14EX Ringlight
​

 

[Deleted member 55]

More proof:

EF 50MM f1.2L Prime 1/80 f2.8 ISO 200 1DMKIII​

 

[Joachim Bolte]

Well, you guys have a point... If he wanted the images retouched, he'd probably have posted them in the 'retouch' forum.

Sorry Will! But why did you use such a massive load of oranges in this picture? Did you use a custom white balance? And there is something strange in your EXIF colorspace info, the picture seemte to be made with a profile named Z009, but EXIF states that it is sRGB. When one 'picks' colors directly from a non-colormanaged web-browser they probably get wrong readouts.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Joachim,

And there is something strange in your EXIF colorspace info, the picture seemte to be made with a profile named Z009, but EXIF states that it is sRGB. When one 'picks' colors directly from a non-colormanaged web-browser they probably get wrong readouts.

My tools show (for the image as posted) the embedded profile to be sRGB IEC61966-2.1 and the (declared) color space to be sRGB.

Is Z009 not the name of the embedded profile but rather something else? What did you read that with?

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Will,

More proof:

Of what? I've lost track of the bidding.

His eye whites are a little bit yellow.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Joachim Bolte]

http://regex.info/exif.cgi

I think I found it, Z009 seems to be the Canon's own profile that resembles sRGB. So it probably is no problem substituting one for the other.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Joachim,

http://regex.info/exif.cgi

Nice tool. Thanks for the link.

I think I found it, Z009 seems to be the Canon's own profile that resembles sRGB. So it probably is no problem substituting one for the other.

That could well be.

Looking at Will's image as posted with Jeffrey's tool, I find in the report no mention of "Z009". What am I missing here?

I find this interesting dialog on a flickr forum:

view photostream
ablichter Pro User says:

In your second image the embedded colour profile is shown as Z009 although the meta data tag shows sRGB (never heard of Z009 - wonder what that is??)
I wonder if that is causing the problem you are experiencing -


This is the Canon sRGB 1.31 profile, which IMHO can be applied by DPP. Z009 is a value in the ICC_Profile Header Tags (for "device model") - other software might write the name of the profile like "sRGB" or so to this tag. Usualy the tag "ProfileDescription" or "DeviceModelDesc" should be read, which might show "sRGB IEC6 1966-2.1" or here "sRGB v1.31 (Canon)"
What are you using for checking on that? Exiftool and its GUI is pretty strong on that.​

I see elsewhere other references to "Z009" being shown as the "Device model" in the metadata for some file of interest, although Jeffrey's tool shows "sRGB" for Device Model for Will's file as posted.

I think the discussion I quoted above gives some insight into that.

This stuff can sure get convoluted!

Maybe we are not looking at the same file. Are you perhaps looking at one of the "reworks" of Will's file in this thread?

Thanks for your work on this.,

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Joachim Bolte]

I used the direct link to the black-grey-white image Will posted. The other pictures have sRGB attached, but that one gives a warning

WARNING: Embedded color profile: “Z009”
All Windows web browsers (except Safari) and many Mac web browsers ignore an embedded color profile, meaning users of those browsers will see the wrong colors for this image.
STRANGE: The embedded color profile differs from the metadata tags (sRGB (EXIF:ColorSpace, XMP:ColorSpace)).

I wonder if, when you use that JPG for WB purposes, things work out right. I assume that Will shoots in RAW initially, so it shouldn't matter that much.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Joachim,

I used the direct link to the black-grey-white image Will posted.

Ah, yes. Thanks.

The profile embedded there is named (more precisely, "described") "sRGB v1.31 (Canon)". The Device Model is "Z009".

The warning in Jeffrey's tool is a little misleading - it is based on the notion that the tag Device Model in the embedded profile is populated with the profile "name" (formally, "ProfileDescription"). Actually, the profile description is expected to be in the tag ProfileDescription (fancy that!), and is in this case.

Again, this matter was discussed in the flickr post I cited above. Evidently some generating applications will populate the Device Model tag with the profile description (perhaps when "model" information is not available, or not relevant). Others use a bona fide "model name".

Z009 is apparently somehow an identifier for the "model" of system originally generating the profile (presumably the camera).

We should perhaps speak to Jeffrey about this.

And I think Will should put ModelTelephoneNumber in the IPTC metadata.

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Joachim,

My Canon EOS 40D camera does not embed a profile in its JPEG output file (and evidently cannot be set to do so).

A file from that camera, opened in Photoshop CS5 and written to a new file, does contain an embedded profile (sRGB in my first test).

The metadata for that file shows Device Name as "sRGB".

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Joachim,

I used the direct link to the black-grey-white image Will posted. The other pictures have sRGB attached, but that one gives a warning

WARNING: Embedded color profile: “Z009”
All Windows web browsers (except Safari) and many Mac web browsers ignore an embedded color profile . . .

In fact, Firefox (from V3.x on) will color manage from embedded profiles, but you have to "turn that on", and some people prefer not to, as there is a "performance hit".

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Will,

Doug:

My Eyedropper says =425, but then I think it is calibrated in ml or cm3.

You know, those didn't used to be (quite) the same thing, but today they are!

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Kevin Stecyk]

Interesting looking profile of a target.

Normally, you'd expect three equally spaced spikes corresponding the gray, white, and black stripes. The center spike should be at the center. If this was the calibration target, do you think the image was overexposed or something else went wrong?

I sometimes use a Photovision Digital Calibration Target, and I believe the video on this page shows how they are used. It appears very similar to Will's intended use. Will might even be using a Photovision Target?

On a separate note, I much prefer Will's orange wall. In the other photograph, the model's eyes were greener and her hair was turned blue (see camera left hand side). Unless she dyed her hair blue, it should be a warm color (magenta, yellow in LAB). If she has black hair, the a, b channels in LAB should be close to 0 or even 0. But they shouldn't be negative.

Will's photograph had much, much better hair color and appeared to have more lustre.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Kevyn,

We are all learning a lot here, thanks to Will and his sharing of his pictures and to you, Joachim and Doug to the search for explanations, helpful in understanding our assumptions; the reward, insight!

Asher

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Kevin,

The center spike should be at the center.

Why? The gray here is arbitrary, and the "exposure" was set to place black at the bottom and white "above the top". The gray, whatever gray that is, will fall where it falls.

By the way, what does the center of this particular histogram scale represent (in terms, for example, of relative photometric exposure - we often say "relative luminance")?

If this was the calibration target, do you think the image was overexposed or something else went wrong?

Nothing "went wrong" - Will pulled the handles until it came out that way.

In any case, it is an unwarranted assumption that:

• all "gray" targets (or the gray portion of a black-gray-white target) have the same nominal reflectance. (The value R=0.18 is often tossed about in this regard, but many targets, especially if primarily intended for white balance color correction purposes, have nominal reflectance much different from that.)
• the camera metering system will always call for an exposure such that the gray portion of the target will have a certain photometric exposure (for example, as a fraction of "saturation") for any camera, in any operating mode.
• the exposure result of that photometric exposure will fall in the middle of the exposure axis scale of any given histogram.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Kevin Stecyk]

Why? The gray here is arbitrary, and the "exposure" was set to place black at the bottom and white "above the top". The gray, whatever gray that is, will fall where it falls.

By the way, what does the center of this particular histogram scale represent (in terms, for example, of relative photometric exposure - we often say "relative luminance")?

If you want proper exposure, you want the gray in the middle. In fact, when I spoke with an **engineer** (just like you and I) of a major light meter manufacturer to calibrate my light meter, he suggested using the black, gray, white gray card to ensure that the gray was in the middle. This can be especially helfpul if you are using filters on your lens and want to ensure you have the proper adjustment factor on your light meter.

To suggest the gray spike can be anywhere is odd, at best. Watch the video I that I referenced.

Nothing "went wrong" - Will pulled the handles until it came out that way.

In any case, it is an unwarranted assumption that:

• all "gray" targets (or the gray portion of a black-gray-white target) have the same nominal reflectance. (The value R=0.18 is often tossed about in this regard, but many targets, especially if primarily intended for white balance color correction purposes, have nominal reflectance much different from that.)
• the camera metering system will always call for an exposure such that the gray portion of the target will have a certain photometric exposure (for example, as a fraction of "saturation") for any camera, in any operating mode.
• the exposure result of that photometric exposure will fall in the middle of the exposure axis scale of any given histogram.

Will pulled what? Maybe stop pulling would be a good idea?

Doug, why do you suppose there is a white, gray, and black stripe? And what do you suppose it means when the white stripe is largely off-scale? If you can't properly read the whites, what does that mean? Inquiring minds want to know.

The exposure is off and nothing in your post refutes that. The whites are blown, and hence we're seeing in the photograph that the red channel looks clipped. See how this is all coming together?

So yes, something went wrong and is wrong. Sometimes rather than using bluster and complicated terminology and bold statements, one should look at the picture and see if it all hangs together. In this case--unless you like green eye whites and blown red channels--it doesn't all hang together.

 

[Asher Kelman]

If you want proper exposure, you want the gray in the middle. In fact, when I spoke with an **engineer** (just like you and I) of a major light meter manufacturer to calibrate my light meter, he suggested using the black, gray, white gray card to ensure that the gray was in the middle. This can be especially helfpul if you are using filters on your lens and want to ensure you have the proper adjustment factor on your light meter.

To suggest the gray spike can be anywhere is odd, at best. Watch the video I that I referenced.

@ Kevin,

The black and white need to be at either end of the histogram and the outer curves should hit baseline. Actually, the end to the right, in the bright areas is not the end. The camera MFRS, TTBOMK, add a little buffering space to prevent clipping. so essentially you are correct with the caveat that more data may be stored in RAW than the sRGB histogram appears to show.

The placement of the center depends on the density of the gray and the brightness of the light and yes, with the ideal gray density, the center would be a nice place for it to appear. However, we just need any neutral gray and it can appear anywhere in between the two peaks on either side and still work for us as a reference for neutral gray.

Will pulled what? Maybe stop pulling would be a good idea?

Will has experience in taking his pictures in order to get the esthetic look he enjoys. To do that he uses a gray scale over-exposed the way he does. The results satisfies him. It happens to perplex me, but that's not really the point. He is the photographer. That his approach is weird to some of us does not matter a whit! We see the same sort of personal decision in the fashion of using an exceptionally slow shutter speed to photograph waterfalls. I've never seen milk flow from anything but a bottle, dispenser, an udder or breasts, but that's what some folk like to see in their pictures! Imagine that sort of preference in Will's choice of portrait photography.

The exposure is off and nothing in your post refutes that. The whites are blown, and hence we're seeing in the photograph that the red channel looks clipped. See how this is all coming together?

I'm not sure Doug would disagree at all!

@ Will,

While I respect your personal decisions, I still would argue for being somewhat more selective in your use of color casts. Do you really need the hue difference from neutral lighting to be equally present everywhere? I'd rather consider using gels on one of several lights to put your color in a specific location rather than bias the entire picture.

Before the gels, one would use a grey card, as you have done, but with normal exposure. Following that, gel one of your lights.

Of course, you would have to be willing to take more than one light or else use that light with daylight doing most of the work.

Asher

 

[Kevin Stecyk]

The black and white need to be at either end of the histogram and the outer curves should hit baseline. Actually, the end to the right, in the bright areas is not the end. The camera MFRS, TTBOMK, add a little buffering space to prevent clipping. so essentially you are correct with the caveat that more data may be stored in RAW than the sRGB histogram appears to show.

Only problem, of course, is that the final result that was posted shows a clipped channel. Otherwise, excellent comment concerning expose-to-right. If the red channel were not clipped and eye whites were at least warm (I'd settle for off-neutral), then this whole discussion would never have taken place.

Perhaps you and Will can help me understand the photograph process. In your post above you discuss gels. And I believe Will discussed reflections. And now we have gray cards for white balance. I am not sure if Will's use of a gray card was to set his exposure, set custom white balance on his camera, or set a white point in post production. And I assume that the card was used with the gelled flashes and ambient reflections? If true, then reflections should be neutralized?

Anyway, I am done. Will is happy with his photograph. So I am happy. I trust the model is happy too. Everyone wins.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Only problem, of course, is that the final result that was posted shows a clipped channel. Otherwise, excellent comment concerning expose-to-right. If the red channel were not clipped and eye whites were at least warm (I'd settle for off-neutral), then this whole discussion would never have taken place.

Following the example of creamy waterfalls and rivers, they are beloved by the world although entirely wrong in terms of accuracy! That's how I think about Will's color here. He like's it and that's his choice.

Perhaps you and Will can help me understand the photograph process. In your post above you discuss gels. And I believe Will discussed reflections. And now we have gray cards for white balance. I am not sure if Will's use of a gray card was to set his exposure, set custom white balance on his camera, or set a white point in post production.

I believe he uses the gray card for custom white balance before he shoots the model.

And I assume that the card was used with the gelled flashes and ambient reflections? If true, then reflections should be neutralized?

Well, to not lose the effect of a gel, I take a white balance without t, then add the gel and in RAw use the picture without the gel as the reference. So that hue is maintained. However, Will does not use gels in any of these pictures. He has one ring light, that's it.

If I'm going to the trouble of schlepping to some location, then I can use an extra light on a stand or held by an assistant. With more than one light, one can limit the effect of a colored gel to where it's really needed. Also one can more accurately control that color. Making a picture over-exposed does not give the same amount of control.

One issue is that the software might look at the clipped higher end and not take into account that only one of the 3 channels is truncated. That, perhaps is a source of the odd color. It might be just what will likes, but to me it's odd.

Or, does anyone know better on how the various RAW processing software teats the high end when there's uneven clipping?

Anyway, I am done. Will is happy with his photograph. So I am happy. I trust the model is happy too. Everyone wins.

I'm not done yet, as I don't really know what is happening in the RAW processing to unevenly recorded bright colors in Will's pictures!

Asher

 

[Kevin Stecyk]

Following the example of creamy waterfalls and rivers, they are beloved by the world although entirely wrong in terms of accuracy! That's how I think about Will's color here. He like's it and that's his choice.

The difference being, of course, is that when others create creamy waterfalls or whatever, they delilberately play with the post-processing to create an effect. They do not say in effect (paraphrasing), "the color is true, here's the gray card." They know the color is not true because they deliberately altered it to create a correct pleasing effect.

One issue is that the software might look at the clipped higher end and not take into account that only one of the 3 channels is truncated. That, perhaps is a source of the odd color. It might be just what will likes, but to me it's odd.

Or, does anyone know better on how the various RAW processing software teats the high end when there's uneven clipping?

Odd color? I have no clue. I would have to know ~exactly~ what Will did. As far as the software is concerned, it just assumed r=255 where blown. It has no other information to work with. It's like a 10V meter measuring a voltage of over 20V. It has no clue as to the true value other than it exceeds 10V.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Odd color? I have no clue. I would have to know ~exactly~ what Will did. As far as the software is concerned, it just assumed r=255 where blown. It has no other information to work with. It's like a 10V meter measuring a voltage of over 20V. It has no clue as to the true value other than it exceeds 10V.

he over-exposed beyond the right edge of the histogram more between 1/3 to 1 stop but without getting marching ants evidence of blown specular highlights. That's all.

Asher

 

[Joachim Bolte]

@Kevin,

It's probably an 18% gray card, so why should it be in the middle of the histogram? I think you are confused because an 18% coverage of black ink APPEARS as halfway between white and black to us humans...
If you would make a 50% coverage grey, it would appear in the middle of the histogram, but we would judge it as much to dark to be visually 'middle gray'.

 

[Joachim Bolte]

The location of the gray spike does not matter that much, PS or any other color-correction program just needs a spot with a gray. If it's a dark or light gray does not matter, only thing PS does is make the RGB values the same for that spot.

And in that respect the histograms are VERY informative! If you look at the gray spike in R, G and B separately, you will see that the blue spike is a little less wide to the left than the red and green spike. That means that towards the darker tones, there will be a tiny yellowish cast. Looking at the blue component of the black spike you see this confirmed, because there is less blue in what we suppose should be black then there is red and green (thus yellow). If you start probing the picture with the eyedropper tool (set to a 30x30 sample), you notice that towards the edges there is some color variation that could explain this shift.

When you try to correct this using PS's curves and eyedroppers, you will get this:

You can clearly see that near the blue spikes undershoot, PS lets the curve drop a little to make it a 'true' RGB gray. That is a correction for yellow cast. The green and red curves are a straight line, they need no correction.

You will also notice that the black are more defined, but that mainly is because there is no 'real' black in the picture. When color-correcting a daylight scene, I would only use the white and graypoint, and up the contrast later by hand.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Joachim,

@Kevin,

It's probably an 18% gray card, so why should it be in the middle of the histogram? I think you are confused because an 18% coverage of black ink APPEARS as halfway between white and black to us humans...

Here are some items of possible interest in that regard.

First, while in proper graphic arts terms, "18% gray" indeed corresponds to "18% coverage with black ink", almost always in photographic work we hear the phrase "18% gray" used to mean a reflectance of 18% (which in graphic arts terms would be called "82% gray - 82% coverage by black ink).

The test cards often spoken of (improperly) as "18% gray" have a nominal reflectance of 18% (that is, they are an 82% gray).

I never use the term "x% gray" to mean "x% reflectance" or "x% relative luminance, because of the conflict with graphic arts practice.

Now as to histograms, the normal Photoshop histogram in a RGB context has a horizontal scale that runs linearly with the channel coordinates R, G, or B (which I will call, generically, C). Thus, the midpoint corresponds to C = 127 (or 128).

Under the sRGB color space, a coordinate value of 127 corresponds to a "relative luminance" of 0.22 (that is, a luminance 0.22 times that represented by C=255).

Histograms in cameras of course usually follow some other horizontal scale.

Back to "mid gray" (I know you didn't use that term, for which thanks), it is interesting to note that the "midpoint" of the L* scale in the L*a*b* color space, L*=50, for "neutral" colors", corresponds to a surface reflectance of 0.152 (or, when the L*a*b* color space is hijacked to refer to the color of light, a relative luminance of 0.152. Some people consider that a justification for calling a reflectance (or relative luminance) of 0.18 "mid-gray" (go figger).

In any case, the human perception of "brightness" goes very roughly as the cube root of luminance. Thus, an area with a relative luminance of about 0.125 of another area will appear about "half as bright" as the other area.

I have written at length about the mystic significance of a test target with a reflectance of 18%. Briefly, if we have an exposure metering system:

• whose "calibration" is per ISO 2721, and
• in which the exposure index is the ISO speed, defined on a "saturation" basis per ISO 12232,

then:

the average photometric exposure of a metered shot will be about 0.127 of the saturation photometric exposure of the sensor.

That means that if we selectively meter on a target with a reflectance of 18%, the photometric exposure for a scene item with a reflectance of 100% (the "brightest" possible "normal" surface) would be 1/2 stop below saturation (assuming of course uniform illuminance across the scene)..

Said another way, if we meter on an average basis a scene whose average reflectance is 18% of its maximum reflectance (assuming of course uniform illuminance), we will in fact conserve that 1/2-stop headroom.

This the concept of metering on a test target with a reflectance of 18% flows from the concept of "1/2 stop headroom" (protection against blowout) for a scene in which the average reflectance is 0.18 of the maximum reflectance. (And again assuming automatic exposure control in accordance with ISO norms, as stated above.)

Why the choice of 18%? Because it turns out that using that premise for the development of calibration norms for exposure metering gave nice pictures in a lot of cases.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Doug Kerr]

I don't remember what target Will said he used for his now-infamous black-gray-white image, but as posted (and we have no idea how much white clipping is in play - maybe little or none), the gray appears to have a relative luminance of about 63%.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Kevin Stecyk]

The location of the gray spike does not matter that much, PS or any other color-correction program just needs a spot with a gray. If it's a dark or light gray does not matter, only thing PS does is make the RGB values the same for that spot.

Here's the point Joachim, now she has blue in her hair and extra green eyes when you created them.

Of course, if you want to use a white balance, all you need a neutral color, it doesn't even need to be gray. It can be white--hence you often hear "white cards." The point of having a white, gray, and black stripes on one card is to see all ~three complete stripes~ on your histogram. And you can use the gray or white to set your camera's white balance. Yes, you can be overexposed or underexposed when you set your camera's white balance. When you are looking for good exposure, however, you should see three ~complete~ spikes.

And in that respect the histograms are VERY informative! If you look at the gray spike in R, G and B separately, you will see that the blue spike is a little less wide to the left than the red and green spike. That means that towards the darker tones, there will be a tiny yellowish cast. Looking at the blue component of the black spike you see this confirmed, because there is less blue in what we suppose should be black then there is red and green (thus yellow). If you start probing the picture with the eyedropper tool (set to a 30x30 sample), you notice that towards the edges there is some color variation that could explain this shift.

When you try to correct this using PS's curves and eyedroppers, you will get this:

You can clearly see that near the blue spikes undershoot, PS lets the curve drop a little to make it a 'true' RGB gray. That is a correction for yellow cast. The green and red curves are a straight line, they need no correction.

You will also notice that the black are more defined, but that mainly is because there is no 'real' black in the picture. When color-correcting a daylight scene, I would only use the white and graypoint, and up the contrast later by hand.

I simply looked at the LAB readouts:

First sampling the gray:

now sampling the black:

By the way, my usual practice is to wave my cursor around the area of interest and watch the readouts. So I am not fussed about 3x3 or larger sample.

If we look at the blacks in the LAB readouts, are they neutral? No.

If we look at the grays in the LAB readouts, are they neutral? No, again.

And, as an exercise to the reader, examine the whites. Not only should you look at the A and B values, but also look at the Luminance. Given what we see with the histogram, what's your guess for L?

Isn't using the LAB readout simple and easy?

And as for Doug's statement...

I don't remember what target Will said he used for his now-infamous black-gray-white image, but as posted (and we have no idea how much white clipping is in play - maybe little or none), the gray appears to have a relative luminance of about 63%.

Again, have a look at the histogram and have a look at the L value on the whites and have a look at the blown red channel in the actual image. And then, throw caution to the wind, and make a wild guess on how much white clipping is in play.

Will, if you are still tuning into this conversation (if you are not completely bored and infuriated with me by now), I would do the following in the future:

1) Do as you as always do. Call this a base case.

2) Take some other shots with the following procedure.

3) Using your incident (not reflective) light meter, set your exposure.

4) Shoot your gray card (white, gray, black).

5) Set your camera's white balance based upon your gray card shot.

6) Reshoot your gray card.

7) Compare your initial gray card to your reshot gray card. In many cases, you should see a change. In your first shot, your white balance was off. In your second shot, your white balance should be correct. (If you always shoot in a studio where conditions never change, then you won't see a change.)

8) Look at the histograms. You should see the gray spike toward the middle. Yes, I know, some people like to expose-to-the-right. I ain't one of them.

9) Take your shots.

I would argue that this procedure gives us a good starting point for our processing in Photoshop.

Good luck.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Joachim,

If you would make a 50% coverage grey, it would appear in the middle of the histogram, but we would judge it as much to dark to be visually 'middle gray'.

Actually, in this image, the rectangular overlay panel is "50% coverage gray" (in graphics arts terms), and is also 50% relative luminance (its sRGB coordinates are 219,219,219):

I won't even fool around with the notion of judging what deserves to be called 'middle gray'.

In Photoshop CS5, its histogram looks like this (the panel is the spike over on the right):

Now here the overlay is RGB=127,127,127, so it should show up at midscale on a Photoshop histogram:

Its relative luminance is 0.21.

Its relative perceptual brightness is perhaps 0.6.

Here is the Photoshop histogram:

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Joachim Bolte]

Here's the point Joachim, now she has blue in her hair and extra green eyes when you created them.

LOL
You assume that I took care of the whitebalance, while all I wanted to show in that picture was that a greenish wall would give some nice contrast to her orange shirt. I really couldn't care less if her eyes are green and her hair blue... Those are just remains of a sloppy 'blend if' layermasking that I did.

If I wanted to give her a life-like appearance, the result would be something like this...

But as said, that wasn't the purpose of the first picture... And the remarks I make about color-cast and WB are reactions to the people asking questions about them.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Joachim,

If I wanted to give her a life-like appearance, the result would be something like this...

The rightmost of these is very nice.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Joachim Bolte]

It'd better be, thats the corrected one... left is the original JPG.

by the way, what's wrong with a little blue hair?