[Oldbayrunner]

It was shot in bright mode. But yes, it was raw

Don't know about the K3 but to my knowledge that setting does nothing on raw photos or at least they didn't/don't on my K50 or K5 lls.
PS on my IPS monitor your samples don't look grey or with a green tint. They look like the normal color cast one gets if the WB is out of balance in tungsten light.

[sterretje]

Don't know about the K3 but to my knowledge that setting does nothing on raw photos or at least they didn't/don't on my K50 or K5 lls.

The PP software might well apply those camera settings as a default when the picture is loaded. I don't know about other SW, but PDCU4 definitely behaves like this.

[dicks]

Latest firmware (1.11)? As far as I can remember they made a few fixes to WB detection. Does seem to be WB related, but if using auto it should detect correct WB.

Since I can't see the Flickr image due to private setting I am curious to see some exif. Especially ISO. Also a larger example would be nice.

[Na Horuk]

In teh example photo, you are suffering from a mixing of light sources with different color temperatures (Fluorescent + flash?). Do pictures taken outside on a bright sunny day seem off as well, or just indoor shots? Also, anything shot under standard (i.e. non full-spectrum) fluorescent is going to have horrible skin tone rendering.

I think this is basically it. I suggest you change the WB in the software you use to PP. You can try its "auto" feature or the "tungsten" preset (in the camera, you usually want this indoors, instead of AWB) or a custom one that you choose. Good luck

[dcpropilot]

ThankS everyone! Tjompen1968, I just changed the privacy settings in flickr for viewing the exit info.

ThankS everyone! Tjompen1968, I just changed the privacy settings in flickr for viewing the exit info.

Nice. Well I downloaded the fullsize image and changed the WB so that the skintones became as they should. May I ask how much you have pulled the exposure and shadows sliders in Lightroom? It looks way to noisy for ISO1600. It looks more like mine @ 6400-8000

---

Last edited by Unregistered User; 01-16-2015 at 05:13 PM.

[iDon]

Try to use the "Embedded" profile in the camera calibration section in Lightroom and not "Adobe Standard". It makes a significant difference when it comes to skin tones.

[hjoseph7]

I am trying to figure this out...for some reason, many of the skin tones of the people I am photographing are coming out unnatural using the K-3. Kind of a clay-like rendering. Wasn't a problem with my K-30. I am shooting RAW, and has happened with multiple lenses on the K-3. Anyone else experience this and can suggest a solution?
Thanks!

Are you using RAW ?

[dcpropilot]

[/COLOR]

Try to use the "Embedded" profile in the camera calibration section in Lightroom and not "Adobe Standard". It makes a significant difference when it comes to skin tones.

I'll give it a try....thank you!

---------- Post added 01-16-2015 at 07:33 PM ----------

Nice. Well I downloaded the fullsize image and changed the WB so that the skintones became as they should. May I ask how much you have pulled the exposure and shadows sliders in Lightroom? It looks way to noisy for ISO1600. It looks more like mine @ 6400-8000

I did increase the exposure slider in LR. I don't recall how much, since I've altered it since.

---------- Post added 01-16-2015 at 07:34 PM ----------

Are you using RAW ?

Yes, shot in RAW.

When the light is dim and the ISO creeps up the dynamic range gets smaller. I have found that exposing to the right gives better results than lifting the shadows in post. Not much but visible. When adjusting the WB in LR i use the WB tool and try to pick the white part of the eyes. Most often that helps, if not on the first try I click until I am satisfied. Then I warm the image up a touch.

[DSims]

I probably didn't word my earlier comment well, but what I was trying to say is you nearly always want to use the sRGB color space in the camera settings. This makes your JPGs come out correctly without limiting what you can do with your RAW files - and might even improve the default appearance of the RAW files in you image editor.


If it turns out that WB with the lighting is really your problem (and it may well be) the best answer is the Expo Disc: ExpoImaging - ExpoDisc 2.0 White Balance Filter For Pentax, 77mm is the correct size - unless you already have a third-party lens which uses 82mm filters (e.g. select Sigmas). But even third-party lens shooters seldom need the 82mm, so usually stick with 77mm unless you're sure you need the larger one.

Of course, this requires an extra step before you take the photos. But not only does it have good accuracy in weird/mixed lighting (which is everywhere these days, with all the various 'energy saving' bulbs we have), but it's the easiest way to handle it. The downside is you have to re-do it every time you change location/lighting. But if you shoot JPG-only at events (which is often a good idea, especially if you're taking many photos) it can be a huge asset.

[Poit]

Skin tone quick fix:

If you're editing in LR, go to the Hue, Saturation, Luminance (HSL) sliders. Reduce Orange saturation (generally 10-15% will do the trick - but possibly up to 25% depending on the image) and INCREASE Orange luminance by around 10% (makes the skin a bit lighter in the overall image).

I shoot weddings and I've tried everything to get nice skin tones. The above solution is not only VERY quick and easy, but also yields the nicest result in my experience. It's a godsend when you've got hundreds of images to work through, but I also use it when I only have one or two portraits to work on.

The WB does look a little off in your example, so you could perhaps tweak that as well to get a more natural-looking image overall, but you'll be at it for (literally) hours if you try to correct the skin tones using WB adjustment alone (and you'll probably be ready to throw the computer through a window!).

SIMPLE!!!