Red looks orange?

**Rondec** · 09-10-2009, 06:57 PM

I'm going to go with.................... red!

PNTXFTW12 · 09-10-2009, 07:28 PM

looks red with a hint of orange on my Samsung 2443BW which has like...amazing color reproduction for a TN panel.

qquake2k · 09-14-2009, 11:46 AM

Thanks everyone, for the great replies. I don't think it's my monitor, other colors look fine on it. I think it's the lights. I paid more attention to it, and noticed that the color visibly brightens to the naked eye when I turn the lights on. In the photo below, of the same bag, the left side was shot with my little Canon point n shoot under office fluorescent lights. The right side was shot under the tungsten lights with my Pentax. To me, at least, I can really see the difference. The color is a subdued red, not bright red.

kenyee · 09-14-2009, 11:52 AM

Might be your lights. Some lights are "color corrected" meaning they have a coating which prevents them from causing "flourescesing" with some fabric dyes.
I'd suggest some new lights... :-)

h734790 · 09-14-2009, 12:13 PM

According to the EXIF these are in camera JPGs shot in "Landscape" image tone.

If precise colors are important I would either use RAW or use the camera in "Natural" image tone.

qquake2k · 09-14-2009, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by h734790

According to the EXIF these are in camera JPGs shot in "Landscape" image tone.

If precise colors are important I would either use RAW or use the camera in "Natural" image tone.

You know, that might just be it. Here is another comparison. The left was shot as jpeg and the right was shot in raw. The raw shot looks better to me.

unkabin · 09-14-2009, 01:33 PM

The raw looks much better to me, in a number of respects.

Marc Sabatella · 09-14-2009, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by qquake2k

Thanks everyone, for the great replies. I don't think it's my monitor, other colors look fine on it. I think it's the lights.

If you haven't calibrated your monitor using a hardware colorimeter like the Spyder or Huey, it *is* your monitor. Monitors are virtually *always* off right out of the box. But the prevailing light shining on the monitor can affect your perception of the results, too - which is why color correction should really be done in a dark room.

As I said, looking at the actual RGB values, your picture was about as pure red as you can possibly get. Go into any graphics program and build a red of 255,0,0 and see for yourself - it is basically impossible for that picture to be any more red than it was. The pictures you posted from the Canon and shot in RAW are *very* much *less* red - again, this is easily verified by looking at the RGB value of the pixels themselves. Now, one of those might happen to be more realistic - I don't have the actual bag to compare. All I can say, you will not get a red any redder than 255,0,0, and your original picture was as close to that as any digital photograph ever normally is.

Quote:

In the photo below, of the same bag, the left side was shot with my little Canon point n shoot under office fluorescent lights. The right side was shot under the tungsten lights with my Pentax. To me, at least, I can really see the difference. The color is a subdued red, not bright red.

If you mean the Canon picture is subdued, you are correct. It's not even close to 255,0,0. If you are seeing the Pentax as more subdued, you are long overdue for a monitor calibration. The numbers don't lie. The reds in the Pentax shot are averaging around 220,1,3. The reds in the Canon shot are averaging around 200, 30,40 - less red, much more blue and green in the mix, resulting in a far duller color. Again, if your monitor is showing you different, it is lying.

simico · 09-15-2009, 01:43 AM

This topic reminds me of a phenomenon of my my good old jogging suit: it looks blue on every photo (film or digital, p&s or pro dslr, indoors or outdoors - doesn't matter at all, it is blue on every photo taken over the last 15 years) even though it is green

Class A · 09-15-2009, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by qquake2k

You know, that might just be it. Here is another comparison. The left was shot as jpeg and the right was shot in raw. The raw shot looks better to me.

I can see why you refer to the left "red" as "orange" and the "red" in the right image looks more natural.

I guess it is the "landscape" mode you chose. Try avoiding such a scene mode and use the "neutral" colour setting instead. Shooting RAW has its advantages and disadvantages, but you should be able to get the correct colour from JPEGs as well.

**Canada_Rockies** · 09-15-2009, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by Class A

I can see why you refer to the left "red" as "orange" and the "red" in the right image looks more natural.

I guess it is the "landscape" mode you chose. Try avoiding such a scene mode and use the "neutral" colour setting instead. Shooting RAW has its advantages and disadvantages, but you should be able to get the correct colour from JPEGs as well.

Shooting RAW rather than JPEG can cut some of the colour clipping. There is more head room at both ends of the exposure. The computer RAW converters have more horsepower than the one in the camera; some say as much a stop on each end, although I think it more reliably a half stop. You could also try a little bit of underexposure to darken the red by darkening the whole image a bit. When you review in camera, press the [Info] button until you see four histograms so you can see if the red channel is clipping (bumping up against the right side of the histogram).

Class A · 09-16-2009, 03:02 AM

Originally posted by Canada_Rockies

Shooting RAW rather than JPEG can cut some of the colour clipping.

I don't think the OP's problem has to do with RAW vs JPEG. One could convert a RAW capture to look exactly like the JPEG. And/or tweak the JPEG to look the OP wants the bag to look like.

I think the OP takes issue with the brightness of the bag's colour and to some extent with the hue of it (it shouldn't be quite just R as in RGB). Capturing the colour correctly is a matter of using the correct JPEG creation parameters, not a matter of starting with a RAW image. That's my impression, at least.

It would be interesting to see how the bag looks like with neutral JPEG settings.

09-14-2009, 11:46 AM	#18
qquake2k New Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Northern California Posts: 24 Original Poster	Thanks everyone, for the great replies. I don't think it's my monitor, other colors look fine on it. I think it's the lights. I paid more attention to it, and noticed that the color visibly brightens to the naked eye when I turn the lights on. In the photo below, of the same bag, the left side was shot with my little Canon point n shoot under office fluorescent lights. The right side was shot under the tungsten lights with my Pentax. To me, at least, I can really see the difference. The color is a subdued red, not bright red. Attached Images

09-14-2009, 07:13 PM	#23
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by qquake2k Thanks everyone, for the great replies. I don't think it's my monitor, other colors look fine on it. I think it's the lights. If you haven't calibrated your monitor using a hardware colorimeter like the Spyder or Huey, it is your monitor. Monitors are virtually always off right out of the box. But the prevailing light shining on the monitor can affect your perception of the results, too - which is why color correction should really be done in a dark room. As I said, looking at the actual RGB values, your picture was about as pure red as you can possibly get. Go into any graphics program and build a red of 255,0,0 and see for yourself - it is basically impossible for that picture to be any more red than it was. The pictures you posted from the Canon and shot in RAW are very much less red - again, this is easily verified by looking at the RGB value of the pixels themselves. Now, one of those might happen to be more realistic - I don't have the actual bag to compare. All I can say, you will not get a red any redder than 255,0,0, and your original picture was as close to that as any digital photograph ever normally is. Quote: In the photo below, of the same bag, the left side was shot with my little Canon point n shoot under office fluorescent lights. The right side was shot under the tungsten lights with my Pentax. To me, at least, I can really see the difference. The color is a subdued red, not bright red. If you mean the Canon picture is subdued, you are correct. It's not even close to 255,0,0. If you are seeing the Pentax as more subdued, you are long overdue for a monitor calibration. The numbers don't lie. The reds in the Pentax shot are averaging around 220,1,3. The reds in the Canon shot are averaging around 200, 30,40 - less red, much more blue and green in the mix, resulting in a far duller color. Again, if your monitor is showing you different, it is lying. Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 09-14-2009 at 07:18 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Color Filter: Red/Yellow/Green/Orange 5 pieces total, all in 49mm threa	frank	Sold Items	2	12-02-2009 01:39 AM
Red gladiloa turns orange	photolady95	Photo Critique	17	07-16-2009 09:39 AM
Orange, Yellow, Red and Green	JulesJ	Post Your Photos!	6	04-27-2009 08:41 PM
A black bird, a silver bird, an orange bird, a red bird.	cputeq	Post Your Photos!	5	07-28-2008 06:08 PM
orange	-=JoN=-	Post Your Photos!	10	01-14-2007 09:01 PM

09-10-2009, 06:57 PM	#16
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,662	I'm going to go with.................... red!

09-10-2009, 07:28 PM	#17
PNTXFTW12 Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vaughan, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 269	looks red with a hint of orange on my Samsung 2443BW which has like...amazing color reproduction for a TN panel.

09-14-2009, 11:52 AM	#19
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026	Might be your lights. Some lights are "color corrected" meaning they have a coating which prevents them from causing "flourescesing" with some fabric dyes. I'd suggest some new lights... :-)

09-14-2009, 12:13 PM	#20
h734790 New Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Szeged, Hungary Posts: 19	According to the EXIF these are in camera JPGs shot in "Landscape" image tone. If precise colors are important I would either use RAW or use the camera in "Natural" image tone.

09-14-2009, 01:33 PM	#22
unkabin Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Moorhead, MN Posts: 176	The raw looks much better to me, in a number of respects.

09-15-2009, 01:43 AM	#24
simico Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Budapest Posts: 821	This topic reminds me of a phenomenon of my my good old jogging suit: it looks blue on every photo (film or digital, p&s or pro dslr, indoors or outdoors - doesn't matter at all, it is blue on every photo taken over the last 15 years) even though it is green

09-15-2009, 02:55 AM	#25
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by qquake2k You know, that might just be it. Here is another comparison. The left was shot as jpeg and the right was shot in raw. The raw shot looks better to me. I can see why you refer to the left "red" as "orange" and the "red" in the right image looks more natural. I guess it is the "landscape" mode you chose. Try avoiding such a scene mode and use the "neutral" colour setting instead. Shooting RAW has its advantages and disadvantages, but you should be able to get the correct colour from JPEGs as well.

09-15-2009, 11:22 PM	#26
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by Class A I can see why you refer to the left "red" as "orange" and the "red" in the right image looks more natural. I guess it is the "landscape" mode you chose. Try avoiding such a scene mode and use the "neutral" colour setting instead. Shooting RAW has its advantages and disadvantages, but you should be able to get the correct colour from JPEGs as well. Shooting RAW rather than JPEG can cut some of the colour clipping. There is more head room at both ends of the exposure. The computer RAW converters have more horsepower than the one in the camera; some say as much a stop on each end, although I think it more reliably a half stop. You could also try a little bit of underexposure to darken the red by darkening the whole image a bit. When you review in camera, press the [Info] button until you see four histograms so you can see if the red channel is clipping (bumping up against the right side of the histogram).

09-16-2009, 03:02 AM	#27
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by Canada_Rockies Shooting RAW rather than JPEG can cut some of the colour clipping. I don't think the OP's problem has to do with RAW vs JPEG. One could convert a RAW capture to look exactly like the JPEG. And/or tweak the JPEG to look the OP wants the bag to look like. I think the OP takes issue with the brightness of the bag's colour and to some extent with the hue of it (it shouldn't be quite just R as in RGB). Capturing the colour correctly is a matter of using the correct JPEG creation parameters, not a matter of starting with a RAW image. That's my impression, at least. It would be interesting to see how the bag looks like with neutral JPEG settings.