[Marc Sabatella]

... and I still like the "underexposed" version in your previous post better :-). I don't think lightening the background that much really helped the image. My goal would have been to increase the contrast between the face of the guitarist and the background, by lightening the face slightly but perhaps even darkening the background behind him. Something along the lines of the version I attached.

Not that this has anything to do with the actual point of the thread, of course. And of course this is all subjective preference. But since the subject came up, I thought it worth discussing.

Attached Images

 

[UnknownVT]

... and I still like the "underexposed" version in your previous post better :-). I don't think lightening the background that much really helped the image. My goal would have been to increase the contrast between the face of the guitarist and the background, by lightening the face slightly but perhaps even darkening the background behind him. Something along the lines of the version I attached.

Not that this has anything to do with the actual point of the thread, of course. And of course this is all subjective preference. But since the subject came up, I thought it worth discussing.

That's fine - my tastes obviously are just different -
to me that version is too dark -
I prefer brighter and more contrasty images.

The original is straight out of the camera with only saturation reduction -
I mean how many actually like the straight out of the camera images?

Most do adjustments -
the main complaint I have seen from new dSLR users is that the images straight out of the camera look dark and unsharp -

ah! but we "experts" explain - patiently -
that's because a slightly underexposed image is better as it does not blow out the highlights
and any in camera sharpening will leave and emphasize artifacts when any post processing is done.

Yet the out of the camera shot with highlight correction/protection On and overall -1/3 stop EV compensation -
was a "perfect exposure"
requiring no adjustments?

er - if I had posted as a newbie complaining that shot was too dark -
I'll bet I would have gotten lots of replies patiently explaining why it was too dark......

[georgweb]

Hey Vincent,

the K-X sure is a low light performer and I'd love to get it in my hands one time .-)

Thanks for sharing your story and the pics. Manual WB and RAW should work well.
Alternatively, I have tried some red channel reduction in-camera + jpgs, too.
Exposurewise I try to underexpose slightly, doing it in M-mode most of the time.

Here's another thread about the subject: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-photography/42876-how-reduce-red-...aturation.html

Good luck, Georg

[UnknownVT]

Manual WB and RAW should work well.
Alternatively, I have tried some red channel reduction in-camera + jpgs, too.
Exposurewise I try to underexpose slightly, doing it in M-mode most of the time.

Here's another thread about the subject: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-photography/42876-how-reduce-red-...aturation.html

Many thanks for the input and suggestions Georg.

Manual WB probably can't be done in these cases as the lighting on stage was mixed colors and they also change - so manual WB at one part of the stage will not the be the same for another part.

I will try RAW - but I have shown in this very long thread -

Modern LED Stage Lighting & photography problems

although RAW is technically superior - it did not help in the extreme lighting cases, and anything I managed to achieve with RAW could actually be done in JPG - again I re-emphasize the RAW is superior - but just not for the extreme lighting cases I was trying to solve.

I am not too sure if RAW would be that much better for these severe Red channel clipping over-saturation cases since the red channel clipping/over-saturation is going to occur even when using RAW
- but like I said I cannot say for sure until I try it -
but in my previous experience when encountering Magenta lighting (made up of Red and blue LEDs only) RAW could not do any better than JPG (eg: see Post #122 - I had also posted my RAW+JPG image for others to try and so far no other attempts are as pleasing to me as mine using the JPG)

As I said previously I am very happy with the K-x as seen in this long thread -

Kx in Use

and I am already on shot count 16,569 - so I do use it a lot and post a lot as seen in that thread......

This is the first time I have encountered such severe Red channel clipping over-saturation and would be really please if I could mitigate it in-camera so it is not such a problem for and post processing.

I do shoot with Highlight correction (protection) On and and an overall -1/3 stop exposure compensation - so most of my shots are slightly underexposed and darker than I would post normally and I always have to brighten the pics before posting.

Thanks.

[civiletti]

In some programs, adjustment to brightness and contrast causes increased saturation.

[UnknownVT]

In some programs, adjustment to brightness and contrast causes increased saturation.

Thanks for your input.

I don't think this is the case in the programs I have used.

One can see the "original" resized images (please see [post #9) and my many attempts of post processed images to compare -

Yes, of course brightness/contrast are going to make the image more "vibrant" (ie: brighter and more contrasty), but I believe the saturation (or over-saturation) remains basically the same - at least in the programs I tried -
as I said these shots are the first ones I have encountered which look grossly over-saturated (mainly in red) and I have shot over 16,000 on the K-x and probably post processed in the thousands without complaint in this area -
so if my regular editor consistently increases saturation to the point of over-saturation surely I would have noticed by now?

Thanks for the input - it was a point worth considering.