[jeffkrol]

I think what you see is normal, you are getting a burning out of out of focus highlights.



I think the camera is getting a lot of blame here for seeing what the eye sees, within the dynamic limits of the sensors.

Actually it's the processing. RAW data is linear and quite compressed. It would take a lot to blow out a channel (w/ normal exposures)in RAW. Now if you take that data, apply a gamma curve (to actually make it photographic) and then use the WB multipliers (red is about 1.5X for flash and daylight) and multiply all the red values by that number it is no wonder the red channel goes out w/ red objects. Any red value equal or above 170 all becomes the same when multiplied by 1.5 since 255 is MAX in 8 bit so you lose any gradations. So the balance comes from how much do I underexpose to what highlights do I want to burn....and what way and what processor is best to process them.
One system uses whats called Uni-WB (all multipliers are at 1:1:1 making the luminosity histogram useful again). W/ Pentax you can use a CC40M filter on the lens (or flash), take a custom WB and then shoot using the filter. Expose so that the histogram is close to the right. This would be your best starting point. I hope Pentax will allow the import of WB coefficients in the next camera ala Nikon.
To see what your up against here is a Nikon chart of the "multipliers" used on each channel and each WB:
http://www.pochtar.com/NikonWhiteBalanceCoeffs.htm

How to fix your red flowers, part 2 of 2: Nikon D300/D200/D100 Forum: Digital Photography Review

---

Last edited by jeffkrol; 12-19-2007 at 07:45 AM.

[stewart_photo]

There is also a method of enhancing the red channel by using data from the 'opposite' colour channel, in this case green. The basic principal is to take the textures from the green channel, mix them into the red channel, then colour shift back to the original hues. (snip)

That's truly impressive, d.bradley. Perhaps the best results I've seen from the various methods out there. Now if I could only understand what you've done. I'm not unfamiliar with graphics programs, but a rank beginner when it comes to Photoshop. As a result, I've gotten completely lost several times while trying to follow your description.

So, when or if you get the time, how about walking through the process with some rudimentary step-by-step instructions? Such as...

1. Select this or that.
2. Select the entire image and copy it.
3. Go to this or that tab and select it.
4. In that tab, select this or that (add notes in parenthesis or whatever as needed).
5. Etc...

I most certainly would appreciate the effort and it would likely help others as well. Thanks.

stewart

[Buddha Jones]

Buddha, love the scary demon face in there! I guess you see what you want to

Yeah, it is a curse.

[Mapleleaf-Mick]

You guys/gals are incredible with the amount of knowledge you possess. I sit here in awe and read about post processing techniques to get that great picture. I am struggling to just take "good " pictures not knowing anything about photoshop etc. The forums help is very much appreciated by me and it just amazes me how individuals out there have such a inventory of knowledge on all aspects of photography and are so willing to share their experience. From one little camera buff in Saskatchewan, a deep thanks.

[d.bradley]

I'll re-write those instructions more clearly, just not tonight I'm completely exhausted. I'm only too happy to give back to the photo community

[Canada_Rockies]

You guys/gals are incredible with the amount of knowledge you possess. I sit here in awe and read about post processing techniques to get that great picture. I am struggling to just take "good " pictures not knowing anything about photoshop etc. The forums help is very much appreciated by me and it just amazes me how individuals out there have such a inventory of knowledge on all aspects of photography and are so willing to share their experience. From one little camera buff in Saskatchewan, a deep thanks.

We all learned from others. As I get older, it is time to pass on the knowledge to those who have less, and continue to learn from those who have more. In my case, I am brand new to digital, although I have been using Pentax cameras since 1960. I am learning all about Lightroom and post processing and all that ... and passing on some other knowledge I have from time to time.

[Mapleleaf-Mick]

I am the same Albert. I was using film for years starting back in the sixties but I am brand new to Digital. I am finding out (however I really knew inside) just how little I know and how much there is to learn. Top that off with finding out I am red green colour blind. That is going to be a real plus when it comes to post processing.....

[Canada_Rockies]

Top that off with finding out I am red green colour blind. That is going to be a real plus when it comes to post processing.....

Hmmmmmm - I've seen some very, very nice black and white pics on this site.

[jeffkrol]

I am the same Albert. I was using film for years starting back in the sixties but I am brand new to Digital. I am finding out (however I really knew inside) just how little I know and how much there is to learn. Top that off with finding out I am red green colour blind. That is going to be a real plus when it comes to post processing.....

ACTUALLY there are some good books/tutorials on PP "by the numbers", using the eyedropper and curves.
They select this area, sharpen that one, call up
histograms, apply strange filters, and generally try to demonstrate that
if an infinite number of art directors employ an infinite number of
digital tweaks somebody somewhere may throw them a banana.
And yet, most color correction could be handled by monkeys. This
chapter and the next introduce a numerical, curve-based approach calling
for little artistic judgment.
http://www.ledet.com/margulis/PP7_Ch02_ByTheNumbers.pdf