Setting whitebalance based on skintone

JEL

JEL

Oct 17, 2013
46
1
jelstudio.dk
#1
I hope I am not going against the forum-rules by mentioning this, but I can't find any rules listed, so I hope it's acceptable.

I created some LUT's to help set white-balance and exposure on photos of people (Portraits etc)

They work by overlaying so-called 'false color', which aims to make it easier to find the correct tone without having to rely strictly on your monitor's accuracy or how tired your eyes may be that day.

They cost a little, which is why I am not really sure if I am allowed to mention them on this forum (Not all forums allow posts that mention products where money is involved even when it's not huge sums)

Anyway, I made a demo-video that shows how they work and look.
I obviously think they are useful, but I'm clearly biased since I designed them.

Here is the video, for those who might be interested:
 
#2
JEL said:
I hope I am not going against the forum-rules by mentioning this, but I can't find any rules listed, so I hope it's acceptable.

I created some LUT's to help set white-balance and exposure on photos of people (Portraits etc)

They work by overlaying so-called 'false color', which aims to make it easier to find the correct tone without having to rely strictly on your monitor's accuracy or how tired your eyes may be that day.

They cost a little, which is why I am not really sure if I am allowed to mention them on this forum (Not all forums allow posts that mention products where money is involved even when it's not huge sums)

Anyway, I made a demo-video that shows how they work and look.
I obviously think they are useful, but I'm clearly biased since I designed them.

Here is the video, for those who might be interested:
Click to expand...
I have to stop when I hear the robot narration. I am sure your video is well done and I wish you much success. I just shoot in raw and then adjust white balance to my satisfaction. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#8
JEL said:
I don't have photoshop myself. I'm an avid opponent to their leasing-system, but no doubt it's great software.
Click to expand...
I think Adobe, despite my initial concerns, has kept LR and PS running smoothly, while steadily improving some key features, especially selections. Processing speeds have gotten better with several filters too.

Though they haven't introduced revolutionary features, they have kept an extraordinary, mature, and very large set of editing tools optimized for today's computers and cameras. And it is pretty much one-stop. I don't have to shut one product down to use another. For a few plug-ins, such as Portraiture, Alien Skin, and On1, I get a different interface, but all processing happens within the layer system of Photoshop, which I appreciate very much.

Perhaps other products are still lagging or clumsy with white-balance, but with LR and PS CC, proper skin-tones, in my opinion, are part of an entry-level skill set.

We've had the old debate going on for years about paying for software in installments, or buying "once" only to see the software become too slow or lacking in features, updates, or bug-fixes after several years. And, of course, some much older programs simply won't run at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#9
YuengLinger said:
I think Adobe, despite my initial concerns, has kept LR and PS running smoothly, while steadily improving some key features, especially selections. Processing speeds have gotten better with several filters too.

Though they haven't introduced revolutionary features, they have kept an extraordinary, mature, and very large set of editing tools optimized for today's computers and cameras. And it is pretty much one-stop. I don't have to shut one product down to use another. For a few plug-ins, such as Portraiture, Alien Skin, and On1, I get a different interface, but all processing happens within the layer system of Photoshop, which I appreciate very much.

Perhaps other products are still lagging or clumsy with white-balance, but with LR and PS CC, proper skin-tones are, in my opinion, are part of an entry-level skill set.

We've had the old debate going on for years about paying for software in installments, or buying "onc," only to see the software become too slow or lacking in features, updates, or bug-fixes after several years. And, of course, some much older programs simply won't run at all.
Click to expand...

I don't know how many people work at Adobe, but they probably have a large team of dedicated professional coders who do nothing else every day but attempt to improve on the various different Adobe software that exists.

Adobe is a bit like Microsoft or Apple, I suppose.
A huge corporation everybody knows, and who have achieved to set a kind of 'standard', if you will, over the years they have existed.

But of course it's only useful to those who can afford it, or want to get onboard with their leasing-system (Which is their choice of course. I didn't mean to start a debate about it, since, as you say, it's already been debated for years. I just don't personally want to use leasing-software if I can avoid it, and for anybody else who doesn't; perhaps my LUTs here can be of some help :) I'm used to working with LUTs myself, having more of a video-background than photography-background, so for me personally they make my work easier and faster and so I just thought they might be worth putting out there. I'm not trying to compete with Adobe though ;) )
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#10
YuengLinger said:
I think Adobe, despite my initial concerns, has kept LR and PS running smoothly, while steadily improving some key features, especially selections. Processing speeds have gotten better with several filters too.
Click to expand...

Has anyone else found PS 2020 to be so slow ? I recently updated and it really seems to have clogged my computer.
 
Upvote 0
#11
Sporgon said:
Has anyone else found PS 2020 to be so slow ? I recently updated and it really seems to have clogged my computer.
Click to expand...
I'm usually running LR and PS at the same time. Sometimes things slow way down. Other times it is very snappy. I figure there must sometimes be something else running in the background I am unaware of that is slowing things down. Other times I wonder if it is LR/PS themselves. It can be frustrating. I've often wondered if disconnecting from the internet and disabling my virus suite would help. I use CC, but my desktop icon shows "Photoshop 2018". I also use the "Lightroom Classic" option.
 
Upvote 0
#13
stevelee said:
I haven't noticed any slowdowns. I'm using an iMac 5K from 2014 on the current OS. About the only things I wait for is something involving waking up external hard drives, and of course when Compressor is running a batch.
Click to expand...

I've noticed something strange this week and I can't really explain it: Lightroom Classic on my 2015 iMac 5K doesn't feel snappy, but if I move the SSD with the library to 13" MBP that arrived this week it feels a lot faster. By almost all metric the imac should be faster (faster CPU, faster GPU), but it is a lot less responsive. The big difference in favour of the laptop is that it supports USB 3.2, so my external SSD does about 800MiB/s read and write, on the iMac it tops out at 450MiB/s.

I haven't tried comparing things like batch exporting to jpeg or importing a bunch of TIFFs, but I'm starting to prefer the laptop for LR. I didn't have that feeling with the 2012 MBP it is replacing :)
 
Upvote 0
#14
koenkooi said:
I've noticed something strange this week and I can't really explain it: Lightroom Classic on my 2015 iMac 5K doesn't feel snappy, but if I move the SSD with the library to 13" MBP that arrived this week it feels a lot faster. By almost all metric the imac should be faster (faster CPU, faster GPU), but it is a lot less responsive. The big difference in favour of the laptop is that it supports USB 3.2, so my external SSD does about 800MiB/s read and write, on the iMac it tops out at 450MiB/s.

I haven't tried comparing things like batch exporting to jpeg or importing a bunch of TIFFs, but I'm starting to prefer the laptop for LR. I didn't have that feeling with the 2012 MBP it is replacing :)
Click to expand...
The only SSD I have is the internal 1GB drive. So everything except saving to an external hard drive is going on internally. Perceived speed is not dependent upon external transfer protocols. Also, I have 32GB of RAM, which I suspect makes a lot of difference with PS and LR, and the 4GHz i7 is not bad even by today's standards. I used LR when I was working on my photo book, and everything seemed instantaneous. I was especially impressed by the speed at which it picked out a region to sample when using the tool that corresponds to spot healing in PS. I pretty much maxed out the iMac for its day, and I think that was worth it in terms of future proofing.
 
Upvote 0
#15
That illustrates an interesting point we often overlook when we get into conversations about program performance. I think I am thought to be an Adobe apologist but that is simply because I don't have a lot of the issues that others do, I just did a speed test on my LR Library disc that also holds my most recent 7,000 images.

I get this.

Screen Shot 2020-05-30 at 08.57.09.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Viggo
A few R5 mk II questions while I wait :)
Replies
5
Views
510
neuroanatomist
neuroanatomist
D
Settings for Airshow photography R5 & R7
Replies
12
Views
1K
daniela
D
shadowsports
Feiyu Tech Scorp 2
Replies
2
Views
823
shadowsports
shadowsports
I
Canon R5 Back Button Experience and (failure)
Replies
11
Views
2K
ICollector
I
cayenne
Adapting lenses to the R52 (or any R system camera)....any experiences yet?
Replies
21
Views
2K
cayenne
cayenne
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu