Custom Colour Settings. what do you use?

Having just adjusted my in-camera colour settings, i thought I'd ask the question 'What colour settings do you use?'

I have just changed from Vivid with all settings within Vivid set to ZERO, to Natural with Saturation set up one notch (+25% I would assume), Hue at ZERO, Contrast up one notch (+25%), sharpness/fine sharpness up two nothces (50%)

took some test images yesterday, and reckon the new settings give a more accurate colour rendering.

I'd be interested in hearing the experiences of others on this subject.

The reason I have done it is to hjopefully cut down on the amount of post-processing I do (which is usually a tweak in saturation, levels and sharpness)

I find that every picture needs some tweaking, even if it's only a slight exposure adjustment and sharpening.

As it is, I shoot RAW, but if I shot JPEG it would be neutral all the way.

With the right software, PP doesn't take long and is essential to get the best from your shot.

G

Hi,
With my K7 i use Natural as the default Bright Setting adds sharpness which in turn increases noise, My Press Photographer friends use Vivid for their work.

Regards - Pete

I used to set contrast to +1 on my K100D. Then I wondered why I was always having to use shadows/highlights in PS to tone it down. Now I use contrast at -1 and results are much better.

If someone shoots Jpeg I'll guess playing with custom settings is useful.
If on the other hand you are shooting Raw only I would advice to turn off all the settings influencing the jpeg histogram output on the camera.
That means Contrast,Saturation and Sharpness set to MINUS 2
Colour space should be set to AdobeRGB.

If you want to use your display for evaluating of the histogram and don't belong to the primates we call Chimpanzee's you should really do that.
Only than.....You will be accurate when it comes to ETTL (expose to the right) Raw devotees will understand that, others still have to learn.

Why turn the settings to Minus 2 if shooting RAW? They won't affect the image.

And why AdobeRGB? If using Windows, sRGB is surely better for screen viewing; and most High Street printers (I believe) prefer sRGB.

G

sRGB livens up images a bit and ensures total compatibility with all likely devices, which is why I use it and recommend it.

Because aRGB has a broader colour spectrum and significantly capture more shades of green and luckily that's precisely the colour we see the best. So we can say you capture a more true like image with aRGB the you can with sRGB.
As for showing those colours, most highend monitors have even a rating of a percentage they can show of aRGB. EIZO for example have screen that can show 97% of the Adobe RGB color space.
So why go for less when you can have more?

As for printers, Adobe RGB was designed to encompass most of the colours achievable on CMYK printers so it's a bit beyond me why they prefer sRGB.

The only real reason not to use aRGB is because of the colour depths of JPG, it's only 12bits.
Since it capture a broader range of green you have the problem that the steps you have with only 12bits can be undesirable so you might get a smoother transition with sRGB in that case.

Bare with me for a moment, George. If you shoot Raw only, and use the ETTR method, you base your exposures on the info the histogram is giving you.
The graph on your display is a jpeg output and therefore influenced by every in camera setting you apply.

So using sRGB gives a to smaller colour space and will likely show clipping on your display, while in reality...when you open the raw file in PS,LR or SPDS there is no clipping at all. The same goes for contrast, saturation and sharpness. They all influence the output of the graph, on camera.
So when you want to achieve maximum detail with minimal noise in a raw file you should try to get the display of your camera to be as accurate as possible.

Check the difference of the graph on your camera when viewing a file on on your card and the same file opened in your raw converter.

If you open a Raw file in PS or whatever Raw converter it's wise to edit and develop in ProPhotoRGB or AdobeRGB . The bigger the colour space the better. For output....(web or print) just convert to sRGB.
Basicly your aim should be to preserve as much data during capturing and editing as possible. And only at the end you minimize that space by converting to sRGB.

PS, To avoid confusion, In my first post I wrote ETTL. This should be ETTR (Expose to the right) sorry for that typo.

PPS, George: When I say display I only mean the display on the back of your camera. I don't refer to your PC monitor.

Very interesting, Martin. I take your point. But have you experimented to see whether changes to the JPEG settings do actually make any noticeable difference, or are they too small to matter?

As for editing, I use Windows, and the monitor will display sRGB better than it will aRGB (as I understand it). So although I could change colour space later if I wished, I would still prefer to use sRGB while editing.

Furthermore, I believe that whilst aRGB has a wider gamut than sRGB, there are some areas covered by sRGB that are not covered by aRGB. So if I am going to end up with sRGB finally, I will surely lose something if I start in aRGB and then convert.

G

I have, and depending on the scene and tonallity it does show. Specially in my kind of photography which ....as you have seen often involves very dark scenes. That's why I want to ETTR as far as possible to rescue as much as detail (noise free) in the darks.



You must not confuse the colour space of your screen with the working colour space during editing. The latter is important to retain detail even if it is not directly visible to your eyes. Just do a test.
Open a file as 16 bit tiff in your editor using ProPhotoRGB as working space. Make some tweaks on contrast, saturation and levels. Safe file.

Now open the same file as a 8 bit tiff convert to sRGB as working space and do the same tweaks on contrast, sat and levels. Safe file.

Now...open both files and open levels on each. You will see a big difference in the structure of the graph. The 8 bit sRGB version will look jagged. IE.....lost data.

This you have to explain. The sRGB colour space falls completely within the AdobeRGB space. As the latter on it's turn is consumed by ProphotoRGB. The bigger the colour space , the more date will be preserved. And because some files will need more than avarage editing at the end, files will degrade. That cannot be changed. But knowing this, I would like to start and retain as long as possible with as much data I can safe.

Saving for web or print output in sRGB is needed, but only than. The master PSD/Tiff edit stays untouched and saved in ProphotoRGB.
To be as close as possible to the original PEF/DNG file.

Now....all of this is only useful for Raw workers. If you choose to bake the file in camera to a jpeg as output, and destroy all the raw data.......
By all means....apply every custom setting you like, cramp it in sRGB as working space (in camera and during editing) and be happy. That....however is not my preferred way of working.
The latter method is a bit like shooting slides, make prints of them, throw away the slides and scan the prints for editing purposes.
Bad Idea !! IMO

PS,
Apologies to the OP if this goes a bit to far, and drifts away from your original question.

Thanks Martin. I shall ponder and respond tomorrow. But meanwhile, surely the middle setting on the saturation/brightness/etc. controls reflects the base point. -2 is what was captured, minus a bit. Am I wrong?

G

I am under the impression the middle section is the technicians interpretation of neutral. But....because I can go to minus values I do so, to make sure no influence what so ever affects the graph. Why would they offer them other wise. It's not possible to detract something from something that isn't there,right?

Remember...intention for putting that display there in the first place is mainly to let people chimp. So the picture should have a neutral setting.
The latter being just a representation of what the Pentax developers think is neutral. By no means they had in mind the only useful function of that display. Namely......evaluating the histogram.

To give you a hint. The boys from Leica who developed the M9 and S2 are the first who made sure the settings are set off by default and displayed in AdobeRGB on the camera screen . For all the reasons I have mentioned before. Its about a correct histogram and not to judge colour, sharpness etc.....

Sorry Martin but everything you said is very true but the saving in sRGB for printing is quite ridiculous don't you think?
I know that many printers (people that print photos for you) ask for sRGB but they have never explained that and I'm quite sure that the printers they have can handle aRGB with ease. Even the better printers we have at home can benefit a bit from aRGB so why not them?

aRGB was developed to overlap CYMK colours. CYMK is what printers use so, Cyan, Yellow, Magenta and Key black.

Pictures tells you more then a thousands word so I've some pictures.


White line is sRGB
Black line is aRGB
Grey line is CYMK profile of a high-end inkjet printer with 8 inks, the Canon iP9900 in this case.

25% Luminance


50% Luminance


75% Luminance

Good of you to join in, Stefan. But the discussion between G. and me is about something else.Yes ...it involves colour space, but that's not the main issue. The point is: To get the camera to be as accurate possible in showing us a histogram which represents the true range of tonal values.
The same histogram that should be a guide for the way you develop your file during PP. And to come back to my main point. If you use the camera display to read the histogram for evaluation of a particular scene/exposure you should turn off all the in camera settings.

So....let's not drift away to far in the jungle of colour spaces etc.....That is heading to advanced colour management and a different can of worms.