Tonal adjustment without PP

Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
245
Location
Dubai
Hi,

I am at the very beginning of my journey as an amateur photographer and still getting to grips with terminology, technology and technique.


I am trying to determine the techniques required to capture 'warmer' skin tones in portraits without any post processing.

Should i try playing with ISO settings?

I dont want to attempt longer shutter speeds as I am not sure on the effect and I have yet to develop a technique for holding the camera steady...

Its early days in my understanding of the ISO-Aperture-Shutter relationship.

thanks

Leigh
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
3,902
Location
UK
ISO will not help with capturing warmer skin tones. Quality of light at capture and correct WB will even to the extent of filtering flash if that is what you use for your portraiture.

In camera controls such as picture settings Portrait or Vivid may help and although designed for Jpeg shooting can be applied in post in either Nikon Capture etc or ACR LR or PS.

It is unlikely that any capture you make is going to be perfect therefore some degree of pp will be required for most images. IMO while it is good to get as close as possible in camera at the time of shooting pp is going to be required to fine tune the image tonality and can be saved as a preset or default in most raw processors once you have the magic skin tone formula and can be applied to a batch of images
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
245
Location
Dubai
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
thanks for the replies. Much appreciated. I will try playing with WB.

I agree Tony that image adjustment is important and certainly I am not against it. I just wondered to what extent you can be flexible with the camera configuration itself.

thanks
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
43,413
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
there are picture controls (in body settings)....personally I don't use them because I shoot RAW and prefer everything to be as I see it

one of the pic control settings is portrait, give it a try, maybe it will help
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
3,012
Location
UK
there are picture controls (in body settings)....personally I don't use them because I shoot RAW and prefer everything to be as I see it
Randy,

You can't turn Picture Controls off.

Your camera must be set to one of the PC's?

Did you mean that, because you use a third party RAW converter, you PC is not recognised/ignored and therefore you literally start from scratch?

DG
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
3,902
Location
UK
...Did you mean that, because you use a third party RAW converter, you PC is not recognised/ignored and therefore you literally start from scratch?

DG
Picture controls for many cameras are actually included in ACR and LR and will be found in the Camera Calibration section. The controls include Landscape, Neutral, Portrait, Standard and Vivid. Although I do not tend to use them they are pretty close from memory to the controls found in NX2 - you do generally need to turn them on though!
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
3,012
Location
UK
Aren't they Adobe's versions of the Nikon in-camera Picture Controls?

If you modify an in-camera PC (e.g. increase contrast or saturation) then the similarly named Adobe PC is not going to look like the Nikon (modified) PC which you saw when you reviewed the image on the camera.

In CNX2 it will.

It comes down to whether you want to make the image in-camera or in PP.

DG
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
3,902
Location
UK
Yes, they are Adobe versions of Nikon, Canon controls etc etc.

If you do modify in camera then of course you will need to modify in post to look the same as the jpeg version you see on the camera lcd.

IMHO if you do fall in love with the image you see on your camera LCD screen then you accept that the 'look' that Nikon, Canon etc build into to their renderings of the raw image is correct/accurate or as you visualised when pressing the shutter button there would seem to be little point in using a raw converter. Might as well just keep the whole workflow jpeg sRGB?
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
43,413
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
Yes, they are Adobe versions of Nikon, Canon controls etc etc.

If you do modify in camera then of course you will need to modify in post to look the same as the jpeg version you see on the camera lcd.

IMHO if you do fall in love with the image you see on your camera LCD screen then you accept that the 'look' that Nikon, Canon etc build into to their renderings of the raw image is correct/accurate or as you visualised when pressing the shutter button there would seem to be little point in using a raw converter. Might as well just keep the whole workflow jpeg sRGB?
I won't take the bait (JPG vs RAW):smile:
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
15,253
Location
Marysville, WA
Randy,

You can't turn Picture Controls off.

Your camera must be set to one of the PC's?

Did you mean that, because you use a third party RAW converter, you PC is not recognised/ignored and therefore you literally start from scratch?

DG
I'm not Randy, of course, but if you use NX2 for your processing you can zero out all of the picture control settings when you begin processing, effectively turning it off. It is correct that you cannot turn it off "in camera".

The beauty of this is that if you like the look, as Tony notes, on the LCD then you will have the same "look" when you first open the NEF in NX2, with the bonus that you can modify further from the NEF itself.

Many ways to reach the same goal.

To the OP, depending upon which body you have, you can do quite a bit of tweaking to the WB settings for added warmth. Look in your manual regarding custom white balance settings, if you have them.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
You could try this:

AUTO white balance with A2 adjustment.

--

But I think you have to set it back when shooting with the light from lamps - then it could be too yellow or too orange (dpending of what lamps it is).
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
3,902
Location
UK
I won't take the bait (JPG vs RAW):smile:
Well at least you put a smiley at the end. Just in case anyone comes along and thinks that I was actually baiting raw vs jpeg then my apologies - that argument generally ends up going nowhere and usually turning a little touchy. :biggrin:
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
43,413
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
Well at least you put a smiley at the end. Just in case anyone comes along and thinks that I was actually baiting raw vs jpeg then my apologies - that argument generally ends up going nowhere and usually turning a little touchy. :biggrin:
I knew you weren't but I had to add a little humor:biggrin:

it's like 'should I use a UV filter or not'
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
3,902
Location
UK
Humour is most welcome and I knew that you knew that I knew that everyone should know that I knew that most would not take it the wrong way by not knowing what I knew :smile:

As to the UV filter I definitely think that you should use one if you know that one of those large BIF you do is going to crap on your lens or that today is the day you are going to drop your lens and the UV filter will protect it rather than scratch it :biggrin:
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
245
Location
Dubai
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #17
thanks all, appreciate the responses.

I have a D7000 with a bewildering array of options - that i barely understand at the moment. Maybe I am being too hasty in turning off the intelligence it has when it understands and knows so much more than me :)

The reason i orignally asked was because my editing SW (Photoshop/Lightroom) is on my Mac in Dubai and I am currently in UK on holiday. I just wondered what could be done mechanically rather than digitally.

Like some have posted here I like the idea of using SW (camera or otherwise) as little as possible.


It's good that even amongst very accomplished photographers there is healthy debate.

Was it simpler back in the film days when there was less digital interference?

Has digital manipulation made things easier or harder?


thanks again.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
15,253
Location
Marysville, WA
thanks all, appreciate the responses.

It's good that even amongst very accomplished photographers there is healthy debate.

Was it simpler back in the film days when there was less digital interference?

Has digital manipulation made things easier or harder?


thanks again.
What is the "debate" stuff? We ARGUE for crying out loud, much more Ego Building that way :wink:

Simpler back in the film days? Yes, if you let someone else do all your development and printing. But then you had far less control.

I like your last question. My opinion is that digital has made things easier and harder. "Easier" in the sense that you can have more precise control with very quick feedback, "Harder" for exactly the same reasons. Remember that with Digital you are, like it or not, now in charge of your Darkroom, for better or worse. In the film days the choice of film and filters was about all you could manipulate external to the darkroom processing. With digital, as you note, you have a plethora of options to set in the camera, even if you shoot JPG and print direct.

Perhaps a more correct answer to your last question would be "Neither easier nor harder, just different".
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
3,902
Location
UK
Perhaps a more correct answer to your last question would be "Neither easier nor harder, just different".
Sheesh, took you long enough to get here Bill :wink::biggrin: anyway I agree :smile:
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom