Color-Space and Profiles

I recently received an email asking what color-space/profile I use in post-processing. First, I'd like to preface that I am by no means a master colorist or printer. It's best you stop reading this right now and Google "understanding color-space" and forget this entry ever existed. If you want a wet&dirty laymen's take, I give you this grain of salt-- take it as such. What I'm about to say stems from my own personal education on the subject-- which is very basic...but what I use suits my needs.

First off, a color-space is a gamut of colors...aka... a color range. How big this gamut is (read: space) directly correlates to how much color depth and brightness you are offered to work with when adjusting color in your image in programs such as Photoshop. So, the bigger the space, the more color range you have-- but don't confuse "more color-range" with "more colors"; you're getting the same number of colors, but a wider saturation range.

From smallest to largest, these three are the most common color-space profiles:

- sRGB

- Adobe RGB (sometimes Adobe RGB 1998)

- ProPhoto RGB

Please refer to the graphic below. The center point is the most desaturated the colors will be... the farther out you move from the center, the more saturated the colors become. You can see where sRGB range stops... and then the color saturation continues outward. See how much more color range/saturation is available to you between sRGB and Adobe RGB.

In my opinion, the age of the professional print is waning fast. Sure, a lot of photographers still carry around and present a psychical portfolio book to show prospective clients... but where your work is seen most often, and by the most people, is your website. On top of that, the iPad is dead-set on supplanting the portfolio book as well. Love it or hate it, that's just the way it's going; it happened to film cameras, now it's happening to prints.

So... since my work is mostly seen on the internet, I choose to work in the smallest, most limited profile, sRGB, the majority of the time. This is because sRGB's limited color-range matches that of the average computer monitor, world-wide. Now, many photographers would lambast me for electing to limit my color options to such a small gamut, and I mostly agree with them. However, the most important reason I elect to work in sRGB is also the most critical: I want to be assured that the colors in my final image will be seen exactly how I see them, by any person, anywhere in the world, on any computer.

Since (for now), the internet is my primary, widest reaching showcase venue, it makes better sense for me to use the universal color space (for average monitors) and know that the degree of blue I made the sky in a photo, is the same blue some Japanese kid is going to see on his screen when he checks out my site. Using a wider gamut would be nice in the short-run... I'd have a lot more range of saturation and can possible make my photos even more vibrate/colorful... but throw that up on my site, then go to a friend's computer... the image will more than likely look duller and more desaturated because that monitor is set for an sRBG color profile, thus not displaying any color-range outside of its profile (that was visible to me on Adobe RGB). So now, I've got something up on my site that isn't a reflective representation of how I adjusted it; the average person viewing my work on their computer will not see the colors how I intended. Solution is to edit in what their range will be (sRGB) and what you see will be what they see (more or less).

So yes... sRGB is the least attractive and most limited profile, but in this digital age, it's going to be the one that's most honest on any given computer.

Now, if you're hot on making prints and/or you just want a much better range of colors... no doubt you need to be in Adobe RGB. It's a medium-gamut and more importantly, the printer's industry standard. However, you also need to get on the phone with your printer ahead of time and ask what specific brand/model of printer they are using, as it makes a small difference. I'm not too keen on what exact micro adjustments you make in PS after, but they can probably walk you through it. Point is: always ask.

If you're a fancy-pants fine-art photographer or a God-complex color-perfectionist, you're probably not even reading this blog, but more than likely working in ProPhoto RGB. Good for you. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm pretty envious, as it's a specialized skill to understand how to wield that mighty sword without hurting yourself. This is a giant profile, but don't think that because it offers the most color-range, you just NEED to be working in it. In this case, bigger doesn't mean better if your camera-captured color range falls within a smaller gamut....

... Think of it this way: you have a 20oz pitcher and a 12oz can of beer. You open the can of beer and pour it into the pitcher. The beer only fills a small portion of the pitcher and that's ALL the beer you have. Then you drink from the pitcher. Kinda pointless isn't it, if all you needed, moreso all you HAD, was 12oz's of beer... just drink it from the can.

....Mmmmmmm...beeeeer.

Depending on what you are shooting and what you are shooting with, you may only need a certain size color-range; so don't think if you're always working within bigger color-space/profile means you're maximizing your options-- -it may just be pointless. So, how can you tell how much color you have and how much you're losing by being within a certain size color-space? Check your histogram in RAW and look at your color channel clippings (colors outside the range you've selected). If you have none, you're fine in your existing color space; if you've got a lot, consider a larger space... but always bear in mind your final output: web, standard print, or fancy-pants print.

Lastly, it's very important to sync the color profile of your DSLR to the color profile of your work-space. In other words, if your camera is set to Adobe RGB, then your work-space should be set to Adobe RGB. If you shoot on Adobe RGB, but your work-space is set to sRGB, then your going to lose a lot of the color captured initially in your image; your untouched photos are going to look more vibrant/etc than when you view them within Photoshop, if set on conflicting color-space. Your camera's manual will tell you how to change it.

Again, there are far better and more extensive articles on this subject; mine is a rudimentary grasp, so rank this entry pretty low on your "take-it-to-heart" list and delve into Google to read expertise takes. However, if anything, hopefully this entry has simply made you AWARE why you may not be getting the most out of your photo prints and/or why what you see on your monitor doesn't match what it looks like on your friend's laptop.

Shoots: Tatiana, Michelle, Chelsea,& Brett

Zuri Model and Talent contacted me recently about their intentions to expand from primarily repping children, to now include juniors/teens... and wanted to know if I was interested in testing some of their newest signs. The look would be more commercial-youth oriented, something that I had never really chased before... so I was happy to oblige, if anything to challenge/test myself with themes I've yet to explore much.

The agency secured a 5-acre estate in Malibu, as well as a full professional team of stylists and make-up & hair artists... which makes it incredibly easy on set, when I can just leave it to pros and not have to micro-manage. I could get used to this.

However, shooting four models individually and in various combinations, each with multiple looks, is a pretty tall order... so I brought on a good friend and fellow photographer, Sterling Davis, as a second-shooter. Sterling is not only naturally gifted, but is a technical encyclopedia when it comes to lighting-- both ambient and artificial/studio-- so, it was very comforting to be able to turn to him, if only to discuss every possibility when it came to assessing/composing any given setting. He was a huge help and I could never have covered everything that needed to be accomplished without him. A solid dude.

Once again, hit gold with the models-- they were all rather lovely young women who came on set to work and nary a complaint amongst them. I know I've been spoiled lately-- I'm just dreading the future shoot where the other shoe finally drops and I get some screaming diva... but that wasn't this day.

Call time was noon, which gave Sterling and I about an hour to prep our equipment and tour the estate to carve out which settings we were going to use. The girls came down in staggered rotations, which was efficient, but soon realized that we couldn't really break much in order to get through the day before we lost light. So, when the sun finally set and the last picture was snapped, we were totally exhausted... to only then face the 45 minute drive back to Los Angeles; I know 45 mins doesn't sound like long, but it is when you've been looking through a viewfinder with one eye for eight hours.

So, what did I learn? That early afternoon sun in the summer is a bitch to get a nice exposure with little to no diffusion. That with extended shoots you must force yourself to set the camera down for at least 30mins, lest you nearly careen off the PCH into the Pacific, due to fatigue. And that you should not schedule a shoot on the same day as the World Cup final game, as you'll find your concentration drifting quite often ;-)

Special thanks to Nikki Olson of Zuri for arranging everything and making it run smoothly, and to Sterling for all his help, guidance, and extended coverage. I'm not sure when/if he'll have his images from the shoot up on his site, but be sure to check him out.

PS: the compression on Blogger really, really, really sucks. Please know the colors in these pictures is much more clear/vibrant/awesome. I'll have them up on my website, whenever that long-awaited (by me) day it finally goes up.

Live Portrait: Kristina

Live Portrait: Kristina from Shoot Luke on Vimeo.

Kristina had seen my prior two live portraits and said if I was interested, she'd be interested in doing one as well. For this one, I wanted to do something different; changing up the scenery from my usual magic-hour golden field was one thing, but I moreso wanted to experiment with pacing.

One could argue this latest video departs from the idea/definition of a "portrait" and transcends into just a montage/sizzle reel, maybe even a music video... but I will lobby that it is still a visual likeness study of a person. I don't want to get into semantics, nor really do I care, so in the end, call it what you will, but I'm sure you can't contest the spirit of my intention.

Anyway, in film school I was an editing "major", as did I work as an assistant editor directly out of college, so it was fun getting back to my cutting roots, as this obviously has a tone and pace to it different from my slower, more lingering videos of prior. I had about 25 minutes of raw footage; using Final Cut Pro HD Express, it took me about 2 days to form a rough cut, then another day to really tighten it up. I could've spent another whole week on this and made it uber-tight, maybe even tried some funky match-cutting to different motions, cut against certain beats of the song... but I've been stretched so thin with shooting and post-processing in normal photography.... and am also fastly developing a form of insomnia, to where I'm all but a zombie. Coffee helps.

I shot this entire video using only my Canon 24-70mm; when shooting 30fps, you should only ever be on 1/60 for your shutter-speed, but my DOF ranged between 5.6-8.0. I elected to use manual focus, so I could get a cool rack-focusing effect at certain points, and also purposely being out of focus for others-- an aesthetic choice.

On to Kristina... what a trooper. It was gloomy and overcast that day, which makes the beach a very cold place, despite it being summer, not to mention the Pacific is absolutely frigid, no matter what time of year it is. In other words: she was freezing her ass off.

...yet, she managed to look amazing and smiled all the way through it. Actually, that's a lie-- I have lots of B-roll footage of her writhing around, frantically screaming into the waves, "IT'S SO G-D COLD!!!". I actually put a quick shot of it within the video-- see if you can spot it!

I gotta say, I'm really liking doing these little experimental portrait-videos; having great lenses allows you make some very cinematic, professional looking shots, that not so long ago was really only an option for professional film shoots and/or would cost you $1000's to rent.

A DSLR body with video and a good piece of glass ain't no cheap buy, neither... but definitely more in the realm of affordability than a RED camera or likened.

Anyway, I had a blast shooting this and putting it together; you can expect more live portraits in the future... or whatever you wanna call them ;-)

And if you want to view in larger, prettier HD, click here!

Shoots: Kristina 2

Over the 4th of July weekend, I hooked up with Kristina once again and headed down to El Matador Beach in Malibu for some sand and shooting. The intention was more to experiment with shooting video on the 5dmkII; I'm really getting into the live portraits I've been messing around with and am thinking about expanding the scope of future ones, hence the yet-to-be-posted video I shot of Kristina.

More on that later, but I also snapped off a couple dozen shots of her, because-- hey, why not? It was completely overcast that day, so I didn't have the option of my go-to-crutch of sun-flares and hazy backlighting... which I actually liked not having.

Anyway, it's a short post today, because it was a short (still) shoot. The live-portrait of Kristina with much more detail about the shoot is forthcoming, so stay tuned!

Shoots: Kathy

I'm not sure if my soul was sold to the Devil without my knowledge... maybe I was drunk? Probably. But I am batting a cool 300 when it comes to working with sweet, easy-going models. I imagine a horrible diva is just around the corner, but in the case of Kathy, couldn't be a nicer gal. Yes, I say 'gal', because that's the perfect way to describe this Louisiana-born Korean/Caucasian portrait of beauty meets genuinity-- which, after checking, is apparently a word I just invented. No, wait-- Urban Dictionary has got it; why is this not a word? Webster's now recognizes 'google' as a verb... where's the love for genuinity?!?!

Anyway, with wardrobe on-loan from Kareena's Trends, I drug poor Kathy all across Malibu Creek State Park-- which is officially my new favorite location in the greater Los Angeles area, and apparently a well-kept secret, as on a Sunday summer afternoon, there was probably all of 12 people we came across. Most importantly, it's got golden-fields galore, which of course, is my favorite thing ever.

Kathy got her start in Maxim as one of their 'Home-Town Hottie' selections and has gone on to have a steady and successful modeling career. Kathy's portfolio is very versatile, from swim/glamour to high-commercial... but what she didn't really have was, well, exactly what I'm all about-- I really need to find a word for my style; maybe, "Shazoom!" No, that's terrible. "Pofow!"; "Kaplee!"; "Fadoo!"; (i'm not sure why I'm trying to make onimonipia fake-words).

Well, the point is, I did "my thing" with her and it resulted in some stunning images. I realize that might be a bit biased to say, as I was the photographer, but I default nearly all of the credit to Kathy. Not only does she look great, but she managed to pull it off while hoofing around the park for 5 hours in the sun. Bravo, kiddo.

And if you missed it, check out my live portrait of Kathy, too. Special thanks to Juliet Monroe of iCandy who provided amazing, natural make-up/look!

Shoots: Amy

Amy is both an actress and a model (repped by Click). I first saw Amy in the film Garden State ; I had a friend at a big-shot talent agency who hooked me up with her acting manager; from there I cast her in my (bad-ass) short-film.... where the main-character kills her with a shovel.... but I digress.

We've since become great friends and she's one of the most genuine, sweetest people I've ever known. She also comes in handy when I want to get out and flex my camera-muscles with a professional model for the modest fee of a couple beers!

For this shoot, we headed up to Escondido Falls in Malibu. The annoying thing about this location is that you have to park, then hike a mile JUST to get to the trailhead... where you then hike about 1.8 miles to the falls. Upon a semi-trecharous, winded journey (hey, i ain't a teenager anymore!), we came upon a dismal sight: the waterfall was mostly dried-up! I had scouted the location over a month before and it was pretty impressive... but I guess with the onset of summer and the quickly changing temperatures of Los Angeles, the water level drops fairly rapidly. So, if you plan on checking out this location for shooting, I'd recommend going later in the year or in the spring.

However, the local was still completely salvageable, with plenty of choice settings along the trail. Shooting time was my normal 4pm-7pm slot for this time of year; any earlier in the mostly un-cloudy Los Angeles (smog doesn't count) would be far too bright for exteriors with no diffusion boards.

I've already posted my live-portrait of Amy from this day, and the photographs came out great as well! Big thanks to Amy for hiking all that way in the hot-sun without complaining and still managing to look great!!

Live Portrait: Kathy

Live Portrait: Kathy from Shoot Luke on Vimeo.

(click here to view in glorious HD)

Through various photography community forums and my own hack research I figured out a lot (not all) of what went wrong technically with my prior DSLR-video attempts.

First off, when shooting (HD) video with a DSLR, always shoot in manual mode. Shutter-speed is incredibly important and can't really vary from the following: If you are shooting 24p, set to 1/50 (closest to the 180-degree shutter of classic motion picture cameras - there is no 1/48) and for 30p, set to 1/60. If you set your shutter-speed too fast, you're going to get overly-crisp and choppy playback which will look very odd-- fight scenes in movies such as "Gladiator" and the opening sequence to "Saving Private Ryan" were shot (though on film) at a very high shutter speed, which gave the scenes an intended aesthetic quality/look. Of course, this is up to you, but if you want your playback to look, well, "normal", then 1/50 for 24p and 1/60 for 30p is what you need to be at. I naively shot my previous live-portrait at 1/125 and you can absolutely tell.

**A critical note about shooting 24p-- a lot of us use Final Cut HD Express for editing (as it's 1/5th the cost of the full FCP); however bear in mind that the current version of FCP Express does not support 24p. If you import 24p footage, it will convert to a 30p timeline, which will result in jittery footage and weird motion noise. This is also evident on my prior live-portrait attempt. Some people are concerned that 30p looks too much like video, therefor opt for 24p. However, if your principle screening-venue is going to be the internet, via YouTube, Vimeo, etc... you're not going to be able to distinguish 30p versus 24p to a point that matters. So, don't drop the grand-plus$$ on a full version of FCP unless you're a serious film-maker who will be screening their video/movie/short in/on a larger venue, such as projector screen or television. If you're the casual videographer like myself, just shoot 30p.

Next is your aperture setting. Working without a good outboard monitor, making sure you have sharp focus on your subject proves more than difficult on a 3-inch screen ('sharp' being the operative word here), so I recommend a thicker DOF overall to help combat this. But you don't want to lose too much nice bokeh, so I'd go no wider than an f/8 if your subject is about the same distance away as Kathy is in this video. Of course, if you bust out the tape-measure and crunch the numbers given your aperture and focal length, you're going to start getting more reliable and accurate sharpness even without an outboard monitor, and you can increase your DOF knowing your math is sound.

...however, I am terrible at math, and to be quite honest, when filming, the scene and subject is (and should be) fluid and alive... things happen on-the-fly, so sometimes you just have to "run and gun"; so having a base of a "safer" aperture can help you focus on your subject/scene and not worry as much about sharpness.

But you still need to grab your critical focus; and for at least the 5d mkII model, AF "Quick Mode" is really your only option without a larger monitor. Yeah, there's ways of getting around that, but I wouldn't; the contrast-based method of Auto Focus while in live-mode can take very long, especially in bright lighting circumstances and it renders the footage captured while trying to achieve focus unusable, not to mention the onboard mic pics up all the noise of you pressing the AF button and the motor noise of the lens trying to re-focus. If you want to go for that aesthetic "rack-focus" look, just pull focus manually. But again, without an outboard monitor, it'll be tough to see how sharp you are once you re-focus.

Finally, a helpful "no duh!" is while in Live-Mode, make sure you are in 'Movie Display" and not "Exposure Simulation"; the later is great when shooting stills, but you need to be in the former to A) make sure your subject falls within the 16:9 crop, and B) you will not be able to manually adjust your exposure-- which is ultra-critical.

Back to sharpness for a moment: you may notice that Kathy's face, especially during close-up's, is not ultra-sharp. This is due mainly to the extreme back-lighting and sun-flares going almost directly into the lens, as well as not having a fill light or reflector bouncing back into Kathy's face. This is a somewhat purposeful aesthetic choice, as I wanted to portray Kathy in (my typical) "romantic, hazy, memory of a girl long since gone" motif that I do... but honestly, she still could have used some fill light; however, I did not have an assistant or P.A., so I had to make-do.

I still feel the intended theme I wanted to evoke shone through. Just have to keep shooting more and more and never stop trying to improve!