Increasing Saturation

Hey, is there any way (such as using colorsync) to make the color saturation more vibrant (like the "Digital Vibrance" setting for nVidia Cards on PCs)?
MacBook Pro 17" Core 2 Duo 2.33 GHz Mac OS X (10.4.8) 200 GB HD

George,
1. Zoom way in on the eyes
2. Use lasso tool to select one eye
3. Hold down shift key to to select other eye. Don't stray on to the eyelids
4. Feather selection by 1-2 pixels
5. Bring up Hue/saturation adjustment layer
6. Click on colorize
7. Adjust the sliders to maximize blue effect
8. Can change opacity of this layer and blending mode.
Ken

Similar Messages

Increasing saturation/color in one area

I have a photo , which is a close up, that i would like to increase the color or saturaion in just the blue of her eyes. the rest of the photo is fine the way it is. i would like her blue eyes to really pop off the page so to speak and i am not sure of how to go about doing this. any help would be greatly appreciated.
thanks
George

George,
1. Zoom way in on the eyes
2. Use lasso tool to select one eye
3. Hold down shift key to to select other eye. Don't stray on to the eyelids
4. Feather selection by 1-2 pixels
5. Bring up Hue/saturation adjustment layer
6. Click on colorize
7. Adjust the sliders to maximize blue effect
8. Can change opacity of this layer and blending mode.
Ken

Using Enhannce Tool to increase saturation of images viewed after iDVD...

Some points to throw out for comment.
Scanning 4x6 prints into iPhoto, then FotoMagico, to iDVD. End result is quality is good to great, with respect to sharpness, but a little washed out. Should I use the Enhance Tool in iPhoto, to restore the richness and sometimes the color balance--does applying that do anything strange to the images as they are encoded/rendered etc later in FotoMagico/iDVD? Recent customer I had expressed that images in their slideshow looked washed out (simply raising the color setting on their TV may well be the solution!)
Also, I'm using a HP Deskjet F340 All-in-One to scan. Up to 1200x2400, 48 bit color, but I scan at 300x300 for 4x6. Adaquate scanner and dpi?
Thanks, Dale

OtherCaveman:
Not sure the size you're referring to for the 4 x 6s. are you referring to 300 dpi. If you're scanning 4x6's at 300 dpi for printing that should do the job quite well.
Enhancing in iPhoto before using in MagicFoto/iDVD shouldn't have any adverse affects. I found that stills show much brighter when played the a TV from an iDVD disk than when viewed on the monitor. Same goes for video clips.
To adjust the severity of the Enhance mode you can try this hidden trick:
How to Change the Size of the Retouch and Red-Eye Removal Tool
Type Caps lockControl9
Undo caps lock
Click on the Retouch or Red-Eye Removal tool
The tab key will toggle between cursor types, a cross or a circle
The "[" and "]" keys decrease or increase the size accordingly.
NOTE: Using the "{" "}" keys will will change the value next to the circle and that represents the degree of change or intensity that the tool imparts on each pass.
This was described in the most recent MacWorld magazine, Page 90.
Do you Twango?
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.

Replace Color Command Saturation Algorithm

For the Replace Color Command (not the Replace Color Tool), the meaning of the Saturation slider is clear only when the slider value is negative (reducing saturation). In that case the slider reading is the percent by which the (H-L) gap is to be reduced, where H and L are the highest and lowest RGB channel values. A reading of -100 means the gap is to be completely closed. Whatever the percentage closure, it is effected by decreasing H and increasing L in equal increments proportional to the slider setting.
When the saturation slider is set to a positive number (increasing saturation), however, the meaning is not easily unearthed. The incremental changes in H and L, although still equal and opposite in algebraic sign, are now a non-linear function of the slider and the initial H and L values, but I have not been able to nail it.
BTW, The middle RGB channel plays no role in either case. With H and L set, it is adjusted to keep hue constant.
Any help out there? Gernot? Anybody?

Bump---with apologies. First time ever (honest). Apart from staving off the post's oblivion, I want to verify just where in the ladder a bump jumps.

Histograms: luminosity or saturation?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been learning Photoshop for quite a while, I've done lots of tutorials and read a few books, but I can't find the answer to this simple thing: In the histogram palette menu there are red, green and blue histograms to give the saturation of those colors, and a luminosity histogram to give the overall ( greyscale) brightness. There is also an RGB option, presumably to give a composite version of the red, green and blue saturation.
In Levels, however we have the same thing, except there is no luminosity option, only RGB. But RGB in this case cannot be a composite of the three color channels, as we use it to adjust brightness and contrast; in other words it is presumably the same as Luminosity in the histogram palette. Despite this, when I do adjustments to an image the RGB histogram in Levels looks identical to the RGB histogram in the histogram palette. I'm obviously missing something, but I don't know what. Can anyone help?...I'm using PS 3 Extended.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:38:05 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
Good questions. It's no wonder that the histogram tool is a bit confusing,
since very little is said about it in the PS documentation. There are five
histogram "modes", RGB, red, green, blue, luminosity, and colors.
> 1) In the histogram Palette ( and indeed in Levels) do the color channel histograms
> represent luminosity ( which I take to be brightness) or color saturation? (These
> are presumably separate entities).
Speaking only of RGB images, the red, green, and blue channel histograms
are the first ones to sort out. They represent the number of values
(0-255) of each color channel. The Color histogram is a superimposed
display of red, green, and blue histograms. The absolute height of the
peaks in the histogram is determined by the height of the maximum peak, and
this is done on a per channel basks.
> 2)Does the black RGB histogram represent a composite of the 3 color
> channels( as I think you've said ) or the grey tonal values? If the
> former, why do we use it to adjust tones ie. make the image darker
> or lighter,increase contrast etc?
The black RGB histogram is a combined view of the histograms for each of
the three channels, however all the channels are vertically scaled by the
same amount, instead of being scaled individually per channel. This means
that the location of the peaks for each individual channel stays the same,
but that the height of each peak will be smaller for two of the channels.
> 3) What is the luminosity option for in the Histogram Palette and why is there not one in Levels?
Luminosity is calculated by taking the weighted sum of the red, green, and
blue values for each pixel. The weight is smaller for blue, since it is
the darkest color, and largest for green. This corresponds closely to the
histogram seen in many camera displays, and is the reason that clipping can
occur, but not show in the histogram.
> 4)In the channels palette, do the greyscale images for each channel represent colors,
> or are there really greyscale images behind each color channel?
Each channel is a grayscale image. For RGB, each image can be thought of
as providing a certain amount of red, green, or blue to the image.
> 5) Do Curves adjustments increase saturation or brightness ie. Luminosity.
Again, speaking only in RGB, Curves can increase saturation and luminosity
in a variety of ways, since saturation, hue, and luminosity information is
mixed together in each of the red, green, and blue channels. Many people
find that working in the Lab color mode is simpler, since the L channel
contains all the luminosity information, and a and b contain independent
color information. Try Lab - you might like it very much indeed.
> 6) Why is there a black channel in CMYK if each channel has its own greyscale image?
The black channel borrows data, more or less equally, from the C, M, and Y
images. This produces a fourth channel, called K, that provides excellent
control over shadows and textures. Since the CMY channels contain more
color information, they provide a very sensitive adjustment for color,
which is good for things like skin tone variation.
> As you can see, I am having problems understanding what precisely color channels
> are, and also what exactly histograms are telling us.
It takes a while for all of this to sink in, but it does not require a PhD.
Things like additive and subtractive color, and the idea that organizing
color data into different color models, such as RGB, Lab, HSB, and CMYK can
provide leverage.
> I realise this might be a tall order for a forum such as this but I would appreciate
> any help you can give.
I think it's important to work these things out from basic principles, as
you are doing. Grab a book by Dan Margulis, and some light bulbs will
start to turn on regarding the different color spaces.
BTW - histograms are a poor tool for color correction. If there are
problems with clipping or other issues, it is much better to look at the
individual channels of the image, rather than the histogram.

CS4 Color looks too saturated on Screen?

Hi all, not sure why but my color in CS4 Photoshop look oversaturated.
When I view them with ACDsee viewer or Canon software they both look the same. But when I use photoshop the images look too saturated. It's not easy to edit my photos, as the out put does not look the same as when I am editing.
Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance, awaiting any messages that may help out.
Coolpix

What are your colour management policies in the Color Settings panel? And do you calibrate your monitor?
You can get increased saturation -- actually ugly colors -- if assigning a higher gammut profile to an image tagged with a lower gammut profile, e.g. assign AdobeRGB to an sRGB image.
(Note that 'Assigning' a profile gives far different results than 'Converting to' a profile.)

Do Luminance values affect colour saturation?

Hi, after many months I eventually reduced my cd/m from 125 to 100 when calibrating my monitor at 6500 for daytime work and 5800 for evening work. I was always having printouts darker than screen you see. Now the shadow and highlights are spot on in photoshop (no discrpency anymore) But, I now find that in CS3 my colours are slightly more saturated in the prints and even more saturated in Illustrator CS3 on graphics. rendering intents have not been altered for printing, all the usual parameters remain unchanged - just the new calibration target of 100 cdm. So does this lesser luminance mean my colours on the screen are less saturated because of this?
thankyou kindly.

cvbotr,
Actually....yes....brightness can affect saturation. If you think about it, as you approach pure white or pure black, saturation MUST decrease. For example, you can't have a pure white color that is also a highly saturated red. That is an "impossible color", at least from a human perception standpoint. You can define such a color in L*a*b* color space, but it will display as something other that a pure white / highly saturated red. The same thing happens as you approach black....the chroma (or saturation) diminishes. Saturation usually max's out somewhere in the midtone region, and adjusting tonality from that point toward either white or black will reduce the saturation that a given color space can display.
A darker image often appears "richer" and more saturated. Of course, it depends on the tonality of the pixels you are looking at. Lightening a very dark image can increase saturation, and darkening a light "washed out" image can also increase saturation. This is largely a human perception issue. If you have a CMYK color that is 100C, 100M, oY, 100K, I guess you could say that is a very saturated Dark Blue, but when you look at it printed on a sheet of paper, it is a deep, rich black, not blue. If you take out the black component, now you have a dark blue. At what point does dark blue become black? It is a human perception thing.
In RGB terms, the most saturated red you can achieve is 255R, 0G, 0B. The only way to make this color lighter is to increase the green and blue components. As those two components increase toward 255, you invariably move toward white, with a resulting loss in saturation. You can observe this in the Photoshop color picker.
I remember a photo I took of bright autumn foliage on a brilliant October day in late afternoon. The leaves were backlit. I wanted to portray that bright scene with light, shadows, and the dazzling colors of the red and yellow leaves with the sun shining through them. It's a difficult challenge on an RGB monitor, and doubly difficult in print. The dynamic range and color gamut of the real scene greatly exceeded what both the monitor and printer were capable of delivering. I started by making the highlights as bright and the shadows as dark as possible. Unfortunately, this lightened some of the reds and yellows, and consequently, I lost some of the intense color saturation that the picture was all about. There was no perfect answer to this problem, but I finally sacrificed some brightness to achieve better color saturation and found a balance that worked for me. That is a perfect example of what you are talking about.
BTW, I find 90-100 cd/m2 to be about right for good monitor to print matching. I use 90 cd/m2, 5200K, and 2.2 gamma.
Lou

Exposure, Contrast, Brightness and Colour Saturation

I have read in the past that tone & contrast adjustments can affect colour saturation, but have never seen specific details. Can anyone point me in the right direction, please?

madmanchan wrote:
>> Basically if you increase contrast, you increase saturation. The inverse is also true, i.e., if you decrease contrast, you decrease saturation.
<<
How about an orthogonal definition: HS-L* or HS-Y (see Simon Tindemans).
Regarding Mark's article, there also was a broad discussion:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=18413&st=89
Peter

What's Wrong? My iPad Lost it's Yellow Tint!

My new iPad never really had a yellow tint. The display, though, was obviously warmer in tone than my iPad 2, and the warmth was across the entire display, not just part of it.
Space around text was, in particular, whiter on the iPad 2, and the text seemed to be darker - more contrasty. I had to call my wife over to take a look and she confirmed what I was seeing, when the two iPads were side-by-side.
As others have noted, if the two iPads were not compared side-by-side, the new one looked fine. Put them together, and the difference was very apparent.
However, having read from several posters that it's an issue with glue, I decided not to panic. Last night, I spent a few hours with the new iPad on the Web, reading people's comments, and then browsing the topic of color - how we see, Edwin Land's ideas about color perception being based on context, etc. It made for interesting, if not hard-going reading.
Just before I went to bed, I did a last comparison check. I discoverd, to my amazement, that my new iPad's display had lost most of its warm tint over the past few hours. As far as I can tell, it's now totally gone. When I compare it to my iPad 2, the new iPad still looks warmer, but only in comparison.
Now the iPad 2 has a bluish cast to my eyes, especially when I'm looking at a page with black text and white space - the white is blue. With photos, the difference is down to a slight saturation gain with the new iPad. And the retina display increases sharpness just enough to make some photographs, along with their increased saturation, appear to be 3D.
I have a feeling this problem of tint/color will resolve itself for most people, one way or the other. For those who can relax for a few days, they might find, as I did, that the yellow will disappear. Or they might trade in their iPads, but there's no guarantee, if they get an iPad fresh off the boat, that it won't have the same problem, at least for a few days.

That's good to hear that the "Yellow tint" has sorted it self out.
Maybe the "Heat" issues that that people have with the batteries will sort it self out after a few discharge - recharge cycles.

Sending a photo heavy PDF for book printing on a web press. Convert photo in photoshop first or Acrobat 11?

Hi,
The printing company for our photo book on Loons, uses roll fed web presses. They have asked for a pdf set to X-1a.
First soft proof was light and washed out. Printer had us increase saturation and contrast. Second proof
all our blue water photos come out more purple then blue.
We currently used srgb jpeg photos embedded in a ms word document. We used acrobat 11 to create the pdf using the request X-1a
setting.
Should we have converted the photos in photoshop to the requested setting first and then embedded them in word?
Thanks for any help.

Can you show us screen shots of your X-1 PDF Settings ( i.e., Color )? The reason why I ask is my default Distiller PDF-X1a:2001 Settings use a working space of RGB = sRGB IEC61966-2.1; and CMYK = US Web Coated (SWOP) v2 with the "Color Management Policies: "Convert All Colors to CMYK" ( default ); Rendering Intent ( default is "Preserve" ). Have you discussed these settings with the print service provider? These settings, if they are identical in Acrobat 11, would appear to have the same RGB work space as your original sRGB based pics. I sense that Word, although not a color managed application, would work as an image carrier into Acrobat 11 where the image files may retain their profiles going into Acrobat 11 and remain intact going out of Acrobat 11 via a PDF-X1a. In which case, the print service provider then RIP and Prints the file for a hardcopy proof. In your case, the previous digital printer did a good job reproducing the photos as you supplied them, Word or no Word. The question now becomes what changed with this new service provider? Their prepress people must of accepted your documents and pushed them through their workflow. So, what changed? I know of no way to "swap" images using Acrobat. In your case, it may be a matter of saving a second set of files or the entire book document as a copy and replacing the pics in that file, then create a second PDF-X1a file. And, as a third option, use InDesign ( however, no point in using it until you've determined where the problem with quality lies ). If I assume the printer told you that the sRGB files were sufficient and, if you used the X-1 PDF Settings when Saving As > PDF, that would be their preferred workflow and the image files rendered dull and unsaturated ( as they did in your case ), and the printer recommended you increase the saturation and HUE of the images ( which he did ) and the entire workflow worked for a digital printer in the past ( which it did ), then something changed with this new print service provider. You have to find out from them what it could be. It could be something with their direct-to-plate equipment. I believe it merits further research and development with the new service provider. There is a solution. You just have to find it.
"Once the pdf is created could I swap out the photos
for ones that had been converted from RGB to CMYK in photoshop with Rendering Intent and Black Point Compensation etc. filled. "...
Wait a minute. You did a RGB-to-CMYK conversion in Photoshop? Why? I thought you embedded the RGB files in Word? Then, Acrobat did the conversion using the X-1 settings mentioned above.
"How hard would it be to dump my word document into InDesign with the newly created RGB or CMYK photos would it work better? Is the learning curve too much of a hassle for one off?"...
Yes it would. But, your procedures worked for the digital printer. Why not now with the new printer? That's my question. Since Acrobat's X-1 settings have a work space of sRGB ( assumed ), then your sRGB files should render appropriately and they do not. You have to find out what works for this new print service provider and, whatever Photoshop Color Setting RGB workspace you use, use it in Acrobat 11. Discuss the entire document and Photoshop setups with the new print service provider.

A/B Color contrast in develop module

It would be really nice to hace a slider (or three, I'll explain) for "color contrast".
Threre is "contrast" slider that influences the luminosity basically. What I would want to have is a way to control color contrast while preserving luminosity as well as preserve color balance.
A single slider implementation
Basically the simplest way (but a bit crude) to do it would be with a single slider.
The slider defaults to 0.
Moving it to the right would be equivalent to the following photoshop procedure:
Change mode to LAB
Curve adjustment
Steepen both the A and B curves linearly (pull extreme points in and leave the curve straight, plus keep the center where it is to preserve color balance)
Leave the L curve alone
Apply
switch mode back to RGB
Moving it left would be the same, except the AB curves would be made shallower rather than steeper (rotate the curve clockwise instead of counter clockwise about the center)
A two slider implementation
Same as the above, except that you would have separate A and B sliders (you might call the tint contrast and temp contrast to be consistent with the color balance sliders, which are just like moving the center point of the AB curves)
A three slider implementation
Basically this is like having bothe the one slider ("overall color contrast") and the two sliders ("temperature contrast" and "tint contrast"). It's a bit redundant but having the single control there makes it easier when you simply want to globally increase the color contrast without being too picky about the two separate controls (I guess easier for beginners)

Not at all. The saturation control has quite a different effect that this, and much les subtle. Saturation just increases saturation without changing the hue. This actually changes the hue causing a separation in hues that is impossible to achive in any manuver you would to in RGB space. It drives colors apart rather than increasing their chroma.
Try it yourself on a few images (especially on images that have nearly uniform color, such as deserts or faces. You will see that this is an entirelty different thing than saturation.

Exposure control effecting Lumiance

Have others requested from Apple, that the Exposure slider effect lumiance only and not increase Saturation at the same time. Justs seems to me that exposure should be seperated from saturation especially since the Saturation slider is just below.
I find that there are at times some colorful objects in the scene that do not need any satuation but could benefit from the exposure being moved up. I know the work arounds.
Just thought Id ask to see if anyone else is bugged by this. Oh ACR 4.1 also does this so Apple is not alone. Just hoping that Apple will do it Right.
David

It's pretty much part of working in RGB.
Ian

Layers in Lightroom

I'm a professional photographer and am wondering why selective edting with a brush is only available with exposure, brightness, contrast, saturation, clarity, and sharpness corrections? Why can't I selectively edit with all the editing tools? Do you know how much more useful Lightroom would be if I could selectively edit with a recovery brush, fill light brush, black point brush, vibrance brush, color temp brush, tint brush, color channels brush, sharpening brush, etc? If all these extra tools are useful, and they are, wouldn't they be even more usefull if I could apply them only to the parts of my image that need them instead of the whole darn thing? Bibble Pro 5 can do it. Aperture 3 can do it. Heck, Capture One Pro 6 can do it and it can even apply those effects to layers that can been named. Adobe invented layers and masks. Why cant I have them in Lightroom? Imagine non-destructive editing with no boundaries. Don't rely one your Monopoly with Photoshop's abilities to guaranty professional photographers loyalty. There are some nice options out there catered to photographers. Pretty soon we won't even need Photoshop. You will wan't to make sure that we still purchase Adobe by making Lightroom the best of the best.Its about time Lightroom steps it up. Adobe has the capability to make a truly amazing program to meet photographers needs.
Thank you.
PS Im not dogging Lightroom. I love lightroom. I'm just making suggestions base on a professional photographers needs.

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
Another Photographer wrote:
I also would like to be able to apply highlight recovery selectively, but know not how to do it. Any tricks (other than applying negative exposure selectively, which does not work for the reason stated)?
I do not expect an answer to these questions, but you never know.
I know exactly what you mean. I frequently want to recover details and the highlight recovery does the job, but "flattens" the rest of the image, making it a little duller. One thing you can try is to reduce the overall exposure until the area you want to recover looks okay, and then set a brush with an offsetting positive exposure to paint back in the underexposure. Unfortunately the local brush exposure algorithm seems to work differently from the overall exposure, so you will have different contrast and you will need a different offset exposure, but it sometimes works. This is pretty clunky, which just emphasizes the need for localized recovery. Unfortunately, this really applies to every adjustment you can make in lightroom, hence all the requests for a true layers type implementation.
Here is an example where I ended up creating two files to send to photoshop from lightroom, one unchanged and one with the recovery for a white highlight on the bluebird's "hip" area. I blended them in photoshop. The file with the recovery made the rest of the bluebird significantly duller. I could improve it with increased saturation but I could not reproduce the original colour in the rest of the bluebird.
http://roryhill.zenfolio.com/img/v23/p953321593.jpg

Camera Raw 5.6 in CS 4

When I import an image into camera raw can I change the bit depth and/or the resolution without degrading the image? I know if I click on the information along the bottom of the raw screen a dialogue box will come up giving me these options but I was wondering if this will interfere with the quality of my images.

Mary Ellen Foster wrote:
Because of what xbytor2 said:
"My Nikon Coolpix S550 creates 8bit jpegs. I convert those to DNGs first and do what processing I can there. When I'm finished, I export them to 16bit ProPhoto PSD files and then do any additional processing and printing there. The 8->16 bit conversion makes it possible for better edits ACR and PS. Banding in skies, for instance, is greatly reduced because there is more room for smoother gradients."
I find what you said makes more sense. I mean, if you pump up 8 bit files by converting them to 16 bit files, wouldn't that just add non existing data?
Mary Ellen
There is no contradiction whatsoever.
In message number 1, I wrote:
Tai Lao wrote:
A 16-bit image will always give you more latitude to process it than an 8-bit one, and a larger color space like ProPhoto RGB will give you more latitude with the colors than a narrow one like sRGB.
That is exactly what xbytor 2 writes.
When you change the bit depth from 8-bit to 16-bit you are not inventing data, you're expanding the space around your data. That way you can add more colors, as when you increase saturation or paint on your image, and there's more breathing room for gradients and such.
That is very different from what I wrote in message number 3:
Tai Lao wrote:
Mary Ellen Foster wrote:
Some of my images come into ACR with a resolution of 240 ppi.
That is irrelevant. You can change that in Photoshop without altering any of the pixels by keeping the "Resample" box in Image Size UNchecked.
Now, if you resample, whether up or down, then you will be altering the pixels, inventing non-existent pixels when you upsample and discarding image information pixels when you downsample. This is regardless of whether you resample in ACR or in Photoshop.
To keep the best image quality, no resampling should be done. In ACR, this is achieved by using the one pixel dimension setting that DOES NOT have either a plus or a minus sign in ACR Output Options.
Wo Tai Lao Le
我太老了

Flickering issue in clips where brightness effects were used

I'm working on a project in Final Cut Pro and had to apply a brightening effect (increased saturation) because the show was in very low lighting. During playback, it's started to have a flickering effect-is this a frame rate issue, an issue with the effect, or something else?
Any help would be appreciated-thank you!

Define flickering - when do you see it? Where? can you post an example clip?
Patrick

Increasing Saturation

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for