Ice hockey edit tips

[John Mack]

Windows 10
Lightroom C 6.14

Hello all,
I am new to the forum and this is my first post. I am also new to LR about 3 to 4 months. I am an avid amateur photographer and enjoy taking pictures of my son's sporting events, at this time of year happens to be ice hockey. I am currently using a Canon 1D Mark IV with a Canon EF 70-200 2.8 lens. I typically shoot at ISO 2000 in RAW and manual, set WB at custom or auto. My question is this: I can't seem to get the uniform colors to "pop". Are there specific sliders to help with this, also are there any in camera setting to help with noise reduction? Thanks in advance. John

 

[Ian.B]

I might pay to post a couple of photos so we can see the problem
Vibrance and saturation slides will help
there is a noise reduce slider in the detail panel -- are the files well exposed. Under exposed files will have more noise than normal
adding blue primary saturation in the camera calibration panel can help

 

[John Mack]

I might pay to post a couple of photos so we can see the problem
Vibrance and saturation slides will help
there is a noise reduce slider in the detail panel -- are the files well exposed. Under exposed files will have more noise than normal
adding blue primary saturation in the camera calibration panel can help

 

[John Mack]

Thanks for the quick reply. Here are a couple of pics from todays game. Not sure if these are needed or will help, but these are my edit settings. #45 WB/temp 3750, tint +15, Exp +1.50, contrast -25, highlights -36, shadows +36, whites 0, blacks -19, Presence: clarity +25, vibrance & saturation 0, Sharpening: amount 25, radius 1.0, detail 25, masking 89 Noise reduction: luminance 39, detail 50,contrast 0, color 25, detail & smoothness 50.
#50 WB/temp 3750, tint +15, exp 1.50, contrast -25, highlights -36, shadows +36, whites -10, blacks +21, Presence: clarity +25, vibrance & sat 0. Sharpening: amount 25, radius 1.0, detail 25, masking 89 Noise reduction: luminance 39, detail 50, contrast 0, color 25, detail & smoothness 50. #90 WB/temp 3900, tint +14, exp +1.75, contrast -25, highlights -47, shadows +47, whites +24, blacks -12 Presence: clarity+25, vibrance & sat 0, Sharpening: amount 25, radius 1.0, detail 25, masking 89 Noise reduction: luminance 42, detail 50, contrast 18, color 25, detail & smoothness 50. #233 WB/temp 3950, tint +14, exp 1.20, contrast -25, highlights 0, shadows 0, whites +19, blacks -7, Presence: clarity +30, vibrance +25, saturation 0, Sharpening: amount 40, radius 0.8, detail 35, masking 0 Noise reduction: luminance 43, detail 50, contrast 0, color 25, detail & smoothness 50. Thanks in advance for any help and suggestions. John Mack

 

[Paul McFarlane]

Hi John

Couple of things interest me. First, why -25 contrast? I see you have Clarity set fairly high, this will give local edge contrast whereas the contrast slider will give overall contrast. Also, what have you done with the tone curve? Is this left to Linear? Noise Reduction is relatively high, what's the ISO of the images?

I'd suggest adding contrast (tone curve to medium) and slider no lower than 0, probably make this a positive; also add some Vibrance. Very quick tweak attached, although this is on the already processed file, from scratch it'd look a lot better

 

[Roelof Moorlag]

are there any in camera setting to help with noise reduction?

Yes, an low ISO value but that's not possible i think in these circumstances so you will have to do it afterwards in Ligtroom (or buy a camera with lower noice, they keep improving).

 

[Roelof Moorlag]

I think you shoot a lot of photo's that require the same 'basic' treatment. When you find that, make a develop preset of it and add this to an import preset. This will improve your workflow (read: less time computerwork) dramaticaly.

If you want more tips as from Paul, my suggestion is to uploading one or two RAW images (via a dropbox link or filetransfer).

 

[John Mack]

Hi John

Couple of things interest me. First, why -25 contrast? I see you have Clarity set fairly high, this will give local edge contrast whereas the contrast slider will give overall contrast. Also, what have you done with the tone curve? Is this left to Linear? Noise Reduction is relatively high, what's the ISO of the images?

I'd suggest adding contrast (tone curve to medium) and slider no lower than 0, probably make this a positive; also add some Vibrance. Very quick tweak attached, although this is on the already processed file, from scratch it'd look a lot betterView attachment 10667

Hi Paul, thanks for the response, the -25 contrast was a result of using auto tone control, tone curve was linear, and here are exact camera settings: ISO 1250, focal length 85mm, f2.8 at 1\640. I made the adjustments you suggested and like what I see. Thanks for your help. John

 

[prbimages]

Interesting, did the Auto tone control also set the Vibrance and Saturation to zero? In my experience, it always bumps up the Vibrance to about 18 and the Saturation to about 4. At any rate, if you want picture to "pop" then Vibrance should almost certainly be increased a bit.

Another thing is to try the different Camera Profiles in the Camera Calibration tab. I don't usually change from the default (Adobe Standard) but you might find a profile that gives you more of the "pop" you are looking for.

 

[Jim Wilde]

Interesting, did the Auto tone control also set the Vibrance and Saturation to zero? In my experience, it always bumps up the Vibrance to about 18 and the Saturation to about 4. At any rate, if you want picture to "pop" then Vibrance should almost certainly be increased a bit.

The OP is using 6.14, which doesn't have the new Auto Settings function.

 

[prbimages]

The OP is using 6.14, which doesn't have the new Auto Settings function.

Ah yes, I overlooked that

 

[John Mack]

Interesting, did the Auto tone control also set the Vibrance and Saturation to zero? In my experience, it always bumps up the Vibrance to about 18 and the Saturation to about 4. At any rate, if you want picture to "pop" then Vibrance should almost certainly be increased a bit.

Another thing is to try the different Camera Profiles in the Camera Calibration tab. I don't usually change from the default (Adobe Standard) but you might find a profile that gives you more of the "pop" you are looking for.

Hello Paul, yes the auto tone set the vibrance and saturation to 0,

 

[Conrad Chavez]

There may be a couple more non-obvious things making it hard to get good color in this situation. One might be the arena lighting. If it's fluorescent, HID, or metal halide, it may not have the best CRI (color rendering index), so chunks of the color spectrum might be missing or not represented as well as under types of lighting with a higher CRI. That can be hard to fix in editing, though it might be worth trying different camera profiles, or maybe creating a custom DNG profile under the arena lights.

Another factor might be underexposure. The Develop settings you listed mostly have Exposure adjustments of over +1 EV. That suggests that the originals were underexposed by that much. Underexposed digital images, especially at high ISO, are less able to reproduce colors faithfully and will have more color noise. If you're using auto exposure on a hockey rink, all of that white background may be fooling the exposure system into darkening the frame. Try bumping up exposure compensation by around +1 EV, although that can be a challenge if you're already trying to maintain a fast shutter speed under the available light levels.

 

[Ian.B]

I feel you are in good hands to get good advice john --- your photos are better than I was expecting even if there is a little noise in shadows/darker areas. Depending on the numbers involved; you could use local adjustments to reduce that noise --- don't go overboard though. There maybe better specialised noise reduction programs that may help
Indoor sports is never too helpful for photographers -- one place where the bigger better cameras can make a difference

Some interesting thoughts above about Contrast Vs Clarity --- I have often dropped contrast and added clarity; the same way I sometimes drop saturation and increase vibrancy a fair bit --- yep; whatever works at the time

 

[Tony Jay]

I cannot agree Ian.
There is nothing synonymous with saturation/vibrance corrections and contrast/clarity corrections.

Saturation and vibrance are both global adjustments. Saturation, however, is a very blunt instrument, while vibrance is much more selective in how it is applied to prevent full saturation of colours. for this reason one needs to be very conservative with the saturation slider while the vibrance slider is much more forgiving if one is a bit heavy handed since subtle variations in hue and saturation are likely to be preserved.

The situation with contrast and clarity could not be more different. One adjustment is global, the other is not. They are not directly comparable. One is certainly not a substitute for the other, as the vibrance slider can be for the saturation slider, because they are doing very different jobs.

Contrast affects the entire global tonal range equally as it is applied. Think of the tonal levels as being fence posts shuffled around, either closer together or further apart, but the distances between fence posts always remains equal, the overall distance between the fence posts at each end of the fence move closer together or further apart.

Clarity, on the other hand, is a mid-tone contrast boost. Here, in the mid-tone areas of the image the fence posts are pushed further apart and in the tonal extremes (highlights and shadows) they are pushed closer together, but the overall distance between the fence posts at either end does not change (in other words global contrast is unchanged!).

Conflating the roles of the contrast slider and the clarity slider as somehow "doing roughly the same thing" - something to do with contrast? - is a recipe for a very poorly edited image...

IMHO tonal adjustments are generally hugely misunderstood, and because of this a lot of image quality is left on the table due to suboptimal adjustments. One important observation that I have made is that colour adjustments are also very hard to do until appropriate tonal editing has been completed (the top down ordering of tonal followed by colour adjustments in Lightroom is a subtle clue here!) Even evaluating white balance is a test until appropriate tonal adjustments are done.

Again, IMHO, George Jardine (mulita.com) is the best resource to learn how to do tonal adjustments properly. Once one really understands what each slider is doing it becomes a lot easier to get the results one is after. It also teaches one to shoot better since the GIGO principle still applies and no amount of digital sophistry can turn a sows ear into a silk purse. George Jardine's tutorials on the Develop module remain the best resource that I know of (and, in the context of this thread his explanations on how noise reduction and sharpening work will also represent an epiphany for most!).

Tony Jay

 

[PhilBurton]

I cannot agree Ian.
There is nothing synonymous with saturation/vibrance corrections and contrast/clarity corrections.

...

Tony Jay

One of the best posts I have read since I joined this forum. Kudos to Tony.

Yet another reason why I'm happy this forum is still in business.

Phil

 

[PhilBurton]

I cannot agree Ian

Again, IMHO, George Jardine (mulita.com) is the best resource to learn how to do tonal adjustments properly. Once one really understands what each slider is doing it becomes a lot easier to get the results one is after. It also teaches one to shoot better since the GIGO principle still applies and no amount of digital sophistry can turn a sows ear into a silk purse. George Jardine's tutorials on the Develop module remain the best resource that I know of (and, in the context of this thread his explanations on how noise reduction and sharpening work will also represent an epiphany for most!).

Tony Jay

I just visited George's website and my impression is that it hasn't been updated very much since 2016. His Lightroom videos seem to stop at release 5. Did I miss something?

Phil

 

[Ian.B]

I cannot agree Ian.
is a recipe for a very poorly edited image

Another very informative post Tony and I'm very sure many beside myself would benefit from your knowledge; however I'm more of the non-technical sort of editing bloke who is more interested on being guided by the image I see developing on the screen . Doing the same thing with each image does get boring; especially when it's all for me only which is very different for those like yourself selling or hoping to sell photos where "a very poorly edited image" is recipe for a disaster (business wise)

Apart for the very obvious learning to edit mistakes; what is a "very poorly edited image"?

Is one of these Lr5/On1 'jobs' a poorly edited photo? From memory, I used contrast and clarity as opposite adjustments the same way I used Saturation and vibrancy as opposite adjustments --- that is moving the sliders in opposite direction -- until I had a look I liked for a "family snapshot". (She is not mine, but she considers me as hers LOL. My darling X's dog actually, but she didn't have to time needed for full training needed with such a beast so she spends most day with me)


So; apart for the very obvious learning to edit mistakes; what is a "very poorly edited image" in the digital age where nothing is really considered perfect by everyone and only a very few photographic images could not be improved in some way by just the slightest adjustment in one slider. I just had a look through my FB photos and there is not one photo there that someone (or myself) could not suggest an adjustment to improvement it.

We need more of these threads IMo -- thanks for started it John

 

[Tony Jay]

I just visited George's website and my impression is that it hasn't been updated very much since 2016. His Lightroom videos seem to stop at release 5. Did I miss something?

Phil

I don't think so, Phil.
For the purposes of what I was suggesting very little (likely nothing) has changed with respect to using the Develop module.
I don't use Classic CC but as far as I know the Process version is still 2012.
What this means (if I am correct) is that the Develop module sliders all still work in exactly the same way as before.

Tony Jay

 

[Tony Jay]

Ian,

This is not about the technicalities per se. There are no prizes, directly, for knowing more about digital image editing than someone else. Like you, any edits I make are guided by the image itself.

However, to give a crude example, if one is trying to drill holes with a chain saw, I think we can both agree that there are better ways to do that!
Another example, when you drive your car, you do not need to know how a gear-box works (it is exceedingly complex) in order to change gears. However, you do need to know, and have practiced, co-ordinating depressing and releasing the clutch pedal while manipulating the gear stick!
(Of course if one's car is an automatic the whole process is slightly easier!)

Knowledge is important. All I have shared here is the equivalent to knowing how to change gears without destroying one's gear-box and transmission. How the gear-box is designed and engineered we will leave to the experts in that field.

I get that you can edit your images to your own satisfaction, but it is still possible that your expectations about what is possible with your images is a bit low. It would not surprise me at all if I could get detail and image quality out of both the highlight and shadow regions of your images that currently you cannot.

I am on your side Ian.
I have nothing really to gain by sharing information that can allow you to edit images more easily and to a better end-point - remember plenty of people will give you this kind of data, for a price(!) - yet I am sharing these insights for free...

Having just a small amount of valid information about how all the tonal sliders in Lightroom actually work translates into a massive potential boost in the quality of your images!

Tony Jay

 

[John Mack]

Just wanted to say thanks to all, for the great conversation and information, the wealth of knowledge is amazing, it's nice to see there are people willing to share that knowledge, after all we all have the same end game, great photos! Thanks again and I'm sure I will be asking lots more in the future. Next hockey game in a couple of weeks when playoffs start, I will be applying the suggestions given and will post the results. John