«

This set of images vividly shows the SD9's "problem with yellow skin tones"
under some rare conditions (usually intense sunlight during sunset with Auto
or Sunny WB selected). As you will see, the "problem" is entirely
nonexistent, but only if you understand proper RAW workflow.

This image is processed in Auto. It looks like a throwaway due to the
saturated yellows ("fur tones" in this case), this is precisely the
phenomenon many new to SPP RAW workflow mistake for "yellowish" skin tones:
http://www.pbase.com/image/24387156

The problem is completely nonexistent, the SD9's color capture in this image
is nothing short of perfection. Here is the same image processed properly
in SPP alone, no post processing at all:
http://www.pbase.com/image/24387157

Eactly as the scene appeared, feels like you could fall into the picture.

"George Preddy" <> wrote in message
news:bs9nq5$7hr$...
> This set of images vividly shows the SD9's "problem with yellow skin
tones"
> under some rare conditions (usually intense sunlight during sunset with
Auto
> or Sunny WB selected). As you will see, the "problem" is entirely
> nonexistent, but only if you understand proper RAW workflow.
>
> This image is processed in Auto. It looks like a throwaway due to the
> saturated yellows ("fur tones" in this case), this is precisely the
> phenomenon many new to SPP RAW workflow mistake for "yellowish" skin
tones:
> http://www.pbase.com/image/24387156
>
> The problem is completely nonexistent, the SD9's color capture in this
image
> is nothing short of perfection. Here is the same image processed properly
> in SPP alone, no post processing at all:
> http://www.pbase.com/image/24387157
>
> Eactly as the scene appeared, feels like you could fall into the picture.

Probably better viewed this way...
http://www.pbase.com/image/24387156/large
http://www.pbase.com/image/24387157/large

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of skin on show
here, so how can we see the skin tones!

Tigers are supposed to be orange!


"George Preddy" <> wrote in message
news:bs9o01$7ph$...
>
> "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
> news:bs9nq5$7hr$...
> > This set of images vividly shows the SD9's "problem with yellow skin
> tones"
> > under some rare conditions (usually intense sunlight during sunset with
> Auto
> > or Sunny WB selected). As you will see, the "problem" is entirely
> > nonexistent, but only if you understand proper RAW workflow.
> >
> > This image is processed in Auto. It looks like a throwaway due to the
> > saturated yellows ("fur tones" in this case), this is precisely the
> > phenomenon many new to SPP RAW workflow mistake for "yellowish" skin
> tones:
> > http://www.pbase.com/image/24387156
> >
> > The problem is completely nonexistent, the SD9's color capture in this
> image
> > is nothing short of perfection. Here is the same image processed
properly
> > in SPP alone, no post processing at all:
> > http://www.pbase.com/image/24387157
> >
> > Eactly as the scene appeared, feels like you could fall into the
picture.
>
> Probably better viewed this way...
> http://www.pbase.com/image/24387156/large
> http://www.pbase.com/image/24387157/large
>
>

"Chris Quinn" <> wrote in message
news:bs9qts$kbk$...
> Forgive me if I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of skin on
show
> here, so how can we see the skin tones!
>
> Tigers are supposed to be orange!

Of around 5000s of pics of people, I don't have any problem skin shots,
sorry. Mabye to a very small degree, but it is so easy to fix to
perfection that it's not as interesting as the above. Hang on a sec, I'll
search for something...

Uploading now. While not as bad as the tigers at sunset, it'll be quite
sufficient to prove the yellow skin tones thing is simply a myth.

"George Preddy" <> wrote in message
news:bs9omc$9i6$...
>
> "Chris Quinn" <> wrote in message
> news:bs9qts$kbk$...
> > Forgive me if I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of skin on
> show
> > here, so how can we see the skin tones!
> >
> > Tigers are supposed to be orange!
>
> Of around 5000s of pics of people, I don't have any problem skin shots,
> sorry. Mabye to a very small degree, but it is so easy to fix to
> perfection that it's not as interesting as the above. Hang on a sec, I'll
> search for something...

"George Preddy" <> wrote in message
news:bs9p5c$a80$...
> Uploading now. While not as bad as the tigers at sunset, it'll be quite
> sufficient to prove the yellow skin tones thing is simply a myth.

Processed using AWB in SPP's Auto mode:
http://www.pbase.com/image/24388672/original

Processed properly using SPP alone:
http://upload.pbase.com/image/24388673/original

Obviously there is a lot of personal taste involved in any RAW color
rendition, but the "yellow problem" is phony, to the extent that it occurs
in P&S mode only. All P&S modes have Auto-processing problems (with the
possible exception of the SD10). The blurry Canon 10D is unusably bad in
AWB, as noted in the dpreview.com review.

Sorry it's so far out of focus. It's an awful SD9 sharpness demo, but I
think this missed focus snap is a good color demo.

"George Preddy" <> wrote in message
news:bs9ps4$b8f$...
>
> "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
> news:bs9p5c$a80$...
> > Uploading now. While not as bad as the tigers at sunset, it'll be quite
> > sufficient to prove the yellow skin tones thing is simply a myth.
>
> Processed using AWB in SPP's Auto mode:
> http://www.pbase.com/image/24388672/original
>
> Processed properly using SPP alone:
> http://upload.pbase.com/image/24388673/original
>
> Obviously there is a lot of personal taste involved in any RAW color
> rendition, but the "yellow problem" is phony, to the extent that it occurs
> in P&S mode only. All P&S modes have Auto-processing problems (with the
> possible exception of the SD10). The blurry Canon 10D is unusably bad in
> AWB, as noted in the dpreview.com review.

Most digicam users will be taking pictures of people - so I would expect
that P&S should be able to cope with the most common types of pictures
without needing post-processing or having to use RAW data - it seems that
some optimisation is in order by the manufacturer


"George Preddy" <> wrote in message
news:bs9omc$9i6$...
>
> "Chris Quinn" <> wrote in message
> news:bs9qts$kbk$...
> > Forgive me if I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of skin on
> show
> > here, so how can we see the skin tones!
> >
> > Tigers are supposed to be orange!
>
> Of around 5000s of pics of people, I don't have any problem skin shots,
> sorry. Mabye to a very small degree, but it is so easy to fix to
> perfection that it's not as interesting as the above. Hang on a sec, I'll
> search for something...
>
>

"Chris Quinn" <> wrote in message
news:bs9teb$o9c$...
> Most digicam users will be taking pictures of people - so I would expect
> that P&S should be able to cope with the most common types of pictures
> without needing post-processing or having to use RAW data - it seems that
> some optimisation is in order by the manufacturer

Already done with the SD10. And if we weren't talking about DSLRs, I might
agree. DSLRs are not P&Ss. RAW mode is non-negotiable for consistent pro
quality work, so "proper" RAW conversion is not a time penalty. Many
certainly try to negotiate around shooting RAW mode, but that's due to poor
implementations and unusable conversion software--hardly an excuse to
degrade someone's keepsakes to permanent prosumer quality.

A quality RAW workflow is much faster and more convenient than shooting
JPEG/TIF, not less.

Any luck on the getting that RAW file Chris? It'll be a great demo to
prove this "problem" is simply made up by those who don't understand RAW
mode.

"George Preddy" <> wrote in message
news:bs9snl$d8g$...
>
> "Chris Quinn" <> wrote in message
> news:bs9teb$o9c$...
> > Most digicam users will be taking pictures of people - so I would expect
> > that P&S should be able to cope with the most common types of pictures
> > without needing post-processing or having to use RAW data - it seems
that
> > some optimisation is in order by the manufacturer
>
> Already done with the SD10. And if we weren't talking about DSLRs, I
might
> agree. DSLRs are not P&Ss. RAW mode is non-negotiable for consistent pro
> quality work, so "proper" RAW conversion is not a time penalty. Many
> certainly try to negotiate around shooting RAW mode, but that's due to
poor
> implementations and unusable conversion software--hardly an excuse to
> degrade someone's keepsakes to permanent prosumer quality.
>
> A quality RAW workflow is much faster and more convenient than shooting
> JPEG/TIF, not less.
>
>