I’ve been shooting infrared as well as visible light for a long time and have been a DT user as far back as I can remember. I migrated my workflow towards the use of IR color LUTs purchased from the Kolari website over a year ago and noticed it gives me way more flexibility in processing while not needing to rearrange module order but also being able to avoid using the [Color calibration] module for channel swaps.
Having both modules active, WB in pass-through and color balance set in the color calibration module gives weird output.
Now, in my regular shooting I follow the newer workflow where white balance is managed by the [Color calibration] module and the WB module is set to pass-through but I have noticed this does not work as expected on IR images. I’ve been getting much better and more colorful results with the [Color calibration] module switched off and WB in infrared managed the old way, before applying an IR color LUT to eventually get the output I have in mind.
Am I doing this correctly or am I missing something here? Here are some examples. First, the raw file when I open it with only basic modules activated:
Using new-style pipeline rearranging with {Color calibration] moved to the top and doing a channel swap, WB module doing basic WB based on the image area like so:
Is applying a 3D color LUT equivalent, worse or better than doing a channel swap (besides the option to use different LUTs to get different outcomes? Like these:
Those LUTs certainly look nice. If you like the output, I would say use them! Have you notices any weird artifacts/ color shifts?
As for the pipeline here is my normal WB + Swap procedure:
White Balance = As Shot to Reference
Color Cal = Use the picker on clouds or brightest (non-clipped) vegetation. Dont use the default selection that spans the entire image.
2nd Color Cal = Color Swap. No need to move.
If the first instance of color calibration is not giving me much hue separation, I will try in a different spot. I always try to maximize color separation in this step.
For saturation I always use Color Balance RGB module. You may need to add a lot here. I also will use this module to do any hue adjustments (using hue shift)
I usually turn Filmic off first, adjust exposure, do WB + swap, and then turn Filmic back on. Set my white and black relative points and add .15-.2 (1.15 -1.2) in contrast. That gives me a rough starting point to start with other tonal/contrast changes.
It describes almost exactly what I do, with some more nuance and tips.
EDIT: If you use a full spectrum camera with Chrome or 560 filters, maybe the above wont work. I don’t know why it wouldn’t, but my experience is based on 720nm+ converted cameras.
Tried it but I’m getting washed-out colors and a lot of added noise when trying to bring saturation back with the Color Balance RGB module.
But if you’re happy with the process, that’s great. I’m still looking for the technical difference between the approaches with LUT and old-style WB against two instances of Color calibration with a color swap.
Your method is not working for me either in 550, 665 or 720nm TBH so I’ll continue looking. I knew Rob’s videos of course. This seems to be more of a Kolari approach.
Since the IR modification means the input colour profile becomes invalid (no longer represents the sensor’s response), do whatever gives you the best results. It’s no longer about accuracy.
BTW, in white balance, the presets camera reference and as-shot to reference are certainly not ‘pass-through’ modes.
Weird. I have never had saturation, chroma, or vibrance increase noise. But the rest of my stack is different from yours (demosaic, denoise, DoS, etc) so maybe it has to do with those interactions.
Since the IR portion of those images don’t have a “color” (that we experience), I would think that so long as the LUTs don’t mess up things in the visible spectrum that gets passed via those 550/665 filters, I am not sure LUT vs WB matters much.
Do you have a link/pointer to where AP talks about that? I would be interested in the exposition. He is absolutely correct, but results in DT are the same as in LRC (with the usual caveats). That is not to say LRC gets it right (there is no right wrt to faux color), but norms have been developed over time.
I don’t want to hijack this thread (which I think is more about LUTs). So unless @Mike_Bing wants it, maybe we should continue somewhere else. I will PM you.
I’d be interested in seeing what AP had to say on the matter (or Kofa’s version of it). It seems suspect to me but always happy to learn something new.
I haven’t shot with a non-chrome filter in a while but my process is pretty much identical, just no channel swapping.
I find the overall effect more pleasing yes, part of that is the saturation and the other part how easy it is to get a consistent color out of the 720 at least which can the be used as a stepping stone for the color zones module to enhance. And with a couple of LUT presets, my editing of IR shots has been speeded up x10.
I’ve been using them since May of '24 (just checked when I paid the $20 to get them and almost everything on my album since that date uses the LUTs
Even the B&W benefits from them. Also go a whole batch of LUTs from Rob Shea’s website (those were actually free) and although lower quality than the Pierre-Louis Ferrer set they still do many a trick.
