Makeup showing up with greenish hue

[Jeff Coatney]

Can you post the brand of make-up so we can test? This is important.

 

[Matthew Bennett]

Reflective particles in the makeup lining up in such a way as to create irridescence, ie: showing the green part of the light spectrum... perhaps?

 

[Ido Karilla]

Hi,

Have you tried DRX in redcine x?

I am not sure it relates to this phenomena but it helped me on different hue incidents.

 

[axel ebermann]

Hey gregory,

I also looked at some more footage, and it was always tungsten.
Is there a way you can find out who did make up on these shoots and give me their contact ?

That would be terrific.

I've noticed this happen on a few of my shoots - both on RED and Canon 5d. In these frame grabs (shot on 5d) I can see a kind of yellowy-green patchiness across the face. This often happens under tungsten lighting, I find. And yes, the white balance was set properly and light was clean (i.e. - no other light pollution).

 

[axel ebermann]

thanks for the advice but we do switch off the house lights....

Are you sure the house lights weren't on in the studio? It can be easy to forget to kill the house flouros before takes, ifnyou are turning them on when not rolling to give some light to the makeup/wardrobe/ crafties what have you. They, being several stops under, would only effect the shadows, and the makeup tends to darken the skin and maybe bring it down into a range where itnwill be effected. Or the makeup can react strangely to the green spike maybe. I know you lit it with tungsten but I've had the same thing happen to me when you blank on the house lights during a hectic shoot.

 

[axel ebermann]

It is indeed important. The question though is really what is happening here.
Just avoiding one particular brand of makeup will not solve it.

- is there a relation to the color spectrum of the light source (tungsten, flou, daylight) ?
- might the make up add green or block magenta ?
- does it have something to do with certain digital sensors ?
- or a weird combination of all of the above ?

Makeup brand was rcma Shinto by the way.

Can you post the brand of make-up so we can test? This is important.

 

[David Battistella]

I would venture a guess.

I suggest if you afford the slight light loss a 1/8th blue in front of the lens will help push the light toward the sensors native 5k sensor.

Another thing to consider is the quality and color temperature of the light that the make up artist is using.

Does it match?

The make up artist might be correcting for the lights she is using and that could be different than your tungsten set ups.

Just a thought.

 

[axel ebermann]

Hey David,

Thanks for your input.

Light loss is not a problem.

But I do not quite understand
how adding more blue will get rid of the green that is only popping up in certain parts of the picture.

Would you mind explaining that to me ?

The make up artists that we use are just as concerned as I am. We always do last touch ups on set in the light that we shoot.

Best

Axel

I would venture a guess.

I suggest if you afford the slight light loss a 1/8th blue in front of the lens will help push the light toward the sensors native 5k sensor.

Another thing to consider is the quality and color temperature of the light that the make up artist is using.

Does it match?

The make up artist might be correcting for the lights she is using and that could be different than your tungsten set ups.

Just a thought.

 

[A. Clint Litton]

I've been seeing a lot of green cast overall in skintones on a project I've been working on lately...primarily shooting in tungsten settings. It's not shot in a completely controlled studio environment, but there have been many times that we're only using tungsten units, nothing from location. Oftentimes the lights are on dimmers and brought down from full intensity.

Anything shot outside doesn't require such a tint adjustment, if any, at least based on what RC-X is showing me in conjunction with a Macbeth.

As I mentioned, some of the stuff we're shooting is in really dimly lit environments, and I'm finding that the eyedropper WB in RC-X shows a pretty big shift in tint towards green. There definitely seems to be a correlation with tint/green as we go warmer/lower in the kelvin spectrum.

I've considered that it could have something to do with the individual fixtures we're using (a lot of Mole 1k and 2k zips) and perhaps the wear/life of the bulbs within those fixtures, but these results seem to be happening across the board, independent of any specific units we're using.

My thought is that this may have something to do with the bayer pattern design of the sensor, being that half the photosites read green and the other half are split between red and blue...this, in conjunction with using less light as some do with MX, and, given the better response under tungsten than early M, and thereby not gelling lights or using and 80-series filter to correct closer to the sensor's native balance, could mean there's going to be a more prominent shift in tint, especially in the shadows/underexposed areas.

I haven't had an opportunity to do extensive testing of this notion, and I don't know that this theory would completely explain what you all are seeing, but a quick and dirty way to better determine this on your end could be:

- Shoot someone in makeup and someone without the makeup side-by-side under the tungsten lighting scenario you've been using, then compare in RC-X and along the post pipeline.

- Put an 80C or 80D in front of the lens and shoot the same person/same makeup/same lighting and see if that changes anything with regards to green/tint on faces, especially in the underexposed areas.

Without a doubt, Red has come a long way from the early days shooting under tungsten...I'm just wondering if, by virtue of having the extra MX performance, we're getting lazier (for lack of a better word) with our lighting in giving the sensor what it needs?

It may be a combination of these things (starving sensor & how pro make-up interacts with tungsten source lighting) that is contributing to this. Either way, it's questions/issues like these that make the value of this forum and its user-base really known.

Thanks all for your contributions.

Best,
Clint

 

[Jens Jakob Thorsen]

This very informative/interesting.
My rather obvious guess is that it is a tungsten/sensor issue coupled with certain types of make-up. But the main issue seems to be sensor starvation of blue? I use a 80C filter when shooting tungsten, just to have more info in the RAW. If I know we are going for a REALLY warm grading I leave it out.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

It is indeed important. The question though is really what is happening here.
Just avoiding one particular brand of makeup will not solve it.

- is there a relation to the color spectrum of the light source (tungsten, flou, daylight) ?
- might the make up add green or block magenta ?
- does it have something to do with certain digital sensors ?
- or a weird combination of all of the above ?

Makeup brand was rcma Shinto by the way.

True. But until that is understood, the most expedient method is to remove the known defective element from the process.

 

[ericyoung]

I'm wondering if this is an Infra-Red pollution issue - have you tried putting an Infra-Red cut filter in front of the lens to see if this cures the problem.

On my MacBook Pro screen I'm having difficulty seeing the greenish hue in the attached pictures though. Are your screens calibrated/adjusted to final output?

 

[Jeff Coatney]

I've reached out to the manufacturer of the make-up brand for help in quantifying this issue. I'll keep you posted. I'm sure they have as much in the game as anyone and will be willing to work to resolve this. BTW, cosmetic manufacturing undergoes rigorous spectrographic analysis for color under a wide variance of color-temperatures before and after production. Its possible that a contaminated batch, or contaminated product could be a cause. But its important to isolate the offending specimen for re-qualification by the factory QC dept. This could also be product counterfeiting.

 

[paulherrin]

how about a timelapse test of applying the makeup, and perhaps changing lights between daylight/tungsten/gelled along the way.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

lose the makeup. never liked the stuff anyway.

You're kidding right?

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I've reached out to the manufacturer of the make-up brand for help in quantifying this issue. I'll keep you posted. I'm sure they have as much in the game as anyone and will be willing to work to resolve this. BTW, cosmetic manufacturing undergoes rigorous spectrographic analysis for color under a wide variance of color-temperatures before and after production. Its possible that a contaminated batch, or contaminated product could be a cause. But its important to isolate the offending specimen for re-qualification by the factory QC dept. This could also be product counterfeiting.

We've had thsi problem and foudn the makeup artist bought off an anauthorized ebay reseller who was flogging cheap counterfeit. It ended up in a complex lawsuit.

 

[axel ebermann]

Hey Clint (fellow Brooklynite

Couple of good points. I know the whole tungsten green issue.
But that it shows up so much in the makeup is new...

Already realized that I will have to shoot a test...

Thanks


Axel

I've been seeing a lot of green cast overall in skintones on a project I've been working on lately...primarily shooting in tungsten settings. It's not shot in a completely controlled studio environment, but there have been many times that we're only using tungsten units, nothing from location. Oftentimes the lights are on dimmers and brought down from full intensity.

Anything shot outside doesn't require such a tint adjustment, if any, at least based on what RC-X is showing me in conjunction with a Macbeth.

As I mentioned, some of the stuff we're shooting is in really dimly lit environments, and I'm finding that the eyedropper WB in RC-X shows a pretty big shift in tint towards green. There definitely seems to be a correlation with tint/green as we go warmer/lower in the kelvin spectrum.

I've considered that it could have something to do with the individual fixtures we're using (a lot of Mole 1k and 2k zips) and perhaps the wear/life of the bulbs within those fixtures, but these results seem to be happening across the board, independent of any specific units we're using.

My thought is that this may have something to do with the bayer pattern design of the sensor, being that half the photosites read green and the other half are split between red and blue...this, in conjunction with using less light as some do with MX, and, given the better response under tungsten than early M, and thereby not gelling lights or using and 80-series filter to correct closer to the sensor's native balance, could mean there's going to be a more prominent shift in tint, especially in the shadows/underexposed areas.

I haven't had an opportunity to do extensive testing of this notion, and I don't know that this theory would completely explain what you all are seeing, but a quick and dirty way to better determine this on your end could be:

- Shoot someone in makeup and someone without the makeup side-by-side under the tungsten lighting scenario you've been using, then compare in RC-X and along the post pipeline.

- Put an 80C or 80D in front of the lens and shoot the same person/same makeup/same lighting and see if that changes anything with regards to green/tint on faces, especially in the underexposed areas.

Without a doubt, Red has come a long way from the early days shooting under tungsten...I'm just wondering if, by virtue of having the extra MX performance, we're getting lazier (for lack of a better word) with our lighting in giving the sensor what it needs?

It may be a combination of these things (starving sensor & how pro make-up interacts with tungsten source lighting) that is contributing to this. Either way, it's questions/issues like these that make the value of this forum and its user-base really known.

Thanks all for your contributions.

Best,
Clint

 

[axel ebermann]

it shows on all monitors across the board (we do work with calibrated monitors)

Infrared filter - hmmm - very easy test so definitely worth it.
bottom line is i guess that I need to do a test as nobody seems to have a definite answer.

it is pretty much impossible to do test on set with top talent in front of the
camera and 10 agency people worrying in video village...

I'm wondering if this is an Infra-Red pollution issue - have you tried putting an Infra-Red cut filter in front of the lens to see if this cures the the problem.

On my MacBook Pro screen I'm having difficulty seeing the greenish hue in the attached pictures though. Are your screens calibrated/adjusted to final output?

 

[axel ebermann]

Yikes. I would pretty much rule that out in our case though
because we know our make up artists and they are legit.

We've had thsi problem and foudn the makeup artist bought off an anauthorized ebay reseller who was flogging cheap counterfeit. It ended up in a complex lawsuit.

 

[axel ebermann]

I wrote them an email too. No response so far so please keep me posted.
I think the make up needs to be involved in some way - because this is where the problem shows up...

I've reached out to the manufacturer of the make-up brand for help in quantifying this issue. I'll keep you posted. I'm sure they have as much in the game as anyone and will be willing to work to resolve this. BTW, cosmetic manufacturing undergoes rigorous spectrographic analysis for color under a wide variance of color-temperatures before and after production. Its possible that a contaminated batch, or contaminated product could be a cause. But its important to isolate the offending specimen for re-qualification by the factory QC dept. This could also be product counterfeiting.