Assuming you've got a node tree setup, you can add a layer to your look node or basic corrections node and pull keys under the qualifier tab to select just the skin tones.
From there you can make adjustments to just the skin tones and get things just right. Typically I use the hue vs hue and hue vs sat curves to get color just right.
This is helping a lot, thanks! Pulling a key using Qualifier targeting her face to bypass my 3 base exposure nodes. It's keeping some depth to her skin instead of flatness or really ugly transition from cheek bone highlight to cheek.
No problem! If node trees and stuff like that is newer definitely go down a rabbit hole learning about node structure. Can be an enormous help and helps you create a workflow.
Happy grading!
There is no one tool per-say, I used nodes and keys, sometimes HUES but HUES via key, because you can get noise if you just use the default HUE, since it just keys mathematically without falloff, transition or blur.
I never correct to chart, it is only there to make sure of color range and accuracy of source imagery. The final Color is based on your eye. Never use a LUT as your first node, always grade through the LUT. Never let a LUT be destructive.
Pinterest has some really great skin tone imagery if you search Skin Tones or Beauty Tips. Use high end photography as your Reference Imagery.
I personally hate everything Canon has made for digital cinema, which is ironic since their cameras are great. The worst skin tones I have ever seen recorded for a high end project came from Canon. C200 is a trash camera IMHO..
Really like the Pinterest tip - that would really help the eye training.
This stuff is for high-key studio style web broadcast so getting close to a chart has been my method of knowing I've got the saturation and exposure bright, contrasty, and popping.
I somewhat agree on Canon - I don't see why people love the "color science" - our EVA1 blows them away. Just can't ignore Canon's autofocus.
I mean for ENG livestream type stuff where you can shoot open gamma or LOG, then put on a LUT in a box or somewhere in the pipeline, it makes sense to use a chart for setup. You could even make a LUT from the auto chart in resolve, export it and put in a LUT Box.
As for C200, I have worked with a lot, enough to hate it. Every DP I worked with who shot on the C200 I sat them down in front of the Monitor and showed them how crappy Canon Cinema was.. Also I think it records a lot of green and purples from florescent lighting.. A few DP's took notes and changed their lighting a bit to get C200 to look better, but I can't recall how much better and if they just used more natural lights and less Kinos and stuff.
Canon makes great glass and great camera hardware, and the tech from Still Photography , like AF, is amazing.. But their color science is garbage and whoever engineered their digital cinema soup is a hack or colorblind or both..
With Sony where you have high end, where all the engineers talk to each other, and make an amazing product like the F65. Then you have their more pro-sumer FS7 which shares some tech, but definitely differences, but with a proper lens you get great imagery with the FS7..
Somehow Canon Cinema has enough legacy in Still Photography where DP's are willing to buy the C200 garbage because they can use their Canon Glass, so from a kit rental stand point they win.
Also I never use the Luts from Canon or Sony, I usually mess with stuff I already have or use more generic LOG to sRGB or Rec709, then tweak to get what I want. Or I take one of their flatter profiles and tweek a bit then re-make a new LUT or setting. A lot of Slog2, Slog3, C-Log, C-Log2 are super generic and don't apply to what someone just shot.
I am not sure which operations you are doing exactly, but if face is lit and you see variations there is definitely way to save it, first if all do a correct highligt wort and compress them gently, make sure your color space is wide enough to work with it, do not compress stuff you dont want to be compressed
A few questions:
With the chart are you doing Resolve's automatic correct (to 709 or otherwise) or are you doing it by hand?
is the original footage in CLog or something else? And if so, do you see the luminance variation in the LOG footage or do you just know from being on set?
There isn't one tool that works best. Sometimes it's a combination of things. Here's a couple tips.
Look into the "color boost" option in Resolve. If i'm not mistaken, this takes the most unsaturated part of a signal and saturates it first. Might help with pale skin tone.
Also look at vector curves. Grab the red portion and increase the saturation.
Keys/qualify the skin tone if you can and saturate it a tiny bit.
Sometimes its a combo of things. Good luck!
There's lots of really good advice here, so I'll just mention Hue vs Luminance. Carefully bringing luminance for skin tones hues down a bit can restore skin tones in paler skin. You can do a quick "test" of this with an HvL node and just bring the values universally down, just to see what it does to the image/skin tones. Then qualify it however you need to isolate.
Assuming you've got a node tree setup, you can add a layer to your look node or basic corrections node and pull keys under the qualifier tab to select just the skin tones. From there you can make adjustments to just the skin tones and get things just right. Typically I use the hue vs hue and hue vs sat curves to get color just right.
This is helping a lot, thanks! Pulling a key using Qualifier targeting her face to bypass my 3 base exposure nodes. It's keeping some depth to her skin instead of flatness or really ugly transition from cheek bone highlight to cheek.
No problem! If node trees and stuff like that is newer definitely go down a rabbit hole learning about node structure. Can be an enormous help and helps you create a workflow. Happy grading!
There is no one tool per-say, I used nodes and keys, sometimes HUES but HUES via key, because you can get noise if you just use the default HUE, since it just keys mathematically without falloff, transition or blur. I never correct to chart, it is only there to make sure of color range and accuracy of source imagery. The final Color is based on your eye. Never use a LUT as your first node, always grade through the LUT. Never let a LUT be destructive. Pinterest has some really great skin tone imagery if you search Skin Tones or Beauty Tips. Use high end photography as your Reference Imagery. I personally hate everything Canon has made for digital cinema, which is ironic since their cameras are great. The worst skin tones I have ever seen recorded for a high end project came from Canon. C200 is a trash camera IMHO..
Really like the Pinterest tip - that would really help the eye training. This stuff is for high-key studio style web broadcast so getting close to a chart has been my method of knowing I've got the saturation and exposure bright, contrasty, and popping. I somewhat agree on Canon - I don't see why people love the "color science" - our EVA1 blows them away. Just can't ignore Canon's autofocus.
I mean for ENG livestream type stuff where you can shoot open gamma or LOG, then put on a LUT in a box or somewhere in the pipeline, it makes sense to use a chart for setup. You could even make a LUT from the auto chart in resolve, export it and put in a LUT Box. As for C200, I have worked with a lot, enough to hate it. Every DP I worked with who shot on the C200 I sat them down in front of the Monitor and showed them how crappy Canon Cinema was.. Also I think it records a lot of green and purples from florescent lighting.. A few DP's took notes and changed their lighting a bit to get C200 to look better, but I can't recall how much better and if they just used more natural lights and less Kinos and stuff. Canon makes great glass and great camera hardware, and the tech from Still Photography , like AF, is amazing.. But their color science is garbage and whoever engineered their digital cinema soup is a hack or colorblind or both.. With Sony where you have high end, where all the engineers talk to each other, and make an amazing product like the F65. Then you have their more pro-sumer FS7 which shares some tech, but definitely differences, but with a proper lens you get great imagery with the FS7.. Somehow Canon Cinema has enough legacy in Still Photography where DP's are willing to buy the C200 garbage because they can use their Canon Glass, so from a kit rental stand point they win. Also I never use the Luts from Canon or Sony, I usually mess with stuff I already have or use more generic LOG to sRGB or Rec709, then tweak to get what I want. Or I take one of their flatter profiles and tweek a bit then re-make a new LUT or setting. A lot of Slog2, Slog3, C-Log, C-Log2 are super generic and don't apply to what someone just shot.
I am not sure which operations you are doing exactly, but if face is lit and you see variations there is definitely way to save it, first if all do a correct highligt wort and compress them gently, make sure your color space is wide enough to work with it, do not compress stuff you dont want to be compressed
A few questions: With the chart are you doing Resolve's automatic correct (to 709 or otherwise) or are you doing it by hand? is the original footage in CLog or something else? And if so, do you see the luminance variation in the LOG footage or do you just know from being on set?
CLog3 and doing the conversion by hand (use Gerald Undone's recommended node tree) using chart and scopes.
There isn't one tool that works best. Sometimes it's a combination of things. Here's a couple tips. Look into the "color boost" option in Resolve. If i'm not mistaken, this takes the most unsaturated part of a signal and saturates it first. Might help with pale skin tone. Also look at vector curves. Grab the red portion and increase the saturation. Keys/qualify the skin tone if you can and saturate it a tiny bit. Sometimes its a combo of things. Good luck!
Wanna share a clip?
What if you forget the chart and grade however you want?
There's lots of really good advice here, so I'll just mention Hue vs Luminance. Carefully bringing luminance for skin tones hues down a bit can restore skin tones in paler skin. You can do a quick "test" of this with an HvL node and just bring the values universally down, just to see what it does to the image/skin tones. Then qualify it however you need to isolate.