How to stop my camera from exagerrating differences in skin colour?





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







2















The skin colour of my subject is widely inconsistent and I am not sure what the reason for it is. To me it looks like the side of the face suffers from a colour shadow thrown by the bright hair. At the same time, the skin colour closer towards the centre of the face seems like an exaggeration of minor differences in colour of the subject's skin. Those reddish/pink spots aren't really visible to my eye.



What is the best approach to avoid such issues as I am taking a photo so I don't have to try and fix it in Photoshop afterwards? Is it something with my settings?



Picture is taken in JPG in manual mode with automatic white balance and spot-metering. No filters or special camera modes.



Woman's face crop with exaggerated skin colour differences










share|improve this question




















  • 2





    More info is needed. What camera settings are you using ? Are you shooting in raw so that you get all the data possible unchanged by the cameras software or are you set to capture JPG's ? Are you using a "mode" ( such as portrait ) on the camera that makes editing decisions about how the data the camera is capturing is changed ? PLEASE add as much detail to your question as possible.

    – Alaska man
    8 hours ago








  • 1





    It may not be your camera. It may be your perception. You rarely look at people's skin that close, and that long. Your dermatologist could agree with the camera.

    – xenoid
    5 hours ago











  • In addition to settings, what camera and lens models are you using? Different cameras and lenses render images differently.

    – xiota
    5 hours ago






  • 2





    Why does my subject's skin have such a red cast — did my auto white balance fail me?

    – xiota
    5 hours ago













  • What kind of light was illuminating your subject? It all starts with the light.

    – Michael C
    1 hour ago


















2















The skin colour of my subject is widely inconsistent and I am not sure what the reason for it is. To me it looks like the side of the face suffers from a colour shadow thrown by the bright hair. At the same time, the skin colour closer towards the centre of the face seems like an exaggeration of minor differences in colour of the subject's skin. Those reddish/pink spots aren't really visible to my eye.



What is the best approach to avoid such issues as I am taking a photo so I don't have to try and fix it in Photoshop afterwards? Is it something with my settings?



Picture is taken in JPG in manual mode with automatic white balance and spot-metering. No filters or special camera modes.



Woman's face crop with exaggerated skin colour differences










share|improve this question




















  • 2





    More info is needed. What camera settings are you using ? Are you shooting in raw so that you get all the data possible unchanged by the cameras software or are you set to capture JPG's ? Are you using a "mode" ( such as portrait ) on the camera that makes editing decisions about how the data the camera is capturing is changed ? PLEASE add as much detail to your question as possible.

    – Alaska man
    8 hours ago








  • 1





    It may not be your camera. It may be your perception. You rarely look at people's skin that close, and that long. Your dermatologist could agree with the camera.

    – xenoid
    5 hours ago











  • In addition to settings, what camera and lens models are you using? Different cameras and lenses render images differently.

    – xiota
    5 hours ago






  • 2





    Why does my subject's skin have such a red cast — did my auto white balance fail me?

    – xiota
    5 hours ago













  • What kind of light was illuminating your subject? It all starts with the light.

    – Michael C
    1 hour ago














2












2








2








The skin colour of my subject is widely inconsistent and I am not sure what the reason for it is. To me it looks like the side of the face suffers from a colour shadow thrown by the bright hair. At the same time, the skin colour closer towards the centre of the face seems like an exaggeration of minor differences in colour of the subject's skin. Those reddish/pink spots aren't really visible to my eye.



What is the best approach to avoid such issues as I am taking a photo so I don't have to try and fix it in Photoshop afterwards? Is it something with my settings?



Picture is taken in JPG in manual mode with automatic white balance and spot-metering. No filters or special camera modes.



Woman's face crop with exaggerated skin colour differences










share|improve this question
















The skin colour of my subject is widely inconsistent and I am not sure what the reason for it is. To me it looks like the side of the face suffers from a colour shadow thrown by the bright hair. At the same time, the skin colour closer towards the centre of the face seems like an exaggeration of minor differences in colour of the subject's skin. Those reddish/pink spots aren't really visible to my eye.



What is the best approach to avoid such issues as I am taking a photo so I don't have to try and fix it in Photoshop afterwards? Is it something with my settings?



Picture is taken in JPG in manual mode with automatic white balance and spot-metering. No filters or special camera modes.



Woman's face crop with exaggerated skin colour differences







color-correction skin-tones






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 7 hours ago







Haris

















asked 8 hours ago









HarisHaris

1113




1113








  • 2





    More info is needed. What camera settings are you using ? Are you shooting in raw so that you get all the data possible unchanged by the cameras software or are you set to capture JPG's ? Are you using a "mode" ( such as portrait ) on the camera that makes editing decisions about how the data the camera is capturing is changed ? PLEASE add as much detail to your question as possible.

    – Alaska man
    8 hours ago








  • 1





    It may not be your camera. It may be your perception. You rarely look at people's skin that close, and that long. Your dermatologist could agree with the camera.

    – xenoid
    5 hours ago











  • In addition to settings, what camera and lens models are you using? Different cameras and lenses render images differently.

    – xiota
    5 hours ago






  • 2





    Why does my subject's skin have such a red cast — did my auto white balance fail me?

    – xiota
    5 hours ago













  • What kind of light was illuminating your subject? It all starts with the light.

    – Michael C
    1 hour ago














  • 2





    More info is needed. What camera settings are you using ? Are you shooting in raw so that you get all the data possible unchanged by the cameras software or are you set to capture JPG's ? Are you using a "mode" ( such as portrait ) on the camera that makes editing decisions about how the data the camera is capturing is changed ? PLEASE add as much detail to your question as possible.

    – Alaska man
    8 hours ago








  • 1





    It may not be your camera. It may be your perception. You rarely look at people's skin that close, and that long. Your dermatologist could agree with the camera.

    – xenoid
    5 hours ago











  • In addition to settings, what camera and lens models are you using? Different cameras and lenses render images differently.

    – xiota
    5 hours ago






  • 2





    Why does my subject's skin have such a red cast — did my auto white balance fail me?

    – xiota
    5 hours ago













  • What kind of light was illuminating your subject? It all starts with the light.

    – Michael C
    1 hour ago








2




2





More info is needed. What camera settings are you using ? Are you shooting in raw so that you get all the data possible unchanged by the cameras software or are you set to capture JPG's ? Are you using a "mode" ( such as portrait ) on the camera that makes editing decisions about how the data the camera is capturing is changed ? PLEASE add as much detail to your question as possible.

– Alaska man
8 hours ago







More info is needed. What camera settings are you using ? Are you shooting in raw so that you get all the data possible unchanged by the cameras software or are you set to capture JPG's ? Are you using a "mode" ( such as portrait ) on the camera that makes editing decisions about how the data the camera is capturing is changed ? PLEASE add as much detail to your question as possible.

– Alaska man
8 hours ago






1




1





It may not be your camera. It may be your perception. You rarely look at people's skin that close, and that long. Your dermatologist could agree with the camera.

– xenoid
5 hours ago





It may not be your camera. It may be your perception. You rarely look at people's skin that close, and that long. Your dermatologist could agree with the camera.

– xenoid
5 hours ago













In addition to settings, what camera and lens models are you using? Different cameras and lenses render images differently.

– xiota
5 hours ago





In addition to settings, what camera and lens models are you using? Different cameras and lenses render images differently.

– xiota
5 hours ago




2




2





Why does my subject's skin have such a red cast — did my auto white balance fail me?

– xiota
5 hours ago







Why does my subject's skin have such a red cast — did my auto white balance fail me?

– xiota
5 hours ago















What kind of light was illuminating your subject? It all starts with the light.

– Michael C
1 hour ago





What kind of light was illuminating your subject? It all starts with the light.

– Michael C
1 hour ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















1














You are likely not getting the colors you want because of the color profile on your camera or raw processing software does not match your preferences. Camera and lens selection may also play a role.



Lens Selection



Lenses may transmit different frequencies differently. For instance, some produce warmer colors, while others are cooler. Some lenses also have defects, such as "glow", when shot wide open. Some people find that a soft-focus look is pleasant in portraits.



Camera Settings



If you are disciplined, you should set custom white balance. However, if you shoot in conditions with varied lighting, forgetting to change white balance can result in dozens of subsequent shots being ruined. Some cameras allow color-shift adjustments to auto white balance. Since AWB on my camera tends to produce images with more magenta than I'd like, I adjust AWB to increase the complementary color, green.



You should also select the color profile on your camera that best matches your preferences. Usually one or two profiles will subdue magenta-red colors. Available options vary by camera maker:





  • FujiFilm: Provia, Velvia, Astia, Classic Chrome, ProNeg-High, ProNeg-Low.


  • Canon: Standard, Portrait, Landscape, Neutral, Faithful.


  • Nikon: Standard, Neutral, Vivid, Portrait, Landscape, Flat.


  • Olympus (Picture Modes): i-Enhance, Vivid, Natural, Muted, Portrait.

  • Sony (Creative Style): Standard, Vivid, Neutral, Clear, Deep, Light, Portrait, Landscape, Sunset, Night Scene, Autumn leaves.


  • (Feel free to suggest edits with camera makers and profile names...)



Cameras also typically allow adjustments to saturation, contrast, highlight, shadows, noise reduction, and sharpness.



Post Processing



The objectionable skin tones are most likely magenta, not red. Even if the colors are accurate, you may still prefer less magenta.




  • You can reduce the magenta by adjusting curves to increase the complementary color, green, in relevant areas. Use color-layer blending to avoid changing the overall luminosity of the image. Use layer masks to isolate changes.


  • Sometimes desaturating slightly is enough to fix skin tones. Use a layer mask to isolate changes.


  • Some editors include skin-tone specific tools. If these are available to you, experiment with them until you find settings you like.



In your sample image, the "whites" of the girl's eyes are pinkish. Here is the image after adjusting the gamma of the green (1.15) and red (0.85) channels to neutralize the color cast somewhat. Her cheeks are still pinkish, but it should appear more natural and perhaps more to your liking.



adjusted sample image






share|improve this answer


























  • For me, it's a lot easier to use an HSL/HSV/HSB tool to pull back the saturation and slightly increase the luminance of the magenta band to get rid of the color cast than doing all of that work with curves.

    – Michael C
    1 hour ago





















1














What kind of light was illuminating your subject?



It all starts with the light.



Always.



I've found that most of the time uneven skin tones are a result of:




  • Too many different types of lighting mixed from different angles, so that one part of skin is influenced more by, say, the tungsten lamp to the right while another part of the skin is more influenced by the fluorescent light high overhead to the left. Color casts from highly reflective objects, such as your subject's pink wig or even a rich green lawn on a sunny day, can shift the color of human skin.

  • Poor overall lighting, even if all of it is the same type, with a low CRI (color rendering index). If there is no light present that is the same hue as parts of your subject's skin, there will be no light that color reflected from your subject. The colors that are present in the light will then be exaggerated.

  • Flickering lighting, such as most "energy efficient" light sources like cheap fluorescent or LED lighting, combined with fairly fast exposure times so that as the opening between the shutter curtains transits the sensor, the intensity and color of the light is changing as the light cycles from the peak to the trough of the alternating current powering it. Flickering lights not only get brighter and dimmer with the cycle of the current powering them, they also go from bluer and fuller spectrum at peak to browner and lower spectrum at the trough.



What is the best approach to avoid such issues as I am taking a photo so I don't have to try and fix it in Photoshop afterwards? Is it something with my settings?




Control your light sources. Be sure you are using even, full spectrum lighting that does not flicker. Be sure that all of the light coming from different angles is the same, both in terms of color temperature along the amber ←→ blue axis and "tint" along the green ←→ magenta axis.



Control your camera's color. Be sure the camera's white balance setting matches your light. Again, this includes both color temperature adjustment as well as white balance correction along the "tint" axis.



Shoot raw anyway. As counterintuitive as this sounds, saving all of the raw data will allow you to make a few, simple global adjustments in post processing to dial your color in even more precisely than the coarser settings on your camera will allow. You won't be forced to do various localized adjustments to a JPEG image near as often by processing the raw data.






share|improve this answer































    0














    It's certainly a very warm colour balance. Is this more accurate? It's a simple 'Auto Color' process, available in most photo editors.



    But, although it's refreshing to see a young girl not plastered in makeup, it IS rather cruelly accurate.



    What shall we do about the shadow under the cheekbone? Maybe do some subtle work with the airbrush. Or just re-shoot, but reflect some light into that area?



    enter image description here






    share|improve this answer
























    • I doubt "auto color" produced anything close to "accurate"... Such automatic adjustments usually need white and black points to adjust the color channels. Since the image is a crop that doesn't contain anything that is supposed to be truly white or black, the result is likely to still have a color shift. In this case, likely too much blue.

      – xiota
      3 hours ago













    • Well, you can see what it DID produce. I'd certainly class it as 'possible', unlike the original. No?

      – Laurence Payne
      3 hours ago











    • Depends on what you consider "possible". "Auto color" made some extreme adjustments to the image, including changing contrast. Detail in her cheeks are blown out. If you do a 50% color blend, to retain original detail and tone down the extreme color shift, the results look more reasonable, though still too blue/pink for my liking. Unless she's standing under blue lighting or Appalachian, I would not consider such coloring normal/accurate/possible.

      – xiota
      3 hours ago













    • @xiota Based on the color of the white of her eye, I'd guess that this is actually more accurate that either the example in the OP or your modification of it. It might not be the most desireable look, but it probably is the most accurate one. That's far from saying that AWB always gets it better than manually controlling the color, though.

      – Michael C
      1 hour ago











    • @MichaelC - The "whites" of people's eyes are not perfectly white.

      – xiota
      13 mins ago












    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "61"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106599%2fhow-to-stop-my-camera-from-exagerrating-differences-in-skin-colour%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    1














    You are likely not getting the colors you want because of the color profile on your camera or raw processing software does not match your preferences. Camera and lens selection may also play a role.



    Lens Selection



    Lenses may transmit different frequencies differently. For instance, some produce warmer colors, while others are cooler. Some lenses also have defects, such as "glow", when shot wide open. Some people find that a soft-focus look is pleasant in portraits.



    Camera Settings



    If you are disciplined, you should set custom white balance. However, if you shoot in conditions with varied lighting, forgetting to change white balance can result in dozens of subsequent shots being ruined. Some cameras allow color-shift adjustments to auto white balance. Since AWB on my camera tends to produce images with more magenta than I'd like, I adjust AWB to increase the complementary color, green.



    You should also select the color profile on your camera that best matches your preferences. Usually one or two profiles will subdue magenta-red colors. Available options vary by camera maker:





    • FujiFilm: Provia, Velvia, Astia, Classic Chrome, ProNeg-High, ProNeg-Low.


    • Canon: Standard, Portrait, Landscape, Neutral, Faithful.


    • Nikon: Standard, Neutral, Vivid, Portrait, Landscape, Flat.


    • Olympus (Picture Modes): i-Enhance, Vivid, Natural, Muted, Portrait.

    • Sony (Creative Style): Standard, Vivid, Neutral, Clear, Deep, Light, Portrait, Landscape, Sunset, Night Scene, Autumn leaves.


    • (Feel free to suggest edits with camera makers and profile names...)



    Cameras also typically allow adjustments to saturation, contrast, highlight, shadows, noise reduction, and sharpness.



    Post Processing



    The objectionable skin tones are most likely magenta, not red. Even if the colors are accurate, you may still prefer less magenta.




    • You can reduce the magenta by adjusting curves to increase the complementary color, green, in relevant areas. Use color-layer blending to avoid changing the overall luminosity of the image. Use layer masks to isolate changes.


    • Sometimes desaturating slightly is enough to fix skin tones. Use a layer mask to isolate changes.


    • Some editors include skin-tone specific tools. If these are available to you, experiment with them until you find settings you like.



    In your sample image, the "whites" of the girl's eyes are pinkish. Here is the image after adjusting the gamma of the green (1.15) and red (0.85) channels to neutralize the color cast somewhat. Her cheeks are still pinkish, but it should appear more natural and perhaps more to your liking.



    adjusted sample image






    share|improve this answer


























    • For me, it's a lot easier to use an HSL/HSV/HSB tool to pull back the saturation and slightly increase the luminance of the magenta band to get rid of the color cast than doing all of that work with curves.

      – Michael C
      1 hour ago


















    1














    You are likely not getting the colors you want because of the color profile on your camera or raw processing software does not match your preferences. Camera and lens selection may also play a role.



    Lens Selection



    Lenses may transmit different frequencies differently. For instance, some produce warmer colors, while others are cooler. Some lenses also have defects, such as "glow", when shot wide open. Some people find that a soft-focus look is pleasant in portraits.



    Camera Settings



    If you are disciplined, you should set custom white balance. However, if you shoot in conditions with varied lighting, forgetting to change white balance can result in dozens of subsequent shots being ruined. Some cameras allow color-shift adjustments to auto white balance. Since AWB on my camera tends to produce images with more magenta than I'd like, I adjust AWB to increase the complementary color, green.



    You should also select the color profile on your camera that best matches your preferences. Usually one or two profiles will subdue magenta-red colors. Available options vary by camera maker:





    • FujiFilm: Provia, Velvia, Astia, Classic Chrome, ProNeg-High, ProNeg-Low.


    • Canon: Standard, Portrait, Landscape, Neutral, Faithful.


    • Nikon: Standard, Neutral, Vivid, Portrait, Landscape, Flat.


    • Olympus (Picture Modes): i-Enhance, Vivid, Natural, Muted, Portrait.

    • Sony (Creative Style): Standard, Vivid, Neutral, Clear, Deep, Light, Portrait, Landscape, Sunset, Night Scene, Autumn leaves.


    • (Feel free to suggest edits with camera makers and profile names...)



    Cameras also typically allow adjustments to saturation, contrast, highlight, shadows, noise reduction, and sharpness.



    Post Processing



    The objectionable skin tones are most likely magenta, not red. Even if the colors are accurate, you may still prefer less magenta.




    • You can reduce the magenta by adjusting curves to increase the complementary color, green, in relevant areas. Use color-layer blending to avoid changing the overall luminosity of the image. Use layer masks to isolate changes.


    • Sometimes desaturating slightly is enough to fix skin tones. Use a layer mask to isolate changes.


    • Some editors include skin-tone specific tools. If these are available to you, experiment with them until you find settings you like.



    In your sample image, the "whites" of the girl's eyes are pinkish. Here is the image after adjusting the gamma of the green (1.15) and red (0.85) channels to neutralize the color cast somewhat. Her cheeks are still pinkish, but it should appear more natural and perhaps more to your liking.



    adjusted sample image






    share|improve this answer


























    • For me, it's a lot easier to use an HSL/HSV/HSB tool to pull back the saturation and slightly increase the luminance of the magenta band to get rid of the color cast than doing all of that work with curves.

      – Michael C
      1 hour ago
















    1












    1








    1







    You are likely not getting the colors you want because of the color profile on your camera or raw processing software does not match your preferences. Camera and lens selection may also play a role.



    Lens Selection



    Lenses may transmit different frequencies differently. For instance, some produce warmer colors, while others are cooler. Some lenses also have defects, such as "glow", when shot wide open. Some people find that a soft-focus look is pleasant in portraits.



    Camera Settings



    If you are disciplined, you should set custom white balance. However, if you shoot in conditions with varied lighting, forgetting to change white balance can result in dozens of subsequent shots being ruined. Some cameras allow color-shift adjustments to auto white balance. Since AWB on my camera tends to produce images with more magenta than I'd like, I adjust AWB to increase the complementary color, green.



    You should also select the color profile on your camera that best matches your preferences. Usually one or two profiles will subdue magenta-red colors. Available options vary by camera maker:





    • FujiFilm: Provia, Velvia, Astia, Classic Chrome, ProNeg-High, ProNeg-Low.


    • Canon: Standard, Portrait, Landscape, Neutral, Faithful.


    • Nikon: Standard, Neutral, Vivid, Portrait, Landscape, Flat.


    • Olympus (Picture Modes): i-Enhance, Vivid, Natural, Muted, Portrait.

    • Sony (Creative Style): Standard, Vivid, Neutral, Clear, Deep, Light, Portrait, Landscape, Sunset, Night Scene, Autumn leaves.


    • (Feel free to suggest edits with camera makers and profile names...)



    Cameras also typically allow adjustments to saturation, contrast, highlight, shadows, noise reduction, and sharpness.



    Post Processing



    The objectionable skin tones are most likely magenta, not red. Even if the colors are accurate, you may still prefer less magenta.




    • You can reduce the magenta by adjusting curves to increase the complementary color, green, in relevant areas. Use color-layer blending to avoid changing the overall luminosity of the image. Use layer masks to isolate changes.


    • Sometimes desaturating slightly is enough to fix skin tones. Use a layer mask to isolate changes.


    • Some editors include skin-tone specific tools. If these are available to you, experiment with them until you find settings you like.



    In your sample image, the "whites" of the girl's eyes are pinkish. Here is the image after adjusting the gamma of the green (1.15) and red (0.85) channels to neutralize the color cast somewhat. Her cheeks are still pinkish, but it should appear more natural and perhaps more to your liking.



    adjusted sample image






    share|improve this answer















    You are likely not getting the colors you want because of the color profile on your camera or raw processing software does not match your preferences. Camera and lens selection may also play a role.



    Lens Selection



    Lenses may transmit different frequencies differently. For instance, some produce warmer colors, while others are cooler. Some lenses also have defects, such as "glow", when shot wide open. Some people find that a soft-focus look is pleasant in portraits.



    Camera Settings



    If you are disciplined, you should set custom white balance. However, if you shoot in conditions with varied lighting, forgetting to change white balance can result in dozens of subsequent shots being ruined. Some cameras allow color-shift adjustments to auto white balance. Since AWB on my camera tends to produce images with more magenta than I'd like, I adjust AWB to increase the complementary color, green.



    You should also select the color profile on your camera that best matches your preferences. Usually one or two profiles will subdue magenta-red colors. Available options vary by camera maker:





    • FujiFilm: Provia, Velvia, Astia, Classic Chrome, ProNeg-High, ProNeg-Low.


    • Canon: Standard, Portrait, Landscape, Neutral, Faithful.


    • Nikon: Standard, Neutral, Vivid, Portrait, Landscape, Flat.


    • Olympus (Picture Modes): i-Enhance, Vivid, Natural, Muted, Portrait.

    • Sony (Creative Style): Standard, Vivid, Neutral, Clear, Deep, Light, Portrait, Landscape, Sunset, Night Scene, Autumn leaves.


    • (Feel free to suggest edits with camera makers and profile names...)



    Cameras also typically allow adjustments to saturation, contrast, highlight, shadows, noise reduction, and sharpness.



    Post Processing



    The objectionable skin tones are most likely magenta, not red. Even if the colors are accurate, you may still prefer less magenta.




    • You can reduce the magenta by adjusting curves to increase the complementary color, green, in relevant areas. Use color-layer blending to avoid changing the overall luminosity of the image. Use layer masks to isolate changes.


    • Sometimes desaturating slightly is enough to fix skin tones. Use a layer mask to isolate changes.


    • Some editors include skin-tone specific tools. If these are available to you, experiment with them until you find settings you like.



    In your sample image, the "whites" of the girl's eyes are pinkish. Here is the image after adjusting the gamma of the green (1.15) and red (0.85) channels to neutralize the color cast somewhat. Her cheeks are still pinkish, but it should appear more natural and perhaps more to your liking.



    adjusted sample image







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 3 hours ago

























    answered 4 hours ago









    xiotaxiota

    12k41864




    12k41864













    • For me, it's a lot easier to use an HSL/HSV/HSB tool to pull back the saturation and slightly increase the luminance of the magenta band to get rid of the color cast than doing all of that work with curves.

      – Michael C
      1 hour ago





















    • For me, it's a lot easier to use an HSL/HSV/HSB tool to pull back the saturation and slightly increase the luminance of the magenta band to get rid of the color cast than doing all of that work with curves.

      – Michael C
      1 hour ago



















    For me, it's a lot easier to use an HSL/HSV/HSB tool to pull back the saturation and slightly increase the luminance of the magenta band to get rid of the color cast than doing all of that work with curves.

    – Michael C
    1 hour ago







    For me, it's a lot easier to use an HSL/HSV/HSB tool to pull back the saturation and slightly increase the luminance of the magenta band to get rid of the color cast than doing all of that work with curves.

    – Michael C
    1 hour ago















    1














    What kind of light was illuminating your subject?



    It all starts with the light.



    Always.



    I've found that most of the time uneven skin tones are a result of:




    • Too many different types of lighting mixed from different angles, so that one part of skin is influenced more by, say, the tungsten lamp to the right while another part of the skin is more influenced by the fluorescent light high overhead to the left. Color casts from highly reflective objects, such as your subject's pink wig or even a rich green lawn on a sunny day, can shift the color of human skin.

    • Poor overall lighting, even if all of it is the same type, with a low CRI (color rendering index). If there is no light present that is the same hue as parts of your subject's skin, there will be no light that color reflected from your subject. The colors that are present in the light will then be exaggerated.

    • Flickering lighting, such as most "energy efficient" light sources like cheap fluorescent or LED lighting, combined with fairly fast exposure times so that as the opening between the shutter curtains transits the sensor, the intensity and color of the light is changing as the light cycles from the peak to the trough of the alternating current powering it. Flickering lights not only get brighter and dimmer with the cycle of the current powering them, they also go from bluer and fuller spectrum at peak to browner and lower spectrum at the trough.



    What is the best approach to avoid such issues as I am taking a photo so I don't have to try and fix it in Photoshop afterwards? Is it something with my settings?




    Control your light sources. Be sure you are using even, full spectrum lighting that does not flicker. Be sure that all of the light coming from different angles is the same, both in terms of color temperature along the amber ←→ blue axis and "tint" along the green ←→ magenta axis.



    Control your camera's color. Be sure the camera's white balance setting matches your light. Again, this includes both color temperature adjustment as well as white balance correction along the "tint" axis.



    Shoot raw anyway. As counterintuitive as this sounds, saving all of the raw data will allow you to make a few, simple global adjustments in post processing to dial your color in even more precisely than the coarser settings on your camera will allow. You won't be forced to do various localized adjustments to a JPEG image near as often by processing the raw data.






    share|improve this answer




























      1














      What kind of light was illuminating your subject?



      It all starts with the light.



      Always.



      I've found that most of the time uneven skin tones are a result of:




      • Too many different types of lighting mixed from different angles, so that one part of skin is influenced more by, say, the tungsten lamp to the right while another part of the skin is more influenced by the fluorescent light high overhead to the left. Color casts from highly reflective objects, such as your subject's pink wig or even a rich green lawn on a sunny day, can shift the color of human skin.

      • Poor overall lighting, even if all of it is the same type, with a low CRI (color rendering index). If there is no light present that is the same hue as parts of your subject's skin, there will be no light that color reflected from your subject. The colors that are present in the light will then be exaggerated.

      • Flickering lighting, such as most "energy efficient" light sources like cheap fluorescent or LED lighting, combined with fairly fast exposure times so that as the opening between the shutter curtains transits the sensor, the intensity and color of the light is changing as the light cycles from the peak to the trough of the alternating current powering it. Flickering lights not only get brighter and dimmer with the cycle of the current powering them, they also go from bluer and fuller spectrum at peak to browner and lower spectrum at the trough.



      What is the best approach to avoid such issues as I am taking a photo so I don't have to try and fix it in Photoshop afterwards? Is it something with my settings?




      Control your light sources. Be sure you are using even, full spectrum lighting that does not flicker. Be sure that all of the light coming from different angles is the same, both in terms of color temperature along the amber ←→ blue axis and "tint" along the green ←→ magenta axis.



      Control your camera's color. Be sure the camera's white balance setting matches your light. Again, this includes both color temperature adjustment as well as white balance correction along the "tint" axis.



      Shoot raw anyway. As counterintuitive as this sounds, saving all of the raw data will allow you to make a few, simple global adjustments in post processing to dial your color in even more precisely than the coarser settings on your camera will allow. You won't be forced to do various localized adjustments to a JPEG image near as often by processing the raw data.






      share|improve this answer


























        1












        1








        1







        What kind of light was illuminating your subject?



        It all starts with the light.



        Always.



        I've found that most of the time uneven skin tones are a result of:




        • Too many different types of lighting mixed from different angles, so that one part of skin is influenced more by, say, the tungsten lamp to the right while another part of the skin is more influenced by the fluorescent light high overhead to the left. Color casts from highly reflective objects, such as your subject's pink wig or even a rich green lawn on a sunny day, can shift the color of human skin.

        • Poor overall lighting, even if all of it is the same type, with a low CRI (color rendering index). If there is no light present that is the same hue as parts of your subject's skin, there will be no light that color reflected from your subject. The colors that are present in the light will then be exaggerated.

        • Flickering lighting, such as most "energy efficient" light sources like cheap fluorescent or LED lighting, combined with fairly fast exposure times so that as the opening between the shutter curtains transits the sensor, the intensity and color of the light is changing as the light cycles from the peak to the trough of the alternating current powering it. Flickering lights not only get brighter and dimmer with the cycle of the current powering them, they also go from bluer and fuller spectrum at peak to browner and lower spectrum at the trough.



        What is the best approach to avoid such issues as I am taking a photo so I don't have to try and fix it in Photoshop afterwards? Is it something with my settings?




        Control your light sources. Be sure you are using even, full spectrum lighting that does not flicker. Be sure that all of the light coming from different angles is the same, both in terms of color temperature along the amber ←→ blue axis and "tint" along the green ←→ magenta axis.



        Control your camera's color. Be sure the camera's white balance setting matches your light. Again, this includes both color temperature adjustment as well as white balance correction along the "tint" axis.



        Shoot raw anyway. As counterintuitive as this sounds, saving all of the raw data will allow you to make a few, simple global adjustments in post processing to dial your color in even more precisely than the coarser settings on your camera will allow. You won't be forced to do various localized adjustments to a JPEG image near as often by processing the raw data.






        share|improve this answer













        What kind of light was illuminating your subject?



        It all starts with the light.



        Always.



        I've found that most of the time uneven skin tones are a result of:




        • Too many different types of lighting mixed from different angles, so that one part of skin is influenced more by, say, the tungsten lamp to the right while another part of the skin is more influenced by the fluorescent light high overhead to the left. Color casts from highly reflective objects, such as your subject's pink wig or even a rich green lawn on a sunny day, can shift the color of human skin.

        • Poor overall lighting, even if all of it is the same type, with a low CRI (color rendering index). If there is no light present that is the same hue as parts of your subject's skin, there will be no light that color reflected from your subject. The colors that are present in the light will then be exaggerated.

        • Flickering lighting, such as most "energy efficient" light sources like cheap fluorescent or LED lighting, combined with fairly fast exposure times so that as the opening between the shutter curtains transits the sensor, the intensity and color of the light is changing as the light cycles from the peak to the trough of the alternating current powering it. Flickering lights not only get brighter and dimmer with the cycle of the current powering them, they also go from bluer and fuller spectrum at peak to browner and lower spectrum at the trough.



        What is the best approach to avoid such issues as I am taking a photo so I don't have to try and fix it in Photoshop afterwards? Is it something with my settings?




        Control your light sources. Be sure you are using even, full spectrum lighting that does not flicker. Be sure that all of the light coming from different angles is the same, both in terms of color temperature along the amber ←→ blue axis and "tint" along the green ←→ magenta axis.



        Control your camera's color. Be sure the camera's white balance setting matches your light. Again, this includes both color temperature adjustment as well as white balance correction along the "tint" axis.



        Shoot raw anyway. As counterintuitive as this sounds, saving all of the raw data will allow you to make a few, simple global adjustments in post processing to dial your color in even more precisely than the coarser settings on your camera will allow. You won't be forced to do various localized adjustments to a JPEG image near as often by processing the raw data.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 1 hour ago









        Michael CMichael C

        135k7154384




        135k7154384























            0














            It's certainly a very warm colour balance. Is this more accurate? It's a simple 'Auto Color' process, available in most photo editors.



            But, although it's refreshing to see a young girl not plastered in makeup, it IS rather cruelly accurate.



            What shall we do about the shadow under the cheekbone? Maybe do some subtle work with the airbrush. Or just re-shoot, but reflect some light into that area?



            enter image description here






            share|improve this answer
























            • I doubt "auto color" produced anything close to "accurate"... Such automatic adjustments usually need white and black points to adjust the color channels. Since the image is a crop that doesn't contain anything that is supposed to be truly white or black, the result is likely to still have a color shift. In this case, likely too much blue.

              – xiota
              3 hours ago













            • Well, you can see what it DID produce. I'd certainly class it as 'possible', unlike the original. No?

              – Laurence Payne
              3 hours ago











            • Depends on what you consider "possible". "Auto color" made some extreme adjustments to the image, including changing contrast. Detail in her cheeks are blown out. If you do a 50% color blend, to retain original detail and tone down the extreme color shift, the results look more reasonable, though still too blue/pink for my liking. Unless she's standing under blue lighting or Appalachian, I would not consider such coloring normal/accurate/possible.

              – xiota
              3 hours ago













            • @xiota Based on the color of the white of her eye, I'd guess that this is actually more accurate that either the example in the OP or your modification of it. It might not be the most desireable look, but it probably is the most accurate one. That's far from saying that AWB always gets it better than manually controlling the color, though.

              – Michael C
              1 hour ago











            • @MichaelC - The "whites" of people's eyes are not perfectly white.

              – xiota
              13 mins ago
















            0














            It's certainly a very warm colour balance. Is this more accurate? It's a simple 'Auto Color' process, available in most photo editors.



            But, although it's refreshing to see a young girl not plastered in makeup, it IS rather cruelly accurate.



            What shall we do about the shadow under the cheekbone? Maybe do some subtle work with the airbrush. Or just re-shoot, but reflect some light into that area?



            enter image description here






            share|improve this answer
























            • I doubt "auto color" produced anything close to "accurate"... Such automatic adjustments usually need white and black points to adjust the color channels. Since the image is a crop that doesn't contain anything that is supposed to be truly white or black, the result is likely to still have a color shift. In this case, likely too much blue.

              – xiota
              3 hours ago













            • Well, you can see what it DID produce. I'd certainly class it as 'possible', unlike the original. No?

              – Laurence Payne
              3 hours ago











            • Depends on what you consider "possible". "Auto color" made some extreme adjustments to the image, including changing contrast. Detail in her cheeks are blown out. If you do a 50% color blend, to retain original detail and tone down the extreme color shift, the results look more reasonable, though still too blue/pink for my liking. Unless she's standing under blue lighting or Appalachian, I would not consider such coloring normal/accurate/possible.

              – xiota
              3 hours ago













            • @xiota Based on the color of the white of her eye, I'd guess that this is actually more accurate that either the example in the OP or your modification of it. It might not be the most desireable look, but it probably is the most accurate one. That's far from saying that AWB always gets it better than manually controlling the color, though.

              – Michael C
              1 hour ago











            • @MichaelC - The "whites" of people's eyes are not perfectly white.

              – xiota
              13 mins ago














            0












            0








            0







            It's certainly a very warm colour balance. Is this more accurate? It's a simple 'Auto Color' process, available in most photo editors.



            But, although it's refreshing to see a young girl not plastered in makeup, it IS rather cruelly accurate.



            What shall we do about the shadow under the cheekbone? Maybe do some subtle work with the airbrush. Or just re-shoot, but reflect some light into that area?



            enter image description here






            share|improve this answer













            It's certainly a very warm colour balance. Is this more accurate? It's a simple 'Auto Color' process, available in most photo editors.



            But, although it's refreshing to see a young girl not plastered in makeup, it IS rather cruelly accurate.



            What shall we do about the shadow under the cheekbone? Maybe do some subtle work with the airbrush. Or just re-shoot, but reflect some light into that area?



            enter image description here







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 4 hours ago









            Laurence PayneLaurence Payne

            1,35946




            1,35946













            • I doubt "auto color" produced anything close to "accurate"... Such automatic adjustments usually need white and black points to adjust the color channels. Since the image is a crop that doesn't contain anything that is supposed to be truly white or black, the result is likely to still have a color shift. In this case, likely too much blue.

              – xiota
              3 hours ago













            • Well, you can see what it DID produce. I'd certainly class it as 'possible', unlike the original. No?

              – Laurence Payne
              3 hours ago











            • Depends on what you consider "possible". "Auto color" made some extreme adjustments to the image, including changing contrast. Detail in her cheeks are blown out. If you do a 50% color blend, to retain original detail and tone down the extreme color shift, the results look more reasonable, though still too blue/pink for my liking. Unless she's standing under blue lighting or Appalachian, I would not consider such coloring normal/accurate/possible.

              – xiota
              3 hours ago













            • @xiota Based on the color of the white of her eye, I'd guess that this is actually more accurate that either the example in the OP or your modification of it. It might not be the most desireable look, but it probably is the most accurate one. That's far from saying that AWB always gets it better than manually controlling the color, though.

              – Michael C
              1 hour ago











            • @MichaelC - The "whites" of people's eyes are not perfectly white.

              – xiota
              13 mins ago



















            • I doubt "auto color" produced anything close to "accurate"... Such automatic adjustments usually need white and black points to adjust the color channels. Since the image is a crop that doesn't contain anything that is supposed to be truly white or black, the result is likely to still have a color shift. In this case, likely too much blue.

              – xiota
              3 hours ago













            • Well, you can see what it DID produce. I'd certainly class it as 'possible', unlike the original. No?

              – Laurence Payne
              3 hours ago











            • Depends on what you consider "possible". "Auto color" made some extreme adjustments to the image, including changing contrast. Detail in her cheeks are blown out. If you do a 50% color blend, to retain original detail and tone down the extreme color shift, the results look more reasonable, though still too blue/pink for my liking. Unless she's standing under blue lighting or Appalachian, I would not consider such coloring normal/accurate/possible.

              – xiota
              3 hours ago













            • @xiota Based on the color of the white of her eye, I'd guess that this is actually more accurate that either the example in the OP or your modification of it. It might not be the most desireable look, but it probably is the most accurate one. That's far from saying that AWB always gets it better than manually controlling the color, though.

              – Michael C
              1 hour ago











            • @MichaelC - The "whites" of people's eyes are not perfectly white.

              – xiota
              13 mins ago

















            I doubt "auto color" produced anything close to "accurate"... Such automatic adjustments usually need white and black points to adjust the color channels. Since the image is a crop that doesn't contain anything that is supposed to be truly white or black, the result is likely to still have a color shift. In this case, likely too much blue.

            – xiota
            3 hours ago







            I doubt "auto color" produced anything close to "accurate"... Such automatic adjustments usually need white and black points to adjust the color channels. Since the image is a crop that doesn't contain anything that is supposed to be truly white or black, the result is likely to still have a color shift. In this case, likely too much blue.

            – xiota
            3 hours ago















            Well, you can see what it DID produce. I'd certainly class it as 'possible', unlike the original. No?

            – Laurence Payne
            3 hours ago





            Well, you can see what it DID produce. I'd certainly class it as 'possible', unlike the original. No?

            – Laurence Payne
            3 hours ago













            Depends on what you consider "possible". "Auto color" made some extreme adjustments to the image, including changing contrast. Detail in her cheeks are blown out. If you do a 50% color blend, to retain original detail and tone down the extreme color shift, the results look more reasonable, though still too blue/pink for my liking. Unless she's standing under blue lighting or Appalachian, I would not consider such coloring normal/accurate/possible.

            – xiota
            3 hours ago







            Depends on what you consider "possible". "Auto color" made some extreme adjustments to the image, including changing contrast. Detail in her cheeks are blown out. If you do a 50% color blend, to retain original detail and tone down the extreme color shift, the results look more reasonable, though still too blue/pink for my liking. Unless she's standing under blue lighting or Appalachian, I would not consider such coloring normal/accurate/possible.

            – xiota
            3 hours ago















            @xiota Based on the color of the white of her eye, I'd guess that this is actually more accurate that either the example in the OP or your modification of it. It might not be the most desireable look, but it probably is the most accurate one. That's far from saying that AWB always gets it better than manually controlling the color, though.

            – Michael C
            1 hour ago





            @xiota Based on the color of the white of her eye, I'd guess that this is actually more accurate that either the example in the OP or your modification of it. It might not be the most desireable look, but it probably is the most accurate one. That's far from saying that AWB always gets it better than manually controlling the color, though.

            – Michael C
            1 hour ago













            @MichaelC - The "whites" of people's eyes are not perfectly white.

            – xiota
            13 mins ago





            @MichaelC - The "whites" of people's eyes are not perfectly white.

            – xiota
            13 mins ago


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106599%2fhow-to-stop-my-camera-from-exagerrating-differences-in-skin-colour%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Bruad Bilen | Luke uk diar | NawigatsjuunCommonskategorii: BruadCommonskategorii: RunstükenWikiquote: Bruad

            What is the offset in a seaplane's hull?

            Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029