Canon color science
May 4, 2024 08:16:21 #
On another camera forum I subscribe to a member stated that they were disappointed in Canon changing their color science with the new R series. He stated that Magenta was added and the colors are NOT as natural as before... I don't have an R body and no access to one so I cannot really say one way or another. Can anyone elaborate on this or is this just a personal interpretation by the user ? What say you Paul... ?
May 4, 2024 09:05:13 #
I have not noticed a difference between my 80D and R7. However, considering how I work, I would not expect to. I shoot raw which produces a dull image. I have no trouble adjusting parameters like contrast, vibrance, and the like in Lightroom to my liking. JPG's do not give as much latitude so perhaps the two cameras might give different colors. Another factor could be the auto white point.
May 4, 2024 09:11:02 #
abc1234 wrote:
I have not noticed a difference between my 80D and R7. However, considering how I work, I would not expect to. I shoot raw which produces a dull image. I have no trouble adjusting parameters like contrast, vibrance, and the like in Lightroom to my liking. JPG's do not give as much latitude so perhaps the two cameras might give different colors. Another factor could be the auto white point.
Another comment said color and tones were different and AWB is treated differently... I googled this and THERE is discussion of this !
Check out Underwater Photography Forum section of our forum.
May 4, 2024 09:23:17 #
MrBob wrote:
Another comment said color and tones were different and AWB is treated differently... I googled this and THERE is discussion of this !
Give us the link.
May 4, 2024 09:29:40 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
Give us the link.
The original comment came from " Canon camera owners " on FB. I googled the question and saw that there was a lot of discussion on various sites... I will try and go back and make a list of links...
May 4, 2024 09:31:33 #
What are they comparing? RAW or JPG? Unprocessed or processed? What are the camera settings?
May 4, 2024 09:39:02 #
abc1234 wrote:
What are they comparing? RAW or JPG? Unprocessed or processed? What are the camera settings?
I don't know... I think the crux of the matter might be the AWB settings and altering the magenta to offset some green cast. I really don't care myself as my DSLR canon's will suffice for the duration and the NATURAL color tones from these bodies combined with top lenses are more than sufficient. There is SOMETHING more natural with older bodies and TOP rated older lenses... Call it wishful imagination or delusion, but I sense it .
Check out Commercial and Industrial Photography section of our forum.
May 4, 2024 09:44:09 #
tcthome
Loc: NJ
abc1234 wrote:
What are they comparing? RAW or JPG? Unprocessed or processed? What are the camera settings?
Are they all viewing on calibrated monitors?
May 4, 2024 09:57:52 #
tcthome wrote:
Are they all viewing on calibrated monitors?
If the monitor characteristics were not changed between viewing the results of each camera, it doesn't matter if it is calibrated or not.
The monitor display is a constant in either case. It depends on what is sent to the monitor how it is displayed, i.e. the contents of the image file.
May 4, 2024 10:00:30 #
It's not as big a deal as it was during the film era.
Everything is malleable now...colors are rarely left alone during PP.
The Leica look is now...just a preset...same with all of them.
Everything is malleable now...colors are rarely left alone during PP.
The Leica look is now...just a preset...same with all of them.
May 4, 2024 10:01:44 #
tcthome wrote:
Are they all viewing on calibrated monitors?
I don't know... Maybe the color science is ALWAYS slightly changing and this change was just more noticeable. Maybe a moot point altogether ! We all adjust in post anyway, don't we ?
Check out Drone Video and Photography Forum section of our forum.
May 4, 2024 12:21:07 #
This is just conspiracy theory nonsense. That you have to find the threads via Facebook and / or Reddit is a dead giveaway ... Now it's reached the mustard pages of UHH, it will become more the urban legends of the Internet oft repeated here. Great job!!
May 4, 2024 13:21:42 #
This is a VERY tough question to nail down with examples from Facebook & Forums.
To make any meaningful comment on native color balance and weather or not it has changed from an earlier camera, you need to have a color managed workflow, including a hardware calibrated graphics display, and calibrated Color Targets Like the X-Rite Color Checker Classic. If you want accurate color it is the best $90 bucks you will ever spend.
These go back a Long way to the MacBeth company (then x-rite, now Calibrate)
Anyone can notice or suspect a color shift, but until you measure it, you can't do much with it.
Individual camera can have small differences, if you own multiple bodies, you can color match them.
If you are a casual photographer who wants pleasing color, you do not have to do any of this. While is is certainly good practice to calibrate your display (and use a display worth calibrating) most people do not bother.
And a tiny color shift will not even be noticeable.
However if you want or need accurate color, you need a color managed workflow and a good color target.
Most opinions you read are just that, and they are rarely based on accurate testing. However they do tend to take on a life of their own with opinions and counter opinions.
If you want to know, Test
To make any meaningful comment on native color balance and weather or not it has changed from an earlier camera, you need to have a color managed workflow, including a hardware calibrated graphics display, and calibrated Color Targets Like the X-Rite Color Checker Classic. If you want accurate color it is the best $90 bucks you will ever spend.
These go back a Long way to the MacBeth company (then x-rite, now Calibrate)
Anyone can notice or suspect a color shift, but until you measure it, you can't do much with it.
Individual camera can have small differences, if you own multiple bodies, you can color match them.
If you are a casual photographer who wants pleasing color, you do not have to do any of this. While is is certainly good practice to calibrate your display (and use a display worth calibrating) most people do not bother.
And a tiny color shift will not even be noticeable.
However if you want or need accurate color, you need a color managed workflow and a good color target.
Most opinions you read are just that, and they are rarely based on accurate testing. However they do tend to take on a life of their own with opinions and counter opinions.
If you want to know, Test
May 4, 2024 14:16:41 #
Longshadow wrote:
If the monitor characteristics were not changed between viewing the results of each camera, it doesn't matter if it is calibrated or not.
The monitor display is a constant in either case. It depends on what is sent to the monitor how it is displayed, i.e. the contents of the image file.
The monitor display is a constant in either case. It depends on what is sent to the monitor how it is displayed, i.e. the contents of the image file.
"Calibrated Monitor" is just one of various mantras chanted by the adherents of UHH Sacred Traditions. As with most pink noise, you must adjust to ignoring it, cuz it never really goes away.
May 4, 2024 14:32:08 #
User ID wrote:
"Calibrated Monitor" is just one of various mantras chanted by the adherents of UHH Sacred Traditions. As with most pink noise, you must adjust to ignoring it, cuz it never really goes away.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Advice from the Pros section of our forum.