Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands 
Thread started 05 Nov 2018 (Monday) 18:05
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Color Science - Everyone hates Fuji lol, a test between Sony, Canon, Nikon, and Fuji

 
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,279 posts
Likes: 1333
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Post edited 3 months ago by bobbyz. (2 edits in all)
     
Nov 07, 2018 21:25 |  #31

I would guess if one has one of those color profile checker things, you can make an import profile in LR and be done. Can't be that hard. I can't imagine PP on Sony files (or any other camera for that matter) taking such a long time. Fuji colors, if you shoot RAW, they don't mean anything. LR has presets which give similar look but I haven't see it that much different from my Canon. I don't spend more than 2 mins per image as I don't know much about pp.

XT1 X-Trans

IMAGE: https://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s/v-2/p1391765523-6.jpg

IMAGE: https://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s/v-2/p2003289867-6.jpg

IMAGE: https://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s/v-3/p2656611074-6.jpg

Canon - has more reddish look, Sony will show more green and from what I see Nikon is bit yellower.

IMAGE: https://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s/v-2/p181135499-6.jpg

GFX

IMAGE: https://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s/v-3/p2657059357-6.jpg

Here is example of three person with different cameras shooting same subject:

IMAGE: https://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s/v-3/p2884150278-5.jpg

IMAGE: https://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s/v-3/p2884150484-5.jpg

IMAGE: https://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s/v-3/p2884150283-5.jpg

To me first one looks worst and it is not Sony.

5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,801 posts
Gallery: 142 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3294
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post edited 3 months ago by Tom Reichner. (2 edits in all)
     
Nov 08, 2018 06:42 |  #32

.
Let's all keep in mind that he is only discussing the color science in jPeg files.

What I liked is that he explained the very true fact that if you shoot RAW, there is absolutely no difference in color or rendering from one camera to another. . None. . The difference comes from the way your RAW converter interprets the files, not from the sensor or the camera software itself.

So when people say that they like Sony's colors better, or Canon's colors better, they should be speaking strictly about jPeg files, because the RAW files themselves will be exactly the same. . So for those of us who shoot RAW, the color science that we see in our photos comes from the RAW converter that we use, not from the camera or the sensor that we use.

So people who shoot RAW shouldn't say things like, "I like Sony's colors better than Canon's colors". . That would be inaccurate to say. . Instead, they should say, "I like the way that my RAW converter renders Sony files better than the way it renders Canon files".


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,279 posts
Likes: 1333
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Nov 08, 2018 07:31 |  #33

Tom, I know what you saying but all most shooters here are shooting RAW and some still say colors are so different and very hard to get them close if not the same.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
6,996 posts
Gallery: 69 photos
Likes: 895
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Nov 08, 2018 08:41 |  #34

bobbyz wrote in post #18746501 (external link)
Tom, I know what you saying but all most shooters here are shooting RAW and some still say colors are so different and very hard to get them close if not the same.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18746468 (external link)
.
Let's all keep in mind that he is only discussing the color science in jPeg files.

What I liked is that he explained the very true fact that if you shoot RAW, there is absolutely no difference in color or rendering from one camera to another. . None. . The difference comes from the way your RAW converter interprets the files, not from the sensor or the camera software itself.

So when people say that they like Sony's colors better, or Canon's colors better, they should be speaking strictly about jPeg files, because the RAW files themselves will be exactly the same. . So for those of us who shoot RAW, the color science that we see in our photos comes from the RAW converter that we use, not from the camera or the sensor that we use.

So people who shoot RAW shouldn't say things like, "I like Sony's colors better than Canon's colors". . That would be inaccurate to say. . Instead, they should say, "I like the way that my RAW converter renders Sony files better than the way it renders Canon files".


.


I do not get how Raw can all be the same. If this is the case Fuji signature colours should be different going from capture one and adobe LR. From what I have seen the there is always a distinct colour signature embedded in the file regardless of software.

How a camera performs AWB is also part of the equation. Standard sony awb the images are neutral to slight cooler in many cases. That’s my observation any ways.

If overall image and iq are all the same I would not have purchased Fuji or Sony. Many reasons why I own different gear. I shoot raw all of the time too.

Post processing can work with any Raw file but there is more to life than spending hours upon hours to change how the camera dictates it should be.

Shooting from indoors to outdoors would have represented a bigger picture in colour science discussion. Also seeing how a camera reacts to strobes too.

I’d love to use a software that dictates Fuji flavours and renders in software using my Sony Raw files.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 50-140 | TT685
Sony A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,525 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 8228
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
Post edited 3 months ago by mystik610.
     
Nov 08, 2018 09:15 |  #35

It's not so much that the RAW is the same...but that the RAWS all have the same level of flexibility in terms of color correction that you can easily color match files from different makers. Just that the starting points are different.

It's basically like this....imagine that a scene/subject is a dart board, and the bullseye is how you envision a photo. Shooting with different cameras will produce SOOC images that are at different spots of the dart board...some closer to the bullseye than others. But you can correct the colors of any of those files to the bullseye in post.

And that dart board changes from scene/subject to scene/subject. I process second shooter files from Canon, and am processing a bunch of Fuji RAF files right now. Sometimes Sony is more spot on, sometimes Fuji is more spot on....depends on the other variables in the shot. But I don't personally think one brand is better than another. Either way I need to put the work in post in because there are a lot of variables to correct in terms of color.

What Tony Northrup's test tells me is that people tend to prefer the SOOC of Sony. Doesn't mean that Sony is better...just that the SOOC are more in line with what people perceive as the "bullseye". But any of the differences between brands in terms of color can be corrected in post, so its never been a big deal to me.

Things like DR and noise where you're hitting the thresholds of the sensor in post matter a whole lot more in post.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀII - RX1ʀII - α7ʀIII
Zeiss Loxia 21 - Canon 24-70 2.8LII - Sony/Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZA - Sony 50 1.8 - Sony 85GM - Sigma 135 f1.8 ART

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cug
Member
125 posts
Likes: 53
Joined Oct 2015
     
Nov 08, 2018 09:41 |  #36

bobbyz wrote in post #18746501 (external link)
Tom, I know what you saying but all most shooters here are shooting RAW and some still say colors are so different and very hard to get them close if not the same.

I could see Fuji files being slightly different due to the different color filter (x-trans), but all the Bayer raw files should be roughly the same. There might be slight variance due to color array optimizations or micro lenses or ... but these should be minimal.

Personally, I find that raw files need slightly different processing between manufacturers but that’s more in the white balance, sharpening and noise reduction modules. Overall, after they come out of Lightroom, I can’t really tell the difference due to color. Much more due to different rendering of lenses and even that is often hard.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,425 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 3369
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Bowie, MD
     
Nov 08, 2018 10:26 |  #37

AlanU wrote in post #18746529 (external link)
I do not get how Raw can all be the same. If this is the case Fuji signature colours should be different going from capture one and adobe LR. From what I have seen the there is always a distinct colour signature embedded in the file regardless of software.

How a camera performs AWB is also part of the equation. Standard sony awb the images are neutral to slight cooler in many cases. That’s my observation any ways.

If overall image and iq are all the same I would not have purchased Fuji or Sony. Many reasons why I own different gear. I shoot raw all of the time too.

Post processing can work with any Raw file but there is more to life than spending hours upon hours to change how the camera dictates it should be.

Shooting from indoors to outdoors would have represented a bigger picture in colour science discussion. Also seeing how a camera reacts to strobes too.

I’d love to use a software that dictates Fuji flavours and renders in software using my Sony Raw files.

You can setup LR (or most any other editing software) to import a Fuji-like color profile to your Sony RAWs on import in a matter of minutes. This isn't new.

cug wrote in post #18746556 (external link)
I could see Fuji files being slightly different due to the different color filter (x-trans), but all the Bayer raw files should be roughly the same. There might be slight variance due to color array optimizations or micro lenses or ... but these should be minimal.

Personally, I find that raw files need slightly different processing between manufacturers but that’s more in the white balance, sharpening and noise reduction modules. Overall, after they come out of Lightroom, I can’t really tell the difference due to color. Much more due to different rendering of lenses and even that is often hard.

This.


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T // XF 18mm f2 // XF 35mm f1.4 // XF 60mm f2.4 // Rokinon 12mm f2 // Rokinon 21mm f1.4 // XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 // XF 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 // Rokinon 85mm f1.4 // Zhonghi Lensturbo ii // Various adapted MF lenses
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,614 posts
Likes: 489
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Nov 08, 2018 13:51 |  #38

cug wrote in post #18746556 (external link)
I could see Fuji files being slightly different due to the different color filter (x-trans), but all the Bayer raw files should be roughly the same. There might be slight variance due to color array optimizations or micro lenses or ... but these should be minimal.

Personally, I find that raw files need slightly different processing between manufacturers but that’s more in the white balance, sharpening and noise reduction modules. Overall, after they come out of Lightroom, I can’t really tell the difference due to color. Much more due to different rendering of lenses and even that is often hard.

The main factor in color temperature is WB (which is baked on in JPEG and meta-data in RAW). Brands can have different Kelvin values for their different presets. I have had to match color with Canon and Nikon cameras, and have gotten identical color temps by manually controlling WB (no post processing needed). If you load the RAW in an editing program, you may have it setup to accept in camera WB or it can also ignore the RAWs WB and come up with its own WB...or your own preset.


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Croasdail
making stuff up
7,042 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 269
Joined Apr 2005
Location: North Carolina
     
Nov 08, 2018 14:02 as a reply to  @ post 18746259 |  #39

I agree with your assumptions here... particularly with RAW files. But one caveat, you can't display an unprocessed raw file - to display it, it has to be processed. Now you can set all the settings to be as natural to end up with a flat image, but simply pulling a raw file up in lightroom or anything else, it is being processed. And depending on which tool you use, the files will have a different look.

But yes, color is probably one of the most common "fixes" done in post, on just about any file. It's just not that hard to make a Sony file look like a Canon file, and visa versa. Even a Fuji file. With digital photography, just about everything is adjustable. You just can't fox blown highlights or crushed shadows. What's not there isn't there.


Mark
Its by knowing and mastering all the rules that you learn which ones you can break.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Croasdail
making stuff up
7,042 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 269
Joined Apr 2005
Location: North Carolina
     
Nov 08, 2018 14:05 as a reply to  @ post 18745515 |  #40

"(case in point enough warm tones for furniture product shots or African American models)."

In the early days of shooting Canon 1D bodies for sports 10 -15 years ago, I spent hours de-greening darker skinned athletes. Canon's "color science" of the day handled these skin tones horrible. Drove me nuts. Was always having to add blue back into the shots. Oh the good old days.


Mark
Its by knowing and mastering all the rules that you learn which ones you can break.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,801 posts
Gallery: 142 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3294
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Nov 08, 2018 19:18 |  #41

Croasdail wrote in post #18746717 (external link)
But yes, color is probably one of the most common "fixes" done in post, on just about any file. It's just not that hard to make a Sony file look like a Canon file, and visa versa. Even a Fuji file. With digital photography, just about everything is adjustable.

.
This is exactly right! Tony does explain this in the video - that any RAW file form any camera manufacturer can easily be made to look exactly like a file from any other manufacturer, because the only difference is in the processing, anyway.

Hence, it doesn't seem like there is any viable reason to use one manufacturer's camera for one type of photography, and another manufacturer's camera for another type of photography, based on so called "color science". . The only reason to do this would be if you haven't figured out how to apply A Fuji profile to a Canon file, or a Canon profile to a Sony file, etc.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cug
Member
125 posts
Likes: 53
Joined Oct 2015
     
Nov 08, 2018 21:28 |  #42

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18746892 (external link)
This is exactly right! Tony does explain this in the video - that any RAW file form any camera manufacturer can easily be made to look exactly like a file from any other manufacturer, because the only difference is in the processing, anyway.

As I pointed out I see some difficulty when the color array is completely different, like X-Trans vs. Bayer, but even then it is generally possible to get it "close enough". If it's all Bayer sensors, then it's generally easy.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
6,996 posts
Gallery: 69 photos
Likes: 895
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Nov 09, 2018 00:48 |  #43

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18746892 (external link)
.
This is exactly right! Tony does explain this in the video - that any RAW file form any camera manufacturer can easily be made to look exactly like a file from any other manufacturer, because the only difference is in the processing, anyway.

Hence, it doesn't seem like there is any viable reason to use one manufacturer's camera for one type of photography, and another manufacturer's camera for another type of photography, based on so called "color science". . The only reason to do this would be if you haven't figured out how to apply A Fuji profile to a Canon file, or a Canon profile to a Sony file, etc.

.

I simply use my Canon primarily for hired events. I still find shutter actuations to be instant. I micro adjust all of my lenses so I have no focus issues regarding front/back complaints. Red focus assist gives me incredible reliability in landing the shots as I will bounce flash during evening events. Colour is just part of the reason why I shoot and appreciate Canon. Even if I did own a new Canon EOS R I wouldn't be using it for evening low light events since mirrorless cannot utilize the focus assist while bouncing flash.

Tom it appears you shoot canon and primarily shoot wildlife. If you had to shoot indoors with mixed lighting and have to deal with coloured walls, different colour cabinets, bouncing flash etc it's a different environment. You would require to calibrate in almost every situation imaginable. Every situation would effect white balance and manipulation of colours.

At this moment I'm still working on taming Sony colours and I shoot RAW. In outdoor photography you'd need to make a few presets to speed up post such as open shade, hard direct light, over cast, shooting behind the sun, shooting into the sun, perhaps under forest with green tint cast. That is only a small variable compared to shooting indoors with pink, red, brown, yellow, white etc walls CFL ranging from all sorts of kelvin temps, incandescent, halogen, mercury vapour...you name it.

Tom if you could rent or borrow a Sony or Fuji camera for several months. I'd like to see how well a photographer would be able to "apply" a different brand profile. The effort involved would be senseless. I shoot a different system and I tweak to taste but take colour science as "it is what it is". If your use to Canon RAW files you will experience a rude awakening in how different Sony RAW files manipulate in LR. If you shoot in a green lush environment you'll be hit in the face with Sony colour science. Harder looking colours perhaps due to AWB too in many cases.


Take a quick look at how Sony images render for landscapes and analyze Fuji. The way those two brands can have a different take on reality. I do find Sony consistently has a "real to life" look. Even if you uplift shadows it's difficult to make a Sony image look painterly.

Two different random photos. The photo of the tanker was with my X-t2 with 50-140mm. This "look" is a typical fuji render that has a calm look and easy on the eyes colours. The cute cuddly Grizzly bears have a punchy colour that is a look that I often get with Sony with incredible clarity.

Post processing is a part of the equation in how images will look. The foundation of your images is obviously your RAW files and it's not a matter of simple tweaks to make the overall IQ to mimic another brand. Lens plays a role in how the camera system renders but at the end of the day it is what it is. In my case If i could make my Sony A7iii replicate my Fuji gear I'll simply dump my Fuji right now. The difference using my Xt2 with Fuji 16mm f/1.4 prime vs Sony A7iii with 24mm Sigma art or adapted Canon 24Lmk2 is totally different.

Things are not so simple as you would hope........

Examples of photos should vary from bright sunlight, overcast, indoors etc. The changes in light all plays a role in how a system can recreate an image scene.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.




HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 50-140 | TT685
Sony A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Osa713
Goldmember
Avatar
1,332 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Likes: 870
Joined Jun 2011
Location: Houston, TX
Post edited 3 months ago by Osa713.
     
Nov 09, 2018 01:07 as a reply to  @ AlanU's post |  #44

Alan those two photos are completely different though :-P...


LIGHT>LENS>BODY

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Spencerphoto
Senior Member
335 posts
Gallery: 41 photos
Likes: 839
Joined Sep 2018
Location: Brisbane
     
Nov 09, 2018 01:24 |  #45

Maybe it's just me but I see a noticeable difference in colour between my 5D3 and 7D2, also all five of my lenses (one of which admittedly is a Sigma). It doesn't matter too much though, because I shoot 100% RAW and, once processed, all my images convey MY colour preference. The only impact this variation has is on my workflow, with different combinations requiring their own adjustments.

Hopefully not OT, my 7D2 LCD seems to have a distinct yellow cast, which irritates me a little. It has no effect on the files, thankfully.


5D3, 7D2, EF 16-35 f/2.8L, EF 24-105 f/4L, EF 70-200 f/2.8L II, EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L II, EF 1.4x III, Sigma 150mm macro, Lumix LX100 plus a cupboard full of bags, tripods, flashes & stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,627 views & 73 likes for this thread
Color Science - Everyone hates Fuji lol, a test between Sony, Canon, Nikon, and Fuji
FORUMS General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is kotsyphotography
350 guests, 342 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.