Do you see any colour science differences?

Same lens different sensors.

Just watch the video and certainly doesn't show that it's a white balance issue.

Thought this was an interesting video. No argument in how controlled this comparison is.....I see a difference....maybe Tony Northrup should watch!!

https://www.youtube.co​m …6jY9HpXZhSEzwIK​1V68IY6pq4

I'm surprised you're still on this.

Firstly; This video doesn't do anything to prove anything about the discussions numerous members have had with you on this topic. He didn't do the one thing that EVERYONE has told you makes a difference; apply a neutral (same) color profile to the RAW BEFORE any editing.

Secondly; His video still proves the consensus' (and Tony's) point that color profiles from manufacturers don't matter if you shoot RAW. His entire video was talking about how to make the colors look the same for each persons skin tone... though I'm personally not sure about the methods, to me the end results looked too green shifted when he did the skin tone color grading. The final results at the end did look nice though.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18829893


I'm surprised you're still on this.

Firstly; This video doesn't do anything to prove anything about the discussions numerous members have had with you on this topic. He didn't do the one thing that EVERYONE has told you makes a difference; apply a neutral (same) color profile to the RAW BEFORE any editing.

Secondly; His video still proves the consensus' (and Tony's) point that color profiles from manufacturers don't matter if you shoot RAW. His entire video was talking about how to make the colors look the same for each persons skin tone... though I'm personally not sure about the methods, to me the end results looked too green shifted when he did the skin tone color grading. The final results at the end did look nice though.

Shooting Fuji is quite effortless in post processing. Fuji has done a fantastic job in baking our Fuji files.

What is a neutral colour profile? Sounds easy on the internet but in reality it’s not so easy to post process. Even with presets I still do take more time in my Sony events post work than Canon.

Just wanted to share the video. People can discuss and just see what others do.

Went to watch this and saw it was by Sean Tucker, unplugged my headphones and 86'd the page. I'm not a fan.
I shot photos with Provia on Thursday and Astia on Friday. Eterna last week for video (an advert) and I didn't need the dynamic range of F-Log.
I'll be editing the raw photos on Tuesday so it really won't matter what profile I had, other then the real time client previews to the iPad on set.

I think all the different JPEG output for the the camera makes are different alright. The raws can also be a different place to start with, even between models, more than just white balance but I've never had an issue getting the balance right. If there are slight differences they probably pale when you compare how out of colour the average monitor is or phone screen is... Those levels of accuracies in colour only really matter if you are printing and then only really if it's a colour sensitive image, like fashion and the mag will give you the profile they print with anyway, so you can set up your monitor to it and work away.

i can see how it might be interesting to some alright but it's like saying the focus ring turns the wrong way, good to know about but in reality nothing of any importance in the bigger picture [Ha!].

OK, hold on... I personally shoot 100%.... and yet I can still see differences between the two brands of cameras I shoot... Canon and Sony. To say that if you shoot raw it doesn't matter isn't accurate at all. It may be a lot easier with Raw to get the look you want, but there are absolutely differences in the "color science". I have presets for most the work I do, but I have to have two versions of those presets - one for Canon shot files, and one for Sony shot files. Every sensors ability to interpret and record color is slightly different even within the same brand. At the end of the day, my looks and style is mine, not Sony nor Canons, so much of this color science stuff I do ignore... but they do impact my workflow.

As to liking Sean Tucker or not.... I'm generally of the opinion I'll listen to anyone. I absolutely don't know everything and am open to ideas. I will admit I am more skeptical of some more than others, but they all occasionally say something that makes you go huh.... even the fro-dude. Even sometimes in the adverse.... I come away and say "i'm not going to do it that way".... but its all about evolving in your talent and perspective.

Color science is only a very small part of the entire process. It is important to know what it is, and how it may impact how you shoot. But it rarely has anything to do with the ultimate final product.

Croasdail wrote in post #18830704
OK, hold on... I personally shoot 100%.... and yet I can still see differences between the two brands of cameras I shoot... Canon and Sony. To say that if you shoot raw it doesn't matter isn't accurate at all. It may be a lot easier with Raw to get the look you want, but there are absolutely differences in the "color science". I have presets for most the work I do, but I have to have two versions of those presets - one for Canon shot files, and one for Sony shot files. Every sensors ability to interpret and record color is slightly different even within the same brand. At the end of the day, my looks and style is mine, not Sony nor Canons, so much of this color science stuff I do ignore... but they do impact my workflow.

As to liking Sean Tucker or not.... I'm generally of the opinion I'll listen to anyone. I absolutely don't know everything and am open to ideas. I will admit I am more skeptical of some more than others, but they all occasionally say something that makes you go huh.... even the fro-dude. Even sometimes in the adverse.... I come away and say "i'm not going to do it that way".... but its all about evolving in your talent and perspective.

Color science is only a very small part of the entire process. It is important to know what it is, and how it may impact how you shoot. But it rarely has anything to do with the ultimate final product.

Rather than have history repeat itself (as Alan loves to do), read through this thread.

https://photography-on-the.net …read.php?t=1501​899&page=1

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18830851
Rather than have history repeat itself (as Alan loves to do), read through this thread.

https://photography-on-the.net …read.php?t=1501​899&page=1

Considering you only shoot 1 system you cannot compare real time batch editing of hundreds of files between different camera brand RAWs. Batch editing hundreds of "modern" Sony RAWs is noticeably different than Canon. Canon is still much easier for skin tones. I'll admit my Fuji RAW files provides the easiest post work I've ever experienced. Those RAWS have already been strategically baked by Fuji engineers. Less work to produce great IQ with Fuji.


I do base my comments on the gear I own and the files I produce with it! The vid I linked was more of an interesting viewing. I typically gather my own conclusion based on my own file manipulations. Daunting task to manipulate certain raw files to mimic a different brand camera. It's all about what appeals to the photog's eyes when editing. Easier for me to grab the camera brand that produces the look and colours I want.

Shooting Canon, Sony and fuji I definitely see a difference in RAW edits. So looking forward to diving into an EOS R mk2,3,4 etc with RF glass!!! I'm patiently waiting for Canon FF evolution. Going Canon mirrorless will be familiar territory in Canon colours. In the meantime Sony is still quite a potent performer and I'm happy in the incredible system!

Great to have a choice!

AlanU wrote in post #18831251
Considering you only shoot 1 system you cannot compare real time batch editing of hundreds of files between different camera brand RAWs. Batch editing hundreds of "modern" Sony RAWs is noticeably different than Canon. Canon is still much easier for skin tones. I'll admit my Fuji RAW files provides the easiest post work I've ever experienced. Those RAWS have already been strategically baked by Fuji engineers. Less work to produce great IQ with Fuji.

I do base my comments on the gear I own and the files I produce with it! The vid I linked was more of an interesting viewing. I typically gather my own conclusion based on my own file manipulations. Daunting task to manipulate certain raw files to mimic a different brand camera. It's all about what appeals to the photog's eyes when editing. Easier for me to grab the camera brand that produces the look and colours I want.

Shooting Canon, Sony and fuji I definitely see a difference in RAW edits. So looking forward to diving into an EOS R mk2,3,4 etc with RF glass!!! I'm patiently waiting for Canon FF evolution. Going Canon mirrorless will be familiar territory in Canon colours. In the meantime Sony is still quite a potent performer and I'm happy in the incredible system!

Great to have a choice!

That's the perks of shooting one system and learning it like the back of your hand, you don't have to deal with mismatches and simply have fun with your craft. Gear is fun too, but if you're fighting with it constantly, then you're doing it wrong

Fredmiranda had a post on camera calibration that may be useful, sorry no link, but you can tweak certain channels on a given camera brand. This may or may not be helpful, I simply went the route that Sony recommends, capture one.

I never signed up for change in software, just one of those things I tried by listening rather than having to have it my way with Lightroom. I still have to use Lightroom for some other projects not compatible with C1, and can definitely process any file, just takes more work.

At the end of the day, I don't burden myself with the nostalgia of Canon colors or color science. I do focus on color science, but not the kind of differences between manufactures, instead, with colors itself and how they compliment each other. Why one color scheme is more pleasing than another. The science behind pleasing colors .

Croasdail wrote in post #18830704
OK, hold on... I personally shoot 100%.... and yet I can still see differences between the two brands of cameras I shoot... Canon and Sony. To say that if you shoot raw it doesn't matter isn't accurate at all. It may be a lot easier with Raw to get the look you want, but there are absolutely differences in the "color science". I have presets for most the work I do, but I have to have two versions of those presets - one for Canon shot files, and one for Sony shot files. Every sensors ability to interpret and record color is slightly different even within the same brand. At the end of the day, my looks and style is mine, not Sony nor Canons, so much of this color science stuff I do ignore... but they do impact my workflow.

As to liking Sean Tucker or not.... I'm generally of the opinion I'll listen to anyone. I absolutely don't know everything and am open to ideas. I will admit I am more skeptical of some more than others, but they all occasionally say something that makes you go huh.... even the fro-dude. Even sometimes in the adverse.... I come away and say "i'm not going to do it that way".... but its all about evolving in your talent and perspective.

Color science is only a very small part of the entire process. It is important to know what it is, and how it may impact how you shoot. But it rarely has anything to do with the ultimate final product.

^ (whole statement, but particulary applies to the blue text)
If I take the same RAW shot with a 40D, a 5D, and a 7DII, and a Sony S95 and S100 and an S110 -- all by Canon -- I cannot say that when converting RAW to JPG even with the same version of Lightroom that all will appear close to identical!!!

The 5D shot is very noticably different from the 40D and the 7DII; the S100 is very noticably different from the S95 and the S110. This remains true regardless if I try to use identical post processing settings for all three dSLRs, nor if I try to use identical post processing settings for all three P&S cameras.

So saying that there is a Canon color science is inherently a fictional concept to begin with. Much less saying that there is a 'Canon color science' which is inherently different from a 'Sony color science'...if the three Canon shots are visibly different, I have to ask, "WHAT 'color science' is there to adhere to, within the Canon dSLR family?!"

Just shot, 7DII then 5D then 40D (left to right)
First comparison, using LR eyederopper on Colorchecker 18% gray patch to get neutral White Balance individually for each shot. Notice the greenish 40D tint?!

Right on point Wilt, I have the same experience with different camera models from the same manufacturer. 20D 40D 70D 5D2 5D3 from a wedding a few years ago, all different in the colours they produced & not just the white balance. So little consistency with Canon there for all the talk of the great 'Colour Science' they had. I stand by my earlier statement about the importance of colour & I'll add that most people probably won't notice a slight difference between shots anyway, so it's no real bother for most applications as it's fairly easy to get right these days.

Just to make things a little bit more fun, the lens you shoot through will also impact how colors are recorded. So you could have the same camera body but sway lenses and there will be a subtle shift in color and contrast. Thats why "canon's color science" is a bit of hype. It is true they have a particular bis - I always take green out of Canon shots, and blue out of Sony shots, but its not the game change some claim it to be. If Canon color science is why you buy Canon... not sure what to say. It's probably in the lower half of things that impact my shooting experience.

Croasdail wrote in post #18831893
Just to make things a little bit more fun, the lens you shoot through will also impact how colors are recorded. So you could have the same camera body but sway lenses and there will be a subtle shift in color and contrast. Thats why "canon's color science" is a bit of hype. It is true they have a particular bis - I always take green out of Canon shots, and blue out of Sony shots, but its not the game change some claim it to be. If Canon color science is why you buy Canon... not sure what to say. It's probably in the lower half of things that impact my shooting experience.

Back in the days of film, it was well known that the lens lines of the major manufacturers had a consistent color cast. Leitz lenses were cool; Zeiss lenses were warm. Nikon and Canon emulated Leitz and Zeiss, respectively, thus Nikkors were cool and Canon lenses were warm. They were easily distinguishable when test examples were shown side-by-side on a film like Ektachrome Pro (which could be tested and managed for color balance).

I would be surprised if either Canon or Nikon had lost control of color consistency in their lens lines. But then again, it might be just as easy to let those tolerances open up to a known degree between lenses and let it be corrected in processing by lens data information.

In my experience, I have to remove a significant amount of red from Canon, particularly for dark skin.

Wilt wrote in post #18831634
^ (whole statement, but particulary applies to the blue text)
If I take the same RAW shot with a 40D, a 5D, and a 7DII, and a Sony S95 and S100 and an S110 -- all by Canon -- I cannot say that when converting RAW to JPG even with the same version of Lightroom that all will appear close to identical!!!

The 5D shot is very noticably different from the 40D and the 7DII; the S100 is very noticably different from the S95 and the S110. This remains true regardless if I try to use identical post processing settings for all three dSLRs, nor if I try to use identical post processing settings for all three P&S cameras.

So saying that there is a Canon color science is inherently a fictional concept to begin with. Much less saying that there is a 'Canon color science' which is inherently different from a 'Sony color science'...if the three Canon shots are visibly different, I have to ask, "WHAT 'color science' is there to adhere to, within the Canon dSLR family?!"

I'd like to see tests comparing Canon cameras of the same DIGIC generation.

RDKirk wrote in post #18832733
Back in the days of film, it was well known that the lens lines of the major manufacturers had a consistent color cast. Leitz lenses were cool; Zeiss lenses were warm. Nikon and Canon emulated Leitz and Zeiss, respectively, thus Nikkors were cool and Canon lenses were warm. They were easily distinguishable when test examples were shown side-by-side on a film like Ektachrome Pro (which could be tested and managed for color balance).

I would be surprised if either Canon or Nikon had lost control of color consistency in their lens lines. But then again, it might be just as easy to let those tolerances open up to a known degree between lenses and let it be corrected in processing by lens data information.

In my experience, I have to remove a significant amount of red from Canon, particularly for dark skin.

I still have an old Canon chrome mount 55 1.2 aspherical. It has what is referred to as gold coating and has a very warm rendering.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18829893


I'm surprised you're still on this.

Firstly; This video doesn't do anything to prove anything about the discussions numerous members have had with you on this topic. He didn't do the one thing that EVERYONE has told you makes a difference; apply a neutral (same) color profile to the RAW BEFORE any editing.

New year same argument