Do you see any colour science differences?

Wilt wrote in post #18831634
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?!"

There must be some "color science" that each manufacturer uses to predict how the sensor will produce images and then make sure the images are as expected (instead of something wild that they have no idea how to adjust to match expectations).

But as far as the idea that a relatively subtle "look" is a specific proprietary secret sauce applied to all the sensors across the board...maybe not.

I think the mere existence of a consumer-level "Picture Style Editor" would cripple that proposition. "If everybody has a color science, then nobody has a color science."

.
I am surprised that something wasn't mentioned in this thread yet.

There is no difference in colors of RAW files.

When you have a Canon RAW and a Fuji RAW and a Sony RAW, and they all look different, it isn't the RAW files themselves that account for the difference. . The difference is because the RAW converters handle each file a little differently. . So everybody keeps thinking that just because the RAWs from one camera look different than the RAWs from another camera, that the files have a different color science, which isn't true at all.

Remember that no one can see a RAW file - all that is is a bunch of code. . The thing you see is a conversion of the RAW file. . Color differences aren't "baked into" the RAW image file, but they do exist in the code for the RAW conversion software that you use to be able to view the file, whether that be DPP or Lightroom or Photos or whatever else you are using.

Hence, to say that Canon's RAW colors are different from Sony's RAW colors is ridiculous! . What an accurate, literal person would say is that their RAW converter handles and processes Canon's RAW files a little differently than it handles and processes Sony's RAW files.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18839747
.
I am surprised that something wasn't mentioned in this thread yet.

There is no difference in colors of RAW files.

When you have a Canon RAW and a Fuji RAW and a Sony RAW, and they all look different, it isn't the RAW files themselves that account for the difference. . The difference is because the RAW converters handle each file a little differently. . So everybody keeps thinking that just because the RAWs from one camera look different than the RAWs from another camera, that the files have a different color science, which isn't true at all.

Remember that no one can see a RAW file - all that is is a bunch of code. . The thing you see is a conversion of the RAW file. . Color differences aren't "baked into" the RAW image file, but they do exist in the code for the RAW conversion software that you use to be able to view the file, whether that be DPP or Lightroom or Photos or whatever else you are using.

Hence, to say that Canon's RAW colors are different from Sony's RAW colors is ridiculous! . What an accurate, literal person would say is that their RAW converter handles and processes Canon's RAW files a little differently than it handles and processes Sony's RAW files.

.

Tom are you speaking in theoretical terms regarding RAW files????? Tom please shoot with a Sony for a while and discuss that there is no colour variations. Seems you only shoot Canon so it will be quite apparent there are differences. If you take several hundred of photos using a Sony with a Metabones or Sigma MC11 with your current Canon lenses try to openly discuss that there is "no" difference using the same glass.

As common ground many will use certain software for post processing. Ultimately Raw will be converted to jpg in most cases. To mention that a RAW file is a RAW file is moot as we typically do not present RAW files to clients or even family members.

I use Adobe LR CC as a common platform for editing purposes for all of my Cameras. If you use a single platform it's safe to say perception tells me using LR as a RAW converter produces different colours. Our eyes register the colours which is my point in the conversation.

How do you determine that RAW is the same. Analyze Fuji baked raw files from the Fuji engineers. It appears Fuji does not have pure unaltered RAW files. How the RAW is converted is a mystery to me but I see what I see in my Lightroom Develop Module. This discussion is almost like bench racing talk over the internet. While I simply look at physical time slips from the track :P My time slip is a product of what has been performed. My jpg is my timeslip theorizing doesn't get me anywhere but how things are executed counts. So inserting Sony and Canon RAW files into LR simply has different colours as a tiff or jpg output.

I simply adapt different approaches in editing to my Sony RAW files vs my Canon. Since I use LR I cannot fully utilize the Fuji raw files as you can still create worms with the newest Adobe LR software. Many praise Capture 1 as the "best" Raw converter for Fuji files.

A complicated question would be to ask you "how do you know" all raws are created equal??? If RAW conversion is approached differently using the same software (Adobe LR) how do you say there is no colour difference??? At the end of the post processing stage we view the manipulated RAW file. When there is a discussion about colour science I do not think there is emphasis on RAW file vs RAW file.

As far as my previous 5dmk2 , and my current 5dmk3 and 5dmk4 have very similar colours. I do recall my 50D and 80D to have a shift in colours.

So many variables........

Osa713 wrote in post #18839699
New year same argument

No arguments as I use my camera's for different purposes

Thanks for visiting.....looks rather slow in the fuji forums lately. Come over to the Sony world

AlanU wrote in post #18839782
At the end of the post processing stage we view the manipulated RAW file. When there is a discussion about colour science I do not think there is emphasis on RAW file vs RAW file.

.
Then people should word what they say differently. . If someone says that they prefer Canon's colors to Sony's, they misspeak.* . They should be saying that they prefer the way LR converts Canon's colors better than the way that LR converts Sony's colors.

When people say things like, "I prefer Canon's colors for skin tones", it makes me think that they don't realize that the difference is in the way a software program processes the colors. . It's like they think that Canon and Sony colors are actually different at the base file level.

What people mean and how they feel isn't really what matters to me. . It is the way they word their sentences - semantics - that is really important.


*What I say in this post is regarding RAW files. Of course there is a difference in different manufacturer's jPeg processing, which varies not just from one manufacturer to another, but also from model to model.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18839830
When people say things like, "I prefer Canon's colors for skin tones", it makes me think that they don't realize that the difference is in the way a software program processes the colors.

Well, I'd be surprised if Canon and Sony sensors do collect exactly the same color data in exactly the same way. I suspect the sensor designs are presumed on different concepts of how to collect data and result in different data collected.

But clearly a person can take the data from either sensor and process the images to look exactly alike, so the importance is that each collects more than enough data to sift out the same image on an 8-bit or 10-bit or faux 16-bit monitor representation.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18839830
What I say in this post is regarding RAW files. Of course there is a difference in different manufacturer's jPeg processing, which varies not just from one manufacturer to another, but also from model to model.

.

And, one even can readily prove that using the same RAW conversion program, like Lightroom, with different models of Canon cameras the conversion will be subtly different between models!

AlanU wrote in post #18839822
No arguments as I use my camera's for different purposes

Thanks for visiting.....looks rather slow in the fuji forums lately. Come over to the Sony world

I use mine for taking photos, can't think of what else you'd be using them for but hey whatever you do in the comfort of your own home...

I find the raws different from pretty much all the camera brands I've had of edited & as mentioned above even different models from the same brand have a different colour report, haven't had any trouble matching the colours in post. How much a raw file has been 'altered' is anyones guess, you know they all are 'altered' in some way so you can see them, all I know is if I can push the file about to what I need that's all that matters.

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18839974
I use mine for taking photos, can't think of what else you'd be using them for but hey whatever you do in the comfort of your own home...

I find the raws different from pretty much all the camera brands I've had of edited & as mentioned above even different models from the same brand have a different colour report, haven't had any trouble matching the colours in post. How much a raw file has been 'altered' is anyones guess, you know they all are 'altered' in some way so you can see them, all I know is if I can push the file about to what I need that's all that matters.

I like using the Sony for some applications. Canon and Fuji also has a different spin on how it renders.

The Sony has a certain consistency in how it replicates the real world. It’s just different. Now I’m getting much better in taming Sony colours. My 11 second street car...

Photo from AlanU's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (969949)

Photo from AlanU's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (831777)

WOW you get savage CA in your 16mm, I get nothing like that from mine - I'd have that looked at... about every shiny part of the car has either purple or green, something very wrong there.

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18840122
WOW you get savage CA in your 16mm, I get nothing like that from mine - I'd have that looked at... about every shiny part of the car has either purple or green, something very wrong there.

Kim,

I must remove the layer of dust off my Fuji system Waiting for improvements in the X-t4, X-T5.

Try taking photos of cars or shiny objects. I was almost wide open in that photo. I'm not surprised that CA rears it's ugly head. Every prime can have potential of purple fringing. Fuji engineers better fix that in their RAW file manipulation

I do not have the Fuji X-T10 anymore. Not sure if it was the 16MP X-trans sensor is the reason for this capture.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18839830
.
Then people should word what they say differently. . If someone says that they prefer Canon's colors to Sony's, they misspeak.* . They should be saying that they prefer the way LR converts Canon's colors better than the way that LR converts Sony's colors.

When people say things like, "I prefer Canon's colors for skin tones", it makes me think that they don't realize that the difference is in the way a software program processes the colors. . It's like they think that Canon and Sony colors are actually different at the base file level.

What people mean and how they feel isn't really what matters to me. . It is the way they word their sentences - semantics - that is really important.


*What I say in this post is regarding RAW files. Of course there is a difference in different manufacturer's jPeg processing, which varies not just from one manufacturer to another, but also from model to model.

.

This^^^^^^^^^ I've proved it myself, with my own camera. Same camera, same lens, EXACTLY the same photo, just edited the EXIF data to another model with the same MP count sensor with an editor, & the EXACT same photo is rendered differently in raw conversion, in the same raw converter.
None of the camera manufacturers are consistent with colour "science" (what a misnomer -nothing scientific about it at all) Just ask EOSM owners who shifted from the 18-24MP sensor models. Or 5D3-5D4 owners.

Oh I’ve lots of images of shiny things in high contrast and get nothing like that, a bit with the old 18/2 at times but the 16/1.4 has been good. Seriously, I’d look into why that is happening, it’s really bad. Last car I shot was a ‘65 Mustang 2+2 lots of chrome no CA. The pic is over in the Fuji forum.

Of course the camera might be correcting for it alright, there is that too.

speedync wrote in post #18840288
This^^^^^^^^^ I've proved it myself, with my own camera. Same camera, same lens, EXACTLY the same photo, just edited the EXIF data to another model with the same MP count sensor with an editor, & the EXACT same photo is rendered differently in raw conversion, in the same raw converter.
None of the camera manufacturers are consistent with colour "science" (what a misnomer -nothing scientific about it at all) Just ask EOSM owners who shifted from the 18-24MP sensor models. Or 5D3-5D4 owners.

That's kinda expected I suppose. The Raw converter needs some reference to what it's manipulating. Very interesting!!

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18840290
Oh I’ve lots of images of shiny things in high contrast and get nothing like that, a bit with the old 18/2 at times but the 16/1.4 has been good. Seriously, I’d look into why that is happening, it’s really bad. Last car I shot was a ‘65 Mustang 2+2 lots of chrome no CA. The pic is over in the Fuji forum.

Of course the camera might be correcting for it alright, there is that too.

I see purple fringing. The Fuji 56mm is not resistant to PF either.

I typically put effort and adjust the purple colour path. If I'm taking several hundred images .........I batch edit. That's my friends Acadian. Soon after he debuted it people lined up to buy it!!!! Nuts....... he sold it soon after. He typically builds $100,000+++++ show cars so he gets bored LOL!!!