Canon 30d color question....

Woogie wrote in post #3924941
So it's only a matter of color that you won't switch to the 30D? There are definite advantages. Color can be corrected easily if you shot in RAW. There are other benefits to shooting in RAW.

You have more AF points with the 30D, which helps out a bit. To me, it's easier to compose a picture with the 9 point AF than with the XT's 7 point AF. You also have a better, fast AF system with the 30D as well.

Well, all those features are awesome and those are all great reasons why I wanted to get the camera, especially the fast AF. But it comes down to what the shot actually looks like. When I'm out birding, I'm taking TONS of shots in large JPEG. I try to get the shots as close as I can so I don't have to do a TON of post processing, other than removing shadows, unsharp mask, a bit of contrast, etc. RAW is obviously great, but I really didn't want to get into that as I've been pretty pleased with large jpegs.

ngannet wrote in post #3924823
Well these were just set at the highest quality JPEG setting and these were shot in AV mode. Forgot to mention that.

Woogie wrote in post #3924836
That might be the culprit. The XT probably does a lot more in-camera processing than the 30D - saturation, sharpness, etc. Color styles (i think that's what it's called. I haven't shot in JPEG in a while, so color styles is irrelevant to me) is applied when you shoot in JPEG.

Bingo.

Strick wrote in post #3924883
Do some shots in RAW and compare them to see if it the way the camera is processing them.

Yep.

Woogie wrote in post #3924905
Picture styles only applies to shooting in JPEG from what I understand. You can go through the menus on your 30D and boost all the settings if you want. But I personally prefer to shoot in RAW.

DSLRs require more work in post processing than point and shoots. Some people like to point, shoot, and print. So shooting with a DSLR requires a little bit of time on the computer customizing the image to get your final pictures, but I'd say the results are a lot more pleasing as they are more customizable to meet your needs.

Picture styles also affect the thumbnail embedded in the RAW image (thus what you see when you review on the camera's LCD). And they're taken as the default parameters in DPP (but can be overridden here). I'd suggest that you try DPP's "Faithful" on both the 350D and 30D RAW files and see how different the two look.

ngannet wrote in post #3924854
Honestly, as I was taking sample shots, they all looked terrible to me on the LCD. They looked slightly better on the computer screen. But if I was out all day photographing I would probably be deleting them as I went, based on what is on the screen.

I understand the LCD is not the final word, but I couldn't even get a rough idea if I needed to make adjustments. When I'm out 'shooting' birds, I look at the LCD after just about every shot and it is quite reliable on the XT.

There is very little correlation between the colour on the LCD and the colour in the RAW/JPEG image. In fact LCD's vary from camera to camera on the same model.

The only thing a LCD is really useful for is checking the histogram (and even that has to be done carefully). Oh, and maybe composition, but this is best done in the viewfinder.

If you delete something because it looks bad on the LCD, you could lose many good shots.

After reading your post about what you do to "adjust" JPEG files, I bet I can adjust one of my RAW files just as fast using Lightroom. Not only that, if you overexpose a shot (we all do eventually) the recovery with a JPEG file is not nearly as good as that from a RAW file. Actually nothing can be adjusted as well with a JPEG as with a RAW image.

Using JPEG files, you are actually cheating yourself of the best you can get.

Looks to me that the color balance is different for the two photos....much more so then differences in exposure. Color is an easy thing to adjust in camera....you can even set your own color profile if you want.

30d pic looks better to me

ngannet wrote in post #3924969
Well, all those features are awesome and those are all great reasons why I wanted to get the camera, especially the fast AF. But it comes down to what the shot actually looks like. When I'm out birding, I'm taking TONS of shots in large JPEG. I try to get the shots as close as I can so I don't have to do a TON of post processing, other than removing shadows, unsharp mask, a bit of contrast, etc. RAW is obviously great, but I really didn't want to get into that as I've been pretty pleased with large jpegs.

I completely understand your frustration here. The White balance is obviously very different betweent these two images and perhaps between the XT and 30D.

I like to shoot in jpeg as well, but when I shoot flowers with my XT I always shoot RAW - why do I do this? Because I can adjust the WB in DPP to get the color right. Purple is an especially difficult color for digital sensors to capture accurately.

Also, are you sure that the lighting did not vary between the shots? Even if the light was a little stronger in one shot vs the other this can completely change the color tone, especially when it comes to purple.

My advice? If shooting flowers, shoot RAW - IMO its a must. The colors vary so much depending upon the lighting and white balance. I learned this the hard way after shooting thousands of flowers.

versedmb wrote in post #3931355
I completely understand your frustration here. The White balance is obviously very different betweent these two images and perhaps between the XT and 30D.

I like to shoot in jpeg as well, but when I shoot flowers with my XT I always shoot RAW - why do I do this? Because I can adjust the WB in DPP to get the color right. Purple is an especially difficult color for digital sensors to capture accurately.

Also, are you sure that the lighting did not vary between the shots? Even if the light was a little stronger in one shot vs the other this can completely change the color tone, especially when it comes to purple.

My advice? If shooting flowers, shoot RAW - IMO its a must. The colors vary so much depending upon the lighting and white balance. I learned this the hard way after shooting thousands of flowers.

Thanks for the advice! No, the lighting definitely didn't change! It was a bright sunny day and these were taken seconds apart. I think you are right and I should shoot RAW when doing flowers. Certain flowers no matter how hard I try are nearly IMPOSSIBLE to get the accurate color. Ironweed and Cardinal Flower (any red flower really) in particular. Thanks for the advice. I definitely won't get a 30d. I just don't like the LCD or the pictures out of the camera. I really don't want to shoot RAW unless I have to. I mostly shoot birds and large JPEG has worked great for me and the XT. I know what everyone else is trying to say, shoot RAW you can do more, etc. I don't want to do that right now though. And as for everyone saying the 30d image looks better, TO ME it does not. It looks absolutely nothing like a purple coneflower looks. The XT image may be more saturated, but I wasn't taking the shot as a 'good' shot, just as a quick comparison.

You might want to give it another try.
Try using the picture styles Landscape and Faithful instead of Standard. I would also set manual white balance, i.e. Daylight, Cloudy or Shadow, according to the light situation.

I’d like to know whether you’re getting satisfied with these settings?

ngannet wrote in post #3931499
And as for everyone saying the 30d image looks better, TO ME it does not. It looks absolutely nothing like a purple coneflower looks.

It baffles me that people don't seem to understand this - you are the one who saw the flower in the flesh (so to speak).

-js

number six wrote in post #3932159
It baffles me that people don't seem to understand this - you are the one who saw the flower in the flesh (so to speak).

-js

THANK YOU for seeing this!!!!! It baffled me too! Even the person who was there didn't see what I saw. Of course he was trying to sell me his camera!

ngannet wrote in post #3932388
THANK YOU for seeing this!!!!! It baffled me too! Even the person who was there didn't see what I saw. Of course he was trying to sell me his camera!

I know what these flowers look like - and they look like the XT image, not the 30D image - you are totally right.

I do agree with the previous suggestion. If you don't want to shoot RAW, try switching the WB between "auto" and "outdoors" - the results (colors) are often much different. I do this when I don't want to shoot RAW.

Hi,

Is it possible one camera is set to sRGB and the other to Adobe RGB?

Looking at the images in the original post, that's this was the first thing that occurred to me. This setting in the camera could effect both JPEGs and RAW. Just how much would depend upon the color space being used to view it, whether or not it matches the space used with the original capture.

OP asked specifically about viewing the image on the LCD, too. Frankly, I never try to judge an image based on that little screen. The image is useful to check compostion, to zoom in and do a quick check of focus and sharpness, and to check the histogram. Ambient light is just so variable, I can't imagine even the full VGA screens now being offered on some other cameras are going to be of much use out in the field. I'd always wait to get the image on my color calibrated monitor before judging it.

I'm surprised that white balance didn't come into this discussion until late. That's the obvious first stop for me. It's widely known that the LCD is a poor way to judge sharpness or color, so I don't ever do that. I use the LCD solely for checking the histogram and verifying composition.