Canon is on top again!

[TheSuede]

Well, if my commend caused offense, then I have to:
1) apologize
2) question the relevance of the "sample picture".

Obviously the camera didn't record the scene that way, the colors in the image are undoubtedly a result of fairly strong post-processing - and this is why I question what relevance it has to the original threadstarter's question.

If you say that a certain camera has "better colors" than another camera - would you really say that a reasonable proof-in-point would be to look at a single, heavily processed shot?
Wouldn't the ONLY reasonable way to compare it be to have two samples from two different cameras, with as little processing as possible - and see which you prefer?

And this is definitely not meant as an insult (or even as criticism!) to the poster of the image. But "better" color? That would have to answered by an art critic in this case - not by someone interested in "good" or "accurate" color.

If you want to discuss color, you have to have references - something to compare to.

[TheSuede]

A serious reply to the threadstarter would be:

Yes, the Canon cameras are indeed quite different in their basal behavior. Their newer models - since the 50D and forwards - all share a common trait.
What really should be a "red" color filter on the sensor is a lot more like "orange-red" in a Canon camera. This has both pros and cons.

Pros:

• The camera is less sensitive to shifts in light spectral composition - people don't turn as "greenish yellow" under fluorescent lights as with cameras with better hue resolution
• The skintones, which are mainly yellow-orange-red in base hues shift less in luma (you get "smoother" skin color)
• Having less hue resolution in the green - deep red region does also help with having a smooth, natural luma contrast in that range

Cons:

• The camera will have trouble discerning between deep orange and strong reds
• The skintones, which are mainly yellow-orange-red in base hues are more affected by noise at higher ISOs, since the base color correction matrix has to work harder with Canon filters (higher negative coefficients)
• Greenery will show less hue-resolution, and less luma contrast. The camera will have more trouble discerning between two similar (but not identical) green colors.
• As ISOs rise, the effect the higher strength color correction needed to get "normal" color out from the raw file increases chroma noise by about the square of the correction sstrength difference - hence the strong magenta-green chroma noise in a non-noise-reduced Canon high-ISO raw file.

Now, if the points are really pros or cons will be up to each for him- or herself to decide. For some a pro might move to the con, and vice verse.

Some (quite a lot of people - in my experience) do also prefer the original 5D (and 10-40D) color to the newer model colors. The original 5D, and in part also the 1Ds mkIII have a much higher green-yellow-orange band hue resolution, and they also render greenery and nature photography quite differently. Better? Some think so, some don't.

[neuroanatomist]

Obviously the camera didn't record the scene that way, the colors in the image are undoubtedly a result of fairly strong post-processing - and this is why I question what relevance it has to the original threadstarter's question.

If you say that a certain camera has "better colors" than another camera...

BUT...nightbreath didn't say that.  He just posted a picture, and said he likes shooting with Canon...and was pounced upon with rudeness.  That's the sort of thing that pretty clearly says, "I am a forum troll." 

But then again, trolls do not generally apologize, which is appreciated.  So, let's move on...

[pierceography]

Well, if my commend caused offense, then I have to:
1) apologize
2) question the relevance of the "sample picture".

Obviously the camera didn't record the scene that way, the colors in the image are undoubtedly a result of fairly strong post-processing - and this is why I question what relevance it has to the original threadstarter's question.

If you say that a certain camera has "better colors" than another camera - would you really say that a reasonable proof-in-point would be to look at a single, heavily processed shot?
Wouldn't the ONLY reasonable way to compare it be to have two samples from two different cameras, with as little processing as possible - and see which you prefer?

And this is definitely not meant as an insult (or even as criticism!) to the poster of the image. But "better" color? That would have to answered by an art critic in this case - not by someone interested in "good" or "accurate" color.

If you want to discuss color, you have to have references - something to compare to.

The relevance of the sample picture is that cameras are more than sensors and pixels, they're tools we use to create art -- which is highly personal and subjective.  Your comments were, at best, ignorant and unnecessary to the subject of this thread.  But trolls gonna troll.

Frankly, I like the shot.  Sure, the colors were a bit cooler than I would have used myself.  But a lot of wedding photos are almost pushed too warm.  So seeing the cooler colors was a nice touch and welcome change of pace.  Nicely done!

[verysimplejason]

Did the bride really wear a cyan green dress?
Did the clouds really break from clear blue (sky) to green (gray cloud) to bright magenta (cloud highlights)?
Do you mean we should take this as an example of GOOD color?

Nothing bad for his style.  Filters of old exists for a reason.  To apply it via digital effects, I think there's no problem with that as long as he's able to get the mood that he wants to picture.

[pierceography]

cooler colors? they have a blue /cyan hue all over, blue asphalt, blue horse, etc.  I thought it was an expression of artistry, we can take color theory in another thread if anyone are interested, from screen to print

Wow, ok... I guess we're gonna get granular here.  The couple (i.e. the focal point) have a more blue(ish) hue (sorry, I guess I can't use color temperature when describing colors), which as I felt gave a more unique artistic look to the scene.

Lotta jerks in this thread, huh?  In that case: lol no ur dumb.  Boom.

[V8Beast]

I actually just had a conversation with another photographer a couple of days ago about Canon sensors trailing Nikons. He made the point that (coming from a film background), he felt that the Canon sensors (specifically talking about the 5Dc, 5d3) that he felt they gave a more film like quality in terms of colors and representation as opposed to Nikon (really Sony) sensors which was much more flat.

Many people, myself included, that come from a film background share this sentiment as well. I'm not saying that Canon's color reproduction is superior to Nikon's, but a raw Canon file requires less work in post to tweak the colors to my liking. It's simply a matter of personal preference.

I never knew why Canon's sensors rendered colors the way they did, but this assessment is spot on:

A serious reply to the threadstarter would be:

Yes, the Canon cameras are indeed quite different in their basal behavior. Their newer models - since the 50D and forwards - all share a common trait.
What really should be a "red" color filter on the sensor is a lot more like "orange-red" in a Canon camera. This has both pros and cons.

Pros:

• The camera is less sensitive to shifts in light spectral composition - people don't turn as "greenish yellow" under fluorescent lights as with cameras with better hue resolution
• The skintones, which are mainly yellow-orange-red in base hues shift less in luma (you get "smoother" skin color)
• Having less hue resolution in the green - deep red region does also help with having a smooth, natural luma contrast in that range

Cons:

• The camera will have trouble discerning between deep orange and strong reds
• The skintones, which are mainly yellow-orange-red in base hues are more affected by noise at higher ISOs, since the base color correction matrix has to work harder with Canon filters (higher negative coefficients)
• Greenery will show less hue-resolution, and less luma contrast. The camera will have more trouble discerning between two similar (but not identical) green colors.
• As ISOs rise, the effect the higher strength color correction needed to get "normal" color out from the raw file increases chroma noise by about the square of the correction sstrength difference - hence the strong magenta-green chroma noise in a non-noise-reduced Canon high-ISO raw file.

The only thing I'd add to this is that even pre-50D era bodies shared similar characteristics you described. And while I love my 5D3, the old 5DC's files certainly have a unique look to them. Too bad it's such a pain to use!

[verysimplejason]

I actually just had a conversation with another photographer a couple of days ago about Canon sensors trailing Nikons. He made the point that (coming from a film background), he felt that the Canon sensors (specifically talking about the 5Dc, 5d3) that he felt they gave a more film like quality in terms of colors and representation as opposed to Nikon (really Sony) sensors which was much more flat. He also made the point that certain things which may contribute to that look is baked into the chip & low level functionality such as the ADC's, initial hardware/software readouts, etc which would be potentially difficult to duplicate through post processing.

Just an interesting observation from someone else. I, personally, haven't looked at enough Nikon vs Canon photos in detail to see a difference, and I'm not coming from a film background.

interesting, then he do not know what he is talking about regarding CFA,  profiles, colors etc etc

Sure he does. Every device, be it film or yes, even an electronic sensor or an ADC, has a natural response curve that will affect color reproduction. I don't believe the argument was that it was "impossible" to replicate via post processing...just that it would be difficult to replicate...which is indeed true. If one really wanted to invest the time (and it would be a LOT of time), they could probably create a camera profile that tweaked the the tone curves for each channel to produce color more reminiscent of their favorite film with any camera's RAW...but that would be a LOT of work, and that person would really need to understand film response like the back of their hand.  (I love the look of drum scans of 4x5 Velvia 50 slide film...some of the best natural warm color I've ever seen. I've spent a LOT of time trying to replicate it in my own photos taken with Canon DSLR's using curves in Photoshop. I finally stopped bothering after countless hours because the task was nearly impossible, even though I had good reference information regarding Velvia 50's natural response curves and dozens of sample photos to work with.)

There are even members of this forum who will only use certain lines of Canon cameras because they prefer the natural color strait out of the camera better than what they get from a different model, even though it would still be a Canon model.

you are mixing things and missing things, the canon CFA is lighter and the color filter is not so step as others (I hardly dare to write who I mean) and the  day light color accuracy is not so good as others. If you make your own color profile with for example qp-card for Canon and NN the results is very similar
A filmlike profile is a filmlike profile both for Canon and NN
And if you want to learn everything about how to write a profile for any cameras, just ask The Suede

Sounds to me like the "measurebeators" and the "pixel peepers" that Ken and Michael are talking about. 

[Daniel Flather]

Still searching for our personal style, but I'm glad we're using Canon:



I'm not sure, what Nikon/Sony can offer (not able to try the RAWs), but I have a feeling that there are differences between Canon and others' RAWs. Unless someone can argue? 

What is that big blue thing in the background,  is that boat under a blue tarp, an art piece?  What is that??

[serendipidy]

Background objects look to me like a giant blue statue head lying on it's side (sorta ancient Greek or Troy looking; did they have the Blue Men Group back then?) and a horse statue. Nightbreath, where was this taken? I like your artistic interpretation and composition.

[Aglet]

Some (quite a lot of people - in my experience) do also prefer the original 5D (and 10-40D) color to the newer model colors. The original 5D, and in part also the 1Ds mkIII have a much higher green-yellow-orange band hue resolution, and they also render greenery and nature photography quite differently. Better? Some think so, some don't.

Yes, I keep my old 40D around for portraits and some other shots and even the old 350D has that "certain something" when it comes to the look of the final image that I prefer over the look I get from 60D, 7D and even 5D2.
It's very subtle but it's perceptible.

As for Canon on top again...
A hearty, "Ha!"

[nightbreath]

I'm pleased someone liked the style of the photo    Tonal range and initial colors from the sensor definitely helped in achieving the needed result. We need to bring the same feeling throughout all the photos from the wedding day, so some of those look slightly overprocessed.

This is a Spanish-Ukrainian wedding that took place in Ukraine. We've met with the couple in this hotel complex called Bartolomeo (in honor of geographical discoveries and Bartolomeo Diaz). The horse and big face statues were added to create the mood of the legend that stands behind the hotel name 

[nightbreath]

Thank you!    There was a moment when my wife figured out that our audience aren't people that look at the photos and say "oh, that's a creative view on things". People we do the photos for are shown on them. So our aim is to appeal to our customers, show their feelings and do that from an angle they didn't look under.

The web-site portfolio is not updated for a while, because we are out of free time now, but I hope in the nearest months we'll be able to show even better results than we have now 



P.S. Sorry for off-topic 

[jrista]

Thank you!    There was a moment when my wife figured out that our audience aren't people that look at the photos and say "oh, that's a creative view on things". People we do the photos for are shown on them. So our aim is to appeal to our customers, show their feelings and do that from an angle they didn't look under.

The web-site portfolio is not updated for a while, because we are out of free time now, but I hope in the nearest months we'll be able to show even better results than we have now 



P.S. Sorry for off-topic 

Sorry for continuing the off-topic...but WOW, that groom is SHORT!! 

[nightbreath]

Sorry for continuing the off-topic...but WOW, that groom is SHORT!! 

He was well-educated, emotional and interesting to shoot. So it's not that important (especially taking into consideration the heels bride was on).

The challenge is to shoot people that are by 30-40% different in size. But there is some kind of comic cuteness in this kind of photos too