Canon color - vs other systems color

[Aglet]

Ran across these 2 videos while bored

They both provide an interesting perspective on out of camera images.
I think a lot of fans of "Canon color" will find this interesting if they haven't seen these videos.

I've experienced most of these systems personally and I know that I have my favorites for certain subjects if I intend to use the out of camera jpegs.

TCS does a really good side by side comparison of a bunch of major brands and then rates the prints afterwards
TN did his own method of testing peoples' responses to different images and also investigated the effects of brand-loyalty.
That latter bit was quite interesting... Let the fur fly.

from TCS in late 2016

and from Tony Northrup, late 2018

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

For out of camera jpegs, Nikon uses highly saturated colors which many people prefer.

 

[Maximilian]

One spends several bucks on gear and then uses OOC JPEGs?
That's like driving a Prosche or Ferarri only in pedestrian zone.
Okay, there are some press and sports photographers that must deliver OOC JPEGs for fast workflow.
I personally prefer to get my beef RAW But I have time and joy for some little PP. Others don't.

 

[uri.raz]

One spends several bucks on gear and then uses OOC JPEGs?

A lot of lower end DSLRs (xxxxD, xxxD) owners leave the dial on auto, and shoot JPEGs.

Not all beginners' photography courses teach raw processing. I went to a good beginners' course in a local college that had three lectures a week (the history of photography, photography as art, and Photoshop), and raw processing was an advanced subject covered in a single lecture toward the end of the course. I distinctly recall a student who had a WB problem (the whole photo was brownish), and the teacher saying this would be easily solved by shooting raw, which would be taught next month.

So, yes - lots of photographers use OOC JPEGs.

 

[Maximilian]

One spends several bucks on gear and then uses OOC JPEGs?
...

A lot of lower end DSLRs (xxxxD, xxxD) owners leave the dial on auto, and shoot JPEGs.
[...]
So, yes - lots of photographers use OOC JPEGs.

Hi uri.raz!
Thanks for reminding me of this. And I am aware of those "normal" photo amateurs.
But I thought it was clear that in my initial post I wasn't refering to those users but the ones that - like the ones in the vids - refer to more expensive bodies, like FF or high performance APS-C bodies. All those are 1k bucks and much more, like a lot of gearheads and prosumers use that are members in this forum, including myself.
And if I would use one of those shooting JPEG without a specific reason, e.g. the ones I mentioned, then I would call this throwing pearls before swine, wouldn't you?

 

[uri.raz]

But I thought it was clear that in my initial post I wasn't refering to those users but the ones that - like the ones in the vids - refer to more expensive bodies, like FF or high performance APS-C bodies. All those are 1k bucks and much more, like a lot of gearheads and prosumers use that are members in this forum, including myself.

I feel less comfortable talking about pros, as I don't count myself as such, but I've heard some pros like to use OOC JPEGs as well to save time on processing.

E.g. the example you gave - when shooting sports events such as the Olympics, speed of publishing in newspapers and web sites might be more important than quality.

E.g. smaller wedding photographers might not want to sweat over each and every one of the photos, so they would like good enough JPEGs, and Photoshop just the highlights, enlarged photos, etc.

 

[LDS]

Not all beginners' photography courses teach raw processing.

Yes, but there are some good reasons behind that.

One is that you can't expect people just learning the basic of photography being proficient also in raw processing tools - and as strange as it could seem today, not everybody is very comfortable with a computer. Also, it does add to the costs.

Another is that it makes more difficult to "cheat" on some assignments, as RAW processing may "save" some badly exposed images, and anyway improve an image - while some assignment are designed to learn to get a given result in-camera, regardless of someone's post-processing capabilities.

In some assignments I saw students forbidden to chimp as well, as it has value to learn previsualization.

Yet, in the courses I see available here, RAW processing is introduced immediately after the beginner level.

 

[stevelee]

In film days I shot a lot of black-and-white and enlarged them myself, so a lot was done in post, as such. But I also took color slides. For a while, a group of my friends insisted on seeing each roll of slides unedited. It was great for my education, where exposure, composition, focus, etc., had to be right at the moment I clicked the shutter. JPEGs are more forgiving, but the principle is similar. Cameras are much more automated these days, so a beginner doesn't have to take care of everything all at once. That is a mixed blessing in terms of learning, but could help emphasize composition, content, style, and such over fiddling with dials.

These days I take JPEGs only with my iPhone.

 

[Maximilian]

… I've heard some pros like to use OOC JPEGs as well to save time on processing.

E.g. the example you gave - when shooting sports events such as the Olympics, speed of publishing in newspapers and web sites might be more important than quality.

E.g. smaller wedding photographers might not want to sweat over each and every one of the photos, so they would like good enough JPEGs, and Photoshop just the highlights, enlarged photos, etc.

 

[Maximilian]

I feel less comfortable talking about pros, as I don't count myself as such, but I've heard some pros like to use OOC JPEGs as well to save time on processing.

E.g. the example you gave - when shooting sports events such as the Olympics, speed of publishing in newspapers and web sites might be more important than quality.

Hi uri.raz!

When you read my initial post carefully then this is the mentioned use case I was talking about in first.
So...?

E.g. smaller wedding photographers might not want to sweat over each and every one of the photos, so they would like good enough JPEGs, and Photoshop just the highlights, enlarged photos, etc.

This is another use case again for time and cost saving but not mentioned by me expicitly. So I agree here in principle, too.
But not for the "best shots". And you don't know which one will be the best ones before the shot.
You could shoot RAW and JPEG in parallel. Or do a batch processing afterwards of the RAWs.
But as wedding shooter I'd never shoot OOC JPEG only.
And now…?

 

[uri.raz]

This is another use case again for time and cost saving but not mentioned by me expicitly. So I agree here in principle, too.
But not for the "best shots". And you don't know which one will be the best ones before the shot.

So though the photographer would shoot raw, he'd still like the OOC JPEG to be good enough to skip processing of as many photos as possible, hence the review.

You could shoot RAW and JPEG in parallel. Or do a batch processing afterwards of the RAWs.

I would expect wedding photographers to shoot raw & JPEG in parallel, and batch processing is indeed an option, but OOC JPEG would still matter, as...

1) The photographer would like to show all the images, in good quality, as soon as possible, e.g. to share on social media and pick which one they'd like printed large, Photoshopped to perfection, etc.

2) Batch processing has a time vs computer hardware price trade off.

 

[stevelee]

I use Photoshop all the time, and I’ve never seen any point in using Lightroom, the way I do things. At a Kelby seminar I asked some of the pros around me why they used Lightroom instead. The answers basically came down to “workflow.” For example, having a lot of shots taken at the same place in the same light lets you treat them the same way, batch processing or opening with the same settings. In Lightroom it is all nondestructive.