Wrong colors with my 5D MKIII?

[silkfire]

I recently purchased the EOS 5D Mark III and although I'm happy with it in general I think the colors it produces are not what I see in real life. I haven't been able to afford a quality L lens so the only lens I'm shooting with right now is the 50mm 1.8 II. Could it be the culprit?

Here's an original photo (cropped), as you can see the color of the meat is very pinkish as if it's almost raw (in fact, it was almost cooked).

Here is the same photo color corrected to match real life colors as closely as possible (the color should have more orange tones to it).

Link to RAW image: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wwscr5ypsd0m41n/IMG_1564.CR2

 

[Phenix205]

White balance under artificial lighting conditions is tricky sometimes. Give it more testing and you will love your camera.

 

[bdunbar79]

The White Balance issue happens to me all the time in indoor sports. You get it as close as you can, and in most cases that's pretty good, but some shot inevitably will always be off. If you are in a stationary situation like you are here, you can get the WB pretty accurately. There was a very kind gentleman on here that had great advice, so I do not want to steal credit on this idea, because it is not mine. He said to take a white, styrofoam cup, fill the viewfinder with it, and spot meter, setting the cup in the exact lighting where you will be taking the frame. Get the WB reading from that in AWB. Go back to your subject and dial in that WB reading for the frame you want and the WB should be pretty good. You can do it with a gray card but styrofoam cups are cheaper. I have tried this with the 5D Mark III and it works really well, as AWB on that camera seems to get it wrong badly very often. Obviously this is harder in gyms where the WB changes up and down the court.

 

[unadog]

White balance is just the first step.

1) Buy a good neutral grey tone card and use it. They are only about $15-$20. You can't count on other items to actually be neutral.

You take a photo of that card in the same light that you are shooting in, with the card filling the frame, then you set the "Custom White Balance" using that picture.

Using Auto White Balance will give you a series of images all with slightly different color balance. If you first take a picture of people in front of a bright yellow wall, then in front of a blue wall, the camera will "average" the color to very different temperatures.

Don't take that the wrong way - Canon AWB is very, very good, especially on the 5DIII and the 1DX. But it is a tool that the user has to understand to get it to work properly.


2) Then you need to understand the Picture Profiles and set those correctly to get **the color that you want**.

The Picture Profiles on Canon are Landscape, Portrait, Neutral, Faithful, etc. I use "Neutral". They will all give you a slightly different look. If you have Lightroom, shoot a RAW image, then flip through all of the Profiles in Lightroom and you will see how the image changes. You are in control of picking that look for the effect that you want.

For the most control, you should be shooting RAW all of the time (I shoot RAW + JPEG and have shot nothing else for 10+ years, even family snaps.) Then you can apply the correct Profile in Lightroom or whatever tool (and set you White Balance there.) BUT, you still should set the custom White Balance in camera.

Even with the Picture Profile set to "Neutral", I still dial in -4 on "Saturation", - 2 "Contrast" and turn off sharpening for the JPEGs when shooting RAW + JPEG, and to set up the look on the rear LCD and the Histogram on the camera.


3) Finally, if you want to control color for best representation for food shots, etc., you should profile your camera using a tool like Color Checker Passport to get to a true neutral color balance. Just like you **MUST** profile your monitor and printer for accurate results, the camera also should be profiled to control device-to-device variation.


If that is way more than you need right now that is fine. The 3 types of color control go from "global" and basic to more refined.

I just wanted to head off any perception people reading this thread might have that the 5DIII is not good on color, AWB, etc. Basically these are all tools that require a certain understanding to get the results that you want. Nothing wrong with that, and it is a learning curve for us all. But the tool is state of the art!

Cheers,
Michael

 

[scottkinfw]

Agreed

Get a white balance/ grey card combo (Lostolite has nice ones in carrying case). I use one that is about 18", and is circular. It folds flat and fits in the pack no problem. Be sure to fill the frame of the camera using the same light that falls on the subject. Set WB to custom, and set it from there.

On another note, you will also need to calibrate your monitor and even printer to assure consistent results.

sek

I recently purchased the EOS 5D Mark III and although I'm happy with it in general I think the colors it produces are not what I see in real life. I haven't been able to afford a quality L lens so the only lens I'm shooting with right now is the 50mm 1.8 II. Could it be the culprit?

Here's an original photo (cropped), as you can see the color of the meat is very pinkish as if it's almost raw (in fact, it was almost cooked).

Here is the same photo color corrected to match real life colors as closely as possible (the color should have more orange tones to it).

Link to RAW image: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wwscr5ypsd0m41n/IMG_1564.CR2

 

[verysimplejason]

This happens to all camera bodies to some extent when subject is under different lighting conditions. Shoot raw so you can easily adjust it later as part of your PP. Don't worry, it won't take time to adjust and to re-apply to all pictures especially in DPP where raw settings can easily be copied from one picture to another.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Save your money on the overpriced grey balance targets and get yourself a piece of styrofoam instead. Styrofoam has an almost perfectly flat spectral reflectance, better than all the commercial targets except the tiny out-of-production $100+ BabelColor target, and it's a lighter shade meaning less noise in your white balance patch.

Styrofoam coffee cups are awesome. Put one in a scene with multiple light sources and you can sample the light from any direction. Fit it over your lens and you'll get an average of the light of the entire scene, similar but superior to those lens cap doohickeys. If you want something big and flat and cheap, get a styrofoam beer cooler, or just scavenge some packing material.

Another good option is Tyvek. It's a bit on the glossy side so you have to watch out for reflections, but it's spectrally almost as good as the BabelColor target. I've got a piece in the back of my ColorChecker Passport. You can find Tyvek envelopes at your local office supply store.

The best you're going to get photographically on a budget is PTFE (Teflon) thread seal tape, but it's fragile and not very big and you have to fold it over a bunch of times because it's translucent. But, if you're making your own target for color profiling, you'll want to include a patch.

And stay away from paper as a white balance target! Except for some (but not all) expensive fine art papers, the substrate is yellow and fluorescent dyes are added to make it look bright white.

The gold standard is Spectralon, but a Spectralon target will set you back as much as a camera body....

Cheers,

b&

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I downloaded the RAW file, but it was only 15.1 MB.
A 5D MK III raw file is usually close to 27- 30mb. Something is not right. Is it mraw or sraw???

 

[silkfire]

Yes I'm shooting in mRAW because the card (32GB) fills up so fast otherwise.

 

[silkfire]

Where can you buy these grey tonal cards, unadog? Could you post a link to any stores who carry them?

 

[Dylan777]

Where can you buy these grey tonal cards, unadog? Could you post a link to any stores who carry them?

Agree with most posters on White Balance. Grey card is always in my camera bag. You can either do a custome white balance in camera or in PP. I like in PP.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/529526-REG/Digital_Image_Flow_DGK_1_Digital_Grey_Kard_Standard.html

 

[pwp]

Yes I'm shooting in mRAW because the card (32GB) fills up so fast otherwise.

Your subject really will be a challenge for AWB. But you'll get it right in your RAW processing software.

But really, you got a 5DIII, put a $90 lens on it and shoot mRAW? OK. There is way more 5D3 enjoyment to come for you.

1. Save for better glass. Even the 40mm at under $200 will be better than your current lens.
2. Shoot RAW
3. Get suitable gray card and learn to use it.
http://michaeltapesdesign.com/whibal.html
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/whibal.shtml
http://www.imaging-resource.com/ACCS/WHB/WHB.HTM
4. Get another 32Gb CF card. But hey, depending on iso, I get around 1000 RAW on 5D3 32Gb cards

-PW

 

[silkfire]

Okay I thought mRAW was just a smaller image size of standard RAW?

Am saving for better glass

Thanks for the White Balance tips, will definitely go get some white bal/grey cards!

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Yes I'm shooting in mRAW because the card (32GB) fills up so fast otherwise.

Thats important to mention, since users might be aware of a issue with mraw. I'm not aware of one, but its good to mention it.

 

[pwp]

Yes I'm shooting in mRAW because the card (32GB) fills up so fast otherwise.

Thats important to mention, since users might be aware of a issue with mraw. I'm not aware of one, but its good to mention it.

On rare occasions I'll switch to mRAW, usually when shooting action, not wanting to shoot JPEG because of difficult or mixed light, but wanting deeper buffer. It makes an appreciable difference. Apart from the smaller file size, I do notice a reduced DR, particularly with highlights blowing earlier than with a full sized RAW. mRAW is a handy option to have in the kitbag, it's just a matter of knowing when to pull it out.

-PW

 

[PeterJ]

I do quite a bit of amateur food photography and get largely the same results with auto white balance, as per other suggestions get a target of some form to white balance.

The only other thing I'd throw in there is that things are easier if you don't have mixed lighting, the shot looks like you used a flash, and I'm guessing that was the case considering ISO 640, f/2.5 and 1/250th. For food you'll probably get better results going down the path of a tripod and longer exposure times. Sometimes a single flash can give some pretty unnatural looking shadows on food even if you bounce it.

 

[Area256]

I do quite a bit of amateur food photography and get largely the same results with auto white balance, as per other suggestions get a target of some form to white balance.

The only other thing I'd throw in there is that things are easier if you don't have mixed lighting, the shot looks like you used a flash, and I'm guessing that was the case considering ISO 640, f/2.5 and 1/250th. For food you'll probably get better results going down the path of a tripod and longer exposure times. Sometimes a single flash can give some pretty unnatural looking shadows on food even if you bounce it.

Looking at the image, I don't think a flash was used there. If you are going to use flash with food photography getting an umbrella and light stand kit for like $60 will make a world of difference. (you'll also need a cheap sync cable or radio trigger if you have more money) If you are going to shoot with a mix of flash and artificial interior light, add a colour gel to your flash and that should fix any mixed color temp issues (use a 1/2 or full CTO or CTB depending on the other light you are working with).