Making D600 colors look like Canon colors.

Z

zutty

Senior Member
As a layman, it seems to me that the sheer subjectivity and variables within the monitors and software is going to make it impossible to have a definitive solution. And throw in the difference in everyone's eye and perception and you have even more confusion. I think the bottom line here is pleasing the customer and trying to give them what they want, if you can determine that!
 
B

Blade Canyon

Senior Member
zutty said:
And throw in the difference in everyone's eye and perception and you have even more confusion.
Click to expand...

I have a guide to calibrating a home theater. It says that televisions could easily be set to all look alike, but manufacturers have discovered that people like different things. That's why you will see so many different variations when you walk into a television store, even though all the sets are showing the same program. The ones that look too green or too red to you are sets that have proven appeal to different buyers.
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Hyogen, I heard back from my brother and here's what he had to say...

The only real way to modify RAW file color consistently is by doing it in Camera Raw using the Adobe DNG Profile Editor with a ColorChecker target, or with the Datacolor SpyderCheckr Pro package (or just manually doing different presets). I was a beta tester for the original Datacolor product several generations older than the current one, and was pleased with it. It works the same way the Adobe software does, but uses a proprietary target that has many more skin tone sample patches, which would likely be more effective for this particular problem. It also comes with their cool little "cube" for color balancing. In my experience both methods only make subtle changes to the original color, and generally create slightly under-saturated results (which is simple enough to fix). The Datacolor provides the option to create "standard", "portrait" and "saturated" style profiles under different lighting conditions, so you are getting something for your money over the free Adobe software.

Though creating an ICC profile for cameras is possible, I would not recommend it. I could go into painful detail as to why, but basically the profile is only accurate for the exact conditions it was made under, and will wreak havoc with color and tonality everywhere else.

If the issue she is having with skin color is consistent, then making modified Camera Raw profiles should work well. You can also do it with hue/saturation actions in photoshop. If the problem is not consistent, then correcting one image at a time is the only way.

Has she tried the different built-in Camera Raw profiles besides Adobe Standard (found in the drop down menu of the "camera" tab)?

Nikon has had many issues with skin color from the very beginning on several models (the original D1 was downright hideous, people looked sunburned or like corpses). In the past the issues have had a lot to do with not enough IR and/or UV being filtered in front of chip, but I can't say for sure if that is the problem with the D600. I know some D2 users spent a small fortune on Tiffen Hot Mirror filters for all their lenses to try and get good skin color out of that camera (blues were real funky too). Unfortunately paper targets don't reflect IR and UV to the same degree as real skin, even if the patches appear to be the same color in the visible spectrum. So if it is an IR/UV issue, no amount of profiling with a standard target will work.

I told you, he spends a lot of time thinking about these things. :) It would be interesting to know whether or not there's something with the IR/UV filtering on the D6xx series that's different than the other Nikons that makes it more susceptible to this issue. I'm even wondering what the difference might be between the D600 and D610 (when I have one of each here I'll see if I can run some tests after calibrating each).
 
S

sonicbuffalo_RIP

Senior Member
I read somewhere when BDH was posting about converting or removing the OLPF that you would probably have to use (I think it's the same one mentioned here) Tiffen Hot Mirror filters. That's when I decided it was too much trouble and money for a chance on it working right.
 
H

Hyogen

Senior Member
Thanks for all the comments and advice. I'm sorry if I sounded whiny. I really felt at the end of my rope spending an incredible amount of time trying to correct colors and get the style I wanted--I even have my wife on board for me switching to two 5D3s.........it was just a year and half ago that I painstakingly got her to allow me to switch to full frame! Just shot 4 events including a wedding the last 2 days and I am absolutely beat. Here are a few from yesterday that makes me feel like the look I'm going for is possible with my D600............perhaps these wouldn't have looked any better if shot on a 5d3. One thing I would really welcome, though, is 5d3's much better focusing system.

Maybe I just need to play around more with tweaking VSCO filters.

Does anyone have any tips on removing the green reflection from grass on people's faces? I wonder if Canon users suffer from this same issue.

HYO_1655-2 by www.HYOFOTO.com, on Flickr

HYO_1728-2 by www.HYOFOTO.com, on Flickr

HYO_2297 by www.HYOFOTO.com, on Flickr

HYO_2293 by www.HYOFOTO.com, on Flickr
 
H

Hyogen

Senior Member
Those look pretty dang close if not identical :eek: Here are a couple from today:

My wife has pretty much made her mind up for me to switch to 5Dm3 (she has now started to help me edit). I've been moaning about it for a couple months now about how long it takes for me to correct colors/get the look I want. I find that most of the wedding photos I like--and the style I'm going for that I think most clients are going to want--are taken with Canon + VSCO filters. I have VSCO for Nikon, but even with tweaks I can't seem to get it the way I want them.. I'm looking forward to 5d3's AF system as I rely on outer focus points for candid shots.


Luckily I bought everything used, so I won't suffer too much of a loss when I switch.


HYO_3167-4 by www.HYOFOTO.com, on Flickr


HYO_3167-3 by www.HYOFOTO.com, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
Plus you don't really need any super-fancy pro lenses if you're used to primes, and those are nice and cheap to get all over again. And you get an AF option on a 50 1.2 if you ever figure you want one of those puppies.
 
H

Hyogen

Senior Member
Yeah, I doubt I'll be needing any 1.2 primes. I look forward to the 135L lens. So, this is kinda crazy.........I just edited this photo and I am a little shocked at how much it looks like what I've been going for. Of course, applying the same changes to different light/WB later in the day doesn't give me the exact same result, but if this wasn't my photo I would have been fooled into thinking it was shot with a Canon. The last several pictures I have uploaded in the past couple posts I am not 100% satisfied with. This one below, I am pretty satisfied with--I feel like the colors look like they came out of a fashion magazine or JCrew catalog or something. I'm trying to put a finger on what it is I don't like about the photos above, and the closest thing I can figure is that most of them have a slight magenta cast to them. In fact, I feel a lot of D600 photos I see on the net are quite saturated/contrasty and usually have a particular ugly green hue to them--if not green, a little too magenta in a lot of cases. Like I said before, Ryan Brenizer said so himself that it was difficult for him to get the skin tones he wanted with D600.

I showed my wife this picture of her below----and she's still insistent at this point of me switching to Canon. Like I said 2 posts ago, she is starting to second shoot for me and edit photos. I have brought her a LOOONG way from a year and half ago when I barely convinced her to let me go full frame.

HYO_8488 by www.HYOFOTO.com, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
It's all about the right tool for the job, right?

I was answering a post in an IR thread about how Nikons are difficult to white balance post-IR conversion, whereas Canon doesn't seem to be a problem. That got me thinking about this post and what my brother mentioned - how there's something fundamentally different in the way Nikon handles IR and UV. I guess the IR thread confirms that in some way, because once the IR filtration is stripped off the WB often goes fully to the blue side to even try and WB an IR RAW image, and often requires custom camera profiles to achieve it in post. That tells me that Nikon may filter off far more IR in their filter stack than Canon, leading to those subtle differences you and others are having to deal with. I know I'm restating opinion more than coming up with anything new, but having experienced an unfiltered IR conversion and the WB issues it now makes sense to me how that problem has its basis in the filter stack and the way the naked sensor deals with IR wavelengths, and how in a filtered stack it still has an impact on color.
 
hark

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
hark said:
Have you tried adjusting the hue in Photoshop? I adjusted it to +2, and the difference is very subtle but with a slightly less orange cast.

Edit: In this particular image, keep in mind the child might pick up a little bit of orange from the reflected light off the guitar case's lining, too.

View attachment 106177
Click to expand...

Hyogen said:
I'm sorry I didn't take your edit seriously. Honestly, I thought you were being a troll and saying that Canon looks bad. Your example looks as if you burned all the details in the face for example...that's what I mean by gritty. Maybe I'm not using the correct monitor to see what you're seeing. My macbook IPS screen and laptop calibrated screen, Galaxy IPS screen (phone), and external 24" screens all look the same to me. I can understand why you added contrast to bring back the details that were washed out. My example above should demonstrate that I'm not a complete noob when it comes to taking pictures or getting nice skin tones. As much as I like how I processed the above photo, it's not the STYLE I want to use for weddings.

As for my poor example RAW file, I think I just wanted to show one I had wasted a ton of time on trying to get what I wanted out of it. I just checked out a friend's D800 RAW file and it wasn't too far off from my D600 files, but perhaps a little more neutral. I have downloaded about 10 sample 5D3 raw files and I feel it was significantly easier to get the colors I wanted. Maybe it's a placebo effect...Anyway, I would hate to have to sell and rebuy everything while losing Nikon's control layout. So, I'm not going to give up just yet..

I think it's just as simple as Nikon for Landscape, Canon for People. If it's possible to get the same style that I want, then it just simply takes too much time than it's worth with the Nikon D600. You might know Ryan Brenizer, the popular Nikon shooter...he said the same thing about skin tones with the D600, as I stated in my original post.
Click to expand...

Was your comment supposed to be directed towards me? :confused: I was the only one who edited this particular photo and you totally disregarded my reply.
 
H

Hyogen

Senior Member
Oh, I didn't realize you had edited that photo of the baby as I didn't realize the subtle difference! haha... I was happy with this photo to begin with, but thank you for your attempt and reply. And looking at the pictures side by side I like yours better by a little bit, but think my slightly more vibrant version isn't any worse necessarily. No, my comment regarding the "troll edit" was probably rude and due to the fact that I could not view the image as the person had intended. Now I realize the guy added sharpening/contrast (too much imo) because of the washed out colors and contrast due to the sun flare.

You're talking about adjusting the orange hue to be more yellow and less red, right? I tend to not do that because I then start to get a greenish cast to my oranges/yellows...I think. The way I've been coping with skin tones lately is raising the orange luminance, lowering the orange saturation, raising yellow luminance, etc... The very last photo I posted on the previous page I'm quite happy with because while the colors are somewhat desaturated...the picture overall looks elegant. I could probably get away with adding a little more saturation as well.. I've tried copying and pasting the exact settings to other photos and it looks pretty good--but still needs adjustments. This "out of a fashion magazine look" I am wanting to get is not necessarily what I want for all my photos, but definitely something I want for my wedding clients.

I could be kidding myself by thinking Canon files are going to require way less work, but it's uncanny how many times I look at a photo and am impressed with it and guess right that it was shot with Canon. I've been almost fooled by some Nikon shots, but rarely ever with the D600. It just has a very distinct saturated look to me and if uncorrected properly, an ugly hue in the greens..

Like BackDoorHippie said, right tools for the job. If I was shooting landscape, I'd hands down love my D600 and it's DR to death. I still need to look into products like X-rite...but not sure if I'll have a chance before the imminent switch as demanded by the wife.
 
Last edited:
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
I also like the idea of getting wife involved in work. When she knows that spending extra grand or two makes things easier, she stops complaining about you spending money on gear you "already have."
 
H

Hyogen

Senior Member
Thank you. I feel less inclined to switch now, but we will see. I tried out the Canon 85 1.2L lens at the store yesterday and while the AF was a little slow, WHAT A LENS... The huge smooth bokeh balls were like medium format bokeh balls..! I used to lust after the Canon 135 f2, but now I think it's the 85L.

You know what surprised me is that all 7 photos above were shot with my 28mm lens. I only recently repurchased it after selling it to get the Sigma 35 and now feel like I can't live without it.
 
H

Hyogen

Senior Member
Top