Jeff wrote:
I agree with Mike. In #1 there is no hard light at all, it's virtually useless to prove your assertion. The next two 5Ds examples are shot with the sun angle quite perpendicular to the fuselage of the plane, while the last two ('acceptable') 1Dx images were shot with the sun angle nearly straight down (almost parallel with) the fuselage. If you had shot those last two with the 5Ds, they'd surely look nearly identical to the 1Dx examples.
In retrospect I agree. Provided I had exposed them correctly. I have been overexposing whites enough to lose fine detail on both the 5Ds and 7D2.
The image appears a bit underexposed compared to the 1Dx in order to get the white detail in both. Better DR in the 1Dx??
Mike Tuomey wrote:
blake, you've got significantly different light going on between, say, pics #1 and #4, making any comparison b/w the cameras on the highlight issue less meaningful imho.
Vancouver47 wrote:
I can assure you that the contrast on the fuselage of the last 1Dx photo would show equally bold on all three of the 5Ds shots if taken with a 1Dx. The lighting of the three 5Ds photos were specifically added because that lighting shows the sheet metal contrasts the best. It's not there, no matter how the shots are exposed.
Jeff wrote:
I agree with Mike. In #1 there is no hard light at all, it's virtually useless to prove your assertion. The next two 5Ds examples are shot with the sun angle quite perpendicular to the fuselage of the plane, while the last two ('acceptable') 1Dx images were shot with the sun angle nearly straight down (almost parallel with) the fuselage. If you had shot those last two with the 5Ds, they'd surely look nearly identical to the 1Dx examples.
Vancouver47 wrote:
In retrospect I agree. Provided I had exposed them correctly. I have been overexposing whites enough to lose fine detail on both the 5Ds and 7D2.
The image appears a bit underexposed compared to the 1Dx in order to get the white detail in both. Better DR in the 1Dx??
Regarding the latter statement, not in my experience, but I would say that the 5Ds handles highlights differently than the 1Dx. I'm a bit hamstrung at the moment with relying on ACR's handling of the raw conversion (I use LR); I think Adobe needs to tweak the 5Ds profile a bit, as the results are not similar to any other Canon body I've used to date, and I've used quite a few of them. I'd personally try a different converter, but I'm heavily reliant on Lightroom's file management capabilities, and there is no going back for me (managing nearly 150k images).
[rant]And that being said, I am not at all happy with Lightroom's performance with the handling of 5Ds files.[/rant]
Jeff wrote:
Regarding the latter statement, not in my experience, but I would say that the 5Ds handles highlights differently than the 1Dx. I'm a bit hamstrung at the moment with relying on ACR's handling of the raw conversion (I use LR); I think Adobe needs to tweak the 5Ds profile a bit, as the results are not similar to any other Canon body I've used to date, and I've used quite a few of them. I'd personally try a different converter, but I'm heavily reliant on Lightroom's file management capabilities, and there is no going back for me (managing nearly 150k images).
[rant]And that being said, I am not at all happy with Lightroom's performance with the handling of 5Ds files.[/rant]
I process my files in DPP4 then export the ones I edit as TIFF's. DPP does show the exposure differences I have noted above. When I use custom colour profiles in LR, I notice the same exposure differences between the 1Dx, and 5Ds & 7D2.
Jeff wrote:
Regarding the latter statement, not in my experience, but I would say that the 5Ds handles highlights differently than the 1Dx. I'm a bit hamstrung at the moment with relying on ACR's handling of the raw conversion (I use LR); I think Adobe needs to tweak the 5Ds profile a bit, as the results are not similar to any other Canon body I've used to date, and I've used quite a few of them. I'd personally try a different converter, but I'm heavily reliant on Lightroom's file management capabilities, and there is no going back for me (managing nearly 150k images).
[rant]And that being said, I am not at all happy with Lightroom's performance with the handling of 5Ds files.[/rant]
Yeah - reading through that thread is interesting. Mr. Chan seems a tad bit defensive. If you don't like our new harsher rendering, here's an alternative. What I want to know is on what planet they thought their default contrast curves were on any level acceptable, unless someone was working visually on an unusually flat uncalibrated monitor. We went through an entire thread a few months ago started by Bruce in Philly which showed just how bad Adobe's new defaults were. Thankfully there are other, better solutions our there.
Jeff wrote:
[rant]And that being said, I am not at all happy with Lightroom's performance with the handling of 5Ds files.[/rant]
Mike Tuomey wrote:
Jeff, have you tried Huelight's 5Ds camera profiles?
Although my statement above was referencing how slow LR is when working with 5Ds files, I have not tried any other profiles out of sheer laziness and being too busy.
Daan B wrote:
In this thread Adobe provides medium contrast profiles that resemble the default profiles used with former Canon bodies:
Tried the 'Medium Contrast' profile from MadmanChan; definitely better as far as the contrast goes, and significantly toned down the red hues in the shadows. Now looks a very light touch greenish, but I might have to work with a few files to re-calibrate my brain.
Peter Figen wrote:
What I want to know is on what planet they thought their default contrast curves were on any level acceptable, unless someone was working visually on an unusually flat uncalibrated monitor. We went through an entire thread a few months ago started by Bruce in Philly which showed just how bad Adobe's new defaults were. Thankfully there are other, better solutions our there.
Unfortunately the LR/ACR mraw and sraw profiles are still unusable IMO (green color cost in the shadows).
Jeff wrote:
How do you guys like the Adobe-provided 'Medium Contrast' profile?
How do I get it to work with 5D III? The LR6 profiles are way too contrasty and I now have to use -10 as my default contrast and more shadow and highlight recovery. I can make a preset, but be nice to have it as profile option.
Not sure if that would work or not, as I'm pretty sure the raw data from each camera is quite different. You could search for some different 5DIII profiles and see how you like them.
That being said, if you must give it a shot, just try renaming the 5Ds profile to however the default 5DIII profiles are named, and put it in the camera profiles folder and see if it works. Never tried it, who knows?
That Medium Contrast 5Ds profile really takes the edge off, and shadow/highlight adjustments are now much more similar to all other Canon bodies I've owned.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
How do I get it to work with 5D III? The LR6 profiles are way too contrasty and I now have to use -10 as my default contrast and more shadow and highlight recovery. I can make a preset, but be nice to have it as profile option.
Weirdly enough, the camera input icc profiles for the 5DS and 5D3 in Capture One are exactly the same. I mean they are the same freaking profile just re-named. When Phase first supported the new camera, they were using the 5D3 profile temporarily, when then went permanent, all they did was re-name the 5D3 profile (I confirmed this in ColorThink) and went with it. The color response if great as is the contrast response. Never could get an explanation why the 5D3 profile works so well when the CFA is supposed to be different. Regardless, no complaints here.
Wow, interesting. Makes you wonder how Adobe could possibly have decided to ramp up the contrast so much between the two models if so little had changed.
