From time to time we read about the Canon "famous" skin tones and the Canon colour science, to do that.
In spite of being a subjective topic, could someone help me understand if the "famous" skin tones are present just when shooting jpegs (not RAW); processed by camera?
Thank you.
In comparison to Nikon, Canons generally produce a slightly warmer image with slightly more saturation. Nikons generally produce a slightly cooler or neutral image. This was true even in the film era, so I suspect it as much a matter of the lens multicoating and formulations as today's sensor and jpeg conversion.
It's not just Canon users that say this--I've worked alongside pro Nikon shooters who brought up the subject. They generally love their Nikons, but they sometimes wish for the Canon warmth.
Canons do have generally pleasing flesh tones, but they have a tendency to go red. I don't normally shoot jpegs so I adjust in post.
Leica have excellent skin tones. I've been trying out Fuji X cameras and they jpegs are remarkable. You have several simulated film profiles and can choose the one that works best with a particular subject and lighting situation. In addition, I can take a photo, use the built in wifi transmit a sized image to my iPad and have it posted here or on social media within a minute of capture.
dmacmillan wrote:
Canons do have generally pleasing flesh tones, but they have a tendency to go red. I don't normally shoot jpegs so I adjust in post.
Leica have excellent skin tones. I've been trying out Fuji X cameras and they jpegs are remarkable. You have several simulated film profiles and can choose the one that works best with a particular subject and lighting situation. In addition, I can take a photo, use the built in wifi transmit a sized image to my iPad and have it posted here or on social media within a minute of capture.
Yes. Canon's skin tones go red, Nikon's go yellow, Sony's go green.
To the OP: Yes, you will see the famous "Canon colors" in out of the camera JPEGs or if you use DPP to convert RAWs. You will also see a close facsimile if using the camera-specific profiles in Adobe software.
Remember that you can use Canon's Picture Style settings to modify the look of your JPEGs according to your taste.
On newer bodies, Picture Style settings have been enhanced to include detailed sharpening settings. This is nice because for years Canon's JPEGs have suffered from excessive NR softening and by aggressive high radius sharpening that causes halos and artifacts. You still can't do much about the NR, but you can improve detail and sharpening. Try selecting the 'Fine Detail' Picture Style instead of 'Standard', if available, (this also applies a slightly softer contrast curve which helps with highlights) and then turning down sharpening a notch or two and see what you think.
Yeah, I actually think that's a big part of it. They put a lot of effort into good color and JPEG processing... Their equivalent of "Picture Styles" are in fact "film looks" that match the color, contrast and saturation characteristics of Provia, Velvia, etc. Even if you have never shot film and have no connection with that history, the options are great.
rittrato wrote:
Canon is great but Fuji is on another level when it comes to color, particularly skin tones.
Have to say .. I see this but have come to believe it to be a "popular rumour". Having looked in detail at it, and having using Fujis, I actually never was happy with their colours when I did a like for like comparison.
I found canon colours for skin (not using the LR adobe default, but other profiles) to be noticeably better.
I've never been happy with the Fuji colours. Originally I thought I was, but when I looked at it in detail, I was disappointed.
Understand it's subjective, but maybe try a side by side using different canon profiles (especially neutral) yourself.
Subjective indeed.
I know someone (a PRO) that wrote to me; Canon is the only camera that produces an "organic look", even the 5DsR with ISO 5000 with evident visible noise (B&W), looks to him like film (and to me). He just loves the way the camera renders the image and the noise. In his own words, Fuji is too digital. Subjective? Yes. .-)
Like lenses.
I prefer primes over zooms and older and simple designs (less glass and less correction) over more modern lenses. Less sharpness but more 3D. Subjective?
One of the many reasons I went with Canon many years ago after decades of shooting with Oly OM-1 film cameras was because of the skin tones. Sure I've been told that the profiles can be changed and yada yada but straight out of camera shooting RAW and getting the wb right it's a no brainer to me.
Everything is so subjective with photography, opinions abound and no way isn't the only way, making the right way sometimes very foggy. I guess I'll just stick to my observations and preferences and keep an open ear to any good suggestions or observations that might be offered.
As noted previously the reds can be a serious concern or problem with Canon. Personally I've found that by limiting the use of saturation in PS and mainly using the vibrance that reds become a lot tamer, ymmv.
