p.6 #1 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
Which post is that linked in?
Todd Baugh wrote:
I don't think the solution is a preset on this one, I had previously been playing with calibration for red and green based on several threads posted on this site. This gave better, but not as "pleasing" results as compared to Canon. It's almost as if there is a certain range of colors/skin tones that just don't translate in the RAW file and come out looking like crap/pale/blah in lightroom.
With the profile that was converted and created by "numbertwo" I have gotten very, very pleasing results.
p.6 #2 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
Dj R wrote:
Which post is that linked in?
It's on page 1 of this thread, I uploaded them to my website. User "numbertwo" also has links in this thread. If you are referring to the calibration changes those are here:
p.6 #3 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
I just tried using the rflata7r3fix profile and am not crazy about it. I created a virtual copy of an image of my daughter doing a cheer stunt under fluorescent lighting.
The Canon R flat profile required a +1.0 exposure bump and a medium tone curve to not look flat. I corrected the WB based on the grey wall behind her and, when comparing to Adobe Portrait, the skin tones and the rest of the colors are better in the Sony/Adobe version. The Canon gives her a more yellow/orange skin tone and the image still looks very flat compared to the Adobe.
p.6 #4 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
eyal wrote:
I just tried using the rflata7r3fix profile and am not crazy about it. I created a virtual copy of an image of my daughter doing a cheer stunt under fluorescent lighting.
The Canon R flat profile required a +1.0 exposure bump and a medium tone curve to not look flat. I corrected the WB based on the grey wall behind her and, when comparing to Adobe Portrait, the skin tones and the rest of the colors are better in the Sony/Adobe version. The Canon gives her a more yellow/orange skin tone and the image still looks very flat compared to the Adobe....Show more →
AGAIN, THE PROFILE IS MEANT TO BE USED WITH THE XMP PRESET. You have version 1-4 to try. Also try the older batches preset+profile , my favourite is canon eos RRR version.
p.6 #5 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
Todd Baugh wrote:
It's on page 1 of this thread, I uploaded them to my website. User "numbertwo" also has links in this thread. If you are referring to the calibration changes those are here:
User numbertwo is the original creator of these profiles /presets.
Do you guys have any difficulty in reading me? Is really m English that bad? Lol
My nick is juanmaasecas in dpreview (numbertwo was taken) and numbertwo here but I'm the same person I swear 😁
p.6 #6 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
numbertwo wrote:
AGAIN, THE PROFILE IS MEANT TO BE USED WITH THE XMP PRESET. You have version 1-4 to try. Also try the older batches preset+profile , my favourite is canon eos RRR version.
It would help if you had edited your post on page 1 and/or included a readme on the site to explain this. Perhaps you can reach out to Fred to adjust the thread so your post is moved up to the top since these profiles are yours rather than the original poster.
Even after using the combination of the profile and xmp, I find that the skin tones are less correct/flattering in the Canon profile. Also, the old 'Canon crushed reds' that I recall from my 5D mk III days are in the profile. My daughter's hot pink cheer uniform loses a lot of its color. The blue cheer mat is more accurate in the original than the profile-applied version.
I do appreciate your effort. If anything, it confirms that the colors I get from the a7rIII and Adobe Portrait profile are fine for my use.
p.6 #7 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
Gents if the pixel colour calculations are done via some non invertible functions, it becomes mathematically impossible to accurately transform them into the colours of a different camera. Even if the cameras would be using the same sensor and Bayer filter. At some point you’ll have to accept it and move on.
p.6 #8 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
vdo1 wrote:
Gents if the pixel colour calculations are done via some non invertible functions, it becomes mathematically impossible to accurately transform them into the colours of a different camera. At some point you’ll have to accept it and move on.
I know, and I'll move to canon eventually, but first I need ibis. I can more or less fix the colors and be happy even if not 100% to my liking, but I can't live without ibis anymore, and suddenly stabilise every lens I mount in the camera (like my cheap Canon 70-200 f4 L non is, my new light and small tamron 17-35 2.8-4, my Sony 50 1.8, sigma 35mm, or my incoming samyang 85 1.4...)
p.6 #12 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
vdo1 wrote:
Well don’t make me rhetorically wonder how we were able to take pics before IBIS was invented
Buying more expensive lenses with oís, or cheaper with oís but not as good optically.
Raising iso and losing quality
Accepting some blur in pictures
Tripod
I can't go back there. I tried when I bought the Canon eos R and I loved the camera, but IBIS is still more important to me than af (for my use in single and adapted the Canon works better), screen, viewfinder, body ergonomics, menus, usability in general, and of course colors and look of the pictures.
p.6 #13 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
Todd Baugh wrote:
I posted that comparison and was asked about providing RAW files so I could prove the issue. I guess people think I'm bashing Sony or a Canon fanboy....I love both systems and it's just something surprising that I had happen to me. Now, you could say it was a WB issue on one shot, but I had to correct it in every single shot i took of the bride for the day....even formals under very controlled lighting.
I am thankful for "numbertwo" and his efforts to make the Sony colors more like Canon. As I said before, "more accurate colors" doesn't necessarily mean "better pleasing" in regards to skin tones. I will continue to use the profile on all my images.
Some people say the orange/red/magenta of the Canon is too strong....and I agree in some cases it is (I shot Canon for 12 years). But it's easier to tone down "warmness" that it is to take a cool/flat image and make it look "warm" and pleasing....
I'm not a fanboy to any brand, I want the best for me and my clients and Sony is leading that charge.
p.6 #14 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
So true, number two. IBIS is a fundamental feature of mirrorless. Try using a tripod inside just about anywhere in the world with superb art or interiors. They are banned for a reason, people trip over them, they take forever to set up, and even then cannot be positioned to what you need.
With their high ISO and IBIS, Sony is the Prince of Darkness.
Before IBIS we were only as good as the poor folks using all those Canon L primes and zooms - either getting less quality through camera shake, using inferior high ISO or using ghastly flash to illuminate the poor subject.
ISO is a quality control, each step up you throw more of it away.
And poor Canon users - the company has forsaken them such that their R is down a full stop of DR over the a7III and their RP is all of 2.5 stops down (!), and they both trail through the entire ISO range.
The buyers in the current age are based and red-pilled, and continue to impress with their acumen, they know quality when they see it, better than many forumites. Remember, these are post-phone buyers.
Sony does the rest of your list of stuff so badly the a7rIII is outselling all competitors (R/RP/Z6) *combined* in Japan during March-April. Terrible work by them, horrible screens and muh buttons/menus. And them Sony colors, so poor they are inducing buyers to reach for their credit cards to get into the Sony system!
I guess that's the real color of the flowers, but it looks more like magenta/pink to me, definitely not purple. /justsaying/
I downloaded the raws posted here from the blue/purple-haired woman, and first there's a clear issue in the white balance, too cold in both canon and Sony. Setting the Sony files to daylight, the blue hair starts showing a bit more purple (but still blue). And yes, with any of my presets, even with the original cold white balance, the hair looks purple.
p.6 #16 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
philip_pj wrote:
So true, number two. IBIS is a fundamental feature of mirrorless. Try using a tripod inside just about anywhere in the world with superb art or interiors. They are banned for a reason, people trip over them, they take forever to set up, and even then cannot be positioned to what you need.
With their high ISO and IBIS, Sony is the Prince of Darkness.
Before IBIS we were only as good as the poor folks using all those Canon L primes and zooms - either getting less quality through camera shake, using inferior high ISO or using ghastly flash to illuminate the poor subject.
ISO is a quality control, each step up you throw more of it away.
And poor Canon users - the company has forsaken them such that their R is down a full stop of DR over the a7III and their RP is all of 2.5 stops down (!), and they both trail through the entire ISO range.
The buyers in the current age are based and red-pilled, and continue to impress with their acumen, they know quality when they see it, better than many forumites. Remember, these are post-phone buyers.
Sony does the rest of your list of stuff so badly the a7rIII is outselling all competitors (R/RP/Z6) *combined* in Japan during March-April. Terrible work by them, horrible screens and muh buttons/menus. And them Sony colors, so poor they are inducing buyers to reach for their credit cards to get into the Sony system!
It's obvious that for technical people concerned about IQ, price, performance and so on, Sony a7iii/R3 is the best option. But I understand that for people that just want to focus in photography and have very appealing pictures (jpg) right out of the camera, and when ease of use is important (better menus, awesome touchscreen you can see in daylight, etc), and a cheap official adapter to use a ton of canon cheap glass with native- like af capabilities, the eos R is obviously a better choice.
For me, I repeat it again, I did comparison shooting thousands of jpg with same lenses between a73 (and a7r2) and eos r, and the jpg from the R were always better.
p.6 #17 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
numbertwo wrote:
I guess that's the real color of the flowers, but it looks more like magenta/pink to me, definitely not purple. /justsaying/
I downloaded the raws posted here from the blue/purple-haired woman, and first there's a clear issue in the white balance, too cold in both canon and Sony. Setting the Sony files to daylight, the blue hair starts showing a bit more purple (but still blue). And yes, with any of my presets, even with the original cold white balance, the hair looks purple.
Depends on which device I view it, on the computer screen they look pretty correct, on my tablet a little bit on the red side and oversaturated. The thing is that they didn’t turn out blue or some other outlandish color, although the AWB had to work with discrete light spectra (LED) and I didn’t override anything.
p.6 #18 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
numbertwo wrote:
It's obvious that for technical people concerned about IQ, price, performance and so on, Sony a7iii/R3 is the best option. But I understand that for people that just want to focus in photography and have very appealing pictures (jpg) right out of the camera, and when ease of use is important (better menus, awesome touchscreen you can see in daylight, etc), and a cheap official adapter to use a ton of canon cheap glass with native- like af capabilities, the eos R is obviously a better choice.
For me, I repeat it again, I did comparison shooting thousands of jpg with same lenses between a73 (and a7r2) and eos r, and the jpg from the R were always better. ...Show more →
As I posted earlier, the blue hair samples were just too far out of the box to be relevant IMO. I was easily able to replicate blue vs purple hair in the one Sony RAW file simply by changing the Portrait setting from Neutral to Vivid in Sony's Imaging Edge Edge desktop app and then saving that color skew to a raw file. To me this extreme color deviation was user error. I also looked at the strange WB settings for both cameras 6000K for the one Sony file I examined.
p.6 #19 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
vdo1 wrote:
Well don’t make me rhetorically wonder how we were able to take pics before IBIS was invented
well don't make me remind you that back in the day, we didn't shoot with 30,40,44 megapickles. pickles, yes.
so when I'm walking backwards up the aisle of a dark church, with a b/g walking towards me, IBIS comes in handy.
IBIS is super relevant with the megapickles. also new-school glass that has the resolution, that helps!
p.6 #20 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
Dj R wrote:
well don't make me remind you that back in the day, we didn't shoot with 30,40,44 megapickles. pickles, yes.
so when I'm walking backwards up the aisle of a dark church, with a b/g walking towards me, IBIS comes in handy.
IBIS is super relevant with the megapickles. also new-school glass that has the resolution, that helps!
We didn't have anything beyond Kodak Portra and Fuji Superia 800 either, and that was for the brave only, ISO 400 was more of the norm with dark places....
