p.7 #2 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
Yeah, I noticed the link aren't working either. Would love to get the chance to try them out for myself as they look great (in the samples). IDK if he is willing to share them anymore though because of all the haters he had. :/
p.7 #3 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
Yes, sorry, I decided to stop sharing them.
There are a lot of people out there selling presets that make your photos look like trash, or just a pdf with numbers to put as A picture profile and they’re charging a lot, and I feel stupid giving away my profiles for free, after so many hours of work, to people that treat me as a fanboy and mocks at me.
Also, I’m building somehow a unique style with those presets, whether they’re similar to the real canon look or not, and I prefer to keep them for myself.
p.7 #4 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
My primary work is in a venue with very dim but always varying lighting (tungsten and LED). I have shot there for 15 years with Nikon Canon and Sony. Often each capture (or group of captures) has to be manipulated with the full complement of ACR’s controls. The light varies so much that no particular profile is useful although I do batch process small groups of like like images.
With such laborious work one tends to find out just how pliable each file is. IMHO Sony files are as good as or slightly better than CaNikon for file “equity.” However, compared to CaNikon DSLRs, ME is much better since I am looking at the sensor and can make adjustments or the fly without chimping.
Also I can successful use super speed lenses wide open with reliable AF as well as up to 20 FPS for the dance action I capture before a live audience with a totally silent camera. I can see the results in more and better captures with better AF and exposure.
p.7 #5 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
SoundHound wrote:
My primary work is in a venue with very dim but always varying lighting (tungsten and LED). I have shot there for 15 years with Nikon Canon and Sony. Often each capture (or group of captures) has to be manipulated with the full complement of ACR’s controls. The light varies so much that no particular profile is useful although I do batch process small groups of like like images.
With such laborious work one tends to find out just how pliable each file is. IMHO Sony files are as good as or slightly better than CaNikon for file “equity.” However, compared to CaNikon DSLRs, ME is much better since I am looking at the sensor and can make adjustments or the fly without chimping.
Also I can successful use super speed lenses wide open with reliable AF as well as up to 20 FPS for the dance action I capture before a live audience with a totally silent camera. I can see the results in more and better captures with better AF and exposure. ...Show more →
That is totally right. Sony mirrorless cameras, and especially the a9, have some awesome features that dlsr feel like really old tools.
I worked before taking photos in discos/nightclubs and it's the most difficult photography I've done so far. Managing shutter speed, flash power and aperture in real time, with light changing not just from just 1m to another in th3 club, but also from one minute to another, and wanting to keep ambiance, play with lights ala "light painting" and all of this with a lot of drunk people all around... So challenging and exciting. This was some years ago and I used a Canon (with perfect af with the speed lite IR mesh) and then a fuji that struggled a lot but still I got the shots. But in my view, still the colors felt more natural with the canon that with the fuji at that time (but with the fuji they were just beautiful as well), and with the Sony it just takes more time...
p.7 #6 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
If you guys are genuinely into that kind of colors, then let me repeat what I heard from an old guy who used to be in the film processing business. His suspicion was that early DSLRs (that was Kodak btw) had the colors modelled after the most popular negative film at that time - Kodak Gold 200. Kodak DCS were the reference and then Canon just continued on the same lines with their cameras.
Looking at it retrospectively it actually makes sense that Kodak would had been doing that, as they had both the knowledge about those color curves, and the motivation to come up with a product that wouldn't shock the viewer with outlandish (for those times) colors.
So instead of looking for unobtainium "Canon colors" profiles, maybe you could try some of those profiles offered / sold as "film look" and see what "Kodak Gold 200" does for you. There's a good chance you might be satisfied.
p.7 #7 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
Since our favourite rumours site posted today a link to this (not very new) video, let me comment it through my own perception (through several displays including a calibrated 4k monitor).
From the very first comparison, one may notice a similar difference as between Fuji Superia and Kodak Gold film, or Fuji Crystal vs Kodak Royal paper (except Fuji had darker, more bluish greens too but that's a different story).
In many circumstances the Kodak (and subsequently Canon) approach can be more flattering, as it can be perceived as a light tan or golden hour effect. However it's not without downsides, as in some different scenarios it can also be perceived as a chronic liver disease effect or even the whole picture looking out of whack.
Looking retrospectively, one may infer that some digital camera manufacturers continued, worked with, or inspired themselves from Kodak's "color science" (e.g. Canon) while others sided/cooperated with Fujifilm (e.g. Sony, Fuji, Olympus). I have no idea where to classify Nikon though, they look different than anything else. Possibly some in-house effort.
Hope this is useful for those that liked one look (Kodak/Fuji) but for some reason ended up with a camera doing it the other way.
p.7 #8 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
I love the colors from my A7mk1, while the mk3, not so much. I guess its Sony listening to some guys that their color sucks and with each iteration they became more Canon like, which I dont like.
Heck I even went Nikon from my Canon rebel because I just hated those Canon colors
p.7 #9 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
Well the lady in the video above filmed herself in Sony colors and didn't grade them to look Kodak Gold. This might be quite telling about how she prefers to depict herself
p.7 #10 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
What a pleasant video, friendly personality that draws you in...even on my least favorite topic of all times 🤪
Not sure what others might have seen, but viewing from my iPhone none of the edited/colour matched skin tone samples presented ever matched from what I saw; close, but not a match IMO. Not that I have a problem with either camera's the skin tones out + what ever lenses were used either way. Personally, for any deliverable I try to stick with matching cameras and lenses if possible just to avoid the whole matching in post. Tip * all Zeiss Batis lenses are color matched--one less variable to worry about.
p.7 #11 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
I like the profile that you put out a while ago that left the Lightroom / Camera Raw sliders blank. I’ve used it a few times and I really appreciate the work that you put into it. I have never shot Canon, I have no real interest in doing so, and I couldn’t care less whether the profile is “accurate.”
I tweak the calibration sliders for Adobe Color on almost every shot and I feel that Lightroom renders Sony skin tones a bit dull without any adjustments. I’ve been experimenting with c1, which seems to do better, but I’m not quite ready to make the leap from LR. Lately I have been using blue saturation at +40 or Fred’s settings as a starting point for Adobe Color.
If I process subsequently in Photoshop, I always use a Selective Color adjustment layer to subtly fine tune the reds and yellows regardless of where I begin in raw. Sometimes I will also use a Color Balance adjust layer on the skin as well to add a bit more red and yellow to the highlights and/or midtones.
It’s unfortunate that some people got caught up in arguing about which camera has “better” colors or bashing your work. This forum is usually a very civilized and open community where people can learn from each other. Selfishly, I wish that you’d continue to share your profile developments, but I certainly understand your rationale for refraining from doing so.
numbertwo wrote:
Yes, sorry, I decided to stop sharing them.
There are a lot of people out there selling presets that make your photos look like trash, or just a pdf with numbers to put as A picture profile and they’re charging a lot, and I feel stupid giving away my profiles for free, after so many hours of work, to people that treat me as a fanboy and mocks at me.
Also, I’m building somehow a unique style with those presets, whether they’re similar to the real canon look or not, and I prefer to keep them for myself.
p.7 #12 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
vdo1 wrote:
Since our favourite rumours site posted today a link to this (not very new) video, let me comment it through my own perception (through several displays including a calibrated 4k monitor).
From the very first comparison, one may notice a similar difference as between Fuji Superia and Kodak Gold film, or Fuji Crystal vs Kodak Royal paper (except Fuji had darker, more bluish greens too but that's a different story).
In many circumstances the Kodak (and subsequently Canon) approach can be more flattering, as it can be perceived as a light tan or golden hour effect. However it's not without downsides, as in some different scenarios it can also be perceived as a chronic liver disease effect or even the whole picture looking out of whack.
Looking retrospectively, one may infer that some digital camera manufacturers continued, worked with, or inspired themselves from Kodak's "color science" (e.g. Canon) while others sided/cooperated with Fujifilm (e.g. Sony, Fuji, Olympus). I have no idea where to classify Nikon though, they look different than anything else. Possibly some in-house effort.
Hope this is useful for those that liked one look (Kodak/Fuji) but for some reason ended up with a camera doing it the other way.
She's using adobe color profile, known to be quite bad for her Canon 5d MKIV. In general, adobe profiles look bad for any camera for skin tones. In Canon, the "canon" profiles work much better. And the previous generation, 5dIII/6d has better Lightroom profiles than the 5D IV, known to be too dull.
When I say I like Canon Colors, I mean the canon jpg look, or the one you get in DPP, or in Lightroom using the camera profiles. But not really the adobe profiles.
Still, that girl uses Canon for all her important work, and you can see her best pictures are taken with Canon. She uses the Sony basically in advertising videos and in trips...
edit:
I really love the look of the pics from this woman (Meg Looks)
p.7 #15 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
Her presets, like most commercial presets, work quite badly with Sony files.
Same as with vsco, rni, tribe archipelago, mastin labs... They work fine with canon raws, but with Sony...
For example, look at YouTube videos of on live editing with mastin labs presets by the creator. He's all the time editing canon, nikon or fuji raws. However, it's very difficult to find him using the presets in a Sony file, and when you find it, there is always an excuse why his presets are not looking as good.
I said that adobe profiles for the 5d mkiv are worse than those for previous canon cameras (I think adobe started to give a flatter look to easily match cameras).
I think she's won some prizes here in this forum, not sure.
Also beautiful skintones, and also shooting canon.
Can anyone show some Sony portrait photographer with this kind of look? I don't like the typical Sony plastic skin look with the strong strobe and the crunchy feeling.
I think she's won some prizes here in this forum, not sure.
Also beautiful skintones, and also shooting canon.
Can anyone show some Sony portrait photographer with this kind of look? I don't like the typical Sony plastic skin look with the strong strobe and the crunchy feeling.
Lisa knows how to process skin to not look like it's orange, even with very warm scenes. She's in a class by herself.
I really don't understand why you're wringing your hands over Sony when you can just go shoot Canon and get the look you want.
Ultimately the reason most presets don't work very well with Sony is the way the Sony red channel works compared to Canon in my experience. However, I have Mastin Labs presets that are made for Sony and love quite a few of them as starting points. My favorite presets are Replichrome, though.
I think she's won some prizes here in this forum, not sure.
Also beautiful skintones, and also shooting canon.
Can anyone show some Sony portrait photographer with this kind of look? I don't like the typical Sony plastic skin look with the strong strobe and the crunchy feeling.
So what exactly were you thinking when you bought a camera that produces results that are unpleasing to you?
p.7 #19 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
numbertwo wrote:
Yes, sorry, I decided to stop sharing them.
There are a lot of people out there selling presets that make your photos look like trash, or just a pdf with numbers to put as A picture profile and they’re charging a lot, and I feel stupid giving away my profiles for free, after so many hours of work, to people that treat me as a fanboy and mocks at me.
Also, I’m building somehow a unique style with those presets, whether they’re similar to the real canon look or not, and I prefer to keep them for myself.
I completely respect your effort and skill, and I think you're on the right path! However, one challenge you have is that you're promoting Canon skin tones to Sony users. While there are some Sony users who appreciate that, there will always be others who reject the whole concept. They don't accept any criticism of Sony skin tones, and they don't want to hear about Canon skin tones. You'll never win them over, and they'll always treat you badly. No matter how good your presets are, you'll always have an uphill battle on a Sony forum.
p.7 #20 · Struggling with Sony skin tones, want that Canon look, go here -->
NJPhotographer wrote:
I completely respect your effort and skill, and I think you're on the right path! However, one challenge you have is that you're promoting Canon skin tones to Sony users. While there are some Sony users who appreciate that, there will always be others who reject the whole concept. They don't accept any criticism of Sony skin tones, and they don't want to hear about Canon skin tones. You'll never win them over, and they'll always treat you badly. No matter how good your presets are, you'll always have an uphill battle on a Sony forum.
Not really, because theres just some people that doesnt like that sterotype Canon skin tones and theres nothing wrong with that, or the ones whos loving the Canon colors. Just dont go out all the time saying Sony colors is shit.
