Here\'s a couple RAW downloads from IR of a Canon & Nikon (current production / equivalent models).
I\'m not sure I could tell you which is which based on the RAW image alone (can you). Yes, there are some diff\'s, but it doesn\'t seem to me that they are sufficient to suggest a \"signature look\" from the RAW. I suspect that the diffs in the look may be more in the glass/pp (or color space) ... at least going by this comp on my display.
As an example, looking at the 2nd row (from the top), 1st & last swatch, I see only a few points (<5) diff in the colors.
255,118,0 vs. 255,113,0
255,159,0 vs. 255,162,0
The story repeats itself elsewhere as the diff\'s are seemingly small in most instances ... the red swatch in the 3rd row being the most notable exception from the numbers I\'m seeing. Making changes to all the subtleties may be a challenge, but if you study the more significant differences, you may derive an 80/20 approach to those areas that have the most significant diff in the areas of your concern. Which color space you are operating in may have influence here as well.
FYI, the \"as shot\" for these differed in temp by 150 & tint by 1 ... no adjustments made to equalize.
Here\'s a couple RAW downloads from IR of a Canon & Nikon (current production / equivalent models).
I\'m not sure I could tell you which is which based on the RAW image alone (can you). Yes, there are some diff\'s, but it doesn\'t seem to me that they are sufficient to suggest a \"signature look\" from the RAW. I suspect that the diffs in the look may be more in the glass/pp (or color space) ... at least going by this comp on my display.
As an example, looking at the 2nd row (from the top), 1st & last swatch, I see only a few points (<5) diff in the colors.
255,118,0 vs. 255,113,0
255,159,0 vs. 255,162,0
The story repeats itself elsewhere as the diff\'s are seemingly small in most instances ... the red swatch in the 3rd row being the most notable exception from the numbers I\'m seeing.
FYI, the \"as shot\" for these differed in temp by 150 & tint by 1 ... no adjustments made to equalize.
Here\'s a couple RAW downloads from IR of a Canon & Nikon (current production / equivalent models).
I\'m not sure I could tell you which is which based on the RAW image alone (can you). Yes, there are some diff\'s, but it doesn\'t seem to me that they are sufficient to suggest a \"signature look\" from the RAW. I suspect that the diffs in the look may be more in the glass/pp .. at least going by this comp on my display.
As an example, looking at the 2nd row (from the top), 1st & last swatch, I see only a few points (<5) diff in the colors.
255,118,0 vs. 255,113,0
255,159,0 vs. 255,162,0
The story repeats itself elsewhere as the diff\'s are seemingly small in most instances ... the red swatch in the 3rd row being the most notable exception from the numbers I\'m seeing.
FYI, the \"as shot\" for these differed in temp by 150 & tint by 1 ... no adjustments made to equalize.
Here\'s a couple RAW downloads from IR of a Canon & Nikon (current production / equivalent models).
I\'m not sure I could tell you which is which based on the RAW image alone (can you). Yes, there are some diff\'s, but it doesn\'t seem to me that they are sufficient to suggest a \"signature look\" from the RAW. I suspect that the diffs in the look may be more in the glass/pp .. at least going by this comp on my display.
As an example, looking at the 2nd row (from the top), 1st & last swatch, I see only a few points (<5) diff in the colors.
255,118,0 vs. 255,113,0
255,159,0 vs. 255,162,0
The story repeats itself elsewhere as the diff\'s are seemingly small ... the red swatch in the 3rd row being the most notable exception.
FYI, the \"as shot\" for these differed in temp by 150 & tint by 1 ... no adjustments made to equalize.
Aug 03, 2014 at 08:25 AM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #12501677 « Making Nikon files look Canon »
