Color accurate Camera for Car photography

[360carstudio.de]

Any of those cameras you mentioned should be able to produce accurate colours, so I think there's something in your process that's not quite right.

Fluroecent lights are notorious for causing flicker and colour issues, so not ideal for consitant results. I also notice a large window in one shot of the car interior and not in another. If you are mixing light sources then that can be another cause of issues.

How are you setting your white balance?

We have Philips Graphica Flurocent Lights, they are with high cri Special for perfect Color reproduction.

MASTER TL-D 90 Graphica | Philips

Only Want to Show the extreme Color different in Interieur with the LEDs in Showroom. But Booth colors are totally wrong.

For White Balance we use Xrite Grey Card or our flooring the is also perfect Grey. Tried with Grey Card on it. No difference.

Problem is Camera Profile for Camera RAW. Every Profile gives different colors. We create our own Profile with Basiccolor Input and Colorchecker Digital SG. Its even better but gives US to much blue and purple in Results.

Problem is every Profile created with Basiccolor varies a little Bit even when its createt with Same profiling Image they gives different Results every time. So how can that be right? Xrite Software gives totally wrong really purple Red Results in profiling.

Camera Standard Profile in ACR gives to much orange and really to high contrasts.

Canon Camera Software Lacks on blue and Red and also gives to orange yellow.

I can Upload some Sample RAW Files If Someone Take a closer Look.

 

[Designer]

Problem is every Profile created with Basiccolor varies a little Bit even when its createt with Same profiling Image they gives different Results every time. So how can that be right? Xrite Software gives totally wrong really purple Red Results in profiling.

You seem to be chasing your tail. You have several issues that have not been properly addressed. There is not just one issue, but several, all working against you.

The best perceived result will be the final output, and how your customer sees it. If you ONLY view on one certain output, (CRT) then you might eventually get someplace, but your customers all have different viewing platforms, and you cannot set the color profile to be seen the exact same way on every possible output device.

Then, there is the possibility of print. The type of paper and ink is again, only part of the problem, you also then need to set the color profile for what printer will be used, and you probably can't do that on your computer, because it will look different than the printed result.

Lastly, (or first, actually) is that you should not be mixing different types of lighting. You've got fluorescent, LED, and daylight, and possibly more that you haven't listed. You really need to start there and use only one type of light to give you the best chance of adjusting colors on your computer.

If you are getting these images printed, get the printer profile from the printer. Forget trying to get the colors right on your customer's CRT (unless they are using the exact same device with the exact same color profile and viewing the images in a room that has the same exact lighting as your own studio).

Good luck!

 

[weepete]

I'm almost certain this is a white balance issue more than anything else. I appreciate what you are saying about the colour profiles, and that may be true as well, however I don't think that you should be getting that large a colour difference in the original shots.

Indeed, you probably don't need to be absolutley accurate with the colour, as colours look different in different lighting situations, and as Designer points out anyone viewing it is probably using an uncalibrated monitor anyway. Saying that, I think you should be expecting to be able to produce reasonably consistant colour between shots.

I took the liberty of having a look at your example shot in photoshop, and using a large sampling area had a look at the colour. It looked to me like you awere lacking a bit in the magenta channel using the CMYK colours, and a -16 adjustment in the yellow channel evened up a lot of the difference.

I think your issue is largely coming from the flourecent lights and/or the mixed lighting, but I'd suggest getting some white styrofoam (like those used for takeaway containers) and trying a white balance from that. Make sure you are shooting in a neutral color style, and turn off any in camera processing if you haven't already too.

 

[NS: Nikon Shooter]

… using the CMYK colours…

The CMYK colour space is better used only for final print with four colour
separation in the pre-press process — like for magazine and books. It al-
lows for black to be printed last to rendering richer, deeper tones in sub-
stractive printing.

For on screen processing OTOH, the additive RGB colour space is the
only one that really makes sense.

… just saying.

 

[weepete]

The CMYK colour space is better used only for final print with four colour
separation in the pre-press process — like for magazine and books. It al-
lows for black to be printed last to rendering richer, deeper tones in sub-
stractive printing.

For on screen processing OTOH, the additive RGB colour space is the
only one that really makes sense.

… just saying.

Yeah, it's in photoshop so will be in prophoto colour space, but the colour sampler there gives a few different values: HSB, RGB, LAB, CMYK. It's just easiest to see the difference in the CMYK values in this case, as there's about a 20% difference in the magenta one

 

[NS: Nikon Shooter]

Yeah, it's in photoshop so will be in prophoto colour space, but the colour sampler there gives a few different values: HSB, RGB, LAB, CMYK. It's just easiest to see the difference in the CMYK values in this case, as there's about a 20% difference in the magenta one

The prophoto colour space exists but is not yet representable
on screen today… the technology is not there yet.

 

[weepete]

true, but it's photoshop and Lightroom's default colour space. Just because it can't be displayed doesn't mean it's not there, a bit like Adobe RGB on an sRGB monitor, that's an aside though.

My point is, I wasn't suggesting that the OP edits in CMYK, just that's where a difference can easily be seen. I think it's due to the cycling of the flouroecent lights, as a green cast is common to that lighting.

A fairly easy test would be to set up their cameras and shoot them side by side under stable daylight conditions, this should then show the difference between the colour rendition in the cameras pretty accuratley, and give a baseline for the difference profiling can make.

If that's then compared to shots under studio conditions, it can then be assessed if the lighting is the issue, but that also needs care not to mix different light sources.

 

[NS: Nikon Shooter]

not to mix different light sources.

Unless tested for their colour temperature… absolutely right!

 

[photoshutter]

Hey im really tired.

Im looking for a Camera that gives me Most accurate colors.

Im so tired of Reading and trying around, idont have words for that. I try for years for a solution.

We using CRI95 flouriscent Lights with 6500k and varoius LED Lights, also Hensel Studio flashes.

We try Colorchecker Digital with Xrite Software, Basiccolor Input, Lumariver.

We try different Cameras over years (5D MKII, 5Ds R, EOS R, Sony A7III) and now i buyed a EOS R5, hoping Standard Camera Profile for ACR was good enough to get good colors.

But at least i See better and more accurate colors from my Pixel Phone Camera.

Sometimes its Not even near the Color that i See in Front of me.

I dont want to Spend 20k for a Hasselblad or Something when my Phone can do a better Job.

Any ideas?

Look at the Brown from Interieur. On left Side R5, right EOS R both RAW with ACR (Camera Standard), with Exterieur taken with Google Pixel, Color real accurate.

I use pretty old PhaseOne H20 digital back on my old Hasselblad wired to macbookpro, today it-s not too expensive and much cheaper than any modern DSLR, one of the best color in product photography, nothing with proper white balance, it's just deeper in color.

 

[Braineack]

Im so tired of Reading and trying around, idont have words for that. I try for years for a solution.

We using CRI95 flouriscent Lights with 6500k and varoius LED Lights, also Hensel Studio flashes.

lol. are you serious?

 

[NS: Nikon Shooter]

Im so tired of Reading and trying around, idont have words for that. I try for years for a solution.

We using CRI95 flouriscent Lights with 6500k and varoius LED Lights, also Hensel Studio flashes.

Then, your only way to go is to scrupulously, precisely gel ever single
light sources like it was done in studio years back with a colour meter
and testing properly… if you want to go on with the multiple makers.

Serious photographers today have mostly single branded studio and
solutions. Mine are in an extended Profoto light sources system.

 

[Dave G.]

Big shout out to folks who kept this marvelously constructive for all readers & not going down the easy slippery slopes of hyperbole. The responses related to color correction curves, white balance, and studio lighting are of course spot on. But since the original post was about camera selection, I’ll offer a very probably completely ignorant reply. The cameras mentioned as having been tried are all made either by “camera manufacturers” or by “electronics manufacturers”. You might consider renting a camera that’s made by a “film manufacturer” to get something built from a different perspective in how light is gathered, converted to electrical signals, and processed to produce an image. Namely Fujifilm. I’m not proposing that it’ll solve all your issues and make you a great espresso in the morning, just that I’ve used a LOT of cameras and found them all to be true to the basic nature of their roots. So you might not be far off in your desire to find a camera that’s in harmony with your environment and objectives. But a half dozen different Canons are all still Canons and more alike than different. Maybe branch out a little to Fuji or Olympus to find different takes on image capture and the controls that manage it. Just a thought. Best of luck! And great work you’re doing there, by the way. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Jim Tellier]

As a former pro photographer, portrait studio owner and denizen of the darkroom - who happens to be partially COLOR-BLIND, I can offer my $0.02 worth of experience: First (and most importantly) you NEED to get an accurate color temperature meter, to be able to measure BOTH the color-temp of the Ambient light (illumination source) and the light Reflected from the subject. Without that info, ANY camera (digital or film) and ANY light source is a complete CRAPSHOOT. (In the case of film, you also need a good understanding of the Particular film's color response curves; digital sensors are a little more linear in that regard these days). You also need Standardized color samples with which to calibrate your entire process. Also, remember "there's no such thing as 'neutral' light" - that's an advertising buzzword; Measure that color temp! When you get to Photoshop etc and a computer monitor - GET A CALIBRATOR! Your eyes are NO real judge of what is Correct Color. And, as others have alluded, white balance is important, but is likely Not the problem. I strongly suspect you don't have a handle on the color temps of your light source(s).

 

[Jim Tellier]

@Dave G. --- While you *may* see some differences across mfgrs and cameras made by "film companies" etc., the reality is that most of the sensors used by all of them are pretty much the same electronics today. They're all at the front edge of the technology, so IMHO, I think the differences will be miniscule (I may get flak for that! LOL!). The methodology of trying this camera, that camera, etc until you find one that's "correct" is both expensive AND unnecessary: just move closer to the scientific method, and Measure, Measure and Calibrate your process. Oh, and the notion of putting gels on lights isn't dead! You just need to know When to do it - after you've taken measurements!

 

[ronlane]

Each camera sensor is different and will record it's interpretation of color. Are they close? for the most part. For truly accurate color from any camera, iPhone to Hasselblad, you are reliant on a number of things not just the camera.

The camera is recording the data that is there. The color will be dependent on the camera, the lighting and the monitor that you are displaying it on.

To make sure that there is consistency, it is best to use some sort of color swatch like a ColorChecker Passport.

You mention that you use mulitple lights? If you are mixing them in the photo, that will/could cause color issues if the lights are of the same type and tempature.

Then once you have the files, if your monitor is not calibrated, you may not get the "correct" color that you are expecting.

As it was also mentioned above, if you are shooting raw, the images will ALWAYS need to be processed somewhat to get the best color. And if you are shooting jpeg, then the camera is doing this processing for you.

If, as you say, you don't have time for it. My suggestion would be to contract it out. Either the color correction or the product photography in general.

Sure many will say you "can get it right in camera" but that requires the time and effort as well to "get it right".

Good luck.