Question-- Nikon/ Canon Colour Accuracy? Your take!

[Nikon_Josh]

Hi all,

No I'm not starting yet another war between Canon/Nikon post.

But I just discovered something rather strange the other day.

I love my Nikon D90 with all my heart and it is a great cam. But it seems I have discovered a slight flaw with the camera. (I'm sure Derrel will have something interesting to add on this!) I tried out a friends Canon 50D and was amazed at the accuracy of the auto white balance, in the respect the colours always seem to be spot on 99% of the time.

My one annoyance with the D90 since I've owned it is its tendency to sometimes provide cartoonish colour that has no resemblance to the colour's in real life. Red's come out as orange, Purple always seems to come out as either blue or pinkish and Green just looks plain weird and unreal at times. I have discovered ways to combat this, it usually requires changing the white balance. On the 'Shade' setting, Purple flowers seem to render accurately. On auto white balance, the flower will be dark blue.

Using the Canon 50D was a breeze though for colour rendition, it was a case of simply sticking on AWB and firing away! Purple flowers were accurate, the colours seemed to look correct with little effort on my part! I was truly stunned!

I assumed everyone had to work hard to get accurate colour! How wrong was I? The only thing that I really didn't care for about Canon 50D colour was the way it blew out red's completely, if there was too much red in the scene. Other than that, the 50D appeared to be superior in colour rendition.

What do you guys think on this? Do you get accurate colours from your Nikon's easily? I am a bit disappointed by this revelation really! As colour is pretty damn important to me!(BTW, Yes I do shoot RAW. I have tried all colour modes. Thom Hogan suggests Neutral, -1 Saturation which I find gets the MORE natural results)

 

[oldmacman]

I shoot Canon and this is not my experience. I have found that Canon consistently has bad AWB and very rarely use it. Can you compare your D90 against a friend or colleague to see if the issue is with the camera?

 

[Derrel]

Nikon D90 Camera Imatest - Full Review

"The Nikon D90 showed very good color accuracy overall. Hue accuracy was also quite good, with most of the hue shift occurring in the cyans, sky blues, and reds. Average saturation was 103.8% (oversaturated by only 3.8%, mostly in the blues, reds and dark greens). Average "delta-C" color error was an unusually low 4.21 after correction for saturation, which is excellent. All in all, a very good color response for an SLR."

"Using the Adobe RGB color space (which provides a much wider gamut, or range of colors that can be expressed), the Nikon D90 delivers more highly saturated color, with an average saturation of 109.7% and average saturation-corrected hue error of 4.49 "delta-C" units, which in this case is slightly more accurate than most of the competition here. Again, mouse over the links below the illustration above to compare results with competing models."

So...the camera has an unusually low delta-C color error--the lower the number, the BETTER. Are you perhaps shooting,and viewing your images, in that God-awful Windows-friendly, cartoonish sRGB color space? When comparing images from different cameras, one has to make sure that the color space between the cameras is the same; sRGB is what most Windoze-users will be treated to in many image viewer applications; images made and displayed in Adobe RGB, or another wider-gamut color space, will have different color rendering, by necessity. The brilliant people that run Microsoft figure than their end-users will have everything set to sRGB, so crap color is almost assured thanks to the friendly people that brought you DOS and Windoze. Is your friend's Canon capturing in Adobe RGB, and the D90 in sRGB? As the Imatest results show, the D90 has very good color response when used by a technically-capable photographer. This could quite easily be a settings mis-match AND even more-likely a color-management/working color space issue. (This entire issue, color management,profiles, color spaces, yadda yadda,yadda is probably the single biggest PITA about digital imaging!!!)

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Interesting! I do know someone with a D300 so I will contact them. Do you prefer Canon colour? I was just completely thrown by the fact the Canon seemed to always get PURPLE close to real life even in poor lighting situations. Where the Nikon struggles, it also gave much nicer greens!

 

[Village Idiot]

The brilliant people that run Microsoft figure than their end-users will have everything set to sRGB, so crap color is almost assured thanks to the friendly people that brought you DOS and Windoze. Is your friend's Canon capturing in Adobe RGB, and the D90 in sRGB? As the Imatest results show, the D90 has very good color response when used by a technically-capable photographer. This could quite easily be a settings mis-match AND even more-likely a color-management/working color space issue. (This entire issue, color management,profiles, color spaces, yadda yadda,yadda is probably the single biggest PITA about digital imaging!!!)

You can't blame M$ for Adobe being late to the party. And they're right. Most end users do have sRGB set as default.

 

[Big Mike]

Are you comparing images after / during processing and viewing them on a calibrated monitor...or just looking on the LCD screens?

My one annoyance with the D90 since I've owned it is its tendency to sometimes provide cartoonish colour that has no resemblance to the colour's in real life.

Again, is this just on the camera's LCD screen? Does it look better on a (calibrated) monitor?

Maybe you just need to adjust the display settings for your camera's screen.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I was hoping you would chime in Derrel. Ahh so I assumed in my ignorance that sRGB was the standard? As this was the default setting, so I should be using Adobe RGB. Specially as I own a Mac and don't use the trash that is Microsoft Windows.

Derrel, I know you use Canon. Do you see any differences between Canon colours and other manufacturers? Perhaps it could be just my settings afterall. I have to say though not a huge fan of the way Nikon seems to assume that everyone wants over saturated colours by default! But I guess all manufacturers have their quirks.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Are you comparing images after / during processing and viewing them on a calibrated monitor...or just looking on the LCD screens?

My one annoyance with the D90 since I've owned it is its tendency to sometimes provide cartoonish colour that has no resemblance to the colour's in real life.

Again, is this just on the camera's LCD screen? Does it look better on a (calibrated) monitor?

Maybe you just need to adjust the display settings for your camera's screen.

Right, I assumed that the camera LCD screen was completely calibrated with the cameras output? This is definitely sometihng I need to check upon clearly! I have to admit I was reviewing differences in colour the other day using the LCD screens alone.

 

[Big Mike]

Right, I assumed that the camera LCD screen was completely calibrated with the cameras output? This is definitely sometihng I need to check upon clearly! I have to admit I was reviewing differences in colour the other day using the LCD screens alone.

In the DSLR course I teach, one of the first things the students learn is not to trust their LCD screen.
As an experiment, go into the menu and crank up the brightness on it...then take some shots. Are those photos any more over or under exposed than shots you took before changing the screen? No they're not.

Also, consider how your screen looks when you are indoor, maybe in a dark room, or in a bright room, or outdoors in bright sunlight. Each situation may cause the images on the screen to look different (or at least for your eyes/brain to interpret them differently).

The same applies to the color you see on the camera's screen.

 

[sleist]

If you are shooting RAW, the picture controls (standard, neutral, vivid) and the white balance settings really don't mean anything. They will impact the jpg thumbnail you are viewing in the LCD, but they will be ignored by all RAW processing programs other than View NX2 and Capture NX2. ACR (Lightroom 3 and CS5) do not see them and apply the adobe standard color controls unless you specify otherwise. I have a D90 and find that the Auto WB to be poor with incandescent and fluorescent lighting and will always need to be adjusted in post. Additionally, I have found that skin tones are rendered better from my NEF files by Adobe Camera Raw. Landscapes are rendered better using Capture NX2. The lens you use also impacts color. Nikkor lenses seem to me to be cooler. Sigma lenses warmer. My Tokina 11-16 is so cool the blue of the sky is either striking or odd depending on the composition.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there are many things that impact the image. I'm not certain you have accounted for enough variables to determine why you are seeing what you think you see.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Very good point, Sleist. Thanks for that! I was just concerned that Nikon didn't render colour as well as Canon.

And you were right Mike, it is my LCD. It dosent give an accurate representation! Which means I have deleted images that would probably seem perfectly OK on my monitor! You learn something new every day! haha. Won't be trusting the LCD again.

 

[Lauwerecht]

I carry a white envelope in my coat pocket for custom white-balance.

 

[Derrel]

Josh, I virtually NEVER shoot on both a Canon and a NIkon in the same session...I do not like to end up with files shot with different cameras...just not a good thing. If I want to shoot portraits indoors, I will 8 of 10 times use my 5D, because indoors, it gives me more flexibility with lens focal lengths, shooting distance between the camera and subject, and also it allows me to throw the background MORE out of focus. Outdoors, in decent light, I still like the Nikon D2x for its off-center AF abilities in vertical camera orientation. When I got it, the Nikon D2x was THE MOST-ACCURATE camera or film that Popular Photography and Imaging had ever tested. Period. Full stop. That was in 2005. Many Nikon users really fell in love with the D2x and its imaging characteristics; so much that Nikon itself later introduced D2x profiles for use with later, subsequent pro cameras. That tells you something.

ACCURATE color though, is not what a lot of people really want. PLEASING color is what people really like. FujiFilm for example, has been able to produce a series of cameras, three of which I have bought. The S1, S2, S3,and S5 Pro models (there were 4 models, hence no S4) had exceptionally pleasing color rendering that was not "accurate",and yet which was universally acclaimed as being pleasing. MOST people prefer people images that have more magenta and or red in the fleshtones than would be technically accurate. There are so,so,so many factors at play in color that it is hard to enumerate all the things that can or could or will go astray. White balance is a critical issue; most cameras give poor AUTO WB under indoor lighting, and better WB in AUTO with natural light, within the constraints of each camera model's design. The RAW converter software also has a huge,huge effect on the colors of an image. This is where I think the real differences are found: some RAW converter software has really fantastic capabilities. SilkyPIX, from Japan, has some amazing "looks" when used on Canon and Nikon RAW files; Bibble Labs' Bibble products are capable of some simply incredible color conversions; Canon's DPP software and their "Faithful" profile (which is NOT faithful!!!) looks quite lovely to me, and yet their Portrait profile looks ghastly to me. Nikon Capture NX-2, which is a bear of an application to use and master, can produce some simply in-freaking-credible color renderings when used by a very skilled operator--of which there are very few of!!!

Back in 2001, RAW development software was basically Nikon Capture 1.0, which I had, then 2.0; that software soon was joined by Bibble, and only later, did Adobe Systems develop RAW conversion software. After a couple years, Canon developed a d-slr, and its own RAW conversion software. What I learned in the mid-2000's was that the color of a "camera" is really a combination of the white balance used at capture time, any filtration used at capture time, the color temperature and makeup of the light used to make the exposure, AND the RAW conversion software. Until one has used at least two or three different RAW converter software applications with the same camera's captures, it is hard to understand just how critical the RAW conversion of the image data actually is. Bibble versus Nikon Capture was, for example, a landmark, a watershed, in showing how one application could render color and tone and hue very,very,very differently, from the same .NEF files. And, a few years back, Bibble was as much as 10 times more rapid at developing folders' worth of RAW files than other software. Kodak's landmark 14-mgapixel Kodak 14n, full-frame d-slr in Nikon mount was plagued, absolutely plagued by bad color rendering and horrific digital artifacts, like side-to-side color moire problems AKA "the Italian Flag Effect" when its RAW files were converted using either Kodak's software or Adobe's then-newish ACR module--but the Japanese engineers that developed SilkyPIX raw developer were able to crack the puzzle, and their software basically gave that camera new life among the few commercial and portrait shooters who could afford its then-high price. Bottom line: the color one gets can be shifted, subtly, or tremendously, by in-camera settings and also by later processing. That is why most serious cameras allow users to set custom image parameter sets, so that users can adjust how the camera treats different lighting conditions. One thing to be aware of is cranking up the contrast or tone curve too high--that one,single thing can make some drecky images.

 

[Garbz]

Thanks for that! I was just concerned that Nikon didn't render colour as well as Canon.

I've noticed Derrel has some very long replies, so I assume I will be repeating what is already here, but I'm on time constraints today, sorry.

NO camera I have ever picked up has accurately rendered a Gretag Macbeth ColourChecker chart. Furthermore no camera I have every shot a RAW file with has produced the same results with two different RAW converters. The key is not that your camera can't render the colours, it's that your RAW converter isn't interpreting colours the way you like. I've tried SilkyPix. Horrendous software but gives very true results, so much so that I've gone to the effort of creating my own custom colour profile for my camera for use in Adobe software which nearly renders the ColourChecker chart perfectly. I say nearly because a perfectly faithful replication produced a not very exciting image.

Anything is possible, don't blame the hardware, just blame the software and work around it or move to something else.

Ahh so I assumed in my ignorance that sRGB was the standard? As this was the default setting, so I should be using Adobe RGB. Specially as I own a Mac and don't use the trash that is Microsoft Windows.

This statement alone says you should not switch colour profiles yet. Colour Management is an insanely complex process with lots of caveats, and unless you know the topic really well you can easily do more harm than good. Furthermore if you don't actually have an output that is capable of displaying the gamut of AdobeRGB (wide gamut monitor, or you run off some expensive prints), then you won't see any advantages. The differences would be the result of the RAW converter and not the wider available profile. Don't get into this nightmare for the wrong reasons.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Thank you Derrel and Garbz, you have really given me some food for thought!

I will have to start investigating RAW software to experiment with, this just shows me how much I am still yet to learn! And they say any old idiot can be a great photographer due to digital? Shows me, their is still a lot to learn to get the exact results I want. Also, I have always assumed the camera itself was the biggest determining factor in Colour rendition, its fascinating to discover that the software is far more important.

It is true what you both have said about ACCURATE colour, I always like to give my colours a boost in photoshop. But I like to work from the idea, that the photo I have taken in camera is accurate of what was actually there at the time! Specially as you see colour in everyday life and situations that looks beautiful in its actual state. I guess my own photography aim is to 'enhance the view of life that I see with my own eyes!'.

But I really take on board the point you are stating, actual colour is not always the most PLEASING colour!

I have my first portrait session coming up on Sunday with an amateur model, so I hope to take on board some of your advice Derrel when processing the images from Sunday. I am hoping to process these images in a way that will get that pro magazine look! I'm hoping if I nail some great shots in camera, I can use the power of processing to really give them a professional edge!

Last question.... Will it be good for me to use the 'Portrait' colour mode on my D90 on Sunday? Or is this question irrelevant in the respect, the in camera colour mode is irrelevant when it comes to processing.