# differences in color between Mark ii and Mark iii?



## mboss13 (Apr 25, 2012)

So we got lucky and secured two Mark iii bodies from Amazon and received them at the end of March. At least we thought they would be a great replacement for our Mark ii bodies.

Now, after noticing a difference in color, we wanted to make sure and ran some tests. There is a definite difference in the color that we are getting. Skin tones look way too red. I am at loss, and registering here to see if anyone is experiencing this? I am highly hopeful it is something in our settings, but we color balanced with both white and gray cards and all the shots come like this. 








Both images were taken exactly the same with 24-70 lens iso100 1/160 f/8.0 
We have tried multiple things and they are all coming this way, on both new bodies.
Any suggestions?


----------



## BobSanderson (Apr 25, 2012)

Why are so many of the people reporting 5D III problems seem to be posting for the first time ever? It could just be an ongoing coincidence, but really.


----------



## mboss13 (Apr 25, 2012)

I am posting for the first time ever because at $7000 invested I wouldn't expect that. I am not trying to bash the camera. I really want it to work for our studio, but both of the bodies are performing the same thing. Compared to the Mark ii bodies, they are off, and not in a apealing way. Sorry I don't have a million posts, just asking honestly and hoping the problem is in the user. Certified Professional Photographer took these though.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 25, 2012)

My 5D MK III handles reds much better than my 5D MK II did. Thats one of the major improvements.


----------



## mboss13 (Apr 25, 2012)

really? Well it is not just red. We have tested it in the back yard and even grass colors look different from both of the cameras? Are you using different settings, or white balancing somehow that I have no idea how? Could I have possibly received two bodies that are faulty? I really don't want to believe that it isn't us, but the evidence says otherwise.


----------



## mboss13 (Apr 25, 2012)

Mt. Spokane, did you see this improvement in portraits of people?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 25, 2012)

mboss13 said:


> Mt. Spokane, did you see this improvement in portraits of people?


 
So far, my portraits have been done in very low light, and I have corrected the color temperature. However, I have noticed, and posted about it earlier that intense reds are no longer oversaturated as they were with my 5D MK II.

Are you referring to jpeg images? I haven't taken any, and only beta versions of Abobe Raw converters are available. I haven't tried viewing my raw images with DPP. 

With Adobe, or with DPP, simple variation in monitor calibration or room lighting can skew colors slightly, so we may each be seeing a slight difference. If you see too much red, its easy to tweak the import profile in ACR or Lightroom to give a tone that you prefer.


----------



## mboss13 (Apr 25, 2012)

Well is nobody seeing the difference in the images I posted? You can tell the difference even on the back of the camera, no need for raw conversion. As for these, they were taken as RAW.


----------



## BobSanderson (Apr 25, 2012)

You think the posted images show a problem? No one said the goal of the new Canon was to match your existing camera. I think the "5D III image" presented is more natural looking and shows a less intense red tint.


----------



## K-amps (Apr 25, 2012)

The reds and greens in the Mk.iii are a noticable improvement over the mk.ii. They look more natural.

Perhaps it is the mk.ii that is not the good one. I like the colors on the MK.iii a lot !


----------



## mboss13 (Apr 25, 2012)

I believe I am seeing rather purple tone to my blonde hair. The Mark ii looks the way I see my hair in mirror. Not the purple redish tint of the Mark iii. I will contact Canon about it, even though I doubt they will suggest any way of fixing this. I think a new more expensive camera should at least match the previous one. In our studio we believe in getting things done in camera and spending less time in Lightroom and Photoshop. But to each their own. I am not trying to start a blaming game. I was just seeing if others who actually own the new 5D are seeing the same thing. I know what is good for our business, and unfortunately if there is no way for me to fix this, these 5d Mark iii bodies are not for us. I am really trying to see if there is a way to get this fixed. In camera, not in Lightroom, or any other software option.


----------



## mboss13 (Apr 25, 2012)

K-amps said:


> The reds and greens in the Mk.iii are a noticable improvement over the mk.ii. They look more natural.
> 
> Perhaps it is the mk.ii that is not the good one. I like the colors on the MK.iii a lot !



My hair is not that color. I am also sad to see that nobody is truly answering my questions? Is there a way to get the right match? I do not like the off colors of the MK iii, just because they are not true, and don't want to spend time in post processing fixing it. 

I will see if I can get a few more samples up here to show what I am talking about. Again, I want to like this camera, but clearly the color is off, and not to a liking.


----------



## K-amps (Apr 25, 2012)

What are your WB settings?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 25, 2012)

mboss13 said:


> So we got lucky and secured two Mark iii bodies from Amazon and received them at the end of March. At least we thought they would be a great replacement for our Mark ii bodies.
> 
> Now, after noticing a difference in color, we wanted to make sure and ran some tests. There is a definite difference in the color that we are getting. Skin tones look way too red. I am at loss, and registering here to see if anyone is experiencing this? I am highly hopeful it is something in our settings, but we color balanced with both white and gray cards and all the shots come like this.
> 
> ...



hmmm you 5d2 image looks pinker to me than the 5D3 image and the 5D3 image looks more natural

EDIT: i was looking at skin tones, apparently you are focusing on your hair color, the 5D3 does seem a bit redder there so it's probably a camera profile difference (maybe,maybe CFA array difference but it really doesn't seem at all likely) are they jpgs from the cam? prcoessed in some RAW program?

anyway it can be down to tons of different things from color filter array to more likely camera color profile or white balance engine in the camera


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 25, 2012)

Did you try adjusting color settings in the styles?

sek



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> mboss13 said:
> 
> 
> > So we got lucky and secured two Mark iii bodies from Amazon and received them at the end of March. At least we thought they would be a great replacement for our Mark ii bodies.
> ...


----------



## iso79 (Apr 25, 2012)

Yep, the Mark III has much better color metering than the MKII even the D800.


----------



## Invertalon (Apr 25, 2012)

Somebody did a color-checker calibration with the 5D3 and looks excellent processed through LR for me. I did notice reds are a bit saturated by default, but after loading the calibration profile it looks really good and no longer an issue. 

If you want it, PM me your email and I can email it to you. All you do is load it up into lightroom and have it apply as default and good to go.


----------



## kubrick (Apr 25, 2012)

http://cdtobie.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/color-comparison-canon-5d-mark-ll-and-mark-lll/
...


----------



## mboss13 (Apr 25, 2012)

scottkinfw said:


> Did you try adjusting color settings in the styles?
> 
> sek
> 
> ...



Do you mean setting it on portraiture? We did that.


----------



## mboss13 (Apr 25, 2012)

Here are two more shots, outdoor. Taken raw and processed in lightroom. Same white balance card was used.


----------



## mboss13 (Apr 25, 2012)

Invertalon said:


> Somebody did a color-checker calibration with the 5D3 and looks excellent processed through LR for me. I did notice reds are a bit saturated by default, but after loading the calibration profile it looks really good and no longer an issue.
> 
> If you want it, PM me your email and I can email it to you. All you do is load it up into lightroom and have it apply as default and good to go.



PM sent, I am glad you read my op instead of jumping like crazy cause I dare found an issue with our $3500 cameras that I didn't care for. Thank you


----------



## Invertalon (Apr 25, 2012)

No problemo! Email sent!


----------



## RichATL (Apr 25, 2012)

ah! I see the problem!
you are shooting in JPEG, and letting some Japanese engineer decide what the image should look like!...

but seriously... I like the color of the 5d3 better (in my own personal tests with it)


----------



## Christian_Stella (Apr 25, 2012)

I can definitely see the red tones on the 5d3 in your hair in the first sample, but I have to say that I find the 5d3's grass sample to look far better on my calibrated IPS monitor. The red of the ball is far better and the photo looks to have more dynamic range. I can see the green is much more saturated, but it also looks far more neutral than the 5d2's shot, which looks to be white balanced a little toward the yellows... which is obviously more pleasing to most people, but isn't the neutral it should be.

I'm not sure color can be questioned this specifically right now... Lightroom's support for the 5d3 isn't even officially released. Quick question though... are you using Lightroom's camera profiles for your pictures or the generic Adobe profile? Because this makes a HUGE difference in color.


----------



## mboss13 (Apr 25, 2012)

thanks for the email. Trying to make it work in lightroom. Thanks to all that have tried to help me fix this. The issue I have with it is that you can see those red tones in the hair already in the camera. No lightroom necessary to see the difference. We always shoot manual and raw. I think in the outdoor shot you can see the colors are much more vibrant from the Mark ii, which to my taste and taste of our clients is better. I'd hate to jeoperdize our business over wanting to shoot with the newest coolest camera.


----------



## mboss13 (Apr 25, 2012)

Figured out the lightroom calibration. That makes a huge difference. Still is there a way to set the camera to get it right in the camera?


----------



## Ryant (Apr 25, 2012)

I think you are splitting hairs. You can't tell me your clients care about this slight change, for the better in my opinion. What I do know is your clients will thank you when your photos are more in focus which the 5d 3 will do. You can't tell me that you take pictures and print them and get perfect real to life color with no editing. That just does not happen. If you send your photos to a print shop them do tons of color changing to make the photos print as close to what is desired.


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 25, 2012)

Ryant said:


> I think you are splitting hairs. You can't tell me your clients care about this slight change, for the better in my opinion. What I do know is your clients will thank you when your photos are more in focus which the 5d 3 will do. You can't tell me that you take pictures and print them and get perfect real to life color with no editing. That just does not happen. If you send your photos to a print shop them do tons of color changing to make the photos print as close to what is desired.



+1. Unless your client is a hair dye company and your shooting for their product box cover photo, I really doubt a client would notice, much less care. 

Anyway, it looks like a slight WB change in the tint. Just add a touch more green to the WB in camera with the little graph thing and it might match up a little better. 

And whoever mentioned that adobe is still in beta... +10 to you. Don't jump to conclusions before the camera is even officially supported in a released program.


----------



## Martin (Apr 25, 2012)

mboss13 said:


> Well is nobody seeing the difference in the images I posted? You can tell the difference even on the back of the camera, no need for raw conversion. As for these, they were taken as RAW.



I see the difference and it's obvious. Looks really strange for me. In order to judge I would need raw files. Looks like tint purple tint.


----------



## tasteofjace (Apr 25, 2012)

Looks like the skin tone looks more accurate with the MKIII. Strange that they would improve on a newly released camera. Shocked!


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 25, 2012)

My 1Ds3 is different to the 5DII as well - much closer to the 5DIII in that the skin tones are much better.

Did you take them on Neutral style or Portrait or ?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 25, 2012)

mboss13 said:


> Here are two more shots, outdoor. Taken raw and processed in lightroom. Same white balance card was used.



Well if you are comparing in LR then you are as much comparing Adobe's reverse engineering of a color profile for each camera as anything else, not that the color filters might make some have more trouble distinguishing some colors from other and lead it to having to make tint choice, but that wouldn't be such large changes as that although it might make it trickier or easier to get a larger number of colors right at once. But anyway it's hard to say what causes it, most of it might just be with Adobe's choice for each. Flip to differen Adobe profiles for a given cam and it'll shift all over. It's a tricky business especially since things can change with different scene lighting temperature, etc.


----------



## Matthew19 (Apr 25, 2012)

I read a post recently where shane hurlbutt was adjusting his Mkii to match each other. Meaning the colors from camera to camera don't exactly line up. He used the wb shift :http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/03/color-correction-put-your-best-foot-forward/


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 25, 2012)

Matthew19 said:


> I read a post recently where shane hurlbutt was adjusting his Mkii to match each other. Meaning the colors from camera to camera don't exactly line up. He used the wb shift :http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/03/color-correction-put-your-best-foot-forward/



Many thanks for that post - I have never strayed that way, it could be very interesting


----------



## Viggo (Apr 25, 2012)

5d3 is way better for color... I always use the ColorChecker Passport to calibrate my colors, and it corrects waay less than with the 5d2.

Buy yourself one of those and this will never be an issue. 

To me the first picture looked too green, but I'm colorblind so. (one of the reasons why I use the CC)

But, yeah, as others have said, the 5d3 handles red's much better and overall I find the colors in much less need of correction, although not perfect either.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 25, 2012)

Viggo said:


> But, yeah, as others have said, the 5d3 handles red's much better and overall I find the colors in much less need of correction, although not perfect either.




;D ;D ;D Better return the 5DIII if it is not perfect ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Viggo (Apr 25, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > But, yeah, as others have said, the 5d3 handles red's much better and overall I find the colors in much less need of correction, although not perfect either.
> ...



Lol, yeah, but I guess the "return-line" would be long enough to just wait for the X instead 

In all seriousness, get the ColorChecker for proper color, it is the sh!t....


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 25, 2012)

The problem here is that you're not quite understanding what part of the process of RAW development (I think these were shot RAW?) is down to Adobe and what part of the process is down to Canon. Loads of people don't quite understand and think it's down to the camera 

Each camera has a profile assigned to it in LR. The way colours are processed is actually down to Adobe (or Phase one etc...) NOT Canon. Canon set the white balance - that's their part of the equation. The WB algorithm has changed between the two cameras, but you say you set the WB using a grey card so that takes that out of the equation. The sensor does make a difference to the profiled colours, but much less than the profile itself.

I calibrate my cameras using a colour checker passport. The LR profile for 5d2 is MASSIVELY out. The LR profile for the 5d3 is MUCH closer to real. So, it's the 5d2 profile which is wrong and the 5d3 profile which is right. 

However, you like the look of the 5d2 profile.

If you want to get the same result as the previous camera, I'd recommend getting a colour checker passport, using the adobe DNG editor to make a profile from the CCP file and then moving some of the points around until you get the colours that you want. Or you can use the LR HSL settings to change the colours to something closer to what you want, but that will provide a less accurate result.

If I've misunderstand any part of what you're doing, apologies


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 25, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> And whoever mentioned that adobe is still in beta... +10 to you. Don't jump to conclusions before the camera is even officially supported in a released program.



It's very very unlikely that Adobe will significantly change the colour profile for the 5d3 now that it's been released..


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 25, 2012)

As a final thought, but probably not that relevant to you - you can specify that the camera change it's white balance IN CAMERA. You can push it towards yellow, blue, magenta or green.

(or at least you could on the 5d2 - I suspect that option still exists on the 5d3)


----------



## Louis (Apr 25, 2012)

Firmware Version 1.1.2 incorporates the following improvements and fixes.


2. Fixes a phenomenon where a pink cast may develop over the image when the shutter is completely pressed with the camera’s power turned off (by the auto power off setting).


I know your camera is turned on, but you tried updating the firmware?


----------



## Christian_Stella (Apr 25, 2012)

Good news, Canon just announced yet another firmware update only days after their last one!

Firmware Version 1.1.3 incorporates the following improvements and fixes. 

1. Fixes a phenomenon where being in the proximity of the camera and an Internet-enabled device may cause the user to complain. 
2. Fixes an Internet phenomenon where exposure metering may change when using the top LCD light in underground crypts or tombs. Under these circumstances, the camera will now simply play a sad violin song through the monaural speaker and shut off for 3 minutes. 
3. Reduces the Nikon D800's DxO score to 62. 
4. All picture profiles are fully updated and now personally approved by Ken Rockwell for their increased vividness. 
5. New interactive menu screen that lets you choose why you are returning your camera before shipping it back to us.


----------



## mboss13 (Apr 25, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> Ryant said:
> 
> 
> > I think you are splitting hairs. You can't tell me your clients care about this slight change, for the better in my opinion. What I do know is your clients will thank you when your photos are more in focus which the 5d 3 will do. You can't tell me that you take pictures and print them and get perfect real to life color with no editing. That just does not happen. If you send your photos to a print shop them do tons of color changing to make the photos print as close to what is desired.
> ...



what little graph thing do you have in mind? My feeling is you shouldn't have to do that on something worth $3500 but I am willing to try. As for clients, yes you are right, most wouldn't notice it, but my business isn't built on putting out portraits that I would be unhappy with. Again, with Mark ii body, non of this is an issue. As a business owner, I would have to say right now, unless there is a fix for this, the Mark ii is for me a better studio camera. There.


----------



## mboss13 (Apr 25, 2012)

tasteofjace said:


> Looks like the skin tone looks more accurate with the MKIII. Strange that they would improve on a newly released camera. Shocked!



Looking again, no, you are wrong. The color is off. The Mark ii shot is much more realistic look than the purple tinted Mark iii. Same with the grass. Look at the dog toy, the colors are nice and vibrant with the Mark ii, with Mark iii they look boring and faded. To each their own, but I would expect to see an improvement, to me I am seeing a step back. The lightroom fix makes it correct, but that still doesn't apologize the camera.


----------



## mboss13 (Apr 25, 2012)

Christian_Stella said:


> Good news, Canon just announced yet another firmware update only days after their last one!
> 
> Firmware Version 1.1.3 incorporates the following improvements and fixes.
> 
> ...



Thanks to all that are trying to help with this. 

Snarky comments like the one here are pointless and make me think that those people don't own either of the cameras I am talking about. 

Again thank you all who have had sincere and helpful answers and opinions so far.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 25, 2012)

I too like the colors of the 5D3 more than with the 5D2. They are closer, to my eyes, to the 5DC which I love.
Canon will not fix it because there is nothing defective. At most, this an updated color profile representation by them. They decided it is better this way and unless there will be a massive uproar from costumers they won't change it.

BTW, did you read the link posted earlier to Shane Hurlbut's blog? He shows how to calibrate the camera internally using the WB shift function. That's what Tcapp was referring to.


----------



## mboss13 (Apr 25, 2012)

I would be shocked that Canon would want blonde showing purple tint and call it an update. I will look through that article and see if we can set the internal WB. That is what I have been looking for. Still believe that it should be preset and not left to the end user to tinker with.


----------



## bycostello (Apr 25, 2012)

i'm sure if you had 2 of the same model side by side there would be slight differences...


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 25, 2012)

mboss13 said:


> I would be shocked that Canon would want blonde showing purple tint and call it an update.


You are right but honestly I haven't seen an example such as yours before. While I haven't conducted any direct comparisons, I didn't notice anything out of the ordinary with light hair in my photos.



> I will look through that article and see if we can set the internal WB. That is what I have been looking for. Still believe that it should be preset and not left to the end user to tinker with.



What Shane explains is better than a preset. It may take a little bit more time initially, but that effort will not only ensure a properly calibrated camera in itself but also between different bodies which is more important IMO. 
It's a lot like AMFA. A pain in the ass, but totally worth the effort.


----------



## mboss13 (Apr 25, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> mboss13 said:
> 
> 
> > I would be shocked that Canon would want blonde showing purple tint and call it an update.
> ...



I agree that it is a pain. I am just missing where he is acutally calibrating the camera? Isn't he adjusting the shots in LR only? Maybe I am looking at the wrong article. And you are right. Ideally I would like all our bodies producing all the same colors, when balanced to the same gray card. And they should be able to do it in the camera. 

Again, the difference is visible on the back lcd panel. I don't believe it should be that way. I would like to see somebody take more comparison people portrait shots. With no post processing. I think we would all see unapealing differences. But I respect those that claim it is pretty. Just that my hair ain't purple in real life.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 25, 2012)

> I am just missing where he is acutally calibrating the camera? I



The article is this one: http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/03/color-correction-put-your-best-foot-forward/

And he starts talking about the in-camera adjustments with the paragraph containing: 


> Some cameras come with a yellow bias, a magenta bias and or a green bias. Sometimes you get one that is perfect from the factory but from my experience that is not the case.


Which sounds like pretty much what you are experiencing.

edit: And here is a quote from him in the comments section: 



> The WB shift is good for simple corrections, not big swings. But that is usually all that is required to balance the camera, maybe you should send that baby back to Canon. I have sent back 4 of my 7D’s. I cannot get them to look right.



And that's simply the nature of manufacturing. Tolerances will always exist and some bodies are inevitably at the extreme ends of the tolerance margin.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Apr 25, 2012)

mboss13 said:


> I would be shocked that Canon would want blonde showing purple tint and call it an update. I will look through that article and see if we can set the internal WB. That is what I have been looking for. Still believe that it should be preset and not left to the end user to tinker with.


Did you read my post? Unless you're talking JPEG, it's the RAW profile - NOT the camera. A profile will produce whatever colours the user wants from whatever sensor. That's the point. White balance will not solve your problem since that will change the colour of everything - not the specific colour you're having a problem with.

Unless I fundamentally misunderstood.

"...not left to the end user to tinker with" - you understand that's the entire point of RAW development? If you don't want to tinker with anything, shoot JPEG.

Honestly, unless I misunderstood something, you're blaming the wrong thing. You'll only solve the problem by fixing the thing that IS the problem. 

All that said, it looked to *me* like the overall white balance was different between the two. Are you sure you white balanced correctly with both cameras? The mk3 has a slight magenta cast to my eyes.


----------



## Bosman (Apr 25, 2012)

mboss13 said:


> So we got lucky and secured two Mark iii bodies from Amazon and received them at the end of March. At least we thought they would be a great replacement for our Mark ii bodies.
> 
> Now, after noticing a difference in color, we wanted to make sure and ran some tests. There is a definite difference in the color that we are getting. Skin tones look way too red. I am at loss, and registering here to see if anyone is experiencing this? I am highly hopeful it is something in our settings, but we color balanced with both white and gray cards and all the shots come like this.
> 
> ...


If you look at the grey there is a def yellow cast on the m2.


----------



## Bosman (Apr 25, 2012)

mboss13 said:


> Here are two more shots, outdoor. Taken raw and processed in lightroom. Same white balance card was used.


Your eyes must not see it but the mark2 images are very yellow tinted. It is not that natural to have a yellow cast unless it is dusk...I think you are just used to seeing files look this way to be honest.


----------



## mboss13 (Apr 25, 2012)

Bosman said:


> mboss13 said:
> 
> 
> > Here are two more shots, outdoor. Taken raw and processed in lightroom. Same white balance card was used.
> ...




I think you might be right. After reading that article, I see there is a lot more to this than I guess I paid attention to. Thanks


----------



## wockawocka (Apr 25, 2012)

mboss13 said:


> So we got lucky and secured two Mark iii bodies from Amazon and received them at the end of March. At least we thought they would be a great replacement for our Mark ii bodies.
> 
> Now, after noticing a difference in color, we wanted to make sure and ran some tests. There is a definite difference in the color that we are getting. Skin tones look way too red. I am at loss, and registering here to see if anyone is experiencing this? I am highly hopeful it is something in our settings, but we color balanced with both white and gray cards and all the shots come like this.
> 
> ...



Who's to say the 5D2 ever produced files with good colour? I always found them to have a warm smear which is absent from the 5D3.


----------



## mboss13 (Apr 25, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> > I am just missing where he is acutally calibrating the camera? I
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks. That article is an eye opener. I will have to tinker with it and see if I can get the colors the way I like in camera. I could always send them back to Amazon for a full refund and wait until stock builds up and give different bodies a shot like the author did himself. That would take care of the light leak issue/non-issue and jeoperdizing the resale value one day I guess. 

Thanks to all that see the differences with me and suggest solutions. Those people are the reason I come on this forum. The auto-bashers, those should just post in their own pointless threads.


----------



## mboss13 (Apr 25, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> mboss13 said:
> 
> 
> > So we got lucky and secured two Mark iii bodies from Amazon and received them at the end of March. At least we thought they would be a great replacement for our Mark ii bodies.
> ...



You may be right. Perhaps I got used to that look, but I really like it, however our Mark ii bodies are beyond their expected lifespan and we have multitude of weddings contracted for the summer. It has always sold well for us with the look out of the Mark ii, not a lot of post processing. Either way I don't think the redness in blonde hair should be happening. Looking at fixing it. LR profile already did the trick. Now looking at getting it fixed and looking good out of camera.

I do agree that the Mark ii sometimes gave away a yellowish tint. I believe all Nikon's do that. At least all the local pro photogs shooting Nikon display images that I would not dare offer to our clients, as they look yellow to me. Not sure if it is their camera or that is the look they are going for but I don't like it. Good for those that do.


----------



## wockawocka (Apr 25, 2012)

I've found the 5D3's meter better and have better AWB in combination with the new 600EX's they're really very good indeed.

Your clients won't spot the difference or should I say improvements!


----------



## BobSanderson (Apr 25, 2012)

mboss13 Please post a link to your business. I'm very curious about those clients of yours.


----------



## Christian_Stella (Apr 25, 2012)

mboss13 said:


> Christian_Stella said:
> 
> 
> > Good news, Canon just announced yet another firmware update only days after their last one!
> ...



Sorry, I felt that you were already presented with enough information to either tweak or return your camera by that point. I had already responded with my thoughts. I viewed your comparisons on 2 calibrated IPS monitors and I saw yellow shifts on the 5d2 and a magenta shift on the first 5d3 sample. Neither camera was perfectly neutral, but I definitely found the 5d3 to have done a better job on the outdoor picture, mainly because of less harsh highlights on the dog bone and the lack of the 5d2's yellow cast. 

This is definitely a case of adjusting your workflow or equipment, as a new camera with new RAW decoders in Lightroom is never going to perfectly calibrate to your old camera. 

I shot with the 5d2 from the week it was released and upgraded to the 5d3 on day 1. I shoot food photography for a living, which is highly color sensitive. Color-wise, I'm seeing a huge improvement in reds and oranges. I shot a whole cookbook for citrus on the 5d2 and I wanted to jump off a bridge because the camera would just blow out the color orange until it was simply a single-toned blob.


----------



## Tracy Pinto (Apr 25, 2012)

mboss13 I think you should return those "faulty" 5D IIIs because I fear you are going bald. I had only looked at the skin tones (they looked very good) until you mentioned the hair region. The 7K will come in handy and maybe save more clients than getting the new camera's colors to meet your high standards.


----------



## mboss13 (Apr 26, 2012)

Tracy Pinto said:


> mboss13 I think you should return those "faulty" 5D IIIs because I fear you are going bald. I had only looked at the skin tones (they looked very good) until you mentioned the hair region. The 7K will come in handy and maybe save more clients than getting the new camera's colors to meet your high standards.



Glad you added your 2 cents.....way to respond to the issue. I think you should run for president, since you truly have a way to answer a serious issue. 

Don't be jealous though, one day, you too will own a 5D Mark iii.


----------



## Tracy Pinto (Apr 26, 2012)

Actually I have one and find your postings very interesting. I also would like to visit your photo web site.


----------



## cpsico (Apr 26, 2012)

mboss13 said:


> So we got lucky and secured two Mark iii bodies from Amazon and received them at the end of March. At least we thought they would be a great replacement for our Mark ii bodies.
> 
> Now, after noticing a difference in color, we wanted to make sure and ran some tests. There is a definite difference in the color that we are getting. Skin tones look way too red. I am at loss, and registering here to see if anyone is experiencing this? I am highly hopeful it is something in our settings, but we color balanced with both white and gray cards and all the shots come like this.



Did you shoot in neutral and process the same? Picture 2 has more contrast slightly more saturated color but excellent skin tones. I really don't see a problem


----------



## Ryant (Apr 26, 2012)

From what I have read people are trying to help you understand that color on a camera is complicated. Please take a moment to look at this link on the front page of canon rumors that talks about testing a lens.

Jump to the section that has five pictures side by side done with five different 5d 2 bodies. That says:

Autofocus accuracy is an interaction between the camera (every copy of which is slightly different) and the lens (every copy of which is slightly different). Get over the fact that your camera is perfect because it is perfect with some other lens. Below are 5 focus checks done with the same Canon 85 f1.2 on 5 different 5D Mk II bodies, for example (look at the number 4s to see that no two are exactly the same).

http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/how-to-test-a-lens/

Note that each picture has a slightly different color cast. Every LCD monitor has a slightly different color cast as well. Every picture you take even of the same scene can have a slightly different white balance. Also I assume you print your pictures? Every printer has slightly different color. Nothing your using is perfect. My monitor at work is a 1500 dollar monitor sitting next to a 800 dollar one. The both are pro grade ips monitors. They shipped with drastically different color. You must calibrate them. The standard way to calibrate photos is outside the camera. If you refuse to acknowledge this you won't be happy even with another 5d 2. You can ship back your. Amerasian ten times but that is a waste of time. You also should not calibrate to what you see on a monitor but you should calibrate ultimately to your printer.

I find the snarky comments entertaining. If you can't take a joke then you need to lighten up.

Cheers,
Ryan


----------



## Bosman (Apr 26, 2012)

I struggle with why a person would return two cameras because there isn't a yellow tint.


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 26, 2012)

Ryant said:


> From what I have read people are trying to help you understand that color on a camera is complicated. Please take a moment to look at this link on the front page of canon rumors that talks about testing a lens.
> 
> Jump to the section that has five pictures side by side done with five different 5d 2 bodies. That says:
> 
> ...



+10

Can you suggest a cost effective way to calibrate a monitor? I have a 30 in ultrasharp monitor. Cost over $1100, and supposedly comes factory calibrated to sRGB. Its not too far off, but prints are a little off. I've never taken the time to really calibrate it!


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 26, 2012)

I find it worrying that people get so much on the defensive when someone has a different opinion and has to start making personal attacks.

When a thread is started with "I found this error and am sending back my camera" then on a forum the OP can expect people to come back with comments which are not always going to be supportive. I believe that most 'issues' are user error or lack of understanding so the collective experience of experience helps the poster. It is very fustrating when the OP rejects the advice with a rude and personal comment


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 26, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> Can you suggest a cost effective way to calibrate a monitor? I have a 30 in ultrasharp monitor. Cost over $1100, and supposedly comes factory calibrated to sRGB. Its not too far off, but prints are a little off. I've never taken the time to really calibrate it!



Are you sure it isn't the printer not calibrated correctly?


----------



## Ryant (Apr 26, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> Ryant said:
> 
> 
> > From what I have read people are trying to help you understand that color on a camera is complicated. Please take a moment to look at this link on the front page of canon rumors that talks about testing a lens.
> ...




At work our IT department uses the spyder calibrators. However we dont print anything we only calibrate because we try to match the color of our content as best as we can before sending it to the end user which can use any monitor to view our stuff. So even if the color is perfect the color can be wrecked if the user has a bad monitor or settings.

At home I have a crappy printer that cant print the colors I want and i dont have the space for a nice printer. If I understand it right, part of getting your printer to print better is to setup an ICC profile which there is no ICC profile for my printer. The Canon pixma Pro 1 has many ICC profiles and you can make custom ones. The ICC profile as I understand it converts the colors on your screen to what is best for that particular paper type and printer and helps you get a closer representation to what you want.

I like your site by the way Tcapp, do you do something to push the eyes to make them pop more? It seems like you saturate them slightly I kinda like it.

Cheers,
Ryan


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 26, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > Can you suggest a cost effective way to calibrate a monitor? I have a 30 in ultrasharp monitor. Cost over $1100, and supposedly comes factory calibrated to sRGB. Its not too far off, but prints are a little off. I've never taken the time to really calibrate it!
> ...



I use millers. Not my own printer... I wish I had that kind of equipment! 

SO I need to calibrate to them. Like I said, its pretty close already, thats why I haven't bothered to do it yet, but it wouldn't be a bad idea!


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 26, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Tcapp said:
> ...



That is not so easy. Calibrating a monitor is straight forward - but to someone else's printer is more complicated - especially if they have more than one


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 26, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



They have a calibration kit, which I got, that gives you a print and a digital file to match to each other. Its just that I dont always have the patience to adjust the monitors. All three of them. I guess i was just wondering if there was software to help calibrate?


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 26, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> They have a calibration kit, which I got, that gives you a print and a digital file to match to each other. Its just that I dont always have the patience to adjust the monitors. All three of them. I guess i was just wondering if there was software to help calibrate?



If they give you the icn file then you just add it to the monitor drver (Windows).No calibration software needed


----------



## ramon123 (Apr 26, 2012)

maybe your setting are wrong?

i've heard that the 5D Mark III performs better in this area.


----------



## CowGummy (Apr 26, 2012)

I too would love to see the OP's wedding portfolio. I've been booked for a couple myself and as it's not what I usually shoot I'm trying to hoover up tips and tricks. Any chance of sharing a link?


----------



## mboss13 (Apr 26, 2012)

Not sure what my business website link has to do with anybody on here. If I wanted to include it I would have in my profile. 

As for attacking me or my clients, it is really not neccessary. I have admitted that a regular client would probably not see anything wrong with their image. I admitted that perhaps I have gotten used to the look of the Mark ii. I also stand my point that the purplish look out of camera on the 5d Mark iii is not the look that I personally like, and it is not correct. I realize no camera is going to be color perfect unless properly calibrated. I must have gotten lucky with our Mark ii bodies as they both produce identical images that look right to me and look correct when printed (yes, there might be a slight yellow tint to them in some instances). I am not sending my Mark iii bodies back, as the LR profile fix really took care of my issue, which is what I was hoping for in OP. After I receive my color passport I will try to calibrate the cameras to a point where we get the picture close to perfect in camera. I am glad I was able to learn this information from some of the helpful individuals on this thread.

I appreciate the tips and help of the several individuals on this thread, but have no intention of posting my business link on this forum. As for those that feel the need to massage their ego, you were right, I was wrong. I am glad I was and don't have to return these awesome camera bodies. Also good luck to those who have not received one yet or can't afford one, as I suspect those are the people screaming the most on this thread.

Thank you


----------



## BobSanderson (Apr 26, 2012)

mboss13 said:


> what little graph thing do you have in mind? My feeling is you shouldn't have to do that on something worth $3500 but I am willing to try. As for clients, yes you are right, most wouldn't notice it, but my business isn't built on putting out portraits that I would be unhappy with. Again, with Mark ii body, non of this is an issue. As a business owner, I would have to say right now, unless there is a fix for this, the Mark ii is for me a better studio camera. There.





Quote from: mboss on April 24, 2012, 07:25:26 PM


> You may be right. Perhaps I got used to that look, but I really like it, however our Mark ii bodies are beyond their expected lifespan and we have multitude of weddings contracted for the summer. It has always sold well for us with the look out of the Mark ii, not a lot of post processing. Either way I don't think the redness in blonde hair should be happening. Looking at fixing it. LR profile already did the trick. Now looking at getting it fixed and looking good out of camera.



These quotes are the reasons I was interested in your work as a busy business owner. It sounds like you are proud of the quality photos that allow you to earn your income and I would like to see the look that is selling and what you don't want jeopardize with the 5d III.

I am one that can afford a 5D III but I don't think I am really good enough to benefit from all it offers - I am happy for now with my 40D. I am waiting for the mythical 7D II to maybe take the plunge. At any rate, good luck with your upcoming wedding season and in retaining the colors that sell well there.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 26, 2012)

mboss13 said:


> Not sure what my business website link has to do with anybody on here. If I wanted to include it I would have in my profile.



It is only us amateurs that are prepared to post as we dont have a reputation to protect


----------



## CowGummy (Apr 26, 2012)

mboss13 said:


> Not sure what my business website link has to do with anybody on here. If I wanted to include it I would have in my profile.



I agree, it has fairly little to do with your original post. I just enjoy looking at photography, and find it's a great way to improve. I do however appreciate not everyone feels the same as me, and that's fair enough. All the best for the upcoming season!


----------



## mboss13 (Apr 26, 2012)

CowGummy said:


> mboss13 said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure what my business website link has to do with anybody on here. If I wanted to include it I would have in my profile.
> ...



Thanks for understanding.

If we were perhaps in the member forum on PPA or other pro-paid forums(which we are no longer part of as it is not much better than free) I wouldn't mind, but in a public forum I feel better not posting my business links.


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 26, 2012)

mboss13 said:


> CowGummy said:
> 
> 
> > mboss13 said:
> ...



Just a quick FYI, posting your link in as many places as possible helps your google ranking... Not saying you NEED to post because of that, just thought I would share that with you!


----------



## skitron (Apr 26, 2012)

mboss13 said:


> After I receive my color passport I will try to calibrate the cameras to a point where we get the picture close to perfect in camera.



I'd be interested in your results. I don't have the same issue, but I am interested in the effectiveness of color passport.


----------



## Tracy Pinto (Apr 27, 2012)

It looks like if there is a web site and a business publicly promoted by it we are not going to see it or know further about it guys. The only sharing we got was the "panic" of a man with two 5DIIIs, 4 photos and a color problem that his eyes and customers would not tolerate. I think there were some very helpful and educational links posted for those that really wanted to learn about shifting color profiles.  NEXT!


----------



## ctmike (Apr 27, 2012)

This thread is a terrific example why a new member would give 2 (or 3) thoughts before asking anything here. Less than half reasonable responses with the remainder... let's say less than friendly at best. I was genuinely curious too, since it was pretty easy to see the purple tinge to his hair as described. Sure we got there in the end but the journey wasn't as nearly nice as it could have been.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 27, 2012)

ctmike said:


> This thread is a terrific example why a new member would give 2 (or 3) thoughts before asking anything here. Less than half reasonable responses with the remainder... let's say less than friendly at best. I was genuinely curious too, since it was pretty easy to see the purple tinge to his hair as described. Sure we got there in the end but the journey wasn't as nearly nice as it could have been.



+1

Post an inoccuous remark here and it is like being in the witness box


----------



## kballweg (May 1, 2012)

It fascinates me that people will go on and on about how a mechanical device produces "wrong" coloring and not allow for the fact that our eyes don't have the capacity to replicate color consistently from person to person. 

I suspect MBoss has the gift of Tetrachromacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy) a genetic condition that allows an unclear number of people to see a range of tints and hues not apparent to people who don't have this gift. Note: not being facetious about it being a "gift" when it comes to color photography, as it allows seeing banding and color casts that a non-tetrachromate can not see. However, it can be a curse when you are trying to correct for what the vast majority of people won't even perceive. I, for example, cannot see the purple cast in the hair, and prefer the skin tones of the original post example; in fact I see the skin tone of the Mk2 example as "wrong" in comparison.

We also process colors differently at a retinal level, and at a brain processing level. Talking about color as if there were absolute correct colors being reproduced in a digital photo is an interesting concept. Beyond the difference of tetrachromacy, as several people have also pointed out, variations in monitors, ambient light in the room where you are viewing the examples, and even the formula of the materials blended for your glasses lenses are going to shift colors.

Calibration tools really help. But, ultimately, like the OP admits, there is a level of personal preference for each photographer backed by their experience of how viewers/customers react that determines when colors are working. That's how a person who is "color blind" can still be a damn good photographer. Personally I've sold more "over saturated" landscapes than I'm comfortable with, but that has become the taste I've learned to work to. And yes, sorting the snark out from the sincere efforts to help resolve the original question was a pain, but ultimately I got several good links that made it worth reading the whole thing.


----------



## Radiating (May 2, 2012)

The colors in the 5D Mark III are a substantial improvement on the 5D Mark II. This is after about 20 hours of comparison between the two on color reproduction which is important to me.

If you don't like the colors you can always correct them with a passport color checker.


----------



## K-amps (May 2, 2012)

kballweg said:


> It fascinates me that people will go on and on about how a mechanical device produces "wrong" coloring and not allow for the fact that our eyes don't have the capacity to replicate color consistently from person to person.
> 
> I suspect MBoss has the gift of Tetrachromacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy) a genetic condition that allows an unclear number of people to see a range of tints and hues not apparent to people who don't have this gift. Note: not being facetious about it being a "gift" when it comes to color photography, as it allows seeing banding and color casts that a non-tetrachromate can not see. However, it can be a curse when you are trying to correct for what the vast majority of people won't even perceive. I, for example, cannot see the purple cast in the hair, and prefer the skin tones of the original post example; in fact I see the skin tone of the Mk2 example as "wrong" in comparison.
> 
> ...



Like you I am probably trichromatic too (or my monitor is  ) since I could not see the purple tinge either. I did see the iii to have a bit more magenta and the ii having a bit more green/yellow hue. Also on the dog toys on grass shot, iii looked more natural and ii looked like saturation +3. This can be set on the iii as well.... I also suspect his clients might not be tetrachromatic either but like the rest of us are drawn towards a more saturated image...


----------



## K-amps (May 3, 2012)

I was wondering if the OP has 2 issues, one with saturation as a whole (outside pic) but is it possible that his headshot magenta / yellow tinge has something to do with CFL lighting? I ahve seen color shifts in te 5d3 under some CFL lights, I am sure other bodies will have their own behavioral issues...


----------



## Tcapp (May 5, 2012)

Christian_Stella said:


> Good news, Canon just announced yet another firmware update only days after their last one!
> 
> Firmware Version 1.1.3 incorporates the following improvements and fixes.
> 
> ...



Ha! Made me laugh. But you forgot one...

6. Adds metal spikes to the grip so no one complains about the camera not being sharp enough.


----------



## EvilTed (May 5, 2012)

I thought they were both a similar shade of black plastic :


----------



## Tcapp (May 5, 2012)

EvilTed said:


> I thought they were both a similar shade of black plastic :



You win.


----------



## briansquibb (May 5, 2012)

Dont forget the Nikon label as a theft deterrent : : :


----------

