# Vibrancy of the RAW, Nikon and Sony are much more beautiful out of the camera???



## skoobey (Mar 11, 2015)

Has anyone else noticed this? I don't think it has anything to do with the sensor detail, but rather the way images are processed in the camera itself.

I've been working on lots of different images lately, and I can tell for sure that for example D800 vs 5dIII, and it has nothing to do with resolution, the images from Nikon are "prettier:.

As a result, I have to make more conversions for Nikon, simply because detail get's lost in all that out of camera contrast. But, then once converted, there is much less work to be done in post production because files are already "more finished".

Have you noticed this?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 11, 2015)

skoobey said:


> Has anyone else noticed this? I don't think it has anything to do with the sensor detail, but rather the way images are processed in the camera itself.
> 
> I've been working on lots of different images lately, and I can tell for sure that for example D800 vs 5dIII, and it has nothing to do with resolution, the images from Nikon are "prettier:.
> 
> ...



Different people have different opinions on the subject. Since many photographers shoot in Raw, it does not matter much as to how out of the camera jpeg images look. Each camera can, after all, be adjusted for all those factors to produce images you like.

A Raw processor can also render images differently, DXO produces images that look good with little effort. That's good, because changing them seems to be more complex.


----------



## Zeidora (Mar 11, 2015)

That's an age old psychological phenomenon that more saturated colors are better liked than neutral ones. Back in film days, Agfachrome had some of the most neutral colors, meaning corresponding best with the colors of the real objects, while all others had much more saturated ones, Velvia being one of the heaviest ones. However, Agfa was a niche player, while everybody oohed and ahhed over Velvia. 

Same in digital land, only that now you can change saturation from one shot to the next by selecting different picture style. For the documentary photographer, the over-saturation is a serious problem, that is why I select neutral as my picture style. I can always tart it up in DxO, or PS (going into Lab to separate lightness from color intensity).


----------



## skoobey (Mar 11, 2015)

Maybe I'm posting this in the wrong forum.

I'm a professional retoucher, and I never work on JPEGS. Noone is looking at the JPEG on the shoot, they shoot tethered to Capture one. 

"pulling picture style" isn't doing anything. There are no picutre styles that will make it look similar.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 11, 2015)

skoobey said:


> Maybe I'm posting this in the wrong forum.
> 
> I'm a professional retoucher, and I never work on JPEGS. Noone is looking at the JPEG on the shoot, they shoot tethered to Capture one.
> 
> "pulling picture style" isn't doing anything. There are no picutre styles that will make it look similar.



So, Capture one renders Nikon RAW images differently from Canon images? That's not suprising, I've heard that it works well with Nikon images. 

However, I use Lightroom, and have set my import processing to use saturation, lighting, etc of my raw images to my personal taste. 

Raw processors just take raw data off the sensor, and convert it to a image. Its not like jpeg where its done in camera. A raw processor can do it anyway you like.


----------



## skoobey (Mar 11, 2015)

Capture One, Adobe Camera Raw/Lightrom, whatever engine you use to develop images, it's always the same.

Nikon is prettier, Canon has more dynamic range.


----------



## memoriaphoto (Mar 13, 2015)

skoobey said:


> Nikon is prettier, Canon has more dynamic range.



Now there's a quote for the history books ;D


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 13, 2015)

memoriaphoto said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon is prettier, Canon has more dynamic range.
> ...


Yes, I had to pick myself up off the floor after reading that one!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 14, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> memoriaphoto said:
> 
> 
> > skoobey said:
> ...



+1


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Mar 14, 2015)

skoobey said:


> Has anyone else noticed this? I don't think it has anything to do with the sensor detail, but rather the way images are processed in the camera itself.
> 
> I've been working on lots of different images lately, and I can tell for sure that for example D800 vs 5dIII, and it has nothing to do with resolution, the images from Nikon are "prettier:.
> 
> ...



Although they process into excellent images I have never (yet) been happy with the images straight from Nikon cameras, note I assume you are talking about RAW images. This is not to say that one is better than the other, merely that I prefer what comes straight from Canon Cameras to what the Nikon produce straight from the camera.
Attached is a RAW file, shot in "Standard" mode, it has been JPEGed and scaled - but no processing/sharpening.
I would be interested in your obsevations.


----------



## skoobey (Mar 15, 2015)

That is probably a Canon image. Notice the overall lack of contrast. Nikon likes to saturate it a bit and pump things up with contrast.


----------



## martti (Mar 15, 2015)

My Sony a6000 exaggerates blue while the 5DIII exaggerates red.
I read that at Sony they do this to give better sky colors. 
Talking about RAW here, of course, not .jpg.
I thought it was the Zeiss zoom but the pancake gave the same hue.
So I googled it up. It is the camera.
Is it more beautiful thatn the 5DIII color world? In my opinion, not really.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 15, 2015)

The problem you are noticing is the not very good ICC profiles Capture One make for each camera, in truth if the ICC profiles were any good every camera made would look exactly the same from a colour, WB and contrast perspective. This issue is exacerbated by Capture One only working with ICC camera profiles and the biggest profiling software options only creating DNG camera profiles. 

You need to make some of your own camera profiles and use those, but as a professional retoucher you know all this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAq88VeYcG4


----------



## martti (Mar 15, 2015)

As there is a free version of Capture One Express for Sony, I looked at it as well. As far as I can tell, there is very little difference in how the two render the Sony colors. Seeing colors is not only a technical or physiological thing, there is also a cultural aspect involved. You can easily see this when you compare magazine covers from different countries. 

One aspect is the color of light our eyes are used to. I live in tropic where colors are warm. When I go to the north, I see the difference...colors are colder, there is a lot less light and it has more blue in it. Another aspect is 'the way the things have always been' which can be quite frustrating.

Physics for photography is a bit like chemistry for cooking: Good for analysis and getting uniform results. 
But what is the correct amount of magenta in a picture or black pepper in a steak....


----------



## dak723 (Mar 15, 2015)

skoobey said:


> That is probably a Canon image. Notice the overall lack of contrast. Nikon likes to saturate it a bit and pump things up with contrast.



I have to believe that you are serious with this thread - but I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic. In my experience in comparing images from Canon and Nikon for over a dozen years, I would say quite the opposite. Canon images have always been high contrast with less Dynamic range. Their cameras seem to saturate more than Nikons as well. Certainly this is true of the JPGs. As far as RAW files, well, that will depend on which convertor you are using - and having tried 3 or 4, they definitely all produce slightly different results. That is my experience anyway.


----------



## TeT (Mar 15, 2015)

I have noticed that fresh out of camera Nikon and Canon images do look different. Mostly what I have noted is that the Nikon images are brighter...

It has been noted to me that there are other differences.

You are not alone in noting the differences, better is personal preference though and depends a lot upon the specific subject.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 15, 2015)

They look different because the camera companies want them to look different and most software companies try to replicate that 'look'.

Either your Nikon or Canon has to have a picture style attached to the RAW file, even if it a Neutral one, this doesn't impact the native RAW information but is applied to the embedded (in the RAW file) jpeg that is used for review on the camera, hence they look different on camera.

When you import to an Adobe product the default profile is an Adobe generated generalization that honours the time tested manufacturers biases. If you want to change that then just go to the Camera Calibration tab and you will see the same Picture Style options you get in camera, alternatively you can create your own, accurate, DNG based custom camera profiles and apply those to the RAW file, or any group of RAW files.

If you make custom profiles for both Nikon and Canon cameras then the base rendering is identical, there is no intrinsic difference between Canon and Nikon RAW data, even though the Bayer array filters are quite different both manufacturers can produce colour accurate renditions.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Mar 15, 2015)

skoobey said:


> That is probably a Canon image. Notice the overall lack of contrast. Nikon likes to saturate it a bit and pump things up with contrast.



"Notice the overall lack of contrast" were you standing behind me? As memory serves the contrast/saturation is about right, I am not saying perfect but very close to what I saw. I thought the EXIF would be intact, but for reference this was shot on a 1DX + Canon 800mm F5.6 L IS. Would a Nikon have been better - I doubt it, simply because the last 2 Nikon cameras that I tried (D800E and D4), both on a 500 F4 VR were a bit slow to respond compared to what I am used to.


----------



## Hillsilly (Mar 16, 2015)

skoobey said:


> That is probably a Canon image. Notice the overall lack of contrast. Nikon likes to saturate it a bit and pump things up with contrast.


To me, the image looks fine - I don't think I'd want to add more contrast. That's probably why I prefer Canon.


----------



## wyldeguy (Mar 16, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > That is probably a Canon image. Notice the overall lack of contrast. Nikon likes to saturate it a bit and pump things up with contrast.
> ...



It almost reads like he's using saturate and contrast interchangeably. I agree that the image looked fine. I am a canon user so there could be biase there. I will give him that he did call what camera it came from but then again he had a 50/50 chance.


----------

