40D colors drab?

[Andreq]

Took 2 shots each with my compact cam S5IS and a 40D. Both images in jpg.

(Wish I could post them here but I was just playing around so deleted them already.)

I noticed the S5IS's colors were more vibrant and saturated, the color of the grass especially appears a nice green.

The 40D on the other hand, produces color of grass which is less saturated. A lighter "boring" green. The Color setting on the camera was set to Standard.

Has anyone experienced something like dat?

On another occasion, I was out on a photoshoot with a group of people. I also noticed that color of skies taken with a Nikon D80 appeared an attractive saturated blue on the LCD screen. But on the Canon 20D, the color appears light blue. More bland. Is it due to the LCD screen or do colors from Nikon appear more vibrant?

[flipfreak]

canon dlsrs tend to have more neutral to cooler tones compared to nikon.

[Andreq]

yah! Oh... That's what I am now suspecting.

But it's too neutral I find. I like the colors that I saw on the Nikon LCD screen.

Another guy and I were going like "Wow...." when we saw another person's Nikon D80. No matter how we adjusted the exposure, the sky color on our Canon LCD screen appears lighter, less punchy. But the Nikon user's one was a really nice deep blue one.

Like as if he was using a polariser filter and we didn't! But that wasn't the case at all....

[doodah]

Originally Posted by flipfreak canon dlsrs tend to have more neutral to cooler tones compared to nikon.

Yup. In fact, Canon DSLR colors are neutral (or more precisely, ACCURATE) compared to ALL other brands: Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Sony. You can verify this by looking at the Imatest results at Imaging Resource. I've shown this to some Nikon folks in the past, and they responded with their middle finger.

Another thing: Nikon shots also appear more saturated on the camera LCD, but can be different when downloaded onto the computer.

Canon DSLRs also have more neutral colors compared to their own compact cameras.

It's a matter of taste whether you like accurate colors or not.

You can however bump up the saturation and contrast in the camera.

Personally, I prefer to have neutral colors first and then boost them selectively in post-processing.

Choice is yours.

[flipfreak]

Originally Posted by Andreq yah! Oh... That's what I am now suspecting. But it's too neutral I find. I like the colors that I saw on the Nikon LCD screen. Another guy and I were going like "Wow...." when we saw another person's Nikon D80. No matter how we adjusted the exposure, the sky color on our Canon LCD screen appears lighter, less punchy. But the Nikon user's one was a really nice deep blue one. Like as if he was using a polariser filter and we didn't! But that wasn't the case at all....

personal preference i guess. if u prefer colors from nikon cameras then i think go for it!!!

[calebk]

It seems the punchy Nikon colours stop at the D80 level. D300 has very neutral output, very similar in colour response to my 30D, a 20D I used for a few days, and a 40D that I tried for a few hours.

[Jupiter]

Canon's colours are accurate, or rather way too accurate for my taste. If u bump up the saturation, the pics will look very saturated in an awful way, dunno how to describe...something like applying thick poster colour on the photo. Whereas Nikon pics are nicely saturated and most importantly, vibrant.

[syl]

Interesting comments. I'm a Canon user and I find my 5D colours have always seem muted. Now I know why. Thanks to all of you!

[doodah]

Should also point out something. If you're shooting RAW, you can throw all these arguments out of the window. The output color then depends on the RAW converter used.

The same goes for white balancing.

[Russ]

Why do you think so many pros use Canon DSLRs?
Why do you think the D300/D3 is now more neutral?
Because eventually, you will find it much more "real".

When I first switched from a G2 to a 300D, I thought, gosh, DEAD colours from the 300D. Then I realised part of this was the kit lens (cos the 50mm was much nicer) and part of it was just oversaturation of the G2. Now I look back at the old G2 photos and say "yuck, so unnatural".

Audiophiles will know what I mean. When I bring somebody who has no experience in audio to a real audio shop and listen to a $10,000 set up, they usually say "how come no bass?" - cos their ears have been trained that good sound = exaggerated, boosted up artificial boom. It is the same with digital imagery.

BTW, never judge from LCDs on any cam - they are usually inaccurate.

[mervinb]

Originally Posted by Russ Why do you think so many pros use Canon DSLRs? Why do you think the D300/D3 is now more neutral? Because eventually, you will find it much more "real".

Yes. I chatted with a pro just a few days ago. He was using a D300, and when I mentioned 40D his commented "great value!!" and "great colours".

Quote: Audiophiles will know what I mean. When I bring somebody who has no experience in audio to a real audio shop and listen to a $10,000 set up, they usually say "how come no bass?" - cos their ears have been trained that good sound = exaggerated, boosted up artificial boom. It is the same with digital imagery.

Ahem.... I might disagree just a little here. No boom - yes, but when a casual listens to a properly set up system, there will be lot's of quality bass. Not boom, but solid, clean bass with little overhang.

[engrmariano]

Originally Posted by Andreq yah! Oh... That's what I am now suspecting. But it's too neutral I find. I like the colors that I saw on the Nikon LCD screen. Another guy and I were going like "Wow...." when we saw another person's Nikon D80. No matter how we adjusted the exposure, the sky color on our Canon LCD screen appears lighter, less punchy. But the Nikon user's one was a really nice deep blue one. Like as if he was using a polariser filter and we didn't! But that wasn't the case at all....

i have exactly the same situation with this. a fellow CS member whos using D80. when i compared pictures taken with my 40D, i feel shy to show to him coz my 40D's lcd images is not as vibrant as his D80.

now i know why. thanks for the info.

[Andreq]

oh so i now know. was afraid i'd be accused of starting another Canon- Nikon war.

But I must say I tend to prefer the saturated colors part, though it may not be exactly accurate. After all, in photography, the word "accurate" holds little meaning since usually, the whole idea to touch up a photo in Photoshop is to make it pleasing, not always accurate. In fact, I find accurate can be boring or uninteresting. Landscape and Wedding photographers know this best!

I can understand if the drab colors from Canon comes about cos of the saturation is adjusted to low or lowest. But I was already using the "Standard" color setting.

But won't change my Canon lah. Do wish the colors can be a bit punchier though.

[Andreq]

Originally Posted by mervinb Ahem.... I might disagree just a little here. No boom - yes, but when a casual listens to a properly set up system, there will be lot's of quality bass. Not boom, but solid, clean bass with little overhang.

Just OT a bit...

Yah, that's true. If the system costs a hefty $10k, and an amateur can't appreciate the bass at all, then the system isn't doing its job. Just my thots...

[KangS]

Originally Posted by Andreq Took 2 shots each with my compact cam S5IS and a 40D. Both images in jpg. (Wish I could post them here but I was just playing around so deleted them already.) I noticed the S5IS's colors were more vibrant and saturated, the color of the grass especially appears a nice green. The 40D on the other hand, produces color of grass which is less saturated. A lighter "boring" green. The Color setting on the camera was set to Standard. Has anyone experienced something like dat? On another occasion, I was out on a photoshoot with a group of people. I also noticed that color of skies taken with a Nikon D80 appeared an attractive saturated blue on the LCD screen. But on the Canon 20D, the color appears light blue. More bland. Is it due to the LCD screen or do colors from Nikon appear more vibrant?

If you've shot in film before, you'll observe that the colours are very close to what you get in film.

If you prefer the 'rich ' colours that you see in Nikon, just shoot in RAW.
Set your 'Picture Style' to 'Custom', change your slider
"Saturation" to '+1' or '+2',
"Sharpness" to '7',
"Contrast" to '+1',

Then play with the white balance in DPP. You'll see that the 'richness' can be achieved too, but sometimes it varies too far off the norm as you see in many of your friends photos if you overdo it. Usually, I would prefer a more 'natural' look unless I want to portray a certain mood or to simply extract out the most detail in a picture.

Its really about preferences.

[Snappa]

Originally Posted by KangS If you've shot in film before, you'll observe that the colours are very close to what you get in film. If you prefer the 'rich ' colours that you see in Nikon, just shoot in RAW. Set your 'Picture Style' to 'Custom', change your slider "Saturation" to '+1' or '+2', "Sharpness" to '7', "Contrast" to '+1', Then play with the white balance in DPP. You'll see that the 'richness' can be achieved too, but sometimes it varies too far off the norm as you see in many of your friends photos if you overdo it. Usually, I would prefer a more 'natural' look unless I want to portray a certain mood or to simply extract out the most detail in a picture. Its really about preferences.

Doesn't setting it to RAW bypass all the in-camera processing/settings?

[mismis]

PnS cameras tend to do in-camera image processing, so if you compare photos from a slr and a Pns, the pns images will have more vibrant and saturated colors.

[calebk]

Originally Posted by Snappa Doesn't setting it to RAW bypass all the in-camera processing/settings?

It doesn't bypass per se. What happens is the camera will apply those picture style settings, but you still have the option to redo them in Digital Photo Professional. As far as I'm aware, only DPP allows you to change PictStyle settings after shooting with RAW. Other RAW convertors will not allow you to do so.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Andreq Just OT a bit... Yah, that's true. If the system costs a hefty $10k, and an amateur can't appreciate the bass at all, then the system isn't doing its job. Just my thots...

10K is not hefty at all - some speaker cables cost more than that. Let's put it this way, natural tight bass, like from a bass drum is difficult to reproduce and what cheaper systems do is to just blast the bass VOLUME to impress. Those who get used to that think that the expensive systems are no good cos it does try to produce the sounds as it was recorded. Problem is that many people have never paid attention to how instruments are supposed to sound naturally.

The aim of audiophiles is to produce the sound as if the musicians were there playing in front of you.

For me, I want the photos to capture the scene just like it was when I shot the photo. I do not want the camera to show it more vividly than what I saw - call it my audiophile background (I have been taking photos and playing with audio systems for the last 30 years) but that is what I want.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by mervinb Ahem.... I might disagree just a little here. No boom - yes, but when a casual listens to a properly set up system, there will be lot's of quality bass. Not boom, but solid, clean bass with little overhang.

Believe me, not everyone knows how to appreciate quality bass until you show them, explain to them and then ask them to listen to a live performance. Then they make the connection - "AAH, that is what you mean - it sounds life-like!".

I once was at SLS and there was somebody listening to a system and he kept saying "not enough bass" - there was already far too much IMO, so the shop guy swapped to a cheaper amp with lots of buttons and speakers to one with a 15 inch woofer and then used an equaliser, boosted the bass to max on the amp, pushed the equaliser bass settings to max and turned the volume up high. And the customer said "still not enough".... all I heard was obscene unreal overboosted bass.... seriously, many don't know what good bass is.

And I think not everybody can tell oversaturated colours. When colours are natural, you look at the photo and the subject and appreciate it. When the colours are overdone, you suddenly think about the camera.. again it is like audio - a good system dissappears and all you can focus on the music and not how it sounds.