Skin colour in 24MP DX cameras

Started Jun 14, 2013 | Discussions thread
brownie314
Contributing MemberPosts: 665
Like?
Re: Use a CCD based camera for portraits
In reply to Deleted-pending, Jun 19, 2013

FTH wrote:

brownie314 wrote:

d3xmeister wrote:

Nikon jpegs and Adobe conversion have these problems with skin tones. And not only skin tones. Compare a Nikon raw with a Canon raw in ACR, Canon raw looks more detailed, better micro contrast, it just looks much better in every way.

As a Nikon guy I am lucky enough to use a Macintosh, and Apple Aperture is just amazing at rendering my nef files. Skin tones and colors look gorgeous right out of the box.

So no, there is no sensor problem, it's just a raw processing problem in nikon jpegs and ACR.

For those on Windows,, I would give a try to Capture One Pro, DxO Optics and others, haven't tested them but I bet they do a much better job.

P.S. I don't know why but it looks to me the D7100 has the best skin tones I have ever seen, better than even the FF cameras. Maybe I am wrong but that's how it looks to me.

Well, I only shoot raw and I use Capture NX2 and view NX2. So if those programs have problems with raw conversions, then we all might as well give up (after all what other programs would have more access to how the nef files should be read and rendered). I was an avid light room user when I shot Canon but after I switched to the d7000 it took so much time to get the files to not look like a$$ that I switched to capture nx and view nx and have never looked back. Overall, capture and view are very good at raw conversions, it is just that nagging skin tone issue that bites.

I dont know where you found out that Canon has better skin tones and better micro contrast, this is just false. First, details depend from 3 things : AA filter on the sensor (generally very thick on Canons, they are known for this issue), lens sharpness, and raw processing software. In this regard, Capture NX is a fantastic (but slowish) tool. I used to shoot Canon and processing properly RAW files was a pure nightmare, neither ACR, Capture one, DXO or lightroom was able to offer quick corrections regarding CA or distortion, they either had one that worked and the other that didn't correct the other well. The free canon soft is a piece of junk too... I was actually quite surprised with the free RAW converter from Panasonic that offers tons of options and is fully customizable with a great interface. But, definitively, Nikon is offering a way better Hardware to software implementation than Canon.

FTH: was that to me? I didn't say anything about microcontrast. As far as skin tones, it is personal experience. Having shot Canon extensively and now Nikon and comparing the two. Canon has it's problems too, sometimes being too cool. But overall, the look of skin was a little more pleasing to me. As far as my experience with skin tones being true or false - I don't think that statement even makes sense because I am talking about my experience with Canon and Nikon and how the skin tones appear to ME. So I don't think you can make a true/false claim on that.

By the way, I am not trashing Nikon, or the D7000.  The D7000 is overall, a wonderful piece of equipment and I would not go back to Canon.  I am just saying that it is hard, under some fairly common lighting conditions to get good looking skin tones.  Harder than it was with Canon.  Just my personal experience.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow