Just perception or real re quality, Canon vs Nikon

Started Sep 26, 2012 | Discussions thread
OP Scrozzy Regular Member • Posts: 211
Re: Monitors

I agree she's pinker than normal there, but this is in the cold, and people go pinker in low temperatures. But would you agree that while it might not have what you consider to be realism, it is more flattering?

Great British Landscapes wrote:

Genuinely - there is nothing natural looking about the skin tone in your image to me. It's like someone applied a cherry red cast to her face - people just don't have "pink" skin. If this is what you're used to, and like, good luck to you If you shoot RAW all day like I do you'll make it look closer to reality than that.

Scrozzy wrote:

Hmm. Just took a Galaxy S and an iPad 2 into my back garden where it's now pitch black, and the skin still looks odd to me.

Here's one of my brat taken last year. It just has a pinker, peachier and punchier looking skin in my opinion. When you compare, do you not think that Nikon shot looks dreary? I know I'm not being scientific, but I keep feeling I'm seeing it over and over again.

sandy b wrote:

I would check out your monitors. I use a calibrated monitor here at work, desktop publishing, and can quite assure you that child does not look ill. Showed it to several of my colleagues, and they think the shot is very good with good color. BTW, the shot were discussing is obviously not mine.

 Scrozzy's gear list:Scrozzy's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 450D Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow