Fujifying icky Canon color

CAcreeks · May 13, 2016

I was reviewing some pictures taken with my old Canon SD800 (hated it!) and decided to try improving one image.

Here are the before and after results of the VelviaFX script for GIMP, available at silicosaur.hu/photofx.

icky Canon color

as modified by VelviaFX

Bill D F · May 14, 2016

Glad to see someone else who feels that Canon colors are not so great. I got rid of my Canon DSLR a few years back after having it for only a couple of months. I found the colors cold and dull. I bought into all the hype that seems to make Canon such a popular choice, but I was disappointed. I couldn't understand why it was so popular. I already had a Fujifilm S602Z, and my interests lean toward landscapes, flowers, gardens, and such, and I loved the Fuji colors. Accuracy in flower color was important, because I post on gardening websites. After I got rid of the Canon, I tried a friend's Nikon DLSR, and while the results were much better, when I saw the X-S1 come along, it was the opportunity to make my life easier by carrying one camera with me, instead of the body and all the lenses, etc. of a DSLR. I am very pleased with my choice. Oh, and I had bought an X20, but I got rid of that in a week. Too small for one thing, and I didn't like twisting the lens to turn it on and off. I thought that was unnecessary and put undue strain on what should be a precise optical component. I wasn't pleased with the detail areas of the images either. I thought details were muddy, and I've seen post by others here who thought the same. The only thing I might want on the X-S1 would be GPS, but then again I can always add a voice memo here and there with my location information.

DavidMillier · May 14, 2016

Well, I'm a Fuji rather than canon man these days, but the images posted by the OP seem to show the opposite if he thinks the second shot simulates fuji colour. The original is fairly warm and naturalistic, the processed version cold and sterile.

But I recognise that colour is really all about personal taste and that processing can change it more or less to anything you want.

Bill Ferrante said:
Glad to see someone else who feels that Canon colors are not so great. I got rid of my Canon DSLR a few years back after having it for only a couple of months. I found the colors cold and dull. I bought into all the hype that seems to make Canon such a popular choice, but I was disappointed. I couldn't understand why it was so popular. I already had a Fujifilm S602Z, and my interests lean toward landscapes, flowers, gardens, and such, and I loved the Fuji colors. Accuracy in flower color was important, because I post on gardening websites. After I got rid of the Canon, I tried a friend's Nikon DLSR, and while the results were much better, when I saw the X-S1 come along, it was the opportunity to make my life easier by carrying one camera with me, instead of the body and all the lenses, etc. of a DSLR. I am very pleased with my choice. Oh, and I had bought an X20, but I got rid of that in a week. Too small for one thing, and I didn't like twisting the lens to turn it on and off. I thought that was unnecessary and put undue strain on what should be a precise optical component. I wasn't pleased with the detail areas of the images either. I thought details were muddy, and I've seen post by others here who thought the same. The only thing I might want on the X-S1 would be GPS, but then again I can always add a voice memo here and there with my location information.

John McCormack · May 14, 2016

I took a crack at the original image with two free emulation programs. This first one is done with the online analog film-emulator - https://29a.ch/film-emulator/ - using their "Generic Velvet 100 (Velvia?) simulation with no options added.

This second emulation is done with the now free Nik software Color Efex Pro 4. I used the Nature mode called Brilliance/Warmth with +25 for warmth and saturation. I'm not happy with this one; it looks drab and flat I think even with +25.

Just throwing these out there as possible options.

prime · May 14, 2016

CAcreeks wrote:

CAcreeks said:
I was reviewing some pictures taken with my old Canon SD800 (hated it!) and decided to try improving one image.

as modified by VelviaFX

Sorry, but my personal opinion is that the VelviaFX modification is not an improvement. The rocks at right are a little too purplish and the different shades of the granite are not well separated.

Lacking an original scene with which to compare, here is a back of the envelope essay of how I should have processed the GIMP image using Aperture:

Increased exposure, decreased brightness, separated colors, increased mid-contrast, warmed color temperature

The reflection in the stream in the foreground of the cliffs at right, relative to the reflection of the sky at left, were my reference points. In the VelviaFX PP, both are almost the same blue hue, whereas in the Aperture PP, the reflections are very different colors.

prime · May 14, 2016

John McCormack wrote:

John McCormack said:
I took a crack at the original image with two free emulation programs. This first one is done with the online analog film-emulator - https://29a.ch/film-emulator/ - using their "Generic Velvet 100 (Velvia?) simulation with no options added.

The first McCormack image (above) has versimilitude to my eyes; good job! The second (Nik) image, not so much; the reflection of the blue sky in the water in the Nik-processed image is muddy, as I see it.

DavidMillier · May 15, 2016

Looks good to me.

prime said:
CAcreeks wrote:

prime said:

I was reviewing some pictures taken with my old Canon SD800 (hated it!) and decided to try improving one image.

as modified by VelviaFX

Click to expand...

Sorry, but my personal opinion is that the VelviaFX modification is not an improvement. The rocks at right are a little too purplish and the different shades of the granite are not well separated.

Lacking an original scene with which to compare, here is a back of the envelope essay of how I should have processed the GIMP image using Aperture:

Increased exposure, decreased brightness, separated colors, increased mid-contrast, warmed color temperature

The reflection in the stream in the foreground of the cliffs at right, relative to the reflection of the sky at left, were my reference points. In the VelviaFX PP, both are almost the same blue hue, whereas in the Aperture PP, the reflections are very different colors.

--
"...while I am tempted to bludgeon you, I would rather have you come away with an improved understanding of how these sensors work" ---- Eric Fossum
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/

dennis tennis · May 15, 2016

DMillier said:
Well, I'm a Fuji rather than canon man these days, but the images posted by the OP seem to show the opposite if he thinks the second shot simulates fuji colour. The original is fairly warm and naturalistic, the processed version cold and sterile.

But I recognise that colour is really all about personal taste and that processing can change it more or less to anything you want.

Bill Ferrante said:

Glad to see someone else who feels that Canon colors are not so great. I got rid of my Canon DSLR a few years back after having it for only a couple of months. I found the colors cold and dull. I bought into all the hype that seems to make Canon such a popular choice, but I was disappointed. I couldn't understand why it was so popular. I already had a Fujifilm S602Z, and my interests lean toward landscapes, flowers, gardens, and such, and I loved the Fuji colors. Accuracy in flower color was important, because I post on gardening websites. After I got rid of the Canon, I tried a friend's Nikon DLSR, and while the results were much better, when I saw the X-S1 come along, it was the opportunity to make my life easier by carrying one camera with me, instead of the body and all the lenses, etc. of a DSLR. I am very pleased with my choice. Oh, and I had bought an X20, but I got rid of that in a week. Too small for one thing, and I didn't like twisting the lens to turn it on and off. I thought that was unnecessary and put undue strain on what should be a precise optical component. I wasn't pleased with the detail areas of the images either. I thought details were muddy, and I've seen post by others here who thought the same. The only thing I might want on the X-S1 would be GPS, but then again I can always add a voice memo here and there with my location information.

Click to expand...

CAcreeks · May 15, 2016

DMillier said:
Well, I'm a Fuji rather than canon man these days, but the images posted by the OP seem to show the opposite if he thinks the second shot simulates fuji colour. The original is fairly warm and naturalistic, the processed version cold and sterile.

I just kayaked past this samd spot yesterday, and noticed that the Canon color was far too yellow. The cliff is blue-gray, not tan.

DavidMillier said:
But I recognise that colour is really all about personal taste and that processing can change it more or less to anything you want.

There is a ProviaFX plug-in as well. I like it better than VelviaFX for lower contrast, but still great blue sky. The Canon sky looks like pollution has engulfed the scene.

CAcreeks · May 15, 2016

John McCormack said:
I took a crack at the original image with two free emulation programs. This first one is done with the online analog film-emulator - https://29a.ch/film-emulator/ - using their "Generic Velvet 100 (Velvia?) simulation with no options added.

I like this one, John! Thanks for the edit. The principal downside compared to the VelviaFX I posted is that the water has less flow texture.

The second looked like Silkypix or something. (!)

CAcreeks · May 15, 2016

Thanks prime, the sky is much improved from Canon haze.

The cliffs are not that yellow, but they look fine to someone not familiar with the spot.

prime said:
Sorry, but my personal opinion is that the VelviaFX modification is not an improvement. The rocks at right are a little too purplish and the different shades of the granite are not well separated.

Lacking an original scene with which to compare, here is a back of the envelope essay of how I should have processed the GIMP image using Aperture:

Increased exposure, decreased brightness, separated colors, increased mid-contrast, warmed color temperature

The reflection in the stream in the foreground of the cliffs at right, relative to the reflection of the sky at left, were my reference points. In the VelviaFX PP, both are almost the same blue hue, whereas in the Aperture PP, the reflections are very different colors.

prime · May 16, 2016

CAcreeks wrote:

Thanks prime said:
1356359[/ATTACH]
Color temperature reduced from 5500˚ K to 4760˚K.

CAcreeks said:

prime, post: 57772674, member: 700823"]
Lacking an original scene with which to compare, here is a back of the envelope essay of how I should have processed the GIMP image using Aperture:

Increased exposure, decreased brightness, separated colors, increased mid-contrast, warmed color temperature to 5500˚ K.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Ben Herrmann · May 16, 2016

...personal thing, and no two folks can agree (well, for the most part). As you may or may not know, different brands of cameras tend to render colors a bit differently. Of course, when you look at an individual image of the same scene (without comparisons), we tend to enjoy the photo for the most part. It's only when you begin to compare the same image and scene taken with different brand cameras that you come to realize that the color tonalities are seemingly different - in some cases very minor, while in other cases quite noticeable (i.e. warmer or cooler). And this is where preferences come into play.

For me, I enjoy the color tonality of Fuji, Olympus...and yes, Canon. On the Canon side of the house I shoot with the EOS M, M2, and M3 and I've really come to enjoy the color output of these cameras. On the Micro 43 side of the house I shoot with a variety of Olympus and Panasonic models. On the Samsung NX side of the house, I use the NX300, NX30, and NX500. And of course, I shoot heavily with Fuji also. I shoot in RAW only (with any of the cameras I use). I find that for skin tones, Fuji, Oly, and Canon do a great job - again, a personal preference. Whereas skin tones are not handled very well with the likes of the Samsung NX system or with Panasonic cameras. Now for scenics, I enjoy shooting with Samsung NX and with the Panny micro 4/3 cameras. Currently, I'm not shooting with Nikon, although they have some wonderful cameras.

But I don't get involved in arguments over color tonality as it's very subjective - although in some cases some JPG's (from some Fuji and Canon cameras) can have reds that look more orange - yet when shot in RAW mode, the reds look like reds - now go figure.

--
Semper Fidelis...
Bernd (Ben) W. Herrmann
North Carolina, USA

CAcreeks · May 16, 2016

Ben Herrmann said:
But I don't get involved in arguments over color tonality as it's very subjective - although in some cases some JPG's (from some Fuji and Canon cameras) can have reds that look more orange - yet when shot in RAW mode, the reds look like reds - now go figure.

I wasn't really trying to argue - I was just sharing my excitement at the GIMP plug-in I had recently discovered.

Ben, if you always shoot Raw, why does camera brand matter? You can make the results look any way you want.

dennis tennis · May 16, 2016

Our sense of color varies due to the physical differences in our eyes. On top of this, our perception of the visual signals are unique for each of us. So, we don't "perceive" color the same. Similarly, we don't taste the same, hear the same, feel the same. Hence, claiming that one system has "better color" is more a statement of how we see the world than a statement about us than about a system.

If a camera could produce perfect

Ben Herrmann · May 16, 2016

...allows quite a bit of latitude, I've found that the base rendering of colors doesn't change much. Sure you can add punch and hue differences, but I've never fully been able to replicate a certain look. What I look for in images is "accuracy" if that's a way to put it. I want an image to draw me in - to give me the palpable feeling of being.

And sorry, I shouldn't of used the word "arguing," as that's really not what I wanted to get across.

DavidMillier · May 16, 2016

I'm not sure that is true exactly. If I use Lightroom as an example - LR processes RAW files into RGB files using profiles. Adobe test new cameras and produce a profile to yield a certain look to files. For some cameras they produce multiple profiles and thus multiple 'looks' (check out the camera calibration tab for available profiles.

These profiles work by mapping raw values to specific RGB values. In effect, with RAW, the entire colour look is manufactured by Adobe's profile. If you have a colour patch chart you can use a profile editor to make your own profiles and your own looks, including for specific lighting conditions. These editors also deal with varying the look to handle different colour balances and allow you to map contrast and sharpness as well as colour.

With these profiles you can make any raw files look like just about anything you want - and that's before you start playing with the editing controls to alter any individual file to your taste.

Probably the only limitation to complete flexibility is the nature of the colour filters used in the sensor. These are responsible for producing the starting raw values and by tweaking these it may be possible that some sensors produced innately different raw values for the same subject and lighting.

It can be very interesting to produce your own raw colour profiles by hand editing the palette as well as using the automated features of the profile editors. That way you can create deviations from the expected colour. People have done this to produce film emulation profiles that can simulate say a Kodachrome or Velvia look (not always successfully in my opinion!). I made extensive use of profile editing to correct the colour on my older Sigma Foveon cameras as I didn't like the native colour that much. In particular removing my SD9's excessive yellow component to grass under warm light.

Ben Herrmann said:
...allows quite a bit of latitude, I've found that the base rendering of colors doesn't change much. Sure you can add punch and hue differences, but I've never fully been able to replicate a certain look. What I look for in images is "accuracy" if that's a way to put it. I want an image to draw me in - to give me the palpable feeling of being.

And sorry, I shouldn't of used the word "arguing," as that's really not what I wanted to get across.

CAcreeks · May 16, 2016

dennis tennis said:
Our sense of color varies due to the physical differences in our eyes. On top of this, our perception of the visual signals are unique for each of us. So, we don't "perceive" color the same. Similarly, we don't taste the same, hear the same, feel the same. Hence, claiming that one system has "better color" is more a statement of how we see the world than a statement about us than about a system.

That seems like a cop-out.

If I take a picture with my camera and display it on a color accurate sRGB monitor, it should come close to matching the actual colors of the scene.

Not to bash Canon much longer, but I've seen reds that appear as orange, and of course the overly yellow rendition of the scene I posted above.

dennis tennis · May 16, 2016

CAcreeks said:
dennis tennis said:

Our sense of color varies due to the physical differences in our eyes. On top of this, our perception of the visual signals are unique for each of us. So, we don't "perceive" color the same. Similarly, we don't taste the same, hear the same, feel the same. Hence, claiming that one system has "better color" is more a statement of how we see the world than a statement about us than about a system.

Click to expand...

That seems like a cop-out.

If I take a picture with my camera and display it on a color accurate sRGB monitor, it should come close to matching the actual colors of the scene.

Not to bash Canon much longer, but I've seen reds that appear as orange, and of course the overly yellow rendition of the scene I posted above.

Before you start accusing me of copping out, why don't you exercise your brain and read up on the research. BTW, some of the best minds in the world have been studying this we all perceive color differently. Maybe you belive your perception is the "standard" and we all strive to "be like you"? Self centered much?

prime · May 16, 2016

dennis tennis wrote:

dennis tennis said:
Before you start accusing me of copping out, why don't you exercise your brain and read up on the research. BTW, some of the best minds in the world have been studying this we all perceive color differently. Maybe you belive your perception is the "standard" and we all strive to "be like you"? Self centered much?

That took a quick ugly turn, didn't it? Fortunately, there is some nice cold glacier-melt water in the foreground of the image in question . . .

Fujifying icky Canon color

Forum Pro

Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Attachments

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts