Reading mode: Light Dark

Does your camera system really matter for colour?

Go to last post
Spaceman88

Spaceman88

New member
Messages
8
Reaction score
5
Hello,

I really, really love vivid, lively colours in my pictures. I do not want "accurate" colours, I want pictures that grab your attention because of how colourful, bright and sharp they are.

Now that is generally up to what you choose to photograph, light conditions, ISO/shutter speed and so on.

But are there camera systems that produce more "alive", vivid colours than others? or are all systems more or less the same? do camera bodies even play a role in it or is it mainly the lenses? and if so, which brands?

I often hear how fuji or leica or canon have distinctive image quality for example. I have noticed many images which look amazing and most of them are plain Nikon or Canon. Nothing "exciting" or exotic really in the gear that was used. But perhaps I am wrong and some systems really do produce better quality, better colour images.

Discuss.
 
If you are shooting jpegs, you can adjust the color output in camera, usually both by changing the settings in the jpeg engine itself and/or by applying a style or film simulation on top of the deeper settings.

And you can always adjust the color in post processing-- changes to saturation, vibrance and contrast can "jack up" the color on any shot.

Back in the day, when shooting film, we sometimes would underexpose slightly to boost color saturation. This still works.
 
"system color" = JPG/OOC

RAW + PP = system doesn't matter
 
Most cameras will allow you to adjust the results with something like a 'vivid' setting, and often various others.

Shoot raw and you can adjust as much or as little as you like.

My first DSLR - about 12 years ago - was an Olympus. At that time there was a lot of talk on these forums about 'Olympus blue'. I thought it was nonsense then, and I'm still not convinced.
 
Spaceman88 said:
But perhaps I am wrong and some systems really do produce better quality, better colour images.
Click to expand...
If you stick with the camera's default JPG settings (which many casual shooters do), then there are most definitely differences.

It's true that all cameras have an in-camera "vivid" setting somewhere. But you have to take the camera away from Auto and the Scene modes to use this. It's my view that Fuji and Olympus let you finesse these JPG settings better than the other brands.

Of course these JPG differences are moot for RAW files.

Kelly Cook
 
Last edited:
Spaceman88 said:
Hello,

I really, really love vivid, lively colours in my pictures. I do not want "accurate" colours, I want pictures that grab your attention because of how colourful, bright and sharp they are.

Now that is generally up to what you choose to photograph, light conditions, ISO/shutter speed and so on.

But are there camera systems that produce more "alive", vivid colours than others? or are all systems more or less the same? do camera bodies even play a role in it or is it mainly the lenses? and if so, which brands?

I often hear how fuji or leica or canon have distinctive image quality for example. I have noticed many images which look amazing and most of them are plain Nikon or Canon. Nothing "exciting" or exotic really in the gear that was used. But perhaps I am wrong and some systems really do produce better quality, better colour images.

Discuss.
Click to expand...
Sure, different systems on default settings have different photo characteristic.

What it seems you want though is a system that allows you to easily create photos that are your own with a unique blend of characteristics.

Look into the Nikon Picture Control system, included in their DSLRs, and see if that's appealing to you.
 
Obviously post processing will allow almost infinite color, contrast or saturation level from any camera brand.

For what is worth, Nikons traditionally create a more natural or cooler rendition out of camera; Canons generally have out of camera jpegs that a bit warmer.
 
Bobthearch said:
Spaceman88 said:
Hello,

I really, really love vivid, lively colours in my pictures. I do not want "accurate" colours, I want pictures that grab your attention because of how colourful, bright and sharp they are.

Now that is generally up to what you choose to photograph, light conditions, ISO/shutter speed and so on.

But are there camera systems that produce more "alive", vivid colours than others? or are all systems more or less the same? do camera bodies even play a role in it or is it mainly the lenses? and if so, which brands?

I often hear how fuji or leica or canon have distinctive image quality for example. I have noticed many images which look amazing and most of them are plain Nikon or Canon. Nothing "exciting" or exotic really in the gear that was used. But perhaps I am wrong and some systems really do produce better quality, better colour images.

Discuss.
Click to expand...
Sure, different systems on default settings have different photo characteristic.

What it seems you want though is a system that allows you to easily create photos that are your own with a unique blend of characteristics.

Look into the Nikon Picture Control system, included in their DSLRs, and see if that's appealing to you.
Click to expand...
You can edit Nikon PCs either with a downloadable app, or by using this website , which is pretty self-explanatory (pick a photo, there's an array of PCs to choose; see what each does).

For post processing, DxO PhotoLab lets you pick what camera you want a photo to appear to be from, plus save profiles and use those against all your photos, makes getting JPEGs from RAW very, very easy.

Bobthearch said:
--
Personal non-commercial websites with no ads or tracking:
Local photography: http://ratonphotos.com/
Travel and photography: http://placesandpics.com/
Special-interest photos: http://ghosttowns.placesandpics.com/
Click to expand...
 
bobkoure said:
Bobthearch said:
Spaceman88 said:
Hello,

I really, really love vivid, lively colours in my pictures. I do not want "accurate" colours, I want pictures that grab your attention because of how colourful, bright and sharp they are.

Now that is generally up to what you choose to photograph, light conditions, ISO/shutter speed and so on.

But are there camera systems that produce more "alive", vivid colours than others? or are all systems more or less the same? do camera bodies even play a role in it or is it mainly the lenses? and if so, which brands?

I often hear how fuji or leica or canon have distinctive image quality for example. I have noticed many images which look amazing and most of them are plain Nikon or Canon. Nothing "exciting" or exotic really in the gear that was used. But perhaps I am wrong and some systems really do produce better quality, better colour images.

Discuss.
Click to expand...
Sure, different systems on default settings have different photo characteristic.

What it seems you want though is a system that allows you to easily create photos that are your own with a unique blend of characteristics.

Look into the Nikon Picture Control system, included in their DSLRs, and see if that's appealing to you.
Click to expand...
You can edit Nikon PCs either with a downloadable app, or by using this website , which is pretty self-explanatory (pick a photo, there's an array of PCs to choose; see what each does).
Click to expand...
I've seen that before but haven't applied it to any of my photos; I normally shoot on Landscape and then adjust the parameters later as needed.
bobkoure said:
For post processing, DxO PhotoLab lets you pick what camera you want a photo to appear to be from, plus save profiles and use those against all your photos, makes getting JPEGs from RAW very, very easy.
Click to expand...
That's good news. I'm familiar with DxO but haven't used their PhotoLab program.
 
Bobthearch said:
bobkoure said:
Bobthearch said:
Spaceman88 said:
Hello,

I really, really love vivid, lively colours in my pictures. I do not want "accurate" colours, I want pictures that grab your attention because of how colourful, bright and sharp they are.

Now that is generally up to what you choose to photograph, light conditions, ISO/shutter speed and so on.

But are there camera systems that produce more "alive", vivid colours than others? or are all systems more or less the same? do camera bodies even play a role in it or is it mainly the lenses? and if so, which brands?

I often hear how fuji or leica or canon have distinctive image quality for example. I have noticed many images which look amazing and most of them are plain Nikon or Canon. Nothing "exciting" or exotic really in the gear that was used. But perhaps I am wrong and some systems really do produce better quality, better colour images.

Discuss.
Click to expand...
Sure, different systems on default settings have different photo characteristic.

What it seems you want though is a system that allows you to easily create photos that are your own with a unique blend of characteristics.

Look into the Nikon Picture Control system, included in their DSLRs, and see if that's appealing to you.
Click to expand...
You can edit Nikon PCs either with a downloadable app, or by using this website , which is pretty self-explanatory (pick a photo, there's an array of PCs to choose; see what each does).
Click to expand...
I've seen that before but haven't applied it to any of my photos; I normally shoot on Landscape and then adjust the parameters later as needed.
Click to expand...
I'm using UniWB (Universal White Balance) to get my histograms to lie a bit less. So, it's WB from a NEF/JPG edited so R:G:B is close to 1:1:1, and a flat PC (I modified a B&W PC so the curves/variables are the same as FLAT; used B&W because I find the resultant green tint distracting, color's still in the RAW portion)
Bobthearch said:
Bobthearch said:
For post processing, DxO PhotoLab lets you pick what camera you want a photo to appear to be from, plus save profiles and use those against all your photos, makes getting JPEGs from RAW very, very easy.
Click to expand...
That's good news. I'm familiar with DxO but haven't used their PhotoLab program.
Click to expand...
It's pretty nice. IMO worth downloading the demo and checking it out. I have the 'Elite' version, and can edit profiles. No idea if the standard version can do this, but... probably?
Bobthearch said:
--
Personal non-commercial websites with no ads or tracking:
Local photography: http://ratonphotos.com/
Travel and photography: http://placesandpics.com/
Special-interest photos: http://ghosttowns.placesandpics.com/
Click to expand...
 
Only if you want it to.

In other words, JPEG, yes. Raw, no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top