Does “Color Science” even matter?

yogi4fitness wrote:

SrMi wrote:

yogi4fitness wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

yogi4fitness wrote:

Found this interesting video on color science.

https://fstoppers.com/education/what-color-science-and-should-it-actually-matter-photographers-298843

I didnt know Sony colors were accurate and that Canon colors were pleasing but inaccurate. I agree with the conclusion that one should choose a camera based on features and the workflow and color science shouldnt be a deciding factor. I would add the quality of glass as a deciding factor as well. After all the lens is the “eye” of the camera and an imperfect eye cant create a perfect vision.

What do you folks think about color science?

I’m for color science, if for no other reason than it got me paid well for 6 years.

Yes, but in todays age of digital cameras and RAW processors would you have chosen color science as a top priority over other aspects of choosing a system?

I believe you and Jim have a different concept of "color science." You did not answer my question about what you mean by "color science," but I assume you mean the initial look in the post-processor (which depends on the post-processor used, profiles, in-camera WB, the camera's firmware, etc.).

Yes, by color science I mean the color science applied in the camera to SOOC jpegs and the initial look in PP without touching any of the processing sliders.
IMHO once you start processing the RAW file the color science of the camera no longer matters

It still matters. But not as much as the raw development.

and I am assuming almost everyone buying into multi-K MF systems does some post processing of colors and in that sense I was asking if in-camera color science even matters (this assumes you are a hobbyist with unlimited time to process the RAWs to your liking)

Jim probably means science when he talks about "color science."

Jim is always talking science and I respect and admire that deeply. IMHO science should be his middle name 😊