Canon 5D Mark III Skin Tones a gold standard?

[Trumpetstilskin]

I suspect this may have been debated several times before but I couldn't find a direct answer.

I note that a lot of portrait photographers swear by the 5D Mark III. What quality in the skin tones or color science drives such loyalty? I would love to get some insight and understand what is the look which commands such confidence and fan following.

If you are responding to this and have pictorial examples alongside, that would be very much appreciated.

 

[Sailor Blue]

There is no "gold standard" camera for skin tones.

Most portrait photographers will warm up the colors of portraits of Caucasians but that is bad for the skin tones of Blacks and a disaster for Asians.

Every camera sensor has color biases and each different brand or series of camera/sensor have different color biases.

Every lens has some tint. The tint of a lens may be small enough that you don't normally notice it but some lenses have obvious tints.

I recommend buying a X-Rite ColorChecker Passport and using that to color calibrate the color response of every camera sensor and lens combination you use. Color calibration will give you colors that are as close to what they really are as you can get with your camera and lenses.

Once you have colors that are as close to being correct as possible then turn your inner artist lose and let them direct changes in tones, tints, saturation, etc.

There is no magic camera that will give you the best skin tones in portraits. Your gold standard should be what suits a particular subject and image.

 

[mclaren777]

I agree – the 5D3 and 6D had amazing color science.

Unfortunately, Adobe isn't rendering Canon colors like it used so, so most modern cameras have inferior colors.

The only way to retain beautiful color rendition one something like a 5D4 or EOS R is to use Canon's own software (DPP).

 

[preferredfault]

I suspect this may have been debated several times before but I couldn't find a direct answer.

I note that a lot of portrait photographers swear by the 5D Mark III. What quality in the skin tones or color science drives such loyalty? I would love to get some insight and understand what is the look which commands such confidence and fan following.

If you are responding to this and have pictorial examples alongside, that would be very much appreciated.

It has to do primarily with the way dynamic range is utilized and the way picture styles interpret colors. You actually have to shoot in-camera JPEG to get the true canon colors. If you shoot RAW and edit it in photoshop, you're not getting canon colors, you're getting photoshop colors. Even Canon's RAW editor's picture styles differ from in-camera JPEG's in how the colors look, even if only slightly, but it's enough to notice.

If you notice, a lot of newer camera's like to have super bright white highlights and look very clinical in their color rendition. But this isn't really representative of the real world and not pleasing to the eye. Canon typically has off white warmer highlights, and a more gradual fall off in the highlights, even when you over expose moderately, you're not necessarily going to get just a bright pure white white cut off in the over exposed spot.

This ends up giving people a cold dead porcelain skin look on many newer camera's. A lot of the subtle tones in skin are lost. Or people start to look like they have orange fake- tan skin.

Here's an example of a 5D where the highlights are extremely blown out by direct sunlight, yet there aren't really any sharp cut offs, and it's not eye scorching contrast bright white. There is still a nice gradual fall off to the highlights, even despite the over-exposure. In many newer camera's this scene would likely be blown out completely with eye searing bright whites.



What does this have to do with skin tones? Well, peoples faces are shiny. People's faces reflect many different tones....but peoples faces don't reflect pure eye scorching white do they?

Every camera manufacturer interprets colors differently. But sensors aren't exactly the same either, they have slightly different capabilities in how they sense brightness, and the color filter arrays don't allow the same exact amount of red, green and blue light into the sensor. There is a cut off, so some R,G or B light gets cut off and doesn't pass through the color filter array, reducing the strength of that color, depending on the sensor design. Newer sensors are primarily geared toward making primarily colors "pop".

In an attempt to make camera's higher megapixels and higher ISO performance, CFA's have been taking serious hits to performance. Sure, we get more dynamic range now than ever before, but that's really only useful if you want to push the image several stops up or down. If you get the image right in camera, the extra stops of dynamic range are useless because they're functionally invisible.

In the end, sensors don't exactly see colors, they see brightness values assigned to a color that is arbitrarily decided based on what program you process the raw file in. So one program or camera will interpet red as one shade of red, while another program will see red as a completely different shade, possibly even adjusting the luminance value of that shade of red too, making it brighter or darker than it actually was in the raw file.

If you want to see why Canon's skin tones are soo good, just google "Canon 5D Flickr" and look for portraits. Then google "Sony A7 Flickr" and look for portraits there too. Or any camera name you wish. In general, the Canon's skin tones will be better.

And look for those eye burning bright whites I've been talking about. You'll see it a lot on Sony camera's.

The problem with skin tones is if you don't get them right in the camera "color science", it's really hard to fix in post because skin isn't just pink or white or red or tan. It has blues, red's, greens, etc, and it varies depending on the part of the face and many other factors. Just look up how people colorize old photo's. They have to add all kinds of different layers of colors. They can't just choose a fleshy looking color and call it a day. Human skin is complex, and light penetrates and bounces off of blood vessels, veins, etc. So the ability to capture and interpret those subtle tones is valued because it's soo hard to recreate in editing.

--
"I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you."

 

[threw the lens]

There is no "gold standard" camera for skin tones.

Most portrait photographers will warm up the colors of portraits of Caucasians but that is bad for the skin tones of Blacks and a disaster for Asians.

Every camera sensor has color biases and each different brand or series of camera/sensor have different color biases.

Every lens has some tint. The tint of a lens may be small enough that you don't normally notice it but some lenses have obvious tints.

I recommend buying a X-Rite ColorChecker Passport and using that to color calibrate the color response of every camera sensor and lens combination you use. Color calibration will give you colors that are as close to what they really are as you can get with your camera and lenses.

Once you have colors that are as close to being correct as possible then turn your inner artist lose and let them direct changes in tones, tints, saturation, etc.

For all your experience expressed in the lighting forum, you make here a strangely dogmatic statement. You assume there is an objective colour standard you should aim for. And then as an extra step, you are working back from that.

I find more useful, popular and saleable colour, and not wasting time in extra steps. If Canon delivers that without extra work, so much the better.

Some people said the D200 has a high colour fidelity score but I would not choose to use it for any old work as it looked like a box of crayons to me.

I'm more interested in making sure a newer camera's colour is very similar to an older one to not betray the difference in my bodies on some work. But I wouldn't have bought a newer body with grossly different colours in the first place, no matter what they score on DxO.

There is no magic camera that will give you the best skin tones in portraits. Your gold standard should be what suits a particular subject and image.

 

[threw the lens]

And look for those eye burning bright whites I've been talking about. You'll see it a lot on Sony camera's.

I had to excise most of what you wrote because it looked like red herrings.

Cameras with higher dynamic ranges make images look flatter, without compensation. Not harsher or 'burning'. You 'burn out' whites with overexposure and clipping. Menu lighting options adjust the tone curves for jpegs, it's up to you to play with them if jpegs are what you need.

If you have a problem with too much exposure, well then expose less.

You also referenced a low contrast photograph that looked like it was taken with an old lens on an old camera and processed for low contrast. It is adding to the red herring count.

Consumer cameras have always tended to prioritise vivid colour output by default because that's what people find eye catching. Same as with shiny black monitors. Have you not been in photography a very long time?

 

[Arthur Stanley Jefferson]

There is no "gold standard" camera for skin tones.

Most portrait photographers will warm up the colors of portraits of Caucasians but that is bad for the skin tones of Blacks and a disaster for Asians.

Every camera sensor has color biases and each different brand or series of camera/sensor have different color biases.

Every lens has some tint. The tint of a lens may be small enough that you don't normally notice it but some lenses have obvious tints.

I recommend buying a X-Rite ColorChecker Passport and using that to color calibrate the color response of every camera sensor and lens combination you use. Color calibration will give you colors that are as close to what they really are as you can get with your camera and lenses.

Once you have colors that are as close to being correct as possible then turn your inner artist lose and let them direct changes in tones, tints, saturation, etc.

There is no magic camera that will give you the best skin tones in portraits. Your gold standard should be what suits a particular subject and image.

This is exactly what I'd advise, adding that different supplementary lighting sources, their modifiers, diffusion, and power level can also shift colour. Also the environment can influence colours by reflection.

So, regardless of how wonderful any cameras colour science is, I still advise including a reference colour chart in shot as a basis for correct colour profiling ( xrite has a plugin for lightroom) and always pay attention to colour influenced by surroundings.

 

[Sailor Blue]

There is no "gold standard" camera for skin tones.

Most portrait photographers will warm up the colors of portraits of Caucasians but that is bad for the skin tones of Blacks and a disaster for Asians.

Every camera sensor has color biases and each different brand or series of camera/sensor have different color biases.

Every lens has some tint. The tint of a lens may be small enough that you don't normally notice it but some lenses have obvious tints.

I recommend buying a X-Rite ColorChecker Passport and using that to color calibrate the color response of every camera sensor and lens combination you use. Color calibration will give you colors that are as close to what they really are as you can get with your camera and lenses.

Once you have colors that are as close to being correct as possible then turn your inner artist lose and let them direct changes in tones, tints, saturation, etc.

For all your experience expressed in the lighting forum, you make here a strangely dogmatic statement. You assume there is an objective colour standard you should aim for. And then as an extra step, you are working back from that.

I find more useful, popular and saleable colour, and not wasting time in extra steps. If Canon delivers that without extra work, so much the better.

Some people said the D200 has a high colour fidelity score but I would not choose to use it for any old work as it looked like a box of crayons to me.

I'm more interested in making sure a newer camera's colour is very similar to an older one to not betray the difference in my bodies on some work. But I wouldn't have bought a newer body with grossly different colours in the first place, no matter what they score on DxO.

There is no magic camera that will give you the best skin tones in portraits. Your gold standard should be what suits a particular subject and image.

Each of us has different preferences.

Some photographers like Canon colors, some prefer Nikon or Pentax or Sony colors. The best colors for skin tones, the color of the sky, the color of leafs, etc. is totally subjective.

If you like the out of camera or manufacturer's software colors that is your choice.

The problem is that those colors depend on how well you have set the WB of the camera and any Picture Style selected, the contrast setting, or other camera setting you have.

With color calibrated RAW files all those variations go away.

Almost all of us wind up making color, tint, saturation, etc. changes to images according to what our inner artist wants.

Personally I prefer starting with colors as close to those of the original as possible to give me a standard starting place before turning my inner artist loose.

In my original post I mentioned that all lenses have a tint, which may be small or large. The first lens I bought for my Canon 7D had a significant tint - it shifted the WB about 500K lower. In my first images of Asians they had orange skin, which is very unflattering. Color calibration with an X-Rite ColorChecker Passport fixed that problem.

I'll add that other than the WB shift that lens is an excellent portrait lens and still my first choice for most portraits.

As I said, "There is no magic camera that will give you the best skin tones in portraits. Your gold standard should be what suits a particular subject and image." It is simply easiest to do your post processing color and tint changes if you are always starting with colors as close to those of the original as possible.

 

[SalmoTrutta]

With color calibrated RAW files all those variations go away.

Not really in this instance though. A key characteristic of the modern "Canon skin tone" is that it has very low skin hue resolution, so one of the things I would imagine professional portrait photographers really like about the 5D III is that the file doesn't need as much removal of blemishes in PP (if that's the desired end result). You can't calibrate for that, it's an intentional characteristic of the CFA and raw processing in camera.

This video isn't great on the whole, but it shows pretty well just how low hue resolution the skin has in a 5D III compared to a A7 III in the raw file. Same would go for a Nikon that is often said to "need more PP to give a flattering look" compared to a modern Canon.

(5 min 35 sec. to get straight to the point)

 

[threw the lens]

There is no "gold standard" camera for skin tones.

Most portrait photographers will warm up the colors of portraits of Caucasians but that is bad for the skin tones of Blacks and a disaster for Asians.

Every camera sensor has color biases and each different brand or series of camera/sensor have different color biases.

Every lens has some tint. The tint of a lens may be small enough that you don't normally notice it but some lenses have obvious tints.

I recommend buying a X-Rite ColorChecker Passport and using that to color calibrate the color response of every camera sensor and lens combination you use. Color calibration will give you colors that are as close to what they really are as you can get with your camera and lenses.

Once you have colors that are as close to being correct as possible then turn your inner artist lose and let them direct changes in tones, tints, saturation, etc.

For all your experience expressed in the lighting forum, you make here a strangely dogmatic statement. You assume there is an objective colour standard you should aim for. And then as an extra step, you are working back from that.

I find more useful, popular and saleable colour, and not wasting time in extra steps. If Canon delivers that without extra work, so much the better.

Some people said the D200 has a high colour fidelity score but I would not choose to use it for any old work as it looked like a box of crayons to me.

I'm more interested in making sure a newer camera's colour is very similar to an older one to not betray the difference in my bodies on some work. But I wouldn't have bought a newer body with grossly different colours in the first place, no matter what they score on DxO.

There is no magic camera that will give you the best skin tones in portraits. Your gold standard should be what suits a particular subject and image.

Each of us has different preferences.

Some photographers like Canon colors, some prefer Nikon or Pentax or Sony colors. The best colors for skin tones, the color of the sky, the color of leafs, etc. is totally subjective.

If you like the out of camera or manufacturer's software colors that is your choice.

The problem is that those colors depend on how well you have set the WB of the camera and any Picture Style selected, the contrast setting, or other camera setting you have.

With color calibrated RAW files all those variations go away.

Almost all of us wind up making color, tint, saturation, etc. changes to images according to what our inner artist wants.

Personally I prefer starting with colors as close to those of the original as possible to give me a standard starting place before turning my inner artist loose.

In my original post I mentioned that all lenses have a tint, which may be small or large. The first lens I bought for my Canon 7D had a significant tint - it shifted the WB about 500K lower. In my first images of Asians they had orange skin, which is very unflattering. Color calibration with an X-Rite ColorChecker Passport fixed that problem.

I'll add that other than the WB shift that lens is an excellent portrait lens and still my first choice for most portraits.

As I said, "There is no magic camera that will give you the best skin tones in portraits. Your gold standard should be what suits a particular subject and image." It is simply easiest to do your post processing color and tint changes if you are always starting with colors as close to those of the original as possible.

Thanks, Sailor.

I'd have to say I'm a little bit hypocritical, because I always end up shooting a colour card with my familiar illuminants with each new camera anyway. I just don't worry my head about profiling if I don't need to match very much. I only need to match if I've done something desperate like take two very different cameras to the same shoot.

One thing I do differently to others here is still use the ACR that comes with "Camera Standard" preset and use that instead of Adobe's preset. Because I expect that to come closer to what the manufacturer wants, part of the reason I bought the model.

 

[Trumpetstilskin]

Thank you for your views and several comments.

Also big thanks to everyone who commented here and shared their perspective. I obviously agree that the end result on skin tones or the entire frame can be very subjective and may follow the "to each his own" principal, this general discussion is very insightful since I am new to portraits and looking at the different approaches most of you seasoned photographers are following, I am only more motivated.

Just to get a first hand experience, I will be shooting with a Mark III soon, together with Mark IV as backup and will share what I find, although I suspect I will have more questions than answers, in addition to general observations.

 

[Trumpetstilskin]

With color calibrated RAW files all those variations go away.

Not really in this instance though. A key characteristic of the modern "Canon skin tone" is that it has very low skin hue resolution, so one of the things I would imagine professional portrait photographers really like about the 5D III is that the file doesn't need as much removal of blemishes in PP (if that's the desired end result). You can't calibrate for that, it's an intentional characteristic of the CFA and raw processing in camera.

This video isn't great on the whole, but it shows pretty well just how low hue resolution the skin has in a 5D III compared to a A7 III in the raw file. Same would go for a Nikon that is often said to "need more PP to give a flattering look" compared to a modern Canon.

(5 min 35 sec. to get straight to the point)

Thanks for the specific response on the variation on how Mark III camera processes skin. I hope to see the video tonight and gain more perspective.

 

[Trumpetstilskin]

There is no "gold standard" camera for skin tones.

Most portrait photographers will warm up the colors of portraits of Caucasians but that is bad for the skin tones of Blacks and a disaster for Asians.

Every camera sensor has color biases and each different brand or series of camera/sensor have different color biases.

Every lens has some tint. The tint of a lens may be small enough that you don't normally notice it but some lenses have obvious tints.

I recommend buying a X-Rite ColorChecker Passport and using that to color calibrate the color response of every camera sensor and lens combination you use. Color calibration will give you colors that are as close to what they really are as you can get with your camera and lenses.

Once you have colors that are as close to being correct as possible then turn your inner artist lose and let them direct changes in tones, tints, saturation, etc.

There is no magic camera that will give you the best skin tones in portraits. Your gold standard should be what suits a particular subject and image.

This is exactly what I'd advise, adding that different supplementary lighting sources, their modifiers, diffusion, and power level can also shift colour. Also the environment can influence colours by reflection.

So, regardless of how wonderful any cameras colour science is, I still advise including a reference colour chart in shot as a basis for correct colour profiling ( xrite has a plugin for lightroom) and always pay attention to colour influenced by surroundings.

Great advice from you both. I am going to work on incorporating a color chart in my shoot workflow. thanks.

 

[Trumpetstilskin]

I suspect this may have been debated several times before but I couldn't find a direct answer.

I note that a lot of portrait photographers swear by the 5D Mark III. What quality in the skin tones or color science drives such loyalty? I would love to get some insight and understand what is the look which commands such confidence and fan following.

If you are responding to this and have pictorial examples alongside, that would be very much appreciated.

It has to do primarily with the way dynamic range is utilized and the way picture styles interpret colors. You actually have to shoot in-camera JPEG to get the true canon colors. If you shoot RAW and edit it in photoshop, you're not getting canon colors, you're getting photoshop colors. Even Canon's RAW editor's picture styles differ from in-camera JPEG's in how the colors look, even if only slightly, but it's enough to notice.

If you notice, a lot of newer camera's like to have super bright white highlights and look very clinical in their color rendition. But this isn't really representative of the real world and not pleasing to the eye. Canon typically has off white warmer highlights, and a more gradual fall off in the highlights, even when you over expose moderately, you're not necessarily going to get just a bright pure white white cut off in the over exposed spot.

This ends up giving people a cold dead porcelain skin look on many newer camera's. A lot of the subtle tones in skin are lost. Or people start to look like they have orange fake- tan skin.

Here's an example of a 5D where the highlights are extremely blown out by direct sunlight, yet there aren't really any sharp cut offs, and it's not eye scorching contrast bright white. There is still a nice gradual fall off to the highlights, even despite the over-exposure. In many newer camera's this scene would likely be blown out completely with eye searing bright whites.



What does this have to do with skin tones? Well, peoples faces are shiny. People's faces reflect many different tones....but peoples faces don't reflect pure eye scorching white do they?

Every camera manufacturer interprets colors differently. But sensors aren't exactly the same either, they have slightly different capabilities in how they sense brightness, and the color filter arrays don't allow the same exact amount of red, green and blue light into the sensor. There is a cut off, so some R,G or B light gets cut off and doesn't pass through the color filter array, reducing the strength of that color, depending on the sensor design. Newer sensors are primarily geared toward making primarily colors "pop".

In an attempt to make camera's higher megapixels and higher ISO performance, CFA's have been taking serious hits to performance. Sure, we get more dynamic range now than ever before, but that's really only useful if you want to push the image several stops up or down. If you get the image right in camera, the extra stops of dynamic range are useless because they're functionally invisible.

In the end, sensors don't exactly see colors, they see brightness values assigned to a color that is arbitrarily decided based on what program you process the raw file in. So one program or camera will interpet red as one shade of red, while another program will see red as a completely different shade, possibly even adjusting the luminance value of that shade of red too, making it brighter or darker than it actually was in the raw file.

If you want to see why Canon's skin tones are soo good, just google "Canon 5D Flickr" and look for portraits. Then google "Sony A7 Flickr" and look for portraits there too. Or any camera name you wish. In general, the Canon's skin tones will be better.

And look for those eye burning bright whites I've been talking about. You'll see it a lot on Sony camera's.

The problem with skin tones is if you don't get them right in the camera "color science", it's really hard to fix in post because skin isn't just pink or white or red or tan. It has blues, red's, greens, etc, and it varies depending on the part of the face and many other factors. Just look up how people colorize old photo's. They have to add all kinds of different layers of colors. They can't just choose a fleshy looking color and call it a day. Human skin is complex, and light penetrates and bounces off of blood vessels, veins, etc. So the ability to capture and interpret those subtle tones is valued because it's soo hard to recreate in editing.

Thank you for the generous response and resources. Will look up the flickr page and other inputs you provided and will get back with questions.

 

[BlueRay2]

I suspect this may have been debated several times before but I couldn't find a direct answer.

I note that a lot of portrait photographers swear by the 5D Mark III. What quality in the skin tones or color science drives such loyalty? I would love to get some insight and understand what is the look which commands such confidence and fan following.

If you are responding to this and have pictorial examples alongside, that would be very much appreciated.

i think this attribute was given to original 5D than any other canon camera that i can remember! sometimes if your monitor is not calibrated correctly, you may see a biased skin tone on your monitor, as well.

 

[BlueRay2]

I agree – the 5D3 and 6D had amazing color science.

Unfortunately, Adobe isn't rendering Canon colors like it used so, so most modern cameras have inferior colors.

The only way to retain beautiful color rendition one something like a 5D4 or EOS R is to use Canon's own software (DPP).

i have been saying this for years ;-)

 

[Sailor Blue]

With color calibrated RAW files all those variations go away.

Not really in this instance though. A key characteristic of the modern "Canon skin tone" is that it has very low skin hue resolution, so one of the things I would imagine professional portrait photographers really like about the 5D III is that the file doesn't need as much removal of blemishes in PP (if that's the desired end result). You can't calibrate for that, it's an intentional characteristic of the CFA and raw processing in camera.

This video isn't great on the whole, but it shows pretty well just how low hue resolution the skin has in a 5D III compared to a A7 III in the raw file. Same would go for a Nikon that is often said to "need more PP to give a flattering look" compared to a modern Canon.

(5 min 35 sec. to get straight to the point)

Again, just one photographer's viewpoint.

Mine is different. I don't shoot portraits or glamour using JPGs. I shoot RAW and I know from experience that I will want to adjust the colors. I color calibrate so I can start with colors that are as close to being accurate as possible to make my post processing job easier.

Give me one of my Canons, a Nikon, a Sony, a Fuji, etc. and I will be shooting a ColorChecker Passport and color calibrating my images before I start trying to select the images that I will be working on. I am certainly not going to select one brand or model of camera for the SOOC images.

The colors straight out of camera (SOOC) are of little significance to me. As for any perceived or real low skin hue resolution, the same thing applies, it is of no significance to me.

During post processing/retouching I take care of the skin tones, texture, blemishes, etc. to give me the results that I like. The same is true of most portrait/glamour photographers that I have interacted with.

If you find that you love the Canon colors for SOOC portraits then that is what you love and more power to you.

Personally I don't like the fact that those colors can vary so easily. That is one reason I normally avoid Auto WB like the plague. Change the subject's shirt/blouse from green to red and see what happens to the skin tones if you are using Auto WB.

That is why I try to use a custom WB as often as possible and for portraits or glamour I always color calibrate the images before I start post processing them.

 

[SalmoTrutta]

I didn't say anything about jpegs. Your calibrated 5D III raw is a different file for skin than your Nikon or Sony. You can't negate the skin smearing effect with profiling since the information loss has happened before the raw file reaches your memory card.

 

[Sailor Blue]

I didn't say anything about jpegs. Your calibrated 5D III raw is a different file for skin than your Nikon or Sony. You can't negate the skin smearing effect with profiling since the information loss has happened before the raw file reaches your memory card.

Emphasis added to "skin smearing effect" and "information loss".

Whether it is a JPG or a RAW skin smearing and file information loss is absolutely the very last things I want.

Don't forget that if a cameras can't select just skin tones (Caucasian, Black, Asian?) and smear out only the skin texture. Any camera that smears out skin tones is also smearing out everything else in the image.

I want the maximum sharpness possible, then it becomes my option to smooth or not smooth the skin, and I guarantee my results will be better than a soft or fuzzy SOOC image.

You are right, color calibration can't produce the exact same colors from identical images shot with different brands of cameras. Very small differences will remain since the software only has three color signals to work with. What color calibratin can do is reduce the color differences so that the images from different cameras are very close to having the same colors, and those colors are very close to matching the original subject.

Colors as close as possible to the subject colors is what I want as my post processing starting point. Since I always start from the same color corrected colors I know that if I apply a change to one image it will work the same on all the images shot in that session, or even on a different images taken in other sessions.

I don't want fuzzy skin in my images and I use color calibration because I'm anal retentive, I want sharp images with colors as close to those of the subject as possible because it makes my post processing easier and more efficient.

 

[mailman88]

Coming from cropped Canon gear up to the 7D, I had to fight to get skin tones right on my grandkids.

With the upgrade to the 6DmkII, shooting anyone is a breeze.