The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

A question to help me understand...

rayyan

Well-known member
Many times, I read here and on other forums, people saying that they like the colours from a certain sensor/camera/lens.

On all digital cams that I have used..and shooting raw I expect lens/sensor data to be recorded ( hopefully ) faithfully. But it has never been my experience. I can manipulate the recording of image output somewhat by exposure manipulation.

Once in software, I mostly can do what I want.

So my question is..what relevance does the colours that a lens and or sensor combination have. If any?

Shooting .jpg the colour balance setting of the camera can be adjusted as desired.

So why care?
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Good discussion question! Speaking for myself only -- and assuming we're shooting in raw:

Certain sensors just have a "look" that I find appealing right out of the cam. In most cases the sensor manufacturer gives parameters for the sensor profile and debayering algorithm. In some cases the camera manufacturers add their own twist to it -- obviously these steps play a large role in "off the sensor" color rendition. Next are subtleties in how total DR and interpixel contrast play off against one-another. Finally there is noise character that may be appealing in some cases, not so much in others, and (IMHO) some manufacturers just have a better handle (or maybe luck?) on how their sensor happens to render it. When all is said and done, we have a conversion based on these base ingredients that a particular sensor and/or manufacturer brought to the table in their final product.

Now of course, to a certain degree color can be manipulated to a desired look by creating our own color conversion profile or "style." Similarly depth and tonality can be manipulated by global and local contrast adjustments, and again in many processors can be saved as a style. Noise can be reduced -- or even added -- to a desired taste as well. Combine all of these, and you get a specific cocktail; but it's a cocktail that's still based on the main ingredient of those original sensor attributes.

Continuing with the cocktail reference, you can go out to a dozen bars and order say long-island iced-teas; and you'll get 12 similar -- but no identical drinks -- AND you're almost certain to find one or two of them more appealing than the rest ;) Sure, they (or we) can start with a basic recipe, but then if just one ingredients brand or measure is changed, now there's an entirely different flavor to the cocktail. This is perhaps somewhat analogous to the range of subtleties I see in sensor output...
 

tomh

New member
Good discussion question! Speaking for myself only -- and assuming we're shooting in raw:

Certain sensors just have a "look" that I find appealing right out of the cam. In most cases the sensor manufacturer gives parameters for the sensor profile and debayering algorithm. In some cases the camera manufacturers add their own twist to it -- obviously these steps play a large role in "off the sensor" color rendition. Next are subtleties in how total DR and interpixel contrast play off against one-another. Finally there is noise character that may be appealing in some cases, not so much in others, and (IMHO) some manufacturers just have a better handle (or maybe luck?) on how their sensor happens to render it. When all is said and done, we have a conversion based on these base ingredients that a particular sensor and/or manufacturer brought to the table in their final product.

Now of course, to a certain degree color can be manipulated to a desired look by creating our own color conversion profile or "style." Similarly depth and tonality can be manipulated by global and local contrast adjustments, and again in many processors can be saved as a style. Noise can be reduced -- or even added -- to a desired taste as well. Combine all of these, and you get a specific cocktail; but it's a cocktail that's still based on the main ingredient of those original sensor attributes.

Continuing with the cocktail reference, you can go out to a dozen bars and order say long-island iced-teas; and you'll get 12 similar -- but no identical drinks -- AND you're almost certain to find one or two of them more appealing than the rest ;) Sure, they (or we) can start with a basic recipe, but then if just one ingredients brand or measure is changed, now there's an entirely different flavor to the cocktail. This is perhaps somewhat analogous to the range of subtleties I see in sensor output...
Very good summary of a complex situation!
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
After more than 10 years with digital cameras, I've found that I clearly prefer cameras with a low contrast, low saturation setting, like the D810 and other Nikon cameras have, as have some of the Panasonics. That gives me the freedom to make my own colours and contrast and end up with a result that is as close to my own taste as possible. This is how people have been working in the video industry for years and is seen as something of a necessity there.

With film, I find the situation much easier. I simply choose the film that satisfies my taste and the situation. While the choice of film is limited, particularly these days, there's still ample choice, particularly when it comes to black and white. Why it's easier for me to accept the choice of the manufacturer with film than with digital, I don't know. Possibly because film, at least as long as we look upon photography as art, is seen more like painters see their paints and their brushes. It's not a question of getting closer to reality, but getting closer to my vision of reality, which may not be very real at all (Ask my mother about that. She'll totally agree).

The same goes for lenses. While most modern lenses are very sharp and give a pretty neutral description of whatever they are reproducing, they are often totally boring and lack depth as well as brilliance. Test winners like the Nikkor 200-500 and the Zuiko 40-150, both of which I have used extensively, always make me look at the images and ask myself: Yes, and? Everything is there of course, but if that is all I want, I can just look out of the window. Everything is there as well. For most, they have their uses, and they do document reality. But beyond reality, do they help telling stories?

The last year, I've had to save money, so I've sold a lot of photo gear. At first I hated it. Later I've come to realise that it's a very healthy experience. It forces me to evaluate each piece of gear and come to a conclusion: Does this photo thing in my hand here pay for its breakfast and dinner?

I did some scanning the other day, for the first time in a couple of years. I was surprised to see the depth of the contents, even when cheap, second rate film was used. On my last trip to Myanmar, I shot a couple of rolls with the F6 on HP5. For the near future, I'll bring the GM5 with 3 lenses and the F6 with a couple of primes when travelling. And film. One roll per day. It's very satisfying. I even consider doing wet prints. I haven't done that in a few decades.

As for 12 Long Island Ice Teas... I wouldn't taste the difference after the second one :chug:
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Yes, every new camera is a little different. It always takes me a little while to figure out how a camera "sees." I think this break in period allows us to become familiar and comfortable with a particular camera. When a new camera comes around, it is hard for that camera to meet the expectation of what we get from the old camera. We also forget the breaking in period of the old camera and so we bias our preference to what is tired and true. Confirmation bias simply reinforces that perception.

We are creatures of habit...
 

rayyan

Well-known member
Jack, Jorgen, Shashin....thank you for your experienced and informative responses. I gain in my understanding. :salute:

My kindest regards to you all.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Excellent discussion which lends evidence to not only what we visually experience with RAW files from various CMOS cameras, but the often discussed perceived preferences of some individuals, for images captured with certain CCD based cameras. It could be differences in the sensor, the associated electronics required for the readouts from these quite different sensors, or something else in the mix.

The importance of the associated electronics responsible for interfacing with the readouts from these various sensors I believe plays a prominent role with regards to this discussion. Take two competing cameras that happen to use the identical CMOs sensor supplied by Sony for example. We often find the RAW file characteristics from these two cameras quite different and sometimes one is more appealing than the other. This is why the sensor alone is not the sole factor in what we observe with the straight out of camera RAW from a given camera.

Dave (D&A)
 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member
A question to help me understand ...


(...) Shooting .jpg the colour balance setting of the camera can be adjusted as desired.

So why care?
:lecture: because my wife cares .-)


Back in 2003 I gave my wife a 4 Mp tiny sensor Hewlett-Packard hp850 (jpeg only) compact camera, and she simply loved the jpeg color output.

Later on, in 2009, I thought she should have something better and I gave her a 12 Mp µ4/3 Panasonic G1.
From day one she hated the jpeg color output from the G1, and I couldn't persuade her to deal with post processing in RAW converters.

Then I promised her to do all the RAW conversion work for her.
I tried the bundled Silkypix RAW converter, as well as Adobe Lightroom and Capture One Pro, but I never seemed to be able to get the colors right, or even just pleasing.
My wife still hated the color results, despite whatever color corrected or uncorrected screens used for viewing the results, and I need to admit that I actually had to agree with her.
I fumbled endlessly with the in-camera color adjustments, but with no real success, and finally I gave up.
Since then the G1 has spent its life in a drawer, where it still resides.

In 2013 the old hp850 finally died and then I gave my wife a 10 Mp 1" sensor Nikon V1.
Luckily she is much more happy with the V1 than she was with the G1, though now and then she is still mumbling a bit about missing the old Hewlett-Packard compact camera with its pleasing jpeg output straight out of the box.
Apparently the hp850 was a rare jewel.
(Thank you, Vivek, for your great help with getting the Nikon V1 at a very attractive price :thumbup:)

But even though I always shoot RAW, I myself also need a good starting point in order to get a color rendering I find satisfying.
Maybe it is just me being a jerk with post processing, but with regards to colors a good starting point is really important to me, otherwise I am sometimes in deep troubles.
I am of course also aware that we as human beings do not all of us perceive colors in the same way.

P.S. By the way, both my wife and I can easily pass the below color blindness test, so color blindness is not the cause to our sensitive preferences with colors and our troubles with some cameras more than with other cameras.
http://www.colour-blindness.com/colour-blindness-tests/ishihara-colour-test-plates/

P.P.S. And while we are at it The Camera Store has made this interesting little shootout on jpeg output from different cameras, a nice little harmless introduction to an interesting subject.
Fortunately it is a free world, and we can just choose in accordance with our own personal preferences.
http://www.thecamerastore.com/blog/...ny-fuji-iphone-pentax-olympus-panasonic-.aspx



©lick for actual pixels


© • Captured with Nikon D300 • AF-S Nikkor 1.4/85mm G • 1/50 sec. at f/2.8 ISO 200 • Capture NX




© • Captured with Nikon D500 • AF-S Nikkor 1.8/28mm G • 1/2 sec. at f/8 ISO 100 • Capture NX-D




© • Captured with Nikon D500 • AF-S Nikkor 1.8/28mm G • 0.77 sec. at f/8 ISO 100 • Capture NX-D
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Well written, Steen, and very close to my own experience as well. I don't shoot much jpeg anymore, but if I did, I would probably use a Fuji. Their jpegs used to be great, and I believe they still are.
 

Tim

Active member
Re: A question to help me understand ...

I am of course also aware that we as human beings do not all of us perceive colors in the same way.

I will add to this that I do not perceive colours the same in both of my eyes.
If I look at a single hue of bright red for example and switch looking with one eye then the other the hue is not the same.

I have considered that this hampers my critical image viewing as it kind of depends which eye dominates in colour.
I am guessing the the brain processes or evens the variation out.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Also a 4. Interesting test! Pretty good for us old guys :chug: I missed in blue/green.

--Matt
 

Shashin

Well-known member
23. Probably would have done better if the colors would stop moving and shaking. I don't think staring intently at a screen is good for your eyesight.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Going off a bit on a tangent, here is an interesting exercise to determine how well you perceive color. I missed 4 the first time I did it -- had 2 pairs in those brown-yellows reversed -- which I felt was pretty good.

Color Test - Online Color Challenge | X-Rite
I just hit the enter button right away and got 962 points. That's higher than any of you guys, and my screen didn't explode either :clap:
Then, when I inserted age and gender (I didn't lie... honest), I scored 99. I suppose that's out of 100, so must be close to perfect then.

Next time, I'll try to get my screen to explode too :ROTFL:
 
Top