Skin tones, weddings, and Canon v. Nikon v. others

<p>So I have heard this rumor from two different photographers now that "Canon is the choice of wedding photographers because they render skin tones better than the other brands".</p>

<p>Is this really true? To me it seems like it would depend more on camera settings, exposure etc. Is there really a bias towards Canon for weddings/portraits/etc. because of this? Has anyone done any empirical research?</p>

<p>NOTE: I am <em>not </em>trying to start a Canon vs. Nikon vs. ??? battle, so be nice people (I use Sony anyway...)</p>

<p>Empirical research... well, the second part "because they render skin tones better" is a lot harder to do the research, but the first part "Canon is the choice of wedding photographers" is easier. How?</p>

<p>Just take a poll here and see if Canon is the choice:</p>

<p>I'll start the voting: No</p>

<p>Please count the vote by this weekend, and to help the empirical research for the second part, please tell us whether it is because of better skin tone, if you choose Canon to shoot weddings (and if you dont shoot wedding, please dont vote)</p>

<p>I think accurate rendering of skin tones has a LOT more to do with other aspects of photography than with the brand tag on the front of the camera.</p>

<p>Such aspects as..<br>

1) Quantity, Quality, Direction, Intensity, and Color of THE LIGHT falling on the subject.</p>

<p>2) Quality of the lens and its MC (multi-coating).</p>

<p>3) Whether or not any filters and lens hood are used on the lens.</p>

<p>4) What type film is being used (for a film camera), or what ISO and White Balance setting are used (on a digital). Combined with the appropriateness or non-appropriateness of that type film or white balance setting in the situation & scene & subject being shot.</p>

<p>5) Are any COLOR ENHANCEMENT settings being activated in the camera.</p>

<p>6) Are any "white balance adjustment" tools being used, such as an ExpoDisk, to set a custom white balance for that particular scene and lighting.</p>

<p>7) Are any color adjustemnts or white balance adjustments being applied in post-processing in the image editing software?</p>

<p>8) Are the photographer's monitor & color printer calibrated to a color standard?</p>

<p>9) For outdoor portraits, what time of day, and whether sunny or cloudy...</p>

<p>All these type things and others not mentioned DO impact how colors are rendered in an image, both when you take a picture, and when you make the print.<br>

So, i dont think this rumour, as you state it, is objectively true at all....</p>

 

<p>Snap some portraits with your camera, get them printed and ask your photographers if they can tell if it's a Canon or Nikon that shot that pic.</p>

<p>I chose Canon because 6 or 7 years ago it seemed to me they were slightly ahead of Nikon as far as high ISO quality. I don't think that's the case anymore. If I were going digital today I'd probably choose Nikon, because I preferred them with film cameras. Overall I don't think there is a significant enough difference for generalizations. A particular photographer may prefer aspects or features of one brand or model, but you really can't go wrong with either. Or probably even Sony, although I've never used a Sony camera. With digital and raw and the amazing color control possible today I'd tend to blame any color issues on the person doing the processing before blaming it on the gear.</p>

<p>Once I did have a wedding guest lecture me that "real pros use Canon cameras." He didn't seem to think much of my Swedish camera: a Hasselblad. :)</p>

<p>All else being equal (which it never is), Canon lenses have a warmer tone than "other" lenses. This applies to video cameras as well, and the difference can be quite dramatic with video cameras. In general, warmer tones provide "better" skin tones. That said, I have shot weddings with both Canon and Nikon camera/lenses and I much prefer Nikon. Of course, none of this is empirical data. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just take a poll here and see if Canon is the choice:<br>

I'll start the voting: No</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I don't do weddings, but if I did I use Nikon so my answer would also be "no"</p>

<p>The power of Myth...........</p>

<p>Although I have heard photographers say they prefer Canon's skin tones, and that Nikon skin tones are redder, I don't think anyone has done any kind of empirical research on the issue, so I think one can safely conclude that the statement is not true, if just for the fact that there is no research to point to.</p>

<p>My opinion only--most wedding photographers chose Canon because they had the best high ISO noise response--until the D3 and subsequent Nikon cameras came out. Since then, there has been a steady stream of Canon to Nikon switches, for the latter's supposedly better high ISO, flash metering, and autofocusing. It is notable that for a professional, switching is very expensive, so the fact that people have switched is significant.</p>

<p>However, I like my Canon's image quality, so I am happy, even though I think the D700 is a terrific camera. I got a chance to process some RAW files for a wedding shot with the D700, and I was not as impressed as I thought I'd be. Can't really put my finger on it, but I didn't delve into it since there was no overwhelming reason for me to want to switch.</p>

<p>I want to add--why does this issue concern you? Evaluate files from different camera systems and make up your own mind about skin colors.</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses everyone.</p>

<p>This issue concerns me because (1) I am not an expert photographer and (2) I thought the idea that one camera brand would be inherently better at rendering skin tones seemed unlikely for the reasons that Alan Peed pointed out above. But now that I've heard it from more than one source, I am wondering.</p>

<p>Does anyone know of any actual side-by-side comparisons that show Canon cameras/lenses actually rendering skin tones "warmer" or is this just a plausible-sounding justification of an urban legend? Searches via google and photo.net have not yielded much success. There are a lot of discussion forum topics debating the merits of this or that camera, but not much actual comparison...</p>

<p>I guess I could rent a bunch of cameras and do the research, but since I am a novice photographer, I'm not sure if I could conduct said research without introducing photographer bias of some sort.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does anyone know of any actual side-by-side comparisons that show Canon cameras/lenses actually rendering skin tones "warmer" or is this just a plausible-sounding justification of an urban legend?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I've always heard the opposite-- that Nikkors are warmer.<br>

All academic, unless you shoot slide film.</p>

<p>I</p>

When I shoot human with my 5D2 and look at the results at 100 percent I see little black dots all over their skin. Ladies

look as though they need to shave.

 

The D700 is my preference for shooting people and events, because even though it can't enlarge as much as the Canon

can, the subject's skin is free of these ugly artifacts.

 

Using an Expodisc, I can assure that skin COLOR will be fine with either camera.

 

Be careful which optimization preset you choose. Vivid and Landscape are generally bad for people.

 

My two cents. Your mileage may vary.

<blockquote>

<p>Does anyone know of any actual side-by-side comparisons that show Canon cameras/lenses actually rendering skin tones "warmer"... I guess I could rent a bunch of cameras and do the research</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You should concentrate on researching how to make your pictures warmer/cooler the way you want with your Sony gear, better than a general comparison between the gears that you don't even own</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This issue concerns me because (1) I am not an expert photographer</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>In that case, you should question "other" aspects of shooting this or that brand.</p>

<p>Regardless of which camera I use, my choice was never based on "warmer/cooler" flesh tones.<br>

I no longer shoot weddings, however I do a ton of portraiture, including the formal bridal portrait.</p>

<p>As far as I know, the better wedding shooters PP anyway, so why worry about warm vs cool issues?</p>

<p>One significant difference can be what you use as a RAW converter. I've noticed that Camera Raw / LR 3 render skin tones so that the color cast of light is a little less pronounced from the get go. I still adjust it a bit, but it's at a better starting point in terms of skin color. Aperture 3 - which I like more as a program - tends to kick-up the color casts a bit and tends a bit more towards green from the on-set. This may be a camera-by-camera issue (i.e. all camera may not lean towards off skin tones in Aperture). Jeff Ascough noted back in a interview prior to Aperture 3 that he preferred the skin tones of the Canons rather than the D3 that he was lent to try by Nikon, so the converter in that case for Canon wasn't producing the same effect (and these are all subtle tints mind you). So as a Nikon D700 user, I've been revisiting LR more lately although with some sadness given how much I enjoy using Aperture. (Note it would be interesting to hear from others re: how their RAW converter program of choice has impacted their skin tones). </p>

<p>I think Canon is more elastic in terms of warming the image between color profiles. I'm satisfied with Nikon's Neutral color profile for portraits & wedding but Nikon does not forgive you if you play with standard profile especially when you live and shoot in a North Europe country. I shoot weddings for 15 years many of them with EOS 1 but actually I'm a Nikon owner and user. No, Canons are not warmer than Nikons. They render red color in a way that comes hyperbolic but they are bluer and greener than Nikons at start point settings. And definitely (in my opinion) Nikon <strong>lenses</strong> are warmer than Canons.</p>