Can I get Nikon D80/D200 color on a Canon XTi ?

[dave_d2]

I'll try not to start a Canon/Nikon debate.<br><br>

 

For indoor, low to medium ambient-light situations, the XTi's the color-cast is

horrible. Same situation - the Nikon D80 & D200 color is dead-on accurate and

flattering. (Btw, the XTi's outdoor colors are excellent)<br><br>

 

Ok, take Nikon out of it for a minute.<br><br>

 

I shoot Raw. I've experimented with picture-profiles and wb-modes ... the XTi's

color-casts are insurmountable. No amount of post editing helps.<br><br>

 

Hopefully, I just need to tweak some advanced setting on my XTi. Or perhaps

someone can suggest a custom "Nikon-like" picture profiles that I can apply to

Canon Raws.<br><br>

 

My fear though, is that this is all boils down to a difference in the spectrums

that the chip sensors give preference to (CMOS versus CCD).

 

<br><br>

Bottom line is, I'd like to keep the XTi (ie., I have a lot of EOS/EF gear).

But unless I figure this out, I gotta make the $witch.<br><br>

 

Any advice/insight is greatly appreciated.

[mark u]

Did you try a custom white balance? What software are you using to convert your images? Have you experimented with exposure compensation (the camera is prone to underexposure according to some reports)? Can you post a sample illustrating your problems?

[wandern]

Shoot a gray card, piece of white paper, etc. Use "Click" white balance in Digital Photo Professional.

 

I find that the color temperature of indoor tungsten and cheap compact fluorescent fixtures is < 2800K, which is off the bottom of the scale that DPP lets you choose manually (I have to use Adobe Camera Raw to get color temperatures that low).

 

I have found that nothing but Custom WB seems to produce correct Jpeg files on EOS bodies (although Nikon seems to suffer from exactly the same problem, even saturating red more than the EOS bodies do), but for RAW, I haven't found it to be a bit of a problem. If your lighting conditions are controlled, you should be able to do a single Click WB in DPP, then batch process your entire roll with the same WB settings.

[gdanmitchell]

I take it that you XTi images are fine in non-low light situations? I really doubt that there are

significant differences in the sensor's ability to capture the color spectrum, at least after

processed in on-board software.

 

Can you share an example of an unaltered image?

[dave_d2]

Here are two images, resized, but uncorrected. The Canon is an uncorrected .cr2 converted to .jpg. The Nikon was shot as .jpg, not raw. I don't shoot the Canon in .jpg mode, because - frankly - each frame requires so much correction that I need to corrective-latitude that raw provides.<div></div>

[dave_d2]

And the Canon image...<div></div>

[keith_van_hulle1]

So you're saying that the Nikon jpg has no in camera processing occurring on it? You show a nice, sharp, contrasty shot from the Nikon. And an out of focus shot from the Canon.

 

Maybe you have a defective body/sensor? Don't know how to test for that.

[dave_d2]

I had a slow lens on the canon that day but the focus is irrelevant.

Cast is on his face, ceilings, altar, etc.

[pavel_olavich]

Dave,

 

You can get the same exact colors/cast from both cameras. It is just a matter of knowing how to set them up and post process them.

 

The Canon will make a better wedding camera because it provides less noise and more detail at high ISO.

 

If you shoot both cameras in RAW (as you should be if you're a paid wedding photog), and post process them, you can get the same exact colors and cast.

 

If you're shooting raw then why are you experimenting with picture profiles?

 

No offence intended but I think you don't know what you're doing...sorry not to be blunt, but it really shows.

 

I would suggest learning how both cameras work and how to post process and I think that if you do that you will get whatever colors and effect you want from either camera.

 

There are too many wedding photogs very happy with EOS kit for you to consider switching over user errors....again, no offense intended.

[dave_d2]

> There are too many wedding photogs very happy with EOS kit for you<br>

> to consider switching over user errors....again, no offense<br>

> intended.<br><br>

 

Prove me wrong. Please prove me wrong. Post an uncorrected, properly white balanced jpg, with pleasant skin tones in low ambient-light. I would very much like to see this picture because after 300 test shots I cannot achieve this.

<br><br>

> You can get the same exact colors/cast from both cameras. It is<br>

>just a matter of knowing how to set them up and post process them.<br><br>

 

So that's the verdict... post-process the .cr2 so that it can achieve minimally acceptable white balance compared to the D80.

 

> If you're shooting raw then why are you experimenting with picture

> profiles?

You assumed I was experimenting with PP on the camera. No. I was talking about applying various picture profiles in the DPP software.

 

<br><br>

> No offence intended but I think you don't know what you're <br>

> doing...sorry not to be blunt, but it really shows.<br><br>

 

Well, I disagree with your assessment of my diligence and background (no offense). 12 solid years of 35mm SLR experience. New to DSLR, yes, but the fundamentals of color temp and gamut are the same. I'm also no spring chicken with Photoshop. I've read the XTi manuals several times already. I've tried the wb-shift, etc. As I said, default - the D80 renders color far far better than the XTi. Why should I mess around with post-processing each Canon frame when I can get close-to-perfect results from the D80 at default setting? You say "user ignorance" ... I say "prove it". Show me the pics. I am dying to eat-my-hat:)

[mark_rutledge]

hi dave...you say "The Canon is an uncorrected .cr2 converted to .jpg", does that mean you used the "as shot" settings when converting? if so what were those settings?

[michaelschrag]

For crying out loud - that took all of 30 seconds. Learn to use PS.<div></div>

[dcheung]

What white-balance mode where you using?

[musubi1000]

Michael, now do that for 1200 more photos by next week. Oh yeah and they have to be perfect.

[mars c]

What lens did you use with the xti?

 

If it was the kit lens, then I'm not surprised.

 

Have you tried another lens?

[dino_.]

Why don't you just sell your Xti and keep the Nikon if you are happier with it?

[michaelschrag]

"Michael, now do that for 1200 more photos by next week. Oh yeah and they have to be perfect."

 

Well - running a batch for 1200 photos is not a problem. Its the perfect part that's the trouble! Many raw converters have preset values that you can store and use later in batch mode. You can also do this in PS.

 

This post is nothing more than a simple mal-adjustment of white balance. The assertion that one would need to change camera brands is a little extreme. By the way, the Nikon shot is off too.

 

The easiest software that I have used to fix this type of problem is Adobe's Lightroom. Its fixed in literally one click.<div></div>

[mark_rutledge]

according to the EXIF on the Canon shot the flash was used....could that be correct? if so then i imagine the camera WB was balanced for it and not the ambient lights.

[pavel_olavich]

Dave, your solid 12 years of SLR experience does NOT prepare one for digital processing. You need to learn how to set up your cameras....it seems you are so quick to blame the equipment. Also you need to learn how to expose...it is NOT the same as film...with digital you need to over expose on purpose with minimal blowing of the highlights, per the histogram. The RAWS are often supposed to look washed out, flat, and worse...that is generally okay because the assumption is that the artist will do the post later. There are many reasons for this, of which I cannot post here as it will take a lot of time and room.

 

And it is evident that you really do not know your way around photoshop. You need to stop blaming the equipment and learn how to set up the cameras, and really learn post processing. Fixing color cast should take about 15 seconds, and determining the proper white balance for a series of shots in the same venue (church) and lighting should allow you to batch correct the white balance.

 

Dave there are literally thousands of wedding photographers that shoot Canon kit every weekend, so if the Canons had a rep for providing bad skin tone you would hear about it here and at dpreview.com all day long, all week long, and then some.

 

This is not the case of course.

 

Dave, when shooting weddings FORGET about dialing in WB perfectly. Better to shoot RAW and correct it during post, and utilizing batch processing. This is not hard, not very time consuming, especially since series of shots are in the same few lighting conditions and venues.

 

During raw shooting of a wedding, set the camera to auto-white balance...it will get it reasonably close...then during raw...per above.

 

Especially for weddings, you will not find a better system then the EOS, as Canon provides the best noise performance, and not at the expense of image detail. Informed buyers, especially pros will go with the EOS system unless they have thousands of $$ in Nikon glass.

[keith_van_hulle1]

Couple more points. These are NOT the same shot. WAY too many variables. Obviously a different day, slightly different angle, different backgrounds. Looks like a different time of day (light thru the stained glass intensity). Were both taken with the same type of prime? What about aperture and shutter? What about the flash situation as noted earlier? Was the overhead lighting ANY different (many churches use rheostats so this could vary)?

 

And what about the internal camera settings? Were they the same as you could make them considering thr Nikon is a jpg? As Pavel noted, if you're happy with the Nikon, then go with it. But don't expect to sway too many with your views, as noted the majority isn't having the problem you're experiencing. So we're back to either a body/sensor problem or a user problem.

[brad_w]

I'm going to go to bat for Dave D here. He's right that Nikon in-camera profiling is much

nicer than Canon's (not more accurate, necessarily, but more aesthetically pleasing). It's

also my experience that ACR's Nikon profiles are better than ACR Canon profiles, so

without custom profiles it is much easier to get the results from ACR if you're a Nikon

shooter. I am not alone in either of these observations, either, being backed up by the

likes of Arthur Morris and many of the good folks at FM and SS. Most agree that Canon's

DPP profiles are pretty good, so you could also do the raw conversion there, then import

to PS.

 

One option noone has suggested is to get some better profiles for the XTi. I don't know of

any 3rd party 'pre-fab' profiles for the camera available yet, but I'm sure they are coming

soon. Custom profiling is always an option. Also, it seems like the white point dropper

should do a darn good job on the image, since the priest's robe is pure white. If the Nikon

image is your ideal, you could pluck the "white" RGB values out of that image, assign them

to the white point dropper and click away on the XTi file.

 

As others have said, the data are undoubtedy in the file, it's just a matter of getting the

tools to interpret the image in a way you like. - B

[StuartMoxham]

If you prefer the Nikon then go with the Nikon. There are just too many people shooting weddings with Canon gear for there to be a serious problem with the Canons. I personaly like the Nikon bodies myself and get great results. If I could afford a Canon 5D and the lenses to go with it then I would probably consider changing, as I can't I will stay where I am.

[dave_d2]

Many replies, a few of value, some downright rude - but I suppose the canon/nikon debate was inevitable<br><br>

 

This thread could have been far more productive if people would have taken the time to read my post and the replies Before firing off assessments of my skills (or lack thereof). My Subject and original post stated that I might be having profiling issues and could benefit from some advice on custom picture profiling on-camera or post-edit. Only one poster picked up on that - most everyone else soapboxed for Canon or slammed me. Sure, I'm new to *D*SLR and I need to ramp up on how to "tweak" the XTi. But Again - I admitted that in my original post, so I don't see the point of slamming me on something that I disclaimed upfront. I believe I conducted objective color tests, but many think I didn't. Fair criticism - I'll take a new array of test shots using some of the suggestions in this thread.<br><br>

 

Some clarifications for the record: The test shots were taken 2 minutes apart, the Nikon shot was not edited, I am a Canon man (not a Nikon man), I recalled having a slower lens on but didn't - excuse my misfocus - it was a busy moment. Focus aside, the color differences are indisputable and it looks like (as I stated originally) I need to tweak my XTi or find a winning custom picture profile that appeals to My eye (which, again, is what I originally asked for anyway). Ugh.<br><br>

 

Thanks for all the feedback - well, not all - but that's the nature of forums I guess...gotta take the good with the bad.

[rtrace]

You can get anything to look like anything else provided you learn how to tweak the RAW converter. Either camera can produce nice skin tones. If you use ACR, I have to agree with the poster above that the default profiles built in ACR for the Nikon cameras work better than the ones for the Canon cameras. But again, one should not use the defaults in ACR, but calibrate it for your camera, Canon or Nikon. I found Canon's DPP to be better out of the box than ACR, but too cumbersome to use. Makes sense. Same with Nikon's Capture NX.

 

There are too many variables. The WB sensors are different. The RAW software interprets things differently, etc, etc. If you shoot JPEG and set an exact same K WB temp for each camera, I don't think you'd get the same look. But that's how it is. I bet I can make the files look the same. Shoot both in RAW at the same exposure and the WB/colors can be tweaked. Canon or Nikon - both are great. I've used Canon DSLRs for many years and now switched to Nikons, but not because Nikon has better colors.

[dave_d2]

Bogdan, thanks - really. This post would have gone differently if I would have just left "Nikon" out and just said that I was having trouble getting pleasant colors with my XTi. I juxtaposed the Nikon because I though it would help, but it just fired people up - or in some cases, gave them an excuse to be fired up.<br><br>

 

Your post hit the crux of what I was asking. I was hoping there were some known settings/recipes I could get hold of, that would render the raws as nicely as I perceive the D80's to be. But I'll just have to keep experimenting. I like the idea of shooting the same exposure and comparing the raws. Even though I did this in nikon/jpeg and canon/raw, it sounds like that experiment was fundamentaly flawed given that it just introduced too many variables. I'll shoot both in raw and hopefully reverse-engineer a custom profile once I get them to match.<br><br>

 

I think I'd go mad trying to get the XTi to renders onboard .jpg's that I like. The XTi doesn't let you create on-camera custom white balance profiles (dare I say, the D80 does), which appears to be what the main issue. So I guess I just have to shoot Raw indoors and post-edit. <br><br>

 

I use plugins for nef/cr2's in Adobe, not ACR. I'm going to stick with DPP and do as much as I can there. Save PS for the tough stuff.

 

<br><br>

Thanks again.