People who have moved to Other brands

spraynpray

Like I've said before here - if you use Lightroom, the last couple of iterations changed the process from process 2010 to process 2012. When you import a file into Lightroom 4 or 5, they (Adobe) have already done some processing to your image before you even see it. Take an image and convert it back to 2010 and see what happens to the sliders.

Raw files are only a beginning point anyway.

sevencrossing

Raw files are only a beginning point anyway.

Yet again, I find my self in agreement with S&P

What is the point in shooting RAW if you only use LR or Aperture's default settings
as Msmoto says, the lighting is going to have a much bigger affect on skin tones, than whether you are shooting Nikon or Canon; not to mention make up, or ISO setting

I like Scott Kelby he is a very good photographer, a great teacher, and a very astute business man
He is also a brilliant bull shitter

TaoTeJared

Maybe there is some way to set the Auto white balance to move it a step off of magenta and a set to more yellow for improved skin tones?

Or maybe the glass in certain lenses will yield a less magenta and more yellow color for skin tones? I keep reading how certain people feel certain lenses provide different and better colors.

Maybe batch processing can automatically adjust skin tones just a bit?

Yes and yes. If you select auto WB and hold the WB button, you can rotate the dials that will push it towards cooler or warmer. You can also change the "color" in the menu system, but that is haphazard as it shifts everything.

But also remember it is a two part system, WB will move things, but the sensor also ejects color shifts. Raw removes WB issues. I use Expodisc neutral all the time and find it really does make a difference. The warm version always went too orange for me.

A few Lenses do have a color cast, (85mm 1.4 is warmer) but most are neutral. Cheap filters also can add a color cast as well.

Some software does also move colors (usually 3rd party or one's that don't believe in standardization) but most main stream editors stick to the same pallets.

Ade

Like I've said before here - if you use Lightroom, the last couple of iterations changed the process from process 2010 to process 2012. When you import a file into Lightroom 4 or 5, they (Adobe) have already done some processing to your image before you even see it. Take an image and convert it back to 2010 and see what happens to the sliders.

Which is why I wrote "default white balance and process".

In any case the differences between Process 2003, 2010 and 2012 are negligible when compared to the differences between Lightroom and Aperture:



which again demonstrates that IMHO, for 99% of RAW shooters out there, switching from Nikon to Canon for "better colors" seems rather silly when in reality there are other aspects of the workflow which make any differences between them a mute point.

Golf007sd

@Ade +1 on how post processing software has an effects colors & skin tones.
@Benji2505: +1

spraynpray

Like I've said before here - if you use Lightroom, the last couple of iterations changed the process from process 2010 to process 2012. When you import a file into Lightroom 4 or 5, they (Adobe) have already done some processing to your image before you even see it. Take an image and convert it back to 2010 and see what happens to the sliders.

Which is why I wrote "default white balance and process".

In any case the differences between Process 2003, 2010 and 2012 are negligible when compared to the differences between Lightroom and Aperture:



which again demonstrates that IMHO, for 99% of RAW shooters out there, switching from Nikon to Canon for "better colors" seems rather silly when in reality there are other aspects of the workflow which make any differences between them a mute point.

For sure that is an extreme difference Ade, but it is only the one colour, and we don't have a standard to compare it to there, only a difference - so it could be the Aperture rendition that is off. When I view a typical image and compare processes, there is a more apparent difference than that one colour suggests. I don't have Aperture to compare lightroom to, but from everything I have gleaned from all kinds of sources over the last couple of years, it does seem to be significantly better than Lightroom in some ways.

[Deleted User]

All of the color talk is of no value to me as I shoot almost all in the worst lighting conditions known to man

but I have no intentions of working…LOL

Of course, working eat up so much free time

Nothing more subjective then color, the colors of the Ade's comparison are very different on my (corrected) IEZO monitor and the monitor from my VAIO Notebook. The good thing is, my brain corrects it for me.

I mostly use an Expodisk for white balance (click and ready), the X-rite colourchecker (click) and a click in Lightroom.

Back to the topic, I bought Nikon because all my lenses always fit on a new body, (hardly) everything even works on my Nikon 1 with a FT1 adapter, very useful. No other brand has this.

WestEndBoy

For sure that is an extreme difference Ade, but it is only the one colour, and we don't have a standard to compare it to there, only a difference - so it could be the Aperture rendition that is off. When I view a typical image and compare processes, there is a more apparent difference than that one colour suggests. I don't have Aperture to compare lightroom to, but from everything I have gleaned from all kinds of sources over the last couple of years, it does seem to be significantly better than Lightroom in some ways.

That is a good point and is why I am holding off on touching colour until I get a colour accurate monitor with a build in calibration device.

Vipmediastar_JZ

I recommend the Xrite calibration tool Colormunki and an expo disk that I use when I fire up the studio. I also have a pocketable greay card that I bought from petapixel. I feel that my D800 copy does a good job in AWB. The D600 made people like me look yellow as if I had jaundice.

As far as 2010 LR goes I made a photo its my flickr avatar/profile pic with a greyscale preset that I found on the internet. A few tweaks later I made one of my fav images. I accidentally upgraded to the recent 2012 process. Then my my nicely done Black and white photo turned into a whole new image. I couldn't revert back as this happened without my knowlendge at the time and the preset was not on my new mac.

Finally a month ago i got the old pc to work and found the preset in the LR folder. I imported and I was back to my image as it was before. I did upgrade it to 2012 and noticed that the sliders changed and altered my image back but now I had a starting point as far as values based from the 2010 and adjusted accordingly to an archived image.

also for that shoot I used the exposdisk in one of the locations as the light was beyond terrible giving the d7000 a weird yellow/green cast. the image improved after the exposdisk custom wb. and in post It helped alot.

I also had two monitors at the time and I didn't have a xrite tool. once i got it i re-did everything as it made a big difference in colors. I was adjusting blindly basically.

the power of RAW is awesome

WestEndBoy

I am also thinking of one of the better Eizo monitors.

DenverShooter

I carried a 5DMKII for a while and I found the menus and controls to be counter intuitive and user hostile. I didn't think that it made images as well as my Nikon's either.

Denver Shooter

TaoTeJared

I'll make Color calibration stuff thread - that should all be on another thread.

NSXTypeR

On a similar note, but I forgot completely, if anyone watches Matt Granger on Youtube or know about That Nikon Guy, he also pissed a couple people off but less so than Scott Kelby. He didn't switch, but he picked up Canon cameras and I think he shoots with both systems. He also ended up dropping his "That Nikon Guy" name too.