From a previous Canon vs. Nikon thread. With Canon you don't have to retouch ....

[igmolinav]

Hi,

I remember that a few months ago there was a Canon vs. Nikon thread. Someone mentioned that when pictures were taken with a Canon,
pictures were ready to be given to a customer. That with Nikon, one
needed to work more on the colors of the picture, and adjust other
things.

I ask this, because I would like to spend the least of time in
"postproduction".

Thank you, kind regards,

igmolinav.

 

[HBOC]

I would think maybe the colours are a bit different. I would like to know what Canon model you are referring to, as i have never ever had one that is ready to go right from the box. I have had 5 or 6 canon cameras.

Colours also vary lens to lens. A 17-40L will render better colours than a kit lens. Shooting JPEG will also affect this, as they tend to need little PP'ing. RAW is a different story.

 

[GoCubsGo]

I think this is a completely ignorant statement designed to provoke nothing more than yet another manufacturer war.

Frankly, if this were indeed the case then no one would bother with Nikon, at least in the professional world.

No camera is out of the box ready these days. Maybe back when using slide film was popular and not everyone with a flickr account and a consumer DSLR didn't think they were a "pro", but not now.

If you truly want to spend less time in your digital darkroom then learn exposure and composition and keep your gear clean.

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

Define "ready"

 

[wheelhot]

another meaningless argument, if Nikon needed more work on pictures to get it correct then no pro will be using Nikon now

 

[igmolinav]

Hi,

I have a Nikon D50, and I was thinking perhaps to upgrade to a 10 megapixel camera, either from Nikon or Canon to do headshots. I thought I could offer the option of giving the fotos in a CD unretouched, for people who may wanted that way. However, if I happen to offer this question, I would like to offer these "naked" or unretouched photos from the camera that the fotos will look more natural, better, etc ... ; ) !!!

Thank you, kind regards,

igmolinav.

 

[compuwar]

Every sensor/lens/filter/lighting combination produces a different range of colors. If you *really* want accurate colors, then you need to calibrate your equipment- otherwise, you can rely on either settings in the JPEG engine, or in your raw converter if you shoot raw. Any two given sensors even in the same camera model will vary a bit, between models a fair bit, and between vendors even more- but a lot depends on what you shoot and how you have your camera set up. For the most accurate colors, you'll have to calibrate and run the correction during import.

X-Rite's Passport works with either vendor's images just fine. Most people find the images made by their camera fine, irrespective for which vendor makes the camera, but *all* sensors from all manufacturers will *not* render all colors correctly by default, no matter if you've got a $45,000 Hasselblad, or a $300 Sony P&S. It also depends on what you're shooting- Asian skin tones render differently than Black skin tones than Caucasian skin tones- let alone flowers, fabrics, etc.- Anyone who says any particular manufacturer's line is any better than another's regardless of settings, lighting and subject is a crack smoking fanboy.

Anyone who says theirs is always right out of the box hasn't ever calibrated and looked at the differences. Are the differences enough to make it worth-while to calibrate? Sometimes for me, other times, I don't need that exactness- or I need the "warming sun" cast instead of a straight white balance...

I've had images published from Nikon cameras without any color correction and with lots of color correction- it all depends on what the client wants, or what I've previsualized, or what I'm shooting. Shoot in Natural, Flash, Sodium and Fluorescent lighting all at the same time, and if you think you'll have a great image without any PP because you picked one vendor over another, I've got a nice orange bridge to sell you.

If you're naive enough to think Nikon would sell a single D3, D3x or D700 to a professional if their colors were that off compared to Canon, or that professionals who shoot Canon never PP their images, then you should probably spend some time actually researching the issue- because lots of sites publish pretty good color range and sensitivity findings, or show examples shooting the same or similar images with a wide range of colors.

No major (or minor for that matter) DSLR manufacturer produces a product today that won't produce usable results out of the camera if it's set up right. By the same token, nobody produces a product today that couldn't use some level of calibration and correction to get more accurate results. That's the nature of the beast- anyone telling you any different is lying or delusional.

Paul

 

[compuwar]

Hi,

I have a Nikon D50, and I was thinking perhaps to upgrade to a 10 megapixel camera, either from Nikon or Canon to do headshots. I thought I could offer the option of giving the fotos in a CD unretouched, for people who may wanted that way. However, if I happen to offer this question, I would like to offer these "naked" or unretouched photos from the camera that the fotos will look more natural, better, etc ... ; ) !!!

Thank you, kind regards,

igmolinav.

Buy strobes and learn to use them. Calibrate for your strobes. Not that you'll be doing anything quality-wise without still retouching the subjects unless you're shooting flawless 18 year old models after a very good make-up artist has spent an hour on them.

Paul

 

[JoeG4]

So do you guys have your subjects sit in the room afterwards and make sure the colors on your screen & the printer match the colors you see in front of you? XD

As a person who only takes pictures for fun with a Canon P&S (and sometimes, a Fuji P&S), who has never touched a DSLR in his life, and doesn't really have any plans to, I'd think when you took a picture, you had a certain goal in mind.

Eg, step 1: Get lighting as close to ideal as possible for what you want
Step 2: Fix it. Many times, the stuff that requires retouching is out of your control in step 1 anyway, regardless of what company produced your cameras, lenses, lights, etc.

Some people will have spots on their faces they want gone, and a bird may end up crapping in your Grand Canyon picture.

I don't think Canon P&S cameras magically eliminate every single problem a picture may have! XD

 

[compuwar]

So do you guys have your subjects sit in the room afterwards and make sure the colors on your screen & the printer match the colors you see in front of you? XD

Nope, if I care about accuracy, I now simply take a frame of the subject holding my X-rite Passport, then take the Passport away and take their picture. I make a profile with the first image and apply it to any others shot with that lighting. My screen and printer are profiled, so it's pretty standard end-to-end from the camera/lens/sensor/lighting to the final print- no need to have the subject sit there to check

Paul

 

[OreoCookie]

The basic premise is complete non-sense. No single manufacturer has some secret pixie dust that they sprinkle over their jpg files.

Canons and Nikons (and I assume all other modern dslrs as well) allow you to tweak the options for the in-camera RAW conversion. You can have them more or less saturated, apply more or less sharpening, etc. There are typically quite a few presets and you can also create your own custom settings. Traditionally, the default settings differ, e. g. Olympus applies a lot of sharpening while Nikon doesn't. Hence, the jpg in the Nikon is better suited to be edited on your Mac afterwards.

If you use RAW, then you can forget about the last paragraph, because it is up to your RAW converter and not your camera.

In short, if you switch to Canon because you expect that the camera gives you better output, you will in all likelihood be disappointed. If you would like your jpgs to be more saturated or have more sharpening applied to them, you can already tweak these settings on your D50, you don't need to wait for your next camera.

 

[TheStrudel]

Not that you'll be doing anything quality-wise without still retouching the subjects unless you're shooting flawless 18 year old models after a very good make-up artist has spent an hour on them.

I just thought it was worth pointing out that unless you're shooting glamor photos, not everybody wants an artificially flawless picture of themselves...

Some people do prefer a more "real" approach to photography/portraits.

Rare, I know, but I feel like quality may not be the best word to use if what you mean is "Trying to make people look like an artificial standard of beauty".

If it sounds like I'm ranting, I don't mean to be. I'm just pointing out that not everybody, everywhere is going for the magazine look.

 

[compuwar]

I just thought it was worth pointing out that unless you're shooting glamor photos, not everybody wants an artificially flawless picture of themselves...

Retouching a portrait doesn't have to go to the "artificially flawless" level, but I've yet to have a portrait subject who didn't want stray hairs nuked, a few wrinkles lessened, eyebrows worked a bit, a blemish or mole removed or lessened, neck shrunk a bit, clothes dewrinkled, a gray hair nuked, etc.

I've had to de-red-eye models who drank too much the night before a shoot- show me a female who wants to get her picture taken without make-up and her hair done, and then we can talk about natural- but I've yet to encounter that scenario, so I'm assuming it's not all that common, especially with older subjects.

A portrait is a visual representation of the client, not a news documentary shot- so a "quality" portrait represents the client in their best light- and if you present the client as they really look, you'll often not get them back- even the ones who profess to want a natural look are more vain than they think. A quality landscape has great looking scenery with great lighting, and a quality portrait has a great-looking subject with great lighting. You can go for "gritty" with some male subjects- but side-light a woman at your own peril.[1] Just like you wouldn't short light a skinny person or broad light a fat one and expect quality results, leaving all the flaws in- especially in these days of high-resolution lenses and cameras is a mistake. Soft focus lenses, pantyhose over the lens, and all the other tricks of the portraiturist are time-honored traditions because they produce the looks that people generally *want* in their portraits, reality not withstanding.

Paul
[1] I'm all for equality, and I think women shouldn't have to feel it necessary to don makeup at all, let alone spend two hours on their hair before going out, but society seems to be less even-handed than I'd like and most women seem to be attuned to the social dance and apparently that picture _making_ them look "old, fat or bad" is more at fault than reality in many of their eyes. Then again, I retouch some self-portraits, so I'm not immune to vanity either!