Color profil 7D mkII problems
When i import a raw file, the colors are way of.. When i open the same file in Camera raw and Ligtroom its right.. Please help asap!!! 😊
0
-
You'll need to give us something to work with - "way off" tells us nothing useful about the problem.
Let's see an example image, please - with exif - and some information about how you're converting: are you exporting in Adobe RGB, for example?
I use the 7D Mk II as well, and - although I don't much like the default profile - I wouldn't call it "way off"...0 -
I take the pictures in Adope RGB(in camera), when i import the raw files.. I have to have saturation down to -30, before it look a bit right but still the lumosity of the colors also look to high... Its the same file i open in CO, lightroom and camera raw before i start to edit it. Best regards Kristian and thanks for the answer Keith. 0 -
So the problem is before i do anything to the raw file, and im not exporting the file just opening it in different programs.. Hope it can help you to help me..😊 0 -
I think we still need to see an example image, please - you'll need to upload it somewhere and then post a link to it here.
Interesting though, that you feel that the default it too saturated - I agree with you about that. Is it too biased towards orange/red in your opinion?0 -
....................... 0 -
[quote="NNN635397352773288520" wrote:
Here is a link to some pictures https://www.dropbox.com/sh/06at443ruckp ... BGfWa?dl=0 😊 C.jpg is from CO.
That link does not look right and certainly does not work for me.
I'm not sure that, ultimately, an exported jpg will be of great use in assessing the RAW conversion defaults for the camera type but I'll leave it to Keith or anyone with a 7D2 to comment upon whether it looks similar to what they see.
Grant0 -
Link isn't working for me. 0 -
Here is a new link... 0 -
If i chose the camera profil in CO from Adope-dng files etc.. its a bit bettter.. 0 -
If these are both default values converting from an original CR2 file then there are clearly some differences in the way the exposure value and possibly the saturation have been handled.
I'm not sure that it is logical to compare the images because of that.
Certainly the default values may give a different look but then what would be the point of having different products to interpret a RAW file if they all gave the same result when processed to a jpg?
Comparing default colour rendition is not really meaningful UNLESS you are in a high volume minimal editing situation - like shooting at events - when the file coming from the camera is very likely the end result you will use. Or possibly the camera file plus some default "style" type processing based on a very well known set up - usually a consistent light source like your lighting set up for which you can create a set of adjustments to your preferred values and apply them to all or most of the shots created.
The RAW converter challenge for studio shots is whether you can consistently get it to provide the colour rendition you like given that all of the other aspects of the image look much the same - so if the dark background looks the same can you get the skin tone to match or at least give you something you like? Whether they do so at first interpretation is not really the point. If they did there would be little or no point for designing and all the tools in the products ...
IMO.
Grant0 -
Hi Grant, thanks for the answer... Even if use greycard i cant get the colors to look naturally, i think the color are alot more correct in Lightroom and Camera raw... I know it shouldnt be the same result, but since i startet using 7d mkii in CO. The colors has always been a problem, the skin color is more orange and looks burned out some places even if the histogram looks fine... So its more naturally color i searching for, and it is really slowing me down in my work flow, because im really greeky with the colors.. 0 -
[quote="NNN635397352773288520" wrote:
Hi Grant, thanks for the answer... Even if use greycard i cant get the colors to look naturally, i think the color are alot more correct in Lightroom and Camera raw... I know it shouldnt be the same result, but since i startet using 7d mkii in CO. The colors has always been a problem, the skin color is more orange and looks burned out some places even if the histogram looks fine... So its more naturally color i searching for, and it is really slowing me down in my work flow, because im really greeky with the colors..
Burned out suggests firstly exposure imbalance - epsecially is the dark areas as are as dark as your example. It seems to have truncated dynamic range - unusual in C1 V8 in my experience.
In the Base Characteristics tool which Curve is applied? Does chaning the curve make any difference?
Have you checked to see what happens if you use the Linear Response curve and then make exposure and colour adjustments from there? If you can get to something that you prefer from there you could see if saving it as a style and applying it as the default for the camera gives you the starting point you need to make your C1 workflow more efficient.
If you feel you can share a sample RAW file I would be interested to see what results can be achieved.
Grant0 -
Hi Grant, i will upload a raw file later... The best color result i can get is if i use adobe-dng files etc.. I will check what base charateristic im using... Im not home right now. 😊 0 -
The raw file is on the same link... Hope it can help. 0 -
Yep, from those examples, I think we're seeing exactly what some of us have been unhappy about with the new Capture One profiles: far too much of a bias towards - well, let's be honest - a deeply unnatural "fake tan" orange.
Not very nice, is it? Even accepting that Capture One camera profiles are intended to be "pleasing" rather than colorimetrically accurate, the 7D Mk II profile is pretty horrible.
Can you try a conversion using (say) the Canon 5D Mk II profile to see if that's any better to your eyes? It''s what I've started using for my 7D Mk II.0 -
Thanks alot for the help Keith.. If i use 5d generic, i really like the color. So they did a bad job with the color profil? 0 -
I have to agree. I took a lot of photos in Oxford today and opening them in Capture One, the stonework of the buildings is coming out in a really vivid orange. Changing the profile to 5D MkII looks a lot more realistic. 0 -
A quick near match seems possible by changing the Base Characteristics curve to Film Extra Shadow. Then desaturate a bit (about 30 perhaps) and add some contrast to compensate for the desaturation. Maybe a little Lightness too.
That seems to give a background which is a very similar dark grey/brown to the LR output you prefer and brings the skin tone closer without doing anything related to colour adjustments. (You could also try the skin tone settings in the White Balance tool for fine adjustments to the look but all I have done is a "quick and dirty" tweak to see the potential.)
To create your own look I would suggest going for the the Linear curve in Base Characteristics.
I set exposure to +0.73
Contrast +13
Saturation somewhere between -25 and -30 according to taste.
HDR tools Highlight to 80 to control the lighter areas of the face.
With WB set to Kelvin 5800 and tint to -7 the Background black seemed close to your LR preference jpg.
Somewhere around those settings might work for you with final colour balance using the colour balance tool for overall adjustment or maybe the Skin Tone specific adjustments in WB or the Colour Editor to smooth the skin tones.
For a quick overall softening I used some negative clarity which may or may not suit the look you seek.
Save as a Style and you have the basis for your own look to be applied on import or as you choose during editing.
See what you think. There are a number of other minor adjustments that can make a difference at that level of comparison. By the end I found I could not decide whether the LR jpg was a nice peachy skin colour or just heading a bit towards yellow compared to my C1 edit that might, by comparison, be considered to be on the very very slightly pink side if one was going for the yellower look.
Grant0 -
Oh, it's possible to adjust things to get to a better starting point and save as a default Grant - but this something of a recurring theme: something about Phase One's profiling changed around the time of the 5D Mk III/7D, and not to the better.
They need to take this feedback on board (even if not via "official" support case channels) and take a good hard look at how thery're doing things.
Or maybe - given Phase One's cosy relationship with Sony, and the satisfaction that Sony users are expressing about the new Sony profiles in Capture One - this is sneaky way to drive Canon shooting Capture One users into the arms of Sony..!
😊0 -
Are Phase One not looking at there own work and do they like the colors??? How could you ever convience a person to use CO with a 7d mkii camera... When it looks so bad when you import it compared to lightroom. I know that you can make presets and all that, but why should you waste time on that when it should look good for the start. But im very disappointed. This is the first time im thinking about going back to lightroom.. Because i had so much headache and frustratio over this.. I thought it was me doing something wrong.. The best camera profil for me is still Adobe-DNG Files etc. 0 -
Ask Phase one for a better profile. The first profile for cameras is not often very good to say the least. The first profile for the Pentax K3 was pretty awful regarding color accuracy, the second one very good (apart from a slight overall reddish cast that was easily corrected in the advanced color editor, but that made certain yellows shift to orange). I would not put my trust in a first generic profile, they may be copied over with some edits from earlier camera models. Phase one may well use these first generic profiles to get support for new cameras in time, but in reality need more time to create a proper profile.
That's all mere speculation, but I would only draw conclusions myself from a v2 profile. That's when they reálly start looking at a camera in depth.
The tendency to orange/red however remains, and opens the need for multiple profiles, e.g. also a "neutral" profile. Phase one however gives you the advanced color editor to work the modifications out yourself, and sticks to the default "pleasing" (i.e. reddish/orange cast) generic profiles for at least a number of Dslr cameras.
Chris0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
They need to take this feedback on board (even if not via "official" support case channels) and take a good hard look at how thery're doing things.
Keith,
I would not disagree with that at all.
Maybe the forum members can assist by creating some examples of what they as users would find acceptable and sending the Styles/EIP/WHY to the Support Team. A reasonable number of samples - probably not many if they all seek more or less the same look - would surely be a useful guide as to expectation I would think.
The downside to the idea would be if everyone comes up with a totally different need ... but that seems unlikely from what I can glean from the comments so far.
Grant0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
[Maybe the forum members can assist by creating some examples of what they as users would find acceptable and sending the Styles/EIP/WHY to the Support Team. A reasonable number of samples - probably not many if they all seek more or less the same look - would surely be a useful guide as to expectation I would think.
This is more than welcome if not encouraged.
Color preference is subjective, plane and simple. If their is a large community asking for an adjustment, we'll evaluate examples and build a new Profile. We've done it many times in the past and are happy to do it again should it be important enough that users provide examples and explanations. Simple and straight forward, please help us help you.0 -
Thanks for the answer Drew... It would be nice im my oppinion, to have to color and especielly the skintone look naturaly from the start, then you can always mess it up after if the pictures needs that. Best regards Kristian 0 -
[quote="NNN635397352773288520" wrote:
It would be nice im my oppinion, to have to color and especielly the skintone look naturaly from the start.
I understand the sentiment but the question remains, "How does a natural skintone look"?
Again, we're talking about subjective content. What you perceive as "natural" is not a universal definition.
Additionally, for everyone that wants a specific look as a starting point there are an equal number of people that do NOT want a change. As such, we can't make an arbitrary decision to implement a different profile. We know we cannot please everyone, so we'd be happy to do our best and cater to those that take the time to create support cases and provide data.
We can go around and around about this but at the end of the day, examples and explanation are what we need to move forward on a new profile.0 -
for everyone that wants a specific look as a starting point there are an equal number of people that do NOT want a change. As such, we can't make an arbitrary decision to implement a different profile
CO can support multiple icc profiles per camera, so where is the conflict for CO to have profiles for standard, faithful and etc ?! CO did deliver multiple profiles for Canon 1D.
Color is subjective but color accuracy is scientific and objective. An icc profile calibrated precisely from colorChecker chart might not look the best, but I am sure that such profile will always look natural and never awful.
I left CO 2 years ago for Adobe LR because it has much better support for color calibration. There are solutions by Xrite CCPP or QPCard that only take a minute to generate a profile that guarantee color accuracy to a high degree. Accurate color is a must for anyone who shoots product for a living.
Nowadays CO still does not have any support for Color Checker chart. The answer to this requirement is Color Editor.
There was a CO link where a pro claimed himself able to tune the color in 5 mins time. Well absolutely you can tune the color to your "liking" in 5 mins. But show me in Youtube that you can calibrate a color checker by Color Editor in that time frame.0 -
[quote="Urukhai" wrote:
CO can support multiple icc profiles per camera,
We can and we do.
So, once again I would ask users to please take the time to create some examples, write a description and submit a support case.[quote="Urukhai" wrote:
An icc profile calibrated precisely from colorChecker ...will always look natural and never awful.
If you would like absolute accuracy, you will need to make an ICC profile yourself under your own specific lighting, for that specific camera. This is what is done by professional reproduction clients so repeating these steps is not an efficient use of our time. Additionally, as much work to deviate the 'accurate' color to reflect the 'desired' color is necessary so their is no simple solution here, only differing approaches. Some users want it one way, others want it another. Capture One caters to the majority and we'd be happy to evaluate anyones needs or request for change via a support case.0 -
This isn't about "accuracy", Drew - you're quite right to point out what a fool's errand that is.
But hand on heart, I don't believe that anyone would, out of two conversions of the same 7D Mk II file - one converted using the default profile and one using (say) the 5D MK II profile - pick the 7D Mk II profile image as the better (more pleasing) of the two - unless, perhaps, their monitor profile was seriously borked.
It's a horrible profile, and just the latest in an ongoing series of horrible Canon profiles that have been the topic of dicussion on numerous occasions here.
I think by now we've established, beyond any reasonable doubt, that things are not quite as they should be with the profiles we're getting these days: it's a fairly recurring theme that when I've suggested to folk that they should try an older profile, they've generally reported back in the positive.
Q.E.D., I'd suggest...
(I know that the tiny number of users is hardly a representative sample of Capture One's user base, but I bet we're a pretty accurate cross-section of it - and our opinions are entirely likely to be representative of the "bigger picture").
I've got to be honest - what with Capture One 8's inherent flakiness on my machine, and more and more disappointing colours (this from a converter whose main claim to fame was "The Capture One Look"), I'm finding it harder and harder to find a reason to fire Capture One up over Lightroom 5, Phota Ninja, or DxO Optics Pro 10.
I'm right at the point where I'm thinking "if the only thing that Capture One unquestionably did better than the other converters was "The Look", and now it doesn't even do that, why bother with it at all"?0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
This isn't about "accuracy", Drew - you're quite right to point out what a fool's errand that is.
But hand on heart, I don't believe that anyone would, out of two conversions of the same 7D Mk II file - one converted using the default profile and one using (say) the 5D MK II profile - pick the 7D Mk II profile image as the better (more pleasing) of the two - unless, perhaps, their monitor profile was seriously borked.
It's a horrible profile, and just the latest in an ongoing series of horrible Canon profiles that have been the topic of dicussion on numerous occasions here.
I think by now we've established, beyond any reasonable doubt, that things are not quite as they should be with the profiles we're getting these days: it's a fairly recurring theme that when I've suggested to folk that they should try an older profile, they've generally reported back in the positive.
Q.E.D., I'd suggest...
(I know that the tiny number of users is hardly a representative sample of Capture One's user base, but I bet we're a pretty accurate cross-section of it - and our opinions are entirely likely to be representative of the "bigger picture").
I've got to be honest - what with Capture One 8's inherent flakiness on my machine, and more and more disappointing colours (this from a converter whose main claim to fame was "The Capture One Look"), I'm finding it harder and harder to find a reason to fire Capture One up over Lightroom 5, Phota Ninja, or DxO Optics Pro 10.
I'm right at the point where I'm thinking "if the only thing that Capture One unquestionably did better than the other converters was "The Look", and now it doesn't even do that, why bother with it at all"?
You are right Keith, there are some awful profiles present amongst the CO1 genericv1 profiles. It must be an art hard to master. The whole debate about "accuracy" versus "pleasing" is flawed i.m.o., because if you have sat behind monitors enough, you know you can néver blindly trust your eyes (no pun intended). Just try to white balance going by your eyes, it is near impossible because your eyes adapt, and you may well ask yourself the day after, seeing the print in your hands: "how on earth could I think that that was the right white balance?". Phase one profile makers may face the same phenomenon, and go by their eyes, when they should trust a more reliable source when they tune their profiles.
So yes, start a support case, provide samples of colors shifting to different hues, and they will have to adjust the profile to render accurate colors. The Pentax K3 generic v1 made purple look blue, and red was oversaturated to the point of ridiculous, so if the faces with the Canon 7DII generic profile look orange, just provide an example and be patient for the v2 in the next release. I did with the Pentax K3 and the Sony A7R, and it was worth the wait. Whenever I start up Adobe or DxO (that I both have also), I quickly close them again. They don't come close to CO1, not to me.
Chris0 -
... still not one support case with an example/ suggestion/ description/ request, received.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Everyone can suggest a solution.
However none of that is going to help improve the software to meet your needs.
If you'd like to see a change, create a support case and let's get to it.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
30 comments