Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Leaf Aptus 75 versus Nikon D3x  (Read 24775 times)
snickgrr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 270


WWW
« Reply #120 on: April 03, 2009, 07:27:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Panopeeper
I think the most useful would be to ask that gentleman to ask someone to make a polariod shot of him, send that to someone with a scanner and then we all know his "true colors" (viewed on uncalibrated monitors).


Or just Color Munki his face.
Logged
HickersonJasonC
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


« Reply #121 on: April 04, 2009, 12:53:03 AM »
ReplyReply

It's fairly obvious from the color chart in the files that the Nikon is more saturated by about 15% in the reds, magentas and purples and that the oranges are leaning red by about 15% as well. Voila, Aptus color in your Nikon.

I don't understand all this obsession with the color differences in these two files. It takes 30 seconds in LR to make the nikon file look virtually identical to the aptus file in regards to color using only saturation and hue sliders. It takes 2 seconds more to save these settings as a preset.

That moire on the other hand. . .

[attachment=12716:Picture_2.png]

Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3645



WWW
« Reply #122 on: April 04, 2009, 05:33:03 AM »
ReplyReply

For entertainment purposes, here is the just posted color-corrected Lightroom version next to my C1 conversion.

I think Lightroom Guy looks like someone who might be getting out of a coffin to go and find lunch, while C1 Guy looks more like a person who would buy the customer lunch
In fact, if these two renderings of a Raw were any guide, anyone contemplating buying into MF might consider just getting C1 as a first step.
- Notice the much more translucent "washed" hair
- Notice the eyebrow color
- Notice the well defined sides of the face
- Notice much lighter underchin area, even though the T-shirt shadows are not blocked out.
- Globally I'd say the C1 skin tone is much much better.

In fact, the C1 conversion has a bit of that MF look to it

I do realize this is just cultural interpretation - what we're doing here is really creating an image rather than adhering to reality ... T

Edmund
« Last Edit: April 04, 2009, 06:02:43 AM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
carstenw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



« Reply #123 on: April 04, 2009, 06:23:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Edmund, your D3x shot looks quite a bit better. Can you post it next to the Aptus shot, processed for the same look? I think I see a little yellow in the D3x shot.
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3645



WWW
« Reply #124 on: April 04, 2009, 06:59:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: carstenw
Edmund, your D3x shot looks quite a bit better. Can you post it next to the Aptus shot, processed for the same look? I think I see a little yellow in the D3x shot.

It wasn't the same look, it was a different non-magenta rendering. And btw, I cannot, I believe, process Leaf in C1
It is indeed very yellow. Not that I mind, too yellow or too magenta, take your pick

I'll try and setup something more similar later on so we can compare skin tone.

Edmund
« Last Edit: April 04, 2009, 07:00:38 AM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
carstenw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



« Reply #125 on: April 04, 2009, 07:05:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eronald
It wasn't the same look, it was a different non-magenta rendering. And btw, I cannot, I believe, process Leaf in C1
It is indeed very yellow. Not that I mind, too yellow or too magenta, take your pick

I'll try and setup something more similar later on so we can compare skin tone.

Basically I am curious how people get good skintones from the Nikon. How it is done, how much work it is, if it can be (largely) automated, and how close the end look is.
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3645



WWW
« Reply #126 on: April 04, 2009, 07:25:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: carstenw
Basically I am curious how people get good skintones from the Nikon. How it is done, how much work it is, if it can be (largely) automated, and how close the end look is.

I think I could make an edited C1 profile for the Nikon which would immediately bring caucasian skin tones in line with expectations for portraits; I did this a long time ago for the Leica and some Phase backs.  The Leica profile had a lot of success, the Phase profiles found some users, the Canon 5D profile was not well accepted although I thought it was excellent. The Canon 1Ds2 was impossible for me to profile correctly. Maybe I should make a Nikon D3x profile available and see what people make of it.

Edmund
« Last Edit: April 04, 2009, 07:28:30 AM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #127 on: April 04, 2009, 11:40:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: carstenw
Basically I am curious how people get good skintones from the Nikon. How it is done, how much work it is, if it can be (largely) automated, and how close the end look is.


There really is no exact formula for getting great skintones from any digital camera.    You can get to pleasing color with base adjustments in a converter but for exact looks it takes local adjustments. That's why photoshop has layers and why God made retouchers.

We just finished an ad for a sports campaign of 5 people, all caucasian and though there are adjustments that get decent color, in the final post work, it took a great deal of local corrections.

Personally, I think overall the Canon 1ds3 has the most pleasing skin tones and seems to require less work in post, but a lot of this comes down to personal preference and how exacting you are about color and look.

There is no single holy grail but I do find for finish, to send an image to retouching, regardless of camera  Raw Developer produces the best look.  In fact I find it interesting that I like the Phase files processed in Raw Developer better than in Phase's own software, though I find C-1 to do well on both the Canon and Nikon files, though once again, this is a matter of personal preference.

To me, none of the digital files out of camera look like film, (and that covers a lot of territory), as to me overall digital is flat and just has a more global color look than film and always requires more post work to emulate a film look.

What we show at the start of the shoot to what we deliver in final, is usually way different.  It shouldn't be but it is.

When it comes to digital cameras of any make, any format, retouching and printing are the great equalizers.

« Last Edit: April 04, 2009, 11:42:46 AM by bcooter » Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad