Color Problem with 5D Mark 3

[Dusty87]

Hello!

New member here, so bear with me.

I am a portrait photographer, and recently upgraded from a 5D Mark 2 to a 5D Mark 3.. Despite advice from a friend, I took the Mark 3 to a shoot without practicing first. As as I shot, I was looking at the LCD playback screen, and thought they all looked wonderful. But once I got home, I quickly realized that I have a problem. I was not quite prepared for the drastic difference in color between the 2 and the 3. When I shot with my Mark 2, I never had an issue with color... and if I did, it was user error. But the color is awful in the images that I made with the new Mark 3.

I have Googled until my fingers were numb, so I joined the forum just so I could ask... Is there any way to correct this IN-CAMERA?!?! (And if not, what is the easiest way to correct the problem for any & all future RAW files that I shoot?)

I have tried changing picture styles. I have tried changing the Kelvin settings.. No matter what I do, the color looks "off". Please help me!!

I have attached some links to examples from the shoot. And while I'm well aware that there are probably "other" technical problems with the images, I ask that you only look at the image color(s) as the problem. (For what it's worth.. I know the location is not the issue, because I shot in the very same location with my Mark 2, and the colors were lovely. But in the photos below, as you'll see, there's an over-abundance of green.)

https://ibb.co/eYyNGk
https://ibb.co/hN6W95

Image details.. 6850 Kelvin (which, btw, is not what it said in-camera as I was shooting) with +5 magenta 
And yes, I shot these in RAW.


Thanks for any and all advice/tips/suggestions you might have!

Best,

-Dusty

[Waddizzle]

Are you using any sort of lens filters?  I have found that i get the best results using just a clear filter.  I have stopped using ND filters when shooting stills altogether.  If I want a very shallow DOF on a bright sunny day, I cheat.  Photoshop can do a very good job of blurring the background, if you use multiple background layers.

[kacprek]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

Are you using any sort of lens filters?  I have found that i get the best results using just a clear filter.  I have stopped using ND filters when shooting stills altogether.  If I want a very shallow DOF on a bright sunny day, I cheat.  Photoshop can do a very good job of blurring the background, if you use multiple background layers.

---

I don't but I've been thinking about that. I think that if I will use one it should be high quality filters.

[ebiggs1]

"I'm very curious, maybe just this camera is harder to learn how to shoot properly and post process after"

I 100% totally disagree with that.  I did use a layer/mask in the shot of the girl with the yellow dress but that was because the BG wasn't right, to me anyway.

I have shot tons of photos with all the 5 (I, II, II, IV) series camera except the 5Ds.  They make beautiful photographs.  You need to get LR/PS and spend some quality time learning it.  Keep this in mind, no camera is 100% perfect but PS is.  Stop messing around with amateur editing software if you want professional results.

[TCampbell]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"I'm very curious, maybe just this camera is harder to learn how to shoot properly and post process after"

I 100% totally disagree with that.  I did use a layer/mask in the shot of the girl with the yellow dress but that was because the BG wasn't right, to me anyway.

I have shot tons of photos with all the 5 (I, II, II, IV) series camera except the 5Ds.  They make beautiful photographs.  You need to get LR/PS and spend some quality time learning it.  Keep this in mind, no camera is 100% perfect but PS is.  Stop messing around with amateur editing software if you want professional results.

---

I’m with Ernie ... with the caveat that I’ve owned a 5D II, III, and IV (I still own the III & IV).  The III is more “technical” than the II was.  It has several features that are more advanced than the II had (most noteably ... the focus system.)

But for purposes of this discussion (color accuracy), the camera really is the same as all others.  It is no more difficult.

Shooting in RAW means you have more post-shoot adjustment latitude options because a RAW file should not make any change that is “destructive” to original data.  Canon is pretty good about this. 

When you shoot RAW, the camera wont apply any change that results in a loss of original data.  You can set your white balance choice and it will “record” the choice to the meta-data file... but it will not “apply” that choice to the RAW data.  When you shoot RAW, you’re basically saying “I want to control everything”.  There’s a little more work to do (but this should be true of any camera when shooting RAW ... the 5D III is not special in this regard) but you have far more control over the end result.

[ebiggs1]

"Shooting in RAW means you have more post-shoot adjustment latitude options because a RAW file should not make any change that is “destructive” to original data."

And, that statement sums up the whole story.  That is exactly why we shoot Raw.

And, this one ain't bad either.................

"You can set your white balance choice and it will “record” the choice to the meta-data file... but it will not “apply” that choice to the RAW data."

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"Shooting in RAW means you have more post-shoot adjustment latitude options because a RAW file should not make any change that is “destructive” to original data."

And, that statement sums up the whole story.  That is exactly why we shoot Raw.

And, this one ain't bad either.................

"You can set your white balance choice and it will “record” the choice to the meta-data file... but it will not “apply” that choice to the RAW data."

---

I'm not sure that last statement is quite true. While the color balance setting will not affect your freedom to select another value in post, it will be taken into consideration in setting the exposure. Then if you do change it later, you'll have to crank up the brightness to compensate. If the required correction is great enough, it's almost certain to have an effect on the quality of the resulting image. So there should be a benefit to getting it right the first time.

[ebiggs1]

"...there should be a benefit to getting it right the first time."

I can't argue with getting it right, right out of the box but it doesn't mean it can't be corrected to 'right'.  It is possible to get it so wrong that there isn't enough latitude left to correct. We are taking it for granted that is not the case.  The OP's examples clearly show he is close.  Close enough that any Raw edit will be possible.  There is no excuse except lack of experience with PS that is not the case here.

"Then if you do change it later, you'll have to crank up the brightness to compensate."

Anytime you do an adjustment or edit that 'adds' something you are going to effect brightness or contrast.  That can't be helped whether you are using Raw or not.

[ebiggs1]

Robert,

Tim hit the nail on the head with this, "You can set your white balance choice and it will “record” the choice to the meta-data file... but it will not “apply” that choice to the RAW data."

If you asked me what were the camera settings in your 1Dx for your last shoot, which was yesterday for the  JoCo Fair Parade, I could not tell you. I rarely look at them.  My main most thing is getting the exposure as close as I can.  And, if I can't, I bracket several shots.

This is my experience and not backed by any documented proof.  But Canon with DPP tries to get you as good a photo as it can. This approach may limit how far back to Raw, as you have suggested, you can go with edits in DPP, I don't know.  Adobe on the other hand converts the Raw into a more neutral style.  Most people easily see this and some comment it looked better in the camera than it does in LR for example.  LR, ACR/PS leave the edits up to you. This may make it easier, Adobe thinks so, to do your own adjustments and control over the finished product.

[kacprek]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"Shooting in RAW means you have more post-shoot adjustment latitude options because a RAW file should not make any change that is “destructive” to original data."

And, that statement sums up the whole story.  That is exactly why we shoot Raw.

And, this one ain't bad either.................

"You can set your white balance choice and it will “record” the choice to the meta-data file... but it will not “apply” that choice to the RAW data."

---

I'm not sure that last statement is quite true. While the color balance setting will not affect your freedom to select another value in post, it will be taken into consideration in setting the exposure. Then if you do change it later, you'll have to crank up the brightness to compensate. If the required correction is great enough, it's almost certain to have an effect on the quality of the resulting image. So there should be a benefit to getting it right the first time.

---

That is what I see from my experience either so I always try to set wb close to right value. And there is something more.

If the discrepancy is very large, you can not achieve the same results by setting only the white balance alone in post processing. Is sombody did try to shoot photo at two extreme different white balance values and then post process that photo to the same result?

[Waddizzle]

---

 wrote:

That is what I see from my experience either so I always try to set wb close to right value. And there is something more.

If the discrepancy is very large, you can not achieve the same results by setting only the white balance alone in post processing. Is sombody did try to shoot photo at two extreme different white balance values and then post process that photo to the same result?

---

That has been my observations, too.  

If the image sensor has flat gain across the color temperature spectrum, and at all light frequencies, then the WB setting would not make any difference.  Somehow, I doubt if this type of image sensor performance is the case.