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

[kacprek]

---

@TCampbell wrote:

---

@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.

---

Hi TCamblel

I'm very apreciate your advice but I have a fundamental question.

Can you proof it with the stunning out door ladies model portrats photos. Did you tried shoot that particulary with 5D mark III and can you show me it. Because I do portraits  for 3 years with canon cameras first with 5D classic after that mark II and now mark III. Only with canon 5D classic I have no problems with post processing. With mark II was a bit harder and with mark III it's just a nightmare.

I'm just trying to find the reason of this. Is it my fault or somethnig else. Or I need to buy another camera. Or I will do learn how to get rid of my problems. I'm working really very hard on this, because I am a stubborn man and I want to achieve my goal. I believe that there is no option that canon camera can't do perfect photos for that level of price.

All the best

[ebiggs1]

I have basically saying this all through this entire thread. "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."

If you want top professional photos this is the way you get them.

[TCampbell]

---

 wrote:

Hi TCamblel

I'm very apreciate your advice but I have a fundamental question.

Can you proof it with the stunning out door ladies model portrats photos. Did you tried shoot that particulary with 5D mark III and can you show me it. Because I do portraits  for 3 years with canon cameras first with 5D classic after that mark II and now mark III. Only with canon 5D classic I have no problems with post processing. With mark II was a bit harder and with mark III it's just a nightmare.

I'm just trying to find the reason of this. Is it my fault or somethnig else. Or I need to buy another camera. Or I will do learn how to get rid of my problems. I'm working really very hard on this, because I am a stubborn man and I want to achieve my goal. I believe that there is no option that canon camera can't do perfect photos for that level of price.

All the best

---

What you shoot doesn't matter.  There's nothing fundamentally different about color accuracy whether it "stunning outdoor ladies" or a box of crayons (actually it's probably more important to have accuracte color if it's a box of crayons).

It is possible to have color-accuracy that is bang-on accurate regardless of the camera (I can get bang-on accurate color out of a monochrome camera).

If you had good success with your 5D classic and 5D II ... but suddently things are harder with your 5D III... I"m going to go out on a limb and guess that in that time you also changed compuers and/or monitors.

If you're struggling to get accurate color then stop repeating what you've been doing and get a color checker.

Here's a video (about 20 minutes) that explains how to use the tool:

One note... in the video he (confusingly) names the color profile that he builds based on the name of the photo-shoot.  The profiles are meant to be assigned to a camera.  E.g. you'd make a profile called "Canon 5D III".  

The idea behind this is that while you could just use a gray card to get your neutrals accurate... some cameras will be more sensitive to certain colors.  E.g. your reds could over-saturate and your blues could under-saturate.  

The color checker and software that comes with it knows what the accurate Pantone colors are for each color swatch.  Even when the image is white balanced, it can tell if color swatches are off.  The software knows how to analyze the frame to find the section of the frame with the color calibration target (it seems to me that in older versions I had to click the corners of the target box, but I think that's automatic now).  

Once it understands what your camera does, then you can generally use the *same* profile that it built for all shots taken with that camera and typically only a white balance would be required.

[kacprek]

---

@TCampbell wrote:

---

 wrote:

Hi TCamblel

I'm very apreciate your advice but I have a fundamental question.

Can you proof it with the stunning out door ladies model portrats photos. Did you tried shoot that particulary with 5D mark III and can you show me it. Because I do portraits  for 3 years with canon cameras first with 5D classic after that mark II and now mark III. Only with canon 5D classic I have no problems with post processing. With mark II was a bit harder and with mark III it's just a nightmare.

I'm just trying to find the reason of this. Is it my fault or somethnig else. Or I need to buy another camera. Or I will do learn how to get rid of my problems. I'm working really very hard on this, because I am a stubborn man and I want to achieve my goal. I believe that there is no option that canon camera can't do perfect photos for that level of price.

All the best

---

What you shoot doesn't matter.  There's nothing fundamentally different about color accuracy whether it "stunning outdoor ladies" or a box of crayons (actually it's probably more important to have accuracte color if it's a box of crayons).

It is possible to have color-accuracy that is bang-on accurate regardless of the camera (I can get bang-on accurate color out of a monochrome camera).

If you had good success with your 5D classic and 5D II ... but suddently things are harder with your 5D III... I"m going to go out on a limb and guess that in that time you also changed compuers and/or monitors.

If you're struggling to get accurate color then stop repeating what you've been doing and get a color checker.

Here's a video (about 20 minutes) that explains how to use the tool:

One note... in the video he (confusingly) names the color profile that he builds based on the name of the photo-shoot.  The profiles are meant to be assigned to a camera.  E.g. you'd make a profile called "Canon 5D III".  

The idea behind this is that while you could just use a gray card to get your neutrals accurate... some cameras will be more sensitive to certain colors.  E.g. your reds could over-saturate and your blues could under-saturate.  

The color checker and software that comes with it knows what the accurate Pantone colors are for each color swatch.  Even when the image is white balanced, it can tell if color swatches are off.  The software knows how to analyze the frame to find the section of the frame with the color calibration target (it seems to me that in older versions I had to click the corners of the target box, but I think that's automatic now).  

Once it understands what your camera does, then you can generally use the *same* profile that it built for all shots taken with that camera and typically only a white balance would be required.

---

Thank you with very good advice. You must to know that erlier I used to do color checker calibration before every photo session and when the light condition was changening also. Now I am not saying that I could have bad luck but I have to rule out all possible cases. It happens very badly that the color checker is faulty and gives bad results. Althought I purchased my cholor checker as an orginal one in some photo market, there is possible chance it was expired or something else was wrong.

Using this tool I did not achieve 100% perfect results. So finaly I thaught this that it's not necessary to obtain corect colors on my photos. It's only necessery when you doing product photography or you working in advertising. When you shoot portrait photography the color are your own vision. But I will try maybe again with a new purchased color checker and icc color profil for Capture One raw converter. Thanks again it is good tutorial from Adorama.

[kacprek]

What do you think all my friends about this colors on my last post processing try. When I'm working with photo shoots I mean working with many photos 100 for exemple. So this is a problem when you have to post process plenty of them.

second one

[ebiggs1]

Well I don't like either one.  Both are over saturated.  This is how I would ahve adjusted it.

[kacprek]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Well I don't like either one.  Both are over saturated.  This is how I would ahve adjusted it.

---

Can you show ebiggs what do you do with this photo in photoshop? I konow what was did in Lightroom but there was something more perhaps with curves in Photoshop.

[ebiggs1]

"...perhaps with curves in Photoshop."

Bingo, you got it.    Curves is where it at.  The three main most important things in PS are layers, masks and curves.

Like I have been trying to get across, your WB isn't a big deal.  It can be fixed in PS with curves as it does with most other miscues.  If you want professional results yo uneed profeaaional software. It is time to get LR and or PS.

[ebiggs1]

Just using curves, nothing else.

From this...........

.....to this.

[ebiggs1]