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

[ebiggs1]

"That means that in this case the point has 50% grays and if the values are 100% equal that mieans neutral gray. I'm right?"

Success!  You got it.  

[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.

[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.

[ebiggs1]

I still recommend you ditch the Capture One.   Lightroom (PS/ACR) files have a more neutral starting point. While the files look brighter or more vibrant before adjustments in Capture One, LR is more neutral and most pro photographers prefer this. It is the better stating point.  Why do you want Capture One to do the adjustments for you.  You might as well shoot jpg.

If you want professional results get a professional editor.