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]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

---

You've got an eagle eye ebiggs 😉 Thanks a lot for every Idea to be perfect with a photography.

[TCampbell]

Careful... as I mouse over the area with a the Digital Color Meter app (included in every Mac), I get strong pixel to pixel variation.  Whatever that is... it's not really a "gray" solid.

If you want to be sure that you have gray... use a photographic gray card.

[ebiggs1]

"Whatever that is... it's not really a "gray" solid."

Yes it is.  I guess you are not a LR/PS user there Tim.  The color picker default is one pixel.  If you move the color picker around until the curves adjustment reaches the middle you have found neutral gray. 

" I get strong pixel to pixel variation."

You need to stop using or doing that since it is misleading.

"If you want to be sure that you have gray... use a photographic gray card."

Right!  Geeze man, you'er not serious?  Like we carry that on a shoot and stick it in every photo. There are classes on the web and in local colleges that will teach you how to use LR/PS.

[TCampbell]

"Whatever that is... it's not really a "gray" solid."

Yes it is.  I guess you are not a LR/PS user there Tim.  The color picker default is one pixel.  If you move the color picker around until the curves adjustment reaches the middle you have found neutral gray. 

No... you haven't.  You have to KNOW that the target you select is, in fact, a "neutral" gray... and not just something "gray-ish". 

Do you not notice the green color cast on her face?  This might be cause to suspect your method is not reliable.

" I get strong pixel to pixel variation."

You need to stop using or doing that since it is misleading.

Or more revealing.  A "real" gray source wont have strong pixel to pixel variation.  The percentage blend of RGB will be extremely similar from pixel to pixel.  

"If you want to be sure that you have gray... use a photographic gray card."

Right!  Geeze man, you'er not serious?  Like we carry that on a shoot and stick it in every photo.

You put the gray card in ONE reference frame and that will give you accurate white balance for every shot taken in that same lighting situation.   If you want accurate results, this is what you do.  It actually works every time.  

You're hunting around looking for something your eye *thinks* is gray (not paying attention to the huge variation) and settling for something that isn't gray.  You really may as well just grab the white balance slider in Lightroom and nudge it until it looks ok ... it as accurate as what you're doing, but with less fuss.

If you want to nail the white balance, you use a target that you KNOW is "neutral" gray. 

They're cheap.  They're compact.  You'll nail the color every time.

[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.

[diverhank]

---

@kacprek wrote:
I simply have attached myself to this thread because I didn't wanted to describe the problems all over again, but perhaps I should to start a new one

---

I have viewed your two sample files and left comments on your dropbox.  I'm very puzzled you think there is something wrong with your picture.  The color is just about perfect out of the box for your picture.  Now the picture from the other photographer has a severe green cast for whatever reason.

After looking at your picture, I'm convinced that there is nothing wrong with your 5D Mark III...it's the same as mine and everyone else's.  And the 5D mark III colors are considered by most people (including non_Canon shooters) to be the most pleasing, especially for portraits.

This leads me to ask you a condescending question - is your monitor properly color-calibrated?  If you haven't got a color calibrator you need to invest in one ASAP.  If you have, re-calibrate it - it's off.   If you're trying to fix a picture colors with an uncalibrated color set, it's the stuff nightmares are made of.

Your comment about the histogram leads me to believe that you have a basic misunderstanding of histogram in general...it's useful to take a look at the Canon's link on historam... 

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2012/understanding_histograms.shtml

[TCampbell]

You're camera doesn't look like it has a problem.  The camera wont produce an image that looks like the first photo if shot in RAW and using neutral "daylight" balanced lighting.  It appears to be either processed to look like this, or the lighting wasn't neutral.  (you can post the actual .CR2 file to dropbox if you want us to look at the real data).

You mentioned:  "After every photo session, there is always nightmare to me getting right colors in my photos. "

What software are you using to process your RAW images?

Processing for white balance and color saturation should not take more than a minute or two... for the entire shoot.  This is becuase many RAW workflow apps do two things:

#1 - they let you build a "camera profile" (many just come with a camera profile for well-known cameras, but you can customize them or build your own).

#2 - once you white-balance and tweak photo #1 (your reference frame from the shoot), you can "sync" those changes to the rest of the images shot in the same light.

This means that when you import your photos, the RAW workflow software auto-applies to the camera profile to every image upon import.  Since a camera profile can't possibly know about any local conditions (e.g. color cast in the lighting that needs a white balance tweak, etc.) you always have to do a mild tweak to the reference frame, but you "sync" those changes to the rest of the shoot.  You don't actually tweak each image one-by-one.

I generlly judge my images upon import and I'll take the best of them and give them localized (non-global) adjustments ... e.g. local custom cropping, maybe some sharpening, etc. etc. as needed.  I don't adjust every image.  But more importantly, I don't spend a lot of time doing the work becuase so much of it is automated.

But since these are RAW images, I still retain full control and can override anything.

[kacprek]

---

@TCampbell wrote:

You're camera doesn't look like it has a problem.  The camera wont produce an image that looks like the first photo if shot in RAW and using neutral "daylight" balanced lighting.  It appears to be either processed to look like this, or the lighting wasn't neutral.  (you can post the actual .CR2 file to dropbox if you want us to look at the real data). 

---

Here you go link to orginal raw file:

Raw file of the picture

---

@TCampbell wrote:

You're camera doesn't look like it has a problem.  The camera wont produce an image that looks like the first photo if shot in RAW and using neutral "daylight" balanced lighting.  It appears to be either processed to look like this, or the lighting wasn't neutral.  (you can post the actual .CR2 file to dropbox if you want us to look at the real data).

You mentioned:  "After every photo session, there is always nightmare to me getting right colors in my photos. "

What software are you using to process your RAW images? 

---

I use Capture One for post processing my photos

---

@TCampbell wrote:

This means that when you import your photos, the RAW workflow software auto-applies to the camera profile to every image upon import.  Since a camera profile can't possibly know about any local conditions (e.g. color cast in the lighting that needs a white balance tweak, etc.) you always have to do a mild tweak to the reference frame, but you "sync" those changes to the rest of the shoot.  You don't actually tweak each image one-by-one.

---

That is what I wanted the Capture One is doing for me, because I usualy have series of photo shoots to work with.

Thanks for helping me. I'm reading every hints from everyone here and just make my own conclusions.