Dynamic range of the color red in RAW files.

[KarlKrueger]

I have seen this issue with my 70D and my SX-50 so it seems to be an issue with Canon cameras in general (I don't know if other camera makes have this too). Whenever I photograph something that has the color red (for me I often photograph birds) the jpegs look fine but I always start with post processing of RAW files. Anywhere the red color is found I find the color saturates out very easily. I use Adobe Photoshop Essentials (PSE) for post processing and cannot get the RAW adjusted/processed to look anywhere as good as the jpeg as detail is lost when red saturates out. This is not a problem with any other color.

For now I end up opening the jpeg as RAW in PSE and start my adjustments there which give me a better picture with finer detail than starting with the original RAW file. I will post this same question in the PSE forum to see who else noticed this and what their work around is.

[TCampbell]

---

@ronnienyc wrote:
Almost 3 stops more Dynamic Range on the D610 is a fact, not merely an opinion. And it definitely helps a lot in terms of avoiding saturating the red channel as we are discussing here.

---

I see this from time to time.  It's not actually entirely accurate.  If you check carefully, you'll find that Nikons tend to have slightly more dynamic range when working at base ISO.  But increase the ISO and ... the Canon's end up with more dynamic range.  There's simply no universal "brand x is better than brand y".

[ronnienyc]

Ebiggs, we are talking about a specific problem with the red channel here.

TCampbell - you call almost 3 stops slightly more?
Once either of you shoots with both cameras you will understand. The Nikon makes your work a lot easier in most cases. Less post work required. (And I do like my 6D and 5D3 cameras - just wish they had better sensors. Even when the charts and graphs tell you that the DR between these cameras is the same by ISO 1600 or so, they do not take into account that the Nikon is also about .7 stops more sensitive at a given ISO (meaning it produces a lighter image at matching settings.)
if you shoot them side by side you will see the Nikon produces more detail, more color information, & a cleaner and nicer image just about always.
if canon makes a 5d mark 4 with the sensor like the Sony/Nikon, I'll buy it in a second. I prefer the Canon bodies and lenses.
in any case, I'm not saying that one camera is good and one cameras bad. Just saying that the extra DR in the Sony chips keeps the red channel from oversaturating (as the OP complained about.). And this is a fact. And now I am off this topic, because bickering is not my style. Those of you who doubt the benefits of increased DR should do yourselves a favor and try it sometime.

[ebiggs1]

This is still just your opinion.  And it may be valid for you.  It is not, however, so with other photographers.  A camera is a collection of the sum of it's parts not a single spec.

At Hallmark, a Nikon company, we had access to every piece of Nikon equipment made.  Yet several of us choose Canon's as our personal cameras.

It is great you think so highly of your Nikon but everybody does not feel the same.  I could buy any camera I want and I still come back to the Canon 1 series.

Don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with brand-N as both Canon and Nikon make extremely fine products.  And if there was no Canon, I would use one, too.  The photographic world is Canon and Nikon. Everything else can be lumped into one pot.

[TCampbell]

Ronnie, it's probably not appropriate to attempt to have a camera brand debate here - it's not the purpose of these forums.  These are intended for people who own the gear and are asking for help from other people who own the equipment.  There are lots of other forums to go have a debate.

Also... be VERY careful about those charts.  The data I review from (and I'm going to name names) DxO Mark is flat out wrong.  DxO refuses to divulge their testing or scoring methods.  They don't actually publish any data... they only publish their "test scores" (that's not the same as data -- which they refuse to divulge).  After reviewing a DxO "report", I can then go look at reports from other sources... such as DPreview or even PopPhoto and see completely contradictory information.  

I could go into more detail about the unethical nature of DxO testing -- but suffice it to say that you should probably take what you read from them with a grain a salt.  

[ebiggs1]

+1  

[ronnienyc]

Karl, what you might want to do is try Canon's Digital Photo Pro software (free) for your RAW conversions.

I find their app deals with the burned out red channel the best.

On the negative side, it does not render as much detail as ACR does on a given file...

[KarlKrueger]

ronnienyc,

I have never really played with Canon's app that much. I'll give it a try. I'm trying to remember what ACR is.

[ebiggs1]

Adobe Camera Raw

I have the oppisite opinion as to the previous poster.  ACR and PS (or LR, or PSE) is far better at everything.

Miles and miles above DPP.

IMHO, as always and worht just as much as you paid for it.

[KarlKrueger]

Just so anyone reading this can see what we are talking about I give examples at the links below using two different birds that have red. The files that say RAW were processed from the CR2 raw files in Photoshop Elements 12 and those marked JPEG were processed with the jpeg produced by the camera opening the file as raw in PSE. This latter combination seems to yield better results - especially if you concentrate on the red color.

http://www.pbase.com/kvogelphoto/summertanager

http://www.pbase.com/kvogelphoto/redwingbb

[amfoto1]

ACR is Adobe Camera Raw... it's the Adobe app that converts RAW files to JPEGs. It's built into Elements, Lightroom and Photoshop.

Is your computer monitor calibrated? If not, you'll play hell trying to color balance your images in any program. 

Also check that Elements is set to the correct color space.

If viewing RAW files in a Windows environment such as Explorer or Picture Viewer (you need a codec installed to do that), those programs are not color calibrated and RAW files tend to look rather flat. I don't believe MS Internet Explorer is color calibrated, either. 

***********
Alan Myers

San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & PRINTROOM