This bundle includes four Canon 5D Mark II, Mark III or 6D picture profiles for Canon RAW (Canon L Series and Cinema glass), Leica RAW (Leica glass), Nikon RAW (Nikon Nikkor glass) and Zeiss RAW (Zeiss Compact Primes, Compact Zooms and ZE or ZF lenses). I match picture styles with different lenses so that you don’t see a color shift difference when cutting together footage.

• Canon 5d Mark Ii
• Canon 5d Mark Iii Settings

I created these profiles for the Canon 5D Mark II & III, which I used extensively on Act of Valor and over 150 commercials. Each of these profiles is designed to increase the level of dynamic range through the performance of each specific set of glass. These profiles will increase a Canon 5D’s dynamic range from 6 stops to 9 stops, creating a more cinematic “flat” profile, while optimizing optical quality from each specific lens manufacturer.

They also work with the Canon 6D. I normally use the Cinestyle picture profile and it works great. Before that I would use a neutral profile with the sharpness and contrast turned all the way down. I saw this and thought I’d give it a try. After installing it I checked between the neutral and this one labeled “SIC 5D CANON” in my camera and they are the exact same thing.

Aug 07, 2010 I have always noticed that of all the cameras I ran through LR/ACR the Standard profile for the Canon 5D Mark II is way. Possible with regards to color. Develop Different! PSKiss Skin & Scenery Color profiles create a unique outstanding version of your photo. This profile pack is perfect for developing Portrait and.

I did tests and the image doesn’t change at all between the two profiles. I’m assuming that a big part of this pack is great for people who are trying to match different cameras with different lenses together so they all come out similar in the end (like it states on the description). But it also seemed to be advertising how it adds dynamic range, which is does (not as much as Cinestyle) but it does it in a way I can literally change it myself on my camera in about 3 seconds for free. If you have varying cameras with varying lenses I’m sure this would be helpful and worth, but if not, just dial it in your camera yourself.

Astrophotographer 10 wrote: Wow I am surprised. I got 11 out of 12 for D750. Some were close, others were quite a bit better. I had heard this line before that Canon does great skin tones and Nikon does not. Perhaps that has changed I don't know but that was pretty conclusive.

The Nikon's do seem a bit warmer and the Canon a bit cooler, so yellow versus green? Generally yellow is a more pleasant aspect than green Green skin = the look of a sick person.

I guess this is Canon's WB in action. I always find it a bit cool - on the bluish side in diffuse lighting. Green skin tones? Unless you are shooting somebody in a green room like in two of the shots. I need to play with the RAW files to tell.

Also, DPP, that I rarely use, does a better job with skin tones. There was a recent thread, somebody posted dozens of portraits shots, D800 vs. 5D3, studio lighting (shot in a garage, BTW). I will try to find the link tomorrow.

JR75 wrote: Was looking to get the 5D over the D750. Among a number of features on the Canon and lens choices, I really liked the Canon skin tones.

Doing a lot of (young family) portrait / candids. Indoors and outdoors. However, I came across this test between the two cameras and I ended up selecting the Nikon 10 out of 13 times. Was very surprised. Did anyone who has typically favored the canon color pallet have the same outcome? Any thoughts on how much weight I should put in this test?

It would be best to do your own tests.too many variables here. For years I have always favoured Canon.the old Nikon sensors seemed to give a 'gritty' digital look for portraits where the Canon sensors were smoother and more film like. I suppose things might have changed? On some side by side tests by DPreview colour swatches seem to show that Nikon has less saturation.colour depth?

Perhaps that is the default but adjustments can be made for the look you want. Will be interested to hear what you find. I love Nikon and Canon equally.just have lots of Canon glass.

Did anyone who has typically favored the canon color pallet have the same outcome? Any thoughts on how much weight I should put in this test? This test is nonsence, because you can set in camera camera profile and white balance and resulting jpeg image will be generated accordingly and question is what exact settings were used for test. Also often people are using raw and developing in Lightroom, you can then create color profiles as you want. Methods of that dude are questionable, I would rather make personal descision based on real experience than rely on that mistaken dude testing methods.

The Youtube reviewer said he used auto white balance. I didn't hear anything about color profile, so I assume he used the default Standard color profile on both cameras, If OP shoots JPEG and you never bother to touch the color profile, then he can use this youtube comparison test. However, many users shoot RAW so this test is irrelevant.

If user customizes the color profile for JPEG, he can get the preferred look he wants. It does take several hours and trial and error in various settings. Nikon calls this Picture Style and Canon calls it Picture Profile.

And both cameras allow user to customize WB shift, in addition to selecting preset WB, by Kelvin, or customize white balance using gray card. So really non-issue.

As with any informtion you would obtain in any situation, about any subject - you must always consider the source of the information, that sources experience, credibility and integrity. That being said - who cares what anyone else thinks? Isn't what you think more important? Which camera gives you the results you want to see?

Canon 5d Mark Ii

Do you know anyone with either camera? Perhaps try them yourself. Just because one artist likes the results given a specific tool - it does not necessarily mean you will come to the same conclusion for the same tool used. Develop your own voice, and use whatever tools you can to achieve that voice. Until you try them yourself I am afraid all you will have is everyones opinions.

Some will say 'canon' some will say 'nikon', does it matter what they say? If you cannot achieve what you call 'good skin tones' using either of them, who is right an who is wrong? These choices are in fact difficult, but only your personal experience will matter - no matter what other's opinions are, and what others abilities are. Hope that made some sense for you, somehow. Bgbs wrote: That is not the only test I've seen where Nikon wins Canon in skin-tones vote. The Canon's superior skin-tones notion is a myth, it is basically a repeated sentiment from 10 to 15 years ago that just lives on because people keep repeating it.

It is all about what you prefer, not one brand's superiority in rending skin-tones over another. I think it depends on what you're used to. I shoot a lot of skin.

When I used Canon mostly, I developed a workflow that gave me skin tones that I liked. When I started using Nikon, using the same workflow, the results ended up absurdly yellow. I adjusted my workflow and can get skin tones that I like with Nikon just as easily as I used to with Canon, but when I use Canon, I get results that are absurdly magenta until I dial in my old workflow again. JR75 wrote: Thanks for all the feedback.

It does seem like you can edit the results in raw for either to get what you want. Bob - did you use one standardized group of color settings depending on the camera type for when you edited your workflow?

Or each photo required its own set of color adjustments before moving on to other editing? The raw conversion is using the out of the box presets for the camera concerned - the shift to yellow came from a PP step I got into using (on a tip from a professional portrait photographer who used Canon).

I made some time ago my own comparison of color rendition, comparing a 5DIII with a D800. My main conclusions were: - Both cameras are well calibrated (within the accuracy of my test). The Nikon tended to yield on defaults in Aperture a flatter picture that benefits from a little steeper contrast curve. It takes very little to get them very close.

I could not detect any clearly visible 'camera inherent' differences in color rendition. No surprise really, just what I would expect from such professional gear. ViewNX2 and DPP4 (neutral profile) e.g. Did not differ much from the Aperture result.

Canon 5d Mark Iii Settings

I tested some other converters shortly, but I found no reason to follow up. Depending on your workflow you might have to invest more time here. The test was done in open daylight - the light I predominantly use. The cameras were mounted side by side (hence the slight difference in angle) and I used the same lens on both, exchanging its TMount: A Rodenstock Imagon - because it was the only lens I could adapt to both to eliminate differences due to transmission characteristics.

WB was adjusted so that for both cameras the grey patches ended up near neutral when converting with defaults on a Mac (Aperture). That took a bit of experimenting with manual color temperature settings, but was essential to eliminate WB as a variable.

It was not sufficient to do a manual WB balance on each - even if a good starting point. I did also not test with other spectral distributions of the light used. You may download the two resulting RAW files for your own experiments here: and. Thanks Alfred I did a quick test with my usual Photoshop/camera raw workflow on both.result below.

I used the white picker on the white square.adobe standard profile.+10% saturation. Levels in photoshop and a quick resize.copy and paste into a new file. I prefer the Canon but appreciate I could get the Nikon to where I like it but the Canon was just very straightforward. If you prefer the Nikon look that is 'cool'.pun intended. Nikon Canon portrait comparison.

Alfred wrote: I made some time ago my own comparison of color rendition, comparing a 5DIII with a D800. My main conclusions were: - Both cameras are well calibrated (within the accuracy of my test). The Nikon tended to yield on defaults in Aperture a flatter picture that benefits from a little steeper contrast curve.

It takes very little to get them very close. I could not detect any clearly visible 'camera inherent' differences in color rendition. No surprise really, just what I would expect from such professional gear.

ViewNX2 and DPP4 (neutral profile) e.g. Did not differ much from the Aperture result. I tested some other converters shortly, but I found no reason to follow up. Depending on your workflow you might have to invest more time here. The test was done in open daylight - the light I predominantly use.

The cameras were mounted side by side (hence the slight difference in angle) and I used the same lens on both, exchanging its TMount: A Rodenstock Imagon - because it was the only lens I could adapt to both to eliminate differences due to transmission characteristics. WB was adjusted so that for both cameras the grey patches ended up near neutral when converting with defaults on a Mac (Aperture). That took a bit of experimenting with manual color temperature settings, but was essential to eliminate WB as a variable. It was not sufficient to do a manual WB balance on each - even if a good starting point. I did also not test with other spectral distributions of the light used. You may download the two resulting RAW files for your own experiments here: and.