CCD vs CMOS

[Rockaway Studios]

What's too keep me from applying a Nikon profile to a Canon RAW? And what's the point of applying a profile if your shooting RAW? Isn't the whole point that you have creative control and not the camera?

in the case of Nikon v. Canon….they are different sensors, and different Bayer arrays….Nothing is stopping you, but nothing to really recommend it. But in the case where the same sensor and array is used - in one specific example, Leaf Credo 80 v Phase one IQ1-80, you can and I do use the Leaf Credo profile for images from the IQ - Leaf had a better color approach for skin tone than Phase One, and those (CCD )backs are almost exactly the same thing. Applying a profile is only ceding control if that is where the processing ends, but It is actually the start of the process of RAW - it happens during import. I no longer use Adobe Lightroom, I use the RAW engine that comes from the camera manufacturer- C1 for Phase One, Phocus for Hasselblad, specifically for access to the RAW engine used by the manufacturer - native color science - which includes camera and lens profile. In the case of the near umbiquitous Sony BSI sensor used by Phase One, Fuji, and Hasselblad in different sizes, you absolutely *could* use whatever Adobe came up with for sensors of that type….for Hasselblad, you’d be giving up their color science and lens correction formulas that are included in their software. With Hasselblad, anyway, of those Sony sensors, I’ve (occasionally) imported stuff and on review, just yelled “Print It” with zero additional correction needed - never, ever had that experience with Capture One when used for either Canon or Phase One (and Leaf) files….on either CMOS or CCD equipped cameras.

 

[Cholentpot]

in the case of Nikon v. Canon….they are different sensors, and different Bayer arrays….Nothing is stopping you, but nothing to really recommend it. But in the case where the same sensor and array is used - in one specific example, Leaf Credo 80 v Phase one IQ1-80, you can and I do use the Leaf Credo profile for images from the IQ - Leaf had a better color approach for skin tone than Phase One, and those (CCD )backs are almost exactly the same thing. Applying a profile is only ceding control if that is where the processing ends, but It is actually the start of the process of RAW - it happens during import. I no longer use Adobe Lightroom, I use the RAW engine that comes from the camera manufacturer- C1 for Phase One, Phocus for Hasselblad, specifically for access to the RAW engine used by the manufacturer - native color science - which includes camera and lens profile. In the case of the near umbiquitous Sony BSI sensor used by Phase One, Fuji, and Hasselblad in different sizes, you absolutely *could* use whatever Adobe came up with for sensors of that type….for Hasselblad, you’d be giving up their color science and lens correction formulas that are included in their software. With Hasselblad, anyway, of those Sony sensors, I’ve (occasionally) imported stuff and on review, just yelled “Print It” with zero additional correction needed - never, ever had that experience with Capture One when used for either Canon or Phase One (and Leaf) files….on either CMOS or CCD equipped cameras.

I understand that everyone aside from Canon is using Sony sensors these days. Aside from a few of the smaller players. So I can see where that would be a difference.

But isn't the point of RAW to get the most neutral photo possible?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I understand that everyone aside from Canon is using Sony sensors these days. Aside from a few of the smaller players. So I can see where that would be a difference.

But isn't the point of RAW to get the most neutral photo possible?

Applying a camera preset gets you in the ballpark for fine-tuning afterward. You don't have to do it. But it often saves time.

 

[Pieter12]

Most RAW files look pretty drab without some processing. Using the automated profiles gives you a better starting point to fine-tune the images. The profiles can vary from program to program, some have a better implementation than others. A matter of taste and efficiency.

 

[Cholentpot]

Applying a camera preset gets you in the ballpark for fine-tuning afterward. You don't have to do it. But it often saves time.

I've never touched 'em to be honest. I set the parameters in camera and fudge with the colors and levels in Adobe. Sometimes it's close. But sometimes, like last week where I shot in the snow a half hour before sunset it's way off base.

 

[Rockaway Studios]

But isn't the point of RAW to get the most neutral photo possible?

an old Art Institute mantra is “A consistent error eliminates itself”. It was originally applied to silver printing process…if you agitated your tanks differently with each roll, you could expect variation in density, which in turn meant more work and less consistency in printing. But if you always did it the same, then that variable was controlled, and, even if you did it “wrong” - say, underagitating by only moving the developer initially then letting it soak, if done consistently that way it could be compensated for elsewhere in the process - maybe additional time, maybe different dilution…I dunno, that’s not my process. if your workflow is to avoid camera profiles completely, and then adjust everything on a per image basis…well, thats just one way to do it.

Just as I tended to doing whatever was said on a given datasheet for silver process control and concentrated on repeatability, I do trust the various experts that, given labratory conditions, targets and workflows, came up with a calibration for a given sensor with a given sensor array on a given processor with a given camera body, and corrected for specific lens aberrations with corrections in the software. Again, in my case, I use the RAW engine from the camera manufacturer, not Lightroom, and bring in the RAWs with the native correction profile every time…as far as I am concerned, that IS neutral…everything after that, contrast, color temp, saturation, whatever…that is editing, but I start from that consistent baseline. Maybe I am “wrong”…but at least I am “Consistently wrong”…

neither approach is “Right” or “Wrong” - but my workflows for both camera platforms I work with deliver very consistent results and are as efficient as I can make them. Coming from a commercial background, efficiency and consistency are important to me. Someone with a more “Artsy” mindset might disagree.

 

[Sirius Glass]

an old Art Institute mantra is “A consistent error eliminates itself”. It was originally applied to silver printing process…if you agitated your tanks differently with each roll, you could expect variation in density, which in turn meant more work and less consistency in printing. But if you always did it the same, then that variable was controlled, and, even if you did it “wrong” - say, underagitating by only moving the developer initially then letting it soak, if done consistently that way it could be compensated for elsewhere in the process - maybe additional time, maybe different dilution…I dunno, that’s not my process. if your workflow is to avoid camera profiles completely, and then adjust everything on a per image basis…well, thats just one way to do it.

Just as I tended to doing whatever was said on a given datasheet for silver process control and concentrated on repeatability, I do trust the various experts that, given labratory conditions, targets and workflows, came up with a calibration for a given sensor with a given sensor array on a given processor with a given camera body, and corrected for specific lens aberrations with corrections in the software. Again, in my case, I use the RAW engine from the camera manufacturer, not Lightroom, and bring in the RAWs with the native correction profile every time…as far as I am concerned, that IS neutral…everything after that, contrast, color temp, saturation, whatever…that is editing, but I start from that consistent baseline. Maybe I am “wrong”…but at least I am “Consistently wrong”…

neither approach is “Right” or “Wrong” - but my workflows for both camera platforms I work with deliver very consistent results and are as efficient as I can make them. Coming from a commercial background, efficiency and consistency are important to me. Someone with a more “Artsy” mindset might disagree.

The manufacturers are able to do more R&D scientifically that any user can, so I trust manufacturer's instructions as carefully as I can.

 

[reddesert]

My understanding of the point of shooting RAW was that you get the data of an only lightly processed image, to which you can then apply whatever you want - color profiles, curves, exporting to JPEG with compression - and if you want to change the results, you can use a different profile, etc. If you omit RAW and just use jpegs, you're using the manufacturer's choices for color profile and lossy compression. Which are often fine, but you can't go back and undo them. So the point of shooting raw is not that you want a neutral looking photo as the end product, but that you want to make your own choices.

I have limited time and photoshop skills to mess with this stuff, so I mostly don't shoot RAW, unless I am doing astrophotography where I have found it necessary.

 

[Cholentpot]

an old Art Institute mantra is “A consistent error eliminates itself”. It was originally applied to silver printing process…if you agitated your tanks differently with each roll, you could expect variation in density, which in turn meant more work and less consistency in printing. But if you always did it the same, then that variable was controlled, and, even if you did it “wrong” - say, underagitating by only moving the developer initially then letting it soak, if done consistently that way it could be compensated for elsewhere in the process - maybe additional time, maybe different dilution…I dunno, that’s not my process. if your workflow is to avoid camera profiles completely, and then adjust everything on a per image basis…well, thats just one way to do it.

Just as I tended to doing whatever was said on a given datasheet for silver process control and concentrated on repeatability, I do trust the various experts that, given labratory conditions, targets and workflows, came up with a calibration for a given sensor with a given sensor array on a given processor with a given camera body, and corrected for specific lens aberrations with corrections in the software. Again, in my case, I use the RAW engine from the camera manufacturer, not Lightroom, and bring in the RAWs with the native correction profile every time…as far as I am concerned, that IS neutral…everything after that, contrast, color temp, saturation, whatever…that is editing, but I start from that consistent baseline. Maybe I am “wrong”…but at least I am “Consistently wrong”…

neither approach is “Right” or “Wrong” - but my workflows for both camera platforms I work with deliver very consistent results and are as efficient as I can make them. Coming from a commercial background, efficiency and consistency are important to me. Someone with a more “Artsy” mindset might disagree.

Right.

So if one wants that Fuji look, or Konica, or Kodak or Nikon or Canon they should just let the camera do their thing. Otherwise it's a very subtle difference. I personally can't really tell the difference between one RAW file or another.

 

[Pieter12]

Right.

So if one wants that Fuji look, or Konica, or Kodak or Nikon or Canon they should just let the camera do their thing. Otherwise it's a very subtle difference. I personally can't really tell the difference between one RAW file or another.

Interestingly. I received this in a newsletter today from RWB and Paper Arts Collective:

"Plain Old Pictures; Cameras Are More The Same Than Different

The opening screenshot shows everything you might want to know. The lens used, the shutter speed, the aperture, the ISO, the one adjustment made, the lens used and the kind of RAW file. But what about the camera? That was made with my Canon R6, the first version, soon to be known as the R6 “classic” based on historical precedents. Yes there’s a reason I made this first picture of old, beat up boots but more on that another day.

Why the Canon R6? It was laying next to me but and happened to have the 50mm lens mounted on it. It occurred to me that I could make that picture with any camera I’ve had ever, no problem. I could make 99% of all pictures I make with just about any camera ever but specifically cameras made in the last 10-15 years. Why? Because most cameras are the same. Just for the heck of it I grabbed my Fuji X-Pro 2 with 35mm 1.4 (the old crappy OG version) and made the same shot. This is a follow-up for the last Plain Old Pictures post.

...

I use the exposure values I used on the Canon R6 to ensure exact equivalent comparisons. I do this sort of experiment periodically to level-set myself. I wanted to share it with all of you to combat the dreaded G.A.S. So… I continued onward of making the same picture with another ridiculous choice, the Leica M10. This should be Leica magical right…???

...

There ya go, same picture. So what have we learned? Why are all of us programmed to think different cameras with vastly different sensors produce radically different pictures? Why do we all think this to some degree? I know what you are thinking, the pictures would be more different if they were very different scenes right? Ummm, not so much. Most of in-camera differences you will see especially color differences are mostly due to white balance. This is the case for different WB preset tastes between manufacture’s and vastly different auto-WB interpretations.

...

Oooooh, the vaunted Fuji colors vs the legendary Leica colors… all fixed up with the same actual white balance and compensating exposure so the mid-tones and highlights are the same density due to Leicas under exposure disposition compared to real ISO. Am I saying there is no difference? Absolutely not but they are so, so far behind just about anything else you might do in-camera with exposure or in post that those things overwhelm minor differences in sensor architecture, color filter array tweaking, etc, etc, etc. Heck even the lenses are hard to distinguish from each other except for the Fuji 35mm’s additional depth of field given the same angle of view.

Use what you have, use what you like. Don’t worry too much about gear in the same league (real cameras with real sized sensors) and any reasonably decent glass (most of it). Go do the work, get better at all the things that count way more but make more pictures."

 

[Cholentpot]

Interestingly. I received this in a newsletter today from RWB and Paper Arts Collective:

"Plain Old Pictures; Cameras Are More The Same Than Different

The opening screenshot shows everything you might want to know. The lens used, the shutter speed, the aperture, the ISO, the one adjustment made, the lens used and the kind of RAW file. But what about the camera? That was made with my Canon R6, the first version, soon to be known as the R6 “classic” based on historical precedents. Yes there’s a reason I made this first picture of old, beat up boots but more on that another day.

Why the Canon R6? It was laying next to me but and happened to have the 50mm lens mounted on it. It occurred to me that I could make that picture with any camera I’ve had ever, no problem. I could make 99% of all pictures I make with just about any camera ever but specifically cameras made in the last 10-15 years. Why? Because most cameras are the same. Just for the heck of it I grabbed my Fuji X-Pro 2 with 35mm 1.4 (the old crappy OG version) and made the same shot. This is a follow-up for the last Plain Old Pictures post.

...

I use the exposure values I used on the Canon R6 to ensure exact equivalent comparisons. I do this sort of experiment periodically to level-set myself. I wanted to share it with all of you to combat the dreaded G.A.S. So… I continued onward of making the same picture with another ridiculous choice, the Leica M10. This should be Leica magical right…???

...

There ya go, same picture. So what have we learned? Why are all of us programmed to think different cameras with vastly different sensors produce radically different pictures? Why do we all think this to some degree? I know what you are thinking, the pictures would be more different if they were very different scenes right? Ummm, not so much. Most of in-camera differences you will see especially color differences are mostly due to white balance. This is the case for different WB preset tastes between manufacture’s and vastly different auto-WB interpretations.

...

Oooooh, the vaunted Fuji colors vs the legendary Leica colors… all fixed up with the same actual white balance and compensating exposure so the mid-tones and highlights are the same density due to Leicas under exposure disposition compared to real ISO. Am I saying there is no difference? Absolutely not but they are so, so far behind just about anything else you might do in-camera with exposure or in post that those things overwhelm minor differences in sensor architecture, color filter array tweaking, etc, etc, etc. Heck even the lenses are hard to distinguish from each other except for the Fuji 35mm’s additional depth of field given the same angle of view.

Use what you have, use what you like. Don’t worry too much about gear in the same league (real cameras with real sized sensors) and any reasonably decent glass (most of it). Go do the work, get better at all the things that count way more but make more pictures."

Great. Now that that's settled.

Will a CCD RAW look any different than a CMOS RAW.

 

[Nikon 2]

Great. Now that that's settled.

Will a CCD RAW look any different than a CMOS RAW.

Finally…

 

[Andreas Thaler]

The CCD (AF) sensor of one of my dissected Minolta (Maxxum, Alpha) 7000 AF, manufactured around 1985

 

[Nikon 2]

View attachment 392177

The CCD (AF) sensor of one of my dissected Minolta (Maxxum, Alpha) 7000 AF, manufactured around 1985

…