Best Settings for Skin Tones on 7D?

Neither of them works for me. "The video you resquested is not available." When I click on the actual link it asks me to sign up.
 
Ian-T said:
Neither of them works for me. "The video you resquested is not available." When I click on the actual link it asks me to sign up.
Click to expand...

looks like there is a problem with youtube at the moment, as well as vimeo. I'll try to upload again to Vimeo tomorrow.
 
matt9b said:
Hi guys,

Find attached the all the picture styles that were tested in the clip above. (Film Emulation Picture Styles.zip)

I'm also attaching some extra film emulation pic styles that weren't shown in the clip. (Extra Film Emulation Picture Styles.zip)

I'm going to have to buy my friend another caramel machiatto, she was there for an hour, it was freezing! Sometimes I wish I lived in California like everyone else on here seems to!.. Natural lighting would be so much better as well.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the zip files, and the great effort.
 
Thank you very much to matt9b for taking the time and effort to take the shots and for uploading, and to the model for patiently waiting for her next caramel machiato in what looks like a cold environment :)

GAF:
Is it just me, the particular clip or does GAF introduce a lot of noise pattern on the model's black shirt? I downloaded the source material and it is noisier than some of the others.

To my eyes, Fuji Reala stood out along with Agfa and Ekta Chrome. But I reala liked Reala err, really like Reala the most! Wonder why no one else mentioned that one. Is it too contrasty for some?

Also, I will be shooting a lot of nature (waterfalls, forests etc) in the mountains of China this week with the T2i. Which picture setting would people here use? Perhaps a more saturated setting? More sharpness for landscape? Or still dialed down? I will either use a Tokina 11-16 or a Carl Zeiss Jena 24mm 2.8 (nikon mount to canon adapter) for the landscapes.
 
Martin Landsburg said:
Thank you very much to matt9b for taking the time and effort to take the shots and for uploading, and to the model for patiently waiting for her next caramel machiato in what looks like a cold environment :)

GAF:
Is it just me, the particular clip or does GAF introduce a lot of noise pattern on the model's black shirt? I downloaded the source material and it is noisier than some of the others.

To my eyes, Fuji Reala stood out along with Agfa and Ekta Chrome. But I reala liked Reala err, really like Reala the most! Wonder why no one else mentioned that one. Is it too contrasty for some?

Also, I will be shooting a lot of nature (waterfalls, forests etc) in the mountains of China this week with the T2i. Which picture setting would people here use? Perhaps a more saturated setting? More sharpness for landscape? Or still dialed down? I will either use a Tokina 11-16 or a Carl Zeiss Jena 24mm 2.8 (nikon mount to canon adapter) for the landscapes.
Click to expand...


Reala looked good but the Fuji Pro 400 looked just a tiny bit better to my eyes so I grabbed that one. Can't tell you what it is exactly though.
 
Guys, to my eyes, all the film emulations (which are made by the same guy), are for a gritty effect type film work. The Studio Portrait setting looks sharper in a nice way, and perhaps more mainstream. The Super Flat strong graded looks more 'warm' and hollywood esque filmic, because the colours seem more even, like on film. (below)

http://vimeo.com/10539914
 
Also, would it be possible for you to export some tiffs from the original h264 files and post them?

If you don't have bandwidth a great way is to zip them up and use yousendit.com to send it to yourself. Then post the download link.

The reason I ask is because I'm really interested in judging noise vs detail gain/loss in the blacks of her t-shirt. Thanks in advance !!
 
Didn't read through the whole thread but what about custom white balance in camera? Use an expo disc or grey card and get skin tones right on.
 
matt9b said:
Guys, to my eyes, all the film emulations (which are made by the same guy), are for a gritty effect type film work. The Studio Portrait setting looks sharper in a nice way, and perhaps more mainstream. The Super Flat strong graded looks more 'warm' and hollywood esque filmic, because the colours seem more even, like on film. (below)

http://vimeo.com/10539914
Click to expand...

Thanks for the test Matt it was great, and valuable!!

Honestly man, I just felt that when you graded all you did was bring the flat back to around the same place that most of the Filmstock emulations started at. I would like to see the film stocks slightly graded(since you got most of it right in cam)as well.

I also question the idea of flat giving us more latitude. I would like to see some test that shows proof of this along with noise comparisons:happy:.

My last video shoot, I started at Marvels and dumped my footage on site and saw way way too much noise in the blacks, way more than all the other settings(I ended up using Kodachrome).

In other words I have an early budding suspicion that most pic styles can be graded to look as well, without loosing any info. I think get it right as much as you can in cam and and tweak in post is the best route to go.
 
GRENCH said:
Thanks boulder :thumbup:



I agree. It looks great. Yet still I want to play around with the flats also.

Question: Is there a flat setting that falls between superflat and standard. Super flat is a little to flat for my taste?
Click to expand...


....thought that would be neutral !
 
iunknown said:
Didn't read through the whole thread but what about custom white balance in camera? Use an expo disc or grey card and get skin tones right on.
Click to expand...

White balance was done with a white piece of paper for each picture style, in camera. I didn't have my 3 tone grey card at the time of the shoot. However, knowing what the place looked like it real life, the AWB shots look more faithfully accurate to the real world than the custom white balance shots - but perhaps not as aesthetically pleasing as the custom white balance. I've noticed the 7D tends to make things a bit warm when using custom white balance.
 
JFreshInEffect! said:
I think get it right as much as you can in cam and and tweak in post is the best route to go.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The 7D doesn't save raw data - it cuts the top and bottom out, so you're best to get it right in cam if you can. However, for those who don't have decent a monitor or find it hard to judge from the LCD screen, and want to decide in post, Super Flat can be useful. You get 99% of the info in there. DSLRs like 7D have a tendency to over expose highlights, where film doesn't. Look at the sky in the shots - and you'll see some bright parts are over exposed. In the super flat mode, the sky retains detail.

With all this said, some people complain of noise and odd looking skin tones when blown up on big screens, in anything other than the Official Canon pic styles. I don't see why the noise / skin colours would look that different on a big screen than on a 30" higher than HD calibrated computer monitor though. You need a lot of light to use super flat well.

Some more graded super flat vids:

http://vimeo.com/9848608


http://vimeo.com/7878178
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top