Should “Color Science” Inform Your Next Digital Camera Purchase?

Color science is a term that online camera reviewers have used for a while now. The term is most often used to either praise or vilify a particular camera brand based on how "good" or "bad" the color science is in a particular model. This term can be very confusing for beginning photographers and camera shoppers. Obviously one wants to get the best color out of whatever camera they choose, but is there actually any science involved in a camera's "color science?"

One might think that a camera with so-called good color science would have the most accurate color when compared to the way a scene appears to the photographer's eye. This is almost never what people mean when they refer to "color science." Usually, a camera is said to have good color science when the author, poster, or video creator likes the way the color looks out of a particular camera. This is not actually scientific at all. It is a subjective preference for the way one camera renders color versus another.

If we think about shooting 35 mm film, we choose a film stock because we like the particular way that that film renders color, contrast, etc. In most cases, this choice is not made because we want the most accurate color.

When it comes to digital photography, we are not bound by any particular rendering of color from our camera's sensor. Even if we shoot JPEGs in the camera, any modern digital camera has a variety of ways to control the way color and contrast are rendered by the camera. Sony has Creative Looks, Canon has Picture Styles, OM has picture modes, etc. These settings tell the camera how to process the RAW data when creating JPEGs in the camera. To say that one particular brand has inherently good or bad "color science" is ignoring all of the control the photographer has over how color, contrast, etc. is processed in the camera.

For video creators, these in-camera settings are especially important to understand and learn. Most consumer cameras cannot capture RAW video, so video creators probably have more reason to complain about a camera's default color processing. The settings used in the camera are baked into the footage, so the videographer needs to consider how the footage will be edited in post. Cameras with high-end video capabilities generally include profiles designed to maximize dynamic range and editing options.

The image you see in your EVF and on the LCD is processed with these profile settings, even if you are only saving RAW files. There is no RAW preview in a digital camera. The exposure meter and histogram react to the JPEG preview image and NOT the RAW data. If you rely on your histogram to set your exposure, you may want to use a flat picture style that might better represent the data in the RAW file.

"Good" color

Canon DSLRs were widely considered good portrait cameras because of the way Canon cameras display skin tones. The fact is, there is an orange shift to Canon colors that ends up making skin look warm and "glowing." This is not because of good "color science," as much as it is the way Canon software engineers decided to render colors in the camera.

Fuji cameras are known for producing pleasing colors, and the Fuji film simulations are one of the main reasons why many photographers choose the Fuji X-system cameras. Fuji in-camera film simulations are perhaps the closest in-camera processing that could be considered color science. Fuji has long been known for their wonderful 35 mm film. When Fuji developed the X-trans sensor and the X-system cameras, they did painstaking work to replicate the look of their 35mm film with their in-camera JPEG processing.

What does all of this have to do with "color science" if we are shooting RAW? A RAW file contains the data from your camera's sensor, then the file must be edited with software that can de-mosaic the file to create an image. While there are some differences between the filters each manufacturer uses in front of their imaging sensors- Anti-aliasing filters, UV filters, etc- the data in a RAW file is only the starting point for how color is rendered in your images.

You can use settings to process your RAW files that are similar to what you see in the camera, but you don't have to. The default camera profile in Lightroom and Camera RAW is a camera-matching profile based on JPEG profile you used in the camera. This automatic process makes it easy to see a RAW file in Lightroom that looks very similar to what you saw in your EVF while you were shooting. The color science of the camera only makes a difference in so far as the photographer wants to use the camera-matching profiles in your chosen RAW editor. The photographer can just easily choose a different camera profile to start with and edit the colors any way they wish.

In-camera color settings

Most of the time my camera is set to the standard profile, but I like to shoot with a vivid camera profile when I'm shooting landscapes. I like to see the vivid color and strong contrast in my EVF while I'm shooting. When I open the RAW files in Lightroom, they have the vivid color and strong contrast I saw when I was shooting because the software automatically matches the in-camera profile. Since I save RAW files, I also have the option to choose a different profile in Lightroom as a starting point for my editing.

If you like the look of the in-camera JPEG from a particular camera, then you should probably use that camera! Even if you want to shoot RAW files, the camera matching profiles for that camera will have a similar look to the in-camera JPEGs. Your preference is not a comment on the quality of the camera's color science, it is simply your opinion. When choosing tools to create art, I believe your opinion is the main thing to consider.

Actual color science

We can talk about color in a more scientific way by shooting RAW files in the camera and using a calibration device like the Color Checker Passport. This handy tool uses a color chart and a companion plug-in to create a custom profile for any camera. The resulting profile mathematically maps the correct colors and contrast onto your processed RAW files. This is actually color science.

It doesn't have anything to do with one camera manufacturer or another, since any camera can be measured with the same tool to produce the correct output. A tool like this is necessary for commercial photographers who are photographing products or other items that have specific colors that must be reproduced accurately. By using a calibrated profile and correct white balance, we can create photographs that most closely represent real life when viewed on a calibrated monitor or printer.

Correct color does not necessarily mean the most pleasing color. In fact, accurate color is rarely as vivid as we might like in our digital photographs.

When I first purchased the Color Checker Passport years ago, I was excited to profile my Nikon D700. I was already very happy with the images out of this camera, and I was excited to maximize the color and dynamic range with a calibrated RAW profile. I was shocked when I profiled the camera and discovered that the native processing of the color blue was shockingly inaccurate. When I applied the calibrated profile to my images, I found that blue, purple, and green looked completely different than the standard camera profiles rendered those colors. Did that mean that my Nikon had bad color science? For some of my work I use the calibrated profile with "correct" colors, but for much of my nature photography, I still enjoyed the vivid profile. Since I was shooting RAW files, I could change this color rendering based on whatever I was shooting. The only "science" was how the files were processed in the computer, and I made the decision about how the color was rendered.

Color science in practice

Let's have a look at a few images to explore the science of color a bit further. The original images were captured in the AdobeRGB color space, and edited in Lightroom with the ProPhotoRGB color space. Keep in mind that images you see online are in the sRGB color space, but I believe they will still give you a good idea of the differences.

Standard profiles

The first set of images was shot with my Sony a7rV with the camera Creative Look set to ST, which I assume is Standard. From left to right, the first image is the in-camera jpeg with the ST Creative Look, The second image is a RAW file processed in Lightroom with the Camera ST profile and no adjustments. The third image is the same RAW file processed in Lightroom with the Adobe Standard profile and no other adjustments. Notice the differences in the patches on the color chart, and how the different processing affects the skin tones.

Calibrated profile

In this second set, we can compare the "standard" processing with a calibrated profile I created with the Color Checker Passport software. I placed the Calibrated profile image in the center, with the Camera ST profile on the left and the Adobe Standard profile on the right. The most obvious differences to my eyes are in the blues and oranges. Notice the blue and orang patches in the color chart, the skin tone, and the blue printing on the t-shirt.

Vivid profiles

I mentioned that I like shooting with the VV (vivid) Creative Look in the camera. Let's compare another set of images to explore how Sony and Adobe approach a more vivid look. From left to right, the first image is the in-camera JPEG with the VV Creative Look. The second image is a RAW file processed in Lightroom with the Camera VV profile and no adjustments. The third image is the same RAW file processed in Lightroom with the Adobe Vivid profile and no other adjustments. There is quite a bit of difference between the Adobe Vivid and the camera-matching Camera VV profile. The skin tone is much more yellow in the Adobe Vivid image, and the contrast feels crunchier to me. The RAW file with the Camera VV profile is similar to the in-camera JPEG, but I think the JPEG is a touch more saturated, especially in the reds.

Calibrated profile vs. Standard and Vivid

Just for fun, let's compare the Calibrated Color Checker profile with both camera-matching profiles. Once again I put the Calibrated profile in the center so you can easily compare both sides. The left image is the Camera ST profile, and the right image is the Camera VV profile. It is easy to see the differences between the measured color/contrast in the calibrated profile and the camera matching profiles. This is not a question of right or wrong, it is a matter of taste and intention for your photos. You will have a head start with your editing if you choose a profile that more closely matches what you want in your finished photo, whether it's a camera-matching profile or one you create yourself.

It is hard to go wrong with a camera purchase these days. Digital cameras are all pretty amazing. Today's entry-level cameras blow away the top-of-the-line offerings from just a few years ago. There are myriad reasons to choose one brand or another. Autofocus, lens selection, weight, etc., etc. Color science might be a consideration if you plan to shot JPEGs or you're a video creator, but I don't see it as a huge concern for RAW files. If you are judging camera brands based on what you see online, remember that you're seeing the end result of shooting AND editing the image. Your mileage (and taste) may vary.