You’re the best, Katelyn! Your content is always exactly why I didn’t know I wanted to absorb! As a new R6 owner, I’m always happy to have affirmation - like yours - that the system is as good as it’s been toted. Thanks for your work; keep up the R6-vibes chats. Love it!
Raw files are supposed to be flat. You create the the White point, black point, shadow depth, color, the sharpening in post. If you want a finished product shoot jpegs. The camera will decide how to process your image. When shooting raw simply look at the histogram to see if the exposure is acceptable.
I agree. This was one of the first things I learned about shooting in RAW. My instructor told us they would be a bit flat because of all the detail in them. So they almost always require a bit of adjusting.
No, I have an R6 with the problem she's describing. I don't think flat is really the right description. I have no problem making RAWs from any other manufacturer look beautiful with pleasant colors and good skin tones. All of that switched when I bought my R6. There's something about the file that leaves skin tone looking dead and very unpleasant no matter what you do with it. Selling it for something else. I do not have this problem at all with my Fuji and haven't had it with any of my previous Canons. Ultimately, I can work through it, but I spend myself having to work 5-10 minutes extra per image, and that adds up! Additionally, I don't think it's every R6. I downloaded some sample RAWs from someone else's R6 and they're perfect. It's like the skin tones in mine have no data to work with.
@@kevintoews5656 I feel the same about my R6! RAW images look great on camera display, but soooo flat once uploaded. You felt there was no way to fix the problem other than buying something else? Hoping that wasn’t going to be the answer- bc otherwise, I love everything else about the camera.
True, but if you have to change the composition from vert to horiz (or vise-versa) then you will already be at less 4K resolution without any additional cropping.
Re: the flat images: you’ll find that the pictures on the back of the camera are great, and once they’re in Lightroom or CaptureOne or whatever developer software you use it looks “flat” almost “log” style that you’d see in log-video. It’s a software setting, not a camera setting.
I just did a shoot and loaded my photos into Darktable, and then did a fresh load into Lightroom. The photos in Darktable look horrible and need massive adjustments, the photos in Lightroom look great right out of camera. It’s a software setting rather than a camera setting.
What does that mean, "software setting"? Thank you for this. Do you know how to adjust software settings, because it's depressing how different they look in LR compared to camera monitor.
Hi Katelyn! If I can offer a bit of perspective from the engineering side, the way your settings impact noise varies a whole lot from camera to camera, even within mirrorless. For the R6, the ISO behavior depends on whether you’re in mechanical or electronic shutter mode. Electronic shutter is inherently noisier on the Canon cameras (but obviously a necessity when you need to be stealthy, and honestly maybe needed for the entire wedding day so it’s one less setting to have to worry about), but the noise does improve up to about ISO 6400 when you run out of aperture or shutter speed headroom. In mechanical shutter, the sensor is nearly ISO invariant above ISO 400, so it makes sense in that situation to limit yourself to ISO 400 and raise exposure in post if needed. Another fun fact, most of the noise isn’t even from the camera at all, but from the random variations in the number of light particles bouncing of your subject, that’s why increasing light with flash, shutter speed, aperture are such important tools when available
PSA - for those unhappy with their R6 raw files in, for example, capture one - increase the Saturation slider in the Exposure tool to about +20 to +30. I have owned the R6, then the R5 (loved the colors), and then again the R6 and had the same exact issue and saw this video. This solution will get you pretty near the color science of the R5 at least for Capture One in my experience (v. 22). Hope this helps anyone looking! Make the import preset like she said and you will love the results, amazing colors, small files, and plenty of resolution for web and printing.
I have 2 R6s!! I noticed at one of my weddings the difference in bridal party images (Some of them gorgeous SOOC some super flat and gray) I realized the camera with gorgeous images had an R lens on it and the flat images had an adapter and lens on them!
When i purchased my R6 in 2021 i was disgusted how the raw of my old 450D looked better! I decided to match colour profile as closer as my 450D settings and it started to be very convincing. Now i have a racer when we talk about photography ! Very impressive Canon colour science !
Got my R6 today. Made a good deal on a used but nearly new one. I'm an absolute amateur though! The RAW thing is interesting, looking forward to an update. My 50mm and some adapters for my vintage lenses are still on it's way so I have to wait a few days until I actually can use it for the first time.
I think thenunderexposing thing is for people that do the "bold colorful emotional" type style. Which is to be underexposed, bring up the shadows, etc. Especially outdoor portraits exposing for the sky to like really bring out the color of the sky and I softer HDR type way, etc. I have found that to be the advice or tips given by a lot of the "bold emotional colorful" type editing... I know I've been having this issue trying to find a balance and absolutely love and appreciate you for mentioning this! :)
I struggle with best settings for camera (colour space), default raw import defaults, and editing profiles. Your "Flat looking Raw File Project" will hopefully help us get to the bottom of this. Your approach of obtaining samples from users seems to be a great way to analyze the problem and I am very much looking fwd to your results
Biggest turnoff for me, is the lack of a top display on a $2500 rig. On a wedding day, I use this constantly. Cheap move by Canon (they often make questionable moves like this to "segment" their products... as if the MPX difference between the 5 and 6 aren't enough). Both this and the R5 should have identical bodies like the Nikon Z6 & Z7 series does. Even my 6D Mark II has this... My 70D had this... Even some of the Rebels had them. I loved the Canon UI but, this cheap move has solidified my choice to buy into the Nikon Z system instead. Nice video though... Informative and otherwise helpful.
The fact that they’ve moved the information from the top display into the EVF is much more preferable for me. This way I’m not dropping my camera to look at the settings, I can do it as I’m taking the picture. This may be personal preference though.
I mainly shoot wildlife and absolutely love my R6, being able to shoot at iso 3200 with minimal noise is one of the great benefits. As you say if you underexpose the shadows it can get a bit noisy, but way better than on my old dslr. I don't have really flat raw files either, I will be interested to find out what you discover when checking out the files sent to you.
It's happened to me, I usually underexpose a bit when I have low light. I believe what makes the difference is the quality of light and the lens used. I use all RF so I don't have any kind of problem with noise. 👌🏼💪🏼🙏🏼 I want to see what conclusion you come to? Great video 🙏🏼
I love my R6. The only 2 things I wish Canon would have done different is having the top display and the battery life better. I have adapted but those 2 things on the MK4 just made life a little easier!
Do you leave wifi/bluetooth on? I keep both of my R6s in airplane mode. I don't have a need to keep them on while I'm shooting so it's two less things to provide power to. Also look into the vertical grip which holds two batteries.
Raw files looked flat in Lightroom when I first got my R6 years ago. Updates to Lightroom have solved this issue for me. Many users are still using old versions of Lightroom.
absolutely agree Katelyn, I have the EOS R and live in SW Florida where shooting in our very intense, high sun washes out photos and I have found it is better to figure out a way to dumb down the light issues with the camera, NOT in post processing. Post processing cannot get that harsh washout fixed. I love my R and I am not using the $2,000 lenses and my photos are clear and beautiful. Love your videos!
I love the R6! I totally abandoned the RP and the 6D Mk2. I also love it better than the Sony A73 I had. The lowlight performance is amazing, I can shoot 12800 ISO night shots like nobodies business!
My experience is the R6 (MkI that is) is usually slighly underexposing (about half a stop) - which can be fixed in post easily. Likewise it can be adjusted via exposure compensation. I usually fix this in post though, to avoid clipped highlights.
@@KatelynJames Hi Katelyn, my point is: compared to my 80D, my R6 is underexposing almost half a stop (with exposure compensation set to flat). I remember to have seen this in other comparisons, too. No big deal, but worth mentioning in this context. PS: I uploaded a sample file...
I shoot almost exclusively on auto ISO. Shutter speed up to 3200 and my F-stop at its lowest setting (wide open). I get noise but that's easily cleaned up in post. I get tack sharp images handheld with a heavy 100-400 lens. This is a daylight setting which I do a lot of bird photography. Low light settings are different.
I was about to suggest trying colorfidelity profiles when you mentioned having already tried that :) Aside from it not being a solution to the problem you’re describing, I still highly recommend the CF profiles, they get very close to in-camera jpeg colours, which I like a lot more than what Adobe gives me. But that’s subjective of course :)
I usually shoot at 1600 and 3200 ISO on my R5 doing theatre photography and most of the time I only have to lighten them and I rarely worry about the small amount of noise.
I'm actually selling my Canon R to get a Canon 5D Mk IV. All my Raw files are green tinted, it added a lot of time to my process just color correcting, my clients have asked me what's wrong already. I agree that mirrorless is the future, but as of now, for my work in the fashion industry, it is not it. Skin color is off, colors are off. Also I miss all the movements, I see myself reaching for my old 6D mk II all the time.
Whenever I get a new camera, after inspecting for defects, my next step is to examine the limits of each ISO setting. Simply set up a basic test scene with highlights and shadows, (simply placing random items on a table and using a lamp is enough). Then at each ISO take a proper exposure, 1 image 4 stops underexposed, and 1 image 3 stops over exposed. For the underexposed images do a lot of shadow recovery as well as dragging up the exposure slider in lightroom. For the normal exposure, drag up the shadow slider and drag down the highlight slider all the way. For the overexposed image, drag the exposure slider down. Once that is done, examine each image and cycle through them. eventually you will get a feel for the limits at each ISO. This will allow you to see if your camera has multiple VGAs or a single wide range VGA, as well as when the VGA behaves nonlinearly. This will help you in challenging, situations where you may need to deviate from a normal exposure, as well as spotting times when the the analog amplifier for the CMOS sensor has reached its max gain and you are left with the ADC doing digital gain, where at which point if for some reason you need to use such a high ISO, you will know where to stop and recover things in post rather than use digital gain only ISOs. Any ISO setting that is relying purely on digital gain will offer no benefits in shadow areas while reducing how much highlight detail is captured. For example, if your camera stops adding analog gain at 25600 ISO, then there is no benefit to using higher ISOs since they often end up applying digital gain at the ADC level which will clip highlights even more. If your camera does analog gain up to 51200 ISO, then that will be your true maximum. If the camera stops at 12800, then the same rule applies. Outside of some cinema cameras where they use super high end ADCs that can sample the entire voltage output range of the CMOS sensor at once (basically ADCs that will cost more than many ILC cameras), I have yet to see any stills focused ILC camera that can truly be considered ISO invariant, even the highest end ones where users on forums would claim is ISO invariant, examining the raw files has always shown that to not be the case. ADCs with a wide input range and high bit depth to accurately sample it all, are simply too expensive to put in a even a $6000 camera, hence why we have not seen as stills camera design where the company can get away with just a simple LNA for the sensor to counter the signal path losses on its way to the ADC. Until we reach a point where better ADCs are not being price gouged, we will have to examine the raw files at each ISO and figure out how far they can be pushed.
Spot on with regard to the unnecessary hype surrounding the megapixels. As for the people who actually return the camera....my guess is that a lot of them should save their money and max out their iPhone. In my travels I have learned that too many people buy way too much camera thinking it's the solution for bad compositions. Just the other day, a stranger asked me to do an iphone shot for him and his friends, and he was surprised that I could turn it sideways for landscape mode (yikes!).
In regards to the flat files, could it have anything to do with when the R6 was manufactured? Are the flat images occurring on R6s that were made when there were supply chain issues and the cameras were back ordered? Do the images from the earlier R6s have more pop? Are flat images occurring on the R6 II?
I did experience the abnormally high noise levels as well on my r6. The one that puzzled me the most was at a horse show on the outside in the middle of the afternoon with the sun shining. The horses were hitched in harness and on the move. I shot in manual around ss 400 and kept iso on auto because I was shooting both away from the sun and towards it at times and it was hectic. I can work with a little noise no problem but those pictures turned out abnormally noisy
I got the R6 about a year ago. At first I hated it, because I'm in my 70's and switching cameras (I had a Canon 80D) was difficult. BUT.....I love it now for the most part. Sometimes my RAW files are flat, but that's usually because of my settings. The thing I struggle with the most is the AF being rather slow at times. Sometimes I even have to manually focus and THEN use AF. Sometimes I use the eye tracking, like when I'm doing portraits or wildlife. But the rest of the time I'm using single point focus. It seems to have a hard time knowing what I want it to focus on.
i find the raw files for the r6 mk2 take a lot of getting used to..give it a week ..or u can always go to the color profile and choose the camera proifle u shot in...its as close as you gonna get
It seems to me that the most common difference among R6 users when looking at their pictures would be the monitor that they're viewing it on. Then let's follow the chain back to the video card that's interpreting the data and the cable between the monitor and computer. Then let's follow on with the drivers running the card, the settings being used, and then back to the settings on the camera itself. But my bet is that it's the monitor. After that, it might just be the person perceiving the picture. Not everyone sees things the same way.
In general, I don’t like the look of the images, sometimes I feel like I used an iPhone to take them. Even at 1.8, the the bokeh isn’t as beautiful and soft as my dslr. Not sure yet if it is the camera or the lens (35mm 1.8). But I find the final images to be kind of boring.
I hate the flat boring and yellowish R6 RAW and also Jpeg files. The 5D Mark III raws are the best straight out of cam. The files of the Mark IV are also not as good.
Coming from a 1dx mark ii. The R6 highlight range isn't the greatest however the shadow recovery is very good. So depending on the situation ill under exposure to protect my highlights. Im not scared to raise my ISO, just think highlight range on the R6 is a bit disappointing.
Hi just bought and r6 after having the 1dxii , and I completely hate the colors, theres a huge differnce bitween th 1dx and that, do you have any tip on how to deal with it?
@@user-sk5qr8vx6e crazy you say that, I went back to an original 1DX from R6 and the difference is huge. I would suggest looking into camera profiles. Color fidelity is one of them
Having avoided these types of cameras I’m shocked how easy it is with the r6 mark 2. Infinitely easier. I’m actually having an issue where it’s actually too sharp. Canon seems to have the market share with absolute beginners which is where I think most of the issues arise.
There is something off with the R6 mark 2, the images are overly sharp, almost artificially sharp. People say it has to do with the adjusted low pass filter or some artificial sharpening system. This problem does not occur in the original R6 and R5, where the balance is just right.
the lifeless raw thing is: people have different monitors, black levels and contrast varies drastically. depends on so many things, calibration is good but it wont fix a reflective display in a white room, etc. i'd bet good money this is what they're on about. i dont know what you use but i'd guess its a mac. i worked on those at uni for my photography degree and everything looked better on them. then i'd go home and be over-editing the same image to get it to look good on my cheaper display.
My experience with the RAW files on my computer straight off the card in post processing is great and basically allows me to roll right away. However if I go from RAW to say my phone or RAW to the cloud and then back to editing my RAW files are flat, color is off, highlights and shadows are messed up. But once I edit it even through the iPhone edits(for social media posting not for clients) the colors pop and are great.
Man o man..Super flat RAW images..I am not alone..I want in on the solution..We have 2 R6. One with the 28-70 and the other with the 70-200..I think sometimes, it is just a flat, ugly day..Other times, the camera seems to think there is an on camera flash, then there isn't one on the camera or it's off altogether..and getting the WYSIWYG adjusted is just weird sometimes..
Just in 2022, we did 102 elopements, 30 large weddings, 40 family sessions. I know. Thats a whole lot, but we do it. We love the R6's..Still have 2 5DMIII's and it is so hard to go back to those when needed..The Super flat thing is real, at times, for us. The other support group I would like to start is the "RF 28-70 is too heavy and barrel size makes my arm hurt, but I can't stop using it" type group. Cheers y'all
Maybe I'm confused by this "too flat" issue but wouldn't editing just solve that? Like yeah raw images are flat, so is LOG in video but you just color grade it to look normal
The flatness to me depends on the use of the light. I have the same cameras in years and i've seen the difference when i started using flash (and approching natural light in a different way). I guess it could be it
This!!! I’ve had my r6 for like 6 months. Im struggling with consistency and I’m guessing it has a lot to do with light because golden hour photos are sooo perfect but 30 minutes before golden hour are just ‘meh’
I have thought about returning my R6. What I liked about Canon were the colors. The RAW files from my 5dii are gorgeous. I only need a few adjustments in Lightroom and they pop into life effortlessly, and if I do mess around with the color sliders is never to fix skin tones. People on the R6 look yellowish and people look like they are sick! That is one of the reasons I moved away from Sony cameras but now I see the same happening with the R6. I am so disappointed. I updated the firmware to get the latest corrections. Still, pictures look.... alright...I can't spend 10 minutes putzing around each picture until it looks pretty. I hope, I hope this is resolved by Canon.
Not in my experience. Adapted EF lenses are as good as they were on my 4s for resolution, rendition, aberration, distortion, but some (not all) don't focus quite as fast as the RF equivalent, and this is probably due to design updates in the RF, rather than compatibility issues with the adapter. After market EF bayonet brands on the adapter are clearly not as snappy in focusing, but they were sluggish and hunting on a 4s without an adapter so no change.
@@daemon1143 The one lens I found a little different rendering was back lit situations with the Sigma 35 1.4 - seems to have a bit more haze. The other EF lenses have looked great.
@@skyiswomb1 Can't speak to that one as it's not a lens I've used but, that's not a symptom of a micro change in focal plane, which apart from electronic compatibility is the only thing that can be notably different.comparability.
Just checked a couple of my RAW files from the R6 taken about a year ago outside, as I've never noticed that...however...every RAW photo that comes into LR for me has a general preset added. These are very sharp, colorful, well saturated files, but if I remove all changes, sure enough it's flat and looks like it has little contrast. I've never seen an actual "raw" RAW file because of the preset I've always added!
I converted from the D750 to the R6 last year. Recently bought and R3. I struggled at first with raw files until I changed from Lightroom to Capture One. The lightroom files looked very flat with strange color no matter what profile I used to include the Color Fidelity profiles. I also change from AWB to AWB-W. The R6 files are beautiful with the right software
I'm not sure a flat RAW file is a bad thing...but what do I know? In the film days, exposing Tri-X at ISO 200 and developing in Rodinal 1:50 for 6 min, agitating 5/30 produced a real flat negative. Thing is, you can push the film or you can print on higher-contrast paper - either will give you a nice contrasty print; but with the flat neg you'll have much less grain (grain increases with film dev times, much less with paper contrast increases). Whatever, I find I'm able to work with my "flat" R6 RAW files and produce really lovely people pix - and it feels kind of like film: there's a lot of good stuff hiding in the flat image!
As far as the noise. what lenses ar people using the ones she uses is the some of the best glass canon has to offer. its no shade i love this chanel and the information gained from it but you cant just own the 50 1.8 and think all your image are gonna be tack sharp every shot
My images out of the R6 are inconsistent. At times they're very dimensional, they pop and are stunning on their own, and much of the time it is flat. The majority of me using this camera has taken place in colder weather so I thought my lighting was the entire issue, but I'm very puzzled. I sent some images. And I have been also underexposing because I heard that was the way to avoid area's blowing out, and it might be best with my preset I like. So maybe not...
The way to avoid areas blown out is to use the histogram and don't let anything crowd the right side. You want all the light you can get without overexposure causing data loss. Under exposure yields a flat image on the R6 in my experience.
@@rachelforshee No problem, but like everything in photography, takes a little practice and a bit of judgement. So you want your luminance histogram (not the red, blue green ones) to be visible in your viewfinder, preferable the small version not the huge one which gets in the way of composition I find. You are familiar with the graph tailing of to right and left with one or several humps around the middle. The right is brightest, the left is darkest. If the graph has a peak, even a little one, on the right edge, this is all data that is blown out, and the exposure should be pulled back so very little or none touches it. Similarly, if it crowds the left it will be very dark and if a peak touches it, this data will be lost to black. In theory a perfect exposure of will have the majority of data in the center hump, or if there are several things of distinctly different brightness, humps, and tail away to both sides with nothing touching, or barely kissing, the right and left edges. In practice, this is usually bloody boring and equates to neutral grey in luminance. So, to get the best colour pop, you can often benefit from lifting the exposure whilst keeping an eye on the histogram until the data just comes up to the right side, without forming a peak on the right edge. In practical terms though, as long as your have no peaks on either edge, all data in the frame has detail and you can recover it all and balance it to taste in post. Where this breaks down is if your histogram is skewed to the left because you're under exposing (in the theory that under exposure is easier to sort than blow outs in a digital image), completely aside from the fact that your image out of the camera will look flat and won't inspire you to put much effort into it, if you have to lift a lot of data out of the left side to balance the image, the amplification involved will dramatically increase noise in the resultant image, which is a whole different nuisance to repair. Noise is caused through the sensor not receiving enough photons on top of the random background, to wash out that random background (thus the noise is visible), and post process brightening amplifies this noise. Thus ideally, on your mirrorless, you want the brightest image you can get without blow out causing data loss and, this is where the right side of your histogram is your best bud. Hope that helps. Oh, and remember, if your scene has such a high dynamic range that you can't achieve this (and it happens), you can still beat the limited dynamic range of your sensor by exposure bracketing with third to max half stop gaps, so you have an exposure that properly captures the shadows and another that gets the brights, then exposure blend in post. However, this obviously doesn't work for any scene where things move and frank;y, its a bit of a PITA.
Do you expose manually? I usually shoot in AV, exposure adjustment set to zero, and the raw files of my R6 tend to be a bit on the dark side compared to the ones produced by my 80D. Can easily be fixed in post, however...
@@tom_k_d Yep manually, shadows just aren't my favorite on it. I also learned I have to use a much higher shutter than I use to ... what KJ said -- don't be afraid of higher ISO on these machines!
@@elisefilliccia Thanks, I will try that! Technically there shouldn't be much difference between boosting RAWs in post and increasing ISO, though, unless a camera is dual native ISO - which the R6 isn't.
Are the photographers who are talking about flat photos using the new RF lenses or are they using EF lenses with the adaptor ? Maybe tgat could be the issue
R6 has the cleanest sensor ever ... I have used all Canon mirrorless bodies.... I Hope Canon never stopped manufacturing a full-frame mirrorless body under 20 mp...sad to see Canon losing a quality product in a megapixel race ....
I have been doing some photography for a couple of years. I have a Canon Rebel T5 and I’m wanting to get a better camera to step up my game. The R6 would be a dream but I’m worried that spending that much money for my level of experience wouldn’t be wise. Should I get a Mark 4 first and gain more experience or just save and bite the bullet to get the R6?
There isn't much of a price difference between the two right now, unless it's a used Mark IV. But if you're going to get a 5D Mark IV then you might as well get a Canon R. It's the same sensor, but it's mirrorless and has the eye detect autofocus. You'll be in the mirrorless world and save some money. After that is glass. Now, I've adapted EF glass to RF and it looks great, so if you already have some good EF glass then you can keep it. That said, if you can save up just a little bit more then you will LOVE the R6. I've been using it for a while now and the eye detect autofocus has really sped up my workflow. And remember that the R6 is basically the 1D X Mark III in a smaller package. That sensor is a BEAST! You can recover shadows in a way that the T5 simply can't. And I've shot at 4000 ISO and the image was super clean. But if you're really on a budget then see about getting a used 5D Mark III. I used one for years and it really is a remarkable camera, and it will be a huge step up from the T5 for very little money. Allen's Camera has one right now for $600, and their used gear is really good.
Iso on r6 is amazing 6400+ all day like it’s 1600 on old dslr. Use the canon profiles. This is a real problem with the r6 but the canon profile fixes it easy. In my experience it’s a color issue and not a “flatness” issue. I use the neutral profile and it works great. I had horrible “flat” “hazy” photo issues with the Rf 50 1.8. In good light it was nice but in my experience any kind of light remotely shining on the lens completely washes out the image. Made the lens useless for me as I am constantly shooting backlit portraits. The focus changes everything. Really great eye af in complete darkness. Sony is just as good with so many more lens options though.
Hello! Question, do you think it might be possible that the flatness issue is a result of using this new raw format? This CRAW? option I think its called?
Maybe haha. Like dang my images are so noisy because I'm in a dark room without flash but ISO 40,000 and 1/800 shutter 😂 kind of joking but kind of possible
Here is something that may help those with 20MP paranoia. Lower the dot per inch on your printer and the image gets larger. Large prints are viewed at greater distances and the human eye can tell the difference between 360 DPI OR 240 DPI. That is why zooming in 400% on your computer is a waste of time.
No problems with the MP even though I dropped down when getting the R6. I think if people are already worried about "only" being 20MP, then they will find the problems they go looking for.
Billboards are printed around 20dpi and images on them are less than 2 megapixels. I'm sorry but if you can't make 20mp work for ANY scenario, you're not doing something right. If you are cropping that severely, get a longer lens!! People should learn that MP count has NOTHING to do with image quality!!
Wonder if it could be when flash is used? I recently got the R6 mkii, I took some lovely pics of my boys by the window and raws looks amazing. I recently did a cake smash with a D-lite RX one, white backdrop, whites pastel pinks. Files look so dull in comparison. I felt sick when I saw them. The preview on camera and in the file so I guess a jpeg render look great but raw, so dull and barely any colour. I got editing block for a few days as didn’t know what to do with them, then just had to tweak a bit to get to where I would usually be 🤷🏼♀️ frustrating. But I guess there raw so detail is there, just got to add more of the pop and contrast in editing. I feel I had to add more magenta as more towards green and warm up and take greys out of the whites
Love your content KJ. I've been using canon R6 for almost 2 years plus and I'm frustrated with raw files in lightroom. Actually I've tried every plugins like colourfedility etc. Actualy the problem is whenever I upload my raw files in Adope L.R library my raw files seems ok like I captured it but when I click to develop module my colour just crushed and ruins the photo. Please help me with this frustrating problems I've been facing for years.
I don’t understand why ISO capabilities would be different between mirrorless and DSLR IF they have the same sensor. Your comments confuse me. I need technical info on this.
I asked Canon about the sensors being the same they aren’t there similar. I just changed from a 1dx2 and the first time I imported to Lightroom I thought my images were flat and dull compared to the 1dx mkii.
I’ve been checking this RUclips video to see when you’re going to do an update on all of this. I’m so tired of muddy photos. I just don’t know what to do or try anymore. @KatelynJames
RAW files: Hi, I have had the same problem with my R10 and Luminar AI. I've got the following message from the Canon Support Switzerland: We are sorry that importing RAW files into a third-party software sometimes fails. Unfortunately, we have no information about third-party software. We recommend that you contact the technical support for this software directly. To edit RAW files, we recommend our "Digital Photo Professional" software.
One thing to check is: which colour space is the RAW converter tool converting to (can be usually set within the tool, both for exports and the display) - and is your screen actually capable of displaying this colour space in full? Adobe RGB displayed on sRGB screens always looks a little pale.
Coming from 5D3 and found the colours very disappointing. I look at the Raw files from both - the 5D’s are rich, beautiful colours, the R6’s are lifeless. Even with pre sets and editing the R6 files aren’t as good. I’ve gone back to the 5D3 for portraits as the results are better.
Well I don't have an R6 but a Nikon 850 and have been working through some things with a friend that also shoots Nikon. I mostly shoot seniors, family, sports and an occasional wedding and always in Raw except now I've been tweaking jpg setting for action sports to speed up workflow and return and was getting great results so a friend copied my settings then happened to shoot a wedding last weekend she didn't change over some of the in camera settings like Active D because it's not supposed to affect raw images. She loaded her images to LR and was shocked bc what she saw on her camera as a preview was there for short time and then it switched to dark. I told her the jpg preview shows first but then when the raw preview renders it takes over the jpg preview. She was concerned because it was so far off from the back of her camera (which also shows you a jpg). One thing I am wondering is if the tweaks (not iso, ss, fstop) that you make in camera show up on your back of camera since it is jpg. Another thing is we compared Lightroom preferences/settings and one thing that was different between ours was under the presets tab in the Global section on the top I had camera settings selected and she had the Adobe default selected. She switched hers to camera settings and reimported her wedding images and she said that it made a huge difference.
D-lighting, picture profile adjustments, sharpening, distortion control, white-balance, tint, vignette control, high iso noise reduction, diffraction compensation all carry over into lightroom if you pick “Camera Settings” as the default import profile. It cuts down my editing time a lot, its my favorite feature!
My R6 photo looks terrible in Lightroom. While on my shoot looking at the back of my camera, the photos look amazing. 🙁 I sure wish they would look like that in Lightroom or even close. I cannot wait to see the conclusion and hopefully fix of the issue. What picture style do you use Katelyn?
I would assume you shot RAW. On the back of your camera, the camera has already added a "picture style". In Lightroom, you're seeing the raw photo, and picture styles don't affect those. Picture styles are only for JPEG shots, if I'm not mistaken. It's basically the camera "editing" the photo for you if you want to export / shoot in JPEG. But if you shot in RAW, the files you copy from the card (.dng, .cr2 or .cr3) will not carry the picture styles at all. If you didn't use RAW, kindly disregard the above. I would also suggest to check the images in Adobe Bridge as well, just to check if it's a Lightroom problem. Like Katelyn mentioned, she doesn't know why some people are getting those grey, flat images. It's possible they're 1.) using a different software, which prolly render the RAW images differently or 2.) they didn't use RAW and used a neutral profile instead or 3.) Lightroom issues, preview settings, etc.
@@nicoarcenas I do shoot raw I just compared them in bridge like you said and they look identical. I adjust in Lightroom and pulled them into camera Raw and they all look the same. Can you suggest any settings in my R6 I could change or try?
People need to go to photography school , and get education on photography. That’s how you know from a great teach will teach you about flat lighting , and butterfly lighting, or Rembrandt lighting or split lighting.
I've seen only a few of your videos, but your remarkable presentation skills alone make your channel a standout. You are a joy to listen to.
You’re the best, Katelyn! Your content is always exactly why I didn’t know I wanted to absorb! As a new R6 owner, I’m always happy to have affirmation - like yours - that the system is as good as it’s been toted. Thanks for your work; keep up the R6-vibes chats. Love it!
Raw files are supposed to be flat. You create the the White point, black point, shadow depth, color, the sharpening in post. If you want a finished product shoot jpegs. The camera will decide how to process your image. When shooting raw simply look at the histogram to see if the exposure is acceptable.
I agree. This was one of the first things I learned about shooting in RAW. My instructor told us they would be a bit flat because of all the detail in them. So they almost always require a bit of adjusting.
No, I have an R6 with the problem she's describing. I don't think flat is really the right description. I have no problem making RAWs from any other manufacturer look beautiful with pleasant colors and good skin tones. All of that switched when I bought my R6. There's something about the file that leaves skin tone looking dead and very unpleasant no matter what you do with it. Selling it for something else. I do not have this problem at all with my Fuji and haven't had it with any of my previous Canons. Ultimately, I can work through it, but I spend myself having to work 5-10 minutes extra per image, and that adds up! Additionally, I don't think it's every R6. I downloaded some sample RAWs from someone else's R6 and they're perfect. It's like the skin tones in mine have no data to work with.
@@kevintoews5656 I feel the same about my R6! RAW images look great on camera display, but soooo flat once uploaded. You felt there was no way to fix the problem other than buying something else?
Hoping that wasn’t going to be the answer- bc otherwise, I love everything else about the camera.
nope, unless you refer to linear profiles
To have a better understanding of how large 20MPs is, it might be good to realize 4K is only 8.3MPs...
Good point!
But when I stick my nose on an 55" screen I can still see the pixels which means it's way too less of them! 🙃
True, but if you have to change the composition from vert to horiz (or vise-versa) then you will already be at less 4K resolution without any additional cropping.
@@Nearest_Neighbor 😅😅
Re: the flat images: you’ll find that the pictures on the back of the camera are great, and once they’re in Lightroom or CaptureOne or whatever developer software you use it looks “flat” almost “log” style that you’d see in log-video. It’s a software setting, not a camera setting.
I just did a shoot and loaded my photos into Darktable, and then did a fresh load into Lightroom. The photos in Darktable look horrible and need massive adjustments, the photos in Lightroom look great right out of camera. It’s a software setting rather than a camera setting.
What does that mean, "software setting"? Thank you for this. Do you know how to adjust software settings, because it's depressing how different they look in LR compared to camera monitor.
Hi Katelyn! If I can offer a bit of perspective from the engineering side, the way your settings impact noise varies a whole lot from camera to camera, even within mirrorless. For the R6, the ISO behavior depends on whether you’re in mechanical or electronic shutter mode. Electronic shutter is inherently noisier on the Canon cameras (but obviously a necessity when you need to be stealthy, and honestly maybe needed for the entire wedding day so it’s one less setting to have to worry about), but the noise does improve up to about ISO 6400 when you run out of aperture or shutter speed headroom. In mechanical shutter, the sensor is nearly ISO invariant above ISO 400, so it makes sense in that situation to limit yourself to ISO 400 and raise exposure in post if needed.
Another fun fact, most of the noise isn’t even from the camera at all, but from the random variations in the number of light particles bouncing of your subject, that’s why increasing light with flash, shutter speed, aperture are such important tools when available
Yes! I can’t wait to hear what you find out. My dull and flat images are so overwhelming. 😅
PSA - for those unhappy with their R6 raw files in, for example, capture one - increase the Saturation slider in the Exposure tool to about +20 to +30.
I have owned the R6, then the R5 (loved the colors), and then again the R6 and had the same exact issue and saw this video. This solution will get you pretty near the color science of the R5 at least for Capture One in my experience (v. 22).
Hope this helps anyone looking! Make the import preset like she said and you will love the results, amazing colors, small files, and plenty of resolution for web and printing.
Hi.enjoyed this very much. The color science on the mark 2 seems much better, less flat and yellow 😊
I have 2 R6s!! I noticed at one of my weddings the difference in bridal party images (Some of them gorgeous SOOC some super flat and gray) I realized the camera with gorgeous images had an R lens on it and the flat images had an adapter and lens on them!
Omg. This might be my issue. Thx so much for your comment.
When i purchased my R6 in 2021 i was disgusted how the raw of my old 450D looked better! I decided to match colour profile as closer as my 450D settings and it started to be very convincing. Now i have a racer when we talk about photography ! Very impressive Canon colour science !
I love my R6... it does what I need...
I love mine too!
Got my R6 today. Made a good deal on a used but nearly new one. I'm an absolute amateur though! The RAW thing is interesting, looking forward to an update. My 50mm and some adapters for my vintage lenses are still on it's way so I have to wait a few days until I actually can use it for the first time.
I have learned so much on this channel; it's crazy. Thank you so much. I love the R6.
I haven’t experienced the gray photos on the R6, nor have I heard of this! I am very interested to see what you come up with.
I think thenunderexposing thing is for people that do the "bold colorful emotional" type style. Which is to be underexposed, bring up the shadows, etc. Especially outdoor portraits exposing for the sky to like really bring out the color of the sky and I softer HDR type way, etc. I have found that to be the advice or tips given by a lot of the "bold emotional colorful" type editing... I know I've been having this issue trying to find a balance and absolutely love and appreciate you for mentioning this! :)
Wow!! Can't wait to see the KJ deep-dive into everyone's "flat" raw images!!
I struggle with best settings for camera (colour space), default raw import defaults, and editing profiles. Your "Flat looking Raw File Project" will hopefully help us get to the bottom of this. Your approach of obtaining samples from users seems to be a great way to analyze the problem and I am very much looking fwd to your results
I wish I got another 5d mark4 instead of r5. Better focus but flat dead looking raw file with any settings and color profile.
Biggest turnoff for me, is the lack of a top display on a $2500 rig. On a wedding day, I use this constantly. Cheap move by Canon (they often make questionable moves like this to "segment" their products... as if the MPX difference between the 5 and 6 aren't enough). Both this and the R5 should have identical bodies like the Nikon Z6 & Z7 series does.
Even my 6D Mark II has this... My 70D had this... Even some of the Rebels had them.
I loved the Canon UI but, this cheap move has solidified my choice to buy into the Nikon Z system instead.
Nice video though... Informative and otherwise helpful.
The fact that they’ve moved the information from the top display into the EVF is much more preferable for me. This way I’m not dropping my camera to look at the settings, I can do it as I’m taking the picture. This may be personal preference though.
I mainly shoot wildlife and absolutely love my R6, being able to shoot at iso 3200 with minimal noise is one of the great benefits. As you say if you underexpose the shadows it can get a bit noisy, but way better than on my old dslr. I don't have really flat raw files either, I will be interested to find out what you discover when checking out the files sent to you.
It's happened to me, I usually underexpose a bit when I have low light. I believe what makes the difference is the quality of light and the lens used. I use all RF so I don't have any kind of problem with noise. 👌🏼💪🏼🙏🏼 I want to see what conclusion you come to? Great video 🙏🏼
I am so glad I found your videos! These are so helpful!
I like Camera Faithful as a starting profile for my photos. Adobe Colour leans really green.
I love my R6. The only 2 things I wish Canon would have done different is having the top display and the battery life better. I have adapted but those 2 things on the MK4 just made life a little easier!
Do you leave wifi/bluetooth on? I keep both of my R6s in airplane mode. I don't have a need to keep them on while I'm shooting so it's two less things to provide power to. Also look into the vertical grip which holds two batteries.
Wow I had no idea underexposing was not the best strategy anymore for a mirrorless
Just wish Canon would allow 3rd party lens!! #FreeTheRFMount
Raw files looked flat in Lightroom when I first got my R6 years ago. Updates to Lightroom have solved this issue for me. Many users are still using old versions of Lightroom.
absolutely agree Katelyn, I have the EOS R and live in SW Florida where shooting in our very intense, high sun washes out photos and I have found it is better to figure out a way to dumb down the light issues with the camera, NOT in post processing. Post processing cannot get that harsh washout fixed. I love my R and I am not using the $2,000 lenses and my photos are clear and beautiful. Love your videos!
I LOVE my R6. Incredible camera. Tried the R6ii and returned. No difference for my needs. The af and images just astounding.
Interesting!
Have this with the R as well mine are flat and my friends are not same exact everything! She was shocked when we compared.
I love the R6! I totally abandoned the RP and the 6D Mk2. I also love it better than the Sony A73 I had. The lowlight performance is amazing, I can shoot 12800 ISO night shots like nobodies business!
Yes I've been so impressed by the low light!
About RAW… maybe it depends what colour profile is set for video in the camera?
I just subscribed - thanks Katelyn!
My experience is the R6 (MkI that is) is usually slighly underexposing (about half a stop) - which can be fixed in post easily. Likewise it can be adjusted via exposure compensation. I usually fix this in post though, to avoid clipped highlights.
Yes you can get away with underexposing a bit. But not 2-3 stops!
@@KatelynJames Hi Katelyn, my point is: compared to my 80D, my R6 is underexposing almost half a stop (with exposure compensation set to flat). I remember to have seen this in other comparisons, too. No big deal, but worth mentioning in this context. PS: I uploaded a sample file...
Hello, Katelyn! Do you find out what happens with R6 RAW files? I have R and struggle with the same problem...
You single handlely made me purchase the r6 last year and I have no regrets
I did the same!
I don't understand why you would switch from a 30.4 mp camera that's weather sealed to a 20mp camera that isn't......
I shoot almost exclusively on auto ISO. Shutter speed up to 3200 and my F-stop at its lowest setting (wide open). I get noise but that's easily cleaned up in post. I get tack sharp images handheld with a heavy 100-400 lens. This is a daylight setting which I do a lot of bird photography. Low light settings are different.
I hope you get it figured out. I went back to using my 6d mark ii.
I was about to suggest trying colorfidelity profiles when you mentioned having already tried that :) Aside from it not being a solution to the problem you’re describing, I still highly recommend the CF profiles, they get very close to in-camera jpeg colours, which I like a lot more than what Adobe gives me. But that’s subjective of course :)
I usually shoot at 1600 and 3200 ISO on my R5 doing theatre photography and most of the time I only have to lighten them and I rarely worry about the small amount of noise.
Katelyn, would you please consider doing a video comparing these two RF 24-70 f2.8 vs RF 28-70 f2.
I'm actually selling my Canon R to get a Canon 5D Mk IV. All my Raw files are green tinted, it added a lot of time to my process just color correcting, my clients have asked me what's wrong already. I agree that mirrorless is the future, but as of now, for my work in the fashion industry, it is not it. Skin color is off, colors are off. Also I miss all the movements, I see myself reaching for my old 6D mk II all the time.
i got here actually searchng "why is Canon r green tinted and desaturated"
Whenever I get a new camera, after inspecting for defects, my next step is to examine the limits of each ISO setting. Simply set up a basic test scene with highlights and shadows, (simply placing random items on a table and using a lamp is enough). Then at each ISO take a proper exposure, 1 image 4 stops underexposed, and 1 image 3 stops over exposed. For the underexposed images do a lot of shadow recovery as well as dragging up the exposure slider in lightroom. For the normal exposure, drag up the shadow slider and drag down the highlight slider all the way. For the overexposed image, drag the exposure slider down.
Once that is done, examine each image and cycle through them. eventually you will get a feel for the limits at each ISO.
This will allow you to see if your camera has multiple VGAs or a single wide range VGA, as well as when the VGA behaves nonlinearly. This will help you in challenging, situations where you may need to deviate from a normal exposure, as well as spotting times when the the analog amplifier for the CMOS sensor has reached its max gain and you are left with the ADC doing digital gain, where at which point if for some reason you need to use such a high ISO, you will know where to stop and recover things in post rather than use digital gain only ISOs.
Any ISO setting that is relying purely on digital gain will offer no benefits in shadow areas while reducing how much highlight detail is captured. For example, if your camera stops adding analog gain at 25600 ISO, then there is no benefit to using higher ISOs since they often end up applying digital gain at the ADC level which will clip highlights even more. If your camera does analog gain up to 51200 ISO, then that will be your true maximum. If the camera stops at 12800, then the same rule applies.
Outside of some cinema cameras where they use super high end ADCs that can sample the entire voltage output range of the CMOS sensor at once (basically ADCs that will cost more than many ILC cameras), I have yet to see any stills focused ILC camera that can truly be considered ISO invariant, even the highest end ones where users on forums would claim is ISO invariant, examining the raw files has always shown that to not be the case. ADCs with a wide input range and high bit depth to accurately sample it all, are simply too expensive to put in a even a $6000 camera, hence why we have not seen as stills camera design where the company can get away with just a simple LNA for the sensor to counter the signal path losses on its way to the ADC. Until we reach a point where better ADCs are not being price gouged, we will have to examine the raw files at each ISO and figure out how far they can be pushed.
Thanks for watching!
Spot on with regard to the unnecessary hype surrounding the megapixels. As for the people who actually return the camera....my guess is that a lot of them should save their money and max out their iPhone. In my travels I have learned that too many people buy way too much camera thinking it's the solution for bad compositions. Just the other day, a stranger asked me to do an iphone shot for him and his friends, and he was surprised that I could turn it sideways for landscape mode (yikes!).
Having similar issues with my Canon r6 mark ii and I use the canon rf 24-70 f/2.8
In regards to the flat files, could it have anything to do with when the R6 was manufactured? Are the flat images occurring on R6s that were made when there were supply chain issues and the cameras were back ordered? Do the images from the earlier R6s have more pop? Are flat images occurring on the R6 II?
Have you found out yet why some people have dull images??
I did experience the abnormally high noise levels as well on my r6. The one that puzzled me the most was at a horse show on the outside in the middle of the afternoon with the sun shining. The horses were hitched in harness and on the move. I shot in manual around ss 400 and kept iso on auto because I was shooting both away from the sun and towards it at times and it was hectic. I can work with a little noise no problem but those pictures turned out abnormally noisy
I got the R6 about a year ago. At first I hated it, because I'm in my 70's and switching cameras (I had a Canon 80D) was difficult. BUT.....I love it now for the most part. Sometimes my RAW files are flat, but that's usually because of my settings. The thing I struggle with the most is the AF being rather slow at times. Sometimes I even have to manually focus and THEN use AF. Sometimes I use the eye tracking, like when I'm doing portraits or wildlife. But the rest of the time I'm using single point focus. It seems to have a hard time knowing what I want it to focus on.
Yes I can agree!
i find the raw files for the r6 mk2 take a lot of getting used to..give it a week ..or u can always go to the color profile and choose the camera proifle u shot in...its as close as you gonna get
It seems to me that the most common difference among R6 users when looking at their pictures would be the monitor that they're viewing it on. Then let's follow the chain back to the video card that's interpreting the data and the cable between the monitor and computer. Then let's follow on with the drivers running the card, the settings being used, and then back to the settings on the camera itself. But my bet is that it's the monitor. After that, it might just be the person perceiving the picture. Not everyone sees things the same way.
Wouldn’t lens choice be a factor in terms of how much pop? Also choice of in camera picture profile: neutral, vivid, landscape, portrait etc?
In general, I don’t like the look of the images, sometimes I feel like I used an iPhone to take them. Even at 1.8, the the bokeh isn’t as beautiful and soft as my dslr. Not sure yet if it is the camera or the lens (35mm 1.8). But I find the final images to be kind of boring.
I hate the flat boring and yellowish R6 RAW and also Jpeg files. The 5D Mark III raws are the best straight out of cam. The files of the Mark IV are also not as good.
Are you using AWB or AWB-W (white priority)? White Priority should eliminate the yellow shift
Coming from a 1dx mark ii. The R6 highlight range isn't the greatest however the shadow recovery is very good. So depending on the situation ill under exposure to protect my highlights. Im not scared to raise my ISO, just think highlight range on the R6 is a bit disappointing.
Hi just bought and r6 after having the 1dxii , and I completely hate the colors, theres a huge differnce bitween th 1dx and that, do you have any tip on how to deal with it?
@@user-sk5qr8vx6e crazy you say that, I went back to an original 1DX from R6 and the difference is huge. I would suggest looking into camera profiles. Color fidelity is one of them
Love the videos ! do you have a membership channel for learning ?
The R6 doesn't have a lot of noise at high Iso. My old 5DIII I never dare to use above Iso 2500, whereas for my R6 Iso 10.000 is not an issue !
How do you focus for couples or groups. Just auto eye the centre person or say bride in a wedding ?
Having avoided these types of cameras I’m shocked how easy it is with the r6 mark 2. Infinitely easier. I’m actually having an issue where it’s actually too sharp. Canon seems to have the market share with absolute beginners which is where I think most of the issues arise.
There is something off with the R6 mark 2, the images are overly sharp, almost artificially sharp. People say it has to do with the adjusted low pass filter or some artificial sharpening system. This problem does not occur in the original R6 and R5, where the balance is just right.
@@mariavanschie7946 I agree. Im noticing my pics seem adjusted like an iphone.
the lifeless raw thing is: people have different monitors, black levels and contrast varies drastically. depends on so many things, calibration is good but it wont fix a reflective display in a white room, etc. i'd bet good money this is what they're on about. i dont know what you use but i'd guess its a mac. i worked on those at uni for my photography degree and everything looked better on them. then i'd go home and be over-editing the same image to get it to look good on my cheaper display.
My experience with the RAW files on my computer straight off the card in post processing is great and basically allows me to roll right away. However if I go from RAW to say my phone or RAW to the cloud and then back to editing my RAW files are flat, color is off, highlights and shadows are messed up. But once I edit it even through the iPhone edits(for social media posting not for clients) the colors pop and are great.
Man o man..Super flat RAW images..I am not alone..I want in on the solution..We have 2 R6. One with the 28-70 and the other with the 70-200..I think sometimes, it is just a flat, ugly day..Other times, the camera seems to think there is an on camera flash, then there isn't one on the camera or it's off altogether..and getting the WYSIWYG adjusted is just weird sometimes..
You're definitely not alone! Hopefully we can get to the bottom of it!
Just in 2022, we did 102 elopements, 30 large weddings, 40 family sessions. I know. Thats a whole lot, but we do it. We love the R6's..Still have 2 5DMIII's and it is so hard to go back to those when needed..The Super flat thing is real, at times, for us. The other support group I would like to start is the "RF 28-70 is too heavy and barrel size makes my arm hurt, but I can't stop using it" type group. Cheers y'all
Maybe I'm confused by this "too flat" issue but wouldn't editing just solve that? Like yeah raw images are flat, so is LOG in video but you just color grade it to look normal
@Bill Peary the Spider Pro Hand Strap v2 changed my life. It's eases the weight of the 28-70 dramatically
The flatness to me depends on the use of the light. I have the same cameras in years and i've seen the difference when i started using flash (and approching natural light in a different way).
I guess it could be it
This!!! I’ve had my r6 for like 6 months. Im struggling with consistency and I’m guessing it has a lot to do with light because golden hour photos are sooo perfect but 30 minutes before golden hour are just ‘meh’
@@colasigma yes
light is everything in photography!
:)
I have thought about returning my R6. What I liked about Canon were the colors. The RAW files from my 5dii are gorgeous. I only need a few adjustments in Lightroom and they pop into life effortlessly, and if I do mess around with the color sliders is never to fix skin tones. People on the R6 look yellowish and people look like they are sick! That is one of the reasons I moved away from Sony cameras but now I see the same happening with the R6. I am so disappointed. I updated the firmware to get the latest corrections. Still, pictures look.... alright...I can't spend 10 minutes putzing around each picture until it looks pretty. I hope, I hope this is resolved by Canon.
Curious if the flatness has to do with adapted lenses vs rf lenses?
Not in my experience. Adapted EF lenses are as good as they were on my 4s for resolution, rendition, aberration, distortion, but some (not all) don't focus quite as fast as the RF equivalent, and this is probably due to design updates in the RF, rather than compatibility issues with the adapter. After market EF bayonet brands on the adapter are clearly not as snappy in focusing, but they were sluggish and hunting on a 4s without an adapter so no change.
@@daemon1143 The one lens I found a little different rendering was back lit situations with the Sigma 35 1.4 - seems to have a bit more haze. The other EF lenses have looked great.
@@skyiswomb1 Can't speak to that one as it's not a lens I've used but, that's not a symptom of a micro change in focal plane, which apart from electronic compatibility is the only thing that can be notably different.comparability.
It’s this RUclips DIY phenom. They run out of material so they start nitpicking everything. Including ISO.
Just checked a couple of my RAW files from the R6 taken about a year ago outside, as I've never noticed that...however...every RAW photo that comes into LR for me has a general preset added. These are very sharp, colorful, well saturated files, but if I remove all changes, sure enough it's flat and looks like it has little contrast. I've never seen an actual "raw" RAW file because of the preset I've always added!
Would you mind telling me what your preset adds? I’m having the issue she’s talking about and would love to see if your fix works!
I’d love to know too!
I am struggling changing from my Nikon D750 to my Cannon R6.
I converted from the D750 to the R6 last year. Recently bought and R3. I struggled at first with raw files until I changed from Lightroom to Capture One. The lightroom files looked very flat with strange color no matter what profile I used to include the Color Fidelity profiles. I also change from AWB to AWB-W. The R6 files are beautiful with the right software
@@Mrbr00ks74 Yeah, AWB-W is a game changer!
Hello. Love your videos! I was wondering if it was.possible to custom a button to change the AF from humans to animals on the R6
I'm not sure a flat RAW file is a bad thing...but what do I know? In the film days, exposing Tri-X at ISO 200 and developing in Rodinal 1:50 for 6 min, agitating 5/30 produced a real flat negative. Thing is, you can push the film or you can print on higher-contrast paper - either will give you a nice contrasty print; but with the flat neg you'll have much less grain (grain increases with film dev times, much less with paper contrast increases). Whatever, I find I'm able to work with my "flat" R6 RAW files and produce really lovely people pix - and it feels kind of like film: there's a lot of good stuff hiding in the flat image!
As far as the noise. what lenses ar people using the ones she uses is the some of the best glass canon has to offer. its no shade i love this chanel and the information gained from it but you cant just own the 50 1.8 and think all your image are gonna be tack sharp every shot
My images out of the R6 are inconsistent. At times they're very dimensional, they pop and are stunning on their own, and much of the time it is flat. The majority of me using this camera has taken place in colder weather so I thought my lighting was the entire issue, but I'm very puzzled. I sent some images. And I have been also underexposing because I heard that was the way to avoid area's blowing out, and it might be best with my preset I like. So maybe not...
The way to avoid areas blown out is to use the histogram and don't let anything crowd the right side. You want all the light you can get without overexposure causing data loss. Under exposure yields a flat image on the R6 in my experience.
@@daemon1143 so do you expose it right on target or a little overexposed or what? I don’t know much about using the histogram while shooting
@@rachelforshee No problem, but like everything in photography, takes a little practice and a bit of judgement. So you want your luminance histogram (not the red, blue green ones) to be visible in your viewfinder, preferable the small version not the huge one which gets in the way of composition I find. You are familiar with the graph tailing of to right and left with one or several humps around the middle. The right is brightest, the left is darkest. If the graph has a peak, even a little one, on the right edge, this is all data that is blown out, and the exposure should be pulled back so very little or none touches it. Similarly, if it crowds the left it will be very dark and if a peak touches it, this data will be lost to black. In theory a perfect exposure of will have the majority of data in the center hump, or if there are several things of distinctly different brightness, humps, and tail away to both sides with nothing touching, or barely kissing, the right and left edges. In practice, this is usually bloody boring and equates to neutral grey in luminance. So, to get the best colour pop, you can often benefit from lifting the exposure whilst keeping an eye on the histogram until the data just comes up to the right side, without forming a peak on the right edge. In practical terms though, as long as your have no peaks on either edge, all data in the frame has detail and you can recover it all and balance it to taste in post. Where this breaks down is if your histogram is skewed to the left because you're under exposing (in the theory that under exposure is easier to sort than blow outs in a digital image), completely aside from the fact that your image out of the camera will look flat and won't inspire you to put much effort into it, if you have to lift a lot of data out of the left side to balance the image, the amplification involved will dramatically increase noise in the resultant image, which is a whole different nuisance to repair. Noise is caused through the sensor not receiving enough photons on top of the random background, to wash out that random background (thus the noise is visible), and post process brightening amplifies this noise. Thus ideally, on your mirrorless, you want the brightest image you can get without blow out causing data loss and, this is where the right side of your histogram is your best bud. Hope that helps. Oh, and remember, if your scene has such a high dynamic range that you can't achieve this (and it happens), you can still beat the limited dynamic range of your sensor by exposure bracketing with third to max half stop gaps, so you have an exposure that properly captures the shadows and another that gets the brights, then exposure blend in post. However, this obviously doesn't work for any scene where things move and frank;y, its a bit of a PITA.
For the cameras producing flat images- have the current camera and lens firmware updates been downloaded? Perhaps updates have improved the images?
Definitely, proper exposure is KEY. Any image underexposed on my r6 is gross.
Do you expose manually? I usually shoot in AV, exposure adjustment set to zero, and the raw files of my R6 tend to be a bit on the dark side compared to the ones produced by my 80D. Can easily be fixed in post, however...
@@tom_k_d Yep manually, shadows just aren't my favorite on it. I also learned I have to use a much higher shutter than I use to ... what KJ said -- don't be afraid of higher ISO on these machines!
@@elisefilliccia Thanks, I will try that! Technically there shouldn't be much difference between boosting RAWs in post and increasing ISO, though, unless a camera is dual native ISO - which the R6 isn't.
Are the photographers who are talking about flat photos using the new RF lenses or are they using EF lenses with the adaptor ? Maybe tgat could be the issue
I’m wondering if some complaining about noise are using the electronic shutter?
R6 has the cleanest sensor ever ... I have used all Canon mirrorless bodies.... I Hope Canon never stopped manufacturing a full-frame mirrorless body under 20 mp...sad to see Canon losing a quality product in a megapixel race ....
I just got my r6. I took a few test shots but when I try to look at them in LR or Bridge, it says there's no pictures there. What am I doing wrong?
Thanks for watching!
I have been doing some photography for a couple of years. I have a Canon Rebel T5 and I’m wanting to get a better camera to step up my game. The R6 would be a dream but I’m worried that spending that much money for my level of experience wouldn’t be wise. Should I get a Mark 4 first and gain more experience or just save and bite the bullet to get the R6?
There isn't much of a price difference between the two right now, unless it's a used Mark IV. But if you're going to get a 5D Mark IV then you might as well get a Canon R. It's the same sensor, but it's mirrorless and has the eye detect autofocus. You'll be in the mirrorless world and save some money. After that is glass. Now, I've adapted EF glass to RF and it looks great, so if you already have some good EF glass then you can keep it.
That said, if you can save up just a little bit more then you will LOVE the R6. I've been using it for a while now and the eye detect autofocus has really sped up my workflow. And remember that the R6 is basically the 1D X Mark III in a smaller package. That sensor is a BEAST! You can recover shadows in a way that the T5 simply can't. And I've shot at 4000 ISO and the image was super clean.
But if you're really on a budget then see about getting a used 5D Mark III. I used one for years and it really is a remarkable camera, and it will be a huge step up from the T5 for very little money. Allen's Camera has one right now for $600, and their used gear is really good.
Iso on r6 is amazing 6400+ all day like it’s 1600 on old dslr. Use the canon profiles. This is a real problem with the r6 but the canon profile fixes it easy. In my experience it’s a color issue and not a “flatness” issue. I use the neutral profile and it works great. I had horrible “flat” “hazy” photo issues with the Rf 50 1.8. In good light it was nice but in my experience any kind of light remotely shining on the lens completely washes out the image. Made the lens useless for me as I am constantly shooting backlit portraits. The focus changes everything. Really great eye af in complete darkness. Sony is just as good with so many more lens options though.
Hello! Question, do you think it might be possible that the flatness issue is a result of using this new raw format? This CRAW? option I think its called?
Not 100% sure! The CRAW is more of a compression format but maybe!
I wander if it’s the lens, because I am using my EF lens with the adapter and my images look flat and noisy as well?
I wonder if they a cranking the ISO too high because the shutter speed is too slow?
Maybe haha. Like dang my images are so noisy because I'm in a dark room without flash but ISO 40,000 and 1/800 shutter 😂 kind of joking but kind of possible
I wonder if they are underexposing in areas where they should just raise ISO. Getting it right in camera is the best for dealing with noise
I am a Nikon user. What is meant by a flat image? Can you use other words to describe that
Here is something that may help those with 20MP paranoia. Lower the dot per inch on your printer and the image gets larger. Large prints are viewed at greater distances and the human eye can tell the difference between 360 DPI OR 240 DPI. That is why zooming in 400% on your computer is a waste of time.
No problems with the MP even though I dropped down when getting the R6. I think if people are already worried about "only" being 20MP, then they will find the problems they go looking for.
True!
Billboards are printed around 20dpi and images on them are less than 2 megapixels. I'm sorry but if you can't make 20mp work for ANY scenario, you're not doing something right. If you are cropping that severely, get a longer lens!! People should learn that MP count has NOTHING to do with image quality!!
Wonder if it could be when flash is used? I recently got the R6 mkii, I took some lovely pics of my boys by the window and raws looks amazing. I recently did a cake smash with a D-lite RX one, white backdrop, whites pastel pinks. Files look so dull in comparison. I felt sick when I saw them. The preview on camera and in the file so I guess a jpeg render look great but raw, so dull and barely any colour. I got editing block for a few days as didn’t know what to do with them, then just had to tweak a bit to get to where I would usually be 🤷🏼♀️ frustrating. But I guess there raw so detail is there, just got to add more of the pop and contrast in editing. I feel I had to add more magenta as more towards green and warm up and take greys out of the whites
So inspired by you even though I don’t do weddings. I moved to R6 mkii as I saw your videos on R6 😍
Love your content KJ. I've been using canon R6 for almost 2 years plus and I'm frustrated with raw files in lightroom. Actually I've tried every plugins like colourfedility etc. Actualy the problem is whenever I upload my raw files in Adope L.R library my raw files seems ok like I captured it but when I click to develop module my colour just crushed and ruins the photo. Please help me with this frustrating problems I've been facing for years.
Thanks for watching!
I don’t understand why ISO capabilities would be different between mirrorless and DSLR IF they have the same sensor. Your comments confuse me. I need technical info on this.
I asked Canon about the sensors being the same they aren’t there similar. I just changed from a 1dx2 and the first time I imported to Lightroom I thought my images were flat and dull compared to the 1dx mkii.
I’ve been checking this RUclips video to see when you’re going to do an update on all of this. I’m so tired of muddy photos. I just don’t know what to do or try anymore. @KatelynJames
RAW files: Hi, I have had the same problem with my R10 and Luminar AI. I've got the following message from the Canon Support Switzerland:
We are sorry that importing RAW files into a third-party software sometimes fails. Unfortunately, we have no information about third-party software. We recommend that you contact the technical support for this software directly. To edit RAW files, we recommend our "Digital Photo Professional" software.
One thing to check is: which colour space is the RAW converter tool converting to (can be usually set within the tool, both for exports and the display) - and is your screen actually capable of displaying this colour space in full? Adobe RGB displayed on sRGB screens always looks a little pale.
DPP is so slow....
Coming from 5D3 and found the colours very disappointing. I look at the Raw files from both - the 5D’s are rich, beautiful colours, the R6’s are lifeless. Even with pre sets and editing the R6 files aren’t as good. I’ve gone back to the 5D3 for portraits as the results are better.
its your monitor probably for the raw file inconsistency
We'll see!
Well I don't have an R6 but a Nikon 850 and have been working through some things with a friend that also shoots Nikon. I mostly shoot seniors, family, sports and an occasional wedding and always in Raw except now I've been tweaking jpg setting for action sports to speed up workflow and return and was getting great results so a friend copied my settings then happened to shoot a wedding last weekend she didn't change over some of the in camera settings like Active D because it's not supposed to affect raw images. She loaded her images to LR and was shocked bc what she saw on her camera as a preview was there for short time and then it switched to dark. I told her the jpg preview shows first but then when the raw preview renders it takes over the jpg preview. She was concerned because it was so far off from the back of her camera (which also shows you a jpg). One thing I am wondering is if the tweaks (not iso, ss, fstop) that you make in camera show up on your back of camera since it is jpg. Another thing is we compared Lightroom preferences/settings and one thing that was different between ours was under the presets tab in the Global section on the top I had camera settings selected and she had the Adobe default selected. She switched hers to camera settings and reimported her wedding images and she said that it made a huge difference.
D-lighting, picture profile adjustments, sharpening, distortion control, white-balance, tint, vignette control, high iso noise reduction, diffraction compensation all carry over into lightroom if you pick “Camera Settings” as the default import profile. It cuts down my editing time a lot, its my favorite feature!
My R6 photo looks terrible in Lightroom. While on my shoot looking at the back of my camera, the photos look amazing. 🙁 I sure wish they would look like that in Lightroom or even close. I cannot wait to see the conclusion and hopefully fix of the issue.
What picture style do you use Katelyn?
I would assume you shot RAW. On the back of your camera, the camera has already added a "picture style". In Lightroom, you're seeing the raw photo, and picture styles don't affect those. Picture styles are only for JPEG shots, if I'm not mistaken.
It's basically the camera "editing" the photo for you if you want to export / shoot in JPEG. But if you shot in RAW, the files you copy from the card (.dng, .cr2 or .cr3) will not carry the picture styles at all.
If you didn't use RAW, kindly disregard the above. I would also suggest to check the images in Adobe Bridge as well, just to check if it's a Lightroom problem.
Like Katelyn mentioned, she doesn't know why some people are getting those grey, flat images. It's possible they're 1.) using a different software, which prolly render the RAW images differently or 2.) they didn't use RAW and used a neutral profile instead or 3.) Lightroom issues, preview settings, etc.
Thank you so much for your reply. It’s very much appreciated. I’m gonna go try to open them in bridge and see. That’s a great idea.
@@nicoarcenas I do shoot raw I just compared them in bridge like you said and they look identical. I adjust in Lightroom and pulled them into camera Raw and they all look the same. Can you suggest any settings in my R6 I could change or try?
If I didn´t have my excellent EF lenses I would have switched to Sony because of the third party lenses policy.
People need to go to photography school , and get education on photography. That’s how you know from a great teach will teach you about flat lighting , and butterfly lighting, or Rembrandt lighting or split lighting.