Storage by itself is not that expensive but 1TB = 1000 GB = 30.000 photos if you only keep the JPEGs. If you keep the raw files too that's that's 100 MB per photo or ten (!) photos per gigabyte.

I dunno, it just seems like a lot of storage for data you mostly won't ever see. Even if you have a 4k monitor that's still only 8.3 megapixels, the rest of those 60 megapixels are being downscaled into oblivion by your viewer. Plus there's the inconvenience of cloud storage that will take forever at these sizes.

I understand that some people print photos in large format or live by their crop tool, and I recognize the utility of 60 MP in these cases. But for most people that's likely not going to be the case.

I absolutely don't agree that there is no difference between 25 mp and 60 mp in terms of computing requirements, because of course there are. You need a very capable CPU and graphics card for 60 MP raw files, or the editing and export experience will be an absolute nightmare.

People who dont see or care about colour should not talk to people that do like they know better.

No Magnar you can not use in camera settings to fine tune colours.

aris, If you do not have a favourite brand colours, its because you dont care enough or notice well enough. Doesnt mean i dont know what im talking about.

Zt, better software is my problem? No. And no its not as easy as you say. No profile fits all. Again sorry but dont know what you are talking about, not enough time for me to explain.

If you dont care/notice about colour, dont talk to people that do like you know better.

"Zt, better software is my problem? No. And no its not as easy as you say. No profile fits all. Again sorry but dont know what you are talking about, not enough time for me to explain."

That in itself shows you don't understand how profiles work.

NikonPC isn't is just for JPG and video output, not RAW manipulation. Very limited in what it can do, since it's linked to the camera's processing. Meanwhile, true camera profiles are based on changes in RAW, which are near limitless.

And yes, it's very simple if you have the right gear and software. A few clicks will get the job done every single time. I've been profiling cameras for 12 years now, so I should know.

What if I decide I want to change RAW editing software? Then the colors I like won't be available anymore. And that has absolutely nothing to do with the camera I'm using. But if I profile the camera and like the colors, I can use them in just about any RAW editing software and have things look the same.

BTW, as I stated a few sentences before, it doesn't take PP all day. Just a minute or two to set up the target, another minute to load the RAW into software, align things, name the profile, and that's it. Like I said, you don't understand how profiles work.

@SteveAnderson
Assumption is inversely related to comprehension even in nowadays...

ZZT, That is all true yes.

But do you think 98% of people know and have the extra gear to do that?

You also know that using RAW you must choose your own hues/levels. So now we need to be colour engineers.(I do use RAW, but most of the time do not need to nor want to)

If X-Brand gives you the colours you prefer every time, and its just WB to alter, isnt it sound advice for 85-95% of us?

Aris has chosen his side and the simpleton phrases come now.

The only gear you need is a Calibrite ColorChecker card. Free software does 100% of the color work in 1 click. Then you click once more in your editing software to select the profile it generated. If those 85-95% of you can't click the mouse twice, then you probably shouldn't be shooting RAW, either.

Thats for accurate colour. And still doesnt look the same somehow if Nikon and Canon model. You are probably spoiling Canons special look and improving Nikon accuracy vastly but to Nikon shooters probably spoiling their special look as well.

And how well does it work for street photography or any other fast paced where you move lots?

And, its accurate colour not subjectively pleasing colour.

Most people will use software to "improve" the colour, not make it accurate.

You are speaking to a massive minority even within the folks that swear by RAW.

I dont care how anyone chooses which brand they want, but I have very valid, fact based reasons for how I choose mine.
And have seen a lot of folks in the forums pull their hair out when they switch brands that were not expecting such a large difference and try to get a look back.

If you want Canon or Nikon color on your camera, it's easy, too:

https://www.cobalt-image.com/product/canon-contemporary-emulation/
https://www.cobalt-image.com/product/canon-vintage-emulation/

https://www.cobalt-image.com/product/nikon-contemporary-emulation/
https://www.cobalt-image.com/product/nikon-vintage-emulation/

No, they're not exclusive to the cameras they came from.

As far as lighting, as long as you're using software that supports DCP (most everything except Capture One), you can create dual illuminant profiles to work in the same ranges that any other brand's own colors do, so it's a completely level playing field.

ZZT, You are correct for accurate colour profiles.

For accurate colour use Macbeth.

None of these profiles work that I have ever seen though.

This is where we start pulling our hair out. Where I become correct.

I prefer accurate colour as well. But I also do not want or need to PP most photos. So, I choose an accurate brand for Asian skin tones with pleasing lvls/roll-offs/etc... and simply convert with the brands RAW software.(Maintains the brand "look")

Using other RAW converters take away, not enhance the brands engineered colour. IMO.

So, if you want accurate colours, use Macbeth like you do.

Otherwise its easier to just use the brand that has the "look" you prefer.

Its not something to argue anymore. Accurate does not equal pleasing.

95% or so of people will not create profiles for accurate colour. They will mess in RAW for art, or shoot pleasing JPG.

I am with you on the accuracy. We would be on the same team, But this isnt an accuracy thread.

"None of these profiles work that I have ever seen though."

Then you're not using good software, or making mistakes while profiling. Adobe DNG Profile Editor does a satisfactory job. ColroChecker's own software is terrible. Lumariver Profile Designer works very well, and is the most flexible of all software. And basiCColor Input is probably the gold standard, making excellent profiles without adjusting anything, plus allowing you to make changes to each color, and even grayscale (no other software can do that).

If you need accurate skin tones for all types, then you need to use a chart with more swatches than just the ColorChekcer Classic or Passport. There are plenty out there.

And as above, a company has already profiled many, many cameras, and has profiles to emulate their color on other brands, so you don't have to worry about being locked into a brand you don't like.

Yes the hardware profiles for accurate colour work of course.

No profile claiming a Nikon to look like a Canon works. Ive tried enough of them to know that none do. Because along that journey I would have heard about "the one" that does work and be using it right now.

Again, no one wants accurate colour except you and I and a few others.

This is about brands all having different colours and so you should know this and choose the one you prefer. If no one cares about colour, it doesnt matter either. Either way.

But have you tried Cobalt's? There are tons of samples on their site.

Maybe or not, tried so many.

If you have a Nikon and a Canon and tell me that it makes a portrait from the Nikon nearly perfectly match the same Canon portrait, I will believe you.

Otherwise its just the same profiles that dont work. They give these profiles not expecting you to have both a Nikon and Canon to test with. They just say here, this will give a Canon look.

I love Nikon cameras but can not stand the colours. I can make the Canon look worse trying to get them to be the same but never, ever been able to get the Nikon to my preference. Natural and pleasing. If you only shoot white people they are similar enough maybe though.

Using the pure accuracy profiles loses the engineered magic of the Canon. I love the accuracy but am not as good as the Canon engineers at per hue levels and such.

5Dm2 is quite different from 7Dm2 yes. They all have minor differences of course. The original R not as different as I was expecting. Hanvt tried an R5/6 yet.

I can spot a Nikon shot 99% of the time. I do not want a Sony because of ergos so dont care.(The a7ii and 6xxx that ive tried had horrible skin, a73 was quite good. Fuji has that pink showing up in areas. Pretty easy to spot. But AF no good for street photos so im talking about Nikon/Canon specifically.

We are talking about skin, not trees. Its not that hard to spot, very noticeable.

@SteveAnderson

"f you have a Nikon and a Canon and tell me that it makes a portrait from the Nikon nearly perfectly match the same Canon portrait, I will believe you."

That's basically what they're selling. And not only generic "Canon Color". They've modeled more prominent individual Canon cameras, and ported the colors from each of those to most other cameras.

@SteveAnderson

I've never seen another company selling camera emulation profiles. Please post their links, very interested.

There are certainly many.

I would have to spend quite a bit of time going through some old bookmarks to find some.

A few of them are in my RAW editor still but doesnt say where they came from.

I am honestly interested in this. Very. But I am not paying for another of the same that just doesnt work.

It doesnt even need to look exactly like the Canon, but they always end up being wonky. Some photos it works, next one, not at all.

Please test these and I will believe you. You need to have the 2 cameras you are matching though, otherwise how could we know it matches right?

Easiest way to test is with DPR's test scene.

Except that their skin prints are never fresh. So, they dont function at all.

Again, people that dont even have 2 models(camera brands and people) to test with argue endlessly with me about something they couldnt possibly know.