The Skin Tone Holy Grail

[fuzzynormal]

Curious as to why it seems to be such a high priority with some folks. 

Myself, I do low level corporate vids for a living and have used all sorts of cameras.  I can't say I've been too bothered with any brand regarding skin color.  If it looks off I adjust in post.

And if I'm doing fictional narrative stuff there are no rules, so I push and pull my grades in all sorts of fun directions; as long as my white balance was on target I just never worried about what the skin tones are doing that much…

So yeah, if y'all have any justifications I'd sincerely love to hear why this particular aspect makes a big difference for you.  Thanks! 

[jcs]

Why not post a few screenshots of examples of what you feel are good skin tones for feedback?

Even without directly asking models/actors/clients, when a camera creates nice skin tones they are much happier. Based on their feedback, this is their preferred order for skin tones:

Canon 5D3, Apple iPhone 5S, Panasonic GH4, Sony A7S, Sony FS700. I don't own any Nikon gear but would put them up near Canon. Black Magic can look better than Sony. From others work on the high end for skin tones:

Kodak 5248 film, ARRI Alexa/Amira, Sony F35/F65, Panasonic Varicam, Red Dragon, Red Epic, Sony F55, Sony F5, Sony FS7.

Canon Cxx are mid-pro and sit above the F55 for skin tones. There's a filmic quality to the cameras at the Red Epic level and above that put them above the Canon Cxx cameras (but require more light (except the Varicam) and more post work). I could see the C500 shooting RAW doing better vs. a Red Epic, but it would be pretty close (Red keeps improving).

[fuzzynormal]

 

Why not post a few screenshots of examples of what you feel are good skin tones for feedback?

​That's the thing.  I'm not terribly particular about it.  I'm perfectly comfortable making someone look blue or orange if I feel it helps tell a story and assists ambience.  I'm all about context of the narrative.  My color grading can get pretty wild, so I'm curious why others are such sticklers for what they imagine is an ideal.

If/when a client wants something clean, I keep it clean --but no matter what camera I use they all offer images that never stray too far to create something nice, regardless. I very rarely let a shot go through post without a tweak on it.

 

[jcs]

For narrative, for sure anything goes. If you worked on those films in your post above, what camera and lighting did you use? If those aren't your work, perhaps post some examples from vimeo.com/path88/videos?

Here's a GH4 example which I feel shows good skin tones (Natural profile, Panasonic 12-35 F2.8 lens), overcast with indirect reflected brown light:

 

5D3 RAW, 24-105 F4L, LCW Fader ND v1, overcast daylight, processed with ACR+AE (color shifts during playback courtesy of ACR):

 

A7S, stock PP6, Sony 18200 lens, LCW Fader ND v1, overcast daylight (poster image; different lenses, light throughout video):

 

In the first video, the skin looks good with a warm/orange tint. In the second video, skin looks pinker (more magenta; higher color temp source light, though it sometimes swings to green due to ACR), and to my eye (and the actor's) natural and pleasing. The final video (poster) looks good on it's own, but when compared to the 5D3 and GH4 looks greener though still pleasing (during playback there's magenta bias, green bias, yellow bias, etc.). Now viewing these images on different monitors will make some look better and some look worse, depending on which way out of calibration they go. For example, on a monitor with too much green, the middle video (still frame) will look less magenta but still good, however the bottom video (still frame) will look too green and less pleasing.

I'm still learning and appreciate feedback from every angle. It's art so some will like and some won't. What is helpful is understanding why.

[Jonesy Jones]

Thanks Fuzzy. I kinda wonder the same thing. Good stuff.

[fuzzynormal]

If those aren't your work, perhaps post some examples from vimeo.com/path88/videos?

No, not my work, just examples of color grading that make "ideal skin tone" seem somewhat irrelevant.  

My point is this:  I'm not looking for a camera that offers the best skin tone.  I'm saying all modern cameras are pretty good and with color grading you can pull it into your preference anyway.

If you agree with that assertion, then why worry so much about skin tone to begin with?

If you disagree with that premise I'm genuinely interested why.  I accept that I may be off the mark here.  

As for my videos, there's nothing in there where I'm upset with skin tone color. 

 

[jcs]

After shooting and editing extensively with the 5D3 (H.264 + RAW), Sony FS700, GH4, and A7S, based not only on my personal opinion, but on feedback from actors/models/clients, cameras which produce better skin tones are preferred. I found this out by shooting the same scenes with multiple cameras and reviewing the results with others. Doing research online I found that skin tones were the single most important element for cameras used to make money. Resolution, frame rates, viewfinders, ergonomics, etc., are all very important too, but skin tones are number one. Skin tones affect emotion, and emotion is used to tell a story or sell a product.

What cameras provide the best skin tones? ARRI and Canon. What cameras are used the most professionally? ARRI and Canon. What cameras are used the most in Oscar winning films (last few years)? ARRI. What DSLR was used most in feature films? Canon (5D, 7D, 1D): http://shotonwhat.com/?s=5D. Why did the C100/C300 far outsell/outrent the FS700, even though the FS700 has way more features (and can even look full frame with a SpeedBooster)? C100/C300 produce better skin tones with less effort. 

In the end, it's possible to get similar, sometimes even better (rare/unusual lighting conditions) skin tones from the GH4 and A7S vs. the 5D3, however on average, the 5D3 requires a lot less time and work.

How do we know when skin tones are better, when it's so subjective? Shoot the same scene with multiple cameras then show the results to multiple people for feedback. Some DPs do a ton of testing to figure this out before shooting a feature: http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2013/10/arri-alexa-vs-canon-c500/

[maxotics]

Yes, FuzzyNormal, I wouldn't say ever had a "problem" with skin tones until I shot some RAW with a Canon 50D.  That is, most video had a "video" look which I felt I was stuck with.  But RAW changed everything for me.  Then I went to an EOS-M, then a BMPCC and feel that both camera deliver great looks.  I never get tired of RAW (just the workflow). Anyway, I've always wanted the nice crisp image, small file sizes, and video ergonomics of Panasonic cameras.  What happened is that I wanted the high dynamic range, flat look, of my BMPCC with the GH4.  So I used Cine-D and dialed down the contrast and changed the hue TOO MUCH.  What I didn't realize is that the low-contrast look I was getting was AT THE EXPENSE of color, which meant the skin tones went to crap.  So I can understand how this problem seems silly to you Fuzzy because you don't shoot RAW, far as I know, and you haven't pushed the GH4 too far as I did (and should have known better).  The good thing for me, is that it has awaken me to much of the stuff JCS has been writing about for a long time here.  I agree with him, people are biologically sensitive to good skin tone.  If you're doing a very busy video, with many cuts, and high contrast, etc., you don't notice.  But if you're going for a natural look it ain't easy.  If you take a family member, and sit them down for an "interview" where the person has to look at their face for minutes on end I think you'll go through the same thing as other people--the image may not do justice to the person in front of you.

[fuzzynormal]

I found that skin tones were the single most important element for cameras used to make money.

Well, I'm not running in the upper echelon of clientele so I suppose "skin tone" is a possible all important tick-box for hard core specialists in choosing a camera for a gig.  As I say, I'm small potatoes, so from my perspective it seems like a lot of navel gazing rationalization.  

I'm not sure I agree that we should be so pedantic, but I'm speaking from ignorance here.  I never had a client balk at my gear selection.  

Still, seems like a simple nuanced application of good color grading can create pleasing tones regardless --so I do question if it's as important as some assert it is.  Also, the lens is a huge factor in color rendition.  When I hear people bash the Sony sensors I tend to wonder exactly what glass they're using or what they are (or are not) doing to their image in post.

[fuzzynormal]

If you're going for a natural look it ain't easy.  If you take a family member, and sit them down for an "interview" where the person has to look at their face for minutes on end I think you'll go through the same thing as other people--the image may not do justice to the person in front of you.

I'm actually currently working on a short documentary featuring 11 interviews.  I'm analyzing my GX7 footage a lot.  I am color grading it.  To my eye it reads true.  I'm not having too much of a problem with it.  The only one that has issues is an interview under tungsten light that was slightly underexposed.

Aside from that, look at the images I posted from True Grit.  Those stills are lifted from scenes that last numerous minutes.   Are people biologically sensitive and put off by those colors?  After all, they're not "natural."​  

I'm not saying it's not perfectly acceptable for people to pursue their ideal colors, I'm just having a hard time understanding why for some it seems to be priority number one.  Now, all that being said, I do like Canon color, but I also cross cut many projects with Canon and Panasonic --and I can always pull them into line in post. 

[Jonesy Jones]

I was recently at the Shane Hurlbut tour thing and all day long he used Canon cameras, which, obviously have nice colors, but to me it looks like TV, high end TV. Then later in the day he switched to a BMCC without telling us and I was like damn, that looks awesome. It instantly looked more like a movie to me. Canon probably had better skin tones, but the BMCC looked more cinematic to me, which I realize is very subjective. 

What I'm trying to say is that I agree with Fuzzy. I think you choose the camera/lens combo that give you the look your after. If your shooting a glamour piece or beautiful people TV show, go with a Canon. If you're looking for an edgier look maybe a Sony or Blackmagic will get you there. 

EDIT: In the end, though, I think your audience wants to be engaged in the story or content, and I just don't feel like the skin tones are going to make or break that, unless they're way off. And all of the above cameras can get you there if used properly, and post can help too.

[maxotics]

It's like Jonesy said, once you shoot RAW (like BM), it makes you fall in love with a certain look.  At least me.  Again, Fuzzy, I never said the color was bad with my GM1, for example.  Again, the problem I had, and which I believe others have had is You do some RAW shooting, love it, then try to get that flat look in 8-bit, and end up ruining your colors, by using data to capture DR (at the expense of color depth), which is noticeable when you shoot faces because we're biologically sensitive to complexion.  The great thing about the GX7 and GM1 is they don't have Cine-D   

You're playing devil's advocate a bit here   I didn't say that we have a biological need to see faces with a certain color / skin-tone.  Many films have a look that are not "natural" but the "fake" colors achieve an emotional effect.  What I said is that in a setting where the viewer expects the person to look a certain way they are sensitive to colors that are off.  That's why JCS explained how he could get background colors one way but they ruined the skin tones, or the other way around.  Skin tone is about context.  If you're shooting everything with a GX7 no one is going to notice the skin tones.  Consistency always works.  However, if you were to mix that footage with BM footage, say, there's a good chance you would prefer the RAW but wouldn't be able to get the GX7 to match it.  You would be able to get the RAW to match the GX7, but then you'd lose what you liked in the image in the first place.  AGAIN, if the viewer doesn't know better, no harm no foul!  

[jcs]

Fuzzy, sorry if my posts are coming off pedantic. You're making a case that skin tones aren't that important. I'm providing many facts (which you can verify for yourself) to make the case that skin tone color is indeed the most import element in your thread "the skin tone holy grail". Back when the 5D3 was released the big issue was it was too soft. I showed that with post sharpening it was pretty good (lots of folks disagreed; many felt post-sharpening was invalid and the camera should be sharp straight from the camera). I spent a lot of time looking for a camera that provided better native resolution and went with the FS700 when the SpeedBooster came out. After many projects with feedback from many people, it was clear that people preferred the look of the Canon over the Sony. There were indeed comments on the 5D3 being too soft for some shots, but overall people love the look of the 5D3 over the FS700+SB. The FS700 still provides value with up to 240fps 1080p (ish) slomo.

As I read about lots of different cameras, the recurring pattern for what people love the most is skin tones. We are emotional beings and we evolved color vision, at least in part, to read emotion through skin tone color. Researching the best cameras, I found the same pattern: they produce skin tones which evoke a positive emotional response: "I like it." "I love it!". In narrative and commercials too, color sets the mood, helps tell the story, and conveys emotion at a deep level.

Hi Jonesy- Blackmagic cameras have indeed gotten good reports for skin tones, though I haven't used them. A big part of the filmic look is highlight behavior of the camera/sensor and even more important: lighting for narrative (emotion). I have started paying very careful attention to scenes that look really 'filmic'. Even that ARRI Alexa and Red Dragon can look 'videoish' with bright lighting and resulting harsh highlights. Combine such lighting with an oversharp image and you've got the video look. Notice how often narrative scenes have very little lighting, with the most lighting on the face and eyes. 

The challenge I've had with Sony cameras, especially the FS700, is that after setting proper WB and exposure, even tweaking WB in post (including 3-way), parts of the face can look good/correct, but other parts are too yellow/orange/green/blue and don't look right. So now you have to do secondary color correction for those areas. Time consuming. The final results tend not to look as good as Canon or Panasonic. The A7S is better, but still requires more work vs. the 5D3 or GH4. For video, in my experience Panasonic cameras work pretty well for skin tones, to the point that I didn't worry about them. They just worked. For stills, in my experience Canon looks much better than Panasonic. It wasn't until using Sony cameras and getting feedback from others regarding skin tones that I started looking at skin tones in more detail.

I was curious why so many top productions used ARRI cameras when it was only 2.8K/3.4K max resolution. The result of much reading was that ARRI provides the best color and skin tones. How do we know it's the best?  We look at what people use when cost is not an issue, which cameras were used in the top grossing/award-winning films, etc. This lead to learning more about color and skin tones.

So while many cameras can look great, cameras which look great with the least effort are the most useful and cost effective. It's also why Canon drives Andrew crazy releasing cameras with very limited features which outsell all the other brands with more features. Canon hasn't had to compete on features so much as they compete mostly on (skin tone) color.

 

[fuzzynormal]

Fuzzy, sorry if my posts are coming off pedantic.

​No no, I should apologize, but honestly in this context "pedantic" is not necessarily a pejorative.  Specializing deeply in certain skills is part of the trade as a DP.  Knowing the intricacies is important.  I get that.  As I say, I'm a guy that just does corporate videos mostly.  I don't have a body of work that needs such finesse with color, so I'm ignorant about the heavy details...but I'm not sure if I want to actually worry too much about it, if that's understandable.

My sensibilities are elsewhere.  As you can see from my writing above, I'm sort of content that my stuff is good enough (for better or worse).

Thanks for offering your perspective.  It's enlightening.

[jgharding]

You always use post, but the material you take into post affects where you can go, and how far.

Canon starts off very over warm, but there's a lot of wiggle room to remove that, so I like it. With others I find it hard to convincingly add that warmth if I want it, so I like Canon quite a lot.

Arri just nailed it for natural "do anything go anywhere" skin, amazing. So really the Alexa and Amira are the winners, at a price. That's one reason why so much film, TV, advertising, drama, so much everything are shot on them.

Red is good too, though there's sometimes a funny green/magenta tint that I find hard to knock out in a consistent way in post. I find it less forgiving.

Sony is very cool feeling but quite Kodak'y so not at all bad I don't think, just different. The rest I don't really have the experience to call.

That's my two pence from my experience, but YMMV of course!

[toxotis70]

it would be nice to have some footage with skin from Pany gh4, sony a7s , canon and Arri ... but the same footage , in the same conditions.

Is there any such footage ?

[Tim Naylor]

Skin tone to me is the baseline for a camera. I'm always tinting it this way and that or sometimes delivering it as "honest" as possible. If the base is accurate skin tone/color chart, I know can create the most flexible rich signal possible with my camera. When I did extensive tests for a feature last Summer, we were spanning looks from cool/green nights to magic hour golden light, but the mid level / mean look was color balanced skin tone. So we tested the big three (Sony 55, Alexa, Dragon) at a variety of ISO's and contrasts (2:1, 4:1 to 64:1) always with a color chart and the same face. If we could grade the face to look accurate the color chart should be spot on too in an ideal world. Or you end up buying a lot of time in post windowing backgrounds and faces. The F55 was the worst at that test. If we nailed the face, the color chart was way off. It'd be cheaper to rent but offset by extra time in grading. Dragon was leaps better, just ever so slightly green bias and Alexa was spot on. 

[jcs]

toxotis70- http://www.4kshooters.net/2014/11/14/crazy-un-scientific-fatal-four-way-shootout-canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-gh4-vs-sony-a7s-vs-canon-eos-c100/ , https://vimeo.com/72566458. There's more out there...

Tim- that's the pattern I found with lots of research too. Alexa > Dragon/Epic > F55.

Here Shane tests the Blackmagic URSA: http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2014/12/blackmagic-4k-ursa-tests-part-1/. In the IR tests, actress Eli Jane's skin tones look good, however the background sky, specular highlights, and the white lines in the parking lot are all too magenta:

 

A quick try at fixing the background while preserving the skin tones:

Interestingly, while the skin tones changed (global changes: didn't use any masking), they look more natural for the lighting conditions.

[fuzzynormal]

I still think for us jack-of-all-trades (masters of none) shooting with >$1k cams, it's okay to put accurate skin tone a bit down on the list of priorities.  If we're close, that's fine.

Should we put skin tone above production design, writing, directing, or editing for example?  

I'd rather take an opportunity to implement an incredible story in a slightly technical flawed way than to implement a flawed idea in a technically incredible way.  That's just my approach at the level I'm at.  As mentioned, some folks have the luxury or inclination to focus on the intricacies. 

You know that ridiculous saying, "It's above my pay grade?"  Well...

[1tkman]

After shooting and editing extensively with the 5D3 (H.264 + RAW), Sony FS700, GH4, and A7S, based not only on my personal opinion, but on feedback from actors/models/clients, cameras which produce better skin tones are preferred. I found this out by shooting the same scenes with multiple cameras and reviewing the results with others. Doing research online I found that skin tones were the single most important element for cameras used to make money. Resolution, frame rates, viewfinders, ergonomics, etc., are all very important too, but skin tones are number one. Skin tones affect emotion, and emotion is used to tell a story or sell a product.

What cameras provide the best skin tones? ARRI and Canon. What cameras are used the most professionally? ARRI and Canon. What cameras are used the most in Oscar winning films (last few years)? ARRI. What DSLR was used most in feature films? Canon (5D, 7D, 1D): http://shotonwhat.com/?s=5D. Why did the C100/C300 far outsell/outrent the FS700, even though the FS700 has way more features (and can even look full frame with a SpeedBooster)? C100/C300 produce better skin tones with less effort. 

In the end, it's possible to get similar, sometimes even better (rare/unusual lighting conditions) skin tones from the GH4 and A7S vs. the 5D3, however on average, the 5D3 requires a lot less time and work.

How do we know when skin tones are better, when it's so subjective? Shoot the same scene with multiple cameras then show the results to multiple people for feedback. Some DPs do a ton of testing to figure this out before shooting a feature: http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2013/10/arri-alexa-vs-canon-c500/

​l

Hey, insightful! Thanks for these thoughts.