yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

I've always liked the way Nikon renders colors, and found the files easy to work on.

Chris63 Loc: Central WI

Truly, there seems to be not an objective way to detect a "true" color. If I take a photo, display it on my (even if calibrated) monitor, I still need to refer to the image I retained in my mind, and compare it to the monitor's image. My memory may not be accurate.

So, is a "true" color the one most pleasing to the viewer?

Chadp Loc: Virginia Beach

DXO added their model of Fuji renderings in Photo Lab 5. Fuji was not included in Photo Lab 4. DXO’s models cannot be exact. But it is interesting to scroll through their interpretation of various camera manufacturers and models as I am processing. My only issue is that I haven’t found a favorite yet. So I find myself spending more time than I have comparing different renderings. But it is fun.

Chris63 Loc: Central WI

I don't have much experience in RAW processing, but I understand that all the information is contained within the image, so that should include the color.
Then, how does one arrive at "true" colors when starting with a RAW image? Tweak it until it is pleasing to one's eye?

Soul Dr. Loc: Beautiful Shenandoah Valley

Out of all the different camera brands I have, I think the Fuji color output is the closest to what my eyes see.

Will

Chris63 Loc: Central WI

In addition, I seem to achieve a more-faithful color when I tune down the exposure (e.g. -2/3 Ev).

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

StevenG Loc: Long Island, NY

I do lots of my own printing (Epson 3880). I never print smaller than 8x10 (actually 8x12, scaled down). For many years I used a Canon camera. Recently I switched to Nikon. I find the Nikon colors print more true and require much less post processing. This is just my experience.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

All manufacturers provide excellent JPEG results straight out of the camera. Whether the results are "true to life" is subjective.

To give yourself a more objective view of the camera's JPEG you should calibrate your screen (Color Checker or Spyder).

You can adjust the appearance of the JPEG with in-camera adjustments but, if you go down that path, you might as well capture the raw data and develop the image on your computer where you have full control. You will then be able to get the images as close as you want to being true to life.

one_eyed_pete Loc: Colonie NY

The first thing you need to remember is "color" doesn't exist in reality. "Color" is simply a creation in each of our individual brains/mind. Each of us envisions color in our own unique way. Just like taste, also in our mind, each of us perceives differently. Which variety of apple tastes like a real apple?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

JBRIII

I think you brought up a great and interesting question which was touch on more by some than others. First do all cameras use the same Bayer filters, at least as far as wavelenght selection? Do they all have the same hot filter. I did a quick test one day on my Canon R and it appeared to remove a lot more of the UV than others I have, I'll need to redo to be sure. I know astro photos are heavily processes, but man, looking at the web to see what I should expect, you'd often think you're looking at different objects. In non-astro cameras, the red, green, blue bands overlap, but using narrow band filters one could get non-overlapping bands centered at the same wavelenght or different ones, still red, green, blue, but shifted say 25 to 50 nm. Surely this would create some real tonal differences in photos?

crphoto8 Loc: Anaheim, California

You brought up an interesting issue. How do you tweak colors in-camera? I know that mine (Oly m-1 Mk2) has a list of different JPEGS and I may be able to adjust WB. What else is available? I know that all these tweaks apply to JPEGS only, the RAW images contain all available information and can be post-processed as much as one wants.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

There is probably no JPEG images out of any brand camera that are actual "true out of the camera". I have told this story before. Fuji and Kodak were trying to produce the most neutral film every (and it was) even though professional photographers said they wanted even more neutral film. But Fuji showed the pros photos with various levels of saturation. The most saturated colors were the photos picked by the pros. If one takes a look at the JPEG coming out of their camera versus the RAW displayed image, the RAW image will look dull because it is unaltered. It comes down to how the brands think their customers perceive their "unaltered" JPEGs.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Things are not nearly so chaotic as some responses would suggest. Yes, we don't know if we're all seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, etc. the same thing in the same way. But we have time living together to explore and investigate those questions. I know my wife and I don't taste especially bitter things the same way. We've been able over the course of 40 years to figure that out.

Experiencing color is a question that's been investigated pretty extensively and we know a lot about it. For example we can conduct tests. Try this one: https://www.xrite.com/hue-test We can give that test to 50,000 people under controlled conditions and learn from that how well humans can discriminate subtle color differences. You mention above that your memory may not be accurate. We already know it isn't. Humans have excellent ability to discriminate subtle color differences and poor color memory. We've done those tests.

We have tools that can measure color. Back a page Gene mentioned he has a color checker passport. That's a color measurement tool made for photographers and graphic designers. I have one as well; Gene and I use them. You get a little piece of cardboard for $120.00 and they put it in a nice plastic case. Why so much for a piece of cardboard with color swatches on it? It's manufactured to very high tolerance so that all of us using that tool have the same color swatches.

We have calibration tools for everything in the chain between the color of our subject and our final image. Most amateur photographers don't use all those tools and get fussy over subtle differences in color and that's appropriate -- pleasing color rules and what really matters is if you and the people you share the photos with like the result. But the tools are there: imagine that a product manufacture that sells their product associated with a very specific color, say Coke red, wants an advertising photo and the photographer doesn't have the skill and tools to reproduce that color accurately and it comes out a tad orange. You think the folks at Coke will just shrug their shoulders and say, "well it still looks pleasing."

It can be a pain to use all those tools and certainly more trouble than it's worth for the average snapshooter to chase after. So the camera manufacturers have added "best college try" algorithms into the cameras to fill in instead -- auto white balance for example. You can white balance accurately with a tool (that color checker passport) or you can just let the camera handle it. Trouble is the camera can't take the proper measurement to do that job and so it's auto white balance algorithm contains a degree of shall we say educated guessing. It often gets close (which works for most snapshooters) but it's often not really accurate. Which is fine because as humans they can't remember the original color anyway.

Muddying the water then the camera makers do tests to see what people like. They have the tools to engineer the cameras to generate accurate color especially if you get an accurate white balance set, but is that what sells more cameras? So instead we get competition between the brands over their versions of "pleasing color." Fuji as others have noted has made this one of their big marketing pushes. In your Canon G7 you have options to change the Picture Style which will alter the color response. You can chose Portrait, Landscape, etc. and those are not designed to give you accurate color they're designed to give you pleasing colors that sell.

If you do want to pursue increasing color accuracy you'll need to start adopting some of the tools we use to do that. The first two big steps are a calibrated monitor to view the photos and taking control of white balance as opposed to relying on auto-white balance. Your camera contains a function to set a custom white balance. It's in the menu listed as Custom WB. Try it.