Manufacturer's Software
Shooting at higher ISO introduces more problems with noise, and much of the noise processing has to, almost by design, deal with reducing resolution. As with aliasing, the result of decreasing the appearance of noise requires the softening of edges, and decreasing border contrast. The result is a very real decrease in resolving power. These cameras were all shot at ISO 800 for this set, simply because that sensitivity was realistic. It matched the lighting we wanted, and gave us the shutter speed and aperture we liked. Plus, it’s not too far-fetched; I’d estimate that 75% of all the available light photographs I’ve ever taken have been at ISO 800.


In addition to that, the fact that the spectrum you’re working with is centered around a neutral point of roughly 3700ºK, and you’re introducing some challenges in color processing. Where a system holds together at 5500ºK, or daylight, it starts getting off-target pretty quickly when you move away from that ideal.

Let’s look at the files, below. Again, Canon 5D Mark II, Nikon D3s and Hasselblad H3DII-31, all processed in their own software:

Canon 5D Mark II - DPP

Nikon D3s - Capture NX2

Hasselblad H3DII-31 - Phocus 2

Here, the Canon is spot-on. The colors are rich and warm, maybe a little saturated, but not objectionable. The Nikon files look overly yellow, and just, well bad. The Hasselblad looks equally bad, but because it has a magenta cast, is under-saturated and lacks contrast.

Here they are at 100%:

Canon 5D Mark II - DPP (unsharpened)

Nikon D3s - Capture NX2 (unsharpened)

Hasselblad H3DII-31 - Phocus 2 (unsharpened)

Again you can see the benefits of raw pixel-power in the MFDB file, even, and surprisingly from the reputation of digital backs, at ISO 800. We were more than a little impressed by this performance, especially after years of struggling with files shot at ISO as conservative as 200 and 400.
 

Adobe Camera RAW
Looking at the Adobe-processed files we’re getting a similar story:
 

Canon 5D Mark II - ACR

Nikon D3s - ACR

Hasselblad H3DII-31 - ACR

The color mapping is similar in the 5DM2 file, and probably the best. The D3s goes yellow, and with the Hasselblad file you’re getting a downright disturbing magenta cast to the lips- the same issue we had with the daylight shots and the red dress, except now it’s getting applied to the general skin tones. It has to be noted, the last time I saw files that mapped colors like this were from the Nikon D1, in 2000. It’s a battle that has been fought for years with digital capture, and it’s just, well, disturbing to see it again.

Here are the 100% views of the files:
 

Canon 5D Mark II - ACR (unsharpened)

Nikon D3s - ACR (unsharpened)

Hasselblad H3DII-31 - ACR (unsharpened)

These files look better, in terms of sharpness and detail, than the OEM processing as we saw with the strobe shots. As far as how they respond to Unsharp Mask, here’s what that looks like: 

Canon 5D Mark II - ACR (USM)

Nikon D3s - ACR (USM)

Hasselblad H3DII-31 - ACR (USM)

In this case, of the three, the Canon 5D Mk II probably handles the USM best. The other two show minimal results of USM except for a few spots that are actually somewhat objectionable, like the white spots just over, and to the left of the eyelashes in the Hasselblad shot- probably just some slight reflection of the pores, emphasized by the USM. Granted, the 5DM2 file shows the same effect, but it at least gives you pronounced sharpening in other areas that you want it.