Creating a new thread on suggestion of AgeoJo from Sony FE thread
Inspired by the recent a7rII praises and amazing shots on this thread, I decided to get one. I had a7 last year and around this time last year I sold it when I got m240. The reason for selling a7 was nothing but the skin tones and harshness of the images from a7. Right after I took few shots from m240, I developed a little aversion to a7 files and ultimately sold a7.
This weekend I got the a7rii and I felt the memories of a7 file coming back to me looking at the skin tones. It's just same again. Very little I could do to change the hues on the file and feel the files are so less malleable compared to the dng of the m240.
So, I thought it must be me and my processing whivh is not getting the best of the files and thus I decided to write in this post for some guidance and suggestions and help on how can I get the colors and skin tones from the a7rii that are not having the red/magenta/purple skin hues.
I understand the colors are a personal choice but I am just asking if someone has felt like me on this thread and have come to find a way to get the look they wanted.
I use CaptureOne v9.0x and used the build in profiles for a7rii.
Here is a pic to see what I mean. This is taken in day light on the weekend. Can't correct the hue playing with the color settings on CO.
jfreak wrote:
Creating a new thread on suggestion of AgeoJo from Sony FE thread
Inspired by the recent a7rII praises and amazing shots on this thread, I decided to get one. I had a7 last year and around this time last year I sold it when I got m240. The reason for selling a7 was nothing but the skin tones and harshness of the images from a7. Right after I took few shots from m240, I developed a little aversion to a7 files and ultimately sold a7.
This weekend I got the a7rii and I felt the memories of a7 file coming back to me looking at the skin tones. It's just same again. Very little I could do to change the hues on the file and feel the files are so less malleable compared to the dng of the m240.
So, I thought it must be me and my processing whivh is not getting the best of the files and thus I decided to write in this post for some guidance and suggestions and help on how can I get the colors and skin tones from the a7rii that are not having the red/magenta/purple skin hues.
I understand the colors are a personal choice but I am just asking if someone has felt like me on this thread and have come to find a way to get the look they wanted.
I use CaptureOne v9.0x and used the build in profiles for a7rii.
Here is a pic to see what I mean. This is taken in day light on the weekend. Can't correct the hue playing with the color settings on CO.
Get an X-Rite Colorchecker and develop your own camera profile if you want to get away from the stock camera profile. You can delve deep into this whole camera profiling thing to get the color your really want. Color response does depend on the WB and the interpretation of your raw converter.
That or we can all learn how to post process to get the colors we desire.
hiepphotog wrote:
Get an X-Rite Colorchecker and develop your own camera profile if you want to get away from the stock camera profile. You can delve deep into this whole camera profiling thing to get the color your really want. Color response does depend on the WB and the interpretation of your raw converter.
That or we can all learn how to post process to get the colors we desire.
Thanks for replying. I never thought I needed to go beyond the WB in these raw convertors to get the colors I need. I did not even know about x-rite till you mentioned it. I was hoping I may get to learn to do it right in the RAW convertor. The files from a7rii and m240 are very different indeed. I have also read the colors from a7rii are more true so the surprise I have here. Because, this is just the opposite I am findings.
jfreak wrote:
Thanks for replying. I never thought I needed to go beyond the WB in these raw convertors to get the colors I need. I did not even know about x-rite till you mentioned it. I was hoping I may get to learn to do it right in the RAW convertor. The files from a7rii and m240 are very different indeed. I have also read the colors from a7rii are more true so the surprise I have here. Because, this is just the opposite I am findings.
Well, the simplest case is to load the same picture in LR and C1 and compare them side-by-side. You will see the difference in color response. And truer colors don't mean more pleasant colors . I assume you're using a calibrated monitor.
Here is the first step you can do, try these free profiles out (he has A7RII camera profiles there)
I will try the profiles in LR to test the colors. I agree with you on the true vs plesant. I think the m240 colors are pleasant and a7rii colors are not, TO ME. And, I think I would be happy if I can get these close to m240. Thanks again and I would try your suggestion.
As for the calibrated monitor, no I am only using macbook pro retina, later 2013.
Alas, it's really hard to talk about colours and all, without having a monitor that can do at least 99% sRBG/AdobeRGB, *and* is properly calibrated.
Then there's also everyone else's monitors and (usually) lack of colour space and calibration. Even browser choice matters quite a bit. And, obviously, image format and colour space it's saved in.
What may look great on your rMBP's screen, may look dull or bland on someone with a professional monitor that's calibrated properly.
I'm becoming more a fan of Sony cameras as I'm learning how to manipulate their colors. If your eye reacts the same way mine does, you can get 90% of the way there by (1) getting white balance right and then (2) making broad hue shifts.
I start by getting brightness levels roughed in.
For white balance, I identify a few places that should be "neutral" in the image, including highlights, midtones, and shadows, then I use the dropper on each and note the resulting white balance, average them, and use that as a starting place for slight adjustments by feel/look.
For hue shift, I use the color editor. In the advanced tab, click the "+" button to get a new adjustment layer without using the eyedropper, click the whole pie button to get the full circle (so that you're working on all colors in the image), then shift the hue +6 to +10 or so. That'll usually get me close to "feels right." Beyond that, I usually work with dominant tones to make them more pleasant. Note that this drift may go in any direction depending on your particular camera and monitor.
Finally, I'll go to the color balance and might make slight hue adjustments for the shadows and highlights, although this is to give the image a more filmic look and is more for color style than pleasant color, if that makes sense.
Sometimes I'll reiterate that process several times before getting to a point where I decide I like (or decide to give up on) a given image.
I agree, you can't complain about color till you have a calibrated monitor, I'm using an i1Pro, what a difference using a calibrated monitor vs my old laptop where the colors and brightness changed as the angle of the display changed, I never knew what my pictures looked like.
There are profiles available that could improve your colors, head to http://www.piraccini.net/2011/02/profili-colore-sony-a900-per-adobe-lr.html
And look for your camera, just be aware that: I've photographed, under the direct sunlight, a 24 color GretagMacbeth / X-Rite table, then, after converting the RAW to DNG, I've created the standard color profiles with Adobe DNG Profile Editor. Starting from the standard profile and using as reference the "non standard" Nikon, Canon and Leica's profiles, I've created the creative profiles.
The standard profiles are accurate only for the A700, the A850, the A900, the A55V, the NEX-5, the NEX-5N, the RX100 and the RX100M2 (where I've photographed the color table with the corresponding camera), for the other cameras I've just used the best matching one.
I'm not quite sure what he's done to "match" profiles with the other cameras.
If you want better calibration, you will have to create your own calibration files, or find someone that has done it for you and is willing to share.
To follow up, now that I have my photo computer (which, incidentally, is also a MacBook Pro). It is hard to say with an already-processed, low-resolution JPEG, but I think this photo comes out well with a +2 global hue shift in the color editor, a bit of cyan in the shadows, and a bit of red in the mids. The skin color is still a bit off, but I didn't try too hard.
Another factor with this image might be the "high" ISO. I haven't played with it much on my A7 II, as I don't shoot high ISO often, but that'll often lead to a color cast in the shadows, usually toward red, and correcting for that should be part of your noise reduction routine.
Yes, you'll want to calibrate your monitor. A $50 to $100 gadget for making better images is a no-brainer, if you ask me, given how much we spend on our cameras and lenses. But, I've found a lot of pleasure in learning how to work with color, too, so even if you don't calibrate -- and your goal is to make the images look good on your computer -- there's still a lot to learn, especially in Capture One. And all of that will carry forward if you ever decide to calibrate and/or upgrade your photo display.
It is amazing to me how slight of a difference can make all the difference between an image that appears to be transparent to the scene and an image that looks like a photograph. Color is a big part of that. I haven't seen anyone explain the art of it well, but there are lots of videos on YouTube, including from Phase One, that talk about the tools used to get there. Sort of like learning how to balance aperture and shutter speed again, but worth the learning curve. Learning the color editor tool was a huge step forward for me shooting in color.
jfreak wrote:
As for the calibrated monitor, no I am only using macbook pro retina, later 2013.
This is issue number one! Don't pass go, don't collect $200-- you can't even start to look into this issue until you figure this out. Read up on calibration pucks and software, buy one of the cheaper models available that will work with your monitor/expected short term purchases, and do a basic calibration!
Why? Because it is quite possible that once you calibrate your system you find out that what you thought were your opinions about the colors produced by the M240 and A7rII are in fact reversed.
I don't agree that you need a special monitor covering 99% or more of one of the big color spaces. But you do need a monitor calibrated to get as close as possible to showing accurate colors-- at the right white points and brightness for your viewing situation. It doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be close. A desktop monitor wouldn't hurt either, to be honest, and you can pick up a cheap 27" 1440p IPS/VA monitor for a couple hundred bucks-- it doesn't have to be made by Eizo or Apple, and it doesn't need to be perfect. Leave the perfection to folks trying to get perfect matches on complex systems using profiling of papers, inks, cameras, multiple monitors, etc....
(As a side note, in very broad terms, the main color difference I notice between my former 5D2 and A7rII-- shooting them side-by-side with the same 35mm f/1.4L lens, and viewing on a calibrated system-- is that the 5D2 images tended to be a little warmer and have an inaccurate, but sometimes appealing, magenta push. The photo you posted above, on my calibrated system, looks fairly neutral, and attractive. The funny part, however, is that I haven't seen what your subject and setting looked like through my own eyes-- but you haven't seen what the image looks like on a calibrated system; neither of us can judge the accuracy of the color capture that way!)
Seriously, a $99 calibration puck and 15 minutes changes everything...
++1 Regarding having an accurately calibrated monitor. This is so important.
I also have a i1Pro and calibrate my NEC Multi Sync 27" monitors every few weeks. Even my MacBook Pro 17" I calibrate with the i1Pro.
I agree the above portrait looks very good with respect to skin tones. I have had many issues trying to get the correct skin tones with the M240.
I have used the X-Rite for color profiling, but I must admit I find often the colors maybe more accurate/true but as Hiep mentioned are not what we see or prefer. The best I find it to tweak the colors within to suit to what your eye sees and interpret.
Calibrated Monitor is the place to start. Another option is the Xrite Colormunki Display, not only does it do a good job calibrating your monitor but it also stays on an monitors your ambient light as it changes throughout the day and it will make adjustments as quickly as every 5 minutes. The picture above looks good on my monitor
I've got a calibrated monitor and I'm still struggling with the a7II's files after using the Leica DMR. This isn't about matching big blocks of colors it's more about shadow recovery and getting both the color richness and the smooth gradation that seems so effortless with the DMR's .dng files.
telyt wrote:
I've got a calibrated monitor and I'm still struggling with the a7II's files after using the Leica DMR. This isn't about matching big blocks of colors it's more about shadow recovery and getting both the color richness and the smooth gradation that seems so effortless with the DMR's .dng files.
I think you have said what I feel in more succinct manner. The same macbook monitor shows the leica dng files as much richer colors and more malleable response to alterations.
Charles, Russ, Jon, LightShow - I thank you for your time and valuable suggestions. I perfectly understand that a calibrated monitor would be the best solution. The reason I have stayed away from it is the bigger setup and inflexibility with that. Its so simple and easy with just a macbook. It's like I have to setup a station to work on desktop. I need dedicated space, lose the flexibility of working any where in house. I can sit with kids in their room while I am playing the role of Nanny or Mom or in the bed when they are asleep. I don't have a house with office and thus the struggle to find that place to set the monitor workflow etc. I know I am saying what many would respond by saying that you can be lazy or get the best results. And I can agree with that statement but with two little kids and small nuclear family I would very soon be working on just the laptop and working towards/hoping to get better look on laptop screen for ease.
jfreak wrote:
Charles, Russ, Jon, LightShow - I thank you for your time and valuable suggestions. I perfectly understand that a calibrated monitor would be the best solution. The reason I have stayed away from it is the bigger setup and inflexibility with that. Its so simple and easy with just a macbook. It's like I have to setup a station to work on desktop. I need dedicated space, lose the flexibility of working any where in house. I can sit with kids in their room while I am playing the role of Nanny or Mom or in the bed when they are asleep. I don't have a house with office and thus the struggle to find that place to set the monitor workflow etc. I know I am saying what many would respond by saying that you can be lazy or get the best results. And I can agree with that statement but with two little kids and small nuclear family I would very soon be working on just the laptop and working towards/hoping to get better look on laptop screen for ease.
I absolutely agree with calibration of monitor on my screen. I was just sharing thoughts on a desktop monitor and setting up a station. Now that I read what I wrote again, I mixed the two thoughts.
it is interesting but I find (and I actually wrote about in general FE images thread) that Sony actually seemed to fix skin tones somewhat for A7RII. At least I find finally skin tones that I can deal with on A7RII, where with previous A7 cameras (A7, A7r, A7II, A6000 too) I had issues with skin tones that made people look like they were dead (too much green/grey) when they were taken in the shade. A7RII seems to be much better....
absolutic wrote:
it is interesting but I find (and I actually wrote about in general FE images thread) that Sony actually seemed to fix skin tones somewhat for A7RII. At least I find finally skin tones that I can deal with on A7RII, where with previous A7 cameras (A7, A7r, A7II, A6000 too) I had issues with skin tones that made people look like they were dead (too much green/grey) when they were taken in the shade. A7RII seems to be much better....
Capture one has its own vison of "good skin tone", which some like and I personally find very unnatural. It has nothing to do with the Sony camera or RAW file. Also there's not much you can do about it, unless you create your own profile. Try any other converter and see if you feel the same.
I generally don't understand comments about a particular camera's colors, when people are actually talking about the converter's interpretation and rendering. Some converters try to approximate the manufacturer's own recipe (DXO comes to mind), some, like C1, completely ignore it.
dass101 wrote:
... I generally don't understand comments about a particular camera's colors, when people are actually talking about the converter's interpretation and rendering...
Among the differences I see between the files from two camera models is that one is far more likely to show fine differences in color with the adjacent pixel(s) than the other, and one is much more 'pushable' than the other without the image detail falling apart. This has nothing to do with using profiles to match big blocks of color.
. I assume you're using a calibrated monitor.