telyt wrote:
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.
Doug, I'm curious if you have done a side-by-side comparison. If anything, from Adam's latest comparison, the SL is not doing so hot in this area either. I can understand color tonality/transition (CFA has the main role in this), but it's hard to understand why an old sensor tech would have more Shadow DR than the latest tech or even more malleable.
I used Leica S2 and M9, Nikon D810 (with Otus 55 and other Zeiss/Nikon lenses), and Sony A7r with FE lenses for my trips this past summer. I just started to organize these images recently. Looking at all these images as a whole, I can easily tell what images were taken by which camera systems. To my own eyes, I much prefer the Leica images for their color and ease of file processing. I find that A7r images are very flat and somewhat difficulty to process, and that is why I am a bit reluctant to buy/upgrade the A7rII.
the colors of the A7rii are much improved, feels like I'm shooting a Canon. Color accuracy for skin tones good, from base iso to the high iso limit, just SO much better than the original A7r, which was tough to process. I wont even use the A7r anymore for high ISO shooting. I kept it around because I love having a second body, and will still use the second body for landscapes, however, with event shooting, you'll have to pry the A7rii from me, I wont even use a second body till I get another A7rii...
he's a video comparison of the color difference with the A7s, which is regarded as having the best sony colors till the A7rii came along:
hiepphotog wrote:
Doug, I'm curious if you have done a side-by-side comparison. If anything, from Adam's latest comparison, the SL is not doing so hot in this area either. I can understand color tonality/transition (CFA has the main role in this), but it's hard to understand why an old sensor tech would have more Shadow DR than the latest tech or even more malleable.
I don't have the technical vocabulary to describe the difference but when I add too much fill light in ACR the a7II files look like cr@p while the DMR files hold together very well. It appears that for most non-medium format cameras color discrimination is sacrificed at the altar of ISO. Can't fix an ISO-biased CFA with firmware, profiles of raw converters.
The more I am playing with the files form a7rii, I am feeling that the color transition from pixel to pixel is very harsh in a7rii while in leica dng files the transition is smooth and pleasant, like telyt said on last page last post. This is one factor possibly that contributes more malleability of the files from lecia. Ron, from leica thread has also talked about this fact that the leica files have more room.
In a7rii files I feel I have little margin to play with colors. Yes, you can lift shadows very well but not other things like contrast or saturation or white balance. Trying to correct the hue is revealing this harshness which is preventing me from achieving the right look. And, this I guess is what I am facing more than the RIGHT color. I am not able to mold the colors before it starts to show that I have gone far.
I am not many would agree with me considering how many people in FE thread are producing beautiful pics. However, most are landscape pics there and I wonder if more will talk about it if there were more people shots there. For landscape this thing produces beautiful saturated colors. Attached is out of camera shot this morning. I have not touched the file. It was beautiful sky but somehow the camera file or convertor did it to make is look more vibrant. I would love this file if I am more of landscape person. Is this affecting the skin color form me. I think something is being done to the file by camera or CO.
jfreak wrote:
The more I am playing with the files form a7rii, I am feeling that the color transition from pixel to pixel is very harsh in a7rii while in leica dng files the transition is smooth and pleasant, like telyt said on last page last post. This is one factor possibly that contributes more malleability of the files from lecia. Ron, from leica thread has also talked about this fact that the leica files have more room.
In a7rii files I feel I have little margin to play with colors. Yes, you can lift shadows very well but not other things like contrast or saturation or white balance. Trying to correct the hue is revealing this harshness which is preventing me from achieving the right look. And, this I guess is what I am facing more than the RIGHT color. I am not able to mold the colors before it starts to show that I have gone far.
I am not many would agree with me considering how many people in FE thread are producing beautiful pics. However, most are landscape pics there and I wonder if more will talk about it if there were more people shots there. For landscape this thing produces beautiful saturated colors. Attached is out of camera shot this morning. I have not touched the file. It was beautiful sky but somehow the camera file or convertor did it to make is look more vibrant. I would love this file if I am more of landscape person. Is this affecting the skin color form me. I think something is being done to the file by camera or CO.
But then most Leica shots from the Leica thread here and LUF are B&W. I do believe any camera would produce the "right" colors if you know how to process the look you want. I know many accomplished wedding and fashion photographers using the A7 series now for their pro work. At least to them and their clients, the colors are right.
But regardless whether you're a pro or not, if you are getting frustrated with your gear, do switch to something that works for you. So far, I don't have any problem with files from my A7S or A7RII, but I'm oblivious to things I can't see. Again, unless someone shows me a side-by-side comparison, it's really hard to pin point the reason (to me at least).
Dec 08, 2015 at 03:04 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
hiepphotog wrote:
But then most Leica shots from the Leica thread here and LUF are B&W. I do believe any camera would produce the "right" colors if you know how to process the look you want. I know many accomplished wedding and fashion photographers using the A7 series now for their pro work. At least to them and their clients, the colors are right.
But regardless whether you're a pro or not, if you are getting frustrated with your gear, do switch to something that works for you. So far, I don't have any problem with files from my A7S or A7RII, but I'm oblivious to things I can't see. Again, unless someone shows me a side-by-side comparison, it's really hard to pin point the reason (to me at least)....Show more →
I agree you can usually get good colours out of the A7 II, but I find the majority of the time auto WB is pretty crappy. I think this is one area in which the Sony could do much better. It doesn't even have good consistency shot to shot. So, I have added WB adjustment as a much more common step with my Sony A7 II PP, and not only do I have to often fiddle with temperature of the WB but tint as well. I also find that the LR profile also tends to blend the greens and yellows more than I would like. So all of this adds to PP for me. Whether Leica does better I don't know because I haven't shot a Leica enough, but it would not surprise me at all if the auto WB was much better and if the files were easier to process for colour.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I also find that the LR profile also tends to blend the greens and yellows more than I would like. So all of this adds to PP for me. Whether Leica does better I don't know because I haven't shot a Leica enough, but it would not surprise me at all if the auto WB was much better and if the files were easier to process for colour.
Are you using the Adobe Standard profile in LR? Because that problem with greens being too yellow was there already with the Canon 5D with the Adobe profile (and probably even with cameras before that).
Dec 08, 2015 at 04:19 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
AhamB wrote:
Are you using the Adobe Standard profile in LR? Because that problem with greens being too yellow was there already with the Canon 5D with the Adobe profile (and probably even with cameras before that).
I had a Canon 5D and 5D MKII and the problem is worse with the Sony. It seems to be there whatever profile I use in LR. I generally just start with the Standard and adjust the colours until I get them the way I want, because I don't find any of the profiles to do a very good job and all need customization, IMO.
Off Topic - Here are two tourist images taken this summer. My daughter had her Sony A7r with 24-70/4 zoom and I had my M9 with 28 Summicron. It is difficult to exam one to two individual images but if one looks at large batch of images, he/she can see the differences.
The only difference between these two is a change in green/magenta tint? You could also fiddle with the blues to get your sky looking more natural after doing that. The Sony sky looks more natural to me as it is, but the Palace is closer to real life in the Leica.
To me again like I wrote above , the Sony colors are more vibrant/ saturated and thus may appear more appealing for landscape. One may that you tone the color down but that hue is what I find difficult to manipulate without creating harsh and manipulated look to the picture.
IME the 28 Cron has an overall greenish cast. The M9 tends towards magenta a bit, and so that lens combination works very well on it. People have found the 28 Cron less wonderful on the M240, and I think that is part of it (a more neutral color profile on the M240 itself).
But on the A7 cameras I had a definite, very noticeable green from the 28 Cron, compared with all my other lenses (including other modern Leicas).
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...Show more →...Show more →
"None of this precludes calibrating your laptop monitor."
What he said, seriously. One cannot even begin to talk about colour without calibration, because your monitor will likely have its own cast. Once calibrated, you can use it anywhere you like.
The sky from the A7 shot is what I really dislike about Sony colors. Look at the area above the RHS lightpost, near the long wispy cloud. As it nears the top, the sky darkens, but it also changes the hue. It gets more magenta/purple. It also can be seen in the top left corner. Very unnatural and I have found it hard to correct in PP. The M9 does a better job a changing to a darker shade without changing the hue. My Samsung NX500 is even better.
Taylor Sherman wrote:
IME the 28 Cron has an overall greenish cast. The M9 tends towards magenta a bit, and so that lens combination works very well on it. People have found the 28 Cron less wonderful on the M240, and I think that is part of it (a more neutral color profile on the M240 itself).
But on the A7 cameras I had a definite, very noticeable green from the 28 Cron, compared with all my other lenses (including other modern Leicas).
My experience with the 28 Cron on the M9 and M240 is that it has a noticeable magenta tint bias compared to much of my other Leica glass. I.e. whenever I shoot the same scene with the 28 Cron and another lens and apply the same WB and tint adjustment to both, the 28 Cron images are always more magenta. Interesting to read your experiences with it on the a7 cameras. If anything, from CD's sample image, I see some magenta tint in the building and pavement areas...
As for color... I don't remember what I specifically wrote in the Leica thread. What I do know is that with EVERY new digital camera, I've had a learning curve to work through in my raw converter of choice to get the colors I felt I should be getting. My experience is primarily with Canon cameras dating back to 2001 and more recently Leica, too. But I've also shot six different Sony cameras in the last couple years and for sure, the Sony raw files need their own approach. I use LR and have found the Adobe profile pretty much useless with every Sony camera I've tried, instead reverting to Adobe's interpretation of the camera profiles. Also, often there is a veiling haze that doesn't exist in most SOOC Leica images. But then, I think Leica tunes their camera profiles to be higher contrast and more filmic, more so with the narrower dynamic range CCD based cameras. I'd also guess that Kodak/Truesense tuned the CFAs for those CCDs for optimum base ISO color performance rather than high ISO. Consider the M9 sensor was used in the first MM, obviously without a CFA, and high ISOs were considerably more appealing than what the M9 produced....
I'm not normally a Sony shooter. Rather, Canon and Leica. But I think Sony and Canon have more in common with respect to color quality. From the a7 cameras I've shot, I definitely felt their files were more similar to Canon's (in respect to color and PP approach) than Leica. That said, I do find I can get my Canon and Leica images pretty close. It's just that each requires a specific, but different approach in PP.
FWIW, most of the images I've posted in the Leica image thread have been in color.
This thread expresses very much my concerns on Sony colors. I gave up with Sony after the A700 experience. The color tint I got by Sony's interpretation of colors at least until before A7RII is not correctable by WB only as it depends on the individual color and its saturation. The picture above shows, Sony emphasizes green and adds magenta to highly saturated blue. This bolds landscape images. But if you take portrait images outside a studio environment, it gives me lots of hue adaptation work for specific parts of the image. A nightmare for a person who takes PP most of the time as a necessary evil.
rscheffler wrote:
As for color... I don't remember what I specifically wrote in the Leica thread. .....
Ron, What I remember you saying was that the Sony files compared to Leica have less malleability (or some other word expressing this) when it comes to processing the files.
I have an RX1 so not directly comparable. But same struggle to get skin tone right (esp. Indoor or mixed light).
One thing I find that can check if there is some unwanted tint is to apply a strong S-curve. When the skin tone has some unwanted yellow tint it'll show immediately. I find 5D II files, after correct white balance, are much more neutral and seldom I need to adjust hue.
What I do know is that with EVERY new digital camera, I've had a learning curve to work through in my raw converter of choice to get the colors I felt I should be getting. My experience is primarily with Canon cameras dating back to 2001 and more recently Leica, too. But I've also shot six different Sony cameras in the last couple years and for sure, the Sony raw files need their own approach. I use LR and have found the Adobe profile pretty much useless with every Sony camera I've tried, instead reverting to Adobe's interpretation of the camera profiles. Also, often there is a veiling haze that doesn't exist in most SOOC Leica images. But then, I think Leica tunes their camera profiles to be higher contrast and more filmic, more so with the narrower dynamic range CCD based cameras. I'd also guess that Kodak/Truesense tuned the CFAs for those CCDs for optimum base ISO color performance rather than high ISO. Consider the M9 sensor was used in the first MM, obviously without a CFA, and high ISOs were considerably more appealing than what the M9 produced....