p.1 #1 · Post Processing and White Balance with Sony, Greener Grass?
This might be more general grousing and venting than a productive question, but would love to get some thoughts.
I shoot on an A1 and have a lens lineup that works great for me and feel like I have my bases covered in the E-Mount ecosystem. I've previously had a number of other Sony FF cameras and honestly feel like my complaint here is the same.
And this might be me making excuses for existing in photo edit debtors prison right now, but I feel like half of my time in post processing is correcting white balance and skin tones. Yes yes, the discourse over "Sony colors" being a perennial knock against the brand, but is there any truth to it?
I'm rarely satisfied with SOOC JPEGs and I know that RAW images are just sensor data, but in Lightroom, there's enough color correction work that I do feel like that sucks some of the fun out of this hobby when you're editing lots of photos in varying lighting conditions, swapping lenses enough where simply copying similar develop settings once you've got one right isn't cutting it.
I remember there being some thing about the A7S III or something making improvements to the hardware level "color science" or something, but just wondering what's the vibe out there right now. I can't/don't want to switch out of Sony, but I feel like this was less of an issue for me when I was only Canon. But that was also when I was much less serious about it and also knew less about what I was doing.
tdlr: I love photography. I don't love the amount of time I spent getting RAWs to look "right". Anyone else or am I nuts?
p.1 #2 · Post Processing and White Balance with Sony, Greener Grass?
Sufferring from this right now, like a minute ago.
I'm fairly beginner, but I'm not sure if it ever goes away fully from the sounds of things from some.
I spend way more than I'd like to trying to get the colours to look more natural, and I usually just settle.
I'm second guessing getting any more lenses to try until I'm happy with this.
I tried using a color passport matcher to line it up with my fuji provia std but it doesn't quite work out as it's not just hue changes, and if you tinker with the other ones, leads to blotching in areas, particularly out of focus edges...and it still doesn't look good tbh. Better, but not good.
p.1 #3 · Post Processing and White Balance with Sony, Greener Grass?
My experience with Sony in Capture One is that green is a particular challenge, especially in the Sierras where I live. I’ve put off getting a color checker card, but will need to do so for some upcoming commissions. I’ve also considered trying some Cobalt profile which claim to help with this issue.
p.1 #4 · Post Processing and White Balance with Sony, Greener Grass?
When one hears other people complain about something, one starts feeling dissatisfied about the same thing. Soon one starts complaining about the same thing too. It's how people within a given society come to collectively believe in the same thing. Of course, they all think they are impartial and subjective. They all think there is merit in their conviction. There is no point trying to convince them that they have just been under influence.
p.1 #5 · Post Processing and White Balance with Sony, Greener Grass?
thousandths wrote:
Yes yes, the discourse over "Sony colors" being a perennial knock against the brand, but is there any truth to it?
Nope, zero. A camera manufacturer has absolutely nothing to do with colors. What you should be complaining about is the color profile for your camera which comes bundled with your RAW processor. Open an ARW file in CaptureOne, Lightroom, DxO, RawTherapee, or Sony's own "Edit" and you will get different colors by default in all of them.
Adobe had a grand vision originally when they got into the RAW processing business, namely to commoditize all hardware. The plan was to design a vendor-neutral RAW file format (DNG) and provide a DCP profile for every camera on the planet that delivers the same "Adobe Color". Unfortunately, their execution has been sloppy and "Adobe Color" does not look exactly the same for all cameras they support. Just recently they released the botched version of it for A1 II.
So while technically your eyes aren't lying to you, it's not Sony to blame. It's your RAW converter.
thousandths wrote:
I spent getting RAWs to look "right". Anyone else or am I nuts?
Nobody is nuts. People like you, with high demands for color quality, is the target market for color calibration/management solutions that include 3rd party color profiles like Cobalt, monitor calibration tools, and camera profiling software (comes with a color target). The latter is the ultimate solution: you can make 100% accurate profile for your specific camera, and even for your specific light source(s) if shooting in a studio.
[EDIT] Although if you're using the Sony's RAW converter then yeah, it's Sony's fault
p.1 #6 · Post Processing and White Balance with Sony, Greener Grass?
I spend about 80% of my editing time correcting skin tones when I forget to set a manual white balance or use a grey card.
No matter what software I use to process my A1’s RAW files, I’m rarely satisfied with the skin tones. In comparison, I found it much easier to achieve natural results with the A7RV. At this point, I’m even considering spending thousands on the A1 II just to benefit from the improved white balance accuracy in newer bodies.
This is the only major issue I have with the Sony platform. As above, skin tones are a non-issue when I use a grey card, but it's frustrating that I need one at all to get consistent, neutral results.
Without a grey card, the A1 tends to push yellow, while the A7RV leaned slightly magenta.
p.1 #7 · Post Processing and White Balance with Sony, Greener Grass?
thousandths wrote:
This might be more general grousing and venting than a productive question, but would love to get some thoughts.
I shoot on an A1 and have a lens lineup that works great for me and feel like I have my bases covered in the E-Mount ecosystem. I've previously had a number of other Sony FF cameras and honestly feel like my complaint here is the same.
And this might be me making excuses for existing in photo edit debtors prison right now, but I feel like half of my time in post processing is correcting white balance and skin tones. Yes yes, the discourse over "Sony colors" being a perennial knock against the brand, but is there any truth to it?
I'm rarely satisfied with SOOC JPEGs and I know that RAW images are just sensor data, but in Lightroom, there's enough color correction work that I do feel like that sucks some of the fun out of this hobby when you're editing lots of photos in varying lighting conditions, swapping lenses enough where simply copying similar develop settings once you've got one right isn't cutting it.
I remember there being some thing about the A7S III or something making improvements to the hardware level "color science" or something, but just wondering what's the vibe out there right now. I can't/don't want to switch out of Sony, but I feel like this was less of an issue for me when I was only Canon. But that was also when I was much less serious about it and also knew less about what I was doing.
tdlr: I love photography. I don't love the amount of time I spent getting RAWs to look "right". Anyone else or am I nuts?...Show more →
If you don't work in a controlled light environment, I see two ways for you, yet both are exploratory and come with no guarantee of satisfaction. One is to try a different brand (Nikon, Canon, Fuji, etc), hoping that their "colors" should be more to your liking. The other, that you may want to try first, is to download several existing software products (C1, DxO, etc.) and look at the colors in their standard neutral profiles (do not use presets), just the base profiles with all corrections turned off. If you find one that you like, then invest time into learning the ins and outs of the software. Optionally, you can try some of the profiles available from 3rd parties like Cobalt.
Adjusting WB is necessary from time to time, no doubt about this, but I suspect (and might be wrong) that the main systematic problem might be with the color profile(s). Thus, exploring and trying different profiles would be my first step. I personally use DxO Photolab 8 for most of my processing, and the Neutral camera profile (in Generic Rendering --> Neutral color) there is typically a good starting point for me.
p.1 #9 · Post Processing and White Balance with Sony, Greener Grass?
I've been noticing that the greens in my photos are horrible and overwhelming. And no matter how much post I do they just stay saturated. And then there's skin color...
p.1 #10 · Post Processing and White Balance with Sony, Greener Grass?
old-gregg wrote:
Nope, zero. A camera manufacturer has absolutely nothing to do with colors. What you should be complaining about is the color profile for your camera which comes bundled with your RAW processor. Open an ARW file in CaptureOne, Lightroom, DxO, RawTherapee, or Sony's own "Edit" and you will get different colors by default in all of them.
Adobe had a grand vision originally when they got into the RAW processing business, namely to commoditize all hardware. The plan was to design a vendor-neutral RAW file format (DNG) and provide a DCP profile for every camera on the planet that delivers the same "Adobe Color". Unfortunately, their execution has been sloppy and "Adobe Color" does not look exactly the same for all cameras they support. Just recently they released the botched version of it for A1 II.
So while technically your eyes aren't lying to you, it's not Sony to blame. It's your RAW converter.
Nobody is nuts. People like you, with high demands for color quality, is the target market for color calibration/management solutions that include 3rd party color profiles like Cobalt, monitor calibration tools, and camera profiling software (comes with a color target). The latter is the ultimate solution: you can make 100% accurate profile for your specific camera, and even for your specific light source(s) if shooting in a studio.
[EDIT] Although if you're using the Sony's RAW converter then yeah, it's Sony's fault ...Show more →
+1
One of the worst Adobe Profiles I experienced was when I was shooting the Canon 5DSR. Skin tones, as rendered by my RAW converter were way-off. There were many complaints about this on various forums. One fellow sold a custom profile for $10 to correct the colors. It actually worked great. Interestingly, the Profile for the Canon 5DMkIII did not have this problem.
When shooting in controlled conditions, I'll use the Color Checker Passport; otherwise, I make my profile corrections on one image (it can change by the lens), then copy that profile to the other images from that shoot. I find this process to be fast and easy.
p.1 #11 · Post Processing and White Balance with Sony, Greener Grass?
This has been an interesting thread, so far. I shoot an A7RIVa and process in C1. I use X-Rite to calibrate my monitor and system. Overall, I find that when I remember to set the white balance I'm most satisfied with the color balance when shooting indoor and least satisfied when I'm outdoors dealing with a lot of green on a clear sky day at higher elevations. Its worse with my Voigtlander lenses, but pretty much all my glass is affected.
I've been lazy and put off buying a color card, but this has convinced me that I need to just do it.
p.1 #12 · Post Processing and White Balance with Sony, Greener Grass?
I like the Auto White Balance on my Olympus cameras more than my Sony cameras, but it's tricky to say one is better than the other because everyone perceives color differently (my wife and I are both graphic designers, and we've had some drawn out disagreements on what color an object is) and you have to stack personal preference on top of that.
I'm typically happy enough to quickly get 1 file where I like it and then copy the edit settings, but processing is (usually) boring to me.
p.1 #13 · Post Processing and White Balance with Sony, Greener Grass?
I think it may be a good idea to get a color checker and create a color profile specific to your camera. I am getting a much better results after that.
p.1 #15 · Post Processing and White Balance with Sony, Greener Grass?
My main concern on switching to Sony was the rendering of skin tones -- using Sony raw files and Lightroom's default profile (Adobe Standard / Adobe Color) there was a yellowish tinge on white skin, while brown skin lost definition. I then changed to Cobalt for my camera (an A7R4a originally, now an A7CR) and the skin tones looked right. I still find most greens too intense, but that can be dialled back in post quite easily and the hue is about right in most cases.
I had a different problem with Leica before the Sony. The problem then was that reds could be too prominent. Red blossoms would lose definition and any skin blemishes with a red undertone would be emphasised.
I thought long and hard about a ColorChecker passport or similar, but realised that would not work reliably if shooting under different lighting conditions. So stuck with the Cobalt which generally gives me a good starting point.
p.1 #17 · Post Processing and White Balance with Sony, Greener Grass?
MarcPec wrote:
I spend about 80% of my editing time correcting skin tones when I forget to set a manual white balance or use a grey card.
No matter what software I use to process my A1’s RAW files, I’m rarely satisfied with the skin tones. In comparison, I found it much easier to achieve natural results with the A7RV. At this point, I’m even considering spending thousands on the A1 II just to benefit from the improved white balance accuracy in newer bodies.
This is the only major issue I have with the Sony platform. As above, skin tones are a non-issue when I use a grey card, but it's frustrating that I need one at all to get consistent, neutral results.
Without a grey card, the A1 tends to push yellow, while the A7RV leaned slightly magenta....Show more →
There is a Priority Set in AWB setting in Manu.
I found AWB White works the best for my purpose if I do not have grey card on hand.
p.1 #18 · Post Processing and White Balance with Sony, Greener Grass?
Is there like a petition I can sign for better skin tones on Sony cameras or something.
I tried the cobalt standard for the A7cii, was worse than Sony ST.. people said they liked it as a base to start off with, perhaps that's on older cameras.
p.1 #19 · Post Processing and White Balance with Sony, Greener Grass?
Perhaps you missed the memo that shooting RAW images gives you just that. They are flat and boring with no color accuracy. You then need to post process them to achieve a finished look and desired colors of your choice. People bitching about out of camera skin tones, green grasses and other 'issues' simply don't like to use an image editor or are just lazy. That's what JPEGS are for. It's your choice. Frankly I'm surprised that I need to say all this very basic stuff on this forum since RAW files have been around for nearly 25 years. It's astonishing that people here still think they will get the 'skin tone' that they want from a RAW file with no post work..
p.1 #20 · Post Processing and White Balance with Sony, Greener Grass?
Jeffrey wrote:
Perhaps you missed the memo that shooting RAW images gives you just that. They are flat and boring with no color accuracy. You then need to post process them to achieve a finished look and desired colors of your choice. People bitching about out of camera skin tones, green grasses and other 'issues' simply don't like to use an image editor or are just lazy. That's what JPEGS are for. It's your choice. Frankly I'm surprised that I need to say all this very basic stuff on this forum since RAW files have been around for nearly 25 years. It's astonishing that people here still think they will get the 'skin tone' that they want from a RAW file with no post work.....Show more →
