Seeking to reduce the post‑processing time for my images, I ran a small experiment and hope you can help me understand it.
I captured a fairly ordinary image with my A7IV in RAW + JPEG (Default Standard profile). I converted the RAW file to JPEG using two different applications (Capture One and Apple Preview) and then compared the results to the JPEG produced directly by the A7IV. Here’s what I get:
What I don’t understand is why there is such a difference (the SOOC JPEG looks very dull and poorly representative of reality, whereas the RAW‑derived JPEGs are much closer). I know each program applies its own conversion, but why such a discrepancy? Is it possible to make the SOOC JPEG closer to the RAW conversion (any recipes)?
• I don't notice any difference matching the wording "much closer". That might be me of course.
• All applications work their own way (as you mention) and to that they apply different color profiles when converting the files. You can often choose between different profiles in the converter. You can also make your own profile(s) and apply them in the converter. A profile is a kind of recipe for using that word.
• Your camera manual describes different ways to change the outcome (how the camera processes the images = how the in-camera JPG files look. (Here we can talk about "recipes".)
• When converting an image (here thinking of the process hat ends up with a JPG image) the camera and the converters all delivers colors (or number codes for colors) adjusted for a certain color space. For a start it is a good idea to set the camera and your converters to the color space called sRGB.
It's complicated and not easy to say exactly what you should change. A good start though may be the camera manual where it describes how to change things like hue and saturation (and by all means sharpening and more). Take your time and experiment until you get images to your liking straight out of the camera if that's the workflow you prefer.
Seeking to reduce the post‑processing time for my images, I ran a small experiment and hope you can help me understand it.
I captured a fairly ordinary image with my A7IV in RAW + JPEG (Default Standard profile). I converted the RAW file to JPEG using two different applications (Capture One and Apple Preview) and then compared the results to the JPEG produced directly by the A7IV. Here’s what I get:
What I don’t understand is why there is such a difference (the SOOC JPEG looks very dull and poorly representative of reality, whereas the RAW‑derived JPEGs are much closer). I know each program applies its own conversion, but why such a discrepancy? Is it possible to make the SOOC JPEG closer to the RAW conversion (any recipes)?...Show more →
I couldn't see much difference in the posted images. However, there is a JPG output setting in the camera.. If you set it to "landscape" or "viviid", the output will be contrastier and the colors more saturated. However, unlike RAW, JPG outpurt is more limited in what can be adjusted in PP if the shooting conditions call for it. In other words, I would recommend shooting RAW all the time. At the current pricing conditions of SD/CF cards, storage of RAW shouldn't pose much of an obstacle anymore, unlike several years ago.
Yeah, that’s pretty normal behavior and it mostly comes down to how Sony treats SOOC JPEGs versus how converters interpret the RAW. The camera JPEG is locked to whatever Picture Profile / Creative Style / DRO / contrast and saturation settings you had at capture, and Sony tends to be pretty conservative there to preserve highlights and avoid clipping. Capture One (and even Preview) are effectively starting from the RAW sensor data and applying their own tone curves, contrast, and color rendering, which almost always looks punchier and closer to what our eyes remember. So you’re not really comparing “the same image” so much as three very different renderings of the same data.
If you want the SOOC JPEGs to look closer to your RAW conversions, you can definitely tweak things in camera. Try bumping contrast and saturation in the Creative Style, switching from Standard to Vivid or tweaking a custom style and turning off or reducing DRO if it’s flattening things too much. People also build custom Creative Styles specifically to match their preferred RAW converter look. You’ll probably never get a perfect match, because the RAW converters are doing more sophisticated tone mapping than the camera can in real time but you can get a lot closer and save yourself a ton of editing if JPEGs are the goal.
The main difference between the three jpg is not color, colors are very close. The main difference is lighting. Sony did not pull shadows up at all, where the other two did. Apple did that by increasing exposure at the cost of highlights. C1 was more balanced preserving both.
Increasing contrast in camera will not help, will cause darks to become darker. Instead play with DRO settings to get camera to improve both shadow and highlights.
Also I agree with suggestion to use NT as base profile and add saturation as desired.
tuxounet wrote:
Well, this is very interesting. I will give it a try.
That would also be interesting to have all "recommended" settings for all A7 models…
I'm not a big fan of NT myself, so I just use the Standard picture profile. But I do use +1b and +1m on the white balance, and the colors look better and more natural to my eyes.
I do not see enough difference in the pictures posted to say which one is best, which not. Depends on light and what you are shooting...
I use mostly C1, and I think it produces very nice colors with recent Sony cameras. Just straight raw conversion, and you are in the ballpark. I use mostly film std.
Just as a sidenote Fujifilm colors are nicer, there is something magical in them, but final result depends on the film simulation. I not consider Fujifilm colors outright better but they are definitely crucial part of the Fujifilm charm.
Lr needs more work. Although Adobe has many strengths, but straight out of the camera raw conversion is not one of them. Same with Sony and Fujifilm.
Back in the day, when I only shot jpg's, I would turn the contrast way down, and underexpose.
That would make a duller photo sooc, but it would give me more headroom for processing.
As for the three photos here, I don't much difference between them.
I'd be stoked to see a comparison involving skin tones. Alik Griffin (on his blog) insisted the days of Sony being challenged with color science are long gone.
tuxounet wrote:
What I don’t understand is why there is such a difference (the SOOC JPEG looks very dull and poorly representative of reality, whereas the RAW‑derived JPEGs are much closer). I know each program applies its own conversion, but why such a discrepancy?
You shouldn't be surprised.
Let's start with a simple fact that a camera itself has absolutely nothing to do with color. If you look into what's stored inside a RAW file, you'll see nothing resembling the reality. A color is created entirely in software, i.e. the maker of a RAW converter decides what color they want. The SOOC JPEG is just an output of a RAW converter running inside the camera because it's also a computer.
Next, let's look at "representative of reality". That is never the design goal. Every single RAW converter deviates from realism on purpose because the real world is dull and boring. At the minimum the contrast and saturation are boosted. But on top of that some colors are enhanced (usually two cmplimentary ones) while others are suppressed. What colors? Well... that's why I mentioned the software people above. It's their choice, and they usually offer different outcomes to you in a form of camera profiles.
Here you have it. Different teams behind different RAW converters defined different colors to their linking.
P.S. If you want "representative of reality", some cameras have a "faithful" or "neutral" profile. They aim to be closer to reality, but Sony's "faithful" is still fairy cartoonish. For reproduction work or for product photography people often make their own profiles. Ironically, true-to-life color profile is the easiest profile to make: just snap a color target at a known light temperature, feed the resulting RAW to a profiler, and you're done. It will look like shit, BTW, and not going to be useful outside of repro. That's why nobody cares about being "representative of reality". Consumers don't want that.
Seeking to reduce the post‑processing time for my images, I ran a small experiment and hope you can help me understand it.
I captured a fairly ordinary image with my A7IV in RAW + JPEG (Default Standard profile). I converted the RAW file to JPEG using two different applications (Capture One and Apple Preview) and then compared the results to the JPEG produced directly by the A7IV. Here’s what I get:
What I don’t understand is why there is such a difference (the SOOC JPEG looks very dull and poorly representative of reality, whereas the RAW‑derived JPEGs are much closer). I know each program applies its own conversion, but why such a discrepancy? Is it possible to make the SOOC JPEG closer to the RAW conversion (any recipes)?...Show more →
I do see the differences in the photos. As @j4nu wrote, the differences appear to be entirely a matter of slightly different settings for contrast and saturation in the three processors, and maybe a touch of white balance differences.
I also agree that there are disadvantages to using jpg files as your sole recordings; they do restrict your post-processing options.
It stuns me that there are actually people who shoot JPEG with the explicit intention to post process them.
If you want to post process your photos, you shoot RAW. That's what's RAW for. Shooting in JPEG means that you apply a camera-internal post processing to a RAW which is "good enough" for you (for instance because you don't want the hassle or because you are a sport photography pro who shoots loads of photos which need to be published ASAP).
hasenbein wrote:
It stuns me that there are actually people who shoot JPEG with the explicit intention to post process them.
If you want to post process your photos, you shoot RAW. That's what's RAW for. Shooting in JPEG means that you apply a camera-internal post processing to a RAW which is "good enough" for you (for instance because you don't want the hassle or because you are a sport photography pro who shoots loads of photos which need to be published ASAP).
Social media.
Instagram is on decline, but when it was more popular (and with lead adds) I used to share travel pictures there when on the go. For me that was a reason to shoot jpg and then share via phone. Now that is forgotten as phones are so much better (and Instagram has lost its appeal).
