BigBabyMoses06 wrote:
UGH. That totally sucks. Sorry to hear. I'm interested to hear how the repair process and timeline works out for you.
I finished my last shot of the season yesterday, gathering the paperwork and figure out the process for my repair now.
Edit: I went onto Sony's product support page and went the chat route. They emailed me a pre-paid 2 day shipping label. Going to precision camera in CT.... which I've read both good and bad about. Fingers crossed.
Precision seems to have really upped their game in recent years. A few months ago, I dropped one of my telephoto lenses onto a concrete floor, causing major damage. I contacted Sony repair on Monday and they immediately sent a shipping label. I had the lens back in my hands the following Monday, like new , with a repair bill that was way less than I expected. A year earlier, I had a similar experience. After sending the camera in, I received a message saying that my repair would be delayed while they waited on parts. I still had the camera back in my hands in nine days!
BigBabyMoses06 wrote:
UGH. That totally sucks. Sorry to hear. I'm interested to hear how the repair process and timeline works out for you.
I finished my last shot of the season yesterday, gathering the paperwork and figure out the process for my repair now.
Edit: I went onto Sony's product support page and went the chat route. They emailed me a pre-paid 2 day shipping label. Going to precision camera in CT.... which I've read both good and bad about. Fingers crossed.
EB-1 wrote:
I don't care so much about color with Sony. I could not get the a7rV to be that great, but for wildfiles it doesn't matter. What I need is good NR with granular controls. I don't read that C1 is better at NR or even as good as DXO DP3 and DP3XD at high ISOs like 10,000 or more.
I don't have that much Sony stuff. It seems there are actually more camera choices than good software choices lately.
I'm less concerned about the a7rVI than lack of support for future a1 III, etc. For example I decided to cancel the pre-order of the 600/6.3.
It sucks to be so limited by software. Prior to the 2020s the basic NR functions were adequate because I used 2x MP FF cameras for high ISO, and not nearly as high ISO as today with MILCs.
Long term existence of software is a whole other model to be concerned about since I am far behind in image processing. I just assumed to always be able to process older images the same way at any time. That's not true now with NR and processing constantly changing.
I must have misunderstood your initial comment about being “done with Sony” if Adobe didn’t address utilizing Sony native profiles.
C1’s NR was way behind the curve. Debayering and color were excellent, as was geometry and individual color-tweaking tools; those were mainly what I used it for before sending the file off to PS for local editing. Adobe has improved their debayering significantly, geometry is equivalent, its AI NR is next level as are its AI clone and eraser tools. Adobe color is at least adequate for me nowadays, and hence why I’m now all Adobe.
InFocus2014 wrote:
Precision seems to have really upped their game in recent years. A few months ago, I dropped one of my telephoto lenses onto a concrete floor, causing major damage. I contacted Sony repair on Monday and they immediately sent a shipping label. I had the lens back in my hands the following Monday, like new , with a repair bill that was way less than I expected. A year earlier, I had a similar experience. After sending the camera in, I received a message saying that my repair would be delayed while they waited on parts. I still had the camera back in my hands in nine days!...Show more →
tsdevine wrote:
What profiles do you use with your a1 II and a7R V? Camera ST for the a7R V and the equivalent for the a1 II?
The DCP profiles for the A7RV had this strange nonlinear yellow intensity which made adjusting WB annoying, so I sold it.
The A1 II profiles look nearly identical to Sony's EDIT, and my top 3 are: Standard (ST), Portrait (PT) and Film 2 (FL2). They are just a starting point though, especially FL2.
But the best profile for the A1 II is the Nikon's "Rich Tone Portrait" which I took from the Zf and modified to trick Lightrooom into thinking it's a camera-matching profile for the A1 II.
old-gregg wrote:
The DCP profiles for the A7RV had this strange nonlinear yellow intensity which made adjusting WB annoying, so I sold it.
The A1 II profiles look nearly identical to Sony's EDIT, and my top 3 are: Standard (ST), Portrait (PT) and Film 2 (FL2). They are just a starting point though, especially FL2.
But the best profile for the A1 II is the Nikon's "Rich Tone Portrait" which I took from the Zf and modified to trick Lightrooom into thinking it's a camera-matching profile for the A1 II.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Why not just create your own profile and save it?
I assume you mean a real profile, not just a preset (which itself needs a foundational profile). Making a custom profile similar to something like "Rich tone portrait" requires great skills and specialized tools. My profile-making is limited to repro/scanning use cases, where you only need accuracy, and only for the controlled lighting.
This is why I always cringe when people say "accurate color". Linear accuracy is relatively easy, but it's ugly for anything other than repro. Making an excellent, inaccurate-on-purpose color profile suitable for different light is hard. Hard enough that I'd prefer to pay someone for one.
Just to confirm that we're on the same page, building a custom DCP means I'd have to build:
1. ColorMatrix to maps CIE to camera colorspace under one or two reference illuminants.
2. ForwardMatrix to maps white-balanced camera RGB toward CIE XYZ D50.
3. CalibrationIlluminant to mark reference lighting conditions, such as Standard Illuminant A or D65.
4. CameraCalibration: optional camera calibration matrices that modify the sensor color response.
5. Hue/saturation map: hue, saturation, and value correction tables for color rendering.
6. Profile look table: optional creative color adjustments that define the profile's visual look.
7. The Tone curve
I only understand 4 steps out of 7 and consumer-grade profile making tools abstract away so much that the only profile I can make is for accuracy.
Try building a profile which gives you pleasant warm skintone, realistic skies and vegetation at the same time, in the same photo. You'll be pulling your hair out (if you still have any
old-gregg wrote:
I assume you mean a real profile, not just a preset (which itself needs a foundational profile). Making a custom profile similar to something like "Rich tone portrait" requires great skills and specialized tools. My profile-making is limited to repro/scanning use cases, where you only need accuracy, and only for the controlled lighting.
This is why I always cringe when people say "accurate color". Linear accuracy is relatively easy, but it's ugly for anything other than repro. Making an excellent, inaccurate-on-purpose color profile suitable for different light is hard. Hard enough that I'd prefer to pay someone for one.
Two things.
First, presets actually do wonders, and creating a true camera profile may not be required. (If you are trying to match starting points from two different cameras, the profile approach may be more appropriate. And some of the applications that people use to profile monitors/papers can also create camera profiles.) I know that I'll virtually always want to start with a certain group of default settings, so I just capture them as a preset that is applied automatically.
Second, I'm with you about the use of the term "accurate color." There are situations where accurate color is important, but outside of those limited situations, what most photographers really want is colors that express what they see in a photograph, that look good to them and others, and which seem (in most cases) believable. That's usually not remotely the same as "accurate" color. (In fact, "accurate color" is often boring color.)
old-gregg wrote:
I assume you mean a real profile, not just a preset (which itself needs a foundational profile). Making a custom profile similar to something like "Rich tone portrait" requires great skills and specialized tools. My profile-making is limited to repro/scanning use cases, where you only need accuracy, and only for the controlled lighting.
This is why I always cringe when people say "accurate color". Linear accuracy is relatively easy, but it's ugly for anything other than repro. Making an excellent, inaccurate-on-purpose color profile suitable for different light is hard. Hard enough that I'd prefer to pay someone for one.
Just to confirm that we're on the same page, building a custom DCP means I'd have to build:
1. ColorMatrix to maps CIE to camera colorspace under one or two reference illuminants.
2. ForwardMatrix to maps white-balanced camera RGB toward CIE XYZ D50.
3. CalibrationIlluminant to mark reference lighting conditions, such as Standard Illuminant A or D65.
4. CameraCalibration: optional camera calibration matrices that modify the sensor color response.
5. Hue/saturation map: hue, saturation, and value correction tables for color rendering.
6. Profile look table: optional creative color adjustments that define the profile's visual look.
7. The Tone curve
I only understand 4 steps out of 7 and consumer-grade profile making tools abstract away so much that the only profile I can make is for accuracy.
Try building a profile which gives you pleasant warm skintone, realistic skies and vegetation at the same time, in the same photo. You'll be pulling your hair out (if you still have any ...Show more →
I haven't done it for a while, but IIRC, you photograph a color checker like the Passport under the light you want to create the profile for and set the camera to that WB, take the pic, open it in raw, adjust the mid gray for neutral color and proper exposure, export it as DNG and open that in the XRite software, and ask it to generate the profile, name it then load it. I also built some similarly using C1's advanced color editor tool for my specific artificial lighting so that different cameras rendered the same look in the studio. This was also several years back, but either method output an icc profile.
But yes, I agree with Dan that the next best thing is to use an existing Adobe profile that's closest to what you like and edit that as a preset using the calibration tab. I even add my base sharpening and optical defaults to it. This probably works as well as a custom profile for most folks most of the time and is definitely easy.
And yes, we agree re skin tone, especially under mixed outdoor lighting under trees or colored awnings. In C1 the skin-tone editor saved countless time here with a simple click, then "match look" rendered all the images in the set to the same look. Nothing like either of these tools in Adobe that I've found -- another couple things I miss in C1...
Oh, one more. Another thing that matters is what profile you regularly output to -- and here, you'll never be happy in anything 8-bit. Currently I edit in and output psd's or tiffs in 16-bit Image P3 with perceptual intent and find it's pretty great across devices and platforms. From those, I separately generate 8-bit web srgb jpegs for web-view share.
gdanmitchell wrote:
First, presets actually do wonders
Absolutely, but they have pretty severe limitations, at least in my hands. The biggest is that they only work for one ambient light type, which generates a ton of work and maintenance. For the A7RV I used to have an "edgy skin" preset re-created for four different light types, that's why DCPs have so many color maps for flexibility.
If making a high qualtiy DCP profile was easy, I don't think Adobe would be taking many months to build them for new cameras like the A7V and A7RVI.
old-gregg wrote:
The DCP profiles for the A7RV had this strange nonlinear yellow intensity which made adjusting WB annoying, so I sold it.
The A1 II profiles look nearly identical to Sony's EDIT, and my top 3 are: Standard (ST), Portrait (PT) and Film 2 (FL2). They are just a starting point though, especially FL2.
But the best profile for the A1 II is the Nikon's "Rich Tone Portrait" which I took from the Zf and modified to trick Lightrooom into thinking it's a camera-matching profile for the A1 II.
The Color Fidelity (used to be Huelight) profiles might be worth a try, at least another possible starting point. I've been using them pretty much for all my a7R VI shots and used them quite a bit for my a7R V. I do also have a few of the Cobalt packs, often using some of the Fuji profiles (I also have a GFX100S II). But I've also used a couple of their Nikon matching profiles as well.
They won't match the camera matching profiles Adobe would produce, but they may be closer than the stock Adobe ones.
RoamingScott wrote:
He, like others in this thread, have dust/debris UNDER the sensor glass.
My first GFX100S II had kind of a tuft of something under the cover glass, I had to send it back. To this day I worry it's going to happen again on its replacement, and before that, I didn't even know it was possible. Now I can worry about it on my Sony's too.
EB-1 wrote:
Can't you send it to Sony for repairs?
EBH
To my knowledge, Precision is THE authorized repair center in North America for Sony. Sony does not operate any factory repair centers… again, to my knowledge.
InFocus2014 wrote:
To my knowledge, Precision is THE authorized repair center in North America for Sony. Sony does not operate any factory repair centers… again, to my knowledge.
tsdevine wrote:
My first GFX100S II had kind of a tuft of something under the cover glass, I had to send it back. To this day I worry it's going to happen again on its replacement, and before that, I didn't even know it was possible. Now I can worry about it on my Sony's too.
tsdevine wrote:
The Color Fidelity (used to be Huelight) profiles might be worth a try.
You recommended them to me maybe about a month ago? Thank you for that recommendation! They're an improvement over Adobe Color, but I still have a preference for camera-matching profiles though, at least those for the A1 II and Nikon Z f. But if I end up getting the RVI ahead of full Adobe support, they will be my choice.
tsdevine wrote:
My first GFX100S II had kind of a tuft of something under the cover glass, I had to send it back. To this day I worry it's going to happen again on its replacement, and before that, I didn't even know it was possible. Now I can worry about it on my Sony's too.
Personally, I wouldn't worry so much about it —at least not to the point of avoiding a Sony (or Fuji) camera.
When it happened to my Sony, I spent quite a bit of 'tokens' crawling the web out of curiosity. Most forum posts I found pointed to either Fuji (around the X-T1/T2 eras, but not much later) or Sony (A1/A7R V onwards) cameras. As I mentioned in another post, I also had the chance to talk off the record with a camera technician who noticed this issue more frequently with Sony gear.With that said, let's not forget about sampling bias: people who post online or send a camera in for service are overwhelmingly the ones experiencing an issue.
Even my crawler returned very few complaints relative to the volume of Sony cameras sold. Even in this thread, there are so many A7R VI owners but not a widespread panic/ complaining about it. If this were a widespread defect, there would have been more posts and discussions —akin to when Lensrental posted their IBIS cracks article or cracked RF 100-500mm lens elements. After all, the affected bodies are high-end enthusiast models—cameras whose owners swap lenses and, inevitably, have an increase risk of dust reaching the sensor stack.
Modern electronics also undergo significantly better QC than cameras did a decade ago (except if you are Nikon and do a product recall once every 2-3 years to keep your customers on their toes ) and are far less prone—though never immune—to defects. Manufacturers do their best as regulations in Europe mandate 2- to 3-year warranties and failure rates over time follow have always followed the classic bathtub (v-shape) curve. I even worked on an R&D project using computer vision to spot defects on circuit boards and know first-hand some of the work done to reduce the need for warranty repairs in consumer electronics.
The only thing that I would have changed, out of 'worry,' is how I use the blower on my sensor: apply less power than my normal and from a greater distance even if that means that I may find myself doing more wet cleaning than before.
What I would be genuinely more concerned about is how the manufacturer will react if this —or any other issue— appears. In my case, I was less than pleased with Sony's policies —or it happened that I got extremely unlucky with the technician and his manager who decided that it is not a warranty repair. Maybe Sony in US will be better. Unfortunately, again, it is more likely to see posts of people complaining about the service —regardless of the brand— than praising the repairs shop.
old-gregg wrote:
You recommended them to me maybe about a month ago? Thank you for that recommendation! They're an improvement over Adobe Color, but I still have a preference for camera-matching profiles though, at least those for the A1 II and Nikon Z f. But if I end up getting the RVI ahead of full Adobe support, they will be my choice.
Did you comare them to Cobalt, BTW?
I've been using them more than Cobalt for my Sony shots. Back when I got the GFX100S II I asked the guy if he was going to release some for the GFX100S II and he said he had no plans. But when I went back to buy the profiles for the a7R VI, I saw he had profiles for the GFX100S II as well, so I picked them up.
So some shots I may choose Cobalts, but I've been using the Color Fidelity ones most of the time.
