Sony files, what am I missing?

[Nimi]

I can give that a try but like I said these are straight out of camera with camera standard profiles applied in light room classic with absolutely no adjustments.

"Out of camera" actually involves a lot of both in-camera and post-processing to present the file before you take control. So there is probably some difference due to sensors, certainly due to what the cameras and LR do before you ever move a slider.

I use four different cameras and Nikon, to me, is easiest to transform, followed by Canon, Sony then Fuji which is a true pain in the ass. To me.

 

[sh1209]

"Out of camera" actually involves a lot of both in-camera and post-processing to present the file before you take control. So there is probably some difference due to sensors, certainly due to what the cameras and LR do before you ever move a slider.

I use four different cameras and Nikon, to me, is easiest to transform, followed by Canon, Sony then Fuji which is a true pain in the ass. To me.

I concur with Fuji lol.

 

[Steve]

That’s interesting that you say that about the color tones, Because I noticed almost all files have a magenta tint to them no matter what the conditions. They just don’t seem to have the three dimensional pop that a Nikon or canon file has. I’m sure I will sort it out over time but it is sort of disturbing when you see the files after you’ve tried to edit them and they look no better than when you started lol. Nikon files and the colors are just so easy to manipulate and hone in on a good work flow. If you don’t mind me asking, whenever you import into Lightroom do you use any set color profile or do you use the camera profile?

Just the Adobe profile, although I do sometimes try others if colors are funky. Doesn't happen often.

 

[sh1209]

Just the Adobe profile, although I do sometimes try others if colors are funky. Doesn't happen often.

Could you see what you think about the two images I posted a few minutes ago?

 

[NickD]

Here’s an example from this morning. Just seems flat 2 dimensional.
View attachment 31498

I have heard anecdotal conversations of some people have trouble with processing Sony in LR. I think this image is a tough example due to the amount of white light. Clearly you have exposed for the light out of necessity and the mid tones are missing on the Eagle bodies. Personally, I would using layers or brushes bring up the shadow on the bodies and adjust the WB to make it warmer. I am an A1 owner (previously D850) with both the 200-600mm & a 400mm prime. I found at first that the images had a bright & cold cast that I could easily correct with WB. I use CaptureOne 22 and have found that the recent updates have improved it’s compatibility with Sony images to the extent I need little processing. I would suggest you free trial the software for 30 days, ( the use & interface is similar to LR) import this image and and only adjust exposure, HDR & hit the Magic Wand on levels to set your white & black points.

 

[Steve]

Could you see what you think about the two images I posted a few minutes ago?

I looked at 'em, but there's not really any basis for comparison I guess. Even the eagles look like they aren't quite under the same conditions / time of day. The Sony eagle does look a bit warm to me, I think dropping the temp will help. Images that are too warm often feel muddy to me and I think you see them the same way. I find that often when I get the temp right, the image suddenly takes on a much more three dimensional look. Color casts can really make an image feel "flat" sometimes.

As for the squirrel, I think the shadows are a little blue and the tail looks oversaturated to me, at least a little. Sometimes you need to go into Lightroom and selectively warm / cool areas of the image, regardless of the camera used (subtly though - too much looks wried).

I still think the best bet would be side-by-sides taken of the same subject at the same time. This not only shows the actual differences, but if you like the way the Nikon looks and then process the Sony file, you'll start to get an idea of the differences in process to get the look you like.

 

[arbitrage]

Here are two files from Monday within 2-3 minutes of each other. These were taken on the Mississippi River in Clarksville MO. Same conditions, wide open 500PF, Sony 200-600, 2 degrees Fahrenheit. Both auto white balance, standard profile applied in Lightroom, no sliders moved. Nikon iso/1600 1/4000th Sony 1/5000th iso/5000
Its amazing to me that two cameras can capture a scene so differently. I'm by no means saying ones better than the other but as you can see there's a stark difference. To me the Sony file just looks muddled and very two dimensional. I just need to get used to editing the files.
Cameras are Nikon Z9 Sony A1
Top image Nikon/Bottom Sony
View attachment 31528View attachment 31529

Really? One is backlit and the other front lit. How can you compare these? Of course they look different. Please go out and shoot the same shot with both cameras. You will find the differences exist but are negligible.

 

[sh1209]

Really? One is backlit and the other front lit. How can you compare these? Of course they look different. Please go out and shoot the same shot with both cameras. You will find the differences exist but are negligible.

Really no need for the attitude and sarcasm. I’m on here asking for help and don’t need your condescending remarks! We can’t all be the expert you are!

 

[sh1209]

Instead of getting on here and belittling me and talking to me like I’m stupid, why don’t you offer some advice that might be helpful to my situation.

 

[FB101]

As for the squirrel, I think the shadows are a little blue and the tail looks oversaturated to me, at least a little. Sometimes you need to go into Lightroom and selectively warm / cool areas of the image, regardless of the camera used (subtly though - too much looks wried).

Same on my screen - that was my reaction as well. I find taking the blue out of Sony shadows to be at times a real pain. If you do it as a general WB adjustment then the already yellowish tint gets out of hand fast - so you have to do it all local and it gets nasty when it's teal instead of blue - then just warming up the shadows doesn't do it and you end up with a nasty yellow / green in the shadows. That's my biggest issue overall. But otherwise they are quite malleable - I just have the impression that Nikon files are "closer to the end point" while Sony files "can get there but take more work" and it's not a scientific assessment, just my gut after a hundred hours on A1 files over the last 4 to 6 months - so nothing like your mileage

 

[sh1209]

Same on my screen - that was my reaction as well. I find taking the blue out of Sony shadows to be at times a real pain. If you do it as a general WB adjustment then the already yellowish tint gets out of hand fast - so you have to do it all local and it gets nasty when it's teal instead of blue - then just warming up the shadows doesn't do it and you end up with a nasty yellow / green in the shadows. That's my biggest issue overall. But otherwise they are quite malleable - I just have the impression that Nikon files are "closer to the end point" while Sony files "can get there but take more work" and it's not a scientific assessment, just my gut after a hundred hours on A1 files over the last 4 to 6 months - so nothing like your mileage

Yes and that’s exactly the point I’m trying to make, is it is very hard to get the white balance, shadows and everything to click like a Nikon file.

 

[FB101]

I share your feeling but I don't know if it is intrinsic to sony files or just us not having fully cracked the code yet ;-)

Now, not meaning to hijack your thread but this might help a bit illustrate some of my comments

First I'll post an example that is front-lit, a bit underexposed to preserve highlights. The first is unedited Adobe Color profile (AWB in camera), the second Sony Standard profile (AWB in camera) and the third is custom profile, manual WB in LR and edited.

Steve will say my edit is too warm (I know but I like warm tones... up to a point )

You can see the already massive difference in color and contrast between the 2 "pre-made" profiles and then how much more contrast you can get with local edits and a custom profile- i don't know that there is any way to get to the end point without local edit whether with Nikon or Sony to be honest.

And this is an easy file - front lit - the fun begins with backlit pictures as your second eagle shot.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[FB101]

I'm not that great at processing or color management but I don't like those blue shadows either. Seems to work just like D850 files to me. I go into HSL/Color in LRC or Topaz studio and slide it down as needed(slightly). Probably the wrong approach but seems to work for me. This time of year with the gray skies we have here, everything is blue.

Very fair when you are in that blueish coldish time of the year but when you get to nice warm climates with deep blue skies it gets tricky because you don't want to kill the sky, you don't want to overdo the warm tones of the light (well I do but I am a sucker for warmer tones) and you want to get rid of blue shadows... then the fun begins. And then I found out that those damn ospreys reflect the green water under them so the blue in the shadows is not pure blue, it's green and blue mix, which is when I need a strong drink before editing

 

[MikePapple]

I want to preface this post by saying I'm in no way trying to start another brand war. I have been editing images in some capacity for nearly 20 years with various cameras and even cell phone images. Having said that, I recently purchased a Sony A1 to see what all the hype is about. The autofocus, ergonomics and customization is great on this camera. Also the 200-600mm lens is a awesome internal zoom/telephoto lens. I have taken 2500-3000 images in various conditions ranging from low, cloudy days to full sun. I have the camera pretty well dialed in where I want it. Now the bad. No matter what color profile, editing style or manipulation within photoshop or Lightroom, the imaged just never seem right to me. I can take pretty much any Nikon file and make it useable. I'm sure others have struggled with this, in fact Steve Perry has mentioned the files taking more work to complete. I'm open to any suggestions or advice from any long time Sony users. Frankly, they look like **** LOL, pardon the French. If I can't get a handle on this soon, then the A1 will go back.

I use Datacolor SpyderCheckR to calibrate my camera/lens combination colours. This creates Lightroom/Camera presets to adjust HSL sliders.

 

[bleirer]

I've found in general on canon cameras the AWB set to ambiance is distractingly warmer than the one set for white priority. I assume Sony has a similar choice in camera, which comes up as 'as shot' in Lightroom. Might be worth shooting a grey card a couple times and check white balance with the eyedropper, just to see if there is a big difference in what the different AWB modes are doing.

 

[FB101]

And the second example which is backlit heavily and led to more underexposure and more annoying shadow casts - that one wasn't too green thankfully but it still had some mix of blue, cyan and green in the shadows.

Same order, Adobe color AWB, Sony Camera Neutral AWB (overall flatter and more magenta) and edited with custom profile, manual WB and a good dose of local editing.

Same point as above, very malleable file to get to an end result I like but not a straight forward edit. I could show one with even more cast in the shadow on a heavy backlit shot right above the green water but the point is the same - it doesn't look good unedited and it's a lot of work to get there - but I don't know it it was easier with Nikon (I feel it was but that's not scientific).

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[bleirer]

Very fair when you are in that blueish coldish time of the year but when you get to nice warm climates with deep blue skies it gets tricky because you don't want to kill the sky, you don't want to overdo the warm tones of the light (well I do but I am a sucker for warmer tones) and you want to get rid of blue shadows... then the fun begins. And then I found out that those damn ospreys reflect the green water under them so the blue in the shadows is not pure blue, it's green and blue mix, which is when I need a strong drink before editing

I think deep shadows are and should be slightly cool, but I guess it can be overdone.

 

[FB101]

I've found in general on canon cameras the AWB set to ambiance is distractingly warmer than the one set for white priority. I assume Sony has a similar choice in camera, which comes up as 'as shot' in Lightroom. Might be worth shooting a grey card a couple times and check white balance with the eyedropper, just to see if there is a big difference in what the different AWB modes are doing.

I haven't done a comparison yet - good suggestion. I typically don't like AWB that forces highlights to white because very few birds are pure white but worth a try anyway.

 

[Steve]

Same on my screen - that was my reaction as well. I find taking the blue out of Sony shadows to be at times a real pain. If you do it as a general WB adjustment then the already yellowish tint gets out of hand fast - so you have to do it all local and it gets nasty when it's teal instead of blue - then just warming up the shadows doesn't do it and you end up with a nasty yellow / green in the shadows. That's my biggest issue overall. But otherwise they are quite malleable - I just have the impression that Nikon files are "closer to the end point" while Sony files "can get there but take more work" and it's not a scientific assessment, just my gut after a hundred hours on A1 files over the last 4 to 6 months - so nothing like your mileage

Yup, I agree. As for the reason, I'm not sure if this is a Sony thing or the way Adobe processes the RAW files. Could be either I suppose.

 

[Doug Herr]

Sensors don't create "flat" images (whatever that means)...lenses might...at least if you are part of the Leica tribe and want that "3D pop" which IMHO is a buch of hogwash.

FWIW the Leica 280mm f/4 APO on a Sony body is magical. The Sony GM lenses I've used (100-400, 600) are quite good but in a perfect world my ideal lens would have the 280/4 APO's image quality and the convenience of the Sony AF and OSS.

 

[sh1209]

Yup, I agree. As for the reason, I'm not sure if this is a Sony thing or the way Adobe processes the RAW files. Could be either I suppose.

I am pretty certain that it’s definitely the way Adobe processes the image. I have taken a few raw images into Apple photos and they seem to look better in there with basic tonal adjustments or at least to my eye.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I am importing directly into Lightroom classic with the standard Adobe profile which is what I use on all my Nikon files and perhaps at something as simple as changing it back to camera profile.

I do not have a Sony but that sounds like a sound option. At one point after adobe did an update Matt K said pay careful attention to the new LRC profiles I did and now always use the Nikon camera profiles (used camera standard in D500, D850 and D6 95% of the time) and processing is much faster and more to my taste.

 

[lablover27]

I am pretty certain that it’s definitely the way Adobe processes the image. I have taken a few raw images into Apple photos and they seem to look better in there with basic tonal adjustments or at least to my eye.

Just for giggles have you tried using Lightroom and not Lightroom classic? Just curious if you would see a difference. I tried capture one myself and it does seem to give better looking previews but I’m just now getting used to Lightroom classic and Lightroom on the iPad so I’ll be damned if I’m wanting to learn yet another piece of software. The fact that you said images look better in apple photos is a dead giveaway that Adobe is manipulating your photos on import

 

[sh1209]

Just for giggles have you tried using Lightroom and not Lightroom classic? Just curious if you would see a difference. I tried capture one myself and it does seem to give better looking previews but I’m just now getting used to Lightroom classic and Lightroom on the iPad so I’ll be damned if I’m wanting to learn yet another piece of software. The fact that you said images look better in apple photos is a dead giveaway that Adobe is manipulating your photos on import

Ive not but I will

 

[sh1209]

Here is a file from this morning on a black capped chickadee. To me this image looks great. I used daylight white balance in LRC and the standard Adobe profile. This is the look I'm after and need to shoot or edit in a way to accomplish it.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.