Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Sony A7RII Dull Files?  (Read 7959 times)

Dave Gurtcheff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 696
Sony A7RII Dull Files?
« on: October 20, 2015, 12:24:51 pm »

Hi all: Love this forum; I learn a lot here. I use in addition to the A7RII, a Sony A900, Nikon D800E, and Pentax 645D. Compared to these, I find the RAW files from the A7RII very "dull", requiring a lot of post processing. I always post process to bring the RAW files to what I like, and saw. With the A7RII, it is not about optimizing, but rescuing. I have been putting sky and foreground on their own layers, then applying adjustment layers (levels and saturation) on each layer separately, as they usually need unequal amounts. Not complaining: I am retired and an Amateur, so I have time to spend on each image, but if the Pros must spend this amount of time per image, it must be brutal. I am posting the out of camera RAW images (converted to JPGS for posting) and the final post processed images. Am I the only one, or am I doing something wrong? Thanks for looking and any help.
 Dave in NJ
Logged

Dave Gurtcheff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 696
Re: Sony A7RII Dull Files?
« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2015, 12:28:19 pm »

Sorry: Here is the RAW image and processed image of 2nd shot in above post
Dave
Logged

Dave Gurtcheff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 696
Re: Sony A7RII Dull Files?
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2015, 12:29:49 pm »

Another example.
Dave
Logged

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Sony A7RII Dull Files?
« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2015, 12:35:48 pm »

and saw.

seriously ? you saw this exaclty kind of sky ? I think I really need to visit ophtalmologist ASAP...
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Sony A7RII Dull Files?
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2015, 12:43:56 pm »

Hi,

I am quite happy with the raw files from my Sony A7rII. I do all my raw processing in Lightroom.

Here are some very recent images https://echophoto.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Dolomites-2015/ , some of those are nearly "out of the camera" but most have had some elementary raw processing in Lightroom.

There are a lot of different profiles i Lightroom, have you checked out those?

Personally, I am trying to achieve what I perceive as natural colour and the Adobe Standard profile works for me.

Anders Torger has done a lot of development on a camera profiling tool called DCamProf, and he also feels Adobe standard profile is a bit fad.

Best regards
Erik
« Last Edit: October 20, 2015, 12:51:08 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Sony A7RII Dull Files?
« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2015, 12:55:13 pm »

Hi,

I would say that the first rendition is pretty decent. Camera profiles should give a natural rendition by default. You could try to use Adobe DNG Profile editor to create a profile that suits your taste.

Best regards
Erik

Another example.
Dave
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Sony A7RII Dull Files?
« Reply #6 on: October 20, 2015, 01:14:07 pm »

Hi all: Love this forum; I learn a lot here. I use in addition to the A7RII, a Sony A900, Nikon D800E, and Pentax 645D. Compared to these, I find the RAW files from the A7RII very "dull", requiring a lot of post processing.

Hi Dave,

The relatively dull, low local contrast, impression that the initial Raw conversion gives is typical for a High Dynamic Range capture. The solution is local contrast adjustment, AKA tonemapping. A very good tool for that is Topaz Labs Clarity. Make no mistake, this is quite different (much more powerful and controllable) from what other tools call Clarity (often a mid-tone contrast control).

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Sony A7RII Dull Files?
« Reply #7 on: October 20, 2015, 02:07:14 pm »

Hi Bart,

Thanks for making that point.

I have some kind of workflow in Lightroom, something like this:

- I often apply a graduated filter on the sky with setting like shown below
- After that I adjust exposure
- Third I adjust the "Blacks" so I get some black detail
- Fourth I adjust Shadows to get decent shadow detail
- Done that I would do some iterations over the sliders mentioned
- Increase "Whites"

Finish of with adding some clarity and vibrance.

I am a bit familiar with the tools Bart mentions but I want to use parametric workflow and I am quite happy with the results. Would I go over TIFFs I would make more use of the tools Bart mentions.

Best regards
Erik

Hi Dave,

The relatively dull, low local contrast, impression that the initial Raw conversion gives is typical for a High Dynamic Range capture. The solution is local contrast adjustment, AKA tonemapping. A very good tool for that is Topaz Labs Clarity. Make no mistake, this is quite different (much more powerful and controllable) from what other tools call Clarity (often a mid-tone contrast control).

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

MarkL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 475
Re: Sony A7RII Dull Files?
« Reply #8 on: October 20, 2015, 05:25:34 pm »

Flat files are good, it means all the detail is captured in a linear fashion and not had the highlights or shadows crushed.

Reality vs. fantasy?

I think so. I'd be pretty pissed off if my RAWs came out with cartoonish tone-mapping.
Logged

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2965
Re: Sony A7RII Dull Files?
« Reply #9 on: October 20, 2015, 06:19:40 pm »

The flat files from the A7R II are good - all the goodness is there waiting to be processed.

I shoot a lot outdoors often in extreme lighting conditions and the resulting files although flat out of the camera still incorporate an amazing dynamic range.
These days it is rare for me to use any other app apart from Lightroom, especially for tone mapping.
Certainly there is no need, as far as I am concerned to routinely use masks and layers in Photoshop.
As far as I am concerned for non-global tonal manipulation the gradient tool and the adjustment brush provide all the flexibility and power required.
As far as global tools in Lightroom go learn to manipulate both global and local contrast - often apparently in opposition.

A simple example: shooting a stormy landscape will often result in a sky that is much brighter than rest of the shot. Nonetheless as a whole the image looks flat. I would normally deal with the sky first by pulling back on the highlights slider - sometimes as far as it will go. Then I push the whites as far as is aesthetically pleasing - often just shy of clipping. What this combination achieves is to maximise the tonal distribution in the highlights.
I do a similar thing for the shadows. Pull up the shadows to bring out the detail to a level that is aesthetically pleasing. The blacks slider will often be pulled back far enough to achieve true black somewhere in the image. To and fro adjustments are often required between these pairs of adjustments.
Sometimes I find, after adjusting both highlights and shadows, that the midtones are simply too light or too dark. A simple adjustment of the exposure slider slider solves this. (Obviously, if this is apparent from the start then alter the exposure slider first off.) Readjust the highlights and shadows as needed.
At this stage the image looks flat despite the, usual, increases in global contrast.
Now is the time to play with local contrast, the clarity slider is the go too tool.
Season to taste at this point.
I find that after altering clarity no adjustments to vibrance nor saturation are necessary and in fact will end up over egging things.
(It is true that I make my own DNG profiles for every camera that I shoot with to deal with the quirks of colour reproduction that all sensors are prone to. This makes dealing with colour issues easier.)
Interestingly enough, it is often, only at this stage, that I look at white balance. This is because until the tones are roughly correct it can be difficult to decide what white balance or tint adjustments really are required. With landscapes I usually look for white balance/tint adjustments that really brings out the richness and subtlety of the palette and not necessarily the "truth".
After this subtle adjustments of global and local contrast using the aforementioned tools may again be required.

On a different level: every camera I have ever owned required a bit of a different mindset as to how to go about optimally exposing in-camera as well as approaching post-processing.
One works it out after a while.
In general, with Sony cameras one is able to make much more aggressive tonal manipulations of both shadows and highlights. Noise is still present in the shadows but is much easier to control compared to the Canon cameras I have used where pulling up the shadows was limited by the blooming of the noise. So, use the extraordinary characteristics of the Sony sensors combination with the parametric controls in Lightroom and great results are possible.

Tony Jay
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Sony A7RII Dull Files?
« Reply #10 on: October 20, 2015, 10:07:36 pm »

Using a high-DR camera like the A7r2 will typically result in flat RAWs. (Though on my iPad PhotoRaw applies a pretty strong tone curveā€¦) That's the nature of the beast. I'd consider creating a default action to boost contrast & clarity if you prefer to start with more "finished" looking pics.

-Dave-
Logged

Jack Hogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 798
    • Hikes -more than strolls- with my dog
Re: Sony A7RII Dull Files?
« Reply #11 on: October 21, 2015, 07:07:03 am »

Using a high-DR camera like the A7r2 will typically result in flat RAWs.

In theory the Raw files are neither flat nor anything other than an accurate proportional representation of luminance from the scene.  They are as close to 'what the photographer saw' as is possible with current technology.  On the other hand the display medium (monitor/print) is never up to the task, only typically being able to show a subset of the captured DR. That's what people mean when they say that their high-DR images look dull on their high-end, typically at best 9-stop contrast ratio monitor.

So the job of the pp'ing photographer is to figure out how best to squeeze the much larger DR of the visual information captured into a much smaller output window.  When the difference between captured vs output DR is small (say 2-3 stops, as in older sensors like those in Canon DSCs) curves can be an effective generic palliative solution.  But when that difference approaches 5-6 stops, as in the case in some of the latest Exmor sensor, more sophisticated tools such as those mentioned by Bart need to be brought to bear.  Camera makers will do part of this for you if you let them: they call such in/off camera tools Auto ADL, DRO, etc.  That's one of the reasons why, for instance, some Nikon photographers would be well served by opening their raw captures in Capture NX-D: it gives them an approximately decent starting point from which to develop their masterpiece.

Jack
Logged

Chuck Fan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
Re: Sony A7RII Dull Files?
« Reply #12 on: October 21, 2015, 10:53:59 am »

I don't know, the unaltered RAW files of sunlit scene from the D810 looks pretty muddy and flat to me.   Takes a good amount of post processing to make them conform to what we expect from eye popping photos.

The key is muddy or flat, the raw file has all the information in it required to make the photo pop, and then quite a bit  more.   It's up to you to get at it and present it.
Logged

AreBee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 638
Re: Sony A7RII Dull Files?
« Reply #13 on: October 21, 2015, 11:24:26 am »

Bart,

Quote
The relatively dull, low local contrast, impression that the initial Raw conversion gives is typical for a High Dynamic Range capture. The solution is local contrast adjustment...

Why do you specifically note low local contrast?
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Sony A7RII Dull Files?
« Reply #14 on: October 21, 2015, 12:07:10 pm »

Bart,

Why do you specifically note low local contrast?

Hi Rob,

Good question, and yes that was intentional. The total contrast that we can display is usually simple to adjust, just crank up the total contrast of the display. That will also increase the local contrast proportionally. However, that would not work too well on e.g. printed output, or if you want to have a pleasant viewing experience on your display without developing a headache. A compromise would be to introduce an S-curve tone adjustment, but that mainly increases mid-tone contrast, and crushes shadow and highlight tonality.

The only way to intelligently increase perceived contrast, within a given total range (pure white to deepest black), is to manipulate the local contrast in image regions. That means that non-linear compression and expansion of the tone range will need to be applied. If we do that for the entire image, we get something like what simple histogram equalization does, it reshuffles the image brightness levels to roughly equal quantities in all histogram bins.

While that will help, it will not always look realistic/convincing. After all, we may be looking at an image that is relatively dark, with more pixels with low RGB values, and redistributing those will not solve much but it would cause issues in the already few lighter pixels. So what's needed is to do a more local redistribution, e.g. in a certain range. One approach is to subdivide the image in regions and treat them individually, but that can still turn out to be a bit artificial looking.

What a program like Topaz Clarity does, is make use of different contrast ranges to compress or expand (so they remain coherent in context), and use some psychological tricks like a sort of 'Mach band' effects by adding a slight gradient in uniform tones if they border on regions of a different average tone.

I've attached a step-wedge example of how that works, for a normal local contrast enhancement like using a high radius USM with low amount (a simple Photoshop enhancement), and Topaz Clarity that uses the Mach band effect to increase tone separation between steps (only the Low contrast control was used, there are three more and some other controls). In a real e.g. landscape image that works in a similar fashion, but much more complex, and at more contrast levels, and halo free. It also avoids color shifts that typically result from changed brightness.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

AFairley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1486
Re: Sony A7RII Dull Files?
« Reply #15 on: October 21, 2015, 12:27:45 pm »

I don't know, the unaltered RAW files of sunlit scene from the D810 looks pretty muddy and flat to me.   Takes a good amount of post processing to make them conform to what we expect from eye popping photos.

The key is muddy or flat, the raw file has all the information in it required to make the photo pop, and then quite a bit  more.   It's up to you to get at it and present it.

As with the D800.  I have a saved Lightroom settings profile I apply on import, involves boosting contrast, clarity and saturation, and boosting shadows some.
Logged

Jack Hogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 798
    • Hikes -more than strolls- with my dog
Re: Sony A7RII Dull Files?
« Reply #16 on: October 21, 2015, 01:50:45 pm »

I don't know, the unaltered RAW files of sunlit scene from the D810 looks pretty muddy and flat to me.   Takes a good amount of post processing to make them conform to what we expect from eye popping photos.

Making photos eye-popping is an artistic choice which has virtually nothing to do with a camera's technical capabilities.

The D810 captures scene information as faithfully as current technology allows, nothing wrong with it.  And you'd probably agree with that if you had a 14-stop contrast ratio monitor or print to display normally processed high DR captures.  But since the average monitor struggles to produce 8 stops of contrast ratio and the average print at least 1 stop less than that, you perceive their normally processed output as dull. So feast your eyes on your output medium (monitor/print) to understand where the muddiness and flatness come from.

I have two recent monitors side by side calibrated to 100 cd/m^2 maximum brightness: one has a measured contrast ratio of about 230:1 (a bit less than 8 stops), the other 520:1 (about 9 stops).  If the same equally processed image is displayed on both you'd say that the 520:1 has more 'pop'.  But the captured raw data is exactly the same.

Jack
« Last Edit: October 21, 2015, 01:59:43 pm by Jack Hogan »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Sony A7RII Dull Files?
« Reply #17 on: October 21, 2015, 04:06:28 pm »

Hi Jack,

I don't know if raw conversions needs to utilise the full DR of a camera. I would say that the defaults of the raw conversion should yield a decent image. The image should be tweaked for optimal looks. Having the ability to adjust the image to taste is in my view the idea of a raw based workflow.

Best regards
Erik


Making photos eye-popping is an artistic choice which has virtually nothing to do with a camera's technical capabilities.

The D810 captures scene information as faithfully as current technology allows, nothing wrong with it.  And you'd probably agree with that if you had a 14-stop contrast ratio monitor or print to display normally processed high DR captures.  But since the average monitor struggles to produce 8 stops of contrast ratio and the average print at least 1 stop less than that, you perceive their normally processed output as dull. So feast your eyes on your output medium (monitor/print) to understand where the muddiness and flatness come from.

I have two recent monitors side by side calibrated to 100 cd/m^2 maximum brightness: one has a measured contrast ratio of about 230:1 (a bit less than 8 stops), the other 520:1 (about 9 stops).  If the same equally processed image is displayed on both you'd say that the 520:1 has more 'pop'.  But the captured raw data is exactly the same.

Jack
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

AreBee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 638
Re: Sony A7RII Dull Files?
« Reply #18 on: October 21, 2015, 05:40:39 pm »

Bart,

I think you may have answered a question I didn't ask. However, your response was very interesting, thank you, and has raised additional questions.

Returning first to my original question:

Quote
The relatively dull, low local contrast, impression that the initial Raw conversion gives is typical for a High Dynamic Range capture. The solution is local contrast adjustment...

With respect to the above, my confusion derives not from the fact that local contrast can be perceived as low after initial RAW conversion - perhaps the photo was shot on an overcast day, for example - but that (to me) you seem to suggest that local contrast will be low independent of photo content.

My understanding is that (as Jack noted) digital cameras record light level linearly, and hence tonal relationships as they exist at the time of capture. It is also my understanding that the human eye/brain sees nonlinearly, and that a curve is therefore applied to the linear data during initial RAW conversion in order for the image to be perceived as correct when displayed.

If initial RAW conversion reproduces contrast as it was perceived, from local to global contrast inclusive, what causes local contrast to be low?

With regard to your response:

Quote
I've attached a step-wedge example of how that works, for a normal local contrast enhancement like using a high radius USM with low amount (a simple Photoshop enhancement), and Topaz Clarity that uses the Mach band effect to increase tone separation between steps (only the Low contrast control was used, there are three more and some other controls).

I can see the contrast increase/decrease edge-effect in the first (USM) example (which can give rise to halos), and the Mach band effect over the 'tread' of staircase steps in the second (Topaz Clarity) example.

I was initially confused why, in the latter example, if only the Low Contrast control was used the upper 2/3 (say) of the step-wedge was not unaffected. However, I assume it's because absolute light level is irrelevant and it is the relative difference in light level between neighbouring steps that determines if the Low Contrast control has an effect, and if so by how much. Is this correct?

Quote
In a real e.g. landscape image that works in a similar fashion, but much more complex, and at more contrast levels, and halo free.

If one were to take an increasing number of contrast levels into account, at the limit would the result be...deconvolution sharpening?
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Sony A7RII Dull Files?
« Reply #19 on: October 21, 2015, 06:51:42 pm »

Bart,

I think you may have answered a question I didn't ask. However, your response was very interesting, thank you, and has raised additional questions.

Returning first to my original question:

With respect to the above, my confusion derives not from the fact that local contrast can be perceived as low after initial RAW conversion - perhaps the photo was shot on an overcast day, for example - but that (to me) you seem to suggest that local contrast will be low independent of photo content.

Well, not necessarily. Of course a low contrast scene would fit easily in a normal DR sensor capture, and even more easily in a high DR sensor capture. However, and this is where a Raw converter can create a signature look, the Rawconverter may use the same, or an adjusted setting for black-/white-point and tone curve. What complicates matters further is that I get the impression that people tend to expose less carefully, and/or push the shadows more in PP. That makes comparisons between cameras and Raw converters tricky.

Quote
My understanding is that (as Jack noted) digital cameras record light level linearly, and hence tonal relationships as they exist at the time of capture. It is also my understanding that the human eye/brain sees nonlinearly, and that a curve is therefore applied to the linear data during initial RAW conversion in order for the image to be perceived as correct when displayed.

That's correct, but e.g. Lightroom additionally applies a lot of highlight compression by default, it even pushes the exposure of some cameras up into those highlights by adding an exposure bias. Pulling back the Highlight control to -100 will create a much more natural tonality, with lots of highlight subtleties like captured in the Raw data. Having more tonality in Highlights, mean that other tonalities will have to sacrifice some.

Quote
If initial RAW conversion reproduces contrast as it was perceived, from local to global contrast inclusive, what causes local contrast to be low?

Human vision is complex, and plays many tricks on what we think we see. This is a very good example. Local tonalities, and expectations about shadow and light on tonality all work together, as does simultaneous contrast.

With regard to your response:

I can see the contrast increase/decrease edge-effect in the first (USM) example (which can give rise to halos), and the Mach band effect over the 'tread' of staircase steps in the second (Topaz Clarity) example.

Quote
I was initially confused why, in the latter example, if only the Low Contrast control was used the upper 2/3 (say) of the step-wedge was not unaffected. However, I assume it's because absolute light level is irrelevant and it is the relative difference in light level between neighbouring steps that determines if the Low Contrast control has an effect, and if so by how much. Is this correct?

Correct, and that is completely different from how e.g. mid-tone contrast with an S-curve works. It's also different from how simple local contrast enhancement works on a gamma pre-compensated tonecurve. As far as I know, TL Claritiy's 'Low' contrast control treats (boosts or attenuates) differences of about 36 on a scale of 0-255 more or less the same regardless where they are on the tonescale (but that principle is complicated by the relative distance of the pixels). It's best judged as the sliders are moved and the preview is updated in real time.

Quote
If one were to take an increasing number of contrast levels into account, at the limit would the result be...deconvolution sharpening?

Not quite, that would become even more time consuming because for each pixel a larger number of pixels needs to be multiplied and added, in multiple iterrations while following a statistical model. It also risks generating halos and noise if the wrong assumptions are used. Fascinating stuff for sure, but rather finicky (although FocusMagic makes it look easy).

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up