V
Vivek
Guest
What?! Rockewell is a gem!
Unfortunately, he has not reviled anything since the A7.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Seeing any Posterization issues with A7r ll?
- Thread starter jpaulmoore
- Start date
Unfortunately, he has not reviled anything since the A7.
Zlatko Batistich
New member
Let us know if he sends it, or what he replies.
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
I would be really amazed if he shared that raw file. :shocked:
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
it wasn't lost on me ... :salute:
Btw, I'm not disputing the fact that LLoyd finds issues but they just always seem to come across as though the sky is falling and it most certainly is not.
Almost definitely so via a firmware update...
Amin
Active member
I'd love to see them offer 14-bit lossless. But I don't believe the "orange peel" or posterization Lloyd noted has anything to do with 14-bit lossless.
It would be mutually beneficial to both Adobe and Sony. There are a lot of cameras where Adobe's initial support was not great and their subsequent support was improved. Hopefully this will be the case here as well.
tashley
Subscriber Member
Not sure what you mean by that Vivek - but his post does contain a proper Raw Digger Histo of the RAW file, so I don't think I'm projecting' anything, just being honest about what I see (and don't see) so far in my files and about the inevitability of there being affects of bossy compression....If you have not seen it, your earlier post was a projection based on one blog post?
*If* this is true (lossy files making a mess) it saves me a lot of cash. I am still not buying the nikon DSLRs though. So, additional savings on top of that.
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
Freudian slip? :ROTFL:
tashley
Subscriber Member
Interesting. Because if I apply the exact same develop settings to certain files from both cameras in LR, I get orange peel for A7R and II and not for D810. I can certainly process the files in LR so as not to get the peel, but then I lose the sharpness. IMHO the naked developing in C1 is way better but I totally share Lloyd's view that C1 sharpening isn't as good for fine details. The default settings in C1 for the MkII give notably softer results than my standard recipe does in LR.
As it happens Lloyd hasn't agreed so far to share the file. People will no doubt read into that whatever they like, we'll see but I take from it that he is extremely busy. But has said that he also tried it in Iridient (with which I am not familiar) and got the same results and that he is going to show it to the Raw Digger folks to get their opinion.
He is a very critical reviewer and I am fully aware that some people don't like his style or trust his underlying motives but I still think there's a very good chance that he is right about this.
V
Vivek
Guest
Tim, No idea what RAWdigger can do? if I have a problem like that I would ask Sony instead.
You did not see any posterisations with your camera so far. No one participating here have either
i do not give much credence to rockewell, etc folks. I have no problems in their making a business out of this since evidently there are people who are in need of spending their cash on such.
You did not see any posterisations with your camera so far. No one participating here have either
i do not give much credence to rockewell, etc folks. I have no problems in their making a business out of this since evidently there are people who are in need of spending their cash on such.
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
Thanks Tim.
IIRC he was right about the problem with the Leica Q, no?
I am glad that he used Iridient. I think it does excellent raw conversion. Easy to use as well.
Amin
Active member
Is your standard recipe in LR still the same as what you posted in that other thread? If so, when I get home I'll apply those, do my best to match up in C1, and post some crops. I'm confident that C1 can match the apparent detail minus the orange peel.
I see that you and Lloyd use just about the same ACR sharpening settings (which are pretty aggressive, compared with the defaults and even the Landscape preset). You may call it more detailed (which it is) but it also seems to be surreal, on screen at least; you're eye never sees that detail in reality and so pictures quickly start to look a bit fake. But perhaps the result prints well.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Sony format used to be uncompressed, they added a compressed format, that nobody complained about, so they too the uncompressed one away (over a number of years / iterations). If this is true, it just goes to show that you just can't please all of the people...
tashley
Subscriber Member
My standard settings for capture sharpening are obviously a starting point only because each file then needs different tweaking according to ISO, exposure, emphasis of subject, etc etc. But I default to 60/0.7/70/20 and clarity at 10 with no luminance NR for a lower ISO file from a camera with no AA filter, or for a smaller sensored camera that can't take much more than that. For a full frame sensor with an AA sensor I'll go to about 80 for the first number. I used to use Photokit for output sharpening but now I use the built in print sharpening in LR for prints.
Those settings may look aggressive but they give great prints and with a camera with resilient files, they are just fine - either on a retina screen, a regular screen at 50% or in a print.
For the RII I have been tweaking it a lot and have gone to 60/0.7/87/20 for sharpening and for Luminance NR, 33/71/0 BUT that is a work in progress. It gets a file very close to the look of a D810 file but with a touch less detail, however it kills the peel. But as far as I am concerned, changing profile (Adobe versus Camera, Landscape versus whatever) doesn't change sharpening but merely accutance.
Those settings may look aggressive but they give great prints and with a camera with resilient files, they are just fine - either on a retina screen, a regular screen at 50% or in a print.
For the RII I have been tweaking it a lot and have gone to 60/0.7/87/20 for sharpening and for Luminance NR, 33/71/0 BUT that is a work in progress. It gets a file very close to the look of a D810 file but with a touch less detail, however it kills the peel. But as far as I am concerned, changing profile (Adobe versus Camera, Landscape versus whatever) doesn't change sharpening but merely accutance.
tashley
Subscriber Member
Regarding Lloyd and sharing the file, I totally understand why he may be loath to do so. As an ex-reviewer (thankfully) myself, I know what madness that can lead to. People with poorly calibrated monitors with restricted gamut and untrained eyes will be applying all sorts of home brew recipes to it within seconds and he'll have more incoming than a star wars movie. I can see the argument for sharing, too, but if it were me I would only do so privately with trusted individuals.
Amin
Active member
There's no way a poorly calibrated monitor or restricted gamut is going to fix the posterization he is showing. If anything, they would make it worse. I'm not going to assume he's keeping the RAW from folks just to continue getting clicks. I give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he's worried about bandwidth or just can't be bothered. But unless he shares it, I consider his findings to lack credibility.
- - - Updated - - -
Perhaps. But if we can't even produce it from his raw file, then there would be no reason to try and reproduce it with our own.
I suspect most would be satisfied if he were to share the file with you Tim and you would take it from there and confirm or not.
I know I would.
Cheers, Monty
V
Vivek
Guest
:lol:
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I'll share whatever I shoot doing test work. I shot a high ISO . Steady shot on/ off on tripod to see if it has any effect at all. I tested Batis 25,85 and zeiss 35 1.4. Corner and center sharpness tests and a few other things. I'll put them all up for download . I have nothing to hide and nothing to gain either way. I don't get one cent for what I post.
In this case I smell a bad fish. Can't prove it don't ****ing post it. Pardon my French. I'm sickened by this crap I'm seeing. Bias will get you in the toilet. I'm not throwing anyone the TP .
Yea I copped a attitude today. Back to shooting
In this case I smell a bad fish. Can't prove it don't ****ing post it. Pardon my French. I'm sickened by this crap I'm seeing. Bias will get you in the toilet. I'm not throwing anyone the TP .
Yea I copped a attitude today. Back to shooting