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!

Comparing A7R2 compressed and uncompressed raw files

dmward

Member
I downloaded and updated the firmware in my A7R2 to version 2.0.
Sony, based on reading I've done on various fora apparently sacrifices some highlight granularity when doing raw file compression while protecting shadow granularity.

I want to have details in highlights, clouds for example, while also maintaining detail in shadows.

There have been observations by others that for "normal" shooting they don't see a difference. I decided to check for myself.

I selected a test scene that included clouds and foliage in deep shade. The scene was backlight by a mid-morning sun through thin scattered clouds.

Here's what I found:
The uncompressed detail is on the left, and compressed is on the right in all the comparisons

This first image was selected as proper exposure for the scene even though its -2EV from the 0 point on the meter. Its the best exposure for details in the clouds with highlight slider at -75, exposure 0, shadows +100 and no noise reduction.

HIGHLIGHTS-1.jpg

This comparison is the shadow area of the same images

SHADOWS-1.jpg

This comparison is the highlight area of an exposure that is pushed 3 EV with the exposure slider. Other settings are the same. Noise reduction is set to 50 for both luminance and color.

HIGHLIGHTS-2.jpg

This is the shadow area of the pushed image.

SHADOWS-2.jpg

To my eye looking at the 100% detail, the uncompressed file has more detail at both ends of the tonal curve. That's good news.
Its subtle, but there. And, less noise in the shadows in the pushed image.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Looks like we picked up more data which makes sense. Happy now for C1 Im not so happy. Where is my update
 

Jim DE

New member
Looks like we picked up more data which makes sense. Happy now for C1 Im not so happy. Where is my update
Be patient Guy it could be worse!!!! We could be stuck only with Adobe ..........

If that was my only option I would sell all my cameras and take up golf!!!!!!!
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Yup, C1 update, where are you? What takes you so long?

Iridient works just fine. It's cheap and easy to learn. :D
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
My guess tomorrow when the show actually opens in NY. My bet we will hear about lenses. I have my finger button on hold to see what lenses. I need longer than 85. I'm hoping
 

Jim DE

New member
Hey, they’re not mutually exclusive - when I’m not shooting I’m usually on a golf course playing. :)

When I'm not photographing something I am riding my motorcycle, busting clay birds, fly fishing the surf, or sitting in a tavern with friends eating wings and drinking beer during a Flyer's game. If I wanted to spend 5.5 hours in a state of aggravation I would just sit at home and talk with the wife (Or call Adobe Customer Service and talk to these non-english speaking bozo's) and save the green and cart fees..... ;)
 

dandrewk

New member
Be patient Guy it could be worse!!!! We could be stuck only with Adobe ..........

If that was my only option I would sell all my cameras and take up golf!!!!!!!
I know you've had issues with Adobe, but uncompressed RAW was supported from day one.
 

Jim DE

New member
I know you've had issues with Adobe, but uncompressed RAW was supported from day one.
Not on my stand alone LR6 ... Then I upgraded to 2.2 and Now it can't even see a jpg file..... I am sooo done and will uninstall this LR6 when I get some free time at home. I'll keep my stand alone CS6 till it no longer works and then I will uninstall it as well and be totally Adobe free for the rest of my life.

I don't use either of these enough to even make them worth the price or time to upgrade.... Plus I like the initial results better with all the other conversion softwares better anyway... I won't miss a thing uninstalling Adobe software


And as you know concerning me and this uncompressed option not being able to see it now or forever really would not bother me either ;)
 

dandrewk

New member
Not on my stand alone LR6 ... Then I upgraded to 2.2 and Now it can't even see a jpg file..... I am sooo done and will uninstall this LR6 when I get some free time at home. I'll keep my stand alone CS6 till it no longer works and then I will uninstall it as well and be totally Adobe free for the rest of my life.

I don't use either of these enough to even make them worth the price or time to upgrade.... Plus I like the initial results better with all the other conversion softwares better anyway... I won't miss a thing uninstalling Adobe software
Understood. FWIW, I have the stand alone LR6 as well, and haven't experienced any issues.

You might consider the free trial for DxO Optics Pro 10. IMHO, the best RAW processor, best noise reduction, and the interface is far more intuitive and less invasive than C1. It also has plugins for Adobe so images can flow back and forth without leaving the application.
 

Jim DE

New member
Understood. FWIW, I have the stand alone LR6 as well, and haven't experienced any issues.

You might consider the free trial for DxO Optics Pro 10. IMHO, the best RAW processor, best noise reduction, and the interface is far more intuitive and less invasive than C1. It also has plugins for Adobe so images can flow back and forth without leaving the application.


I have had DXO for quite awhile as well as a handful of other conversion softwares.... Aperture for me has always worked well and with Topaz plugins does everything I need. I do agree that DXO op has by far the best noise rediction software available and was used often by me when I shot that noise monster a77 above 400 ISO. This a7rII has fantastic high ISO performance which for me negates the need to ever use prime on its files.
 

dmward

Member
I am having trouble understanding why a thread that compares compressed to uncompressed Sony A7RII raw files has turned into yet another harangue against Adobe software.

There are several competent raw processing software options. None are perfect. Each has its attributes.

I use Lightroom because I started with it during version 1 and have developed a workflow that works for me and an understanding about how it works that makes processing images quick and repeatable for me.

I've used others, most notably Capture One several years ago with I was editing jobs with a colleague who had chosen C1 as his preferred processing software. Based on that experience I know it works. I never got comfortable with it and it never showed me capabilities that made me want to use it rather than Lightroom.

I have the version of Capture that is offered by Sony for the A7RII. I suppose I could convert the test images to DNG and do the same comparison using Capture 1.

It would take me quite a bit longer to accomplish because I have no idea what parameters to use.

And, when I finished the thread would probably be overwhelmed with posts telling me what I did wrong. :)
 

Jim DE

New member
My fault David... I apologize......... I just can't get my copy of Lightroom to open a uncompressed RAW file from my a7rII and refuse to ever deal with Adobe's Customer Service Dept again to get this issue fixed as I would rather trash the Software. Which I have just done a bit ago... I am LR free now and you will hear no more issues about it from me.

I do aplogize for taking your thread down a rabbit trail... I will bow out of this one until one of my other softwares are able to read one of these files
 
V

Vivek

Guest
David, My take from this thread is that there was nothing wrong with LR. The problems with Sony lossy compressions were wrongly blamed on LR (and briefly made a case for C1 as something magical).

Thanks for starting it and showing the examples. :)
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Well, I have used LR and PS quite a bit for DNG, NEF, ORF and ARW files.
When I first tried LR or C1 some time ago I didn't get along with either.
Then I tried again and have been comfortable with using both.

What finally let me to prefer C1 was that I could get better, more subtle results with it. It's just me. I am sure we now can benefit from 14 bit raw regardless of which editor we use.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
David, My take from this thread is that there was nothing wrong with LR. The problems with Sony lossy compressions were wrongly blamed on LR (and briefly made a case for C1 as something magical).

Thanks for starting it and showing the examples. :)
That's not exactly true. Orange peel effect was never in C1 and no one I saw took the effort to even try C1 on some of those star effect shots. There are others but I'm not going to even try to remember them. I said nothing wrong about LR in this thread all I said was I'm waiting on C1. It's my preferred software and my opinion is it's better as it always has been. I'm not here to prove it , convert anyone or even take the time to test it over and over again either. I've been using C1 for at least 10 years, maybe longer. If I need to I'll shot compressed until C1 is updated which should be tomorrow anyway. Photo plus actually starts tomorrow on the show floor. But besides all this crap which I consider over now I just want to hear what lenses Sony is coming out with. I have a open lens spot in my bag and I want to fill it. Lol

I'm a lens whore and I can't be going around with a open hole in my bag. It must be filled. :D
 
Top