Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 46 of 46

Thread: Sony Colors

  1. #1
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Sony Colors

    Generally matches my opinion that they produce the most accurate colors I’ve seen straight out of the camera but that doesn’t make them the most aesthetically pleasing for everyone necessarily. Well I guess someone actually did the testing now to essentially co-sign what I’ve long said.

    https://www.pdnonline.com/gear/camer...uction-ranked/
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #2
    Vivek
    Guest

    Re: Sony Colors

    I hope that opinion is recent because they do keep changing/tweaking the Bayer dyes on their sensors. It isn’t constant but always evolving as it should be.

  3. #3
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Masías (Spain)
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    A somewhat opposite opinion published a few days ago in Petapixel...

    Is Sony’s Color Science Really That Bad?

  4. #4
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    Quote Originally Posted by RodolfoCC View Post
    A somewhat opposite opinion published a few days ago in Petapixel...

    Is Sony’s Color Science Really That Bad?
    I find it ironic that I found most of the Sony images to be more neutral and “accurate” (or realistic for probably a better term) even in the presented comparisons. The Canon looks like the red channel is boosted in nearly every image with a person in there. Some of it may be subjective to what a person likes and also subjective to the skin tone of the person within images. Also almost every picture looks grossly underexposed.

    Our eyes/brains tend to do a funny thing and compensate for information that may not actually be seen. There’s plenty of research on this phenomena.

    Picture taking ability of the photographer aside, some people actually have yellow/olive undertones (versus red ones) and I find that Sony brings them out (maybe more than some people want) but I agree that there are many variables in comparing cameras from lenses, lens coatings, RAW converter choices and their individual profiles, and whether a person chooses to custom white balance. For portraits - I ALWAYS custom white balance in camera (or by taking a picture with the subject holding a color checker to white balance from) and go from there. So maybe the way I shoot yields results I’m satisfied with more than relying on the camera to decide in AWB.
    Last edited by iiiNelson; 14th October 2018 at 07:51.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    I hope that opinion is recent because they do keep changing/tweaking the Bayer dyes on their sensors. It isn’t constant but always evolving as it should be.
    Well I’ve had the opinion that Sony colors were aesthetically pleasing since the A900 days (before I owned anything Sony that wasn’t a TV, PlayStation, or Walkman) when people liked the color to the A77 days as well... but I think somewhere in between the NEX-6 and the A7 Sony went for more accurate color above aesthetically pleasing. I don’t think this was a mistake but I do believe accuracy led to FUD that the color science is bad... I think it’s accurate but it’s like the old FUD of TV adding 10 lbs when in reality people can finally see what they actually look like.
    Last edited by iiiNelson; 14th October 2018 at 07:41.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  6. #6
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Masías (Spain)
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    As a colour-blind person myself, accuracy is important to me: at least it gives me a reference point. My main worry is getting images with 'weird' casts, and real colours rarely give them. Nevertheless, the importance of lenses on colour rendering of final images has always been very visible even for me and my handicapped vision. I don't think it can be taken out of the equation.

  7. #7
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    Quote Originally Posted by RodolfoCC View Post
    As a colour-blind person myself, accuracy is important to me: at least it gives me a reference point. My main worry is getting images with 'weird' casts, and real colours rarely give them. Nevertheless, the importance of lenses on colour rendering of final images has always been very visible even for me and my handicapped vision. I don't think it can be taken out of the equation.
    I largely agree Lens coatings have an effect on the base image but that’s also why I think white balancing is extremely important even when shooting RAW. All too often I hear photographers say it doesn’t matter but when shooting RAW but I’m still of the opinion to get as much right (to desired look) in camera when possible.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #8
    Vivek
    Guest

    Re: Sony Colors

    It was rumored that gen III had a change of Bayer dyes (“color chemistry”).

    Also, with the BSI sensors there more major differences.

  9. #9
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    It was rumored that gen III had a change of Bayer dyes (“color chemistry”).

    Also, with the BSI sensors there more major differences.
    Possibly but I think there are two distinct competing ideas here. Color reproduction accuracy versus color science which tends to be more rooted in producing a desired look in the end product. One of the “good standards” of color science, Fuji, tends to have boosted greens and blue/cyan bleeding through both the green and blue channels to give more of that filmic cyan look in the skies... they also boost orange into the tones typically associated within skin tones to give that finished filmic look as well. It’s not accurate but it’s definitely pleasing for a wide range of skin tones. Sony files tend to be more accurate and neutral but that requires more work (or custom profiling) to get to a more stylistic look IMO which is where the whole “bad color science” ideas come from. I haven’t seen a great deal of difference in the color reproduction from generation 3 FE bodies but I do know they have wider dynamic ranges - which ironically tend to give a worse perceived “color science” generally speaking but a greater accuracy of color reproduction if you will.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  10. #10
    Vivek
    Guest

    Re: Sony Colors

    I was saying that there is no constant within Sony products. You can see a clear difference between the RX1and the RX1R II.

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    I was saying that there is no constant within Sony products. You can see a clear difference between the RX1and the RX1R II.
    I don’t own either so I can’t say. Apparently there’s differences in all cameras judging from thebreproduction results.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  12. #12
    Senior Member seb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    19

    Re: Sony Colors

    The comparison is not very sophisticated. It's like looking after the hairstyle of 100-m runners and saying who will win the race. Although the shape may have an influence on the time none of the runners had cut their hair because of that.

    Two things:

    OOC-JPGs:
    Each camera set a certain style into the JPGs. The reason behind is quite simple. If the jpg would be colour-accurate no one would ever use it and it would be only usable with perfect light conditions. Therefore they have to process it in a certain way that buyers see as pleasing. Currently, it's a contrasty and high vibrancy look with a small green hue range. Brights getting pushed but also compressed on the top. This may change over time. For example the OOC-colour complainings about the II-series (greenish tone) went into the a9/a7III/a7RIII.

    Accuracy:
    There is a generalised understanding of a dE value greater than 1 the difference is getting visible. Below it's not. If we look at the values on these comparisons it's obvious none of the brands had accuracy in mind when they programmed the algorithms for the OOC-JPGs.

    The first question here is what would be possible?
    I spent hours and money in the last years to get an answer to that question: Let's assume my setup for profiling my camera (a7RII) was perfect then my best approach to get an "accurate" profile was with an average dE of 0.8 and a max of 3.6. This with a combination of two targets with very different (and many) colour patches. Here is a "similar to the article"-visualisation of one of the used targets (the point in the center is the reference, the rest of the patch shows how my profile render it). It's the accurate profile with a slight push of the darks. I'm too lazy to look after the fully correct one atm.

    Name:  1495657.jpg
Views: 496
Size:  284.8 KB

    How practicable is an "accurate" profile?
    Well, I never use it. The reason is behind the RAW data. Light (colour, dynamic range, haze, ...), hardware (esp. sensor), software (in camera but also raw-processor) are in a play all together. There are some limitations due to the used hard- and software but the biggest issue here is that the result looks not how my imagination sees it when I press the shutter. And creating my look with the adjustments of the raw-processor is just a lot of work. Well at least with an "accurate" profile. It's the reason why I started to tweak the profile in a certain way. And yes in general, my changes goes to more contrast and pushed brights that are compressed on top. Especially the compressing of the brights is a very important step because differences of dynamic range and saturated colors needs very different adjustments. It's much easier if you just compress them. It's something you can see in the profiles of LR and C1 as well (unless you use a "linear scientific" curve with a "accurate" profile in C1).
    Don't ask me about the dE of my tweaked profiles. I don't care because the "accurate" profile may be a good start for creating a profile but the adjustments give the profile it's useability and a certain style. Like it is with the OOC-JPGs...
    Last edited by seb; 15th October 2018 at 01:18.
    Flickr
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  13. #13
    Senior Member seb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    19

    Re: Sony Colors

    The article may be about colours but has nothing to do with science. And instead of blaming Sony they should point at Adobe and X-Rite and their profiling/processing algorithms.
    Therefore the title is very very misleading. And the article itself shows clearly that the writer may be a good journalist but not much into colour science (but indirectly he claims to be).

    If you are interested in communication science: It's a good example, why framing helps to understand topics and narration helps to get the attention of the recipients but the mediated knowledge is counterproductive.

    Quote Originally Posted by RodolfoCC View Post
    A somewhat opposite opinion published a few days ago in Petapixel...

    Is Sony’s Color Science Really That Bad?
    Last edited by seb; 15th October 2018 at 03:22.
    Flickr
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  14. #14
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    Quote Originally Posted by seb View Post
    The comparison is not very sophisticated. It's like looking after the hairstyle of 100-m runners and saying who will win the race. Although the shape may have an influence on the time none of the runners had cut their hair because of that.

    Two things:

    OOC-JPGs:
    Each camera set a certain style into the JPGs. The reason behind is quite simple. If the jpg would be colour-accurate no one would ever use it and it would be only usable with perfect light conditions. Therefore they have to process it in a certain way that buyers see as pleasing. Currently, it's a contrasty and high vibrancy look with a small green hue range. Brights getting pushed but also compressed on the top. This may change over time. For example the OOC-colour complainings about the II-series (greenish tone) went into the a9/a7III/a7RIII.

    Accuracy:
    There is a generalised understanding of a dE value greater than 1 the difference is getting visible. Below it's not. If we look at the values on these comparisons it's obvious none of the brands had accuracy in mind when they programmed the algorithms for the OOC-JPGs.

    The first question here is what would be possible?
    I spent hours and money in the last years to get an answer to that question: Let's assume my setup for profiling my camera (a7RII) was perfect then my best approach to get an "accurate" profile was with an average dE of 0.8 and a max of 3.6. This with a combination of two targets with very different (and many) colour patches. Here is a "similar to the article"-visualisation of one of the used targets (the point in the center is the reference, the rest of the patch shows how my profile render it). It's the accurate profile with a slight push of the darks. I'm too lazy to look after the fully correct one atm.

    Name:  1495657.jpg
Views: 496
Size:  284.8 KB

    How practicable is an "accurate" profile?
    Well, I never use it. The reason is behind the RAW data. Light (colour, dynamic range, haze, ...), hardware (esp. sensor), software (in camera but also raw-processor) are in a play all together. There are some limitations due to the used hard- and software but the biggest issue here is that the result looks not how my imagination sees it when I press the shutter. And creating my look with the adjustments of the raw-processor is just a lot of work. Well at least with an "accurate" profile. It's the reason why I started to tweak the profile in a certain way. And yes in general, my changes goes to more contrast and pushed brights that are compressed on top. Especially the compressing of the brights is a very important step because differences of dynamic range and saturated colors needs very different adjustments. It's much easier if you just compress them. It's something you can see in the profiles of LR and C1 as well (unless you use a "linear scientific" curve with a "accurate" profile in C1).
    Don't ask me about the dE of my tweaked profiles. I don't care because the "accurate" profile may be a good start for creating a profile but the adjustments give the profile it's useability and a certain style. Like it is with the OOC-JPGs...
    I believe we are actually saying the same things. Accuracy doesn’t equal aesthetically pleasing but rather just accuracy. Yes it’s a factor and it’ll make more of a difference with those that are concerned with a baseline color accuracy before applying their own look and profiles.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  15. #15
    Senior Member seb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    19

    Re: Sony Colors

    Quote Originally Posted by iiiNelson View Post
    I believe we are actually saying the same things. Accuracy doesn’t equal aesthetically pleasing but rather just accuracy. Yes it’s a factor and it’ll make more of a difference with those that are concerned with a baseline color accuracy before applying their own look and profiles.
    Exactly. It was your post that inspired me to add my findings to your conclusion.

  16. #16
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    Quote Originally Posted by seb View Post
    Exactly. It was your post that inspired me to add my findings to your conclusion.
    I have a GIS Analysis background that I did for the better part of my adult life until moving more into the management side of things. As such we had to keep color accurate workstations that we used for certain types of multispectral and htperspectral analysis where color accuracy was paramount. As such I’ve always been super sensitive to color accuracy for photo work but you’d be surprise how many people don’t calibrate their monitors regularly and/or white balance their cameras. In my experience this solves a lot of issues before they’re issues.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  17. #17
    Senior Member seb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    19

    Re: Sony Colors

    My background and daily business is communication science. A few years ago I was responsible for a colour managed workflow of a company for a while but colour science or colour accuracy is a completely different thing. It's at least my learning since I'm more into it with photography. I'm still in the very basics and I would love to have a background like you in that case.

    Quote Originally Posted by iiiNelson View Post
    I have a GIS Analysis background that I did for the better part of my adult life until moving more into the management side of things. As such we had to keep color accurate workstations that we used for certain types of multispectral and hyperspectral analysis where color accuracy was paramount. As such I’ve always been super sensitive to color accuracy for photo work but you’d be surprise how many people don’t calibrate their monitors regularly and/or white balance their cameras. In my experience this solves a lot of issues before they’re issues.
    Flickr
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    Quote Originally Posted by seb View Post
    My background and daily business is communication science. A few years ago I was responsible for a colour managed workflow of a company for a while but colour science or colour accuracy is a completely different thing. It's at least my learning since I'm more into it with photography. I'm still in the very basics and I would love to have a background like you in that case.
    I agree and also learning how it’s best to shoot a camera is another factor. I know a lot of Canon people live and die by ETTR where I found shooting with the M9 (and subsequently the Sony’s) that underexposing a bit to protect highlights and recovering shadows works best within reasons (for instance not having to recover more that 2 or 3 stops though stress testing says recovering 4-5 can be doable at times). Outside that I tend to use OCF for subjects if I need to underexpose to illuminate a subject for say a portrait.

    Cool. I’m back in school now working to get my MBA and to move deeper into the executive management realm from the mid-management space. I’ll always love the GIS world (especially when helping with crisis management relief efforts like I did with the Haiti Earthquake in 2010, the Fukushima Disaster in 2011, and various other contingencies around the world) but my newest imminent/long term goal is to get more into the executive marketing and strategic vision spaces.

    Photography is primarily a hobby that is providing a little extra side income to pay for my gear purchases and a few bills. At times I consider just going all innon it but money tends to complicate passions IMO. I’m trying to keep it as “pure” as possible while allowing the occasional side job to feed the passion to simultaneously pay for itself.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Marseille, FRANCE
    Posts
    1,015
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    No leaf, no phase one, no Fuji GFX...

    Quote Originally Posted by iiiNelson View Post
    Generally matches my opinion that they produce the most accurate colors I’ve seen straight out of the camera but that doesn’t make them the most aesthetically pleasing for everyone necessarily. Well I guess someone actually did the testing now to essentially co-sign what I’ve long said.

    https://www.pdnonline.com/gear/camer...uction-ranked/

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    Quote Originally Posted by archivue View Post
    No leaf, no phase one, no Fuji GFX...
    Well to answer the question I was speaking more in reference to small format systems.

    I’d say this. I love the Fuji colors, especially those from the GFX, but I wouldn’t call them super accurate. They’re stylistic and aesthetically pleasing. I love the classic Leaf color and hands down it produces the best out of camera skin tones (no matter the skin tone of a person)I’ve seen from any camera that I’ve demoed but I believe they call it a “Leaf look” for a reason. To me Leaf Cameras were the medium format equivalent of “the look” we got from the Leica M9 (which I still think produces the best portraits from any small format camera I ever used). Maybe that’s a matter of the look being derived from trying to recreate the look of Kodak Color Science in an attempt to give a “Kodachrome” like look. Phase One colors are easily the most accurate from all the cameras you just mentioned and probably the most neutral of the three you mentioned but I think they have the same “issue” (if you will) as Sony when compared to other medium format systems. They’re extremely accurate colors but they’re not the most aesthetically pleasing before tweaking or pushing through a Capture One to add the secret sauce - which is why I believe Phase One spends so much time to profile the cameras through Capture One. Capture One adds a Leaf profile still for a reason IMO. Capture One and Phase Backs play hand in hand (and I’m not saying this is a bad thing at all because Capture One does it’s magic with Sony files as well compared to Adobe) and people should think of a camera/RAW converter as a system.

    ...and I’d add that I find Hasselblad to be somewhere between Leaf and Phase One which is to say it may have the best balance but I don’t like the odd shaped bokeh of the 5 bladed leaf shutters... it’s a little unsettling for me personally but the colors are very pleasing without a doubt.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  21. #21
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    ... and with all that said we are all free to agree to disagree. I just am losing the energy or the will to continually validate what I’ve observed for myself (and IMO that seemingly is being verified through independent testing) objectively when I was looking to move to other systems. When I was preparing to move to Fuji (XH1/GFX combo) earlier this year it specifically was due to the color science which could get me to an “acceptably finished product” faster than Sony... it wasn’t due to color accuracy.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  22. #22
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    4,498
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    Interesting thread. Thanks.
    With best regards, K-H.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  23. #23
    Senior Member JoelM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    San Diego, CA USA
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    Who cares about accurate colors? This isn't film. We have a choice in post production to tweak to what we prefer. I want it close to what I perceive as pleasing. I haven't really come across a camera that was crap, except some in the "early" days when it came to skin tones. Hell, we don't even all experience blue the same way because what we see is more than physical. If you're using a color checker, then I think you lost the point.

    My 2 cents,

    Joel

  24. #24
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    pegelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    3,267
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    Interesting thread, thanks for starting it

    There was an article on Luminous Landscape a few years ago in which a shot was brought as close to fully accurate as possible by a profile that perfectly matched all colours on a Gretag-McBeth colour checker (including all the grey patches).

    It looked very dull and washed out. If I remember correctly the skin tone of the person in the shot seemed to represent someone who had just thrown up

    Point was that accurate colour is an interesting exercise, but for a pleasing picture a lot more processing is needed.

    So I think this is in agreement what most people in this thread are saying.
    My Pics
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  25. #25
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    Quote Originally Posted by JoelM View Post
    Who cares about accurate colors? This isn't film. We have a choice in post production to tweak to what we prefer. I want it close to what I perceive as pleasing. I haven't really come across a camera that was crap, except some in the "early" days when it came to skin tones. Hell, we don't even all experience blue the same way because what we see is more than physical. If you're using a color checker, then I think you lost the point.

    My 2 cents,

    Joel
    Color checkers are for the camera to reproduce the conditions based on reflected light. AWB systems of any manufacturer can be “tricked” to give a different value based on a variety of factors... what color checkers provide are a constant and consistent standard “baseline” if you will.

    Color reproduction accuracy is mostly important for consistency to some (assuming a person gets as much “right” in camera). I’d agree that it’s not the end all and be all for final output as many of us have stated.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    643
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony Colors

    What about the "creative style" settings? On my camera, it allows to change the colours to look different.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  27. #27
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    Quote Originally Posted by jerome_m View Post
    What about the "creative style" settings? On my camera, it allows to change the colours to look different.
    Yeah there’s both the creative styles and the picture profiles to switch the looks and colors. I think they were testing the standard base settings but I’m unsure. I generally stick with standard profile and white balance or S-LOG/ Cine 3 or 4.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    643
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony Colors

    Quote Originally Posted by iiiNelson View Post
    Yeah there’s both the creative styles and the picture profiles to switch the looks and colors. I think they were testing the standard base settings but I’m unsure. I generally stick with standard profile and white balance or S-LOG/ Cine 3 or 4.
    But then, wouldn't it be more reasonable to compare the various "creative styles" between manufacturers? For example, if one is interested in skin colour, to compare the portrait modes of Canon, Nikon, Sony?

  29. #29
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    Quote Originally Posted by jerome_m View Post
    But then, wouldn't it be more reasonable to compare the various "creative styles" between manufacturers? For example, if one is interested in skin colour, to compare the portrait modes of Canon, Nikon, Sony?
    Probably not. All cameras don’t have the same creative style even amongst the same brand. Creative styles generally aren’t for the manufacturers most accurate color either. I think Fuji is the only one that uses film stock/creative styles as a base look with their Provia profile but everyone else tends to just have a standard profile as base.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  30. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Sony Colors

    For fun I took some comparison pics yesterday with an X-Pro 2 and an RX1 RII. I'll add a couple to this thread, though there's nothing particularly scientific about the comparison.
    There are definitely some differences, but to me they aren't that far off:

    Sony


    Fuji


    Sony


    Fuji
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  31. #31
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    Yeah they look somewhat similar with the Fuji having increased saturation.
    Last edited by iiiNelson; 22nd October 2018 at 17:05.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  32. #32
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    4,498
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    Quote Originally Posted by iiiNelson View Post
    Yah they look somewhat similar with the Fuji having increased saturation.
    The Sony colors look better, more natural to me.
    With best regards, K-H.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  33. #33
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    Quote Originally Posted by k-hawinkler View Post
    The Sony colors look better, more natural to me.
    Me too in this particular example. The sky, the foliage, and the dirt look more natural IMO. Looks like the red channel is beginning to bleed into the yellow channel in the dirt and looks like cyan is beginning to bleed just a bit into the blue channel within the sky on the Fuji shots. The color on either is still pleasing but the Sony seems a bit more accurate.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  34. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Sony Colors

    These were processed, the Fuji probably a bit more than the Sony.
    Out of the camera the Fuji raws were, as mentioned above, more saturated, also a bit warmer with a slight reddish tint vs. the Sony. Or one could say the Sonys were slightly lass saturated or flatter, with a cooler, yellowish/greenish tint compared to the Fujis. The Sonys are probably more 'accurate'.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  35. #35
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    4,498
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    Quote Originally Posted by tofa View Post
    These were processed, the Fuji probably a bit more than the Sony.
    Out of the camera the Fuji raws were, as mentioned above, more saturated, also a bit warmer with a slight reddish tint vs. the Sony. Or one could say the Sonys were slightly lass saturated or flatter, with a cooler, yellowish/greenish tint compared to the Fujis. The Sonys are probably more 'accurate'.
    With best regards, K-H.

  36. #36
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Knorp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,650
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    Quote Originally Posted by k-hawinkler View Post
    The Sony colors look better, more natural to me.
    +1 the Sony colours (as shown here) are absolutely better and IMO more accurate.
    Bart ...
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  37. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Sony Colors

    Okay, last comparisons, I promise. I did these because I'm getting ready for a big sell-off - Fuji bodies and lenses, Sigma, Nikon, Pentax, accessories, etc., maybe Sony . . . Wanted to see the actual difference in IQ between RX2 and XP2 with a decent lens (23/2 in this case, to match the RX2 as closely as possible; don't have the 23 1.4). Trying to decide what to sell, what (if anything) to keep. The more I sell, the more $ I'll have to upgrade . . . One reason for the tests is that the XP2 is such a joy to shoot - I'd forgotten about that in the last year or two I've been with the RX2.

    On these two images I tried to match the colors more closely. What I'm really interested in is the quality of the image: the roundness, detail, three-dimensionality (not as in-focus/out of focus, but in the look itself: how do the twigs look, the leaves, the near objects vs the far, etc.). Obviously the RX2 has more resolution, but I make more books and calendars than 30x20 prints, so how is the look itself? Is the XP2 too much of a sketch camera compared to the RX2 (or to an A7rIII if if I go that route)?

    Anyway, one thing I'm noticing in these, especially the first one, is the DoF. The conventional wisdom is that APSC gives about a step more DoF, so I shot the Fuji at 5.6 and the Sony at 8 - figured that would give about the same DoF. Check the trees and power tower in the 1st pic - this is clearly not the case. The Fuji has much narrower DoF then the Sony. Another truism bites the dust for me.

    Sony


    Fuji


    Sony


    Fuji

  38. #38
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,729
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: Sony Colors

    Funny thread tbh.

  39. #39
    Senior Member seb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    19

    Re: Sony Colors

    tofa, to your DOF-issue:
    Is the Fuji really 23mm and the sony 35? Where was the focus point?
    And it looks like a good mixture of field curve, resolution, sharpness (to the corners) on top.

    Back to the colours. Just to bring it in again: If you use RAW files a colour comparison like this or the others within this thread are only about the profile. It has nothing to do with the capability of the camera to measure light nor is it a choice of Sony how the colours look like.

    There may be two exceptions:
    • The photosites on the sensor can't measure a certain spectrum. Sensors are not perfect to measure visible light (in numbers it's the sensitivity metamerism index). The SMI does not tell you where the sensitivity is not perfect but how good it is in general. Within profiling, it's possible to check the "where" while you look at how good the sensor measure certain colours in comparison to others. I think we would know from somewhere if there is a visible issue with one or another camera.
    • Adobe measure colours in OOC-JPGs to create their default profiles for each camera. This is a possible solution to get the brand-look into their default LR-profiles. But as we can create and use own profiles this exception can be negated too.


    Therefore IF you sell your gear because of the colours it's simply the wrong solution to solve your problem.

    For a good friend, I made recently a summary of colours and dependencies around the processing of RAW. It's very basic and it's rather a summary to get deeper into certain things within a discussion. But maybe one or another is interested in it too.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	all around processing RAW.jpg 
Views:	27 
Size:	610.0 KB 
ID:	136924
    Flickr
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  40. #40
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    Quote Originally Posted by tofa View Post
    Okay, last comparisons, I promise. I did these because I'm getting ready for a big sell-off - Fuji bodies and lenses, Sigma, Nikon, Pentax, accessories, etc., maybe Sony . . . Wanted to see the actual difference in IQ between RX2 and XP2 with a decent lens (23/2 in this case, to match the RX2 as closely as possible; don't have the 23 1.4). Trying to decide what to sell, what (if anything) to keep. The more I sell, the more $ I'll have to upgrade . . . One reason for the tests is that the XP2 is such a joy to shoot - I'd forgotten about that in the last year or two I've been with the RX2.

    On these two images I tried to match the colors more closely. What I'm really interested in is the quality of the image: the roundness, detail, three-dimensionality (not as in-focus/out of focus, but in the look itself: how do the twigs look, the leaves, the near objects vs the far, etc.). Obviously the RX2 has more resolution, but I make more books and calendars than 30x20 prints, so how is the look itself? Is the XP2 too much of a sketch camera compared to the RX2 (or to an A7rIII if if I go that route)?

    Anyway, one thing I'm noticing in these, especially the first one, is the DoF. The conventional wisdom is that APSC gives about a step more DoF, so I shot the Fuji at 5.6 and the Sony at 8 - figured that would give about the same DoF. Check the trees and power tower in the 1st pic - this is clearly not the case. The Fuji has much narrower DoF then the Sony. Another truism bites the dust for me.

    Sony


    Fuji


    Sony


    Fuji
    FOV looks different on both pictures but is more obvious on the top set where the Fuji looks wider. I think there’s a case to be made for either. You’ll have more detail with the Sony and more flexibility with the Fuji. If it were me I’d go for flexibility. The Fuji colors have a good reputation for a reason and you could make either camera work for you.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  41. #41
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    6
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    Quote Originally Posted by seb View Post
    The comparison is not very sophisticated. It's like looking after the hairstyle of 100-m runners and saying who will win the race. Although the shape may have an influence on the time none of the runners had cut their hair because of that.

    Two things:

    OOC-JPGs:
    Each camera set a certain style into the JPGs. The reason behind is quite simple. If the jpg would be colour-accurate no one would ever use it and it would be only usable with perfect light conditions. Therefore they have to process it in a certain way that buyers see as pleasing. Currently, it's a contrasty and high vibrancy look with a small green hue range. Brights getting pushed but also compressed on the top. This may change over time. For example the OOC-colour complainings about the II-series (greenish tone) went into the a9/a7III/a7RIII.

    Accuracy:
    There is a generalised understanding of a dE value greater than 1 the difference is getting visible. Below it's not. If we look at the values on these comparisons it's obvious none of the brands had accuracy in mind when they programmed the algorithms for the OOC-JPGs.

    The first question here is what would be possible?
    I spent hours and money in the last years to get an answer to that question: Let's assume my setup for profiling my camera (a7RII) was perfect then my best approach to get an "accurate" profile was with an average dE of 0.8 and a max of 3.6. This with a combination of two targets with very different (and many) colour patches. Here is a "similar to the article"-visualisation of one of the used targets (the point in the center is the reference, the rest of the patch shows how my profile render it). It's the accurate profile with a slight push of the darks. I'm too lazy to look after the fully correct one atm.

    Name:  1495657.jpg
Views: 496
Size:  284.8 KB

    How practicable is an "accurate" profile?
    Well, I never use it. The reason is behind the RAW data. Light (colour, dynamic range, haze, ...), hardware (esp. sensor), software (in camera but also raw-processor) are in a play all together. There are some limitations due to the used hard- and software but the biggest issue here is that the result looks not how my imagination sees it when I press the shutter. And creating my look with the adjustments of the raw-processor is just a lot of work. Well at least with an "accurate" profile. It's the reason why I started to tweak the profile in a certain way. And yes in general, my changes goes to more contrast and pushed brights that are compressed on top. Especially the compressing of the brights is a very important step because differences of dynamic range and saturated colors needs very different adjustments. It's much easier if you just compress them. It's something you can see in the profiles of LR and C1 as well (unless you use a "linear scientific" curve with a "accurate" profile in C1).
    Don't ask me about the dE of my tweaked profiles. I don't care because the "accurate" profile may be a good start for creating a profile but the adjustments give the profile it's useability and a certain style. Like it is with the OOC-JPGs...
    So true, so true "The reason is behind the RAW data. Light (colour, dynamic range, haze, ...), hardware (esp. sensor[i'll include lenses here too]), software (in camera but also raw-processor) are in a play all together."

    I actually appreciated the referenced post. Any little bit of information to help educate the vast majority of forum photogpraphers understand even the minimal basics that are involved in colour reproduction and final output is a good thing. Based upon the many opinions I read among so many forum photographers, most have no idea the intentional and unintentional ways colour is manipulated long before the image data is uploaded to an app or even displayed on some device. How many times have I read comments stating this camera produces better color than that camera or "C1" produces better color than LR. I just shake my head.
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  42. #42
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    Interesting take... and one I largely agree with in realistic practical ideology. Above all I really liked that he worked with 3 models of different skin tone and texture and really showed the effect it can have on perception of a cameras capability to produce the image you’re after in final output.

    https://youtu.be/yMjb7sMiAsg
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  43. #43
    Senior Member seb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    19

    Re: Sony Colors

    Quote Originally Posted by iiiNelson View Post
    Interesting take... and one I largely agree with in realistic practical ideology. Above all I really liked that he worked with 3 models of different skin tone and texture and really showed the effect it can have on perception of a cameras capability to produce the image you’re after in final output.

    https://youtu.be/yMjb7sMiAsg
    Thanks for sharing. There is some interesting information in it and it looks like there are a few other videos in his channel I will have a watch.

  44. #44
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    Quote Originally Posted by seb View Post
    Thanks for sharing. There is some interesting information in it and it looks like there are a few other videos in his channel I will have a watch.
    I started watching his channel a few months back (ironically when I was looking to possibly switch from Sony to Fuji) he has a lot of good videos on how workflow and methods. I like channels like his though a lot of people lump all YouTube creators into their own group of people... often as a dig on them to prove their own elitism... but I digress there is a wealth of information (and disinformation) available there.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  45. #45
    Vivek
    Guest

    Re: Sony Colors

    Just came across this rant/review:

    https://kenrockwell.com/sony/rx1.htm

    A quote from above:

    I'm an artist. When I speak of color rendition, I'm speaking of how well the camera interprets reality, not laboratory accuracy. Lab accuracy isn't relevant to me — I just need the photos to look great! right out of the camera.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  46. #46
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Colors

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Just came across this rant/review:

    https://kenrockwell.com/sony/rx1.htm

    A quote from above:



    Ken Rockwell... forever the “beacon of reality.” That might have been the most contradictory thing I’ve read today but the day is still young. “He’s a colorist that wants colors done for him straight out of camera” none of the colorist I know care about much more than neutrality and files easy to work with to produce their own style... but to each their own.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •