Sony Lounge Thread MKIII (All Sony cameras welcome)

AlanU wrote in post #19004523
I uplifted shadows with little post processing with this Fuji image. The cartoon look will happen if you try to lift shadows. This also easily happens with Canon files......NOT Sony files. Bobby in the summer take photos with your A7r4 of a landscape/trees. You will see the realism in the image that would be difficult to achieve a canvas/artistic painting look.

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by AlanU originally in forum: Fuji Digital Cameras

With my Sony you would have difficulty getting this kind of painterly look. With sony being aggressive with "dehaze" in the opposite direction adding "haze" to get that softer look.

The Boat photos I went to the "-" on dehaze to try to soften the tack sharp image. If I just post processed with no dehaze the image would look real to life as if you were standing there with un edited eyes.

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by AlanU originally in forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by AlanU originally in forum: Changing Camera Brands

OK I zoomed into the trees and see what you mean. I have shot Fuji for 5 yrs and never ever have seen that look before in any of my files. Typically I haven't upped exposure more than 1 stop on any camera. But I can try and tell you it won't come as bad as you show. Maybe something wrong in your pp.

bobbyz wrote in post #19004570
OK I zoomed into the trees and see what you mean. I have shot Fuji for 5 yrs and never ever have seen that look before in any of my files. Typically I haven't upped exposure more than 1 stop on any camera. But I can try and tell you it won't come as bad as you show. Maybe something wrong in your pp.

No it's the hardware LOL!!!

Joking aside I increased the shadows to show detail with the Fuji files. If i'm less aggressive there would be less cartoon. If I'm shooting Sony I could ramp up the shadows 100% and it's very unlikely going to make the image into a canvas/cartoon.

If you analyze many Fuji images that "do not have detail in the shadows" they look realistic. Mountain sides that remain underexposed will have crushed blacks with no detail. If you uplift the shadows the photo will start to look cartoon. If you simply ramp up exposure and leave the shadow slider alone you will not get painterly look.

So yes, it's a fault of my post processing to an extent for touching the shadow slider in LR. Something the Sony RAW file cannot easily replicate when touching the shadow slider.

Similar lighting environments will have a different look from Fuji. This is why I no longer use Fuji. Post processing is based on how I feel or the way I want to present the image. I just like to open up the shadows.

I'm willing to try a large format GFX one day though.... that would be a nice experience for me.....

AlanU wrote in post #19004523
I uplifted shadows with little post processing with this Fuji image. The cartoon look will happen if you try to lift shadows. This also easily happens with Canon files......NOT Sony files. Bobby in the summer take photos with your A7r4 of a landscape/trees. You will see the realism in the image that would be difficult to achieve a canvas/artistic painting look.

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by AlanU originally in forum: Fuji Digital Cameras

With my Sony you would have difficulty getting this kind of painterly look. With sony being aggressive with "dehaze" in the opposite direction adding "haze" to get that softer look.

The Boat photos I went to the "-" on dehaze to try to soften the tack sharp image. If I just post processed with no dehaze the image would look real to life as if you were standing there with un edited eyes.

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by AlanU originally in forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by AlanU originally in forum: Changing Camera Brands

bobbyz wrote in post #19004570
OK I zoomed into the trees and see what you mean. I have shot Fuji for 5 yrs and never ever have seen that look before in any of my files. Typically I haven't upped exposure more than 1 stop on any camera. But I can try and tell you it won't come as bad as you show. Maybe something wrong in your pp.

AlanU wrote in post #19004578
No it's the hardware LOL!!!

Joking aside I increased the shadows to show detail with the Fuji files. If i'm less aggressive there would be less cartoon. If I'm shooting Sony I could ramp up the shadows 100% and it's very unlikely going to make the image into a canvas/cartoon.

If you analyze many Fuji images that "do not have detail in the shadows" they look realistic. Mountain sides that remain underexposed will have crushed blacks with no detail. If you uplift the shadows the photo will start to look cartoon. If you simply ramp up exposure and leave the shadow slider alone you will not get painterly look.

So yes, it's a fault of my post processing to an extent for touching the shadow slider in LR. Something the Sony RAW file cannot easily replicate when touching the shadow slider.

Similar lighting environments will have a different look from Fuji. This is why I no longer use Fuji. Post processing is based on how I feel or the way I want to present the image. I just like to open up the shadows.

I'm willing to try a large format GFX one day though.... that would be a nice experience for me.....

Hosted photo: posted by AlanU in
./showthread.php?p=190​04578&i=i18913398
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by AlanU in
./showthread.php?p=190​04578&i=i43243629
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Alan, would you be able to post your RAW images to either wetransfer.com or any other file sharing site such as dropbox or whatever. I used to have a Fuji XT-3 and never had and issue. I now have the Sony a7iii and I can crank up the exposure by a lot.
The images look kind of flat with not many values. Here is an explanation of values. Value is the degree of lightness and darkness in a color. The difference in values is called contrast. White is considered the lightest value whereas black is the darkest. The middle value between these extremes is middle grey. Which is also known as a half-tone, all of which can be found on a value scale.

I tend to think that part of it is he PP. Do you mind if I work a little on your files to see what's possible? perhaps others will chime in. Thanks.

DTBaan wrote in post #19004432
Interesting Omar, the a7s2 with the ibis isn't' being considered? I'm waiting to see what the a7r3 has to offer. I still remember the joke David A. made with these pictures, shot in the dark with shadows recovered lol

Nah as I don’t want to spend a lot for a second body and honestly the high ISO of the original A7S is more than enough to mitigate IBIS loss. Funny you mentioned David A as he had commented on my “High Iso” shot image below from 5 years ago on Flickr . Shot at a then impressive 12,800 iso straight raw to jpeg. Now that I look at it this still looks amazing. It’s the 12 mp on full frame. Just really love it lol

itsallart wrote in post #19004584
Alan, would you be able to post your RAW images to either wetransfer.com or any other file sharing site such as dropbox or whatever. I used to have a Fuji XT-3 and never had and issue. I now have the Sony a7iii and I can crank up the exposure by a lot.
The images look kind of flat with not many values. Here is an explanation of values. Value is the degree of lightness and darkness in a color. The difference in values is called contrast. White is considered the lightest value whereas black is the darkest. The middle value between these extremes is middle grey. Which is also known as a half-tone, all of which can be found on a value scale.

I tend to think that part of it is he PP. Do you mind if I work a little on your files to see what's possible? perhaps others will chime in. Thanks.

I've taken that photo quite a while ago with my X-t2 and I was rather disappointed in the brand new 50-140mm I purchased. I just do not have the urge or enthusiasm to dig up my old fuji raw files. I love the Fuji render in most cases but the Sony IQ, sensor performance and files really suites me a lot more. I have absolutely zero interest in video.

The Fuji system was great for my casual fun photography but it did not meet my needs for low light. My Canon and Sony gear works fantastic for me. No interest in Fuji at all as I'd only consider a GFX100 or whatever sony sensor they decide to throw in the GFX family. To be sensible I'd probably just get a sony a74 when it comes out or just buy the A9mk2.

The post processing of uplifting shadows is what causes the painterly look in the Fuji files. There are a lot of similar looking painterly look on the web when people try to get detail back from crushed blacks.

If the sony sensor in the x-t4 perform on par with the A73 .....I still wouldn't go back to Fuji. Sony lens lineup is just so ridiculously good now with so many fantastic 3rd party manufacturers.

The IQ from the 5dmk4 with 70-200 f/2.8IS mk2 or the A73 and Gmaster 70-200 left no room for my Fuji 50-140mm in the competitive IQ performers I already own. Only consideration for a 3rd system would be a GFX.

Photo from AlanU's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (947796)

AlanU wrote in post #19004647
I've taken that photo quite a while ago with my X-t2 and I was rather disappointed in the brand new 50-140mm I purchased. I just do not have the urge or enthusiasm to dig up my old fuji raw files. I love the Fuji render in most cases but the Sony IQ, sensor performance and files really suites me a lot more. I have absolutely zero interest in video.

The Fuji system was great for my casual fun photography but it did not meet my needs for low light. My Canon and Sony gear works fantastic for me. No interest in Fuji at all as I'd only consider a GFX100 or whatever sony sensor they decide to throw in the GFX family. To be sensible I'd probably just get a sony a74 when it comes out or just buy the A9mk2.

The post processing of uplifting shadows is what causes the painterly look in the Fuji files. There are a lot of similar looking painterly look on the web when people try to get detail back from crushed blacks.

If the sony sensor in the x-t4 perform on par with the A73 .....I still wouldn't go back to Fuji. Sony lens lineup is just so ridiculously good now with so many fantastic 3rd party manufacturers.

The IQ from the 5dmk4 with 70-200 f/2.8IS mk2 or the A73 and Gmaster 70-200 left no room for my Fuji 50-140mm in the competitive IQ performers I already own. Only consideration for a 3rd system would be a GFX.

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by AlanU originally in forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Alan, I totally understand your point. After shooting with the Canon 5d3 with a huge arsenal of L lenses, I got tired of their weight and switched to Fuji XT-3 for a week and quickly realized that it wasn't for me. Had a sweet agreement with a local camera store that I could return the Fiji at no loss and get the Sony A7iii. And I did and never looked back. Yes, it's not perfect but what camera is? I like the size and weight. I don't like the bugs that I see from time to time such as the nasty one today about not reading my Sony SD card. Had to take the battery out 5 times!!! Annoying. But overall I'm happy with the camera's performance and the lenses I have. It's sufficient for my needs.
I also understand the performance issues with your lens. I've had the same feelings but again. I'm happy with what I have and may get the G 70-200 one day but otherwise I just keep shooting and enjoying it. I'm semi retired and weight is an issue. You may be in a different situation.
Anyway, I wish you the best with whatever you choose.

vinmunoz wrote in post #19004543
adding 2 stops with A7RIII isn't a problem in low ISO such as 320 as far as i remember.


with the A7RIV zoom to 1/1, here's how it looks. is this normal because it's 1/1 with 61mp? uncompressed

Hosted photo: posted by vinmunoz in
./showthread.php?p=190​04543&i=i248794331
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Vinz I tried to kinda replicate with the A7Riv. I only have 17mm in the Tamron 17-28. So here is a shot at 17mm and ISO 320 with barely any light to work with where I pulled
exposure 5 stops

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2ipF​Z9S

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2ipJ​w3u

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2ipF​Zad

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2ipJ​w3j

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2ipJ​w34

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2ipK​Mbe

AlanU wrote in post #19004647
I've taken that photo quite a while ago with my X-t2 and I was rather disappointed in the brand new 50-140mm I purchased. I just do not have the urge or enthusiasm to dig up my old fuji raw files. I love the Fuji render in most cases but the Sony IQ, sensor performance and files really suites me a lot more. I have absolutely zero interest in video.

The Fuji system was great for my casual fun photography but it did not meet my needs for low light. My Canon and Sony gear works fantastic for me. No interest in Fuji at all as I'd only consider a GFX100 or whatever sony sensor they decide to throw in the GFX family. To be sensible I'd probably just get a sony a74 when it comes out or just buy the A9mk2.

The post processing of uplifting shadows is what causes the painterly look in the Fuji files. There are a lot of similar looking painterly look on the web when people try to get detail back from crushed blacks.

If the sony sensor in the x-t4 perform on par with the A73 .....I still wouldn't go back to Fuji. Sony lens lineup is just so ridiculously good now with so many fantastic 3rd party manufacturers.

The IQ from the 5dmk4 with 70-200 f/2.8IS mk2 or the A73 and Gmaster 70-200 left no room for my Fuji 50-140mm in the competitive IQ performers I already own. Only consideration for a 3rd system would be a GFX.

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by AlanU originally in forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Personally if I worried so much about quality (and I do) I will pick f1.4, f1.8 primes over the slower f2.8 zoom. Yes 70-200mm f2.8 is nice range but it still doesn't give you look like 105mm f1.4 or the 135mm f1.8 or the 200mm f2 (only for Canon/Nikon, not in the Sony lineup).

High ISOs most of the time bigger sensor will perform better, unless bigger sensor is using old tech and smaller is from the latest gen as technology improved over time. I am going back to the color, here is shots I have posted before. This with 16MP Fuji XT1/56mm f1.2 vs A7rII/Batis 85mm f1.8. Colors are very similar so is the DoF.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #19004659
Vinz I tried to kinda replicate with the A7Riv. I only have 17mm in the Tamron 17-28. So here is a shot at 17mm and ISO 320 with barely any light to work with where I pulled
exposure 5 stops

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2ipF​Z9S For Vinz +5 stops by Stopitdown Stopitdown, on Flickr

Here once inside Photoshop I again entered Adobe Camera Raw and pulled 2 more stops-

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2ipJ​w3u For Vinz +2 more stops by Stopitdown Stopitdown, on Flickr

Here I took (all same image) the frame and pulled shadows +100

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2ipF​Zad For Vinz +100 shadows by Stopitdown Stopitdown, on Flickr

Next I used AI Denoise 0.79

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2ipJ​w3j for Vinz AI Denoise 79 by Stopitdown Stopitdown, on Flickr

Then I resized to 1280
https://flic.kr/p/2ipJ​w34For Vinz resize to 1280 by Stopitdown Stopitdown, on Flickr

Here is the OOC original before the 7 total stops of push
https://flic.kr/p/2ipK​Mbe7 stop total push original by Stopitdown Stopitdown, on Flickr

yours looks good when you pushed 5 stops in camera raw. The screenshot i did was from lightroom. do you think lightroom is the culprit? i know even if they use the same camera raw plugin, sometimes it works better in Photoshop. Thank you for your time.

vinmunoz wrote in post #19004697
yours looks good when you pushed 5 stops in camera raw. The screenshot i did was from lightroom. do you think lightroom is the culprit? i know even if they use the same camera raw plugin, sometimes it works better in Photoshop. Thank you for your time.

I would definitely say it's lightroom. I have edited the same image in both LR and Capture one and found that capture one brought out more detail without introducing noise which Lightroom did. Even back with my 6DII it brought out more detail compared to LR.

No problem! How many times have you helped me in the past
Lightroom vs. PS....I've no clue Vinz. So long since I used Lightroom but I am learning again
the mobile version on the tablet+Gnarbox.

I do know that the Riv files are more demanding/harder to work than the Riii. Price to pay for 61.

Dlee13 wrote in post #19004709
I would definitely say it's lightroom. I have edited the same image in both LR and Capture one and found that capture one brought out more detail without introducing noise which Lightroom did. Even back with my 6DII it brought out more detail compared to LR.

One might give Capture One Express for Sony, (its a free download) and compare Raw files out of your Sony, with the results from the adobe product, and draw your own conclusion


https://www.captureone​.com …Xk1XTSpFDUghoCj​V8QAvD_BwE

Bianchi wrote in post #19004750
One might give Capture One Express for Sony, (its a free download) and compare Raw files out of your Sony, with the results from the adobe product, and draw your own conclusion

https://www.captureone​.com …Xk1XTSpFDUghoCj​V8QAvD_BwE

thanks, i do have a pro Sony version of C1, i will try. I did tried it with Sony's own Imaging Edge and still have the same result. maybe MM is right, it's the 61mp. i will try C1 later.

rantercsr wrote in post #19000071
if the hat matched I wouldn't have bothered with the bnw version.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2imi​sTJ DSC01278-Edit-Edit-Edit by Randall Herrera, on Flickr

IMO the black and white version is much stronger anyway.