Sony A7III

Talley wrote in post #18619624
I wasn't complaining about it but it is different.

But I want people to think about this... Nikon cameras use Sony sensor.... So why does the color science change?!?!. Right.

But ya, I mean I've ALWAYS been a Canon guy. I'm use to the Canon look. I'm use to my editing for the Canon look. My POST has never been stellar. I know I will struggle with post even more going to sony but it's just something I will have to force myself to learn to do. I really enjoy shooting the Sony.

There is a lot of processing within the camera when raws are generated which influence the look of the raws. The sensor does not determine a look.

Hogloff wrote in post #18619635
There is a lot of processing within the camera when raws are generated which influence the look of the raws. The sensor does not determine a look.

So could the color science be changed via firmware then?

Talley wrote in post #18619637
So could the color science be changed via firmware then?

Don’t know exactly how it works internally, but presumably yes.

Talley wrote in post #18619624
I wasn't complaining about it but it is different.

But I want people to think about this... Nikon cameras use Sony sensor.... So why does the color science change?!?!. Right.

But ya, I mean I've ALWAYS been a Canon guy. I'm use to the Canon look. I'm use to my editing for the Canon look. My POST has never been stellar. I know I will struggle with post even more going to sony but it's just something I will have to force myself to learn to do. I really enjoy shooting the Sony.

I wonder if Nikon doesn’t just install Sony sensors but makes changes to it like CFA, and tunes it differently. If not, it may all come down to processors. EOSHD blog had a nice article describing how color science from cameras produced by electronic giants such as Sony, Panasonic and Samsung is fundamentally different from cameras made by traditional camera companies. And it has a lot to do with green channel that sensors are most sensitive to. Traditional camera companies know exaclty how to tame it while electronic giants go the simple route - add magenta which, of course, is not the solution. It is super easy to make sensor to ouput 100% accurate colors - a computer can do if for you. It is a challenge to produce pleasant colors.
Right now, Canon dominates the photography market at all levels and our eyes are so used its colors that when we see different files, we feel something is off. Same with hollywood where Arri Alexa is the king now and it produces skin tones even better than Canon. I bet if Sony takes half of the market (both photo and video), people will start preferring Sony colors and refer to Canon colors as vintage. I do know that folks who never used Canon, actually love Sony colors right out of camera. I’ve been hopelessly conditioned by Canon output for years and just can’t warm up to Sony raw files and complicated LR processing of portraits (have to adjust red, orange and green hues and usually a lot more processing after that). Also, I don’t undetstand exactly why, but Sony files have harsh highlight rolloff in comparison to Canon which impacts skin texture and when I adjust it, it looks less natural, HDRish. I’m gonna have to wait on Sony and see if someone can come up with Canon color science preset for LR.

artsf wrote in post #18619657
I wonder if Nikon doesn’t just install Sony sensors but makes changes to it like CFA, and tunes it differently. If not, it may all come down to processors. EOSHD blog had a nice article describing how color science from cameras produced by electronic giants such as Sony, Panasonic and Samsung is fundamentally different from cameras made by traditional camera companies. And it has a lot to do with green channel that sensors are most sensitive to. Traditional camera companies know exaclty how to tame it while electronic giants go the simple route - add magenta which, of course, is not the solution. It is super easy to make sensor to ouput 100% accurate colors - a computer can do if for you. It is a challenge to produce pleasant colors.
Right now, Canon dominates the photography market at all levels and our eyes are so used its colors that when we see different files, we feel something is off. Same with hollywood where Arri Alexa is the king now and it produces skin tones even better than Canon. I bet if Sony takes half of the market (both photo and video), people will start preferring Sony colors and refer to Canon colors as vintage. I do know that folks who never used Canon, actually love Sony colors right out of camera. I’ve been hopelessly conditioned by Canon oputput for years and just can’t warm up to Sony raw files and complicated LR processing of portraits (have to adjust red, orange and green hues and usually a lot more processing after that).

Well I'm done. You summed it up right there exactly how I feel. I can goto bed now. See ya'll tomorrow.

but wasn't the G7x use a sony sensor... but yet they still are able to tame the classic canon look.

so wtf....

Talley wrote in post #18619676
but wasn't the G7x use a sony sensor... but yet they still are able to tame the classic canon look.

so wtf....

Canon has patents on CFA. CFA is placed on the surface of the sensor to capture color information so it is very critical part. Plus Canon uses its own Digic image processors to record raw files. This also explains why Fuji is getting different colors while using Sony sensors, they apply their own patented X-trans filter instead of bayer CFA.

artsf wrote in post #18619657
I wonder if Nikon doesn’t just install Sony sensors but makes changes to it like CFA, and tunes it differently. If not, it may all come down to processors. EOSHD blog had a nice article describing how color science from cameras produced by electronic giants such as Sony, Panasonic and Samsung is fundamentally different from cameras made by traditional camera companies. And it has a lot to do with green channel that sensors are most sensitive to. Traditional camera companies know exaclty how to tame it while electronic giants go the simple route - add magenta which, of course, is not the solution. It is super easy to make sensor to ouput 100% accurate colors - a computer can do if for you. It is a challenge to produce pleasant colors.
Right now, Canon dominates the photography market at all levels and our eyes are so used its colors that when we see different files, we feel something is off. Same with hollywood where Arri Alexa is the king now and it produces skin tones even better than Canon. I bet if Sony takes half of the market (both photo and video), people will start preferring Sony colors and refer to Canon colors as vintage. I do know that folks who never used Canon, actually love Sony colors right out of camera. I’ve been hopelessly conditioned by Canon output for years and just can’t warm up to Sony raw files and complicated LR processing of portraits (have to adjust red, orange and green hues and usually a lot more processing after that). Also, I don’t undetstand exactly why, but Sony files have harsh highlight rolloff in comparison to Canon which impacts skin texture and when I adjust it, it looks less natural, HDRish. I’m gonna have to wait on Sony and see if someone can come up with Canon color science preset for LR.

I'll have to say your observation is extremely accurate and I echo your comments.

If I had to comment on "green" channel I'll have to say I really enjoyed the look of my Olypus E-m5 micro 4/3 files. I think Panasonic's greens were the worst and Sony is quite harsh straight out of the RAW file.

Perhaps all of this civil discussion we are having is based on personal preference and experience with other systems. Some just adapt and simply do not comment and follow the world of "it is what it is".

I've been informed by friends (hardcore Sony shooters) before buying my A7iii that I'll need to reprogram my brain and let things slide with tolerance to more aggressive contrast/vivid sony colours.

If you ever look at many Fuji landscape photos Fuji cooks the files to a painterly look when you shoot small aperture landscapes. If you do not believe me just google "fuji landscape examples". You will see this pleasing (please note generally speaking) image that has almost a canvas cartoon look. Canon is also prone to his look as well. I am finding Sony to be just brutally honest and renders real life landscape images. This is where it can be a human perception game. Human's can sometimes find "normal" real life render as typical or normal.

I'm not concerned if you disagree or think I'm nuts. I do find this is what I am seeing with my digital files. A strange way I describe Fuji files is "soft approach in rendering life while retaining a sense of sharpness". The fuji has this softer looking image that can be considered "eye candy".

Please note this is not some epic photo. Simply a snapshot of Vancouver downtown with my fuji X-t2 with 50-140mm zoom. The images I've taken with Sony almost never produce this type of photo that has "easy on the eyes" look unless you put some strategic effort in post manipulation.

There's no such thing as 'accurate' colors. It's always subjective. And yeah I think the familiarity with the colors of one system can create a bias when something different is presented.

As someone who works with second shooters that often do not shoot Sony, I can pretty objectively say that while the color tendencies across systems are different, I don't necessarily fine one better than the other in terms of being able to produce the same output from different systems. I can get a consistent look between different cameras. And when dealing with the mixed light nightmare of typical wedding venues, no system gets WB correct SOOC and there is always work to be done in post. That said, where people new to Sony are struggling with Sony colors, I actually struggle with Canon and Fuji colors in post....but again its a matter of subjectivity, and familiarity with my own system and I'm not about to call Canon or Fuji colors bad.

I think the key is to keep an open mind, get over mental blocks based on what you're familiar with, and be open and willing to do things a bit differently, and learn something new. It is a new camera after all

Lastly, there's a blind portrait test out there that is worth checking out:

https://www.dpreview.c​om …n-1dx-mark-ii-vs-nikon-d5

mystik610 wrote in post #18619690
There's no such thing as 'accurate' colors. It's always subjective. And yeah I think the familiarity with the colors of one system can create a bias when something different is presented.

As someone who works with second shooters that often do not shoot Sony, I can pretty objectively say that while the color tendencies across systems are different, I don't necessarily fine one better than the other in terms of being able to produce the same output from different systems. I can get a consistent look between different cameras. And when dealing with the mixed light nightmare of typical wedding venues, no system gets WB correct SOOC and there is always work to be done in post. That said, where people new to Sony are struggling with Sony colors, I actually struggle with Canon and Fuji colors in post....but again its a matter of subjectivity, and familiarity with my own system and I'm not about to call Canon or Fuji colors bad.

I think the key is to keep an open mind, get over mental blocks based on what you're familiar with, and be open and willing to do things a bit differently, and learn something new. It is a new camera after all

Lastly, there's a blind portrait test out there that is worth checking out:

https://www.dpreview.c​om …n-1dx-mark-ii-vs-nikon-d5

Its not subjective. It's scientific.

Get a color meter and tag colors of paper... take a photo of it. Print that photo... color meter the print. It should be equal.

Accurate color = accurate color. Now obviously fake editing is subjective. But color is just light spectrum which is completely measurable and accuracy can and should be reproduced (within the current technology limits).

It’s kind of like watching a movie in 60p - brutally honest but barely watchable as our brains are conditioned to 24p. I beleive photography is an art and if I want a brutally honest picture - I have an iPhone for the snapshots. Photography is the way you want to remeber things and has more to do with our perception than mathematically accurate colors. Even if each individual color is accurate, there is an issue of color balance. It’s like music which needs harmony to work even if all notes are accurate. Sony could benefit by recruiting artists like other camera companies do. I understand Sony strategy to make sure they get the best Dxomark scores and most favorable technical reviews - they can have most accurate colors, best DR and noise performance and lots of useful tech to boot but it’s non techical reviewes that matter. Let someone like Lisa Holloway evaluate A7iii then we’re talking.

AlanU wrote in post #18619684
I'll have to say your observation is extremely accurate and I echo your comments.

If I had to comment on "green" channel I'll have to say I really enjoyed the look of my Olypus E-m5 micro 4/3 files. I think Panasonic's greens were the worst and Sony is quite harsh straight out of the RAW file.

Perhaps all of this civil discussion we are having is based on personal preference and experience with other systems. Some just adapt and simply do not comment and follow the world of "it is what it is".

I've been informed by friends (hardcore Sony shooters) before buying my A7iii that I'll need to reprogram my brain and let things slide with tolerance to more aggressive contrast/vivid sony colours.

If you ever look at many Fuji landscape photos Fuji cooks the files to a painterly look when you shoot small aperture landscapes. If you do not believe me just google "fuji landscape examples". You will see this pleasing (please note generally speaking) image that has almost a canvas cartoon look. Canon is also prone to his look as well. I am finding Sony to be just brutally honest and renders real life landscape images. This is where it can be a human perception game. Human's can sometimes find "normal" real life render as typical or normal.

I'm not concerned if you disagree or think I'm nuts. I do find this is what I am seeing with my digital files. A strange way I describe Fuji files is "soft approach in rendering life while retaining a sense of sharpness". The fuji has this softer looking image that can be considered "eye candy".

Please note this is not some epic photo. Simply a snapshot of Vancouver downtown with my fuji X-t2 with 50-140mm zoom. The images I've taken with Sony almost never produce this type of photo that has "easy on the eyes" look unless you put some strategic effort in post manipulation.

Hosted photo: posted by AlanU in
./showthread.php?p=186​19684&i=i223879592
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by AlanU in
./showthread.php?p=186​19684&i=i30611083
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

It's either you careless for the image or you like how it has a certain film analog look.

Talley's observation is very evident in my workflow comparing m Sony with Canon/Nikon.

Hogloff wrote in post #18619607
How easy is it to change that “painterly” look of Fuji if one does not want it. I’d much rather start as close to real life as possible, then add the look rather than a camera forcing a certain look onto me.

From my experience, Fuji colours are the most baked of all the different camera manufactures ( Canon, Nikon, Sony and Fuji ) that i’ve used.

You can ease up on the shadow slider and just change the exposure.

I actually like to uplift shadows. My A7iii file does not do drastic changes with the Shadow slider compared to my Fuji and Canon.

Sony image at f/9 does not have the painterly look.

artsf wrote in post #18619692
It’s kind of like watching a movie in 60p - brutally honest but barely watchable as our brains are conditioned to 24p. I beleive photography is an art and if I want a brutally honest picture - I have an iPhone for the snapshots. Photography is the way you want to remeber things and has more to do with our perception than mathematically accurate colors. Even if each individual color is accurate, there is an issue of color balance. It’s like music which needs harmony to work even if all notes are accurate. Sony could benefit by recruiting artists like other camera companies do.

Speaking of iphone!

I took these photos yesterday. I used my iphone 8+ and used mobile LR on the phone. Before anyone slams me with these photos I'm just trying to show an example of a painterly look that Sony would probably have a very difficult time producing.

If you look at the images they render almost like my fuji. I'm not certain but Sony has a difficult time to produce "painterly" kind of images as the brutal honest of the Sony signature typically does not look like this. I guess if you hit a sony file with -15 contrast you can soften the look.

I own Sony and I am not a "hater" I'm merely describing my observation in RAW file manipulation. I think I'd have a difficult time getting a canvas look in post.

Walking at an art exhibition images from Leica's with primes the photos had a real to life 3d contrasty look. Non of them had a painterly look at all. Very honest real render. Sony has that kind of raw render while I find my Canon 5dmk4 or Fuji to have a different approach in how it renders. However I do find the 5dmk4 has more micro contrast vs my 5dmk3.

Talley wrote in post #18619691
Its not subjective. It's scientific.

Get a color meter and tag colors of paper... take a photo of it. Print that photo... color meter the print. It should be equal.

Accurate color = accurate color. Now obviously fake editing is subjective. But color is just light spectrum which is completely measurable and accuracy can and should be reproduced (within the current technology limits).

I'm saying accurate in terms of what a scene should look like. Our minds have a way of shifting the perception of colors, so there is no such thing as accurate color when it comes to actual photos.

Now if we were to photograph a color wheel in pure white light we could probably pick one system that measures more neutral than the others. But that's not what people are discussing when they talk of things like skintones....particula​rly since we know that Canon color science is intentionally aggressive on the red channel.

I think what most people are describing are which colors are more pleasing than another and calling that accuracy. And yeah that's a subjective thing.

This is in no way scientific and just a wild guess/theory but I've always thought of it as Sony images are a bit more flat and that allows them to have more DR conpared to Canon which are known for their colors but not DR.