-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Round 2 - F707 Flash Shots/Outdoor Shots
- Thread starter JLS Photo
- Start date
Mike Fitzgerald
Veteran Member
Hi Jeff --
The well known "Sony colour" -- in digicam circles, at least -- drives me to distraction, mainly because Sony's colour accuracy in its broadcast video (and traditionallty in its consumer video as well) has always been superb. From the relatively few samples I've seen, I'm convinced the colour from Sony's still digicams a couple of years ago was much closer to that, also. A favourite test shot of mine can be found at Steve's Digicams, and provides a very useful comparison as it turns up in most of his reviews. It's the one of a local park containing some rather elaborate playground equipment. Looking at this shot from a succession of Sony models shows a definite trend, to my eye, away from natural colours, especially the greens. The S85 and F707 together seem to mark something of a turning point in this regard. It appears to be a somewhat non-linear transfer function in terms of greens, such that they "take off" beyond a certain level.
Having said that, it bothers me very little since it's so easily fixed in Photoshop or other similar image editing software. Everything else is there in the F707, image wise, and I'm greatly looking forward to the arrival of this camera in Oz. But I'd still like to wring a few marketing (not engineering) necks at Sony in the cause of colour accuracy! ;-)
I guess I feel fairly strongly about this, but the world is for some unknown reason (to me) getting conditioned to oversaturated colours. It's even happening in some highly respected nature magagazines. It's all part of our increasingly artificial values, and I think we're coming to look at even our own photos as artifacts of tourism or abstract art rather than evocations of reality. The Australian cartoonist Michael Leunig summed it up beautifully, quite a few years ago, with a scene showing a child viewing a sunset on a television screen. His father was standing behind the child's chair, beside himself with enthusiasm to ensure the kid drank in the full beauty of the scene, while through the window of their room could be seen the self same sunset being telecast live...
Could I suggest you try a test, and I'll nominate the shot of the 5th tee marker at the golf course: Dsc00079rotated.jpg. When you get the opportunity (depending on software), try dropping the saturation for just the greens in that image fairly severely (about 30% in Photoshop), and then compare it with the view out of your window (more than a few of us are green in other ways about your most pleasant locale!). Assuming your monitor is reasonably well calibrated, I'll bet you find that the tweaked version comes much closer to the truth.
Cheers,
Mike
Actually, that green book makes a very good candidate for experiment, and there's no reason why a clear cover or coating should cause any problem other than specular reflections from direct flash -- which are not present here. I think that you're selling your own technique a bit short here, and that you're entitled to higher expectations of your equipment -- film or digital. The exposure for the books was bang on, although the slight angle meant the left side got a bit more. It would be interesting to try it with diffused floodlighting or bounced flash
The well known "Sony colour" -- in digicam circles, at least -- drives me to distraction, mainly because Sony's colour accuracy in its broadcast video (and traditionallty in its consumer video as well) has always been superb. From the relatively few samples I've seen, I'm convinced the colour from Sony's still digicams a couple of years ago was much closer to that, also. A favourite test shot of mine can be found at Steve's Digicams, and provides a very useful comparison as it turns up in most of his reviews. It's the one of a local park containing some rather elaborate playground equipment. Looking at this shot from a succession of Sony models shows a definite trend, to my eye, away from natural colours, especially the greens. The S85 and F707 together seem to mark something of a turning point in this regard. It appears to be a somewhat non-linear transfer function in terms of greens, such that they "take off" beyond a certain level.
Having said that, it bothers me very little since it's so easily fixed in Photoshop or other similar image editing software. Everything else is there in the F707, image wise, and I'm greatly looking forward to the arrival of this camera in Oz. But I'd still like to wring a few marketing (not engineering) necks at Sony in the cause of colour accuracy! ;-)
I guess I feel fairly strongly about this, but the world is for some unknown reason (to me) getting conditioned to oversaturated colours. It's even happening in some highly respected nature magagazines. It's all part of our increasingly artificial values, and I think we're coming to look at even our own photos as artifacts of tourism or abstract art rather than evocations of reality. The Australian cartoonist Michael Leunig summed it up beautifully, quite a few years ago, with a scene showing a child viewing a sunset on a television screen. His father was standing behind the child's chair, beside himself with enthusiasm to ensure the kid drank in the full beauty of the scene, while through the window of their room could be seen the self same sunset being telecast live...
Could I suggest you try a test, and I'll nominate the shot of the 5th tee marker at the golf course: Dsc00079rotated.jpg. When you get the opportunity (depending on software), try dropping the saturation for just the greens in that image fairly severely (about 30% in Photoshop), and then compare it with the view out of your window (more than a few of us are green in other ways about your most pleasant locale!). Assuming your monitor is reasonably well calibrated, I'll bet you find that the tweaked version comes much closer to the truth.
Absolutely not, Jeff, and please don't feel that way at all. All you had was a set of conditions in which the effect happened to show up.
Jeff, although this is a matter of personal taste, I agree totally -- the mood of the cattails against the overcast sky very much appealed to me, and appeared to be no accident at all!! (On the other hand, even if it wasn't intended, it could well have been and is a completely legitimate choice of exposure. So, of course, never admit otherwise. Recalling an activity I was involved in semi-professionally, quite a few years ago, brings to mind the First Rule of Stage Lighting: "The audience doesn't know what was meant to happen". ;-))As far as the exposure goes, the "serioiusly under-exposed" is MY
doing INTENTIONALLY. I did NOT employ any techniques to overcome
this under-exposure, such as using exposure lock, etc. In light of
the "horse a* "CA discussion, I was trying to get subjects to
appear dark over a lightened sky (i.e. see the cattails, wooden
carvings, etc.).
Cheers,
Mike
Mike-
First of all, thanks for such a great and productive post. I appreciate the discussion.
Thanks again,
Jeff
First of all, thanks for such a great and productive post. I appreciate the discussion.
I am more than willing to compare this image to the real tee marker; however, I need to ask for some assistance. I do not have Photoshop and I am currently using Photosuite 8.1 (that came with the 707). Since I lack experience in the manipulation of the photos, I would appreciate if someone could take the original and make this change in the green. I will do my best to compare that reworked version with the real marker.
Thanks again,
Jeff
L
Ludo
Guest
Just did this. You can see the result here:
http://home1.gte.net/res06x2k/golf5_desat.jpg
I resized the picture down a bit to make it smaller. I reduced saturation of the green channel by 30%, looks more 'natural', or 'less lively', depending on taste.
http://home1.gte.net/res06x2k/golf5_desat.jpg
I resized the picture down a bit to make it smaller. I reduced saturation of the green channel by 30%, looks more 'natural', or 'less lively', depending on taste.
Howdy59835
Member
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 0
I have a feeling that family members of 707 owners are either (1) going to learn to always wear red, or (2) develop a complex. ;-)Let's just say I had a selective eye yesterday for anything red.
photographed......she unfortunately did not chose to wear red
yesterday. hehehe
Jeff, thanks for your efforts, and thanks for taking and posting 'test' pics. Looking at not only your pics, but at your responses and comments, I must say that you have not only been helpful, but extremely patient with those of us waiting to get our 707s. (I know I'm living vicariously through your shots until mine gets delivered.)
Hi Ludo-
Thanks. I see what you mean now. However, I suspect that somewhere between 0 and 30% is probably more realistic in this case (say 10-15). Although, it gets very difficult to judge such minute details, trying to compare to real life, when I am unable to recreate the lighting conditions and other properties of that second in time.
Jeff
Thanks. I see what you mean now. However, I suspect that somewhere between 0 and 30% is probably more realistic in this case (say 10-15). Although, it gets very difficult to judge such minute details, trying to compare to real life, when I am unable to recreate the lighting conditions and other properties of that second in time.
Jeff
Mike Fitzgerald
Veteran Member
Jeff --
The link to Ludo's tweak of the 5th tee shot isn't working for me at the moment. Meanwhile I've had a play with it too, and also the bookshelf shot:
http://www.pbase.com/fitzdocs/gallery_1
The mods were as follows:
Library:
1. Green saturation -30% and Cyan -10%.
2. Midtones corrected (gamma) to restore subjective overall brightness.
3. Slight gradient applied diagonally downwards from top left corner to compensate (in part -- could have gone further) for left side of collection being closer to flash.
The aim was essentially to get rid of the "neon" green in the leftmost book. The end reault is a slightly richer green but without the dayglo look. No point in fooling around further without knowing what it actually looks like.
Golf course -- 5th hole:
After looking at that shot more closely I thought it was worth correcting the white balance first -- you can see the difference particularly in the tree trunks which had quite a blue cast to begin with. So:
1. Reset white balance with reference to specular reflection of skylight in ball-washer cap.
2. Green saturation -30% and Cyan -10%.
3. Midtones corrected (gamma) to restore subjective overall brightness.
Again, I don't think you'll find a huge difference -- the intention was to tame the fluorescent quality of the greens only. I adjusted cyan as well, as that was a real problem with preproduction 707s and I don't really think Sony has gone far enough in modifying it. Without having seen the original scene it's a guess of course, but with the reeds, grass and trees to consider I think I finished up with a fairly natural set of greens, on my monitor anyway.
All just food for thought, of course, and something to do while I'm waiting for my 707. It's been a good opportunity to think about how I'll want to set up some standard colour tweaks, and thanks again for posting all this material. I think everyone is having a lot of fun analysing your samples, and it's generally stayed quite cordial into the bargain (doesn't always happen with new releases :-( ).
I hope we haven't worn you out, and that your life gets back to normal soon. Best regards to you and your family.
Mike
The link to Ludo's tweak of the 5th tee shot isn't working for me at the moment. Meanwhile I've had a play with it too, and also the bookshelf shot:
http://www.pbase.com/fitzdocs/gallery_1
The mods were as follows:
Library:
1. Green saturation -30% and Cyan -10%.
2. Midtones corrected (gamma) to restore subjective overall brightness.
3. Slight gradient applied diagonally downwards from top left corner to compensate (in part -- could have gone further) for left side of collection being closer to flash.
The aim was essentially to get rid of the "neon" green in the leftmost book. The end reault is a slightly richer green but without the dayglo look. No point in fooling around further without knowing what it actually looks like.
Golf course -- 5th hole:
After looking at that shot more closely I thought it was worth correcting the white balance first -- you can see the difference particularly in the tree trunks which had quite a blue cast to begin with. So:
1. Reset white balance with reference to specular reflection of skylight in ball-washer cap.
2. Green saturation -30% and Cyan -10%.
3. Midtones corrected (gamma) to restore subjective overall brightness.
Again, I don't think you'll find a huge difference -- the intention was to tame the fluorescent quality of the greens only. I adjusted cyan as well, as that was a real problem with preproduction 707s and I don't really think Sony has gone far enough in modifying it. Without having seen the original scene it's a guess of course, but with the reeds, grass and trees to consider I think I finished up with a fairly natural set of greens, on my monitor anyway.
All just food for thought, of course, and something to do while I'm waiting for my 707. It's been a good opportunity to think about how I'll want to set up some standard colour tweaks, and thanks again for posting all this material. I think everyone is having a lot of fun analysing your samples, and it's generally stayed quite cordial into the bargain (doesn't always happen with new releases :-( ).
I hope we haven't worn you out, and that your life gets back to normal soon. Best regards to you and your family.
Mike
Ruvy
Veteran Member
Hi Jeff
Thanks for all these great images. left a comment (too hasty) on gallery 2 regarding CA. How big of a problem is it. I do hate it on my G1. Read it is no longer a problem on the G2 (doubt it is true) and surptised to find so much of it on your images. Please let me know as I am considering very seriously upgrading to F707
Ruvy
Thanks for all these great images. left a comment (too hasty) on gallery 2 regarding CA. How big of a problem is it. I do hate it on my G1. Read it is no longer a problem on the G2 (doubt it is true) and surptised to find so much of it on your images. Please let me know as I am considering very seriously upgrading to F707
Ruvy
Well, I had a chance to take some more test shots of the F707 this
afternoon to share with all of you. I hope they help. However, I
do need to warn you that I had to resize them down to 800x600 to
upload the original batch, since I am on a modem. However,
tonight, as I slumber, I will upload all of the originals (which
will take about 6-7 hours). I will make all of the originals
available in the morning. Although, if there is one or two that
you really want to see tonight, let me know and I will upload the
original of those in particular. CONSIDER THESE SIMPLY A PROOF
SHEET, THE FINALS WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE MORNING.
originals will not be rotated, as I feel it make effect some of the
detail.
All of the shots were taken while hand holding (no tripod). The
wind was blowing at times, you this may effect the focus of some
shots. The shots included default settings unless otherwise stated
in the caption. Some of the shots were taken at different
sharpness settings, different wht bal settings, and at different
exposure settings (again, I will try to put this info in the
caption).
Also note that the indoor light is incandescent and the outdoor
shots were ALL under overcast skies (yup, Michigan, yesterday
sunny, today dreary.
examine some of the CA issues (one with my wife standing near a
window (see her left elbow) - but remember this is hand held at
about 25 ft.).
You may also notice that many of the pictures are the only one I
took of that subject (see ref. numbers). Overall, especially
outdoors, this camera really "nailed" the exposure and autofocus.
http://www.pbase.com/snyders2000/sony_f707_2
Please let me know what you think.
S
Susan Knisley
Guest
I think your photos are great!! I thought I was the only one that took pictures of flowers, geese and houses. I think they make good pictures. They look great!! Have you printed any yet?Well, I had a chance to take some more test shots of the F707 this
afternoon to share with all of you. I hope they help. However, I
do need to warn you that I had to resize them down to 800x600 to
upload the original batch, since I am on a modem. However,
tonight, as I slumber, I will upload all of the originals (which
will take about 6-7 hours). I will make all of the originals
available in the morning. Although, if there is one or two that
you really want to see tonight, let me know and I will upload the
original of those in particular. CONSIDER THESE SIMPLY A PROOF
SHEET, THE FINALS WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE MORNING.
originals will not be rotated, as I feel it make effect some of the
detail.
All of the shots were taken while hand holding (no tripod). The
wind was blowing at times, you this may effect the focus of some
shots. The shots included default settings unless otherwise stated
in the caption. Some of the shots were taken at different
sharpness settings, different wht bal settings, and at different
exposure settings (again, I will try to put this info in the
caption).
Also note that the indoor light is incandescent and the outdoor
shots were ALL under overcast skies (yup, Michigan, yesterday
sunny, today dreary.
examine some of the CA issues (one with my wife standing near a
window (see her left elbow) - but remember this is hand held at
about 25 ft.).
You may also notice that many of the pictures are the only one I
took of that subject (see ref. numbers). Overall, especially
outdoors, this camera really "nailed" the exposure and autofocus.
http://www.pbase.com/snyders2000/sony_f707_2
Please let me know what you think.
Hi Ruvy-
I would love to tell you that it isn't a problem at all. But, quite frankly, I'm just not sure yet. I want to take more pictures. Unfortunately, there we discussion regarding CA on Brian's first set of pics, namely the one of the horses. Anyway, with that discussion in mind, I set out to produce many samples that could/would lead to CA. My feeling right now is that CA in the 707 is really a matter of learning how to work around it. CA is NOT going to be eliminated, at least not yet. Although, as far as I'm concerned, it is definitely NOT a deal breaker.
I know this is a bit non-committal, but I hope it helps a bit.
Jeff S.
I would love to tell you that it isn't a problem at all. But, quite frankly, I'm just not sure yet. I want to take more pictures. Unfortunately, there we discussion regarding CA on Brian's first set of pics, namely the one of the horses. Anyway, with that discussion in mind, I set out to produce many samples that could/would lead to CA. My feeling right now is that CA in the 707 is really a matter of learning how to work around it. CA is NOT going to be eliminated, at least not yet. Although, as far as I'm concerned, it is definitely NOT a deal breaker.
I know this is a bit non-committal, but I hope it helps a bit.
Jeff S.
Hi Susan-
Yes, I suppose I take pictures of flowers, geese, and houses too, although I have to admit, they sure are convenient subjects on a 30 minute walking photo shoot. hehe
I have not printed any pictures yet. I will be investing in a new printer before I do that.
Take care,
Jeff S.
Yes, I suppose I take pictures of flowers, geese, and houses too, although I have to admit, they sure are convenient subjects on a 30 minute walking photo shoot. heheI have not printed any pictures yet. I will be investing in a new printer before I do that.
Take care,
Jeff S.
Hi Mike-
I definitely see what you mean in some of those tweaks. Although, that book one is still not quite there. Although, the tee marker looks better on my monitor, too.
I was thinking about that last night as I was rereading the manual (again and again and again) and was wondering if I should have reset the white balance with the "one Push" setting before shooting the marker. This weekend I might go back over there and take a few pics of it--default, "manual" white balance, different sharpnesses, different exposures, etc.
Anyway, I also appreciate the kind words.
Take care,
Jeff S.
I definitely see what you mean in some of those tweaks. Although, that book one is still not quite there. Although, the tee marker looks better on my monitor, too.
I was thinking about that last night as I was rereading the manual (again and again and again
) and was wondering if I should have reset the white balance with the "one Push" setting before shooting the marker. This weekend I might go back over there and take a few pics of it--default, "manual" white balance, different sharpnesses, different exposures, etc.Anyway, I also appreciate the kind words.
Take care,
Jeff S.
Mike Fitzgerald
Veteran Member
Hi Jeff --
Out of interest, what focal length were you using for the shot with your wife on the stairs? I seem to recall you mentioned a 25 foot range for this one, and if it was full zoom then there's none of the red shift we saw in Brian's horse shot; and what's there isn't too bad considering -- I think the lens performance is beyond reproach in this instance. In the right circumstances most cameras will bloom eventually, and I've seen an image from a D1x that was nearly as bad as your rock fissure example.
Mike
Out of interest, what focal length were you using for the shot with your wife on the stairs? I seem to recall you mentioned a 25 foot range for this one, and if it was full zoom then there's none of the red shift we saw in Brian's horse shot; and what's there isn't too bad considering -- I think the lens performance is beyond reproach in this instance. In the right circumstances most cameras will bloom eventually, and I've seen an image from a D1x that was nearly as bad as your rock fissure example.
Mike
Mike Fitzgerald
Veteran Member
The giveaway that the greens are being heavily oversaturated is the grass to the left of the marker, as you look progressively towards the tree line. The end result reveals a much greater range of greens which I see as more significant than any one colour per se. My personal taste would have been to take it a bit further (which would have also helped the book); but having been unable to link to Ludo's sample I thought I'd stay away from doing that for now.
Tell me about it! I'd been getting into the D7 manual, which I'd managed to get hold of as a PDF, until I reluctantly decided to pass it up. Quite addictive while you're waiting.I was thinking about that last night as I was rereading the manual
(again and again and again
The lack of sky in the frame seems to have caught out the automatic WB, and this shot is clearly different in that aspect from the other thumbnails adjacent to it. I've never been impressed by the AWB performance of virtually any camera on test, and I'm fascinated that the reviewers so often seem content with it. I gather that the 707 is particularly quick and easy to set for custom WB -- quite an important point as I see it. A pity that translucent lens caps for this purpose seem to have gone out of vogue -- the idea always struck me as a most practical one... :-(
Regards,
Mike
Mike Fitzgerald
Veteran Member
Ahh, about 101 mm in 35 mm terms; well inside its CA comfort zone it seems...
Thanks Jeff,
Mike
Ruvy
Veteran Member
Mike Fitzgerald
Veteran Member
Hi Ruvy --
No, I wasn't kidding about the lens which seems to be OK in itself at this focal length. I believe what we are looking at here is the classic "blooming" effect in the CCD sensor experienced with virtually all digicams to some degree. And in this shot it's not too bad by most standards.
What brought this up was an image posted from early F707 user tests by Brian Smith at http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4292333413 . (You may have problems with this link -- some people are finding ImageStation extremely slow, and I haven't been able to access it at all in the last 24 hours.)
The image in question shows three horses grazing, and is significant in that what it's exhibiting looks more like true optical CA in the lens. But it seems to be showing only at or near full telephoto zoom, which was used for that shot. No-one knows yet at just what focal length it starts to become noticeable, and effects in the CCD may be masking it to some extent. I don't think any of us are seeing it as a decision breaker.
The detailed discussion about that particular image starts here:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&page=1&message=1587193
Mike
No, I wasn't kidding about the lens which seems to be OK in itself at this focal length. I believe what we are looking at here is the classic "blooming" effect in the CCD sensor experienced with virtually all digicams to some degree. And in this shot it's not too bad by most standards.
What brought this up was an image posted from early F707 user tests by Brian Smith at http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4292333413 . (You may have problems with this link -- some people are finding ImageStation extremely slow, and I haven't been able to access it at all in the last 24 hours.)
The image in question shows three horses grazing, and is significant in that what it's exhibiting looks more like true optical CA in the lens. But it seems to be showing only at or near full telephoto zoom, which was used for that shot. No-one knows yet at just what focal length it starts to become noticeable, and effects in the CCD may be masking it to some extent. I don't think any of us are seeing it as a decision breaker.
The detailed discussion about that particular image starts here:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&page=1&message=1587193
Mike
mike g44959
Leading Member
Thanks for helping out and posting the jumbo size.
In these concitions the reds seem very acceptable.
Does your family dress for Xmass this time of year?
Oh, for us right? ;-)
thanks again
mike g
Well, I had a chance to take some more test shots of the F707 this
afternoon to share with all of you. I hope they help. However, I
do need to warn you that I had to resize them down to 800x600 to
upload the original batch, since I am on a modem. However,
tonight, as I slumber, I will upload all of the originals (which
will take about 6-7 hours). I will make all of the originals
available in the morning. Although, if there is one or two that
you really want to see tonight, let me know and I will upload the
original of those in particular. CONSIDER THESE SIMPLY A PROOF
SHEET, THE FINALS WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE MORNING.
originals will not be rotated, as I feel it make effect some of the
detail.
All of the shots were taken while hand holding (no tripod). The
wind was blowing at times, you this may effect the focus of some
shots. The shots included default settings unless otherwise stated
in the caption. Some of the shots were taken at different
sharpness settings, different wht bal settings, and at different
exposure settings (again, I will try to put this info in the
caption).
Also note that the indoor light is incandescent and the outdoor
shots were ALL under overcast skies (yup, Michigan, yesterday
sunny, today dreary.
examine some of the CA issues (one with my wife standing near a
window (see her left elbow) - but remember this is hand held at
about 25 ft.).
You may also notice that many of the pictures are the only one I
took of that subject (see ref. numbers). Overall, especially
outdoors, this camera really "nailed" the exposure and autofocus.
http://www.pbase.com/snyders2000/sony_f707_2
Please let me know what you think.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum