Lets see an example of Sony color jpeg science ...

juanmaasecas said:

ahaslett said:

I honestly prefer the Sony!

This is like the Sigma debate about the way Foveon sensors render clouds. They don’t look like photographs of clouds, so people find them unnatural. In my opinion they render clouds more realistically than sensors with a CFA.

It’s all about expectations and preferences.

Andrew

Click to expand...

Good for you! Yes, it's about preference. But what is important as well, and we need to check, is whether that preference is applicable for yourself. I mean, sometimes when I see a picture with pinky skin tones and another one a bit warmer, I prefer the pinkish. HOWEVER, when I am the one in the picture, I find myself I look much better in the warmer one, and the same happens for most of the women I have asked. The problem is, with Sony, typically when you make the skin a bit warmer, the whole picture looks like it has a yellow tint (like in one of the pictures I posted before), whereas in the Canon the skin can look warmer while keeping the environment neutral or even a bit cold. That's why the global color balance in the canon usually looks more neutral, or with a pleasing color contrast.

But yes, it's a matter of taste, and some people can't even see differences.

Click to expand...

I never shot Canon, so have no inherent bias towards it. I shoot exclusively RAW in Sony, so my "colour science" is from Capture One plus my own efforts.

These days the normative standard is whatever phones produce.

Andrew

juanmaasecas said:

Of course you can adjust exposure and saturation, but it will never be the same and some other parts of the picture will start being off. And why all the excuses for the Sony? The canon just delivers better pictures out of the camera in my opinion. Maybe better AWB (that it doesn't need to be always clinically perfect for portraits, but instead we prefer slight changes depending on the light)? Maybe better exposure? Whatever excuses we can imagine, the thing is, in my experience, and to my taste, I have always gotten better files out from the Canon, and when you start from a better point, the final point will be better as well (even in raw).

And in this particular case with the speed light I should have gone for manual WB, but other thing I was testing was the AWB quality and consistency. Basically all the pictures in the Canon look the same (in similar position, etc), whereas in the Sony the WB was wildly varying from picture to picture. And yes, AWB is very important to me. I am most of the time just taking documentary portrait pictures outside, in holidays, during the day, at night, etc, and having a good AWB is important to me. I am not just shooting with strobes in a studio as some people here. And of course I always shoot raw and I edit the raw, but with Canon, looking at the pictures I took with it, I realised that I could just use JPG for my pictures like 80% of the time, and be perfectly happy.

Click to expand...

IMO, the bigger problem with those images are from being overexposed with the flash. The ones that dont have hotspots on the face look good on the Sony.

But when I look at my own images, when I shoot in lower light I notice that there is often and orange hue that I have to tune out. I do hope Sony fixes it.

Can someone explain how they build their camera profiles for the A7Rii in Adobe Camera Raw?

juanmaasecas said:

Do you want to see more samples? Please note that these are from when I just bought the EOS R and I still had my a7R2. Then I bought an a7III, and in my holidays in Spain I sold all 3 cameras, and then rebought the A7III. So even if I have my problems with Sony colors, FOR ME, nowadays the A7III is the best camera I can have, that's why I keep it and I am very happy with it.

These tests are with a speed light, my friend and my boyfriend, just quick snaps in campus. Canon 70-200 in the canon, Sony 85 1.8 FE in the Sony


Canon. The colors feel natural and elegant to me


Sony. Again, for white people is not bad, but still there is something gritty in the picture, the canon looks nicer to me. It's a bit on the pink side.

Click to expand...

Left: original Sony, right: edited to taste. IMHO it looks better than the Canon now. But to be fair: it's also a much nicer shot.

It's not a big deal to get the Sony image closer to the Canon and also move it a little bit to the pink side.

And here the full size image so you can compare it to the Canon on your own screen:



Cheers,
Reto

--
https://www.rebafoto.ch

Taken with my a7iii under fluorescent light



--
...."Sony, your crap is so good"....love this quote!

Reto B said:

juanmaasecas said:

Do you want to see more samples? Please note that these are from when I just bought the EOS R and I still had my a7R2. Then I bought an a7III, and in my holidays in Spain I sold all 3 cameras, and then rebought the A7III. So even if I have my problems with Sony colors, FOR ME, nowadays the A7III is the best camera I can have, that's why I keep it and I am very happy with it.

These tests are with a speed light, my friend and my boyfriend, just quick snaps in campus. Canon 70-200 in the canon, Sony 85 1.8 FE in the Sony


Canon. The colors feel natural and elegant to me


Sony. Again, for white people is not bad, but still there is something gritty in the picture, the canon looks nicer to me. It's a bit on the pink side.

Click to expand...

Left: original Sony, right: edited to taste. IMHO it looks better than the Canon now. But to be fair: it's also a much nicer shot.

It's not a big deal to get the Sony image closer to the Canon and also move it a little bit to the pink side.

And here the full size image so you can compare it to the Canon on your own screen:



Cheers,
Reto

Click to expand...

If I'm honest with you, before I also liked, while editing, try to make a neutral white balance and look for pinkish skin. But after shooting many women, and specially after editing pictures of myself, I realised that they (and me) don't like looking reddish in the pictures, we usually prefer to look a bit warm (talking about white people). My face already has some redness on it, and if on top of that the WB is "too neutralised" and the processing enhances my redness (in the eye lids, etc), to me it looks pretty bad. Also I found I prefer to go a bit towards green than towards magenta (in the GM slider), even if before, when I was editing with my first A7, I was all the time trying to avoid the green cast that that camera had. With Sony, the greens are usually TOO saturated, and that makes for the horrible green color casts in the skin. Canon greens are much more muted (in one of the pictures I posted before from my other friend it can be seen), and when there's a small green cast in the picture, it's much more subtle.

It's like with my friend Rafa in Madrid. He has the 139 jpg straight from the cameras I shot that day. Which one do you think he chose (and still has) as a profile picture in his social media? yes, one of the ones shot with the Canon.




Sony




Canon

juanmaasecas said:

Reto B said:

juanmaasecas said:

Do you want to see more samples? Please note that these are from when I just bought the EOS R and I still had my a7R2. Then I bought an a7III, and in my holidays in Spain I sold all 3 cameras, and then rebought the A7III. So even if I have my problems with Sony colors, FOR ME, nowadays the A7III is the best camera I can have, that's why I keep it and I am very happy with it.

These tests are with a speed light, my friend and my boyfriend, just quick snaps in campus. Canon 70-200 in the canon, Sony 85 1.8 FE in the Sony


Canon. The colors feel natural and elegant to me


Sony. Again, for white people is not bad, but still there is something gritty in the picture, the canon looks nicer to me. It's a bit on the pink side.

Click to expand...

Left: original Sony, right: edited to taste. IMHO it looks better than the Canon now. But to be fair: it's also a much nicer shot.

It's not a big deal to get the Sony image closer to the Canon and also move it a little bit to the pink side.

And here the full size image so you can compare it to the Canon on your own screen:



Cheers,
Reto

Click to expand...

If I'm honest with you, before I also liked, while editing, try to make a neutral white balance and look for pinkish skin. But after shooting many women, and specially after editing pictures of myself, I realised that they (and me) don't like looking reddish in the pictures, we usually prefer to look a bit warm (talking about white people). My face already has some redness on it, and if on top of that the WB is "too neutralised" and the processing enhances my redness (in the eye lids, etc), to me it looks pretty bad. Also I found I prefer to go a bit towards green than towards magenta (in the GM slider), even if before, when I was editing with my first A7, I was all the time trying to avoid the green cast that that camera had. With Sony, the greens are usually TOO saturated, and that makes for the horrible green color casts in the skin. Canon greens are much more muted (in one of the pictures I posted before from my other friend it can be seen), and when there's a small green cast in the picture, it's much more subtle.

It's like with my friend Rafa in Madrid. He has the 139 jpg straight from the cameras I shot that day. Which one do you think he chose (and still has) as a profile picture in his social media? yes, one of the ones shot with the Canon.


Sony


Canon

Click to expand...

We have already discussed all of the above numberless times. So I won't get into it again.

And I clearly said in the caption to my edit: I edited it to taste! And I made it look the way I like it. That's all.

And this is what you said in the caption about your Canon image: "the canon looks nicer to me. It's a bit on the pink side." And so is my edit!


And it absolutely doesen't matter which of the above two pictures your friend prefers. Has absolutely nothing to do with my edit!

--

Reto B said:

juanmaasecas said:

Reto B said:

juanmaasecas said:

Do you want to see more samples? Please note that these are from when I just bought the EOS R and I still had my a7R2. Then I bought an a7III, and in my holidays in Spain I sold all 3 cameras, and then rebought the A7III. So even if I have my problems with Sony colors, FOR ME, nowadays the A7III is the best camera I can have, that's why I keep it and I am very happy with it.

These tests are with a speed light, my friend and my boyfriend, just quick snaps in campus. Canon 70-200 in the canon, Sony 85 1.8 FE in the Sony


Canon. The colors feel natural and elegant to me


Sony. Again, for white people is not bad, but still there is something gritty in the picture, the canon looks nicer to me. It's a bit on the pink side.

Click to expand...

Left: original Sony, right: edited to taste. IMHO it looks better than the Canon now. But to be fair: it's also a much nicer shot.

It's not a big deal to get the Sony image closer to the Canon and also move it a little bit to the pink side.

And here the full size image so you can compare it to the Canon on your own screen:



Cheers,
Reto

Click to expand...

If I'm honest with you, before I also liked, while editing, try to make a neutral white balance and look for pinkish skin. But after shooting many women, and specially after editing pictures of myself, I realised that they (and me) don't like looking reddish in the pictures, we usually prefer to look a bit warm (talking about white people). My face already has some redness on it, and if on top of that the WB is "too neutralised" and the processing enhances my redness (in the eye lids, etc), to me it looks pretty bad. Also I found I prefer to go a bit towards green than towards magenta (in the GM slider), even if before, when I was editing with my first A7, I was all the time trying to avoid the green cast that that camera had. With Sony, the greens are usually TOO saturated, and that makes for the horrible green color casts in the skin. Canon greens are much more muted (in one of the pictures I posted before from my other friend it can be seen), and when there's a small green cast in the picture, it's much more subtle.

It's like with my friend Rafa in Madrid. He has the 139 jpg straight from the cameras I shot that day. Which one do you think he chose (and still has) as a profile picture in his social media? yes, one of the ones shot with the Canon.


Sony


Canon

Click to expand...

We have already discussed all of the above numberless times. So I won't get into it again.

And I clearly said in the caption to my edit: I edited it to taste! And I made it look the way I like it. That's all.

And this is what you said in the caption about your Canon image: "the canon looks nicer to me. It's a bit on the pink side." And so is my edit!

And it absolutely doesen't matter which of the above two pictures your friend prefers. Has absolutely nothing to do with my edit!

Click to expand...

what I meant was that the Sony was already a bit of the pink side. The canon, if ever, was on the green side actually, look at the background.

But yes, it's just a matter of preference. But the thing I would like you to know is that, before, I also liked the pinkish tint for women, until I asked a few of them, and they all preferred a bit of a light yellow cast (in the skin, not in the whole photo). And think that when they use make up, it's on the yellow side, they don't put pink/red makeup in their forehead, neck, etc (maybe just chicks).

But I don't want to argue with you man, here you are another beautiful friend of mine. This was shot with the A7III and the 85 1.8 as well. But I only have handy the IG version.


Sony. Edited a few months ago to my taste of course.

ahaslett said:

ahaslett said:

. "The problem is, with Sony, typically when you make the skin a bit warmer, the whole picture looks like it has a yellow tint (like in one of the pictures I posted "

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I used a Sony A7r2 for about a week - how do you like this jpeg skin tone on a Latina women

............…. pretty yellow - no ?

TRIODEROB said:

TRIODEROB said:

TRIODEROB said:

. "The problem is, with Sony, typically when you make the skin a bit warmer, the whole picture looks like it has a yellow tint (like in one of the pictures I posted "

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I used a Sony A7r2 for about a week - how do you like this jpeg skin tone on a Latina women

............…. pretty yellow - no ?

Click to expand...

I think we shouldn't evaluate the skin tones looking only at the skin tones. It is weird, but I think that depending on the global look of the picture, some skin tones can look natural or not. It's like these optical illusions that can make the same color look different depending of surrounding colors, etc. To me, sometimes skin tones that, attending to the color picker might be too green look good; other times too pale, or too saturated look good, it depends on the picture itself.

For example, in some pictures you can sample colors all over the skin and it might be perfect according to what they are supposed to be regarding a vectorscope, but however maybe in the context of the picture those skin tones look weird.

I don't know how to explain it, but I am sure this has been investigated before. One person in one of this color topics showed to me a picture from a canon where the WB was WAY off. The picture was super cold with a magenta cast. However, the skin tones were well integrated in the global color balance of the picture, and it looked natural to me. Wrong white balance, and if you pick flat patches with the colors of the skin it might be purple, but integrated in the picture it looked natural to my eyes. However, when the WB in Sony pictures is OFF, the picture go "extreme", meaning some colors are oversaturated whereas others are too muted, some color hues move with changes in temperature and white balance way faster than others, etc. This is why, in my opinion, the "commercial presets" available for Lightroom for example look so bad with Sony files, and they are awesome with Canon files. Because the Canon sensors behave more naturally to light color changes.

But going back to your cropped picture, I wouldn't say it looks bad, only a bit oversaturated maybe.

TRIODEROB said:

TRIODEROB said:

TRIODEROB said:

. "The problem is, with Sony, typically when you make the skin a bit warmer, the whole picture looks like it has a yellow tint (like in one of the pictures I posted "

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I used a Sony A7r2 for about a week - how do you like this jpeg skin tone on a Latina women

............…. pretty yellow - no ?

Click to expand...

I don't like what I see in the bathroom mirror, but it doesn't do RAW!

Did you try adjusting the jpeg settings to suit your taste?

Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin

I very much doubt it's the sensors. Read Jim Kasson's thread on "colour science".

Andrew

My god this group got boring fast! Just take photos and enjoy them. I'm stood in a kitchen with 3 light sources at the moment, what's my skin tone? Come on, answer that and then we can talk. As for grapejam, your photos are very very pretty, but unless every girl in them has no makeup at all (you've already talked about makeup artists) then you're not photographing "skin tone". Plus not one of them looks like any Oriental girl I've ever met. They're all whiter than me!

ahaslett said:

I very much doubt it's the sensors. Read Jim Kasson's thread on "colour science".

Andrew

Click to expand...

I have read it, but I haven't seen portraits taken by him. I have seen however thousands of portraits taken with Sony and with Canon. And even after edited, I sometimes see some trends with Canon files and some others with Sony files, and I prefer what I see with Canon. Look for example at Manny Ortiz's IG. He's a Sony shooter and he is shooting 99% of the time his Sony, but however, in my opinion, his best colors are in the pictures he tajes with Fuji, Nikon and Canon. I can tell when he uploads a picture taken with the Sony and when it's not.

I have used and created many different profiles (and right now I used my own in Lightroom which I love), and used other software to develop the RAWs (like CO, DxO PhotoLab, Raw therapee, and others), and in my experience the differences go beyond that. Of course the output can change a lot with the software, but there is still something else baked deep in the CFA for sure.


Why that people in Phase One went "back to the past" and developed a strongest CFA for their new and most expensive sensor to have purer and better colors if the color is just a matter of a profile? Do you still think that you can get "anything you want" with the raw? It's not that easy.

There are only two things certain in life: One is death; the other that grapejam and juanmaasecas will write on every Sony color thread on DPR just to prove Canon colors are better.

Looks like typical marketing hype. I really haven't the energy to watch videos, could you summarise how the RGGB channel filters "working with Sony" are so different from other CFA arrays?

Do you have one of those wonderful Canon technical papers that explains the spectral response of their CFA arrays?

thanks

Andrew

ahaslett said:

Looks like typical marketing hype. I really haven't the energy to watch videos, could you summarise how the RGGB channel filters "working with Sony" are so different from other CFA arrays?

Do you have one of those wonderful Canon technical papers that explains the spectral response of their CFA arrays?

thanks

Andrew

Click to expand...

It's very simple. Rent a Canon, shoot pictures of yourself with both cameras. Look at the pictures straight out the camera. Try to edit the pictures with the software you like. Compare and decide by yourself. Don't trust youtubers paid by this or this other brand, or people in the forum shooting in maybe different scenarios as yours (some of them only shoot brick walls, color charts, or with perfect studio lights), or shooting landscapes, or shooting people that look very different from your target (different parts of the world, etc).

Try it yourself. Judge yourself what you like and what you don't. That is what I do, and to my individual perceptive taste, Canon colors are much better than Sony colors. BUT Sony nowadays have other advantages, and I can tweak Sony colors to my liking, so for me, Sony is the best option, but I can't negate that, regarding color, Canon is the best in industry.

How many people move to Canon because of the colors?

How many people move to Sony because of the colors?

TRIODEROB said:

TRIODEROB said:

TRIODEROB said:

. "The problem is, with Sony, typically when you make the skin a bit warmer, the whole picture looks like it has a yellow tint (like in one of the pictures I posted "

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I used a Sony A7r2 for about a week - how do you like this jpeg skin tone on a Latina women

............…. pretty yellow - no ?

Click to expand...

Just adjust the yellow HSL slider, problem solved.

You're welcome

Den

seemed like my request was simple

grab your Sony Alpha

set it to the standard jpeg setting

take a photo of someone standing in sunlight and maybe also in shade

don't edit them

post them to this thread

lets talk about how accurate or pleasing they look

DenImage said:

TRIODEROB said:

DenImage said:

DenImage said:

. "The problem is, with Sony, typically when you make the skin a bit warmer, the whole picture looks like it has a yellow tint (like in one of the pictures I posted "

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I used a Sony A7r2 for about a week - how do you like this jpeg skin tone on a Latina women

............…. pretty yellow - no ?

Click to expand...

Just adjust the yellow HSL slider, problem solved.

You're welcome

Den

Click to expand...

so you are saying that it would be reasonable that if you talked to Sonys chief color science Engineer and complained that the skin tones are coming out yellow and he told you to mess with the Yellow HSL slider you would be fine with that answer - do you think his boss who was listening would be fine with that too ?

"my request was simple - grab your Sony Alpha - set it to the standard jpeg setting -take a photo "

juanmaasecas said:

ahaslett said:

Looks like typical marketing hype. I really haven't the energy to watch videos, could you summarise how the RGGB channel filters "working with Sony" are so different from other CFA arrays?

Do you have one of those wonderful Canon technical papers that explains the spectral response of their CFA arrays?

thanks

Andrew

Click to expand...

It's very simple. Rent a Canon, shoot pictures of yourself with both cameras. Look at the pictures straight out the camera. Try to edit the pictures with the software you like. Compare and decide by yourself. Don't trust youtubers paid by this or this other brand, or people in the forum shooting in maybe different scenarios as yours (some of them only shoot brick walls, color charts, or with perfect studio lights), or shooting landscapes, or shooting people that look very different from your target (different parts of the world, etc).

Try it yourself. Judge yourself what you like and what you don't. That is what I do, and to my individual perceptive taste, Canon colors are much better than Sony colors. BUT Sony nowadays have other advantages, and I can tweak Sony colors to my liking, so for me, Sony is the best option, but I can't negate that, regarding color, Canon is the best in industry.

How many people move to Canon because of the colors?

How many people move to Sony because of the colors?

Click to expand...

I thought not.

Why would I rent a Canon, when I'm happy with Sony, shoot RAW, process with Phase One software and the capabilities of Canon mirrorless don't meet my needs?

You are not winning me over to your point of view.

Andrew