What the fuck is wrong with Sony cameras? I've used the

>>2858687
D7000*

>>2858687
24-105* fuk

>am I just being a fucking retard?

Nope, Sony are just fucking shit.

The good news is that Capture One brought out a free Express version specifically for the amateur market that like to play with Sonys. I haven't used it but I would expect it has really big sliders to enable you to get more out of that legendary dynamic range

>>2858687
What lens, dunkus?

I have an earlier generation A7r and am so happy to be away from Canon files. It really must be you, not the camera.

>>2858705
so there is no way so fix Sony's image results? i can't imagine capture one doing much since i've tried basically everything. i loved the a7 and a6000 but had the same color rendition and white balance issues, i thought i'd try the a7rm2 because they must have fixed all of that by now and it has an incredibly next gen sensor.. nope, fixed nothing, still sitting there for 30 minutes in lightroom trying everything to fix the disgusting greens and skin tones. shame m8

>>2858714
show me some results then cuck
i've used the 28mm f2 as well as its 21mm wide conversion, tried the 55mm zeiss 1.8 and was very sharp but overall one of the worst looking zeiss results i've ever seen on any camera. recently tried the new 85mm batis, sharpness and color exactly the same as the 55 basically just more zoomed, very unattractive look to it compared to even the 24-105 canon which is a fucking zoom and 11 years old even mounted a 5d.

the reason it's annoying is because everything else about the 7rm2 is perfect, the speed for a mirrorless, auto iso minimum shutter settings, 5 axis IBIS meaning i can get good steady shot with expensive zeiss primes without oss and crazy good ISO performance, one of the best i've seen. there's just something "off" with the final result

>>2858716
>i can't imagine capture one doing much since i've tried basically everything

I don't use Sony but the Capture One Express is made specifically for them, their shitty colors and castrated raw. It's free so it can't hurt to try.

File: _DSC5950-22.jpg (117KB, 639x1066px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 639x1066px

>>2858687
Are you using a colour calibrated camera profile or just jumping in with adobe standard.

I'm gonna guess the latter, and that you dumb.

Pic related, top is adobe standard, bottom neutral profile, no other changes made to the raw at all.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	800
Image Height	533
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:06:08 12:48:12
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	639
Image Height	1066

>>2858723
both of these look shit though. but thats bc harsh indoor lightning. The lower one looks worse desu.

>>2858718
could it be that you try to shoot in worse conditions than usual because of the cameras capabilities, and then get worse light that is harder to work with?

>>2858687

Using raw right?

Sony has trash jpeg processing.

Lens are probably better on Canikon too. Only a handful of FE lenses are worth anything.

If WB is the problem, you could bypass bad raw files by making the wb as accurate as possible then adding a layer with a slight tint, correcting what the raw processing cant.

>>2858723
i use either the "camera natural" or "camera standard" you retard. rarely the portrait one, sometimes VSCO based profiles i have created to try and fix sony colours especially and give a film effect to mask all of the awful colours. the bottom photo for you looks worse, the neutral profile is overall better because the colours aren't as harsh but now she looks like a corpse. congrats. you would not have this problem with canikon or fuji.

>>2858727
>both of these look shit though. but thats bc harsh indoor lightning. The lower one looks worse desu.

This was just me pointing my camera at something to illustrate a commonly overlooked point.

The lower one is a much better starting point for a raw, look at the orange on the spray bottle and the blue fabric in the background - these are not vibrantly coloured items irl. Also look at how much yellow is in the skin in the top one, the white balance is set off the white paper.

>>2858730
yeah using RAW but the "RAW can fix any colors" is just a myth to me at the moment as color science seems clearly an issue with Sony. i'm about to try capture one though like someone suggested

this may also sound ridiculous but i don't think i have ever seen a good shot taken by a sony in all my life. i'm going through sony stuff on flickr and i can't find a single shot that i like

>>2858723
Why don't you try using an example with actual whites in the 'white balance' rather than these hideous greys. How are you going to give her a skin tone when there are none to start with?

>>2858687
the word "FUCK"

>>2858723
Top looks WAY more pleasant...

>>2858687
Why not post a couple of samples of your photos, to show A) That you actually have the camera, and the problem you're talking about, and aren't just a troll, and B) So we can help figure out what's wrong with your stuff that might be holding you back.

File: shit-stain.jpg (1MB, 1500x860px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1500x860px

>>2858779
i don't think there's much point but i'll show you how my photo's end up when i'm processing pretty much any sony shot: i end up killing off all of the greens into yellows and adding retarded oil softening techniques and crushing the blacks because the colours and detail in the shadows make me nauseous.

that day i was walking around a fairly low lit park because of tall tree's and shooting without a tripod at f/11, 1/30 and 1500 ISO and they look crazy sharp, just the same as using a tripod almost with a few topaz repairs. it was very fun to use but i took plenty of well exposed/composed photo's and was happy with none of them because of the way they end up looking and i end up say fuck it and throw dumb shit onto it just to make it maybe worth keeping. that's what upsets me about the a7r ii

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	21 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016-06-08T14:27:08+01:00
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	5.9 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	21.00 mm
Image Width	1500
Image Height	860
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2858789
>i don't think there's much point
So you don't actually want help, you just want to complain that you're not good at image processing? Pretty much?

It's absolutely possible to produce great photos with a Sony camera. I used an A6000 for two weeks while deciding between that and an X-T1 and the problems I had had nothing to do with the files it produced.

Post something with the nauseating colors and detail in the shadows so we know what the heck you're talking about, but it seems like you're just complaining that a raw photo is flat and low contrast, with lots of detail all over the frame, which, if that's true, is a stupid thing to complain about after buying a camera that is specifically designed and marketed to be a camera with tons of dynamic range and detail all over the frame.

>>2858790
>after buying a camera
kek. i would never buy this shit camera, that is not the reason i have access to it. i could be taking the same shot with a 5ds r with a big variety of lenses within a day or two if i wanted and i can gaurantee the results would be a hell of a lot better than that pile of shit after about 4 clicks in lightroom

>>2858790
also yes there is a lot detail but the detail is awful even after strong sharpening with masking/radius or with topaz. the dynamic range is also nothing like you think it is, stop listening to dxomark because their tests are very misinforming

>>2858793
>avoiding the question

>>2858793
So that's a no on actually posting stuff then? Just being clear. I don't want to end your troll thread by busting you out after only like 20 posts, but if you're actually looking to get help, I want to try, so just let me know.

>>2858687

>wants quality
>bought a Sony

Topkek, should have bought a Fujifamilia

>>2858737
Camera profiles a really really bad on these Sony cameras. Having a color checker profile per lens makes enough difference to matter.

>>2858907
Per LENS?? How bad is the color shifting in the glass that it varies noticeably from lens to lens more than just a slight amount in one color direction or another?

ITT: OP is buttmad that others like things that he doesn't have/Can't afford

>>2858915
maybe you should read the thread

>>2858922
You mean where OP specifically says he doesn't own the camera, and won't show any results that back up his claims other than one image that he says that he fucked on purpose?

You're being a retard. A7RII sensor is amazing, it has great tonality, dynamic range and no AA filter gives it extra sharpness. You can manipulate images to look exactly how you want them, just because you can't doesn't mean it's the camera's fault. All Sony sensors including the ones in nikon bodies have a green tint to them. I work in a photo lab that offers digital editing too. We match digital files to film scans and I know Sony sensors are little heavier on the green end. But regardless of this, you can achieve the same results with pretty much any camera, they're all good these days. And this from a Canon shooter.

>>2858687
The truth is:
High ISO shots never look great.

They can look passable, or even alright, but they will never compare to an ISO 100 picture no matter how "well" the camera does at higher ISO's.

File: 5132814-930062.jpg (299KB, 1368x1120px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 1368x1120px

>>2858924
>and this is from a Canon shooter

>>2858924
>A7RII sensor is amazing, it has great tonality, dynamic range and no AA filter gives it extra sharpness.
yes but if you look, the dynamic range and the sharpness are what he's taking issue with.

File: shit-stain-2.jpg (1MB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1067px

>>2858923
Ok this is with one of my favorite VSCO presets I made which then a few slight color adjustments to try get the colors looking better. it's impossible. i've used a standard film curve in every color channel to try and cure the cancer that is sony's color science. still looks like shit in my opinion, not only the greens but the yellows, somehow looks over sharpened at the standard 25 with a huge mask of 85 to make sure it's only catching edges and a radius of 0.8, looks the same as a 3.0 radius on a canon to me somehow. LR cannot seem to fix that white line around every edge, may as well have just removed all the sharpness. greens and yellows look shit no matter how i'm changing the green and red primary's with the most natural looking color profile i can find and no color curves seem to help at all without making the whole thing look unnatural.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	ILCE-7RM2 v3.20
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	21 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016-06-08T18:55:41+01:00
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	6.8 EV
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	21.00 mm
Image Width	1600
Image Height	1067
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2858956
i also cannot find my grey's at all. grey's can make even a boring image so engaging but either the blues or whites will somehow invade those areas no matter how balanced the WB.

>>2858956
>with one of my favorite VSCO presets I made which then a few slight color adjustments to try get the colors looking better.
Post the un-edited images, you fucking idiot.

The only issue I see is that it looks like you pulled your highlights back too far. Try desaturating the greens by about 5 points.
I don't see anything that looks over-sharpened, but the whole point of the A7r line is tons of detail and resolution.

>>2858960
>i also cannot find my grey's at all. grey's can make even a boring image so engaging but either the blues or whites will somehow invade those areas no matter how balanced the WB.
Also what? What do you mean you "can't find your grays"?

Are you expecting there to be gray in an image that didn't actually contain any gray objects in the scene? Or do you mean that you can't find your mid-tones in an image that is almost entirely shadows and highlights?

>>2858971
>try desaturating the greens by about 5 points
this just shows how fucking clueless you are.
and why the fuck would i post the unedited images? for you to say THEY'RE FINE IT'S JUST YOU ANON what is the fucking point of that? and the building. the buiding isn't that colour in real life, sony's color science is just confused.

>>2858977
So you won't show us what you're complaining about but you want to complain about sony. Look, a raw file is a raw file, if you're complaining about not getting the results you want when you have that much working room shooting raw then the problem is you

>>2858977
just post a before/after picture to show people what you did in terms of post processing, how can anyone know if the problem's with the camera or your editing if you only post the edited pic?

>>2858687
You're being fucking retarded

>>2858980
>a raw file is a raw file
http://www.eoshd.com/2015/11/sony-vs-canon-colour-science-does-this-explain-the-difference/

clearly you are still at stage one. your contribution was
>try desaturating the greens by about 5 points
are you trolling? retarded? maybe it's us who needs to help you

>>2858977
Seems like you don't know how to set a white balance.

>what is the fucking point of that?
You're complaining about the way the files look, but you won't show us the files. You keep talking about the editing you're doing, and chances are damned near 100% that its your editing is the problem.

File: 27386700591_1f704692f8_b.jpg (260KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1024x768px

>>2858977
>sony's color science is just confused.
Seems fine to me.

File: 27412825505_9861d72cc3_c.jpg (153KB, 534x800px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 534x800px

>>2858998
Seems fine to me.

File: 26839205993_6916b42830_c.jpg (233KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 600x800px

>>2858999
Seems fine to me.

>>2858998
>>2858999
>>2859000
Damn

What lens?

>>2858992
Wow, yeah, the perfect scientific explanation in this article really sorts it out!

Guy asks himself "Why does Canon just look better?"
Guy answers himself
>"I think it is due to Samsung’s engineers not quite applying their ‘artists’ eye as effectively as Canon, drawing on years of experience in the photography industry."

Great point!

File: A7r.jpg (186KB, 1325x884px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1325x884px

A7r - with a $50 old Canon FD lens.

This whole thread is about inability to edit and being accustomed to a certain kind of start file.

>>2859008
Which fd lens? I've got a bunch that I use with my a-1 and I think they'd be perfect pairing them with an a7s for video stuff

>>2859002
55 f/1.8
70-400 mk2

>>2859008
this one is good

>>2858998
>>2858999
>>2859000
these are shit though.

File: 100.jpg (255KB, 1250x1031px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1250x1031px

>>2859008
And this is just the previous image in the catalog - which was unedited at all at 100% - using a Canon FD lens in mixed temperature light.

These files are E A S Y to work with

>>2859008
where is your exif?

>>2859025
>these are shit though.

colors look good

>>2859026
>unedited
>posts a highly edited photo

>>2859008
>>2859026
You're blaming his inability to edit then post an apparently 100% unedited photo?

>>2859025
Perhaps, apart from their overly dark skin tones. Where did you find these shots?

>>2859032
What?

Do you use proper technique when shooting hte camera? High resolution cameras demand good technique.

>>2859041
meant for>>2859029

>>2859043
let me point that out again for you. you said a highly edited photo is unedited at all at 100%. show us some exif data

>>2859032
>>2859039
So we're angry that he both posted an un-edited photo, and that he posted an edited photo? Such sanity and reasonableness we're dealing with here!

>>2859044
what the fuck?

>>2859052
Me? I'm anon. He's Beej. You're just going full tilt with this aren't you...

Still, I can understand basic human interaction, so let me translate!

The first photo he posted is edited.
>>2859008 <This one
Then, he posted a 100% crop from a DIFFERENT PHOTO
>>2859026 <(It's different, see how it's a different photo?)
Which is both a 100% crop, and also, not edited!

>>2859053
I was quoting that he said the photo is 100% unedited yet the photo is clearly extremely edited. Honestly what the fuck is going on in this thread, are those photos even yours?

File: near.jpg (197KB, 1325x884px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1325x884px

>>2859012
I don't know actually. May be the 50 1.4 - my notes weren't complete on the file.

Pic related - the "shitty" zeiss zoom. Near-bokeh is hard to do right. Here it is with three strikes against it - close focus. 70mm and tough greens.

Again. this is right out of the camera with a decent profile.

>>2859058
If you think the second photo is not edited then you need to start from the very basics or just quit the hobby.

>>2859058
>>2859062
you're new here, aren't you?

>>2859008
how did you get the whites like this man? can you tell me some processing techniques? exif would also be nice

>>2859064
>Facial blemishes
>Poor unbalanced exposure and contrast
>Uneven coloring
Looks unprocessed to me. What is making it so obviously edited in your eyes that, if I don't see it, I should quit?

>>2859067
>>2859064
Man, dipping into the old familiars here!

>If you can't see what I see, you should just give up because I can't help you
AND
>You must be new because you disagree with me
both devoid of any point or specific argument or contribution!

You must be really trying hard to keep this going. And already at the bottom of the barrel at just 66 posts?

>INB4 the other standard for threads like these: a day from now, OP "comes back" and is surprised that his thread is still going and you guys are all idiots.

>>2859073
Curves have been played with enormously, if this is how the image was exposed for in the camera the shadowed side of her face would have looked nothing like this. Overall clarity has also been reduced by a fair bit and skin tones enhanced.

>>2859032
>>unedited
>>posts a highly edited photo

nigga r u dumb, how is that highly edited?

>>2859083
Beej, this guy's onto you. He even knows about your clarity slider. (But doesn't seem to know about your gold reflector, strangely)

File: A7r-with-EXIF.jpg (227KB, 1472x982px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1472x982px

>>2859028
Fuck - I have it off on in export dialogue. Here.

>>2859039
My first, smaller image is not unedited - it's gone through basic corrections you do in Lightroom and maybe a little cloning and cleanup. I'm blaming his apparent inability to work with really good files.That's what the comments add up to.

>>2859058
Thanks for the translation. It's been a while since I've spoken /p/

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7R
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.4 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016-06-08T15:52:17-04:00
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	640
Brightness	2.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Image Width	1472
Image Height	982
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Hard

>>2859093
Prepare to be trolled for your choice of ISO.

>>2859093
How are you at 1/320 and 640 ISO in that lighting? Are you using a filter?

File: wut.jpg (938KB, 1648x2468px) Image search: [Google]

938KB, 1648x2468px

last one before I go to Poland. This is about 50% without any noise reduction.

I think 2500 ISO, shit-tier lighting, mixed light, saturated colors... and just a few LR adjustments. What do you want from a camera, ferreal?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7R
Camera Software	ILCE-7R v1.02
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016-06-08T16:09:04-04:00
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	2500
Brightness	-2.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Image Width	1648
Image Height	2468
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Hard

i'm OP, i asked you a bit earlier if you have any processing techniques for me? i really like the whites in the sand and on the chair

>>2859102
you were doing ok until you posted that garbage

>>2859105
>>2859093

>>2859105
I'm not Beej, but shoot white or pale colored stuff in bright light, and brighten your upper mid tones. What part is the struggle for you?

>>2859007
Color isn't science.

Color is art. "Good" color cannot be determined in a lab, only "accurate" colors.

Kill yourself, gearfriendo

Feels food to be a sony pony instead of a fuji cuckold.

File: 3mt-forearm-relaxed.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>2858687

>>2859100
>>2859100
The story in this one is that I was giving a friend a photoshoot for his bacherlor party. I was shooting fast and loose while showing him basics like framing and perspective.
Those were the settings for sldeep shade and small aperture. I had a variable ND and just left the settings alone and did everything from the lens. I don't suggest this way of shooting.

>>2859106
Think of the purpose of the image. Look past how shit it is. 2500ISO, underexposed, all in shadows, very saturated color. And there is good detail and delicate color transitions. That is awesome to be able to shoot in this condition and not worry one bit.

>>2859083
It is SOOC. We had limited use of gold reflector and a sheer bedsheet. Itbis really obviously unedited.

>>2858908
Just doesnt take a lot of effort and i shoot different brands

>>2859071
Sorry. No special secrets, just overexposure and maybe a little curves stuff

>>2859056
When the D800 came out, users complained their shots weren't very good. Compared to the D700, the D800 needed finer technique with the shutter; you can't slam the button down willy nilly.

>>2859365
I remember finding that to be the case. Having steady hands I used to shoot at low speeds unstabilized on my old 10mp DSLR. My first few shots with a modern, high performance and resolution sensor were largely unsuitable for use because that technique was not tight enough for the delicate tolerances. I use a tripod and even electronic shutter now whenever I can, and 'only' at 24mp.

File: DSC00854FINAL.jpg (1MB, 1366x2048px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1366x2048px

>>2858789 I have the exact same complaints! The images just seem to look limp when compared to my 6D.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1366
Image Height	2048
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:12 18:25:33
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Brightness	-3.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Cloudy Weather
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1366
Image Height	2048
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2859376

>glasses frame intersecting eye

try learning a thing or two about portraits and lighting before you blame your camera

>>2859383
Following every rule you're forcefed

The client loved the photo. Fuck your rules.

>>2859435
any man with a unibrow has little sense in taste. it's not even a shitty made up rule, it's just common sense.

>>2859435
I liked that portrait. Somehow pastel

>>2859376
yeah his skin tones are awful, that's a common problem sony have. people can rage all they want and say it's a problem with the processing and yes processing can fix it a lot but that shouldn't have to be done

>>2859376
and do you mind showing us some pics from your 6D?

>>2858687
because they need a bentax image processing.

>>2858746
sell it and get a fuji.
:^)

>>2858999
That's fine to you? The kids skin is diabolical, he looks like he's wearing Charlotte Crosby's fake tan.

>>2859571
psst.
his skin tone looks like real life on the sony.