# Please have a look at Sony a700 raw+jpg sample pairs



## aster (Oct 19, 2010)

It took a while to figure out how and where to upload some raw and jpeg images. Below is a link to 2 pairs of jpeg and arw images worth of near 5'MB packed to 37MB 

These samples are expected to represent, how I see Sony a7'' raw images with Lightroom 3.2 without any settings applied. One pair jpeg and arw look similar and another pair's raw looks overexposed compared to jpeg.
When LR is displaying Sony folder with Sony raw only, it's difficult to judge destiny of photos, when many photos look overexposed until no manual adjustment applied. That's the point, when I prefer to have only jpegs for quick easy sorting and leave raw images for later processing.
Other pair looks similar enough not to arise any questions about superiority of raw format in LR. 
Because of such varying deviance, I don't think there could exist any fixed presets for Sony a7''. 

What do you think, why there is so much deviance between these raw and jpeg pairs?

Samples are just occasional photos.
I double checked - I also downloaded and unpacked images, so there shouldn't be any access problems.

password is: Lightroom
http://rapidshare.com/files/426'29696/a7''_raw.rar


----------



## Graeme Brown (Oct 19, 2010)

Thanks for posting these, I have been really interested to get to the bottom of this, and I think I know what's going on. From reading around various sources about the A7'' it would appear that it has some clever functionality to increase the dynamic range. It does this by initially overexposing the image to retain shadow detail and then processes the image in-camera to bring back the exposure. The result (which you see as a jpeg) is a basic file with greater dynamic range than would otherwise be possible. The Sony RAW software can apply the same in-camera post-processing, however Lightroom, Capture 1, and all other third-party software cannot. Nikon and Canon cameras don't do this, which is why you don't see the same variation. The Fuji S5 used to do something similar.

The image you see on the back of the camera when you shoot is a rendered JPEG, which will have all of the processing applied; the same is true of Nikon and Canon. There are two reasons for this - when you make test shots in the camera shop they look nicer, so you'll buy the camera; and many people will only ever shoot & print from the in-camera JPEG. Nothing wrong with that. Anyone who wants to get a bit more from their images will shoot RAW, with the intention of post-processing the file to achieve better results. To get a true representation of what you are shooting you need to do two things - and this is true of all DSLRs - 1. Shoot RAW only and 2. Turn off all in-camera processing, DRO, etc so that the image on the back of the screen tells you the truth about your RAW file. Without this you cannot make a judgement about whether the exposure is correct, and you are not losing anything by doing this.

So, turning to the images you posted ... I have concentrated on the landscape as it shows greater variation - the difference between the two sets of pictures (ie one RAW/JPG pair show more variation than the other) are down to varying amounts of in camera dynamic range optimisation being carried out - basically the landscape one has more bright sky. which needs more optimisation.

The in-camera JPEG looks ok-ish, it's a bit too bright and lacking punch for my taste, but fundamentally ok. The straight RAW looks pretty horrible. The good news is that it is very easy to resolve this in Lightroom.

I have posted 4 copies of the image below -
1. The original JPG
2. The RAW via Lightroom with no processing applied
3. The same RAW with Auto Tone applied
4. The RAW with Auto Tone, Tone Curve - Strong, Clarity 3' Vibrance 1'

[img width=6'' height=274]http://www.graemebrown.co.uk/misc/a7''test.jpg[/img]

It's hard to tell from this small version, but the fourth file has more detail in the highlights and the shadows than the original JPEG, and more punch generally. The greens and yellows are different in the LR version, but remember there is no 'right' way to process a file like this, only the way that you prefer. And the beauty of Lightroom is than you can experiment until you find a setting you like. Of course all of these settings can be adjusted to taste, but this is just my quick take on the image. Once you have found a suitable combination of settings you can make a preset which can be applied to all the RAW files during import; this will give you good base images from which to cull and edit - and discard the JPG's (which really aren't that good)

I hope this helps. Nice images btw  If you want to see the images larger you can download the file by right-clicking and saving it.


----------



## b_gossweiler (Oct 19, 2010)

Aster,

I fully agree with what Graeme says about dynamic range optimization.

I also notice in your images that number 1_..... was shot with

[li]DynamicRangeOptimizerMode   : Standard[/li]
[li]DynamicRangeOptimizerLevel   : 3[/li]
whereas image 2_.... was shot with

[li]DynamicRangeOptimizerMode   : Advanced Level[/li]
[li]DynamicRangeOptimizerLevel   : 3[/li]
This would explain the difference in over-exposure between the two images. I guess if you disable DynamicRangeOptimizer in your camera, you should be able to come up with a calibration/preset that treats most of your images fine.

Beat


----------



## Graeme Brown (Oct 19, 2010)

How did you read those values Beat? I just looked at the images and made a judgement, good to know I was on the right track!


----------



## b_gossweiler (Oct 19, 2010)

Graeme,

I analyzed the metadata using ExifTool. I've attached the analysis in two text files.

Beat


----------



## Graeme Brown (Oct 19, 2010)

Wow - you're an even bigger geek than me!


----------



## aster (Oct 19, 2010)

Oops, it feels much better now to know, what's exactly is going on with Sony raw. :icon_lol:

Thanks indeed - expanding dynamic range variable must be the reason why some jpg+raw image pairs look close to each other while other differ a lot. I never underrated raw images but problem is the way how these are displayed in LR out of camera. That's why jpeg may seem easier to accept at first contact out of camera and also ready to instant distribution.
The raw ones with more dynamic range look worse (more "overexposed"), while in fact, these images may have more details after developing in LR. Still as this dynamic range compression varies a lot, it's difficult to imagine that there could exist any universal preset to apply to all images automatically. Therefore it may be that when shooting just raw, today only Sony's own Image Data Lihtbox can instantly convert raw to jpeg without manual adjustment.

PS. DRO may vary with these sample images but there is no difference when these are the same. I have a lot of same session images without any camera setting variation but still the same result - all pairs are different (some raw close to jpeg while other raw looks overexposed) I believe that compression of dynamic range is a good explanation as it's applied according to each image details and therefore is applied at different level.

PS. I checked now also other shots of the same time landscape - some jpeg+raw look a close much while others raws look overexposed. And sure - I didn't changed any camera settings between shots except aperture.

PSS. And if I'm not expressed clearly, then perhaps the problem isn't the "overexpose" itself but the different rate of overexpose - that's why I posted two pairs, the second pair was to show that sometimes there isn't much difference at all.


----------



## b_gossweiler (Oct 19, 2010)

As I said, I would disable DRO in the camera and find a calibration/preset which seems right for most of the photos. At least it would be worth a try.

Beat


----------



## Graeme Brown (Oct 19, 2010)

The dynamic range optimisation will vary from image to image so it will interfere with any preset, but all it is doing to the RAW file is giving you a slightly overexposed image, it is not increasing the dynamic range of the raw file. This is why you should turn it off, as it is giving you unpredictable results and you are gaining nothing by having it on. These settings are of no use to a serious photographer (amateur or professional) as you cannot make a detailed judgement about an image from a tiny screen on the back of the camera.

Simply by applying Auto Tone on import you will get a useable RAW file, it's really that simple, but actually all it is doing is putting the exposure back to where it would be if you didn't have DRO enabled. Although I didn't know it at the time, the settings I applied to the RAW were mostly copying the settings you had in-camera, however the end result (from the raw) is much better than the original JPEG.

The images are perfectly good quality, and the A7'' is a decent camera which will give you excellent results if you adapt your workflow accordingly. I am quite certain that you can achieve great images by doing the following:

1. Shoot RAW only, not RAW + JPG
2. Turn off DRO completely
3. Set the contrast and saturation back to '

If you do this then the image on the back of the camera will look exactly like the image you see in Lightroom, and you can then enhance it. The end result will be better, and the workflow much simpler by not having JPG's in the mix. Incidentally, if you buy a Nikon or Canon and continue to shoot RAW+JPG with lots of in-camera processing applied, you will have exactly the same problems as you are having now.


----------



## aster (Oct 19, 2010)

Thanks.

I have switched DRO off some times ago already but kind of a compression still seems to be present and IMO these contrast and saturation settings are valid only to camera jpeg.
But I'll keep trying to obtain new better results.

Please read also PS to my previous message.


----------



## Graeme Brown (Oct 19, 2010)

The variation is due to the 'Dynamic' part - it adjusts to what it thinks it needs. The contrast and sharpening only apply to the JPEG, but this is what you view in the back of the camera, so you need to turn that off too in order to see the proper image on the back of the camera.


----------



## b_gossweiler (Oct 19, 2010)

[quote author=aster link=topic=11353.msg7628'#msg7628' date=1287527'88]
... and IMO these contrast and saturation settings are valid only to camera jpeg. ...
[/quote]

This is generally true for saturation / contrast / sharpness settings in the camera. But these can easily be applied by a preset, as they have constant values.

Also, if you don't like what Auto-Tone does to your images:
I have made myself a preset with just Auto-Exposure and Auto-Blacks, as I often don't like the contrast and brightness settings Auto-Tone applies to my images.

To create such a preset, I created a develop preset with Auto-Tone on and then edited the preset to contain only these values:

```
settings = {
      AutoExposure = true,
      AutoShadows = true,
    },
```

Beat


----------



## Graeme Brown (Oct 19, 2010)

FWIW, I agree with Beat about Auto Tone; I don't recommend this either generally but it was a useful way to get Aster to a point where he was able to start using Lightroom properly.


----------



## Brad Snyder (Oct 20, 2010)

Well, that makes me feel a bit better; in-camera lighting optimization was the very first question I asked when this whole conversation started way back when. http://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/index.php?topic=11118.msg74842#msg74842

Like the rest of the group I've been mystified by the symptoms, if that wasn't it.


----------



## Mark Sirota (Oct 20, 2010)

It is interesting that Sony's DRO works by raising the exposure to gain shadow detail, while Nikon's Active D-Lighting (ADL) works by lowering it to preserve highlight detail. I think Canon's reduces the exposure too, doesn't it?


----------



## MarkNicholas (Oct 20, 2010)

Are we saying here that with "ANY" camera when you shoot RAW, the photo is not actually being shot at the exposure settings you have set the camera to but some adjusted setting chosen by the camera ??


----------



## Mark Sirota (Oct 20, 2010)

With Nikon's ADL what happens is that it forces matrix (evaluative) metering, and sets the exposure lower than it would be without ADL enabled. Then in the JPEG conversion phase (either in-camera or with Nikon's software) it raises it back up, but is able to preserve highlight detail due to the base underexposure. (If you're working in manual exposure, it shoots as you've set it. It's just an adjustment on the meter reading.)

It seems that Sony is doing the same thing, except that it is preserving shadow detail rather than highlight detail.


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Oct 20, 2010)

Some of my Nikon images with ADL used to show up over exposed. I do wonder if the exposure can be moved either way depending on the situation.


----------



## Brad Snyder (Oct 20, 2010)

From the horse's mouth: 

Eric Chan said:


> Victoria, I am not familiar with Fuji’s Wide Dynamic Range setting, so I
> cannot offer any useful advice there.
> 
> Nikon’s Active D-Lighting is similar to Canon’s Auto Lighting Optimizer
> ...



Doesn't directly address Sony, but by extension, I think this clearly explains what aster is encountering.


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Oct 20, 2010)

I have tested Nikon's ADL and it definitely does effect the exposure of the RAW data. Ignoring jpegs and camera screens etc. Eric's theory makes sense in general but isn't the only variable here.
I cannot attest this to Canon or Sony though.


----------



## b_gossweiler (Oct 20, 2010)

I'm not sure, but some articles published on the Web seem to indicate that Sonys DRO - unlike ADL and ALO - does affect the Raw data.

If so, switching off ADL/ALO in Nikon/Canon helps in using the Histogram/Preview of the in camera rendered image, while switching off DRO in Sony would be a must when shooting raw.

Beat


----------



## MarkNicholas (Oct 21, 2010)

That is why I neutralise everything on my Canon 3'D to try and get a true histogram. And my 3'D does not have all those Tone type adjustment features.


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Oct 21, 2010)

There is a simple test. Take a photo with and without ADL and compare them in LR. If they are different then it MUST effect the RAW capture. My D3'' and D7'' both show different results between their respective images. The variation is also dependant on the contrast of the scene being captured. Here are 2 NEFs that have been exported as jpegs from LR 3.2 with no adjustments.

ADL-Off Exposure is low to protect highlights.
ADL-On Exposure is normal and balanced.

As you can see these are not localised variations in exposure. The exposure is lowered (by sneakily varying the ISO) when ADL is in use, *this is changing the RAW data captured.*

The in-camera jpeg/tiff (I haven't shown them) is then manipulated with local exposure corrections (akin to fill light) so that the overall result looks balanced.


----------



## Graeme Brown (Oct 21, 2010)

That's correct, often these systems will affect the base exposure, which will also affect the raw file. The other settings - colour, sharpness, contrast - are not transferred to the raw.

Unless you are actually shooting jpegs all of these picture style settings should be switched off, this is true for all cameras.


----------

