Saltar al contenido principal

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

Color off when processing ARW (RAW file for Sony A6000)

NN636084585583067413UL
Hi

I'm new here, I apologize if I was writing this in the wrong place

Well, to the mess. 😁

While I am editing my RAW file, it looks like this:

https://image.ibb.co/kyOe6v/problema_color_capture_one.png

But when I process the RAW to convert it to JPEG I get this image:

https://image.ibb.co/dctqDa/problema_color_capture_one_2.png

As you can see there is an obvious difference in color intensity. What is the reason for this?

I have tried to change the ICC profile: adobe RGB, sRGB IEC6 1966-2.1, the own PhaseOne prefiles, etc ... But I always get the same result, the color variations between these profiles are barely perceptible.

It also did not work to change the output file type, I tested with PNG and TIFF with the same results.

What am I doing wrong? Can somebody help me?

Greetings from Madrid,
Santics

Posts: I'm using Capture One 9, Windows 7 and my camera is a Sony A6000 (the ICC profile I have selected on base features is Sony A6000 Generic). If you need more information, tell me.
0

Comentarios

5 comentarios

Fecha Votos
  • SFA
    Which application ar you using to view the processed jpg?

    What happens if you process it as sRGB?

    Are you using Soft Proofing? If so, which setting?


    Grant
    0
  • NN636084585583067413UL
    SFA wrote:
    Which application ar you using to view the processed jpg?

    What happens if you process it as sRGB?

    Are you using Soft Proofing? If so, which setting?


    Grant


    Thanks for answering, Grant

    Which application ar you using to view the processed jpg?

    I have tried with several: windows image viewer, Photoshop, in my 500px profile and Flickr, Whatssapp, etc ...
    Don't they look different here?

    What happens if you process it as sRGB?

    I have tried it and I do not notice difference in color

    Are you using Soft Proofing? If so, which setting?

    No, only C1, in fact I don't even know what it is 😂
    0
  • SFA
    Soft Proofing.

    View Menu.

    Near the bottom - Proof Profile.

    You should then see a list of options one of which is "Selected Recipe" (that is the usual default.)

    Proof Profile is an interpretation of how the image is likely to look after processing out - but of course if there is something odd happening in the settings between what you see on screen and how the applications involved (all the programs in the computer hardware, etc. interpret the colour information) you may see some differences.

    Looking at your posted examples (which of are compromised somewhat by the software and hardware settings I am using for display - Dell notebook screen and Firefox browser) there do seem to be colour variations in the greens/yellows in particular. The grey clouds, for example, look relatively the same. (It's not easy to tell of course without putting the images side by side but I don't think doing that via screen captures really helps that much in this case.)

    The appearance of Yellow (especially the yellow in the area of greens) is, in my experience, a colour result that is particularly sensitive to small differences and can, in some situations, give the visual impression of much larger differences - especially where compression is involved although that is not really the case here - except that your screen shot may not be at 100%? Perhaps not the JPG either?

    The overall look of the two posted samples (ignoring the green/yellow question) is sort of similar to the illustrations in this article.

    https://fstoppers.com/pictures/adobergb-vs-srgb-3167

    As a final observation, although it may not be relevant here perhaps, you are shooting at 3200 ISO according to the EXIF info and that will most likely affect the quality of the available data to some extent. Once the subject is processed to compress to an RGB format or simply goes through an interpretative process to some other format most systems will attempt to resolve minor anomalies in order to "clean up and compress" the data to be output. In some cases, especially at the edge of colour gamut processing, small differences in the result of that process are likely to make quite notable differences to the visual result especially for those colours where camera sensors and our visual processing are most sensitive or insensitive depending in the general content and the surrounding viewing conditions.

    Of course I am assuming that the green/yellow differences are what have "caught your eye" but it may be something else?

    I am sure there will be other who can provide a more technical analysis for you and suggest other reasons for what you see. Hopefully they will contribute soon.

    HTH.

    Grant
    0
  • NN636084585583067413UL
    Thank you so much for such a full answer

    The article you have given me has given me a lot of information and I think it is the key to this whole thing

    I have checked it and it turns out that on my camera I have selected the sRGB color space. So I understand that when I convert it to adobeRGB there may be color differences due to the shorter color spectrum of the file generated by my camera

    I think it's the most plausible explanation.

    Will I solve it by changing adobeRGB in the settings of my camera? I don't know, but at least I'll try

    Otherwise, shooting this photo with ISO 3200 was a beginner error, this was one of the first photos I shot in Iceland and I didn't even worry about setting the shot properly. A shame. Next time, I'm sure it will not happen again.
    0
  • SFA
    NN636084585583067413UL wrote:
    Thank you so much for such a full answer

    The article you have given me has given me a lot of information and I think it is the key to this whole thing

    I have checked it and it turns out that on my camera I have selected the sRGB color space. So I understand that when I convert it to adobeRGB there may be color differences due to the shorter color spectrum of the file generated by my camera

    I think it's the most plausible explanation.

    Will I solve it by changing adobeRGB in the settings of my camera? I don't know, but at least I'll try

    Otherwise, shooting this photo with ISO 3200 was a beginner error, this was one of the first photos I shot in Iceland and I didn't even worry about setting the shot properly. A shame. Next time, I'm sure it will not happen again.


    If you are shooting RAW the colour space set in camera is only used for the JPG files the camera itself produces. (Note that some makes of camera may produce DNG files but most, internally, deliver jpgs.)

    There are 2 possible jpg files produced.

    One is a small (relatively) file embedded in the RAW file as a thumbnail to give an indication of how the shot looks on the camera's screen and often in viewer software.

    The other is where you are shooting jpg images in the camera. Some settings in some cameras, where the image will always be processed in camera because specific features are being used, may be jpg only. Usually there is a choice available and often you can set the camera to produce both RAW and jpg files at the same time. The Colour space selected will only apply to the jpg output or the thumbnail in the RAW file (ARW in Sony terminology)

    So in effect if you are processing a RAW file the colour space set for the camera does not matter UNLESS you find yourself comparing a jpg produce in camera with the results of your RAW file editing and the RAW file OUTPUT is being presented in a different colour space on the same medium (i.e. the same screen, the same printer paper from the same printer using the same inks and so on. In such circumstances a little tolerance should be allowed for differences - but any really nasty effects should be investigated.

    Unwelcome colour effects can be quite misleading because the differences in the colour space are more evident in certain areas of colour which, in some images, hardly appear at all and in others can dominate the result.

    To complicate matters further these effects tend to be at the edges of what a device can present - especially screens but often printers too when combined with the capabilities of different papers.

    I think the article hints at these matters and certainly the comments (not all of which are relevant to the points in the article) pick out some potential areas of confusion.

    I usually leave the cameras (Canon in my case) set to sRGB simply because that is the "normal" colour space expected by most browsers so it I have shot a jpg file it can, potentially, be shared with no further editing if I wish. And no conversion from Adobe RGB.

    The downside seems to be, occasionally, that images with strong yellows (i.e. "light greens") and a specific range of dayglo Orange/Red can be a challenge and compression effects may unexpectedly "rebalance" what is visible via the viewing media. These are edge colours in the colour charts showing coverage.

    One early experience I had with digital cameras, using a camera that shot only jpg, no RAW option, was a set of images where some brown earth (a mix of wet and dry dark brown earth taken in strong light with high contrast sunlight) turned out a rather unpleasantly consistent dark chocolate brown whilst green grass looked OK if a little vibrant.

    In part this was a limitation of the printer and media I was using but the main problem was that I had not noticed that the camera (as I recall) was inadvertently set to Adobe RGB and the output to sRGB (or the other way around - I don't fully remember) and the apparently selectively odd results, since many colours looked "ok", were a great puzzle at the time.

    That said, printing, compared to on screen viewing, is a whole different black art.

    Please don't take my words as ultimate fact on this subject - there are many nuances to become aware about - but have a look around the internet where you will find a wealth of information that in time, combined with your own experiences, will put you in a good place to get the results that you want even from less than encouraging starting points - and we all have those quite often I suspect.


    Grant
    0

La publicación no admite más comentarios.