Camera Raw (Sony) better color rendition in the raw processing engine.

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 2 years ago
  • Answered
Images processed by Lightroom and perhaps camera raw on Sony A7III and other Sony cameras. The colors are very washed out even in well exposed photos. Lightroom’s competitor Capture One produces images closest to production complete shots. Please work on the processing engine and have it display a more saturated image.
Photo of Jasonelmore5


  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
  • great

Posted 2 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 5703 Posts
  • 2284 Reply Likes
You mean you're just comparing the default settings? Or you can't get a look that you like when you've edited?
Photo of dmeephd


  • 300 Posts
  • 81 Reply Likes
Adobe changed their processing engine in early 2018 and it removes those "enhancements" applied to your jpegs by the camera processor to the raw files.   What you see on the back of your camera and in Capture One is what Sony and Phase One thinks should look better.

Lightroom, on the other hand, is giving you an image based on their new Adobe Color Standard.  Which means you have to apply post-processing to bring the image to the visual state you like (within the limits of the data contained in the raw file or jpeg captured by the sensor).  It's not a problem with the processing engine of Lightroom.  It's a difference of opinion—for lack of a better term—of what looks "better"...Adobe's rendition coupled with yours or the default given to you by Sony (which Phase One simply duplicates).

It only took a few minutes working with raw files from my stable of Sony alphas (a7RII, a7SII, a7RIII, a9) to have Lightroom display my raw files the way I like them.  (Better then the default Sony yields, which is their interpretation of the original scene.  Funny thing, my Canon cameras default was closer to that of Adobe, so I didn't see as great a change as I did in my arw files.  I chalk this up to the simple fact that Canons' basis is that of a photography company and Sonys basis is that of an 'entertainment' company.  For evidence, just look at some of Sony's silly features as their drop-in software and the initial release of lossy, compressed raw files.  Stupid.  Amateur.)

Like Victoria implied, the default settings in Lightroom are now different.  However, after you've applied post-processing you can improve upoin the interpretation Sony forces upon us alpha users.

I'm not one to defend Adobe, believe me, but in this case you're barking up the wrong tree.  Adobe should have explained this change better, but then Victoria (and others) have published fine books covering all aspects of Lightroom which explain this better than Adobe ever could.
Photo of Jerry Syder

Jerry Syder

  • 508 Posts
  • 230 Reply Likes
You can also try changing the profile in Lightroom to one of the camera profiles . Try experimenting with these and possibly, they may get you closer to the look you’re after(as these should be whatever you’ve got in camera). You can then set your default setting to your preference.
Photo of dmeephd


  • 300 Posts
  • 81 Reply Likes
It's not the camera profile, Jerry.  It's the difference between what Sony thinks a good image looks like as presented by the jpeg or the embedded jpeg in the raw file, and what Adobe thinks a good image looks like without any post-processing.

Sony basically has a cartoon interpretation—because they are an entertainment company first, and a camaeracompany second—and Adobe is being much more realistic.  (Jesus, I can't believe I am defending Adobe here, especially after having spent tens of thousands of dollars on Sony gear—because they do make a helluva camera despite their haiving some pretty idiotic amateurish ideas.)

One simply has to apply post-processing in Lightroom to their Sony files and they will eventually get to were they want to be.  Which is, exactly, how one should go about improving one's images.  Else, just rely on Sonys' software and forego Lightroom altogether.  Clearly, one doesn't need Lightroom if that is the desired end result.
Photo of Cameron Rad

Cameron Rad

  • 161 Posts
  • 49 Reply Likes
Camera profiles can definitely help set a starting point. Plus now you can make enhanced camera profiles which can combine DCP/DNG profiles with Camera RAW settings, HSL look tables, and 3DLUTs.

I've made numerous profiles for Canon, Sony, Nikon, Fuji, etc. Both "accurate" and "preferred/pleasing" color profiles and have been able to get different cameras to match. For instance, here's a "look profile" I made for a Canon 5D3 and Sony A7R3.

Lumariver profile designer works pretty well for making profiles and is pretty easy to use. 

Adobe's default profiles are actually pretty good in my opinion. They are fairly accurate in terms of color rendering. I think sometimes people get thrown off when they try to compare it with something like C1 that has a more "pleasing" color rendering out of the box. One caveat with the C1 approach is it's baking in a lot of the creative decisions for the user that might not always work universally.