Sony camera native JPG output better than Lightroom JPG output

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 5 years ago
How to convert Sony raw (ARW) into JPG with Lightroom to reach the camera output quality? There are no profiles available for my SonyA65 camera inside Lightroom (4.2). In general, if I convert inside Lightroom 4.2 without any adjustments, the jpeg looks much worse than jpeg generated by my camera. Even if I adjust brightness, sharpness and saturation, the camera output still looks better. Thanks!!!
Photo of Vit

Vit

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
  • frustrated

Posted 5 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 372 Reply Likes
I think it's just a matter of practice (and getting use to Lightroom/ACR). I assume you are using Adobe Standard profile?
Photo of Vit

Vit

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
The problem is that I can't say, what the difference (between Sony's and Lighroom's jpegs) is. I just see that the camera's jpegs looks better. After playing with many settings for a long time (brightness, saturation, vibrance, sharpening, noise reduction...) I could not reach the quality. Somehow the colors are little bit different, making the camera's jpegs more pleasing to the eye.

Yes, I am using Adobe Standard profile. I also tried some Sony A65 profiles, which I found somewhere on the internet, but the result was even worse than using the Adobe Standard. Unfortunately there are no official profiles for Sony in Lightroom.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 371 Reply Likes
I don't know a thing about that particular camera. My initial thought however is that it's the lack of Lr experience, and/or familiarity with particular results.

Do you think there is something wrong with Lightroom where this camera is concerned?, or in general?? (have you used Lightroom with any other cameras?).

Note: Plenty of people use personally customized camera profiles which they prefer.

Consider posting example jpegs and/or link to raw+xmp.
Photo of Vit

Vit

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Well, my Lr experience is not particularly deep, that is true and the problem is beyond my skills/sensitivity. However, it is also something I would like Adobe to figure for me and other Sony camera users. I don't even want to get to such a level of expertise on my own (unless I have more time of course)

I created an album here:

https://picasaweb.google.com/11493660...

There are four shots: camera, orig Lr, adjusted Lr and Sony software. Strangely, the output from Sony's original converter worse than camera's jpegs too.

I hope it is now more clear what am I referring to. It is a shot with a flash, but I could have taken other examples. Everywhere the camera's jpegs beats the output I am able to get from Lightroom. Meaning this subtle (but important) differences in tones or what is it. Adjusting WB is one of the reasons why I can't just stick with camera's jpegs.

Thanks!
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 371 Reply Likes
Fair enough Vit,

The differences do seem subtle and within expected tolerance. I suspect you'll have to create a custom camera profile or two that is more to your liking. I mean, Adobe Standard won't change (assuming there's not a bug for a particular camera model that is). There may be an Adobe Standard #2 at some point, but I would guess your problem is not likely to be fixed any time in the near future.

Don't let me stop you from trying, I'm just sayin' - don't hold your breath, and consider plan B.

Rob
Photo of Vit

Vit

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
But do you agree that the native Canon output is better? Actually I don't want Adobe to change their standard profile. I used to have a Canon camera before, and there are camera profiles available for Canon. If you edit Canon raw, there are several profiles (standard, vivid, landscape, faithful...) No such thing exists for Sony cameras. For me it is difficult to create a profile on my own. I would rather professionals with the right equipment do that for me.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 371 Reply Likes
Honestly? - neither one suits my tastes perfectly - that's why I roll my own.

If it's any consolation, plenty of people don't prefer Adobe Standard, so you are not alone...
Photo of TK

TK

  • 531 Posts
  • 109 Reply Likes
Rob, I don't think that Vit's unfamiliarity with LR is the problem, but the idiosyncrasies of the Adobe standard camera profile. At least when comparing with a custom camera profile I created, some hues (e.g., red) are off quite a bit. I furthermore understand that is a "twisted" profile in the sense that it changes hues with lightness. The saturation also changes with lightness, but the latter could be an LR issue, rather than being attached to the profile.

Vit, try to get an X-rite colour chart and create your own camera profile. Failing that, you may want to play with the "Camera Calibration" panel, adjusting hue and saturation values manually. This won't get you there a 100% but if you can achieve an improvement, you can make the adjusted values the default Develop settings or associate them with a preset.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 372 Reply Likes
TK wrote:
|> "I don't think that Vit's unfamiliarity with LR is the problem, but the idiosyncrasies of the Adobe standard camera profile."

I agree, now, but I wasn't sure at first - gave it 50/50 odds - I see both in these forums, a lot:

1. people import "perfected in camera" photos, without benefit of attention to camera settings in Lr, and are disappointed.

2. people don't prefer Adobe Standard profile.

Summary: both things happen regularly... - luckily there are solutions for both:

1. Ween oneself from in-camera settings - perfect in Lightroom.
2. Learn to create custom profiles (or use camera emulation profiles, if available for your model).

R
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 372 Reply Likes
More .02: what seems to look the best is often what one is most familiar with.

e.g. ever have a photo that is way too cool (white-balance-wise), and you warm it up, but not enough, because warm enough always looks too warm when comparing to original?

e.g.2. people who use Adobe Standard regularly often think the camera profiles look too green/yellow and make people look like aliens, and people who use Camera profiles regularly think Adobe Standard looks too reddish, and make people look sun-burnt.

e.g.3. often people tend to think PV2010 looks the best, before they get used to PV2012 (granted, PV2012 results are highly dependent on editing skill too - but I'm talking about it's innate characteristics now).

Final thoughts: the DNG Profile Editor is your friend - get to know her...

The most accurate color comes from using a linear profile calibrated to camera using color-chart, e.g. x-rite, but of course accuracy is not always the goal...

Rob