Aftershot Pro RAW rendering is darker?

[nex4]

From time to time I noticed that the .ARW raw files generated by my NEX-3N appears very dark in ASP. The JPEG looks fine to me. Any ideas?

[ferdinand-paris]

Have you turned on some high dynamic range option? What this does is underexpose the capture to preserve highlights and then boost the shadows in creating the JPG. However if you shoot RAW you just get an underexposed image, as ASP doesn't do the matching automatic adjustment. You'll have to do it yourself.

[nex4]

I double checked. DRO is set to OFF.

[Dutchmm]

When you bought your NEX-3, you must have received RAW converter software from Sony. It used to be called something like Image Data Converter. Does this show dark on converting the same pictures that you think ASP is mishandling?

[nex4]

Yes, NEX-3N comes with SONY Image Data Converter. The JPEG generated by the IDC looks exactly like the JPEG generated by the camera.

But ASP generates picture that is -0.3ev to -0.7 Ev. On top of that, color rendering is different. White balance appears to be on the cool side.

[Dutchmm]

Hmm
I am hoping someone who has another converter will volunteer to try that one. I only have gimp, AS, and IDC (which runs at geological speed, and I therefore don't use).
If you want to let me have a go with gimp (and what I think is called dcRaw), then please PM me. I will send you a link to upload a RAW you find too dark. And see what I can do with it.

[nex4]

I appreciate your help. Can you try loading the RAW file here?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-c ... =1&x=0&y=0

(select RAW under NEX-3N, you can also download the JPG for comparison. There are 2 JPGs, 1 is OOC and the other with .acr I believe is converted using Lr)

You should notice that the histogram for the NEX-3N .ARW does not cover the entire range. However, the NEX-6 .ARW file seems fine besides some difference in color rendering. The same is seen with NEX-F3.

I have even made a screen shot showing the difference. But I don't know how to upload picture yet.

[nex4]

Here is an example. 3 images of same source.

http://s28.postimg.org/3vfr4esxp/Screen ... _05_PM.png

Left is OOC JPG. Middle is Sony IDC. Right is ASP.

All using default. You can see that ASP image is darker and also has a blue tint. The histogram (not shown) also shows it didn't cover the entire range.

[Dutchmm]

I shall do this. For which film speed did you D/L your test files?

[nex4]

I don't think I understand. You mean ISO? I believe it is ISO 200. Otherwise, what is film speed and how is it related to raw rendering?

[Dutchmm]

While waiting for your reply, attached is a preliminary comparative. I used "As shot" for white balance on AS, and "Camera WB" on the dcRaw version. I turned off all my normal settings for sharpening/saturation/noise reduction &c in AS.



I would say that, at first glance, the AS version is closer than gimp/dcRaw to the DLed OOC shot. At least, for the WB. If you find the second attachment "better" - though I don't think it looks more like the OOC shot, then you could make a raw setting specific to your camera to add 0.3 EV (or less, I would think 0.25) exposure when loading every RAW

Hmm, they should all have the pictures the same size

[nex4]

Thanks. It seems to be the GIMP version is most natural. The ASP version is darker and appears to be clipping highlights. If I increase the exposure, the image will appeared more washed out.

(Edit: on a 2nd thought, the GIMP version seems pushing the red. The background supposed to be white. While it works for the sample, it is going to cause problem for other shots. I think what bothers me most is every ASP processed RAW looks dull.)

From IDC

Screen Shot 2014-05-08 at 7.39.51 AM.png (18.19 KiB) Viewed 9133 times

From ASP, everything default, no sharpening

Screen Shot 2014-05-08 at 7.39.41 AM.png (14.58 KiB) Viewed 9133 times

From ASP, +0.5ev

Screen Shot 2014-05-08 at 7.43.15 AM.png (12.91 KiB) Viewed 9133 times

[Dutchmm]

Dull, you think? I have never met the young lady in the setup, but I think the AS version - converting everything without any adjustment - looks most natural. Gimp seemed to me to produce a slighty oversaturated version, and the OOC version looks undercooked.

I have to say that to me, and many other AS users, it doesn't matter whether the unadjusted dematricised version looks dull anyway. What matters is that many of us have found a set of initial parameters that match our own camera(s). Yes - we can have one set of initial adjustments for the Nex3 and another for the SLT-55. And that is how we have streamlined our workflow. Nothing I have seen in the 3 years I have been using b5 and AS suggests that there is anything inconsistent in the way the initial parameters are applied. You load up the RAWs, and the output, using the camera defaults, is already adjusted most of the way to the prize-winning shots. If your composition is prize-winning, of course.

[nex4]

I have converted 1000+ photos using ARW, often manually. So I can say without a doubt that the images look dull and do not reflect the original scene. To an extend that sunny becomes cloudy.

The way that I see it. This is an issue with ASP's RAW rendering. It seems to me that there is some brightness parameters in .ARW that are being ignored. The image shown in JPG and embedded image in .ARW are clearly brighter than what is shown in ASP. This offset may not be constant. It could be -0.3ev for one and up to -1.0ev for another. IMO, the default should start from intended brightness. If highlight is lost, it can easily be recovered from RAW because the extra brightness was artificial.

Edit: I modified my previous post to use embedded photo and I can't help but notice that your AS photo is better than mine. I wonder what settings did you used? Here is mine:

[Dutchmm]

My second version had these settings:

Apart from the +0.3EV which I added to this version, the other standout difference is the WB value. We both set "As Shot", but your value shows as 5001, and mine as 6248! Sadly, exiftool only tells me (as far as I can see) that this shot used a Custom WB, without specifying what temperature that was.

Now I think the WB adjustment in AS has been buggy for the last couple of releases - I did file a bug in SurveyMonkey. And I do think WB might be the reason you sometimes have to add, and sometimes subtract exposure. Getting it wrong consistently would also explain a tendency to dullness in your shots. They have to have fixed WB adjustment in Version 2, because one of my most frequent sins is forgetting to reset WB from the previous session.