Thank you so much for this video. I was doing some tests with my A7iii, and I couldn't figure out why some photos looked different in RAW when playing with picture profiles. After some googling, I was convinced I was going crazy until I found your video. Thanks again!
I just did some testing on this. So it's interesting - I wouldn't say it "reduces noise" as much as you seem to gain about 2/3 of a stop of light if you shoot in HLG3 Gamma. So essentially your 51,200 ISO goes a little bit further than it would in the stills gamma. I compared my results and the noise is the same at both ISOs when properly exposed, but you have to essentially compensate more in Still than in HLG3. Awesome find!
Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this but what you showed is how I understand that Fujifilm uses their Dynamic Range 200%, 400%, Auto & DR Priority modes. Applying a tone curve to shadows & highlights at different ISO settings. It’s good for people who shoot JPEG only, using the Cine Gamma for example opens up the shadows and can help avoid crushed blacks. But it comes at a cost to RAW image data being manipulated too. Great to see it being shown so clearly!
Thanks gerald. Top notch work as per usual! One request for another video since you're smart and noone else seems to have reported this. How much quality difference is it shooting in 4k full frame mode than 4k in super35/crop mode on the a7iii. I cannot find a video or anyone saying their results other than "little to no difference" thank you in advanced and absolutely love your work
so grateful for this channel! I was filming an event in slog3 and switched to stills and was so confused as to why the Lightroom preview was so different from the in camera photo. This was incredibly helpful.
Just came across your channel recently (due to it featuring in one of Jeven's Q&A videos) and I must say, you are the PERFECT balance of geeky and entertaining. I love how you go into details about common misconceptions and explain it in a detailed but fun way!! Been catching up on some of your older videos... but just wanted to say... GREAT WORK GERALD!!!
Fascinating. This reminds me of a video I watched by another thorough youtuber who demonstrated that the picture profiles impact the behavior of the in-camera histogram, which indirectly affects the raw file because the shooter adjusts the aperture/shutter/iso settings to manage the change he/she sees on the histogram.
dopamining yes. Some settings actually change the amount the camera itself will meter, so it can have a slight change even though the raw itself won’t.
Dude, awesome stuff. I was just explaining to someone the other day how it doesn't matter shooting raw. Guess I was wrong. That's the beauty and frustration of the craft all at once. There's always something new and exciting to learn, but that fact also means we're perpetually ignorant. Thanks for the great content!
I'm not sure at the moment. Personally I've just been using the stills gamma this whole time and been quite happy. Some people are saying you can manipulate it to get a less noisy image, but I haven't tested.
Hey Gerald can you please tell me when Sony raw picture overexposes? What should I set my zebra to like I set it at 107+ for slog2. At zebra does a6500 raw picture reach its clipping point?
I was wondering the same thing. Like if I shoot video in HLS or Cine- can I just leave it like that always when I shoot photos too...? Will it just develop differently but ultimately be just as developable?
Respect for taking an effort to test and investigate it. This is the only proper way for such cases instead of theories on forums. Maybe it is kinda still shifting ISO value no matter the fixed value? I don't think there is "postprocessing" before recording the raw. Might be the ISO value is recorded wrong with the raw ignoring the shift?
It's possible I suppose that the ISO is treated differently when you use those different gammas and that it makes your setting kind of irrelevant. I'll have to investigate further.
Just when I thought I you had explained it all... You clarify a super important topic! Now I'm curious about shooting stills in HLG and what zebra setting to use.
Kasey really likes your Channel and I do too now. Thanks man I’m subbing you your straight to the point and honest and easy to listen to. Informative and entertaining that’s your value and that’s what I need
Is there somewhere I can download the RAWs with the different gammas? It'd be interesting to take a look at the metadata tags and see if the gamma is specified in there or if it's baked into the raw image data.
Hi Gerald thanks for the great video. i've been shooting raw on sony camera's for a while i have the Sony a7iii and the Sony A6600 i just shot a video using these cameras and when i went back to shooting photos i notice that my pictures didn't look the same and i thought it was me. But this week i got a call from one of my clients commenting the the quality didn't look the same. So i went thru all my settings and the only setting that was changed was the picture profile settings but i couldn't prove that was the problem till i came across your video. Thanks again!!
see what makes it confusing was that on the camera itself, even though your mode is set to camera raw only, your live preview does change if you change the picture profiles, which threw it off for me a little and i had to double check
You just finished my own homework! I was planning to check if my theory is right. Literally, you just saved hours of work! You rock! Always anticipating what your topic is gonna be! 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Choosing profiles with wider or narrower gamma has pros and cons, according to another video by Gerald Undone, more details with narrower ranges (Cine) or less details with wider ranges (Slog2 or 3)
I used to custom set the PP settings deep in the menu to get my own style of grade or film simulation straight into the raw file. That’s my favourite thing about Sony.
Fascinating! I've been trying trying to change the colours on my SonyA7iii when shooting stills at events (in RAW obviously). I'm going to try PP2 with everything on Still or zero except Cine1 on the gamma. We'll see what happens 🤔 Thank you for this look into Picture Profiles
If a picture profile (like cine2) helps with dynamic range for video and post-processing, do you recommend also shooting stills with a picture profile on (ie. have my Gamma setting at cine2 (saw your other video on rec - I have a A7ii)?
Hi Gerald! I always shoot in PP10, as that's the profile I use for video, so I just stick with it for stills. Now I'm worried it's been creating more noise in images? Is it better to leave PP off for stills? What is the practical conclusion of your amazing findings. My brain needs you to hold my hand to the practical repercussions of this for developing still images.
Yes, that is very true. Also already did these tests on my own a half year before and I just wondered why many sources say photes would not be influenced by Picture Profiles. So when I was on vacation I had to switch the Picture Profile all the time when I wanted to take photos and when I wanted to record a video. Nice work and comparison here.
I thought more people knew about this, I figured this out a while ago when seeing if using Slog changed my RAW files (shooting all tests at ISO 800) and when I realized it did weird things to the color I figured the rest of the gamma adjustment profiles did as well
Why didn't you compare the different gammas and explore them further? They don't seem to be changing the image the same way as when you record w video.
Thanks for the video. Another thing I've noticed is that having Picture Profile enabled or not affects whether the Sony's built-in Lens Compensation (specifically and only Shading Comp.) gets baked into the RAW file. Having a PP on means Shading Comp. is baked into the RAW file, but PP Off means no Shading Comp. in the RAW file. You would expect Shading Comp. to get baked into the JPEG file as standard, but I always assumed that Lens Comp. would not apply to RAW (at least based on previous experience). Apparently I was wrong. The danger of only having an Auto/Off option for a setting, rather than a fully manual Auto/On/Off.
Well, because of the nature of raw, the dynamic range should be the same, but some people are suggesting you can reduce the noise by shooting in S-Log2. But I haven't tested the DR.
Wait, so what gamma should we use??? for the most dynamic range? On my nikon, it was raw, with flat, what's the equivalent of this? on the back of the screen i like: Gamma: Cine1, and color mode: Cinema. looks to have the most dynamic range, at least on the back of the screen. I don't have a good understanding of 'gamma' or what that means, but you said gamma changes the raw files, and we do have to choose a gamma correct? what gamma do you choose?
Hey Gerald, your videos are very informative and well thought out, they have definitely helped me get a deeper understanding of my camera. keep up the good work.
Here's the deal with the Cine and Log gammas on the Sony cameras: the changing ISO range is just is digital adjustment / metadata inside the camera. At the sensor level (and actual data in raw files), the sensitivity does not really change. Using a6300 as an example, normal profile @ISO100, Cine @ISO200 and Log @ISO800 are all the same thing. They all clip to white at the same point, and the blacks are lost in noise at the same point. On jpg and video files, the gamma is adjusted so that Cine looks a stop brighter, and log looks three stops brighter - thus the higher nominal ISO setting. A similar thing applies to RAW: as far ss i can tell, the above are all the same thing as far as the actual recorded data goes, and the differences are just metadata. When you set the ISO to 2000 on all profiles, you added more actual gain on the sensor level to the normal profile shots than to the cine (1 stop) and log (3 stops). If you look closely at your shots, you will probably find that in addition to the gamma differences, the normal profile shot likely has a bit more noise than the cine and log shots due to this additional gain. If your shot had hard highlights, they likely would also burn to white at different points in the raw files (i have not tested this, but in theory this should be the case).
This seems very reasonable, but why not then have a flag that we can disable in the developer. "Ignore Gamma" or something that you put a check next to.
BTW, i just did a quick test, and at least as far as the highlight are concerned, my theory holds... At ISO 2000 the normal mode shot clips to full white earlier than a log profile shot. There is a real difference in the exposure at the sensor level - the ISO is nominally the same, but it actually changes what is recorded in the RAW. So, this also means that there is an actual valid reason to use Cine or Log color profiles when shooting raw: and it's actually the same reason these profiles are used with video. When using Cine, you can underexpose by one stop to protect highlights, and still get a normal looking on-camera preview (and jpegs). Or use slog and underexpose three stops to keep even more highlights while getting a similarly normal looking (albeit low contrast and noisy) image on camera's preview.
it's funny how thumbnails may trick you about how the photo looks, I get this all the time on my Lumix (because I set the iDynamic to high) - when I upload files to LR, they suddenly get all dark and contrasty and have to switch to Camera Natural profile to retrieve that thumbnail dynamics
That's amazing! I've noticed that it looks funky sometimes, but I've never really bother to test it 😅 thanks for letting us know 🤩🙏 related to the picture profile thing is when you switch between e-shutter. It will display the picture profile when the setting is on. But I don't think that will effect the information.
Was playing around messing with different picture profiles without editing them and I also noticed how under the same conditions me changing the picture profile made the image brighter as well as me changing the dro from Level 1 to level five. My question is in your opinion what would be the best picture profile for stills for you?
So in your tests did you find any positives to using profiles other than the standard? It said it may effect noise levels, any upside to changing gamma for RAW?
Does anyone know if using SLOG3 gamma changes the base/native ISO for photos as well? For example on an A7iv the base ISO's for video in SLOG3 are 800 & 3200 - does this translate to photo mode as well if you use this Gamma?
first gig i did with my A7III, i was playing around with all the settings and left my camera on PP7. will at the gig my pictures exposures on the screen where perfect. i soon as i got the files on my computer, they where all under exposed by 2-3 stops lol . i leaned that lesson the hard way
I don't get why Sony keeps messing up with their RAW files. I mean, RAW files SHOULD BE RAW. No treatment. No changes. And yet they already had done some sort of NR before on long-exposures (over 3.2s, which sometimes blurs stars in astro pictures), now this...
One thing I wonder about creative profiles and picture profiles is if they affect other things in the process of shooting. I know the creative profiles affect how we see the histogram and potentially how we expose, but would creative profile affect how AF work? Same thing with picture profiles, would it affect how AF work? I was testing home on live subjects using eye-af and stationary subjects with A7iii and A7RV, and it seem like the AF hit better with STD vs Portrait, and it even seem better increasing contrast/sharpness. Is this a thing or is it just me getting lucky those times I increased the values? Could we get DONE on this one?
Is there a way to "delink" the picture profile I choose for stills mode and the movie mode on my A7iii? so annoying that I have to switch every time I wanna shoot a clip!
Shoot in 'M' mode. Put the pp on and then turn silent shooting on, it will then let you shoot raw and the pp will only come on when you hit the record button.
Okay... so I've been shooting stills with Slog2/Slog3 for more than a year with thousands of images in that gamma. That's why I always wonder why it's hard to grade in Lightroom as the way color behaves when I grade just isn't right... That being said, what should I do to properly grade those stills? I don't have any of the correction LUTs in Lightroom so I don't think they support it anyway. Am I doomed? 😳
Generally speaking there's nothing wrong with shooting images in S-Log. It's just that your ISO is shifted so you need to expose differently. But a raw image at ISO 3200 in S-Log should be identical to a standard gamma image at ISO 800.
@@geraldundone So I don't have to use a correction LUT as I do in videos? Because I feel the color just feel somewhat different if I just start grading straight from raw
guys is there any way to disable that? If I switch between video and normal manual image mode the PP is still applied, which is extremely annoying as I switch between video and photo mode quite a lot, especially when there's not enough time or u forget that the pp is not applied yet and then ur nightshot is ruined...
Well this answered a lot of the questions I had but when you shoot in log do you get more dynamic range? I feel like I get more colors shooting at minimum iso 800 a7riii
exactly what I suspected!!! I always wondered why profiles named "Picture profiles" and not "Video profiles". The name reflects the real impact at pictures as well. I changed my PP to one with Cine2 and noticed that toning of my photos changed, especially under brighter Sun.. Wondered why and got the answer here.. Thanks Gerald for the good investigation and illustrations!
Is there a way to set a picture profile for Only Video mode and not for Photo Mode? I have noticed it that when I change the picture profile for video, photos mode switched to the same picture profile as well. I have already used the two memory buttons for my two movie preset settings so wanted a way to keep picture profile only on video and not photo so that I do not have to change it every time I switch between photo and video modes.
Is there no telling which picture profiles (or gammas) we have chosen once the pictures are taken? I've come all the way to these gamma stuff that seem to be "processed" without telling us exactly how, because obviously Lightroom is doing something when producing jpg previews and displaying RAW. I shoot RAW pictures in Cine and Slog like many others and sometimes I forget which setting or gamma I have chosen. My guess is the files can't interpret the taken images to tell us which profiles we have chosen (they do the other way around), but the RAW files provide just a range of captured signals wider or narrower, I'm hoping this makes sense
Hello... I was using a Hlg profile for video recording. I forgot to change it and I shooted sports pictures (photography) with this picture profile. Surprise : The jpg files look better on the sony a6400 screen than on the pc (even inside Lightroom). Is there a way/trick to fix those dark pictures and get something similar as the pictures displayed on the screen? Some batch option in lightroom or in the camera? I shooted in jpg only so I think it's too late. But help is welcome :-)
So...can this be used in a beneficial way or is it better to leave the gamma to still for photo shooting? Since still isnt a suggested video gamma, wouldn't using a flatter profile give you more to work with for photos also then?
Are the Leeming LUTs intended for photography or just video? Because on video they look great, but on stills the colors always look wrong. I'm thinking they are designed to work on what the MP4 compression does to the end result and thus aren't calibrated to work directly with RAW?
I'm looking for a way to match timelapse Raw files with Slog 3 video... you would need a custom Profile in LR / Capture One ect otherwise you're using the gamma selected by the camera but getting all kinds of weird issues because the Profile in the raw developer wasn't made for that gamma / color space ect so you'll get strange artifacts.
Is there a way to remove the PP and get back to a "baseline" RAW once the images are on computer? I tried switching the camera profile in C1 to Adobe DNG Natural, but it seems gamma was still affected. I shot stills in PP11 and they are considerably darker than what I saw on camera screen and histogram when shooting, would like to fix before developing further. Thanks
Thank you for explaining this! Ive been trying to figure out why my photos dont look the same as they do on the back of the camera. I did extensive research on this camera and no one ever mentioned the profile settings dont affect raw photos. :/
I shot accidentally in a slog 2 picture profile by mistake, is there any way to convert those pictures in standard Raw srgb or rec 709? Please reply ASAP.
Hey so question I just shot a real estate shoot and I realized I had the picture profile set to HLG is there a way to change my Picture profile to none or am I stuck with it . It doesn’t look bad but I e never done this before.
Great video. Thanks Gerald! I was suspecting this all along but thought I was crazy and never actually tested it to prove it. I believed everyone else but me.
wow.... till recently I had a gut feeling that you were a genius... now we have proof ! ;-) hey if you have time to answer this question : so I use a Sony a7s to shoot realtime video of northern lights in XAVC-S , and play around with the numerous available settings ... any suggestion for what picture profile and gamma is best ? not for photo but video, 25 fps , 1/25th sec. , usually around 40'000 ISO, WB 3800K .... I know I should use 1/50th sec when shooting at 25 fps but those darn northern lights are not always that bright , even though I use fast f/1.4 and even f/0.95 lenses ... I guess I'll have to play with gamma then... but am curious to hear your advice ;-)
Northern lights and astrophotography is something I've never really spent any time on. I feel like I would have nothing of value to add. I'd defer this question to someone who has more experience than me in this regard. Sorry! But thanks for the kind words and encouragement on the video. Very much appreciated!
Gammagate
😂😂😂😅drama for nerds
LOL
Thank you for covering this info for photography and not just video settings like so many others!
Thank you so much for this video. I was doing some tests with my A7iii, and I couldn't figure out why some photos looked different in RAW when playing with picture profiles. After some googling, I was convinced I was going crazy until I found your video. Thanks again!
I just did some testing on this. So it's interesting - I wouldn't say it "reduces noise" as much as you seem to gain about 2/3 of a stop of light if you shoot in HLG3 Gamma. So essentially your 51,200 ISO goes a little bit further than it would in the stills gamma. I compared my results and the noise is the same at both ISOs when properly exposed, but you have to essentially compensate more in Still than in HLG3.
Awesome find!
Thank you so much for sharing this info 😊❤
i really love that this channel covers very niche topics. the info you provide can be found nowhere else
Thanks, Steve! Appreciate it.
Ur killing it bro. U pass on so much advanced photo/ vid knowledge and I seriously learn something new in every video💪🏼💪🏼
Thanks, Jacob! Means a lot.
Maybe I missed it, did you mention if these are compressed or uncompressed raw?
I didn't, but they are uncompressed. Good question!
I saw that they are 47 MB and suspected that means no compression. Compressed ones fromy my A7ii are about 25 MB :)
zomgonzo is the raw compression lossy or lossless?
@@tigerheaddude It's lossy-sh :)
It's lossy but if you don't do really extreme editing the loss is negligible IMO.
Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this but what you showed is how I understand that Fujifilm uses their Dynamic Range 200%, 400%, Auto & DR Priority modes. Applying a tone curve to shadows & highlights at different ISO settings.
It’s good for people who shoot JPEG only, using the Cine Gamma for example opens up the shadows and can help avoid crushed blacks. But it comes at a cost to RAW image data being manipulated too.
Great to see it being shown so clearly!
Thanks gerald. Top notch work as per usual! One request for another video since you're smart and noone else seems to have reported this. How much quality difference is it shooting in 4k full frame mode than 4k in super35/crop mode on the a7iii. I cannot find a video or anyone saying their results other than "little to no difference" thank you in advanced and absolutely love your work
Thanks, Jason! Appreciate it. And thanks for the suggestion.
Even though I don't have a Sony camera I still liked to watch this video just to make my brain hurt a little
Haha. Thanks for doing so!
Bertram Photography I don’t shoot stills but watched to the end. 😂
I do have an a6400 and my brain hurts bad also
so grateful for this channel! I was filming an event in slog3 and switched to stills and was so confused as to why the Lightroom preview was so different from the in camera photo. This was incredibly helpful.
Just came across your channel recently (due to it featuring in one of Jeven's Q&A videos) and I must say, you are the PERFECT balance of geeky and entertaining.
I love how you go into details about common misconceptions and explain it in a detailed but fun way!! Been catching up on some of your older videos...
but just wanted to say... GREAT WORK GERALD!!!
Thanks so much! Happy you checked out the channel. Appreciate it. Cheers!
Fascinating. This reminds me of a video I watched by another thorough youtuber who demonstrated that the picture profiles impact the behavior of the in-camera histogram, which indirectly affects the raw file because the shooter adjusts the aperture/shutter/iso settings to manage the change he/she sees on the histogram.
dopamining yes. Some settings actually change the amount the camera itself will meter, so it can have a slight change even though the raw itself won’t.
Dude, awesome stuff. I was just explaining to someone the other day how it doesn't matter shooting raw. Guess I was wrong. That's the beauty and frustration of the craft all at once. There's always something new and exciting to learn, but that fact also means we're perpetually ignorant. Thanks for the great content!
Thanks, Eric! I sympathize with that seeing how I was just guilty of it myself. 😃
I can confirm this. Gerald saved me after watching this video, after turning off picture profile my photos are so much better now!
I wonder how many times I said: "It's exactly the same!" 😜😂
What is the practical use of changing the gamma for stills? Can you please follow up?
I'm not sure at the moment. Personally I've just been using the stills gamma this whole time and been quite happy. Some people are saying you can manipulate it to get a less noisy image, but I haven't tested.
To answer your original question, it is equal to the likes that that comment got...
@@geraldundone Could you test the differences for your next video? Love your content, it's so informative :)
Hey Gerald can you please tell me when Sony raw picture overexposes? What should I set my zebra to like I set it at 107+ for slog2. At zebra does a6500 raw picture reach its clipping point?
Now to determine which gamma is "best"...
Did you find out in a year? :) I look for the one gamma which can lower my ISO:)
@@kerembilgin6839 I'm a Fuji boy now 🤣
I was wondering the same thing. Like if I shoot video in HLS or Cine- can I just leave it like that always when I shoot photos too...? Will it just develop differently but ultimately be just as developable?
That will take years 😑
@@chrisperrywv Have you figured it out?
Appreciate how you stick to the facts and avoid the assumptions. You got my subscription. Thank you.
Thanks, Robert! Happy to have a new subscriber. Cheers!
Respect for taking an effort to test and investigate it. This is the only proper way for such cases instead of theories on forums.
Maybe it is kinda still shifting ISO value no matter the fixed value? I don't think there is "postprocessing" before recording the raw. Might be the ISO value is recorded wrong with the raw ignoring the shift?
It's possible I suppose that the ISO is treated differently when you use those different gammas and that it makes your setting kind of irrelevant. I'll have to investigate further.
The master researcher at it again!
Just when I thought I you had explained it all... You clarify a super important topic!
Now I'm curious about shooting stills in HLG and what zebra setting to use.
Thanks dude. My go to channel for learning everything technical. Shot!
Cheers, Gavin!
is it best to shoot photos in RAW with picturee profiles enabled or disabled ?
Kasey really likes your Channel and I do too now. Thanks man I’m subbing you your straight to the point and honest and easy to listen to. Informative and entertaining that’s your value and that’s what I need
Thanks a lot! That's really kind. Happy you subscribed. Look forward to future comments. Cheers!
Is there somewhere I can download the RAWs with the different gammas? It'd be interesting to take a look at the metadata tags and see if the gamma is specified in there or if it's baked into the raw image data.
T Freeman yep!
Hi Gerald thanks for the great video. i've been shooting raw on sony camera's for a while i have the Sony a7iii and the Sony A6600 i just shot a video using these cameras and when i went back to shooting photos i notice that my pictures didn't look the same and i thought it was me. But this week i got a call from one of my clients commenting the the quality didn't look the same. So i went thru all my settings and the only setting that was changed was the picture profile settings but i couldn't prove that was the problem till i came across your video. Thanks again!!
Man you are incredible.
I learn so much by your each and every video.
keep it up.Hope you will blow up soon.
Love from India.
Thanks so much! Really appreciate this comment. Cheers from Canada!
see what makes it confusing was that on the camera itself, even though your mode is set to camera raw only, your live preview does change if you change the picture profiles, which threw it off for me a little and i had to double check
The world just got undone with this one! Outstanding 🌟🌟🌟
Haha. Thanks, Julio!
You just finished my own homework!
I was planning to check if my theory is right.
Literally, you just saved hours of work!
You rock! Always anticipating what your topic is gonna be! 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Happy to help! 😃
Thanks for the comment and kind words!
So, bottom line - what does this mean? Can we choose a picture profile, adjust gamma and effectively get better low light performance on those images?
I'm questioning this as well
Choosing profiles with wider or narrower gamma has pros and cons, according to another video by Gerald Undone, more details with narrower ranges (Cine) or less details with wider ranges (Slog2 or 3)
I used to custom set the PP settings deep in the menu to get my own style of grade or film simulation straight into the raw file. That’s my favourite thing about Sony.
I don't own a Sony and don't really know anything about what you're talking about, but it was still interesting! Top notch, man.
Haha. Thanks, Bryan!
Fascinating! I've been trying trying to change the colours on my SonyA7iii when shooting stills at events (in RAW obviously). I'm going to try PP2 with everything on Still or zero except Cine1 on the gamma. We'll see what happens 🤔 Thank you for this look into Picture Profiles
Congrats on 40K. Not a Sony user, but all these years I thought Raw is Raw and nothing changes. The usual great thorough job.
Thanks, Phil! Yeah, I was definitely in the same boat.
If a picture profile (like cine2) helps with dynamic range for video and post-processing, do you recommend also shooting stills with a picture profile on (ie. have my Gamma setting at cine2 (saw your other video on rec - I have a A7ii)?
I would like to know the same thing. Could you, please, tell us, if you have found out anything regarding this?
Picture profiles actually don't affect raw shooting. So we are all good!
Hi Gerald! I always shoot in PP10, as that's the profile I use for video, so I just stick with it for stills. Now I'm worried it's been creating more noise in images? Is it better to leave PP off for stills? What is the practical conclusion of your amazing findings. My brain needs you to hold my hand to the practical repercussions of this for developing still images.
Yes, that is very true. Also already did these tests on my own a half year before and I just wondered why many sources say photes would not be influenced by Picture Profiles. So when I was on vacation I had to switch the Picture Profile all the time when I wanted to take photos and when I wanted to record a video. Nice work and comparison here.
I thought more people knew about this, I figured this out a while ago when seeing if using Slog changed my RAW files (shooting all tests at ISO 800) and when I realized it did weird things to the color I figured the rest of the gamma adjustment profiles did as well
So in what PP did you decide to shoot when shooting RAW? Do you still shoot in the Still gamma (default)?
Shouldnt it be: No for all standard profiles, only when you custom alter the gamma will affect it.
Always covering interesting an useful topics! Great work.
Thanks, Alex.
Why didn't you compare the different gammas and explore them further? They don't seem to be changing the image the same way as when you record w video.
Thanks for the video. Another thing I've noticed is that having Picture Profile enabled or not affects whether the Sony's built-in Lens Compensation (specifically and only Shading Comp.) gets baked into the RAW file. Having a PP on means Shading Comp. is baked into the RAW file, but PP Off means no Shading Comp. in the RAW file.
You would expect Shading Comp. to get baked into the JPEG file as standard, but I always assumed that Lens Comp. would not apply to RAW (at least based on previous experience). Apparently I was wrong. The danger of only having an Auto/Off option for a setting, rather than a fully manual Auto/On/Off.
So would you suggest shooting raw images with a certain gamma to improve dynamic range? Or is the same data essentially there just with a curve added?
Jason Taylor this is what I wanna know?
Well, because of the nature of raw, the dynamic range should be the same, but some people are suggesting you can reduce the noise by shooting in S-Log2. But I haven't tested the DR.
@@geraldundone some said you should shoot with hlg 3 to have the clipping alert that are the most accurate with the histogram
@@geraldundone When using SLog2 the minimum ISO is 800. Most experts suggest that DR in RAW files is best at ISO 100 or am I missing something?
Jason Taylor I would think still gamma would be the best but this is a good idea for a test video on that subject t
Thanks Gerald. Great video. I noticed the changes in Picture Profiles in Raw too, but I thought I was just nuts! :)
Wait, so what gamma should we use??? for the most dynamic range? On my nikon, it was raw, with flat, what's the equivalent of this? on the back of the screen i like: Gamma: Cine1, and color mode: Cinema. looks to have the most dynamic range, at least on the back of the screen. I don't have a good understanding of 'gamma' or what that means, but you said gamma changes the raw files, and we do have to choose a gamma correct? what gamma do you choose?
Hey Gerald, your videos are very informative and well thought out, they have definitely helped me get a deeper understanding of my camera. keep up the good work.
Thanks for letting me know that! I'm really glad. Appreciate this.
Excellent job of making a very complex subject easy to understand.
Here's the deal with the Cine and Log gammas on the Sony cameras: the changing ISO range is just is digital adjustment / metadata inside the camera.
At the sensor level (and actual data in raw files), the sensitivity does not really change. Using a6300 as an example, normal profile @ISO100, Cine @ISO200 and Log @ISO800 are all the same thing.
They all clip to white at the same point, and the blacks are lost in noise at the same point. On jpg and video files, the gamma is adjusted so that Cine looks a stop brighter, and log looks three stops brighter - thus the higher nominal ISO setting.
A similar thing applies to RAW: as far ss i can tell, the above are all the same thing as far as the actual recorded data goes, and the differences are just metadata.
When you set the ISO to 2000 on all profiles, you added more actual gain on the sensor level to the normal profile shots than to the cine (1 stop) and log (3 stops).
If you look closely at your shots, you will probably find that in addition to the gamma differences, the normal profile shot likely has a bit more noise than the cine and log shots due to this additional gain. If your shot had hard highlights, they likely would also burn to white at different points in the raw files (i have not tested this, but in theory this should be the case).
This seems very reasonable, but why not then have a flag that we can disable in the developer. "Ignore Gamma" or something that you put a check next to.
@@geraldundone Good point - i guess they just do not think anyone would shoot stills with log anyway, so they do not see this as a major problem ;-)
BTW, i just did a quick test, and at least as far as the highlight are concerned, my theory holds... At ISO 2000 the normal mode shot clips to full white earlier than a log profile shot. There is a real difference in the exposure at the sensor level - the ISO is nominally the same, but it actually changes what is recorded in the RAW.
So, this also means that there is an actual valid reason to use Cine or Log color profiles when shooting raw: and it's actually the same reason these profiles are used with video.
When using Cine, you can underexpose by one stop to protect highlights, and still get a normal looking on-camera preview (and jpegs). Or use slog and underexpose three stops to keep even more highlights while getting a similarly normal looking (albeit low contrast and noisy) image on camera's preview.
Learn something new every day, right?
Thx for this, Gerald.
Sure do! Thanks for the comment.
Thanks for this video! The best "fix" that I found is to change the camera profile to Camera SH in the Lightroom Develop module.
thank you for putting so much knowledge on your videos!
it's funny how thumbnails may trick you about how the photo looks, I get this all the time on my Lumix (because I set the iDynamic to high) - when I upload files to LR, they suddenly get all dark and contrasty and have to switch to Camera Natural profile to retrieve that thumbnail dynamics
That's amazing! I've noticed that it looks funky sometimes, but I've never really bother to test it 😅 thanks for letting us know 🤩🙏 related to the picture profile thing is when you switch between e-shutter. It will display the picture profile when the setting is on. But I don't think that will effect the information.
Take a shot every time he says picture profile. Great video man! Love the explanation
Is there a way to make a picture profile on sony a7iv that will look like a kodak portra film shot?
So will S-Log2 gamma have more dynamic range than Cine 1 when shooting Raw? Also, which gamma has the lease noise? Great video btw
Does it make better to collor grade on picture profile 07(s-log 2) for instance? I'm confused, ty.
Was playing around messing with different picture profiles without editing them and I also noticed how under the same conditions me changing the picture profile made the image brighter as well as me changing the dro from Level 1 to level five. My question is in your opinion what would be the best picture profile for stills for you?
thank you, shooting in raw, im confuse in standard and neutral when shooting in raw, now iknow that it all the same. thanks
So in your tests did you find any positives to using profiles other than the standard? It said it may effect noise levels, any upside to changing gamma for RAW?
My question exactly.
Does anyone know if using SLOG3 gamma changes the base/native ISO for photos as well? For example on an A7iv the base ISO's for video in SLOG3 are 800 & 3200 - does this translate to photo mode as well if you use this Gamma?
first gig i did with my A7III, i was playing around with all the settings and left my camera on PP7. will at the gig my pictures exposures on the screen where perfect. i soon as i got the files on my computer, they where all under exposed by 2-3 stops lol . i leaned that lesson the hard way
Which was the best gamma for stills you found?
I don't get why Sony keeps messing up with their RAW files. I mean, RAW files SHOULD BE RAW. No treatment. No changes. And yet they already had done some sort of NR before on long-exposures (over 3.2s, which sometimes blurs stars in astro pictures), now this...
One thing I wonder about creative profiles and picture profiles is if they affect other things in the process of shooting. I know the creative profiles affect how we see the histogram and potentially how we expose, but would creative profile affect how AF work? Same thing with picture profiles, would it affect how AF work? I was testing home on live subjects using eye-af and stationary subjects with A7iii and A7RV, and it seem like the AF hit better with STD vs Portrait, and it even seem better increasing contrast/sharpness. Is this a thing or is it just me getting lucky those times I increased the values? Could we get DONE on this one?
More importantly - What about the gh5?
Is there a way to "delink" the picture profile I choose for stills mode and the movie mode on my A7iii? so annoying that I have to switch every time I wanna shoot a clip!
Shoot in 'M' mode. Put the pp on and then turn silent shooting on, it will then let you shoot raw and the pp will only come on when you hit the record button.
Is this only for stills? How does it effect video? Is it the same?
When you change gamma, did the exposure value change on the internal meter? For example, cine1 looks brighter, was it reading higher on the meter?
Now what if I want all of the PP aspects to be kept when developing the RAW? Is there a way to do this?
Okay... so I've been shooting stills with Slog2/Slog3 for more than a year with thousands of images in that gamma. That's why I always wonder why it's hard to grade in Lightroom as the way color behaves when I grade just isn't right... That being said, what should I do to properly grade those stills? I don't have any of the correction LUTs in Lightroom so I don't think they support it anyway. Am I doomed? 😳
Generally speaking there's nothing wrong with shooting images in S-Log. It's just that your ISO is shifted so you need to expose differently. But a raw image at ISO 3200 in S-Log should be identical to a standard gamma image at ISO 800.
@@geraldundone So I don't have to use a correction LUT as I do in videos? Because I feel the color just feel somewhat different if I just start grading straight from raw
Which one gives ya best dynamic range or better for low light?
Thank you G.U for doing this and getting the message out there
Might sound like a noob but... in the end, can I shoot stills in s-log2 as I always shoot my films in s-log2? Thanks for replying
Yeah, you could. You'd just need to expose with S-Log in mind and not the regular gamma.
What if I change in capture one, to no color corection so it's neutral with no Capture One thing under the different ICC profiles?
guys is there any way to disable that? If I switch between video and normal manual image mode the PP is still applied, which is extremely annoying as I switch between video and photo mode quite a lot, especially when there's not enough time or u forget that the pp is not applied yet and then ur nightshot is ruined...
Well this answered a lot of the questions I had but when you shoot in log do you get more dynamic range? I feel like I get more colors shooting at minimum iso 800 a7riii
exactly what I suspected!!! I always wondered why profiles named "Picture profiles" and not "Video profiles". The name reflects the real impact at pictures as well.
I changed my PP to one with Cine2 and noticed that toning of my photos changed, especially under brighter Sun.. Wondered why and got the answer here..
Thanks Gerald for the good investigation and illustrations!
Is there a way to set a picture profile for Only Video mode and not for Photo Mode? I have noticed it that when I change the picture profile for video, photos mode switched to the same picture profile as well. I have already used the two memory buttons for my two movie preset settings so wanted a way to keep picture profile only on video and not photo so that I do not have to change it every time I switch between photo and video modes.
Is there no telling which picture profiles (or gammas) we have chosen once the pictures are taken? I've come all the way to these gamma stuff that seem to be "processed" without telling us exactly how, because obviously Lightroom is doing something when producing jpg previews and displaying RAW. I shoot RAW pictures in Cine and Slog like many others and sometimes I forget which setting or gamma I have chosen. My guess is the files can't interpret the taken images to tell us which profiles we have chosen (they do the other way around), but the RAW files provide just a range of captured signals wider or narrower, I'm hoping this makes sense
Amazing! Thank you so much for doing all the research and presenting it to us!!
old but great video thanks ! I´m getting some picture changes when I import in LRC how do you get LRC to see the most untouched when import ?
Hello... I was using a Hlg profile for video recording. I forgot to change it and I shooted sports pictures (photography) with this picture profile. Surprise : The jpg files look better on the sony a6400 screen than on the pc (even inside Lightroom). Is there a way/trick to fix those dark pictures and get something similar as the pictures displayed on the screen? Some batch option in lightroom or in the camera? I shooted in jpg only so I think it's too late. But help is welcome :-)
So...can this be used in a beneficial way or is it better to leave the gamma to still for photo shooting? Since still isnt a suggested video gamma, wouldn't using a flatter profile give you more to work with for photos also then?
I need help! why whenever i take a photo in RAW, the file is only 11 mb or less? am i doing something with my settings? on sony a7s ii
Thanks a lot Gerald! This is very helpful and informative video.
New insights for me, thank you very much!
Are the Leeming LUTs intended for photography or just video? Because on video they look great, but on stills the colors always look wrong. I'm thinking they are designed to work on what the MP4 compression does to the end result and thus aren't calibrated to work directly with RAW?
Video, though I think jpegs would also work. For raw files it won't work as the colors depend on the conversion software, not the camera.
You are the man! I sincerely appreciate your videos.
I'm looking for a way to match timelapse Raw files with Slog 3 video... you would need a custom Profile in LR / Capture One ect otherwise you're using the gamma selected by the camera but getting all kinds of weird issues because the Profile in the raw developer wasn't made for that gamma / color space ect so you'll get strange artifacts.
Is there a way to remove the PP and get back to a "baseline" RAW once the images are on computer? I tried switching the camera profile in C1 to Adobe DNG Natural, but it seems gamma was still affected. I shot stills in PP11 and they are considerably darker than what I saw on camera screen and histogram when shooting, would like to fix before developing further. Thanks
Yeah, Gerald Undone confirmed, picture profile off when i am shooting timelapse, thanks so much for this video
Thank you for explaining this! Ive been trying to figure out why my photos dont look the same as they do on the back of the camera. I did extensive research on this camera and no one ever mentioned the profile settings dont affect raw photos. :/
I shot accidentally in a slog 2 picture profile by mistake, is there any way to convert those pictures in standard Raw srgb or rec 709? Please reply ASAP.
Is there an advantage.using diff gammas in shooting raw? I wish u discussed it
Finally found the video I needed, thank you on this solid content 👍🏽
What's the point of changing the settings if the raw is untouched? Except for the gamma
Hey so question I just shot a real estate shoot and I realized I had the picture profile set to HLG is there a way to change my
Picture profile to none or am
I stuck with it . It doesn’t look bad but I e never done this before.
Great video. Thanks Gerald! I was suspecting this all along but thought I was crazy and never actually tested it to prove it. I believed everyone else but me.
wow.... till recently I had a gut feeling that you were a genius... now we have proof ! ;-)
hey if you have time to answer this question : so I use a Sony a7s to shoot realtime video of northern lights in XAVC-S , and play around with the numerous available settings ... any suggestion for what picture profile and gamma is best ? not for photo but video, 25 fps , 1/25th sec. , usually around 40'000 ISO, WB 3800K .... I know I should use 1/50th sec when shooting at 25 fps but those darn northern lights are not always that bright , even though I use fast f/1.4 and even f/0.95 lenses ... I guess I'll have to play with gamma then... but am curious to hear your advice ;-)
Northern lights and astrophotography is something I've never really spent any time on. I feel like I would have nothing of value to add. I'd defer this question to someone who has more experience than me in this regard. Sorry!
But thanks for the kind words and encouragement on the video. Very much appreciated!