Please fix Lightroom for Sony A700

The splotchy color noise of the Sony A700 processed in Lightroom (or ACR) needs to be fixed. It has come to the point where nearly any A700 user that participates on a photo forum knows that Lightroom is not a good Raw converter for the A700 at ISO 1600 or higher. Maybe I'm overstating? Is there anyone here that doesn't agree with this sentiment?

I don't own A700, but I discovered this: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=26834090
Which points to this:
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx?128@@.3c0620e5
I have no real idea do those threads offer any real information but quick browsing succested that they might contain some. Sorry I don't check them properly but I have a flu (and a fever) and I'm very tired.

Similar Messages

Lightroom and Sony A700 Raw (ARW) Files

I shot all pictures in ARW format. A number of the shots are at mid to high level ISO numbers. The shots above 400ISO are extremely noisy(both cloro and luminance)When I use the SOny supplied software
the same pictures noise level is significantly reduced. I have read on several other forums that ACR in lightroom is "messing up" the ARW files. This appears to be true. I use lightroom then CS3 to process my shots. The use of the Sony softweare complicates my workflow but at this point I am forced to do this. Is there any relief in site for this concern. Really want to combine everything into one system. By the way CS3 Bridge is not much better.
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Bob

I have your lighting right here, JM.
It's quite clear you know nothing about shooting African Cichlids, the most colorful freshwater fish in the world.
These fish are "mbuna", they live in rocks, caves, and along rock faces and ledges. They are used to living many meters deep so the best fish always take up territory towards the bottom of the tank where the best structures are, where the light is most dim.
In this 120 gallon tank is well over 500 pounds of structure which consumes most of the space in the tank.
In many of the photos you will notice rock structures around the fish as the tank consists of a hundred or so ledges and caves.
African Cichlids are the smartest fish in the world and they even learn who is who...they are not ordinary fish.
No matter how much light you throw on African Cichlids it usually does not cure the problem since they spend most of there time peeking from, and hanging under structures. Shadows and dark areas are cast throughout the tanks due to the structures.
Not to mention you must use the lighting already available in every public tank in the business, not to mention fish vendors usually cannot add lighting to their tanks either.
That leads us to use high ISO when we must.
Here are a few Sony A700 test shots made with 3 custom temp 4 ft 40 watt tubes in a deep 120 gallon tank.
http://www.sonolta.com/sony-photos/v/sony+a700+test+photos/_DSC1158-ISO3200+Test+Photo.htm l
http://www.sonolta.com/sony-photos/v/sony+a700+test+photos/Sony+DSLR+ISO+640+A700.html
http://www.sonolta.com/sony-photos/v/sony+a700+test+photos/_DSC1191-Sigma+24+EX+DG.html
http://www.sonolta.com/sony-photos/v/sony+a700+test+photos/_DSC1209+Konica+Minolta+28-75D. html
http://www.sonolta.com/sony-photos/d/398-1/_DSC1290-Sony+ISO+1250+JPG
http://www.sonolta.com/sony-photos/d/380-4/_DSC1216-Minolta+28-75D
Here are a few old shots of mine when I used my custom built and designed setup w/6 custom temp 40 watt tubes made to fit a standard 55. Notice structure galore...it's like an urban housing complex in the mbuna tanks. I can shoot fish with a good pNs setup fairly well with this amount of light. Not many people anywhere get this amount of light on their tank, trust me.
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/60783-3/OB+Peacock
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158391-2/25650281_002.jpg
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158367-2/25713754.jpg
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/61099-3/23429774_001.jpg
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/60803-3/23538903.jpg
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158377-2/25744617.jpg
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158822-2/red+finned+borleyi
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/60815-3/Male+Red+Finned+Borleyi
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158832-2/Rusty+Cichlid
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158827-2/red+zebra
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158865-2/25797261_001.jpg
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158464-2/8838t-ob-peacock.jpg
I shot Minolta, and then Konica Minolta, and now Sony has bought KM, so Sony is the one making the bodies for our glass now.
Many of us will not give up image stabilized primes (body SSS) so we stay here. All lenses gain 2-3 stops on the Sony...A700 has top notch DR and great high ISO so most of us are not interested in Canon at the moment.
This thread is here to help the Adobe team make ACR better, please stop interfering with your brand bashing speaks.
Thank you.
-Sonolta
http://www.sonolta.com

Camera profiles for Sony A700

Hi,
I'm working in CS4 (Mac) and I downloaded the latest camera raw 5.6. I have only the Adobe standard, ACR 4.4 and ACR 3.5 in the Camera Calibration -Camera Profile.
I don't see special camera profiles for my Sony A700. In tutorials they showed profiles for Canon or Nikon. How can I get the profiles for the A700? Do they exist?
Thanks a lot
Claudine

Hi Claudine,
At the moment these are the only profiles made by Adobe for the A700. You can build your own profiles (or edit existing profiles) using the free DNG Profile Editor, if you wish. Another solution for a custom profile is the ColorChecker Passport, from X-Rite.
Eric

Lightroom for Sony Alfa 900

I would like to know which version of Lightroom supports "raws" for Sony Alfa 900.
Thank you very much.

Version 2.0- now updated to v 2.3 will render these files.
You can also use the free Adobe DNG converter and take those DNGs into LR 1.4

Please fix Lightroom-it is replicating files at will!

Hello;
Over the past 24 hours I have rebuilt my A PS LR Library, and it is still replicating files with the same file name. This might have happened when I imported multiple folders in an attempt to "streamline" my Lightroom Catalog, but the action added 6,000 files, but the good news is, it didn't smoke my Internal Hard Drive!
I am a hard-headed German and refuse to lose... Software is supposed to save me time, but when it ends up taking more time to fix software induced problems, it's time to take a walk...
I am going to B&N and get a new Beatles CD.
When I return, Lightroom v 1/1 might have a new upgrade, but I have dreamed before...
I am considering trashing the current catalog and starting over with a new import. I have spent the better part of the last 24 hours trying to eradicate files in the catalog with the same file name.
When LR creates web galleries in HTML, these files are stored as previews, and it's making me crazy. Sometimes I generate 3 web galleries a day, and am running out of patience, and External Hard Drive Space. I don't have the resources of Bill Gates, or Steven Jobs, but then I could win the lottery tomorrow, but my wife told me I had to buy a ticket to win...
I'm trying to get enough change together to pay attention... I am on a few drugs for hypertension, and they affect my abilty to multitask on multiple levels. Normally I CAN do several things at once, like chew gum and dance, but I can't polka unless I've had a couple martinis...
When I get back from the book store, I pray that there will be an upgrade from Adobe, to fix these known bugs. I had some maggots in my trash yesterday, and Waste Manangement carried them away for me, so I will have another bill to pay.
It is time to get back to work. I hope the folks in Cupertino feel the same...
Have a swell day!
[email protected]
D-65 Minneapolis, June '07

Good Advice!
If the software were more streamlined and therefore efficient, the catalogs would be smaller, and files would not be replicated multiple times. I have images in my catalog w/ the same file name, but there might be 20 iterations for one file.
This is wasting my time!!!
I picked up 2 Beatles albums, and will spend the next 48 hours importing a new catalog.
If this persists, I may have no alternatives other than to try Aperture, but I have some known issues w/ some Chinese manufacturers.
I am not against the Chinese, they work very hard.
But some companies are SO GREEDY, they have Chinese people making USB proprietary cables for Canon cameras to upload to Mac, and each costs $20. I bought 2 and my daughters have each bought 2. So my family is helping the Chinese whether they realize it or not!
Perhaps I'm a little nieve, but also a Christian, and that helps guide my ways.
I will start rebuilding a new catalog just like I'm rebuilding myself. It's time to pick up all the good pieces, put them back together and move forward again!
Have a swell afternoon!

Please fix exporting for CS5!...

I know this isn't the feature request area - I've already sent adobe my letter.
But 100 requests are better than one!
I'm sure we're all experiencing this major problem - that it takes *forever* to export anything, and longer than that when exporting from large projects. Even if you only want to export a 2 minute scene from a 30 minute feature, if your project is large (i.e. anything over 5 minutes long, god forbid multiple sequences) then you can and usually do end up waiting between 30 minutes and and hour(!!) while AME is 'loading' your project. This is a ridiculous waste of time and resources, since more often than not the project you're exporting from is already open and in system memory. And you're not inclined to continue working for fear it would slow AME even further. This double up process - while I see it's point - makes Premiere Pro completely useless in any high pressure situation, where you need to churn out a piece of video as soon as someone asks for it. I've lost clients and damaged working relationships purely because I chose to use Premiere, and have now invested so many thousands of $$$ in Adobe that other software is not something I'd like to face, especially when Premiere is SOOO close to being good.
Is anyone else completely and UTTERLY fed up with this exporting debacle? If so, please let Adobe know before they release CS5, which according to the internet will probably be in a couple of months...still time to fix this!
AND... another thing... the autosave window - that really should be a *background* operation, no?? It's painfully frustrating when you're watching an edit with a client, and ten minutes in the autosave window comes up and STOPS the playback. This ruins the moment and can COMPLETELY RUIN the scene on first viewing for an audience or client. Yes, one could go to the trouble to enter prefs and turn AS off just for that moment, but I don't do that fro fear of not remembering to turn it on and be faced with a lovely apologetic message saying for some unknown reason the software must terminate immediately... you know the ones...
Please feel free to report here other sticky issues wih premiere that prevent smooth workflow efficiency (and then send request to adobe). I'm sure Adobe would love to hear it!

Harm Millaard wrote:
Gents,
Let me give some of my results, to show that all this is highly dependent on system configuration, but keep in mind that this is with 10 tabs in Mozilla open and having several processes in the background like Skype, Perfect Speed, SnagIt, etc.
How many clips imported in the project? 300+
Average length/size of the these clips? Between 3 s and 2:12, average around 6 s
Number of sequences in the project? 1
Length of the sequences? 37:00
Format of the source clips (HD, DV, HDV etc)? HDV
Destination/export format? MPEG2-DVD CBR @ 8Mbps and AC3 5.1 @ 448 Kbps
Exporting the whole sequence or just a small portion? Whole sequence
How big is your project file size (in MB)? 5.5
Some system specs (cpu, video, ram, hdd, OS)? See PPBM4
Project loading time: around 17 secs.
Wait for AME after pressing Start queue to start: less than 10 secs.
Encoding time: less than 12 minutes.
Notes: No color correction, several WAV files and a number of BMP's and titles, dissolves and dip-to-black transitions.
Around the same time when exporting to MPEG-I @ 120 Mbps and AC3 5.1 @ 448 Kbps CBR at Maximum Render Quality.
Use these figures only as indicativve, for valuable comparisons, use the PPBM benchmark that Glenn pointed you to.
Thanks for your info Harm. I'm totally envious of your machine! I'm sure I'd experience better times with a better CPU and MB. I would love to know if we can reduce your system to it's knees, so to speak, in the way some of us experience. I would wager (were I a bettin man) that if you captured clips in large blocks (many large clips, doco style, perhaps around the 10-20 minute mark, even perhaps a whole HDV tape, since Adobe has seen fit *not* to include Scene Detection for HDV), and had a similar overall number of clips, and duplicated your single sequence 6 or 7 times, for starters, to get your project file up around the 40MB area, your 'loading' time in AME would slow down, I wonder how much by though!
So if you've got a lot of time to spare...
(Yes, some of the practices that result in a project described above are less than desirable, but in reality time and pressure cause you to really push the software like that...)

Firefox goes into glitch mode. Please fix this for a future version.

I am having a problem and had this problem for a really long time. Firefox would enter glitch mode. Here is an example:
http://www.factslides.com/
When I hit the next arrow, it would freeze for a second, and if I hit it multiple times, it would go to another page without me hitting the button. I would like this fixed for a future version.

A post was flagged as '''Solved Problem.''' Please remove that flag.
If you don’t, others that can help may not read this post.
Start your '''Computer''' in safe mode with networking. Then start Firefox. Try '''Safe''' web sites.
'''[http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Linux+Safe+Mode Starting The Computer In Safe Mode; Free Online Encyclopedia]'''
If you have problems with current Shockwave Flash plugin versions then check this:
* see if there are updates for your graphics drive drivers
'''https://support.mozilla.org/kb/upgrade-graphics-drivers-use-hardware-acceleration'''
* disable protected mode in the Flash plugin (Flash 11.3+ on Windows Vista and later)
'''https://forums.adobe.com/message/4468493#TemporaryWorkaround'''
* disable hardware acceleration in the Flash plugin
'''https://forums.adobe.com/thread/891337'''
See also:
* '''http://kb.mozillazine.org/Flash#Troubleshooting'''

Please provide support for Sony DSC-R1 RAW files

Dear Apple employee,
If by any chance you happen to read this topic, would you please forward this information to the Aperture team?
Some users need support for DSC-R1 Raw files in Aperture. Please do something.
Thank you.

I can't believe that Apple can't take the time to support the DSC-R1...when I saw the new OS and 1.5 release I had high hopes, which gave way to dismay.
How can they support a so-so cam like the A100 and ignore the R1? I have Bibble Pro...they have no problem supporting the R1 and many other cams that Apple's radar can't seem to pick up.
This is really driving me nuts...Apple, how about listening to the rest of us?
Anyone for approaching Apple and/or the Aperture developers as a group?

I'm on Firefox 35 now and Shockwave Flash still crashes and freezes up my Firefox. Please fix this for any future version.

I wanted this fixed for Firefox 34, but nope. It still crashes with "Shockwave Flash may be busy" and I am getting sick of hitting Ctrl+Alt+Delete to go to the task manager and ending firefox.exe. It's not the 1990's anymore. It's 2015.

''cor-el [[#answer-677445|said]]''
<blockquote>
You can toggle this pref to true on the about:config page to disable protected mode in the Shockwave Flash plugin:
*dom.ipc.plugins.flash.disable-protected-mode = true
*http://www.ghacks.net/2014/12/21/how-to-disable-flash-player-protected-mode-in-firefox/
You can open the about:config page via the location/address bar.
You can accept the warning and click "I'll be careful" to continue.
*http://kb.mozillazine.org/about:config
Try to "disable the hardware acceleration" in the Flash Player.
*http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/video-playback-issues.html
See also:
*https://support.mozilla.org/kb/keep-flash-up-to-date-and-troubleshoot-problems
Flash "Display settings" window:
*http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/help01.html
</blockquote>
Hi cor-el, I have tried this, and it didn't even fix. God I want this program fixed for a future Firefox version.

Apple. Please fix Mail for us, your Exchange users. Please.

Don't blame anybody else. Just fix it. Ridiculous that a problem this massive made it into production.

ArTT Vandelay wrote:
You see I don't really care about your opinion of my post, and clearly the issue has been beat to death, but I do want to add my voice to the ranks of dissension.
I'd call it fact not opinion. What issue?
Maybe I should have done the research and found /feedback, but what fun is that?
I made no comment about that.
It's so much more satisfying to post random vague complaints about nothing in particular. I must assume that either you take it personally as the QA engineer that stamped the code OK, or you are the Internet police.
Of course it is. Of course I do, Of course I am. Bye.

Planned support for Sony A700

Anyone able to comment on this?

Just got an A700 and can confirm that the RAW and compressed RAW formats do not work in Aperture 1.5.4-2G16. They display as grey thumbnails and show the message 'Unsupported Image Format' on a maroon background in the large view. The 'Extra Fine JPEG' (9MB) and lower formats work fine. Will have to shoot with that format until RAW is supported.

Shockwave Flash may be busy or it may have stopped responding error. Can the Mozilla team fix this for Firefox 34?

Hello people, sometimes I would get the message "Shockwave Flash may be busy or it may have stopped responding". There is no way I can fix this. I have tried Google and they don't show tutorials on how to permanently fix this. What year is this? 2002? Not it's not. It's almost 2015. Can you please fix this for Firefox 34 or newer?

Shockwave Flash is an Adobe product - it's up to them to fix it. All we can do here at Mozilla Support is offer suggestions that have worked for us and other users.
Have you tried Adobe Support?
https://forums.adobe.com/community/flashplayer
Mozilla is working an a project code named Shumway - http://mozilla.github.io/shumway/ - that will play SWF files and eliminate the for having the Flash Player installed for Firefox.

Current Lightroom / Camera Raw Camera Profile for Sony ILCE-6000 inaccurate: green cast in shadows! Capture one better! Please fix it!

Hi folks from Adobe!
Please take note that the current Lightroom / Adobe Camera Raw Camera Profile for the Sony ILCE-6000 is very inaccurate: There is a serious green cast in the shadows!
Capture One Express for Sony (which is free by the way) renders a lot more correctly!
Please correct this, since I'd rather buy the coming LR6 because of keeping my established workflow instead of going the Capture One route.
A good example can be found in the dpreview forum "LR5 A6K shadow pulling, a mess! Adobe LR is broken? "
Or search for Philp Reeves 3 weeks with the Sony A6000 review "3 Wochen mit der a6000", where he compares it to the Sony A7, using both times Lightroom to push the shadows.
The Sony A7 is fine where earth looks like brown earth, the A6000 picture looks like grass instead.
Please fix this! This is a high volume camera frequently bought by enthusiast or as second body for FF photographers. That would be really great!

I am talking about the two raw files linked in the very last post of page 6 of the Reeves comparison thread, not JPGs or screenshots of unknown manipulation. In LR they both say f/11 and ISO 100 and have a similar tone, but one is shot at twice the shutter speed as the other. This side-by-side is using Adobe Factory Defaults for each image where the profile is Adobe Standard, the toning sliders are all 0, tone-curve linear, and the Sharpening and Color NR are 25:
However, when I look at the camera-embedded JPGs, side-by-side, the 1/80th image on the left is darker than the 1/40th image on the right, as expected given the reported shutter-speed difference:
And it is indeed the darker image that has more shadow problems, also as expected.
When I do manipulate the darker (a6000) raw file in LR, I do see that the shadows are greenish when brightened unlike most other cameras which usually show magenta, which is the combination of the blue and red sensors showing more noise because there are half-as-many photosites as compared to the green, so I am seeing what people are complaining about and would expect shadow noise to be purple not green, I'm more concerned that these two example raws aren't actually comparable due to apparent differences in exposure. It is also odd that the lens listed in LR is different than the lens listed in the filename, so either someone has mistakenly or deliberately renamed the file wrong or someone or something has changed the EXIF parameters that LR is reporting to be the same when they're really not.

Thomas Knoll - Lightroom - ACR 4.3.1 Sony A700 Major Bug Needs Fixed

Please see this thread where all of the ACR4.3.1 problems are documented.
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx?128@@.3c060c59
Basically, ACR4.3.1 is useless to Sony A700 users on files approaching ISO1600 and beyond.
Many other raw converters render the files properly, but ACR4.3.1 can not.
ACR4.3.1 creates watercolor looking blotches that can not be removed, while every other converter on the market produces fine grained "regular" usable ouput.
The D300 and the A700 have the same sensor but ACR4.3.1 is completely trashing high ISO files from the A700. Other converters do not trash the A700 file.
All of the Sony A700 user base is affected, and many pros have been reporting and writing on this for months. This problem is camera specific to the Sony A700.
Reviewers and pro photographers around the world have writing about this ACR 4.3.1 issue and I had assumed you already were aware of the issue.
If not, please get ACR4.3.1 fixed for us in the next release. If you need any high ISO files to use I have maybe 10,000 A700 ISO1600-6400 files, so feel free to let me know.
Thank you very much and please make us aware that you have acknowledged the problems and are going to make a fix.
Have a good day.
-Sonolta
http://www.sonolta.com
http://www.illinoisphoto.com
http://www.rockriverfootball.com
and 97 others...

Yes, and in that thread I posted is also a comparison against ACDPro 2 KH did against a "ps expert", and two other links are posted that links to articles that compared another half dozen converters by one one of the most respected A-Mount pros on the planet.
The head to head conversions have been done in forums since September showing the ACR flaws against numerous converters by dozens of photographers.
That is the problem...it is just ACR mangling the A700 files. With the other converters the grain stays tight and small...with ACR as ISO rises to about 1600, smearing and blotches start taking over the image.
C1V4, Bibble, RT, ACDSeePro 2, etc, etc, all give a nice tight grained A700 high ISO file while ACR4.3.1 is the only one giving us the splotched watercolor blotches and detail smearing.
I think ACR is not recognizing something properly in the A700 files that the others are. Tone curve reproduction seems off at times, and some sort of NR/Blotches seem to be in the image before you even get started with ACR. Those two things don't happen when you use any of the other converters.
I don't know why it's happening, I just know it is happening. And since I have 200K files from a half dozen cameras it really sucks to have to use another processor on the A700 files...really throws a hitch in your giddy-up.
-Sonolta
http://www.sonolta.com
PS...Here is a link toy one of a couple articles by DK, quite possibly the most respected A-Mount guy on the planet. His test is not perfect, but it clearly show the splotches and artifacts (confetti, he calls it) that no other processors in the land gives us.
http://photoclubalpha.com/2008/02/08/capture-one-v4-cures-a700-high-iso-confetti/
These "watercolors" absolutely ruin shadow areas and backgrounds, and as I mentioned before everyone else (third party) in the business gives a fine grain pattern that can be easily dealt with after the fact.
Those ACR splotches are horrendous to deal with and that is the main reason we need the converter tweaked for A700 files...nobody wcan deal with those "watercolor" effects at high ISO!
I prefer IDC, most all other shooters are using RT, ACDPro2, C1V4 and others...

PLEASE FIX FLASH PLAYER.. once and for all.

ok,,, can someone from this company PLEASE release an update
to flash player that WORKS CONSITENTLY with WINDOWS VISTA x64... I
mean this is rediculous.. how long has vista been out now??? what
is the big deal.. every couple of hours its the same thing internet
explorer always crashes because of flash9.ocx or whatever the damn
file name is.. and generally just after I wrote a 10 paragraph
email or something.. I mean.. this thing stinks. I have to use the
damn thing because everything on the damn internet requires it...
so Im stuck.. but its junk and continuously crashes the browser..
the most aggrevating part of VISTA by far is YOUR product.. please
FIX IT..
thank you.

Hah! That's what i was thinking when i wrote it. However, you
should know that you'll never be taken seriously unless you spell
correctly (or you're me) and without using cap lock. You're looking
for assistance from human beings.
Also, look up 64 bit operating systems on wikipedia or
google.
http://www.adobe.com/products/flash/systemreqs/
"Microsoft® Windows® XP with Service Pack 2 or
Windows Vista™ Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, or
Enterprise (certified for 32-bit editions) "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#Software_availability
"64-bit systems sometimes lack equivalents to software that
is written for 32-bit architectures. The most severe problem is
incompatible device drivers. Although most software can run in a
32-bit compatibility mode (also known as an emulation mode, e.g.
Microsoft WoW64 Technology), it is usually impossible to run a
driver (or similar software) in that mode since such a program
usually runs in between the OS and the hardware, where direct
emulation cannot be employed. "
Now since i have A 32 bit system myself, i am not very
involved in this matter, but it looks from the above that you can
look into an emulation mode, if it really is that much of an issue.
I'm trying to help you, but it's getting very late here.

Please fix Lightroom for Sony A700

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for