Sony Creators App

SONY's CREATORS App is a smartphone app that is available for either IOS or Android based phones (and can be freely dowloaded from the Apple Store or Google Play Store). Sony's original app was known as "PlayMemories," which was succeeded by "Imaging Edge Mobile," and now most recently, Creators App. Like so many software applications, the interdependency and inevitable evolution meant that a program designed at some point would not continue to "play well with others," as they separately evolved. This was a particular problem as the phone companies continued to roll out new models almost annually. PlayMemories was launched in 2012 and closed in 2024. By 2023, Imaging Edge Mobile had succeeded it and it appears that the Creators App is basically a renaming of it, along with some improvements. Having read a fair amount of negative commentary about both these apps, and not being much of an "app" guy on my phone, I pretty much stayed away from them, keeping my phone and cameras separate, until I very recently downloaded (somewhat serendipitously), and started playing with, the newest version of the Creators App.

Sony's Creators App is a smartphone app that is available for either IOS or Android based phones (and can be freely dowloaded from the Apple Store or Google Play Store

THE CREATORS App offers a large number of features for connectivity, including direct connection with your smartphone, connection with a PC or other similar device (tethering), and transfer of files over WiFi or Bluetooth. Most of the latter is more oriented toward special purpose, professional shooters, like high-end studio work, sports and news coverage, and the like. But direct connectivity to your smart phone is something that most of us shooters might be able to benefit from. The connectivity between your smart phone and camera is what this post addresses. Last October, when I was in Vermont, I had a mishap with my remote release, which I always use when shooting from a tripod (which is most of the time for my landscape shooting). I had "very cleverly" found a sheath which velcroed to a tripod leg and served as a handy spot to park the remote when I needed my hand for something else. I actually had one of those fleetingly self-consciouis premonitions that this wasn't really a very secure setup. And yep, you probably guessed it. That remote fell out of the sheath when I was moving the rig - probably into deep grass and nowhere to be found even though I did make a search. 😞 I was not in a position to quickly replace the remote, and so I decided to download and try the Creators App to try its remote release capabilities. I was pleasantly surprised, and ended up using it for the rest of my trip. The App actually provided me with 2 functions that I found desirable. The first was as a remote release. I have said before that it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to go to the trouble and expense of a tripod, only to defeat its purpose by having hands on the camera. I know a lot of shooters these days just set their shutter to a 2 second delay and shoot that way. For a handful of reasons, I really don't like that. The Creators App worked well as a release.

transfer of the actual files, it turns out, wasn't really the plus for me, here

THE SECOND function that I found very handy was the ability of the app to transfer images from the camera to the phone. At first blush, this didn't really interest me, as I do that transfer with a card reader and cable, to my computer and/or backup drive every day at the end of the shoot. But transfer of the actual files, it turns out, wasn't really the plus for me, here. When I am in the field, I usually shoot from twilight to twilight, leaving little time or energy to try to do any processing during that time. At the same time, I travel very light, using a Microsoft Surface tablet as my only computer during the trip. It really isn't (in my opinion, at least) the best tool for the serious work of archiving and processing digital images. But I often want to take a quick snap of a scene and post it on social media when there is a break. As smartphone cameras have gotten better and better, I have, more often than not, made an image or two of the areas I was shooting, rather than waiting until I got back to my base of operations and trying to do "quick and dirty" processing of a couple for posting to social media. That worked well. Except that the habit hadn't really gotten ingrained in me, and too often, I would find myself lamenting that I had neglected to make cell phone shot for posting.

HERE IS where the Creators App comes in. In addition to controlling the camera remotely, it also allows you to control what happens with the recorded image files. I only record raw files (I don't do the raw + jpg thing, because I would find myself deleting the jpg images anyway, without really using them - just one more thing to deal with and more space taken up on drives). But what the Sony Creators App allows me to do is set my camera up so that in addition to remotely controlling the camera, it can be set up to create and send a small jpg copy to my phone. For what I think are fairly obvious reasons, I do not want to be sending my 60Mp images to my phone, so they continue, as they always have, to be stored on the cf card in the camera. But that small jpg is another story. Now I don't need to remember to make a separate cell phone snap. The camera has already done it for me, and it is there on the phone for me to see and post.

IT IS not exactly the same thing as making the image with the cell phone. The phone cameras and software are pretty well optimized for out-of-the-phone, postable jpeg images. But with the software on my phone it is pretty easy to do some quick adjustments, and post some images out there. Then, at the end of the day, I can delete the bulk of them so they don't fill up my phone's limited memory. Pretty cool!

So much for backward compatibility

THE APP is only going to work for you if you have one of Sony's somewhat newer cameras. Currently, it works with models designated ILCE 2.0 and later That means older A7 and A7R camera owners (A7 series, i, ii, and iii) are not going to work with this newest app. So much, I guess, for backward compatibility. While they seem to have maintained an industry leading position on the development of their camera technology, Sony has, unfortunately, not done as much with marrying that technolgy to wireless and telecommunications technology. It remains to be seen whether the Creators App will be the one that we can ride into the future. For now, it is working well for me with Samsung Galaxy S24 plus and my Sony A7Cr. The only minor issue I have with it is that when the phone or the camera "rests," the bluetooth connection seems to drop. Fortunately, re-connecting it is a matter of a couple taps on the phone screen and a very fast re-connect. Maybe 2-3 seconds in all. The connection is through WiFi and Bluetooth, so you don't necessarily have to be in cell range.

The app is only going to work for you if you have one of Sony's somewhat newer cameras. Currently, it works with models designated ILCE 2.0 and later

SETTING UP the Creators App on your phone and connecting with your camera is really easy. First, download the free app from either the Google Playstore, or the Apple App Store. Once you downloaded and installed it, open the app, turn on your camera, make sure your camera's WiFi and Bluetooth are on and then go to the "Network Options" Tab (globe), and then to Connect PC/Remote/Smartphone Connection. From there, you will kind of tag team back and forth between the camera and the phone. Just follow the prompts. At some point, it will try to get you to log onto a WiFi server, so you may need your password for that. Or, you can do like I did, and skip that step. I really only want to use the phone as a remote control for my camera. Once you go through the steps, you will get a screen for the app. You shouldn't have to do this again. When you turn on your camera and open the Creators App on the phone, it will recognize any camera(s) you have registered on the app.

IT IS pretty impressive. There are features in the camera and the app that will facilitate FTP transfers, uploading directly to "the cloud," "streaming," or connecting to a computer or server wirelessly or with a cable. For many, this may be very useful. But for my purposes, the only one of these things I will be using (and therefore covering here) is the use of the phone as a remote release and camera control and saving a small jpg copy of each image to the phone. Whenever you open the app, there will be a "button" to tap to connect to your camera (it should say "operate your camera") and once you do that, you will get a message that says "connected via Bluetooth." Beneath that message there are a couple more boxes. The one we care about in this instance says "Remote Shooting" and has a remote commander icon. When you tap that box you may get a choice between Bluetooth and USB. Tap "WiFi" (unless you want to use a cable), and then an image of whatever the camera lens is seeing will populate the phone screen in the top 1/2 of the app. On the bottom 1/2 you will have the primary settings like shooting type (M,A,S,P), focus type, WB, exposure/compensation, ISO, drive mode, etc. You will also see the typical, round "button" that most smartphone cameras use as the trigger. The screen doesn't just show those settings. You can control, adjust or change almost every thing you could do on the camera itself, including those settings you see on the phone screen. You can drill down to additional pages by pressing the MENU button at the bottom left and see a number of additional settings choices. Be aware that these settings changes are being made on the camera and will apply to subsequent shots unless the settings are restored to your original settings. I probably will make it a habit to change most of these deeper settings only on the camera.

YOU WILL also see the focus/focus area square on the phone screen. Tapping anywhere on the phone screen will move that to the point where you tapped. This works even though I have my touch features completely turned off on the camera! There is also a (green) playback button. But beware here. This does not play back the primary images that you have saved on the camera. By default, each time you tell the camera to make an exposure using the phone as a remote, as it does so, it also sends a small jpg copy to your phone! As I noted above, that's a pretty cool feature. But know that the "playback" button on the phone screen is playing back the small jpegs now on your phone; not the original images saved on your memory card. When you are finished shooting, pressing the back button/arrow on your smart phone will take you to a message telling you remote shooting will be ended (you can say o.k., or cancel, if you didn't want to end the session).

Be aware that these settings changes are being made on the camera and will apply to subsequent shots unless the settings are restored to your original settings

CAUTION! THERE are a couple areas in the app that are not crystal clear. After connecting your phone to the camera, in addition to the remote shooting "button," there are 2 other buttons on the bottom of the screen. One of them is "Import," which I am pretty certain refers to the process of moving files (not sure whether they are copying or moving, but I think probably copying and you will have some opportunity to determine what form the copies will be in  - i.e., jpg or raw). I don't plan to use that feature at all, so I haven't really delved into it. But the third button: "Update," is one I would treat with caution. When I first saw it, I assumed (you know what that means 😏) that it was referring to the Creators App software. It is not! It is actually feature that would let you update the camera system firmware! In the past there have been different options for doing that, and some have reported varying results, all the way from "smooth sailing, no problems," to "it bricked my camera!" I have personally upgraded one camera, one time (a Nikon DSLR several years back). I studied all the resources I could find, followed the guidelines very carefully, and sweated through the whole process. It turned out fine. But I would only do it again if I was convinced it was necessary, and that I could do so safely. I most certainly will not be blithely tapping that "update" button and following the prompts. And I want to be crystal clear that I am not recommending that you do it either.

IN THE Camera menu, the settings aren't so totally clear. On the menu there are a couple confusing (to me) setting choices following "Smartphone Connection," which, once you have intially set up Creators App in your camera, you shouldn't need to use again unless you change phones. I believe "PC Remote Function" pertains to setting up a tethered PC with the camera. I have left that to the default settings. "Select on Cam and Send," I believe pertains to sending images from the camera to a server somewhere. I have, likewise, left those settings on their defaults. I wouldn't touch "Reset Transfer Status," since we have not set up any transfers. "Cnct (connect) while Power OFF" is a setting which, I understand, allows you to transfer files or other remote activities from your phone, even if the camera has been powered down. Frankly, I don't see any good reason to do so in my circumstances (or yours, for most people) and I really cannot see a lot of good that can come out of being able to remotely power up my camera. Thats me. But I think its probably a wise approach. In a similar vein, I never ever use my camera as a file transfer device (connecting a cable to it and using it to transfer files to disk or other space). From the very beginnings of digital cameras, it has been considered "best practice" not to do so. I have always removed the memory card from the camera and inserted it into a separate transfer device for moving files. I don't want to take the risk of a problem with my multi-thousand dollar camera, when I can buy a card reader for just a few dollars. But again, that's me. As the currently popular saying goes, "you do you." I am not going to.

HOW TO set up to automatically send copies to smartphone is less clear. Niether of the two third party books I have give any clarification. Both treat the several and complex menus and settings on the A7C cameras only superficially. Yikes! for now, for me, I am going to leave everything at its default setting.

I never use my camera as a file transfer device

ONE YOUTUBE video I watched stated that the small jpg sent to your phone is the default behavior of the Creators App software. I didn't change any settings on my camera, and it automatically started sending jpg copies to the phone, so I would be inclined to believe that. To use your phone as a remote release and have copies sent to the phone in addition to storing on the camera/cf card, go to the Remote Shoot tab under the "Network Options/Cnct/PC Remot/ and select Remote Shoot Setting. There you have choices for file type and size to be sent to phone. They are relatively intuitive.

CONTRARILY, I suppose, I did replace my Sony RMT-P1BT Wireless Remote Commander. This time, I bought a colorful lanyard to connect it to and probably hang around my neck. I am an "old school" creature of habit, and will probably continue to use that tool as my everyday remote release - but will keep using the Creators App along with it, if just to create the jpg images on my phone. The Sony Remote costs between $80 - 100 new, depending where you find it. The Creators App is free. Most of us have our cell phones on our person most of the time, so if you have a compatible phone and camera, it could be worth trying for you.

Focus Stacking; Does it Live up to the Hype?

I FIRST began writing this post a few months back. Timing is everything. At the time I saw what I believed to be an inordinate amount of "focus stacking" commentary. It seemed like every other image I saw posted on the various sites I frequently visit would have a comment in the caption about focus stacking (e.g., "12 shot, in-camera focus stack," or similar). On an awful lot of them, my immediate question was: "why?" It appeared to me that they were altogether too often rather normal (what I would call) "landscape" images (nature, citiscape, buildings, etc.). 

Almost as if it was a hot fad that didn't last very long

THESE DAYS I don't see it (at least not commented on) nearly so often. Almost as if it was a hot fad that didn't last very long. Of course it isn't a fad at all, and properly used can be a very useful tool to achieve desired depth of field throughout an image. The concept of "stacking" images is ages old, even dating back to the days of film. Stacking can serve a myriad of purposes, and for me, since Photoshop introduced "layers" (really just a stacking concept) it has been an absolute delight to use. Not just for focus, but for other things we would like to adjust in an image (e.g., exposure).

MY FIRST exposure (see what I did there 😃) to depth of field image stacking came some years ago back in the early 2000's when third-party software and eventually mainline software (I use Photoshop) added the feature to their softwares. It was, of course, automation and it was certainly possible to "focus stack" manually, but the results were often not very good and the amount of work necessary was burdensome. I first used a stand-along software (now a plug-in) called Helicon Focus. It allowed for a series of "identical" shots (from a fixed position and a very still subject) to be loaded into it and it did the focus stacking by choosing the parts of each image that was in sharpest focus and blending them together to make one image that was presumably sharp from front to back. I didn't use it very much. Still don't. I get into why not below.

The concept of "stacking" images is ages old, even dating back to the days of film

TODAY, AUTOMATED focus stacking capability has been built into a few higher end camera bodies. An even smaller subset of those allow the processing to be done in-camera, with a focus-stacked result right out of the camera (although one should keep in mind that this processing ultimately renders a jpg image). If you are going to be doing a lot of focus stacking, I suppose this might be a pretty handy feature. For those who applaud the technology, it is - so far - only found in a handful of high-end cameras. There are a few others that will create the stack for you by making a series of exposures, focusing at intervals, but do not do the "work" of blending and combining them (which must be done in post-processing, using a software that is capable of that). Personally, at least until it can all be done as in-camera raw and raw output, I prefer it that way. And it may that I will still prefer it that way even if the raw working capability is someday found in-camera. I am a bit of a control-freak when it comes to my processing (in and out of the camera) and like the amount of control I have over the end results by doing my stacking in post.

SHARPNESS, OF course, is directly related to a lens-based concept known as depth of field. Without getting into the weeds, suffice it to say that a shallow depth of field means less of the image will be in "sharp" focus from front to back. Depth of field is largely a function of focal length and aperture on camera lenses. Generally, the smaller the aperture and the shorter the focal length, the greater the depth of field. Another variable is the distance from the lens to the subject (or the part of the subject you wish to be in sharp focus). Given those things, for years, most of us have worked with these time-tested principles to set up our shots in a manner that will give us maximum front to back sharpness - when that is what we want (it is often a goal to actually have parts of an image out of focus). In my judgment, for my own work (when I do it correctly), I have found that to yield very acceptably sharp results without any need for focus stacking. I don't engage in the proverbial "pixel - peeping," as I know 99.99% of viewers of my work don't either.

it is quite possible to actually introduce inacuracies into the process

SO. DOES focus stacking really assist in the depth of field endeavor? The answer to this depends on a number of variables, both objective and subjective. As we said, focus stacking consists of making a series of "identical" images, using different focus points from front to back, and then combining, registering, and blending them. Because this cannot be done instantaneously, it is quite possible to actually introduce inacuracies into the process. The subject (or camera) may move during or between frames, making it impossible to register two or more of the images precisely. Ironically, rather than enhancing sharpness this may well have the opposite effect of rendering the image to appear out of focus. Light conditions may change between frames. This can create visual issues which can make the image appear less sharp and well defined. Some commentators have also observed that, in their judgment, a focus-stacked image can look artificial (too sharp throughout). It is also possible that if the intervals (focus distances) between frames are too wide, the process can just simply fail to improve the image.

TO MY way of thinking, this limits the utility of this "device" to a few applications. True "macro" photography, including (and perhaps especially) product photography is the one area where I see some real gains in image quality. In close-focusing macro images, it can be impossible to have an entire subject be in sharp focus with a single image. Focus bracketing in these cases can be a real hero. But like any "tool" at our disposal, I like to follow the old adage of using the proper tool for the job. And, in my mind, a corollary to that adage is that you should not use any add-ons to the basic lens unless there is a good reason. If it doesn't truly address a specific concern or issue, and could possibly introduce negatives, don't use it. This is the same approach I take to filters, for example, on the front of the lens. 

GIVEN THESE observations, I am skeptical of the benefits of focus stacking except for some very specific uses and circumstances. Most of the time I can make a nature or building shot very acceptably sharp from front to back using traditional depth of field principles. And at the same time, I wonder if using the focus stacking features in the cameras is worth the trouble. I have played with it for landscape shots, even with something relatively close in the foreground, and comparing the results with my "standard" technique, have not really been able to see an appreciable difference. It seems to me that image management is a pretty significant part of the process, both in camera or out. I briefly tried the function in my Sony A7cr to save "stacked" images into a new folder. Sounds simple. Not. Instead of creating a new folder only for the stacked images, it then creates another brand new folder when you resume shooting. And so on. It was an organizational nightmare when I ingested the files into my archive system. Not doing that one again, with several folders on the card without any way to easily recognize what was where.😓For Sony users, the newer system does have one pretty cool feature. I allows you to insert a frame in front and back of your "stacked" (or e.g., panoramic shots so you can identify where the begin and end. I always though the shot of my finger pointing was kind of awkward.

I USE Adobe Bridge as a viewer and organizational tool, and I do like the feature that allows you to mark files and save them into a stack. But I do that pretty infrequently. In my view, I will pretty much ignore the approach and process of focus stacking for 99% of my shooting. I personally think it has been lately overused (to little avail) and often misunderstood. If I was shooting lots of macro images, it would certainly be a tool I would embrace. There may be the ocassional landscape image that calls out for its use. I haven't found it yet.

Linear Profiles - Should You Be Using Them?

I WILL never forget the day, back in 2005, when my buddy, Rich Pomeroy and I returned to the farm where we were staying in Vermont during a fall color trip, and we were comparing our "take." At the time, Rich (now an accomplished wildlife shooter) was a fairly "new" photographer. I had been shooting film since the 1970's and digital since about 2000. Conventional "pro" wisdom strongly recommended recording images in the camera's native "raw" format. The idea is that it is the best way to record and store a digital image is in its "raw," unchanged or altered. Converting that "raw" image to a jpg (which virtually all cameras can and many only do) or similar format results in a permanent change, akin to "cooking" it. The vast majority of consumer cameras ("point and shoot") and phone cameras convert in the camera to jpg format (and don't even offer saving as raw as an option).

ALL THIS technology has come leaps and bounds forward and even a jpg made on one of today's cameras gives a lot more latitude than "back in the day," when digital cameras first came out. A few years ago, in the early days of this blog, I posted a detailed article on "Why You Should Shoot Raw." I remain a strong believer in that. But back then, Rich was shooting all his images in jpg format, even in his DSLR camera. The reason I say I will never forget is that raw images are generally very flat and dull looking. We compared our shots of some of the scenes and his jpegs looked pretty colorful and vibrant. I was using a body that was somewhat new to me and I was crestfallen to see that my image color and quality just didn't compare well to his. Or so I thought. Later, once I move the raw file into my Photoshop program and began to process them, not only did they compare favorably, but in some cases they were actually better. And because they were raw, I could make changes that were very different from the jpg renderings from his camera. On the other hand, he really couldn't. He was stuck with the "cooked" version the jpg file presented.

OLD NEWS. We both have been shooting raw format images for years now. And over time, the so-called "raw conversion" software just keeps getting better and better. The main point of this piece is really taking the theory of using raw images another step. It has to do with "profiles." I am going to only touch on this idea in a superficial way, because I cannot begin to explain it as well as post-processing guru, Tony Kuyper can, and the best thing I can do for you is link you to this very easy-to-read and understand article: Linear Profile Repository, on his website. I will quote his clear definition of a profile, and then strongly urge you to click on over and read his piece: "A profile1 is the set of instructions that tells Lightroom (Lr), Adobe Camera Raw (CR), or other RAW processing software how to display the data from a RAW file captured by a digital camera." Tony graciously offers his profiles free of charge on his website (it may be confusing when you visit because they are downloaded through his "pay" shopping cart and so it looks like there is a charge, but there is not). Note that they are camera - specific, so if you are shooting (or have historically shot with) different models, you will have to download a profile for each camera.

LIKE THE raw image looked to me back in Vermont in 2005, the image displayed with a linear profile looks blah on its own - quite dark, kind of grey, and flat. That is because it digitally represents the actual, "raw," linear data recorded by the camera sensor. It is up to you (or your processing engine) to create your own version of the image by making adjustments. In reality, ditigally recorded files are camera-sensor specific. Every camera model yields slightly different raw data and therefore a slightly different "curve," because every different sensor will record differently. Every manufacturer records the "raw" files recorded in the camera in their own proprietary "raw file format" (e.g., Nikon = NEF; Canon = CRW; Sony - ARW, and so on). And from what I understand those proprietary "raw files" are actually some variation of a .tif file, in order to make them visible on screen. Those "flat" images I saw in my laptop from my raw shots back in 2005? Those were Nikon NEF fies. So they had already already had a curve applied to them, to make them viewable.

BUT WAIT. There's more. 😆 Our "higher end" cameras that record "raw" images, actually apply two different curves. For those who didn't already know this, the images that show up for review on your camera's rear screen are actually jpg thumbnails produced by the camera. As we have said elsewhere, without a digital conversion through software, you cannot see the recorded data on a screen. The second "curved" image is different and is applied to the recorded data by your processing software at and after the time of conversion. This is where profiles come in. Raw conversion software (I use Adobe Camera Raw, but Light Room uses the same raw conversion "engine," and the other popular raw conversion software all has this feature) has a utility that applies a profile to your raw file. In the Adobe products, there is a drop down in the conversion engine that offers you a choice of several different profiles, and gives you the ability to upload your own profiles (like the profiles offered by Tony Kuyper). Each of these profiles is a "curve" applied to the straight-line (or "linear") data recorded by the camera sensor. And each is someone's "interpretation" of the best looking rendition of the data - or at least the starting point. The linear profile offered by Tony is his best shot at showing you the actual linear "curve" (theoretically a straight line) results on screen. This gives you the opportunity to make your own interpretation of the data, applying your own curve (profile) - more or less from "scratch." Pretty cool. It is probably worth the exercise to take a look at this part of your software, and play around with the different "looks" each profile gives you. Adobe, for example, pre-loads several, including "Adobe Standard," "Adobe Vivid," "Adobe Neutral," "Adobe Landscape," and a few others. There are also some creative ones available. In the end, though, what these are are just a suggested set of adjustments to that flat, linear profile. A starting point.

SHOULD YOU be using them? My best answer is that I don't really know. It is going to depend on many factors. I like to "play" with my raw images. I process each one individually. I have the time and enjoy the "ride." For me, the processing is as much a part as the making of the original images. But I know I am not "typical," if there is any such thing. I know many shooters who primarily enjoy making images and will want to spend minimal time processing them later. For you, though I would still highly recommend you shoot raw, if for no other reason than archival purposes, you are probably going to be more satisfied choosing one (or a couple) of the provided profiles in your software and leaving that as the default application.

IN MY own case, it has become one of the many "tools" in the digital toolbox. My buddy, Rich Ennis, pointed them out to me last fall during my visit to Vermont.  For a time, I appled the linear profile to every image. Rather than working completely from scratch, Tony suggests using the "AUTO" button on LR and ACR after applying the profile, and then making your own adjustments from there. I will let him explain (see the link above) why that may be a better approach than just using one of the other profiles offered in the software. I know Rich uses the profiles for a lot of his post-processing. And he is far advanced from me (both as a photographer and processer). But after a trial period, I found myself going back to one of Adobe's profiles: "Adobe Color", and preferring it. It just seems to come closest to the look I am seeking in most of my images. Which is why I am considering the Linear Profile a "tool in the box" at this point. Something I will use on occasion, but do not currently see enough utility to go through all the steps required.

I SUPPOSE that in the end, that is "using" them. I do suggest that if you do any degree of processing of your images, you download the profile for your camera model(s); load it into your software (it works in LR and PS - ACR; I am not sure about other processing software - but he does make an offhand reference to "other raw processing software), and try it. At the very least it will give you an eye-opening look "under the hood," so to speak. And, as Tony so generously offers these profiles as a no-charge item. What have you go to lose?