Use Camera Profiles.. not possible?

[paulbk]

I thought the use of camera profiles was/is a useful feature in Capture One and RawShooterPremium. It appears not possible in LR v1.0. Fiddling with the camera calibration sliders is only slightly less frustrating than calculating your AMT (alternative minimum tax).

Don't get me wrong. I think Lightroom is a fantastic piece of software. But there's always room for improvement.

p

[61Dynamic]

LR uses Adobe Camera Raw for raw conversions which doesn't use profiles like other converters. If you search around on the forums you'll find a number of discussions on the subject.

In the mean time here are a couple useful tutorials:
http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/21351.html
http://visual-vacations.com/ColorManagemen...01/04camera.htm

And a PS script for calibration:
http://www.fors.net/chromoholics/

[paulbk]

The calibrator script has not worked for (at least) the last two versions of ACR. More, it never worked very good. Hard to beat a well done camera profile.

[seanmcfoto]

The calibrator script has not worked for (at least) the last two versions of ACR. More, it never worked very good. Hard to beat a well done camera profile.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102537\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thomas Knoll has already rejected using camera profiles. It's come up a few times and the answer is always the same: Profiles only work for fixed lighting conditions so it won't be included.

[orangekay]

The calibrator script has not worked for (at least) the last two versions of ACR. More, it never worked very good. Hard to beat a well done camera profile.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102537\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This argument is as old as the hills so I'm not going to get into it with you, but if you look around at the research you're likely to discover that camera profiles are really only useful in a very limited number of situations due to the limits of current profiling technology (the main problem being that flat pieces of cardboard with paint swatches on them are not representative of the luminosity values present in any scene any photographer is likely to encounter unless they happen to be shooting 2D artwork on a copy stand, and that means that all profiles generated from data gathered in this manner are rough guesses at best). While there are a handful of instances where they will be highly effective, in most cases they simply are not, and the decision to omit ICC support from ACR was a highly conscious one made by a gentleman with a great deal of digital image processing experience. The calibration interface seems awkward at first, but give it a chance.

[61Dynamic]

As I've read/heard the actuality is ACR has two calibrations for each camera. One for daylight and one for tungsten light. As you adjust white-balance it chooses the appropriate one and even blends between the two as you move from one to he other.

Due to the variances in manufacturing tolerances cameras can deviate from ACRs initial calibration. My 300D is a prime example for that as it's default color in ACR is frigg'n-bad. Higher-end cameras have less deviation due to higher quality manufacturing process. The calibration tab in ACR/LR is there to correct for your particular camera's deviation.

The real problem is not that ACR doesn't use profiles, it's that there is no real easy way to calibrate a camera. (the script doesn't always work).

[X-Re]

The calibrator script has not worked for (at least) the last two versions of ACR. More, it never worked very good. Hard to beat a well done camera profile.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102537\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 
     Also, a new script is out that works for current ACRs...

[theophilus]

I thought the use of camera profiles was/is a useful feature in Capture One and RawShooterPremium. It appears not possible in LR v1.0. Fiddling with the camera calibration sliders is only slightly less frustrating than calculating your AMT (alternative minimum tax).

Don't get me wrong. I think Lightroom is a fantastic piece of software. But there's always room for improvement.

p
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102491\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

AMT is the devil!

[paulbk]

re: This argument is as old as the hills so I'm not going to get into it with you, but if you look around at the research you're likely to discover that camera profiles are really only useful in a very limited number of situations ....

Maybe. But is it better than no profile?

From Mike Channey (Qimage): "If we can develop a profile that improves color over the "default" color reproduction of the raw developing tool, we can say we have a successful/useful profile.  Some may question whether or not it is possible to develop a single profile that works under all lighting conditions, or whether it is imperative to develop one profile for each lighting condition: sunlight, fluorescent, incandescent, mercury vapor, etc..  Again, the true scientific answer here can get complex, but I've found that when profiling the true raw data, a "generic" profile can be developed using direct sunlight.  As lighting conditions (color temperature) shift from direct sunlight to warmer lighting such as incandescent lighting, the profile will become less accurate but the shift is not normally so extreme as to cause gross errors....."

More here: Profiling a Camera with an IT8 Target -- Mike Chaney

YMMV,

PS........ I can not make Calibrator Beta 3.8, Last updated: 6/19/06, work with ACR v3.7 latest.

[orangekay]

From Mike Channey (Qimage): "If we can develop a profile that improves color over the "default" color reproduction of the raw developing tool, we can say we have a successful/useful profile.  Some may question whether or not it is possible to develop a single profile that works under all lighting conditions, or whether it is imperative to develop one profile for each lighting condition: sunlight, fluorescent, incandescent, mercury vapor, etc..  Again, the true scientific answer here can get complex, but I've found that when profiling the true raw data, a "generic" profile can be developed using direct sunlight.  As lighting conditions (color temperature) shift from direct sunlight to warmer lighting such as incandescent lighting, the profile will become less accurate but the shift is not normally so extreme as to cause gross errors....."

I'm not personally apt to listen to the aesthetic opinions of a man whose company has a website that looks like some 15 year old's Geocities nightmare circa 1994, nor to those of any person who is in the business of selling camera profiles or camera profiling software/targets. If profiles make you happy, then by all means, buy all the targets and software you can afford. 90% of the world can get by with a gray card, and that's why Adobe doesn't choose to support the ICC method in this particular instance. If you're doing scientific rather than artistic work with your camera, then this might not be the solution for you, but then again, neither would an off-the-shelf camera.

[paulbk]

You either believe in the value of a color managed workflow, or not. This includes input devices (camera) as well as output devices (monitor, printer). Use of a gray card is not color management. It is an aid to white balance. (And a crude one at that.) Word on the street is that Adobe didn’t design in use of input ICC profiles for “simplicity.” There was a time when that was a valid argument. As the ICC literate user base grows, so goes the software. It’s a matter of time.

Adobe says: "ICC-based color management workflows are becoming the standard ...."

[61Dynamic]

You either believe in the value of a color managed workflow, or not. This includes input devices (camera) as well as output devices (monitor, printer). Use of a gray card is not color management. It is an aid to white balance. (And a crude one at that.) Word on the street is that Adobe didn’t design in use of input ICC profiles for “simplicity.” There was a time when that was a valid argument. As the ICC literate user base grows, so goes the software. It’s a matter of time.

Adobe says: "ICC-based color management workflows are becoming the standard ...."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102734\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

ACR is calibrated for each camera. It's just done differently than the ICC profile method and you don't have access to the original profiles. The calibrate option lets you tweak the existing profile if your camera deviates from the initial calibration.

If color management wasn't being used as you suggest the color produced by ACR would be considerably different than what you see now.

[paulbk]

re: "If color management wasn't being used as you suggest..."

I suggest that use of input ICC profiles is not possible in ACR or Lightroom. And that it ought to be. And predict someday will be. Further, that shooting a Gretagmcbeth card and tweaking camera calibration sliders is a tedious deterrent. Not impossible, just clumsy and error prone. The point of an ICC profile is to preserve color fidelity between devices without a lot of eyeball tweaking. And since we do all this work in a digital environment, it ought to be automated, repeatable, and deterministic.... aka, an ICC profile.

[61Dynamic]

It's no more error prone than the ICC profile system. Both systems can be very error prone in the wrong hands and both can be very good in the right hands. The system ACR uses is repeatable and can provide very consistent results even amongst cameras from different manufacturers if you spend the time fine-tuning it (Tip: calibrate ACR by the numbers, not your eyeball).

And there lies the rub. I agree with you that there needs to be a better system for automation than there currently is.

[paulbk]

fyi.. I’ve been using Bruce Fraser’s method since before it was published (2004). In my view it’s a kludgy poor man’s calibration, and not repeatable. Try it. Hide the results from the first go-round. Then do it again. Then do it again. If you get the same results within 2% (Lab numbers in the calibrated file), you have a color god in your favor. Bruce F. was an expert and did this for a living. The typical user simply wants good color management without making a career of it.

That was one of the reasons I went to Capture One, then RSP. Use of camera profiles for various conditions. Way cool.

btw... I'm trying to build a spread sheet that converts 8-bit RGB values (Adobe 1998 or ProPhoto) to Lightroom style "Melissa RGB" expressed in percentages. If anyone out there has done this, please share. fyi.. per A. Rodney: "For this reason, the histogram and numeric values provided in Lightroom are based on ProPhoto RGB, using the sRGB Tone Response Curve (primarily based on a 2.2 gamma with a tweak to the tone curve in the shadows)."

I believe Photoshop's native space is Lab, Lightroom not. And so it goes..

enjoy, photography is so much fun!
p

[61Dynamic]

Like I said, it takes patience but I have been able to get the cameras I've calibrated zeroed in quite well. The only camera that is still off is my 300D, but that is an issue with the camera itself and not ACR.

On that note and as an example of variance in manufacturing that effects color, my 300D had great color in C1. That lead me to think along the same lines as you are at first. RSE was then released and my 300D had crap color in it. Ditto for Bibble. This goes to show Mr. Knoll had a sample 300D that produced color in one way that didn't match my sample but was similar to the sample the RSE people had. The C1 developers had a sample that reproduced colors the same as mine.

Unless you have a higher-end camera with higher-quality manufacturing tolerances the only way to get accurate color from any raw developer is to build a custom profile of your own. The good news here for ACR is this only requires the cost of a CC chart. The ICC-based system requires more expensive tools to build the profile in addition to a CC chart.

The percentage scale should be simple to figure out. Simply convert the RGB numbers in whatever color space into percentages of that space. I.E. 128/256=50% I hope by the time PS3 is released they include a percentage scale for the info pallet.

P.S. Photoshops native color space is not Lab. It works directly in whatever mode/colorspace you set it in. Lab is used as a base for color conversions between spaces.

[pss]

i shoot studio and controlled lights....i have used C1 exclusively for a couple years now (i am on phase backs so no choice anyway)....even with my lights, my set-up i still have to tweak color in the coloreditor...it works, but not even half as well as LR does....the amount of control is incredible....
i wonder if c1v4 will have more controls or the coloreditor somehow more included in the "main" software.....
for me the profiles work, but have to be adjusted almost every time, in a way the whole "looks" idea is a variation on profiles and LR has the same thing....and i still have to adjust for every shoot....

[paulbk]

FWIW....... I ran a GretagMcbeth Color Checker calibrate script in ACR 3.7 and was abe to simply transpose all the Camera Calibrate setting directly into the Lightroom Camera Calibrate dialog. Looks very good. So even though color management is somewhat different from Photoshop to Lightroom, the RAW convert setting are mostly interchangeable.

Lightroom -- Recommend you make the Camera Calibrate settings a Preset. That way you have them saved in a Preset file and can apply or not.

btw...... I used Rags Gardner's calibrate script. It's a better (much improved) version of Thomas Fors. Get Rags script here:
Rags Gardner Calibrate Script
Click around. It's under Technology > ACR Calibrate
Interesting site. Thanks to Rags......!

p

[seanmcfoto]

Paul,
In response to a PM query on Fred Miranda's forums, I posted the following:
You need need to manually copy the settings over and save as a preset.
Perhaps this might also work: Apply only the calibration to a file in ACR 3.7. Save the XMP. Import into Lightroom and then in Develop save the calibration as a Develop Preset.

Could you check the second part? I don't have 3.7 (only on CS). It should work, but I've no way to check and it should be quicker than manually copying settings.

[paulbk]

Paul,
In response to a PM query on Fred Miranda's forums, I posted the following:
You need need to manually copy the settings over and save as a preset.
Perhaps this might also work: Apply only the calibration to a file in ACR 3.7. Save the XMP. Import into Lightroom and then in Develop save the calibration as a Develop Preset.

Could you check the second part? I don't have 3.7 (only on CS). It should work, but I've no way to check and it should be quicker than manually copying settings.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102972\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sean,
Yes.... it works exactly as you described.

Once you've run the calibration script on a RAW file in ACR, then, all you have to do is IMPORT that same RAW file into Lightroom. The Camera Calibrate setting come with it the sidecare XMP file. Cool!
p