ACR/LR camera profiles, Standard & custom

[thompsonkirk]

I've just spent a day working with the new Adobe Beta camera profile builder, & have come up with some tentative issues/results that I'd like to check out against other folks' experience:

First, isn't this basically a LENS profiler, not a camera profiler?  I use different vintages & brands of lenses in Leica M mounts, & they differ in the way they render color.  I'd also noticed different renderings with new Canon L zoom vs. older Canon primes.  

Second, are the new Standard profiles improvements for your particular camera/lens?  I experimented with the lens I use most of the time (28mm asph Summicron on Leica M8 - a fairly common pairing.  I shot the ColorChecker in north light & indoors.  I found that:

--The older 3.3 & 4.4 profiles & the new custom profile yield pretty close results.

--The new Standard profile is noticeably different from the above three.  The Orange patch is too vivid, & the Blue too purple.  The orange overstatement messes up skin tones (as others have noticed), & the ColorChecker pamphlet says the B shift is a definite sign that the profile needs first aid.  

--So I concluded the new Standard profile isn't really an improvement for this camera/lens.  

Third, C1 v.4 (with DNG Neutral profile) was a steady runner-up to the custom profile - when I tried different images of skin tones & a colorful street scene, default settings were always a bit flatter but always readily adjustable in PS, & were more accurate than the new Standard profile.  

Fourth, I'll generally be using the new custom profile, but it's no magic bullet.  The older profiles rendered skin tones a little too M, & the custom one is just a bit Y,  but it pretty consistently looked best in colorful scenes.  (I didn't try a landscape to check greens.)

Fifth, for color-demanding work such as product photography, I suppose you'd have to shoot a ColorChecker & make a profile for every scene!

Sixth, one very clear conclusion: it's really easy to use the new profiling software.

Granted, most folks are using Canon or Nikon, so my day of experimenting doesn't prove anything-in-general.  But it's a tip-off that the new Standard profiles aren't necessarily 'better.'  Instead it would be a good idea to compare the new Standard ones with 4.4 & with custom profiling.  

Kirk

[01af]

I also don't like the Adobe Standard beta 1 profiles. Way too red; they're neither accurate nor pleasing. The person who has created them must have been drunk ...

-- Olaf

[madmanchan]

See my comments in the other recent thread on the topic.

[thompsonkirk]

See my comments in the other recent thread on the topic.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220316\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Which one?  There are threads under both ACR & LR, & I saw a post from you, but it only touched on these issues?

(Profiling comments seem to be scattered here under this heading & also ACR & LR.)

[madmanchan]

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=27226

[JeffKohn]

First, isn't this basically a LENS profiler, not a camera profiler? I use different vintages & brands of lenses in Leica M mounts, & they differ in the way they render color. I'd also noticed different renderings with new Canon L zoom vs. older Canon primes.

Well, yeah, if you use a variety of lenses and want the same consistency from all of them you would need separate profiles. After all, lens and sensor both play a big part in the final image. Fortunately it's quick and easy to create separate profiles with the new tool (running those old calibrator scripts again and again wasn't much fun). Then again, you may not want exactly the same color reproduction from each lens, if certain lenses have characteristics that you favor for certain situations.

--So I concluded the new Standard profile isn't really an improvement for this camera/lens.

I agree about the color on the "Standard" profile. I've also found it somewhat difficult to compare the color of the various profiles ("Standard" as well as the various "camera" profiles) because these profiles differ by quite a bit in their tone curves.

Fourth, I'll generally be using the new custom profile, but it's no magic bullet. The older profiles rendered skin tones a little too M, & the custom one is just a bit Y, but it pretty consistently looked best in colorful scenes. (I didn't try a landscape to check greens.)

But the nice thing about the DNG Profile Editor is that you can easily tweak the profiles for different uses. You can have your custom CC-24 profile, as well as a "portrait" profile with tweaked skintones, etc.  I already have a standard custom profile as well as a 'landscape' profile which tweaks the greens/yellows for more pleasing foliage (the CC24 profile produced yellow-looking foliage that is probably more accurate, but not nearly as pleasing).

[digitaldog]

I also don't like the Adobe Standard beta 1 profiles. Way too red; they're neither accurate nor pleasing. The person who has created them must have been drunk ...

-- Olaf
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220311\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

At least with my 5D, the profiles are vast improvement; night and day.

[Schewe]

The person who has created them must have been drunk ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220311\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well Olaf, the person who made them is a regular here in the LL forums, so it ain't like you are insulting some random Adobe person, you are insulting a person who has been very helpful to a lot of people here in the forums. Not a particularly useful way of trying to explain what your brain is seeing huh?

Why don't you explain EXACTLY what you mean without wrapping it around an insult?

BTW, the fellow who made those profiles is Eric Chan, known here in the forums as "madmanchan"...so maybe an apology is in order?

[eronald]

There's just so much one can expect from "canned" profiles. If the built-in profiles don't make you happy, that may mean the camera is not close to the median, or that several batches were made.

Which is why I think that Adobe's release of the new profiling tools is an excellent idea. I tested them while they were in beta and was impressed, although I would prefer some better ergonomics.

More progress would be grandfathering in ICC compatibility.  at some future point in time.

Edmund

[Czornyj]

Well Olaf, the person who made them is a regular here in the LL forums, so it ain't like you are insulting some random Adobe person, you are insulting a person who has been very helpful to a lot of people here in the forums. Not a particularly useful way of trying to explain what your brain is seeing huh?

Why don't you explain EXACTLY what you mean without wrapping it around an insult?

BTW, the fellow who made those profiles is Eric Chan, known here in the forums as "madmanchan"...so maybe an apology is in order?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220416\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well said. There's really no problem - if for some "experts" these profiles are really that bad, they now also have an extremly powerful and simple tool to make them better. People are still treating digital cameras as they were loaded with slide film - "Oh, no! what a horrible skin color! This camera is useless for portrait!". They'd better buy a book and learn something instead of bashing people all over the internet.

[rdonson]

At least with my 5D, the profiles are vast improvement; night and day.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220386\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's my experience as well in Lightroom 2.  Adobe Standard 1 is much better than ACR 4.4.

[01af]

Not a particularly useful way of trying to explain what your brain is seeing huh?[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff, of course you're right. It definitely was not my intention to insult Eric, or anybody. So Eric, if you took offense then I'm sincerely sorry; please accept my apology!

My intention was just to express my bewilderment that a profile that is so obviously off (i. e. way too red, and also a bit too contrasty) can be published as 'Standard.' I'd accept it as a special-purpose profile with a name like 'Kodak,' 'Postcard,' or 'Greater-than-life' ... but not 'Standard.' However I must learn that those who appreciate it are outnumbering those who don't by far. It's a strange world ...

By the way, I did [a href=\"http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=77]this test[/url] and scored a perfect zero at first attempt---so both my colour vision and my monitor's calibration are not too far off ... in case someone is wondering.

There's really no problem---if for some "experts" these profiles are really that bad, they now also have an extremely powerful and simple tool to make them better.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220515\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's exactly right, and that's what I'm going to do. After all, the DNG Profile Editor is the product (and a great one, thanks to Eric), and the new profiles are just a bonus.

-- Olaf

[madmanchan]

No problem, no offense. I mean, it is possible that I was drunk at the time and just don't remember ...    

We understand that different folks will have different preferences, as indicated by the comments in this thread alone. This is why we're not simply blowing off those in the minority, nor those who want to optimize color for specific situations. We're not expecting too many folks to be fiddling with the DNG Profile Editor, but we are certainly hoping that those who don't like our default profiles will be able to build ones to their satisfaction using this tool, without too much effort.

[rdonson]

By the way, I did this test and scored a perfect zero at first attempt---so both my colour vision and my monitor's calibration are not too far off ... in case someone is wondering.

-- Olaf
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Olaf,

Thanks for posting the test.  It confirms the results of every color test I've taken over the years.  Strangely I haven't improved with age.