Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: Ellis Vener on January 27, 2015, 03:55:38 pm
-
I've been a long time advocate of creating a custom profile for your camera using an #Xrite 24-patch target and using either (or both) Xrite's #ColorCheckerPassport software or #AdobeDNGProfile Editor. What I have found that works best when you go that route (and I think you should) is to create a dual illuminant one using 3200˚K light or household type incandescent light bulbs burn at around 2800˚K on the low end and daylight (cloudy or clear) or electronic flash at the high end.
These DNG based profiles (which can be applied to non-DNG raw formats) are not true ICC profiles but unless your photographing products or doing copy work where absolute control over color relationships are a must, they work well at delivering pleasing color*.
That's fine and dandy but here's the point: I want to encourage you to at least try the other profiles to see which basic color palette (the "Profile") works best before you start adjusting any of Lightroom or ACR's sliders. You might discover something you like.
If you prefer the #Datacolor approach to profiling a set up, using their target and software to set the Hue/Saturation and Luminosity sliders rather than the Camera Calibration settings, that's fine too - use whatever works best for you and the photos you are making
*I've read through and know enough to understand the acres of the thorny brambles that make up the arguments against DNG profiling. If you want to rehash those arguments and trot out your charts and equations be my guest and start your own thread. While I understand the fine points of those arguments, and know that there are some circumstances in which they absolutely apply I make and judge photographs in the real world and for those purposes the DNG based profiles work fine.
-
That's fine and dandy but here's the point: I want to encourage you to at least try the other profiles to see which basic color palette (the "Profile") works best before you start adjusting any of Lightroom or ACR's sliders.
That's why it would be so nice IF the selection of camera profiles where at the top, rather than the bottom of the GUI in Lightroom. I agree, set profile first, then mess with sliders.
-
That's how I see and use camera profiles, Ellis. Gave up on absolute accuracy long time ago. I get by on the 4 that I have which comprise ACR 4.4, Adobe Standard, a custom DNG Single illuminant Daylight and Dual Illuminant profile and find I use all of them as color graders and/or restorers.
On certain high contrast scenes like big sunset clouds and brightly lit plants and flowers I like switching between Adobe Standard and a custom DNG and sometimes revert back to the old ACR 4.4 which opens up and clarifies shadow detail more than a custom. I use HSL panel to adjust to taste.
For instance below is a recent edit where I see the advantages of Adobe Standard increasing luminance in highlights without clipping on sunset clouds but distorts (twists?) hues on other objects such as the pumpkin. I also use Adobe Standard to neutralize interiors lit by spiky 2800K fluorescent lights in order to get rid of the green. To boost saturation a bit without having to use slider tools I'll select the Dual Illuminant DNG profile as I did on the pumpkin even though it's shot in daylight.
-
That's why it would be so nice IF the selection of camera profiles where at the top, rather than the bottom of the GUI in Lightroom. I agree, set profile first, then mess with sliders.
+1
-
That's why it would be so nice IF the selection of camera profiles where at the top, rather than the bottom of the GUI in Lightroom. I agree, set profile first, then mess with sliders.
Another +1. Much easier if the "Basic" panel were next to "Camera Calibration". I often try different profiles along with adjustments in the Basic Panel.
-
That's why it would be so nice IF the selection of camera profiles where at the top, rather than the bottom of the GUI in Lightroom. I agree, set profile first, then mess with sliders.
Something I recall you and others requested (and I and many others supported) many versions ago.
Apparently that concept has fallen upon deaf ears.
-
That's why it would be so nice IF the selection of camera profiles where at the top, rather than the bottom of the GUI in Lightroom. I agree, set profile first, then mess with sliders.
+2 I never really thought about it, but you're exactly right about this. As soon as I read your post, I thought, DUH! ... of course!!
Eric, Adobe, are you listening?
Rand
-
+1
I've added a plus one to keep this post up there for others to read...
Getting into the habit of creating custom profiles just makes things better from first tweaks to final output, as Ellis says, give it a try.
S
-
That's why it would be so nice IF the selection of camera profiles where at the top, rather than the bottom of the GUI in Lightroom. I agree, set profile first, then mess with sliders.
+1
you are right,
It is the first choice to make and should be on top..
I find i have enough choices with camera profiles already (d810) so don't see a reason yet to make them myself...
( also i do not trust myself doing it right ; even adobe made mistakes with their first d810 profiles)
As a starting point i like the soft 'camera neutral' best on the d810
-
I have made more than a few camera profiles using the DNG profile editor (single and dual illuminant).
It seems to me that there is an important bit of information missing in the instructions for this tool.
Immediately after opening an image, in the right panel, there is a drop down list for "Base Profile". Here one can select from a number of Adobe profiles for your camera. After one makes this selection. the next step is to select the "Chart" tab and proceed from there to construct the profile. What I have found is that the selection of the "Base Profile" has an visible effect (sometimes very significant) on the resulting profile prodced by the editor.
Can anyone comment?
Sorry if this diverges too much from the original topic.
-
Can anyone comment?
just google messages from Eric Chan about the matter... creation of dcp profiles using Adobe DNG PE will use some essential parts from the base profile selected in order to avoid serious errors from users who really think that they are creating something new ( :D ), specifically for daylight type illumination (placebo effect is the best sales engine) ...
for example :
Eric Chan :: ( http://forums.adobe.com/message/5198903#5198903 ) @ Apr 2, 2013
DNG Profile Editor lets you define color edits (in the first tab) using a set of color control points. These control points in turn define a color lookup table used to perform the color correction when processing a (raw) image.
When you use a Base Profile, the resulting color table in the final profile is a combination of the base profile's color table, plus the color table defined by any edits that you've added in the first tab (using the Chart Wizard counts as adding edits to that first tab).
The reason you can get different and less smooth results if you apply the Chart Wizard iteratively is because you are applying lookup table after lookup table. The current color table-building method used by DNG PE has some limitations regarding smoothness of color profiles if two color control points are placed too closely (this can happen with the Chart Wizard, or if you specify two points manually that are close to each other). These problems can become more noticeable if you apply the DNG PE iteratively.
Eric Chan :: ( http://forums.adobe.com/message/3395534#3395534 ) @ Jan 11, 2011
...we decided to build tools to allow users to develop their own preferred colors. One such tool is the DNG Profile Editor. It has its limits, of course. One limitation...is that you need to already have a suitable starting color matrix for a camera; otherwise the lookup tables will not work well. For most camera models, Adobe has already built such starting color matrices...
-
...we decided to build tools to allow users to develop their own preferred colors. One such tool is the DNG Profile Editor. It has its limits, of course. One limitation...is that you need to already have a suitable starting color matrix for a camera; otherwise the lookup tables will not work well. For most camera models, Adobe has already built such starting color matrices...
Going by the huge differences (hue twists?) seen in the "pumpkin" image above using custom DNG (ACR 4.4 Base Profile source color matrices in DNG PE Chart Wizard) VS Adobe Standard, I'ld suggest those having issues with their final custom DNG profile start off with a different default Base Profile which I believe requires you select it first in ACR/LR and set that as the new Default setting for all Raw images. That way when you do the initial Raw conversion to DNG that new source Base Profile is included when opening in the DNG Profile Editor Chart Wizard.
I have only my one camera (Pentax K100D) to assume that Adobe appears to create their Base Profiles differently that are specific to each camera model. I don't know if Adobe Standard does the same orange to yellow hue twist for other cameras but if it does I'ld think I'ld switch to ACR 4.4 or any other Adobe made Base Profile other than Adobe Standard.
Just FYI but years back I read in the same Adobe forums by either Eric Chan or Chris Cox that Adobe uses more sophisticated methods and hardware to create their Base Profiles than what can be done in DNG PE Chart Wizard. They didn't get into specifics but after years of close examination of my two (ACR 4.4 & Adobe Standard) and how they adjust colors on my Raw images, I'm taking their word for it.
-
Eric Chan: When you use a Base Profile, the resulting color table in the final profile is a combination of the base profile's color table, plus the color table defined by any edits that you've added in the first tab (using the Chart Wizard counts as adding edits to that first tab).
OK, this is as I expected. It leaves open the question: are there any guidelines when choosing a Base Profile?. Or, is it simply try 2 or 3 different ones, use the Chart Wizard, and select the edited profile you like best?
-
OK, this is as I expected. It leaves open the question: are there any guidelines when choosing a Base Profile?. Or, is it simply try 2 or 3 different ones, use the Chart Wizard, and select the edited profile you like best?
I'm not aware of any guidelines.
Based on my observation I'ld suggest you start with a Base Profile that renders the Color Checker Chart visually as close to the original as possible with the most balance with regard to HSL or go by the Lab numbers. Before the conversion of the CCchart target image to DNG format choose different Base Profiles that do this the best.
ACR 4.4 as a Base Profile for my camera always opens up the shadows a bit with more definition on a wider range of images of varying dynamic ranges. Sometimes the custom DNG profile built from ACR 4.4 BP gives better results in this regard depending on the amount of contrast and saturation in the shadows. For my camera ACR 4.4 is the most stable and color balanced with the least shadow noise artifacts.
-
It leaves open the question: are there any guidelines when choosing a Base Profile?.
The results obtained with the DNG PE / Chart Wizard may indeed show some unexpected dependencies.
From what we found the profiles vary significantly depending on:
1.) camera-exposure, +/- EV.
2.) the version of the DNG PE (1.0.0.39 vs. 1.0.0.46).
3.) the Base Profile used, sometimes at least.
Starting with Adobe Standard as the Base Profile, when running the Chart Wizard the entry for the "Base Profile" in the Color Tables tab automatically changes from Adobe Standard to something named "ColorChecker". My understanding is that the Adobe Standard profile is cut down to the baseline matrix profile (equivalent to the former ACR 4.x profiles) before the Hue/Sat.-corrections from the Chart Wizard are build on it.
The first thing I do after running the Chart Wizard is to Clear all Color Adjustments and to export the resulting profile under the title "base matrix" (w/Base Tone Curve set to Camera Raw Default). Or, let’s call it "color palette # 1" in the sense suggested by the OP.
The Chart Wizard can then of course be launched again to add its Hue/Sat.-corrections. FWIW.
The results are the same as with the first run of the Chart Wizard above.
Walking along the same procedure but with Camera Standard as the Base Profile, we have seen that the results can be exactly the same as above with Adobe Standard (which means that the Camera Standard profile is cut down as well by the Chart Wizard to the same baseline matrix profile before the Hue/Sat.-corrections are build on it), but we also had cases where the results, the profiles and the logic were completely spoiled. I'm staying away from the Camera Matching Profiles as a starting point to run the Chart Wizard.
--
-
The results obtained with the DNG PE / Chart Wizard may indeed show some unexpected dependencies.
From what we found the profiles vary significantly depending on:
1.) camera-exposure, +/- EV.
2.) the version of the DNG PE (1.0.0.39 vs. 1.0.0.46).
3.) the Base Profile used, sometimes at least.
Starting with Adobe Standard as the Base Profile, when running the Chart Wizard the entry for the "Base Profile" in the Color Tables tab automatically changes from Adobe Standard to something named "ColorChecker". My understanding is that the Adobe Standard profile is cut down to the baseline matrix profile (equivalent to the former ACR 4.x profiles) before the Hue/Sat.-corrections from the Chart Wizard are build on it.
The first thing I do after running the Chart Wizard is to Clear all Color Adjustments and to export the resulting profile under the title "base matrix" (w/Base Tone Curve set to Camera Raw Default). Or, let’s call it "color palette # 1" in the sense suggested by the OP.
The Chart Wizard can then of course be launched again to add its Hue/Sat.-corrections. FWIW.
The results are the same as with the first run of the Chart Wizard above.
Walking along the same procedure but with Camera Standard as the Base Profile, we have seen that the results can be exactly the same as above with Adobe Standard (which means that the Camera Standard profile is cut down as well by the Chart Wizard to the same baseline matrix profile before the Hue/Sat.-corrections are build on it), but we also had cases where the results, the profiles and the logic were completely spoiled. I'm staying away from the Camera Matching Profiles as a starting point to run the Chart Wizard.
--
Peter, that sounds very confusing and no where close to how the 4 step CCchart works for me which is quite simple and straight forward with version 1.0.0.46.
First step open the DNG CCchart target image
Second step place color circles over corner patches
Third step pick single or dual illuminant table (dual illuminant requires two CCchart DNG format targets: D65 & 2800K)
Fourth step Create Color Table
There is no clearing of "Color Matrices" (Hue Sat slider panel) procedure prior to this unless it was set as a new custom "Default" in ACR/LR during the CCchart target image conversion to DNG.
When you say "running the Chart Wizard" (I'm assuming where you place circles over the corner patches of the CCchart target image) and where you say it automatically switches from Adobe Standard to Color Checker, does the DNG CCchart target image preview change? If it doesn't you can't assume any matrices are being overridden or any Base Profile is being "cut down". Where did you get this understanding?
Your explanation sounds like you're suggesting the same "iterative" procedure that linked Adobe discussion says to avoid. Use the CCchart and don't mess with any other panels. That's all that should be done.
-
.. how the 4 step CCchart works for me which is quite simple and straight forward with version 1.0.0.46.
First step open the DNG CCchart target image
Second step place color circles over corner patches
Third step pick single or dual illuminant table (dual illuminant requires two CCchart DNG format targets: D65 & 2800K)
Fourth step Create Color Table
... Use the CCchart and don't mess with any other panels. That's all that should be done.
If you like your profile and the resulting colors, Tim,
I certainly won't disagree, - and under the main premise of this thread, just think of it as another color palette
and not as anything absolute, also in a technical sense because the profile is just one variant depending on several influencing factors, and some of it such as the points listed above may be unexpected. Of course it requires more than one "run" to explore this.
So the question is about the merits of this camera calibration and the resulting profile(s) with all related if & then,
compared to the Adobe Standard profile, the Camera Matching profile, and – as another reference - what I called the baseline matrix profile in my previous post. As for the latter, provided that the DNG of the CCchart was initially saved with the Adobe Standard profile, just add a fifth step: go to Edit in the top bar of the DNG-PE and Clear Color Adjustments, then export the profile.
--
-
what I called the baseline matrix profile
in recent Adobe Standard profiles "matrix" part is not enough really (unlike it used to be before)... more color transform work is shifted to LUTs, so if you use dcptool and strip LUTs the result will be not as they used to be.
-
As for the latter, provided that the DNG of the CCchart was initially saved with the Adobe Standard profile, just add a fifth step: go to Edit in the top bar of the DNG-PE and Clear Color Adjustments, then export the profile.
I just did what you suggested and the only "Cleared Color Adjustments" were the adjustments built and seen in the Color Table panel by the CCchart Wizard tables built on top of the initial DNG "Preview" that is created and inextricably connected to the Base Profile chosen as a Default in ACR/LR be it ACR 4.4 or Adobe Standard. You can't clear Adobe Standard tables in the DNG CCchart source image because the preview doesn't change which is an indication the internal Color Tables have not been cleared. You can only clear the adjustments made by the Chart Wizard. The Color Table drop down menu lists other profiles (that change the preview) to use as replacement starting points but that's exactly what was done during the creation of the DNG when choosing Adobe Standard or any other Default profile in ACR/LR.
You're not making the connection and you're adding confusion by disconnecting the color tables that form the initial Default preview in ACR/LR that the Chart Wizard builds the recipe from when placing the four corner dots over the chart. The Chart Wizard has to make a new set of Color Tables going by how screwed up the colors are by the Default embedded (ACR 4.4 or Adobe Standard) profile when positioning the four corner dots placed over the CCchart target preview.
The least corrections (the least screwed up by the chosen Default profile) the less the CCchart Wizard has to create huge fixes in the new recipe seen in the Color Table panel which makes for a better profile overall with the least amount of generated artifacts when using as the new custom replacement Default Profile.
There is a reason why we need to make a custom DNG profile using a starting profile as Default in ACR/LR (which can't be turned off, only replaced but used as a reference starting point for the Wizard) and the reason is that the initial preview is screwed up by the current Default Profiles provided by Adobe. The best Adobe profile to choose as a starting point before converting to CCchart target DNG is the profile that makes the CCchart look the most accurate.
That way any additional edits in the DNG PE Color Table panel that are built on top of the new CCchart Wizard Color Table recipe like say better skin tones (which is iterative) won't add as much color distortion or artifacts embedded in the final edited custom profile.
-
in recent Adobe Standard profiles "matrix" part is not enough really (unlike it used to be before)... more color transform work is shifted to LUTs, so if you use dcptool and strip LUTs the result will be not as they used to be.
in recent Adobe Standard profiles the HSV Lut part has indeed become larger,
and unlike with former Adobe Standard profiles it can't be completely removed anymore via the DNG PE Chart Wizard + Clear Color Adjustments,
but then the Lut is still getting downsized that way, it is different from the starting Lut with Adobe Standard, which finally makes it a different profile
- as confirmed by looking inside the profiles with the dcpTool (http://dcptool.sourceforge.net/Introduction.html), or from what I see in practice in LR/ACR.
-
in recent Adobe Standard profiles the HSV Lut part has indeed become larger,
and unlike with former Adobe Standard profiles it can't be completely removed anymore via the DNG PE Chart Wizard + Clear Color Adjustments,
but then the Lut is still getting downsized that way, it is different from the starting Lut with Adobe Standard, which finally makes it a different profile
- as confirmed by looking inside the profiles with the dcpTool (http://dcptool.sourceforge.net/Introduction.html), or from what I see in practice in LR/ACR.
my point was that before you can just leave the purely matrix part from the original dcp file and it was quite OK for non challenging scenarios (LUTs were just fixing minor issues, I may say so) and nowadays you can't really
-
I just did
if I am not mistaken your camera (Pentax) is quite old and Adobe profiles for it are not exactly what are they now, so keep that in mind - whatever works for you is not necessarily the case for somebody who has a shiny new camera with a different construction of Adobe profiles for it
-
if I am not mistaken your camera (Pentax) is quite old and Adobe profiles for it are not exactly what are they now, so keep that in mind - whatever works for you is not necessarily the case for somebody who has a shiny new camera with a different construction of Adobe profiles for it
I'll have to take your word on that since I can't tell how, when or where LUTs affect the preview. So if this is the case with more modern versions of Adobe Standard as a starting point, why not pick another Base Profile that doesn't have LUTs or doesn't screw up the starting point preview of the CCchart image. I have no idea what Base Profiles that have LUTs do to Raw images. It would help to see this in action and actually be able to connect that the LUTs are causing it.
I've opened downloaded Raw sample images from more modern Canon & Nikon models and noticed the huge myriad of choices of Adobe supplied camera profiles. And every one of them do funky things to the preview both in overall contrast, role off into shadows AND hue/sat distortions in individual colors. How this affects the performance of creating CCchart Wizard profile to get more accurate results is a mystery.
So am I to understand on a more modern camera Raw file that if Adobe Standard is embedded (thus chosen) in the converted DNG CCchart target image and first opened in the DNG PE app that the preview will change when selecting "Clear Color Adjustments"?
The reasons for my specificity on this subject was to address posters like "mouse" who made this comment...
Immediately after opening an image, in the right panel, there is a drop down list for "Base Profile". Here one can select from a number of Adobe profiles for your camera. After one makes this selection. the next step is to select the "Chart" tab and proceed from there to construct the profile. What I have found is that the selection of the "Base Profile" has an visible effect (sometimes very significant) on the resulting profile produced by the editor.
Choosing different "Base Profiles" in the drop down menu in the "Color Tables" panel in DNG PE will change the preview the same as if you'ld done it first BEFORE converting to DNG format in ACR/LR. Change the starting preview by changing the "Base Profile" in DNG PE will cause the Chart Wizard to adjust more or less depending how wacked the newly selected Base Profile changes the preview. The farther away from accurate the newly chosen Base Profile messes with the preview the more the Wizard has to fix which can introduce distortions mainly because this free app is meant to do small and subtle movements to Color Tables and not act as a color restoration tool.
-
my point was that before you can just leave the purely matrix part from the original dcp file and it was quite OK for non challenging scenarios (LUTs were just fixing minor issues, I may say so) and nowadays you can't really
and you could be right (actually you are right), however,
the suggested procedure via the Chart Wizard + Clear Color Adjustments still works fine also with recent Adobe Standard profiles,
whether or not or even because said ""baseline matrix profile"" goes beyond a pure matrix, and I should just replace this term in my earlier posts #14 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=97309.msg796509#msg796509) and #16 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=97309.msg797052#msg797052) by something broader like "core profile".
Any quotes or insights on the background of this change in design with Adobe Standard ?
It seems to contradict what we heard earlier from Eric Chan:
quote (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=38546.msg319701#msg319701) >> all I meant to say in my post was that some more recent sensors are not too far off from satisfying the Luther-Ives condition, and hence good scene referred profiles can be obtained with a simple 3x3 matrix.<<
More in response to Tim, - the differences between the different profiles, Adobe Standard old/new, before/after the Chart Wizard, with or without step 5 Clear Color Adjustments seem to correlate well with the .dcp file size [kB] as a basic indicator, in line with what we see inside with the dcpTool (http://dcptool.sourceforge.net/Introduction.html) or finally in LR/ACR (I would not trust the DNG-PE preview only)… - if of help.
--
-
It seems to contradict what we heard earlier from Eric Chan:
quote (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=38546.msg319701#msg319701) >> all I meant to say in my post was that some more recent sensors are not too far off from satisfying the Luther-Ives condition, and hence good scene referred profiles can be obtained with a simple 3x3 matrix.<<
he said that in 2009 and dcp profiles were evolving - hence when quoting him you always need to check the timeframe... yes, you could and can have a quite good color transform using just a matrix (linear) conversion in majority of cases, but people were looking to get good results in more extreme/as much as possible situations hence dcp moved to using LUTs heavily instead of relying on using LUTs as some kind of postprocessing part to correct issues after a normal matrix color transform... that's my uneducated understanding of the situation...
-
More in response to Tim, - the differences between the different profiles, Adobe Standard old/new, before/after the Chart Wizard, with or without step 5 Clear Color Adjustments seem to correlate well with the .dcp file size [kB] as a basic indicator, in line with what we see inside with the dcpTool or finally in LR/ACR (I would not trust the DNG-PE preview only)… - if of help.
You have to trust the preview because that's the reason we create custom profiles using the CCchart Wizard and then attempt further minor tweaks to HSL in the Color Table panel. We're using our eyes to perform those edits!
The ACR/LR preview with a starting base profile (pick one) before & after converting to DNG format looks the same when first opened in DNG PE with no edits or Wizards. Do a screengrab with both previews (ACR/LR & DNG PE) of the CCchart target image and check the lab numbers of screengrab file in Photoshop. They should be identical or at least within 5 points in either of the three Lab channels.
Then run the Wizard as usual and see how it changes. Do a screengrab. Then go back in ACR/LR and open the CCchart target image and start off with a different Base Profile, convert to DNG and run the Wizard and do a screengrab. Compare the Lab numbers of the two CCchart target image screengrabs (that had different starting Base Profiles) in Photoshop.
If there are wildly different Lab numbers between the two (affected by starting out with different Base Profile starting points) then you can confirm that the increase of file size in the .dcp is taking into account these extra color matrices/tables/LUTs and that they are affecting the results.
-
he said that in 2009 and dcp profiles were evolving - hence when quoting him you always need to check the timeframe...
and the early date of the quote actually supports the point: sensors do have improved since that time,
and a best-fit-matrix should suit better than ever in the past (what I can confirm from my camera history).
It is the design of the Adobe Standard profile which has changed.
yes, you could and can have a quite good color transform using just a matrix (linear) conversion in majority of cases, but people were looking to get good results in more extreme/as much as possible situations hence dcp moved to using LUTs heavily instead of relying on using LUTs as some kind of postprocessing part to correct issues after a normal matrix color transform...
With the recent Adobe Standard profiles, from what I see, all the tweaks are now in the HueSatDelta table which is applied "straight" on top of the matrix (two matrices and two HueSatDelta tables according the two illuminants, to be precise). Whereas the former Adobe Standard profiles included a single LookTable which was reported to be applied at a later stage, after the exposure control in terms of former PV2010. Seems that the idea of having lightness-dependent hue twists in the profile was abandoned.
--
Late edit: just realized that the recent Adobe Standard profiles indeed include both:
the new HueSatDelta tables as well as a LookTable. Nicely illustrated here (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/2702230-post88.html).
-
With the recent Adobe Standard profiles, from what I see, all the tweaks are now in the HueSatDelta table which is applied "straight" on top of the matrix (two matrices and two HueSatDelta tables according the two illuminants, to be precise). Whereas the former Adobe Standard profiles included a single LookTable which was reported to be applied at a later stage, after the exposure control in terms of former PV2010. Seems that the idea of having lightness-dependent hue twists in the profile was abandoned.
After reading the dcpTool site links I couldn't find any real images (not color patches) that showed what you're talking about, Peter. But your mentioning PV2010 vs PV2012 sparked my curiosity to try this out. Maybe you can confirm in the LR4.4 screengrabs below if this is what you're describing.
I opened the dual illuminant custom DNG embedded ACR 6.7 PV2010 edited pumpkin image in LR4.4 and switched to Adobe Standard and then switched to PV2012 (clicking on warning icon) where I got the "Before/After" previews which darkened and added more definition and contrast and then took a screengrab. Then I just increased exposure from +70 to +1.36 and took another screengrab. (The left side "Before" top & bottom previews are the same.)
Note the lack of saturated yellow on the right after increasing exposure where I'm assuming LR4.4 is using a different Adobe Standard for my camera as well.
-
I did some further experimenting using the same DNG CCchart target image I shot back in 2008 when building a custom profile for ACR 4.6 PV2003 and using an older DNG PE Chart Wizard and it appears the latest DNG PE app builds profiles that render with less saturation and yellowish hues to orange colors. (See the ACR 6.7 PV2010 screengrabs below. Same results in LR4.4 PV2012.)
It also appears choosing the starting Base Profile (either Adobe Standard or ACR 4.4) in the Color Table panel in the current version of DNG PE doesn't affect the final CCchart Wizard profile. I made two with each starting Base Profile and applied both profiles in PV2010 ACR 6.7 and LR4.4 PV2012 on the same pumpkin image and got the same preview. However, switching back & forth sampling the ProPhoto RGB numbers in bright orange highlights and mids shows the green channel shift one to two numbers up for ACR 4.4 and down for Adobe Standard.
-
... and it appears the latest DNG PE app builds profiles that render with less saturation and yellowish hues to orange colors.
as noted among the unexpected factors of influence,
(point 2, post #14), the version of the DNG PE.
It also appears choosing the starting Base Profile (either Adobe Standard or ACR 4.4) in the Color Table panel in the current version of DNG PE doesn't affect the final CCchart Wizard profile.
With the former Adobe Standard profiles, the LookTable got completely discarded, automatically by the Chart Wizard,
before the color adjustments as derived from the ColorChecker were set on top of the matrices.
--
Supplementary, added by edit,
I guess this is the quote I was looking for:
Eric Chan wrote (Aug. 2011): >>When using the Chart Wizard feature of DNG PE, the color matrices are taken from the choice of the Base Profile (ColorMatrix* and ForwardMatrix* DNG tags), and the color tables (HueSatMap1 and HueSatMap2 DNG tags) are replaced by the ones calculated by the Chart Wizard. If the Base Profile has a look table (LookTable DNG tag), it is removed.<<
http://forums.adobe.com/message/3861785#3861785
http://exdeejjjaaaa.blogspot.de/2013/07/ec-others-forumsadobecom.html
-
Eric Chan wrote (Aug. 2011): >>When using the Chart Wizard feature of DNG PE, the color matrices are taken from the choice of the Base Profile (ColorMatrix* and ForwardMatrix* DNG tags), and the color tables (HueSatMap1 and HueSatMap2 DNG tags) are replaced by the ones calculated by the Chart Wizard. If the Base Profile has a look table (LookTable DNG tag), it is removed.<<
Can't any of you code fiddlers provide a series of sample image previews that relate to each color manipulation term embedded in these Base Profiles and .dcp recipes that affects the preview so we know what to look for if things are working wrong or right? There's so much stuff going on under the hood for what little changes you'ld expect among all the app version upgrades not to mention added PV version influences that it makes me wonder if it's working as it should. And I don't need someone telling me "Oh your camera's different from mine so that's why that is happening on your end". That doesn't help anyone!
For example if the Base Profile has a look table (LookTable DNG tag) and it is removed what will that look like with or without it in a preview. I need to know where color ground zero is when I convert my Raw to DNG and not have to wonder if there are "color thingys" getting embedded, utilized and/or removed when creating a custom profile using the DNG PE.
I haven't made a custom profile since 2008 because I thought everything was working fine and I accepted the over saturation. Now that I've bought into 3 PV versions and notice preview changes some slight and some just downright odd I'm left wondering how does one tell if things are working as they should.
Case in point when I'm switching from PV2010 to PV2012 in ACR 6.7 the Linear Point Curve gets a custom curve. (See below). Of course I switch back to PV2010 by canceling out of ACR and everything goes back to the original edits of the embedded xmp sidecar. That custom curve does not get applied to all images doing the same conversion and some images going from PV2003 to PV2012 in LR4 get a different shaped curve that may or may not replace an already existing curve.
I know about this point curve replacement by reading about complaints online about it but I'm not frustrated about that. I accept this. I am frustrated about all the doubt that's created in these types of discussions where no one SHOWS what all this .dcp code jargon does to the preview and whether it's necessary to be concerned about it. Or whether these custom replacement PV curves in ACR/LR become part of and/or influence in some way the processing pipeline when going through the trouble of making a custom DNG profile.
Telling someone they should use this version app because "color taggy table kadiddle-hop is now in front and not behind the process" (whatever that means) so use the current version does not help remove the doubt. Then the doubt compounds when you get the current version and you hardly see a difference and are left wondering about whether "color taggy table kadiddle-hop" really made an improvement with my camera but too bad it's not doing anything to your old camera. You need to get a newer camera. That's just horseshit! And it only proves what little these discussions do to help people when the techno talk doesn't get put into action to prove what's going on.
-
Not sure if you really expect (or appreciate) a response, Tim, based on your rant.
Aren't we all in the same boat here.
For example if the Base Profile has a look table (LookTable DNG tag) and it is removed what will that look like with or without it in a preview. I need to know where color ground zero is ...
you can easily check into this on your own, - happy to explain again:
just do step 5 as I had suggested it. The complete procedure how to extract the core profile from the Adobe Standard profile is compiled below. Not particularly difficult at all.
With the Pentax K100D (if this is your camera) the Adobe Standard profile is of the former type, just including the matrices and a LookTable. When you strip off the LookTable according the suggested procedure, the remaining core profile is what I had called the baseline matrix profile.
Case in point when I'm switching from PV2010 to PV2012 in ACR 6.7 the Linear Point Curve gets a custom curve. (See below).
The definition for zero/Linear has changed in the UI from PV2010 to PV2012:
PV2010 Medium Contrast curve -> PV2012 Linear
PV2010 Linear -> PV2012 inverse of the Medium Contrast curve as shown in your post.
To this point it is solely a UI thing, and it should not be responsible for any differences in tonality when converting from PV2010 to PV2012.
Feel free to open a separate thread on this subject
--
--
How to extract the core profile from the Adobe Standard profile,
with the DNG Profile Editor:
1. open a DNG of the ColorChecker chart, Base Profile Adobe Standard
(no need to take particular care of the lighting, etc. when shooting the target).
2. place color circles over corner patches
3. select: Both color tables
4. Create Color Table
5. Edit > Clear Color Adjustments
6. optional: change Base Tone Curve to Camera Raw Default
7. File > Export Profile
-
-
I've been a long time advocate of creating a custom profile for your camera …
That's fine and dandy but here's the point: I want to encourage you to at least try the other profiles to see which basic color palette (the "Profile") works best before you start adjusting any of Lightroom or ACR's sliders. You might discover something you like.
I think the recommendation is particularly valuable when the choice of other profiles comprises
an Adobe Standard profile of the recent type (larger dcp file size), i.e. with a "newer" camera.
I had ignored the Adobe Standard profile for some time (didn't like it in the past),
however, upon re-evaluating it now I’m considering the recent type as a clear improvement,
whether from a technical point of view (less and less work left for the Chart Wizard, in continuation of the previous trend of "matrix getting better"),
or, judging by perception in LR/ACR.
Sorry in case we got too much into the "acres of the thorny brambles, the charts and equations" of DNG profiling here.
Peter
--
-
Peter, show me, don't tell me procedures you've already outlined.
You won't show in one of your images this "new" Adobe Standard and what it does or doesn't do compared to the old. Yours or anyone else's input on this subject has not been helpful to me at all.
-
Tim,
I think you and other poster in this thread have drifted too far from Ellis (the OP) original intent. He is simply suggesting that one use their own camera, make custom profiles, and employ them in the raw converter of their choice. Then use the profile that gives the best results; which is a purely subjective decision.
I don't see how displaying images which we have created, for comparison purposes, is really useful. One simply has to go through the process (in the comfort of your own home) and arrive at one's own subjective conclusion.
-
Tim,
I think you and other poster in this thread have drifted too far from Ellis (the OP) original intent. He is simply suggesting that one use their own camera, make custom profiles, and employ them in the raw converter of their choice. Then use the profile that gives the best results; which is a purely subjective decision.
I don't see how displaying images which we have created, for comparison purposes, is really useful. One simply has to go through the process (in the comfort of your own home) and arrive at one's own subjective conclusion.
I'll have to disagree with you that what's being discussed about camera profile dcp color table's affect on color rendering as being off topic. Ellis offered a broad title for interpretation, a word you'll find used several times on that dcpTool site. Anecdotal color issues presented by random users posted on Adobe forum discussions is not evidence that points to any verifiable cause.
This issue affects folks who shoot furniture, jewelry and other products who want to maintain consistency and accuracy in workflow and need to rely on good information that assures this without introducing a lot of doubt and complexity by having to understand "interpretations" of what is happening under the hood with both the image editing tools and the building of custom camera profiles.
There are so many variables that influence the Raw preview during editing that delving into the code mechanics of dcp camera profiles which offer no proof of their influence needs better evidence to determine the source of color anomalies which I feel are the reasons Ellis chose such a fitting title to this thread.
In fact I've been able to duplicate and fix the color anomalies attributed to changes in profiles and Adobe processing engines going back to PV2003 through PV2012 in particular to using the Adobe Standard profile whose suspected version changes have been attributed to changes to the Raw preview as well as affecting the results form the creation of custom DNG profiles when used as a Base Profile.
Here's the variables:
Changing lighting conditions scene to scene having similar colors (yellows, oranges, reds) don't change consistently. Note the pumpkin image I posted where the edits are unknown compared to the another image of furniture (see below) where I'll be specific with the edits as they are applied using PV2010 slider behavior differences, "supposedly" fixed in PV2012 LR4 where I put back in using LR4's "Whites" slider. Way too many variables to attribute to one cause like color tables or is it slider behavior?
The first screengrab is of an image shot in mixed lighting (2800K CFL & window light), choosing Adobe Standard and setting WB by clicking on white paper on top of the dresser drawer. It demonstrates what others complained about in the past about the different affect on color using Exposure slider (more pop and clarity) VS using Brightness (flat). Note the hue changes in yellow and oranges where it looks like white balance has skewed to green.
The second image shows the "Before & After" edit importing a copy of the PV2010 image edits in LR4 and just switching to PV2012 without editing. The third image shows I could duplicate the same behavior WB skew in PV2010 using the "White" slider. Again...Way too many variables.
This does not happen on every image with yellows, oranges and reds using Adobe Standard. Again more variables due to a lack of predictable consistency.