Embedding camera profiles in Dng problem (LR6)..

[digitaldog]

Yes

No! For you (assuming you even use DNG documents) yes, for many of us that work with DNG (do you?) that want the profiles embedded, by design, the answer is clearly yes we want the DNG profiles embedded into the container. That's what I want, that's what the OP wants.

congratulations with a bug if it is a bug, I and others want to be able to (_also_) use profiles stored with the same folders where raw files are

It is a bug. It's not proper operation consistently like the old days.

you, as usual, trying to obfuscate.

As usual, you don't get what others who've used a process designed a specific way for years want. Again, do you even utilize a DNG workflow like the OP and I (and others) or are you just here to be typically annoying, wrong to argue that a feature that's been available for YEARS isn't what we and the designers of the product desire? Your writings as others here have found (and reported), is best ignored.

PS: I want to reiterate that by no means I wish you to lose the ability to store your profiles in DNG files... however the more simple solution is to (also) allow to store profiles per catalog (even for LR users keeping everything in LR catalogs to store them there)...

What an idiotic idea. What catalog for ACR users? What about users who work with more than one converter that supports DNG camera profiles? You're flat earth DNG workflow theories are bested totally ignored.

You even realize that some people actually want to keep raw files and relevant profiles in the same place ? and that those people do not try to impose their ways on you, but as usual display your arrogance by claiming that only your way is the right one ? get yourself a mirror and take a look in it.

The text illustrates you don't have a clue, you do NOT have to embed the DNG profile into the DNG container IF you don't want to. It's getting clear now  you don't use nor care how others use a DNG workflow AS designed for those what want said design features.

It is you, as usual, trying to obfuscate and further add zero text to aid the OP or those of us investigating a bug in Lightroom. Just go away would you please?

[digitaldog]

You would agree then that this is a bug, correct?

Still not sure what's going on where it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't but your file comes imported into my catalog as Adobe Standard but look at the dialog containing the list of DNG Profiles:

The bug appears to be the DNG profile selected by default?

[Onslow]

Still not sure what's going on where it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't but your file comes imported into my catalog as Adobe Standard but look at the dialog containing the list of DNG Profiles:

The bug appears to be the DNG profile selected by default?

Andrew, thanks for that. I am however unable to see the graphic for some reason.

[digitaldog]

Andrew, thanks for that. I am however unable to see the graphic for some reason.

http://digitaldog.net/files/DNGProfilebug.tiff

You'll see the list of all profiles from the dropdown, your profile IS included as Sandy reported but it isn't selected. Instead (and I think that's the bug), it's set for Adobe Standard.
Update: ACR is having the same issues as LR! It shows your profile as a possible selection but doesn't default to it.

[AlterEgo]

No!

YES!

For you (assuming you even use DNG documents) yes, for many of us that work with DNG (do you?) that want the profiles embedded, by design, the answer is clearly yes we want the DNG profiles embedded into the container.

again you are trying to misrepresent the situation by slipping the wording that I am alone and you are many   ... as if it is not clear for the readers... this is not about DNG even - as many people simple do not use DNG at all - the issue at hand is that ACR/LR do not allow a more convenient way to structure the storage of dcp profiles,  but also allowing them to be stored along with the raw files... now if you want to store profile in DCP containers in DNG containers that's fine, extra flexibility for users who wish to go that route... I also want to store profiles in ICC/ICM containers in DNG containers - a legit desire, is it not ? because DNG specification clearly allows that - but alas ACR/LR or any other Adobe tools do not support that part of DNG spec, so clearly it is about what ACR/LR tools do and do not, not about what DNG allows ...

What catalog for ACR users?

where the raw files are for which a specific profile is desired (vs a profile that is being used universally)... some people tend to create separate dcp profiles for each session (in most cases a totally useless exercise, but they think it helps them)... I, for example, want to store profiles that I am experimenting with in the directories where my raw files with targets are, instead of soiling the global locations with test profiles...

What about users who work with more than one converter that supports DNG camera profiles?

the same story... be it Rawtherapee or Iridient Rawdeveloper

You're flat earth DNG workflow theories are bested totally ignored.

again, usual arrogance over the top...

you do NOT have to embed the DNG profile into the DNG container IF you don't want to.

and I do not - I wish to be able pickup DCP profiles also from the same folder where the raw files that I am working with are located... it is a simple thing to implement and also helps with backups.

It's getting clear now  you don't use nor care how others use a DNG workflow AS designed for those what want said design features.

don't pretend that you alone know what DNG workflow is...

It is you, as usual, trying to obfuscate and further add zero text to aid the OP or those of us investigating a bug in Lightroom. Just go away would you please?

plz don't tell me what to do and I will not tell you where you need to go...

[digitaldog]

OK, spending useful time looking over the bug and ignoring AlterEgo who's lost, it seems this IS a LR6 bug. I imported your file into LR5 and updated it after selecting your custom profile. Opened in LR6, it shows the correct embedded profile by default: 20130317 Jeff and Pauline Venning 3.

[Onslow]

OK, spending useful time looking over the bug and ignoring AlterEgo who's lost, it seems this IS a LR6 bug. I imported your file into LR5 and updated it after selecting your custom profile. Opened in LR6, it shows the correct embedded profile by default: 20130317 Jeff and Pauline Venning 3.

Andrew.... That is the INCORRECT profile..... I have sent you a pm with screen captures. The name of the correct profile should be "5Dmk2 Dual Illumant Profile". If you do not see the words within the quotes, you are not seeing the correct profile. On the 2nd machine using the same file, I see a profile called 20130424 Catalina! That is th only profile installed on the 2nd machine....!

[digitaldog]

Andrew.... That is the INCORRECT profile..... I have sent you a pm with screen captures.

Got anything named 20130317 Jeff and Pauline Venning 3? Sandy see's it as do I in the list of profiles when we look at your DNG. How did you build it (what product)?
No Adobe Standard profile on that 2nd machine?

[Onslow]

Got anything named 20130317 Jeff and Pauline Venning 3? Sandy see's it as do I in the list of profiles when we look at your DNG. How did you build it (what product)?

Here is a list of all the profiles I have on my system. As you can see, the Jeff venning profile does exist. It however is not selected as I have defaults set for import. One of the is to automatically set the profile to "5Dmk2Dual Illuminant Profile"


Here is a screengrab of my desktop with LR6.1 showing the correct profile. However, you and others are seeing the Jeff venning profile which is not selected in my screengrab. On my 2nd machine I see the profile called 20130610 Catalina is applied as the camera profile.


My profiles are built using the color checker passport software. The default profile called 5Dmk2 Dual illuminant Profile was built using that software from within LR5 using the xrite plugin. That profile was built on the 28th Nov, 2014.

Edit... For clarity, I made a mistake on the Catalina dates. Nevertheless it is a profile called yyyymmdd Catalina I see on the 2nd machine, Not the correct one or even the Venning one.

[Onslow]

A closeup of the Camera Calibration tab

[digitaldog]

I think the most pertinent point is Sandy and I see the same profile in the DNG you uploaded. I'm not sure if he sees it selected or Adobe Standard as I do. That's an issue as well. Why isn't that profile selected? When I toggle between it and Adobe Standard, there's a visible color difference. That behavior alone makes no sense.

[digitaldog]

On my usual machine using LR6.1, the profile is shown. When I take it onto the other machine running LR6.1 and which doesn't have the profile installed on it, it shows another profile instead, one called "20130424 Catalina" which is on machine #2.

That set of a light bulb or memory of an issue reported in the past where LR selects a profile it can't find alpha numeric (not necessarily Adobe Standard). On that 2nd machine, what happens if all you do is install a copy of 20130317 Jeff and Pauline Venning 3 DNG profile?

[digitaldog]

On my wife's machine your DNG comes into her catalog as Adobe Standard with 20130317 Jeff and Pauline Venning 3 as a possible selection. It should be selected but I'm pretty sure it's 'in there'.

[sandymc]

LR's profile selection process is complex - here's my understanding of it, at least as it applied to previous versions of LR:

1. If a profile was specifically assigned, LR will use that.

2. If no profile was assigned, LR will default to Adobe Standard. (This is how LR handles cameras that produce DNGs natively, e.g., the Leica M9)

3. If no Adobe Standard profile exists for the camera in question, LR defaults to the embedded profile

I suspect that's what happening here is that what LR is seeing is the "20130317 Jeff and Pauline Venning 3" profile as an embedded profile (its in IFD 0, which is where the embedded profile lives), but not as the assigned profile. So it's defaulting to using Adobe Standard.

It would be useful to see the LR5 processed file that works, and compare to what's in that.

Sandy

[digitaldog]

I suspect that's what happening here is that what LR is seeing is the "20130317 Jeff and Pauline Venning 3" profile as an embedded profile (its in IFD 0, which is where the embedded profile lives), but not as the assigned profile. So it's defaulting to using Adobe Standard.

Multiple DNG profiles can be stored but I don't know what the trick is to Assign one. The bug is an Assign issue.

[Onslow]

I suspect that's what happening here is that what LR is seeing is the "20130317 Jeff and Pauline Venning 3" profile as an embedded profile (its in IFD 0, which is where the embedded profile lives), but not as the assigned profile. So it's defaulting to using Adobe Standard.

It would be useful to see the LR5 processed file that works, and compare to what's in that.

Sandy

Sandy, I have read what you have said. Lr IS seeing the "20130317 Jeff and Pauline Venning 3" profile. However, THAT is not the profile that was embedded. This is I think where the bug is. I am setting the profile as "5DMk2 Dual Illuminant Profile", I run Update Dng Previews and metadata which should embed that profile, NOT the venning profile!
I have attached a link to a dropbox folder. In it is a zip file containing the following.

1) The last dng I processed using LR5. Notice the profile reads "5DMk2 Dual Illuminant Profile". This is seen on both of my machines. Thi is the correct profile. I have attached screen captures. Machine2 is the laptop with only one profile on it.

2) A screen grab of all camera profiles in Machine #2. Please note that the profile is different again to the "20130317 Jeff and Pauline Venning 3" one being the Catalina one.

3) The first dng I processed using LR6. On my Main machine #1, the profile reads "5DMk2 Dual Illuminant Profile" after Update Dng Previews and metadata has been run. On machine #2, you can see the profile is different being the Venning one.

4) A screen grab of machine #2 showing the LR5 processed dng having the correct embedded profile.

5) A screen grab of machine #2 showing the LR6 processed dng having the wrong embedded profile.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/96709542/CameraProfileIssuesLR6.zip

[Onslow]

Multiple DNG profiles can be stored but I don't know what the trick is to Assign one. The bug is an Assign issue.

Andrew, In my reply to Sandy, I have attached a dropbox link so you can see before and after LR6 dngs. You say multiple dng profiles can be stored.... The correct profile though isn't being stored surely? else the "5DMK2 Dual Illuminant Profile" profile would be visible within the dng. Correct?
 I don't understand how it can assign the right custom profile if it isn't stored either on the machne OR within the dng..

[Onslow]

At the suggestion of someone in another forum, I shot a new raw file today. I then did the following.
1) Provided a copy of the raw before import into LR6.1
2) Imported into LR6.1 with the Convert to Dng option. I have a default preset which automatically sets the profile to "5DMk2 Dual Illuminant Profile". I then made some adjustments. I also provided a screen capture after the import showing the correct profile. This screen capture is Before I ran the Update Dng Previews and Metadata command.
3) I then ran the Update Dng Preview and metadata command and have provided a screen shot showing the status of this command completed and also the correct profile.
4) I also have supplied the various profiles I refer to.
5) I also exported the image as a catalog
The files are here..
https://www.dropbox.com/s/eekbtfz9gtsey6s/VariousStagesOfDNGImportAndProcessing.zip?dl=0
The strange thing is to test, I transferred all of these files to the 2nd machine. The correct profile then showed up in the dng labelled after the Update Dng Previews had been done. All my other images this hasn't occurred. I do not know if this has picked up the correct profile from the zip and found it correctly? Who knows? Thoughts?

[sandymc]

Ok, I might now be able to shed at least some light on this.

Firstly, looking at the LR5 DNG vs. the LR6 DNG:

1. They are the same in that they BOTH have the "20130317 Jeff and Pauline Venning 3" profile set in IFD 0. Why exactly this is occurring I'm not sure, but this behavior seems to be the same for both LR5 and LR6, and doesn't contribute to the issue.

2. The DNGs differ in two ways:

a) The LR5 DNG has the "5D Mk2 Dual Illuminant Profile" embedded as a second profile. This is not present in the LR6 profile.

b) The LR5 DNG also has adjustment data (exposure adjustments, etc) embedded into its XMP data. Critically, this data includes the following line

crs:CameraProfile="5D Mk2 Dual Illuminant Profile"

So what appears to be happening here is that when LR6 imports and converts to DNG with a profile, it does not create an XMP adjustment record. So when the DNG is written, both the profile and the profile assignment are missing.

However, if you adjust the image, and then write it out, and XMP adjustment record is created, and everything works as it should. I think that this is why the second test worked - "I then made some adjustments" being the giveaway.

In summary, I think that under LR6, import and assign profile is not enough to mark an image as "modified". If it's not marked as modified, then adjustment data isn't written, and you get the problem as described above.

It would be interesting to try to import with a preset that both assigned a profile and made e.g., a small exposure adjustment, and see if the problem persists.

I'd agree, BTW, that this is a bug.

Sandy

[Onslow]

Ok, I might now be able to shed at least some light on this.

Firstly, looking at the LR5 DNG vs. the LR6 DNG:

1. They are the same in that they BOTH have the "20130317 Jeff and Pauline Venning 3" profile set in IFD 0. Why exactly this is occurring I'm not sure, but this behavior seems to be the same for both LR5 and LR6, and doesn't contribute to the issue.

2. The DNGs differ in two ways:

a) The LR5 DNG has the "5D Mk2 Dual Illuminant Profile" embedded as a second profile. This is not present in the LR6 profile.

b) The LR5 DNG also has adjustment data (exposure adjustments, etc) embedded into its XMP data. Critically, this data includes the following line

crs:CameraProfile="5D Mk2 Dual Illuminant Profile"

So what appears to be happening here is that when LR6 imports and converts to DNG with a profile, it does not create an XMP adjustment record. So when the DNG is written, both the profile and the profile assignment are missing.

However, if you adjust the image, and then write it out, and XMP adjustment record is created, and everything works as it should. I think that this is why the second test worked - "I then made some adjustments" being the giveaway.

In summary, I think that under LR6, import and assign profile is not enough to mark an image as "modified". If it's not marked as modified, then adjustment data isn't written, and you get the problem as described above.

It would be interesting to try to import with a preset that both assigned a profile and made e.g., a small exposure adjustment, and see if the problem persists.

I'd agree, BTW, that this is a bug.

Sandy

I made some MANUAL adjustments!!!!!  That does seem to be the crux of the issue... Other changes I make as defaults are to the contrast, vibrance and clarity as well as lens profiles. As they are default adustments though, They are made before the conversion to DNg on import  and therefore wouldn't trigger this correct? After some sleep, I shall retry this with two new images. One I shall make some manual adjustments on. The other with none. Is there anyone else who can replicate the problem?