About new Adobe profiles in Lightroom for landscape photography

[francescogola]

Not sure it could be interesting for somebody, but some time ago I wrote some thoughts on the new Adobe Profiles update in Lr, with a particular look for landscape photography and for the new Adobe Color profile.
Here the link: http://www.francescogola.net/review/adobe-profiles-update-lightroom-photoshop-camera-raw-landscape-photography/
Any comment and your opinion is of course more than welcome!

[mtakeda]

I agree with the conclusion in your review. It is nice addition but I would like to know how I can show the split images of two different profiles in one screen.

[john beardsworth]

Virtual copy, then use the Reference Photo feature?

[francescogola]

I agree with the conclusion in your review. It is nice addition but I would like to know how I can show the split images of two different profiles in one screen.

It's done with a plugin for wordpress

[Hans Kruse]

I previously used Camera Standard as my import default and then changed to one of the Huelight profiles. Especially for the Canon 5DSR the Camera Standard was too heavy on the shadows. Now I have changed to Adobe Color as the default and I often check to see what Adobe Landscape does and in a lot of cases I really like it. I don't think it should be dismissed that easily But it is a matter of taste. Adobe Landscape is far from the Canon Landscape profile. The Adobe Landscape does similar in the highlights as the Camera Standard (which is a camera specific) profile and it brings out nice colors which need to be balanced with contrast and white and black point to do the best.

[francescogola]

I previously used Camera Standard as my import default and then changed to one of the Huelight profiles. Especially for the Canon 5DSR the Camera Standard was too heavy on the shadows. Now I have changed to Adobe Color as the default and I often check to see what Adobe Landscape does and in a lot of cases I really like it. I don't think it should be dismissed that easily But it is a matter of taste. Adobe Landscape is far from the Canon Landscape profile. The Adobe Landscape does similar in the highlights as the Camera Standard (which is a camera specific) profile and it brings out nice colors which need to be balanced with contrast and white and black point to do the best.

Realy interesting!
With my Nikon (D850 now but before D810) I used almost in the 90% of cases the Camera Standard profile, probably because due to the better shadow recover capability (compared to my previous Canon gear) I use to shoot more underexposed in order not to have highlights issues, and the Camera Standard profile performs really great in colors and contrast.
Honestly, I miss my old Canon sensor in terms of colors, and I'd love to test it again with the Adobe Color profile.
Never used the Landscape profile (neither Adobe nor Camera) as I think it's a bit too much in saturation and contrast

[Hans Kruse]

Realy interesting!
With my Nikon (D850 now but before D810) I used almost in the 90% of cases the Camera Standard profile, probably because due to the better shadow recover capability (compared to my previous Canon gear) I use to shoot more underexposed in order not to have highlights issues, and the Camera Standard profile performs really great in colors and contrast.
Honestly, I miss my old Canon sensor in terms of colors, and I'd love to test it again with the Adobe Color profile.
Never used the Landscape profile (neither Adobe nor Camera) as I think it's a bit too much in saturation and contrast

The D850 is pretty similar in color to the Canon 5DSR. The camera standard profile for the Nikon is not the same as the Canon. They are emulations of the camera vendor profile. You should try the adobe landscape as it it really different from the camera vendor landscape profiles as I said. Saturation and contrast is influenced by the black and white point so if you adjust to one profile and change then you may need to adjust the black and white point. Most of my landscapes are now tnow with the Adobe landscape profile and adjusted for that.

[EricV]

Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me that all I want from a camera profile is to adjust the image to agree with reality.  So if I take a picture of a ColorChecker chart containing known RBG target patches (in some defined color space, under a defined standard illumination), I want the image after profile correction to match those RGB values.  Does one of the Adobe profiles accomplish this?  What am I missing?

[JRSmit]

Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me that all I want from a camera profile is to adjust the image to agree with reality.  So if I take a picture of a ColorChecker chart containing known RBG target patches (in some defined color space, under a defined standard illumination), I want the image after profile correction to match those RGB values.  Does one of the Adobe profiles accomplish this?  What am I missing?

Seems to me a test you can performe easily yourself. But then the reality is limited to that colorchecker card under given lightning condition. Nothing more, probably less.

[EricV]

... the reality is limited to that colorchecker card under given lighting condition ....

A profile may be created from a specific test subject under specific lighting conditions, but it describes in a general way how the camera transforms input colors into output colors.  Once that transformation is profiled and corrected, the correction should then be applicable to all images.  What would be the purpose of profiling, if the profile applied only to the one image used to create the profile?

[digitaldog]

Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me that all I want from a camera profile is to adjust the image to agree with reality.  So if I take a picture of a ColorChecker chart containing known RBG target patches (in some defined color space, under a defined standard illumination), I want the image after profile correction to match those RGB values.  Does one of the Adobe profiles accomplish this?  What am I missing?

No it doesn't. And if it did, what would it do with images that are not Color Checkers (where BTW, only one patch exceeds sRGB gamut)? Profiles don't adjust, they are supposed to define device behavior. But now we have lots of profiles that have looks or renderings baked inside them. Which is more accurate, Velvia or Ektachrome? The more important question would be, which do you as the image creator visually prefer? Not much different with these profiles. But the big difference is, in no way are we supposed to pick a profile and nothing else. The multiple rendering controls in the converter are tools to render the image as we desire.
http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/pscs3_rendering_image.pdf