Linear Profiles Option by Tony Kuyper

[Rajan Parrikar]

Tony has just made available a new set of profiles.

https://tonykuyper.wordpress.com/2021/07/23/the-linear-profile-a-new-beginning-in-light-room-and-camera-raw/

PS: My first impressions - On bodies where I have custom profiles made using the ColorChecker Passport, the advantage seemed less obvious and on the examples I ran, the custom profiles gave a quicker path to the final destination. On camera bodies I did not have custom profiles for, Tony's profiles did well. (Pace Tony, I would not recommend using Auto as a starting point.)

[Bob_B]

FYI: Anthony Morganti has a youtube video on linear profiles. View it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CLtubEw-xU&list=WL&index=10

[digitaldog]

FYI: Anthony Morganti has a youtube video on linear profiles. View it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CLtubEw-xU&list=WL&index=10

Wow, with the world filled with political and Covid-19 misinformation, do we really need this?
Within the first 2.5 minute's of the video, this guy has already provided numerous misunderstandings about DCP profiles.
Want to go into those silly, assumed ideas provided in just the first 2 minutes? I stopped viewing after that.
Sorry, this fellow hasn't a clue about what profiles (excuses me, 'camera profiles'), actually DCP profile are, actually do, and affect.
The first 2 minutes of this video is nonsense.

[Rajan Parrikar]

FYI: Anthony Morganti has a youtube video on linear profiles. View it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CLtubEw-xU&list=WL&index=10

Thanks, Bob. I'm having fun exploring the possibilities.

[jrsforums]

Wow, with the world filled with political and Covid-19 misinformation, do we really need this?
Within the first 2.5 minute's of the video, this guy has already provided numerous misunderstandings about DCP profiles.
Want to go into those silly, assumed ideas provided in just the first 2 minutes? I stopped viewing after that.
Sorry, this fellow hasn't a clue about what profiles (excuses me, 'camera profiles'), actually DCP profile are, actually do, and affect.
The first 2 minutes of this video is nonsense.

More useful, would be an explanation of what you found wrong and what a proper explanation would have been.

[digitaldog]

More useful, would be an explanation of what you found wrong and what a proper explanation would have been.

Sure (starting with the 2.5 minutes he utterly got wrong):
Confusing ICC profiles in other raw converters he mentioned with DCP profiles in Adobe software (and yes, there are other raw converters that DO support DCP profiles).
Stating incorrectly what DCP profiles actually do: they have zero effect on White Balance yet he includes that: DCP profiles are WB agnostic by design!
Confusing proprietary raw to JPEG camera conversions using picture styles with profiles.
Stating incorrectly that the zeroing out of sliders in ACR/LR produce 'no editing' and yet of course they do. EVERYTHING you see in ACR/LR is a result of some default edits.
Further on (Yes, I agonized through the entire video):
Showing how to build a linear profile in the Adobe Profile Editor, then completely lacking any proof of concept what they do, their superiority from other profiles etc.
Best and most accurate talking point he makes come at 9:09: "I've barely ever used them" and "I imagine what some of these photographers are talking about..."
(followed by further speculation and utter lack of proof of concept). He's imagining a lot, experience and showing very little, zero proof of concept.
Then he tells us Linear DCP profiles are specific to LR and ACR which isn't true; they are specific to any raw converter that supports DCP profiles. But since he's so confused about camera profiles (ICC or DCP), nothing new here.
So, mostly a nonsense video.
So is he actually selling profiles or just giving away misinformation?

[jrsforums]

My view….totally unscientific and without any knowledge (or need of it) of building profiles…for what it is worth….

I understand that many people want a out-of-the-box, good looking image…without taking any/many steps to improve.  Adobe, with their ‘Standard’ and, now, ‘Color’ profile attempt to give them that.  (It also helps with marketing in ‘out-of-the-box’ reviews of different raw engines)

I have never been happy with the Adobe default profiles, particularly the, new-ish, ‘Adobe Color’. In my personal opinion on how I wish my images to look, they start out too ‘overprocessed’ and ‘intense’. For many years, when using Canon, I used ‘Camera Neutral’ and now on Panasonic G9, ‘Camera Neutral’ (for that camera). I found the flatter, more neutral profiles to be a better starting point.

The Tony Kuyper linear profiles (which are free BTW) provide linear profiles for many cameras (and seem to offer assistance in yours is not listed).  I have spent about 20 minutes using the provided G9 profile and it does seem to provide a good alternate starting point to the ‘Camera Neutral’ one I have been using, particularly on certain images.  I will need more work with it to see when best to use it or how often, but it is promising.

[digitaldog]

I don't use Adobe profiles, I roll my own. It is easy, inexpensive (well free other than a target), I only need a few (per illuminant) and I've yet to see rendering from such a profile I didn't visually prefer (because this is all subjective visually) compared to Adobe's profile.

I understand too that many people want a out-of-the-box, good looking image. The camera JPEG for many works for that.

I don't understand why far fewer people want a out-of-the-box, poor looking image but that's what is being proposed here. With an explanation without a lick of proof that it provides eventually a 'better' quality image or use of the existing tools. Raw is raw. The idea, without proof, that some profile that makes the image look like crap produces a better rendering suggests that Adobe and others are doing a disservice by providing profiles that initially produce a better looking image and that now it is harder to do what?

Also, did you notice in one of the pieces outlined here, one is supposed to use a profile that makes the image ugly, they use the (IMHO dreaded) Auto to 'fix' the ugliness?

“There seems to be some perverse human characteristic that likes to make easy things difficult.” -Warren Buffett

Now aside from all that, I've outlined the areas where this video is simply wrong about profiles (DCP and ICC but mostly DCP) totally unscientific and without hardly any knowledge of said profiles.

My mentor and dear friend, the late Bruce Fraser would likely use his quote about all this:

"You can do all sorts of things that are fiendishly clever, then fall
in love with them because they're fiendishly clever, while
overlooking the fact that they take a great deal more work to obtain
results that stupid people get in half the time. As someone who has
created a lot of fiendishly clever but ultimately useless techniques
in his day, I'd say this sounds like an example." Bruce Fraser

[jrsforums]

I don't use Adobe profiles, I roll my own. It is easy, inexpensive (well free other than a target), I only need a few (per illuminant) and I've yet to see rendering from such a profile I didn't visually prefer (because this is all subjective visually) compared to Adobe's profile.

Does your custom profile provide a perfect finished product, or is it just a different starting point to begin adjustments?

I understand too that many people want a out-of-the-box, good looking image. The camera JPEG for many works for that.

Don’t JPEGs usually need adjustments….just not as flexible as with raw image

I don't understand why far fewer people want a out-of-the-box, poor looking image but that's what is being proposed here. With an explanation without a lick of proof that it provides eventually a 'better' quality image or use of the existing tools. Raw is raw. The idea, without proof, that some profile that makes the image look l like crap produces a better rendering suggests that Adobe and others are doing a disservice by providing profiles that initially produce a better looking image and that now it is harder to do what?

Why does Adobe provide so many different profiles (starting points).  What makes them better( or worse) than the Linear ones proposed here?

Also, did you notice in one of the pieces outlined here, one is supposed to use a profile that makes the image ugly, they use the (IMHO dreaded) Auto to 'fix' the ugliness?

As I read Kuyper’s articles (newsletter & write up) he was suggesting ‘auto’ as ‘try it’, not a final solution.

Now aside from all that, I've outlined the areas where this video is simply wrong about profiles (DCP and ICC but mostly DCP) totally unscientific and without hardly any knowledge of said profiles.

[digitaldog]

Does your custom profile provide a perfect finished product, or is it just a different starting point to begin adjustments?

Depends on the image. I'm not expecting any profile to produce a perfect finished product for all captures under all illuminates; that's NOT what profiles do!

Don’t JPEGs usually need adjustments

I don't create JPEGs in a camera that offers me raw and I don't edit JPEGs after; too much data loss. When I need a finished JPEG, it's rendered from the raw as I wish.

Why does Adobe provide so many different profiles (starting points).

Because rendering is subjective and there are no right answers** and profiles don't know squat about image content or image creators intent. Many of the profiles are provided as 'camera matching' because for some odd reason, some shooters 'think' the camera JPEG with some picture style is 'right' or they prefer that. I have to wonder why they even capture raw.

What makes them better( or worse) than the Linear ones proposed here?

Well they look a LOT BETTER from the get go! But if you prefer starting off with a turd and polishing it when it doesn't have to be a turd, by all means.

As I read Kuyper’s articles (newsletter & write up) he was suggesting ‘auto’ as ‘try it’, not a final solution.

Again, WHY?
Now aside from all that, again I've outlined the areas where this video is simply wrong about profiles (DCP and ICC but mostly DCP) totally unscientific and without hardly any knowledge of said profiles.

**Rendering the print or in this case, rendering the raw into a image is a fundamental part of the art and science of Photography; for some:
http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/pscs3_rendering_image.pdf

[jrsforums]

Sure (starting with the 2.5 minutes he utterly got wrong):
Confusing ICC profiles in other raw converters he mentioned with DCP profiles in Adobe software (and yes, there are other raw converters that DO support DCP profiles).
Stating incorrectly what DCP profiles actually do: they have zero effect on White Balance yet he includes that: DCP profiles are WB agnostic by design!
Confusing proprietary raw to JPEG camera conversions using picture styles with profiles.
Stating incorrectly that the zeroing out of sliders in ACR/LR produce 'no editing' and yet of course they do. EVERYTHING you see in ACR/LR is a result of some default edits.
Further on (Yes, I agonized through the entire video):
Showing how to build a linear profile in the Adobe Profile Editor, then completely lacking any proof of concept what they do, their superiority from other profiles etc.
Best and most accurate talking point he makes come at 9:09: "I've barely ever used them" and "I imagine what some of these photographers are talking about..."
(followed by further speculation and utter lack of proof of concept). He's imagining a lot, experience and showing very little, zero proof of concept.
Then he tells us Linear DCP profiles are specific to LR and ACR which isn't true; they are specific to any raw converter that supports DCP profiles. But since he's so confused about camera profiles (ICC or DCP), nothing new here.
So, mostly a nonsense video.
So is he actually selling profiles or just giving away misinformation?

I assume your comments are specific to the Morganti video, which I have just listened to again.

I see no reference to ICC profiles.  His only comment on white balance was when using the DNG editor to not click on the eye dropper or you may change it.  On profiles for Lumiare, etc. (non Adobe editors) he says he does not know if non-or profiles can be created and invites viewers to leave comments if they know.  I did not hear him offer to sell any linear profiles.

Maybe you listened to a different video, but it seems you wanted negative comments and it appears you have created them

[digitaldog]

I assume your comments are specific to the Morganti video, which I have just listened to again.

The video mentioned in post #2.

I see no reference to ICC profiles.

Did you see (hear) mention of Capture 1? And all the other converters mentioned; all support DCP profiles?
Does C1 now support DCP profiles?
https://support.captureone.com/hc/en-us/articles/360015331377-ProStandard-camera-profiles
Can't find anything above, a few other sites that state C1 uses anything but ICC profiles.
Every time I view it, I hear more misinformation (just now "a linear profile adds no pre biasing....".

I did not hear him offer to sell any linear profiles.

Nor did I hence WHY I asked!

[jrsforums]

The video mentioned in post #2. Did you see (hear) mention of Capture 1? And all the other converters mentioned; all support DCP profiles?
Does C1 now support DCP profiles?
https://support.captureone.com/hc/en-us/articles/360015331377-ProStandard-camera-profiles
Can't find anything above, a few other sites that state C1 uses anything but ICC profiles.
Every time I view it, I hear more misinformation (just now "a linear profile adds no pre biasing....". Nor did I hence WHY I asked!

He admitted he did not know the other raw converters profiles.  He also did not try to sell any profiles.  In both cases, you had to make/create a negative comment about it!!!

[digitaldog]

He admitted he did not know the other raw converters profiles. 

Nor Adobe's. Yet he had no issue mentioning other products, some that don't support the profiles he's talking about. Or you want to correct this by telling us C1 supports DCP profiles? The other converters? Do tell us.
What you, Tony and other's can't tell us or show us is how and why linear profiles are in any way superior for the final image processing, the data, or gives users more control. We are expected to just accept this. Peer review is a bitch; I know. But proof of concept is often requested. NONE has been provided as yet. Maybe YOU can address this??

He also did not try to sell any profiles

I never said he did! I asked.
I don’t know if you are purposely trying not to understand this, or if you are really struggling with it.

In both cases, you had to make/create a negative comment about it!!!

I'm sorry the facts about the misinformation have ruined your day.

[digitaldog]

My view….totally unscientific and without any knowledge (or need of it) of building profiles…for what it is worth….

More useful, would be an explanation of what you found wrong and what a proper explanation would have been.

More useful, would be an explanation of what you found correct and provide an actual proof of concept for what you found right.

[Rajan Parrikar]

Tony's repository for linear profiles is growing. He has now added profiles for some DJI drones.

https://goodlight.us/linear-profiles.html

[texshooter]

More useful, would be an explanation of what you found correct and provide an actual proof of concept for what you found right.

Would this count as proof of concept?

In this video Mark Metternich demonstrates (if I understood correctly) how Lightroom's canned profiles irrevocably chop off two stops of highlights when converting RAW files. And that linear DCPs built with Adobe's DNG Profile Editor can restore these lost stops of dynamic range.

https://youtu.be/wo4tQWk2e6E

Additional reported benefits include:
 - Much more flexibility in LR/ACR because the sliders provide additional room for adjustments.
 - More subtle and predictable adjustments in LR/ACR because the image responds much better to slider movements.
 - Potentially far better shadow and highlight recovery (2-3+ stops retrieved).
 - Better, smoother tones and colors without having to fight hyper-saturated colors.
 - Hue, saturation and all luminance adjustments work better.
 - More pleasing RAW conversions.
 - Less potential damage to the file because you now don't have to make adjustments to try to undo what Adobe has baked into the RAW file before it arrived.
 - Much better quality control, because a linear profile cancels the whole laundry of things done under the hood to other profiles (some things that degrade the file).
 - "Exposing to the right" (or even further than the right) has amazingly more benefits and potential because Linear Profiles are natively considerably darker, sometimes by 2-3 stops or more, and you get all the original data that hit your sensor.
 - Linear Profiles often push far more bits of information (quality detail) into the shadows and mid-tones where our eyes are more sensitive.
 - Much more natural and pleasing lookin highlights.
 - Potentially much less noise built up because no data is lost or thrown out, and lowering a brighter exposure can potentially double, triple or even more the quality of the file.
 - With free Adobe DNG Editor software, you can easily create your own profiles.
 - You can even create profiles to match other cameras' unique colors and contrast.
 - Some of the very best black and whites possible can be made by making your own custom black and white profiles.
 - You can often process (or re-process) images you thought were overexposed and get wonderful results, when you might have thought they were unusable.

[digitaldog]

Would this count as proof of concept?

In this video Mark Metternich demonstrates (if I understood correctly) how Lightroom's canned profiles irrevocably chop off two stops of highlights when converting RAW files. And that linear DCPs built with Adobe's DNG Profile Editor can restore these lost stops of dynamic range.

This is utter BS!
This fellow hasn't a clue what Exposure is. Hint: Exposure only takes place at capture! No raw converter has any effect on exposure. It has an effect on the brightness of which one can alter using a slider that may be named expsoure.
ALL the data was in the raw, the linear profile didn't alter that one bit.
There is no raw Histogram in any Adobe product and the only way to gauge Exposure is with a raw Histogram.
DR is an attribute of the actual exposure and camera; profiles place ZERO role here.
This isn't proof, it is confusion from someone who's utterly confused by raw data, exposure and processing of raw data!

[digitaldog]

Now facts about exposure to pass on:

Articles on exposing for specifically and only raw:
http://www.onezone.photos
http://schewephoto.com/ETTR/
https://luminous-landscape.com/the-optimum-digital-exposure/
http://digitaldog.net/files/ExposeForRaw.pdf
https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/mystic-exposure-triangle
https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/red_flowers_photography_to-see-the-real-picture
https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/exposure-for-raw-or-for-jpegs
https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/beware-histogram
https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/calibrate-exposure-meter-to-improve-dynamic-range

[jrsforums]

This is utter BS!
This fellow hasn't a clue what Exposure is. Hint: Exposure only takes place at capture! No raw converter has any effect on exposure. It has an effect on the brightness of which one can alter using a slider that may be named expsoure.
ALL the data was in the raw, the linear profile didn't alter that one bit.
There is no raw Histogram in any Adobe product and the only way to gauge Exposure is with a raw Histogram.
DR is an attribute of the actual exposure and camera; profiles place ZERO role here.
This isn't proof, it is confusion from someone who's utterly confused by raw data, exposure and processing of raw data!

Andrew, since it still is raw data in LR, nothing do is ‘irrevocable’.  However, many Adobe profiles, particularly ’Adobe Color’ , are, at times, a bit heavy handed with added tone curve (even with highlight rolloff) and other adjustments.  Once applied, these are difficult, to impossible, to pull back. 

This often happens when camera exposure pushes highlights right to edge of being blown, then the highlights get pushed over edge by the profile. In these cases, and often others, I find a linear profile a better starting point.  But I am sure you know all this.