DNG colors problem

[grobovnikov]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

When I open DNG files in Camera RAW/ Lightroom/ Capture One - the colors look different comparing to JPG or DNG preview. Is there any way to open the RAW files with the same setting as it was shot and processed by the camera?

The only way to keep the came look seems to be if I use PhotoMechanic to convert files from DNG to TIF and then open them in Photoshop, but in this case I can't use any RAW processing software.

Please, help.

Thank you.

Edited May 3, 2016 by grobovnikov

[edwardkaraa]

There have always been significant differences in rendering between the camera jpg engine and LR/ACR. You can get as close as possible by selecting the embedded profile. Also keep in mind that the daylight white balance of the SL is 6900/-6. I would really like it if Leica provided us with their own in-house developed raw converter based on the camera jpg engine.

Edited May 3, 2016 by edwardkaraa

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Ario Arioldi]

The only way at the moment is to create your own profiles/presets to emulate the Leica Jpeg rendering. Adobe for other more popular brands (Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony...) already provides altenative profiles  for this purpose but the Leica users market is probably not large enough for them to justify similar additional effort for the Leica cameras.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Ario Arioldi

[jaapv]

Take one representative file, tweak it to look like its jpg as much as possible and save the settings as a default.

[ramarren]

I went the other way with this using the Leica X. I made a series of exposures of a still target at a rate of JPEG settings in-camera, then matched those to what LR did with the raw files by default. I set up those settings as a color default in the camera so I could predict what LR was going to start with when processing the raw files. 

 

From there, I made my own favorite renderings in LR and use that as my default color for X raw files... 

 

Seemed easier that way. LR has many degrees more freedom in processing compared to the in-camera JPEG engine. 

[jrp]

I see that the Iridient Developer developer has dropped the built-in profile  http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/rawdeveloper_history.html

 

• No longer using the embedded DNG camera profiles by default for some of the recent Leica models (SL, T and Q). The embedded camera profiles do not seem to be well liked by many so I have now switched to my own custom ICC profiles for these models, the manufacturer's embedded profiles are still available in the Input Profile menu.

 

I have not tried this yet; last time I tried this raw developer I found it too slow to use (slow screen updates, too make keys and sliders) but I'll give it another go.

[grobovnikov]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I see that the Iridient Developer developer has dropped the built-in profile  http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/rawdeveloper_history.html

 

• No longer using the embedded DNG camera profiles by default for some of the recent Leica models (SL, T and Q). The embedded camera profiles do not seem to be well liked by many so I have now switched to my own custom ICC profiles for these models, the manufacturer's embedded profiles are still available in the Input Profile menu.

 

I have not tried this yet; last time I tried this raw developer I found it too slow to use (slow screen updates, too make keys and sliders) but I'll give it another go.

Thank you so much! I didn't know about this software but I tested it and bought it right away. 

It's a little slower than other software, but I was very pleased with the results. 

I think this is the best way to process the SL RAW files.

[jrp]

Sounds encouraging.  Your Photo Mechanic route is just taking the preview JPEGs out of the DNG, so it is never going to give you optimal results.

 

Lightroom / ACR produces OK results with their own profiles, but it can be quite hard to avoid colour casts and to get the saturation right.  The built-in profile is a bit crude, and not as good.

 

I'll have a look at ID again.

[edwardkaraa]

Out of curiosity, which windows converter seems to give the best results with the SL? I've only tried LR hence the question.

Edited May 4, 2016 by edwardkaraa

[ramarren]

I will test Iridient Developer and compare its defaults to what I get with LR 6.5.1 at the defaults.

When I did this in the past, the results were very similar. 

[jrp]

I think that you can load the Lightroom develop (DCP) and lens correction (LCP) settings for easier comparison, from memory.

[ramarren]

I think that you can load the Lightroom develop (DCP) and lens correction (LCP) settings for easier comparison, from memory.

 

 

I'm not sure why I'd want to do that if I want to compare the behaviors of the two different raw converters. 

 

For the SL, lens corrections are embedded into the DNG files with native lenses and with lenses for which you've selected a lens code, or so I imagine. 

Edited May 4, 2016 by ramarren

[jrp]

Just so that you can see the difference there and then.

 

I don't think that the lens corrections are embedded in the DNG for M or R lenses, but I may be wrong.

[ferdinand]

Just so that you can see the difference there and then.

 

I don't think that the lens corrections are embedded in the DNG for M or R lenses, but I may be wrong.

 

 

If you have the lens identified with 6 bit code of a M lens or via Menu selected for R (or M), you will get a embedded correction

[ramarren]

Well, applying the DCP from LR to an Iridient process doesn't really tell me how LR and Iridient differ. 

 

I am going to make a photograph of a Color Chart and process it at the defaults in both raw processors. Then I can compare it by eye, also evaluate it with a digital color meter to get exact RGB values for comparative purposes. 

[Guest VVJ]

Thank you so much! I didn't know about this software but I tested it and bought it right away. 

It's a little slower than other software, but I was very pleased with the results. 

I think this is the best way to process the SL RAW files.

 

 

No SL yet but I have been using Iridient with the T, Q, M9 and S2 for just short of 2 years now and I like it a lot.  I prefer it over Capture One.  Personally I very much dislike LightRoom...

 

I use it as a pure raw converter though and then work in Photoshop.  It does not have all the tools available that e.g. LR might have, so people who are expecting that might be disappointed.

 

I quickly took a look at the new version and at the new custom profile for the Q.  I kind of liked it but I would need to work more with it to confirm that I prefer it over the embedded camera profile.

Edited May 5, 2016 by JorisV

[jrp]

Here's a DCP Profile that you may want to try out.  It is intended for natural looking files to provide a starting point for editing (ie, you may need to up contrast and vibrance/saturation, depending on your tastes).  It will work with daylight better than tungsten and sRGB output better than AdobeRGB.  

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/22u0wa8kqvis1kx/natural-plus.dcp?dl=0

 

Let me know whether it works for you.

 

PS: Lightroom 6 / CC 2015 stores its profiles in

Windows—   C: \ Users \ [your username] \ AppData \ Roaming \ Adobe \ CameraRaw \ CameraProfiles \

Mac—       Macintosh HD / Users / [your username] / Library / Application Support / Adobe / CameraRaw / CameraProfiles /

Edited May 26, 2016 by jrp

[jrp]

Any further thoughts on iridient developer while it is on offer?

[orc999]

keep in mind switching around between raw converters, in the future you will have some files in this converters catalog and then in that one. of course you still have the raws but to see your adjustments will not be possible.

of course a way to avoid this is to export all the files as jpg/tif and keep somewhere in the final version in some kind of a common library. This is pretty final and needs more space.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[orc999]

btw the sl lenses look much better with the embedded profile the do m lenses for some reason.

i found it easier to get the jpg's colors in the raws. from the SL lenses, not so with the m lenses.

I don't know if it makes sense but it's just so. As lenses offer different color/contrast it might well be so.