tom0511 Posted November 29, 2016 Author Share #21 Posted November 29, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Tom, there's no such thing as "better" or "worse" since the default colors produced by a camera calibration profile are an aesthetic judgement rather than a measure of accuracy. If you said "a more accurate profile" then there is something to discuss as then we can apply color metrics to the output. There is no metric for "pleasing to the eye." I'm 100% satisfied that Adobe's camera calibration profile for the SL is right on the money for a general purpose profile, and that judgement seems to be alignment with most folks if you read comments across the different forums. Some people prefer Capture One's defaults, others prefer Apple's defaults, and others prefer other raw converter defaults, but probably a majority of users just use Lightroom with their SL files because it was supplied with the camera and the results it produces are close enough to begin the editing process. The level of difference I see in your comparison shots is definitely in the "adjust to personal taste" range at best. I'm glad to help. Thank you. Maybe I am a bit "too critical" those days. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 Hi tom0511, Take a look here problems with Adobe LR profile for Leica SL. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Suteetat Posted November 30, 2016 Share #22 Posted November 30, 2016 Adobe standard profile is ok for some cameras but for SL, it is quite bad to my eyes especially for landscape with blue sky as the sky tends to have quite a bit of greenish cast making the sky more turquoise rather than blue. Huelight profile for vivid or landscape is a bit better but I find embedded profile the best for this. Huelight portrait profile is very good though. I find that may be 10% of the time, I would prefer to start with adobe standard profile but otherwise embedded or one of the huelight option are always prefered. With work, I guess I can start with adobe standard profile looks like anything that I want but I rather start with a profile that is closer to what I have in my mind. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted November 30, 2016 Share #23 Posted November 30, 2016 Actually as a result of the other thread I compared the T and the SL directly with the T 35/1.4. Thats when I was surprised about the different colors. I dont think the T has better colors, but I think the SL adobe profile is worse than the T adobe profile and wondered what other thought. In an ideal world I would think if I take a image with the M,T or SL and convert it in LR at the same WB it should show comparable colors (maybe with sight advantages in tonality and dynamic range the larger the sensor) and WB. But this is not the case and I wonder why. I assume profiles could be improved. If I convert Nikon or Oly files in lightroom there are even various profiles available in LR, which are close to the in camera profiles (portrait, vivid, natural,standard) and if you chose standard converted raw look close to in camera jpg. I assume that in camer jpg is close to the "color-idea" of the brand, so I wonder why the profile for the recommended raw converted leads to different results. Have you tried the embedded profiles? With those you might expect the colour rendition to be similar between the T and the SL, because they are set by Leica, but Adobe are under no pressure to do that for the Adobe Standard profiles. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted November 30, 2016 Share #24 Posted November 30, 2016 Have you tried the embedded profiles? With those you might expect the colour rendition to be similar between the T and the SL, because they are set by Leica, but Adobe are under no pressure to do that for the Adobe Standard profiles. The Embedded profile out of the SL produces cartoonish over-saturated color, to my eye at least, and is very hard to correct for. (Same for for the Embedded profile in the Leica X typ 113; I don't know about the T.) The Adobe color profile for the SL at least puts the colors into the right ballpark—if a few points cyan or magenta, I can correct those faults very easily. Since they tend to be standard in all shots, it's also easy to set that correction as a Lightroom default (along with less sharpening, etc) so everything comes in pretty close to target without further ado. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted November 30, 2016 Share #25 Posted November 30, 2016 Have you tried the embedded profiles? With those you might expect the colour rendition to be similar between the T and the SL, because they are set by Leica, but Adobe are under no pressure to do that for the Adobe Standard profiles.In the embedded SL profile the oranges and the reds are way off. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted November 30, 2016 Share #26 Posted November 30, 2016 I don't use the embedded profile either. My comment was directed at the OP's concern that the Adobe profiles did not produce a consistent rendering. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
orc999 Posted December 3, 2016 Share #27 Posted December 3, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Again, here is one solution for you http://www.colorfidelity.com/. Man, I love how the SL images look like with these profiles. By adjusting the WB a bit and reducing the oranges the skin tones look so natural with the SL Portrait profile while the colors really pop. Thanks, I will check that out. no point of saving 15usd on a camera profile for equipement that costs 10k+ I still believe raw conversion is more critical then the differences between camera x and camera y. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted December 3, 2016 Share #28 Posted December 3, 2016 Let us know whether these are worth the candle, ideally with some comparison samples. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted December 3, 2016 Share #29 Posted December 3, 2016 (edited) I think most of us have similar requirements - at least for me I don't need my special signature. So if someone has what he thinks are very nice profiles - could the files be shared here ? Maybe "neutral", "portrait", "landscape" could be useful for many ? (Or "macro", "food", "advertising", "glamour", "sports", ...) For Lightroom and maybe also Capture One ? Or is this not realistic ? O.K. I confess I write this because I do not really feel up to the task to do it. I am simply using the defaults up to now. And very often the out-of-camera jpegs. Edited December 3, 2016 by steppenw0lf Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
orc999 Posted December 4, 2016 Share #30 Posted December 4, 2016 (edited) ok got my "hue" colorprofiles(the one from link above for 15USD). In comparison my profile that I made with my datacolor. Images are taken with the 50mm zeiss planar open at f2 Adobe Standard: Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Edited December 4, 2016 by orc999 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/266934-problems-with-adobe-lr-profile-for-leica-sl/?do=findComment&comment=3160454'>More sharing options...
orc999 Posted December 4, 2016 Share #31 Posted December 4, 2016 my own datacolor profile Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/266934-problems-with-adobe-lr-profile-for-leica-sl/?do=findComment&comment=3160455'>More sharing options...
orc999 Posted December 4, 2016 Share #32 Posted December 4, 2016 hue colorprofile Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/266934-problems-with-adobe-lr-profile-for-leica-sl/?do=findComment&comment=3160456'>More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted December 4, 2016 Share #33 Posted December 4, 2016 (edited) In the huelight profile version above I've reduced exposure a bit and made tiny adjustments to temperature and orange saturation. I hope you don't mind. Thanks for posting your images. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Edited December 4, 2016 by Chaemono Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/266934-problems-with-adobe-lr-profile-for-leica-sl/?do=findComment&comment=3160581'>More sharing options...
vanhulsenbeek Posted December 4, 2016 Share #34 Posted December 4, 2016 Again, here is one solution for you http://www.colorfidelity.com/. Man, I love how the SL images look like with these profiles. By adjusting the WB a bit and reducing the oranges the skin tones look so natural with the SL Portrait profile while the colors really pop. Thank you so much for this tip! I did some try-outs today and my SL files - that I do like anyway - now show the M9 punch. May be not good for everything but certainly a worthwhile alternative to have next to Adobe Standard. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted December 5, 2016 Share #35 Posted December 5, 2016 (edited) Thank you so much for this tip! I did some try-outs today and my SL files - that I do like anyway - now show the M9 punch. May be not good for everything but certainly a worthwhile alternative to have next to Adobe Standard. You're welcome. I agree. I find that his SL Portrait Profile is often a better starting point than Adobe's Standard Profile to obtain naturally looking skin tones AND punchy colors from the SL files at the same time. These profiles have made the SL my favorite camera now. I don't miss the M9 or the T anymore, which show wonderful skin tones and punchy colors in LR. No need to mention how beautifully the SL feels and handles and how nice the shutter sound is, too. Edited December 5, 2016 by Chaemono 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanhulsenbeek Posted December 5, 2016 Share #36 Posted December 5, 2016 .............................. No need to mention how beautifully the SL feels and handles and how nice the shutter sound is, too. A pleasure!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted December 6, 2016 Share #37 Posted December 6, 2016 (edited) Thanks, I will check that out. no point of saving 15usd on a camera profile for equipement that costs 10k+ I still believe raw conversion is more critical then the differences between camera x and camera y. For a while, I was itching to check out the X1D for its better sensor, see what the output was in terms of IQ. I knew it would be overkill for my needs and I loved the how the SL felt and handled but was tempted to find the "next" holy grail. I like the SL files so much now, that my craving has been satisfied. Spending more time on raw conversion was key. Edited December 6, 2016 by Chaemono Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.