Lightroom 3 M9 profile

[defnela]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am new leica M 9 user and trying to understand which profile is dedicated m9 profile at LR3. Embedded or Adobe Standard ?

 

Thanks for help....

 

Emre

[hoppyman]

Emre, the Embedded profile is what has come from the camera originally. The Adobe Standard profile is the specific one developed (by Adobe) for the camera. The naming can be confusing. The name is the same for every camera that has had a specific profile developed for it, even though each one is different. However, you are only offered the one that applies to your camera.

[ho_co]

Emre, just to add to what Geoff said:

 

As I understand it (someone please correct me if I'm wrong ), "Adobe Standard" is designed to give all images the same "look."

 

In other words, if you're shooting an M9 and a Nikon, say, choosing "Adobe Standard" for both will minimize differences between the two cameras' palettes.

 

On the other hand, choosing "Embedded" gives the image a color palette more like what Adobe feels the camera manufacturer intended.

 

And of course, you can use either profile as a basis for creating your own.

[hoppyman]

Howard, I hadn't thought about that first. I considered that the (sometimes evolving) Adobe Standard profiles were what Adobe considered the most 'pleasing' renditions. It gets particularly interesting when you try to get a grasp on the very complex ways these are tweaked with hue twists etc. Sandy Mc is the Demi-God on those complexities though.

 

I understand that the 'Camera Standard' profiles are meant to approximate the default camera JPEG renderings. Camera Standard does not exist for the M9 though they are there, possibly now for legacy reasons, for the M8.

 

But Embedded is not influenced by the Adobe converter is it? I thought that it represented what the camera considered 'correct'. That is to say independent of the converters' renderings.

Most importantly for Emre, as Howard has said, you can make new profiles or edit existing ones to achieve your personal Nirvana if you become very involved on that path.

 

May I be excused please. my brain is full:o

[sandymc]

But Embedded is not influenced by the Adobe converter is it? I thought that it represented what the camera considered 'correct'. That is to say independent of the converters' renderings.

 

That's correct - Embedded is literally the Leica profile that the M9 places in the DNG file when the photo is taken. Nothing to do with Adobe.

 

Sandy

[archi4]

Sandy

I had made some profiles foe ACR/LR3 for my M8 for skin tones using both the x-rite color checker and the Adobe Editor and was quite pleased with the results, although I often resorted to the Capture One 5 results.

I now have an M9 and made a comparison development using Capture One 5 pro, and ACR using your profile, the embedded profile the Adobe Standard and a dual profile created with the X-Rite color checker. The DNG portrait was taken under mixed tungsten and daylight and same WB

Your M9 profile and the Adobe embedded provided practically identical results, both too magenta on my calibrated monitor

The Adobe Standard tended towards a skin tone which was quite yellow.

The Capture One gave the most natural rendering of skin tones, followed by the Color Checker Dual profile.

Because I am very happy with the LR3 workflow and completely at home with Capture One, I have stopped using Aperture 3 and RAW Developer and didn't run a comparison to avoid being tempted.

Why this too long post? As someone who really is knowledgeable about the subject I would appreciate your views on this subject.

regards

maurice

[sandymc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sandy

I had made some profiles foe ACR/LR3 for my M8 for skin tones using both the x-rite color checker and the Adobe Editor and was quite pleased with the results, although I often resorted to the Capture One 5 results.

I now have an M9 and made a comparison development using Capture One 5 pro, and ACR using your profile, the embedded profile the Adobe Standard and a dual profile created with the X-Rite color checker. The DNG portrait was taken under mixed tungsten and daylight and same WB

Your M9 profile and the Adobe embedded provided practically identical results, both too magenta on my calibrated monitor

The Adobe Standard tended towards a skin tone which was quite yellow.

The Capture One gave the most natural rendering of skin tones, followed by the Color Checker Dual profile.

Because I am very happy with the LR3 workflow and completely at home with Capture One, I have stopped using Aperture 3 and RAW Developer and didn't run a comparison to avoid being tempted.

Why this too long post? As someone who really is knowledgeable about the subject I would appreciate your views on this subject.

regards

maurice

 

Maurice,

 

Well, three comments:

 

1. LR is notorious for a slightly magenta rendering. I couldn't tell you why that is, but that's been the case since the earliest days.

 

2. Generally, in LR a dual profile for your camera will give you the best results. And BTW, my profile isn't(!)

 

3. As regards C1 vs LR, I'd play a bit with the LR Brightness control. That might seem counter-intuitive for correcting a color rendition problem, but actually a lot of the visual difference between C1 and LR is a somewhat less aggressive tone curve in C1.

 

Regards,

 

Sandy

[hoppyman]

If I could add some small further comments for discussion to Sandy's always expert information:

Maurice mentioned shooting in mixed lighting. So what is the 'correct' white balance for those shots? Clearly you need to decide what works best or is the most important for the particular shots since you can't WB for every different light source in the scene.

 

Anecdotally , in my experience Sandy's provided profile is neutral and very useful. I can't say that I notice any remarkable shifts vs. the Adobe Standard rendering in practice, personally.

 

However I was very interested to read in Sandy's post there that his was not made using Adobe's dual illumination method. I have had an attempt at making a profile for my M9 (and my M8 before that) using the methods that Adobe describes. I find that it tends to render very warm results under artificial light and most often the results from the Standard or Sandy ones work better for my taste in those conditions. This depite that I used two light sources of measured temperatures and the prescribed Colorchecker target.

So theoretically mine should be 'better'!! Maybe that just proves that my methods are less precise or something!

 

In any event, there is no penalty for trying different profiles on your files and of course the ultimate solution is to edit another profile for the renderings that YOU prefer

More practically, load Sandy's and try it vs. the Standard and see how you go?

FWIW I can send my home brewed one to anyone that wants to experiment. A numbe of people have got copies from me to play with previously. I do like it for very 'pleasing ' rendering outside (not the same thing as accurate, note)

[ho_co]

Just want to say specific thanks for the correction to both Geoff and Sandy.

 

Geoff, you jokingly used the phrase, "May I be excused please; my brain is full." That certainly holds for me, with the addition that my eyes are glazed when it comes to these topics.

 

I'm glad you guys are there!!!

[defnela]

Thanks to all for detailed answers...

 

Emre