Jump to content

problems with Adobe LR profile for Leica SL


tom0511

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I do feel that LR SL profile doesn't work very well.

Here you see one example with custom white balance, camera jpg vs LR converted RAW of the same image. The LR conversion shows too low saturation (yes, you can correct that) but also worse tonal graduations in the pumpkin for example or in the orange or the tomatos.

Are you guys also experiencing this, what your solution? or do you use different raw converter?

To me the in camera jpg looks  better. The raw converted looks like a body without blood.

For some weeks I thought there is a difference in color between the M (more saturated) and the SL sensor, but part of the problem seems the LR profile.

Best, Tom

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 by tom0511
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the SL has less saturation than the M240 SOOC, and the M240  has less than the M9. IMO it is down to the widening DR in successive sensor versions, resulting in more subtle colours. But if you want more punch, you can add it in LR, and store it as a permanent default import preset.

 

Edit: one default import preset I now use is reduced green and yellow saturation: I find the standard greens in landscapes too acid for my taste, in both M and SL.

Edited by LocalHero1953
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you only want a raw converter at its defaults to replicate what the camera's built-in JPEG engine produces, why bother with raw files? The built-in conversion has many degrees of freedom as well, set by adjusting the JPEG parameters, so what the camera produces as JPEGs can be widely variant too. 

 

The Adobe camera calibration for the SL, used at its defaults, produces a good neutral rendering, splitting the difference sensibly between color accuracy, contrast, and saturation. I've compared it with reference photos of an Xrite Color Checker under different lighting situations to a custom generated profiles and it is quite close in most cases, to the point where I've discarded all the custom profiles other than those which deal with multi-illuminant situations. The profiles in Apple's Photos and in Capture One are also good, and produce slightly different colors at their defaults. None match the in-camera JPEGs exactly. 

 

This is the nature of working with raw files. The raw converter is supposed to give you a reasonable starting point with a good editable range upon which you apply your personal rendering desires.

 

With Lightroom in particular (I'm not proficient enough with Capture One or Photos to know how to do this there yet), you can add your typical adjustments over and above the LR defaults and set those to be the default for your files with that camera. You can also set this customization to be specific to an ISO range as well. If you want the files to match an in-camera JPEG setting, set up a reference shot, adjust the raw file to match the JPEG file, then set that as the default for the camera. That's all that's needed. 

 

But I ask the question again: if that's all you want, why not just use the in-camera JPEG engine set to maximum quality and minimum compression? It's less work, and will net you the exact same thing. 

 

(My customized setup for the SL reduces the default sharpening by a hair, raises contrast by a hair, and softens saturation by a bit more than a hair. I find that a good starting point for color work. My customized setup for the SL when the intent is a monochrome rendering is a pathologically twisted up set of tonal curves and shaped underlying HSL settings that push images to an extreme in order that I can see where they might go with a bit of careful rendering work. It allows me to pick keepers more rapidly. There are many ways to work this game ... :D )

Edited by ramarren
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The reasons why I usually prefer raw is that it allows me to change WB, increase or decrease exposure, increase or decrease noise reduction  with less "destruction" in the image compared to jpg.

 

I dont find the adobe profile to be good. The vegetables in the raw converted shot look wrong and artificial, I miss seperation of tones.

The jpg looks better , by the way I also shot the same scene with the T and here the LR profile seems clearly better and closer to the jpg.

 

Here is same lens, same scene with the T in-camera-jpg and converted with standard settings in LR:
 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

dont you thin the pumpkin and tomato color in the first image in first thread is off/worst of all 4 images? (raw from SL)?
By the way I was really surprised how good the T holds up at ISO1600 against the SL.

I even go so far and say I prefer the color from the T over that from the SL.

(Of course I prefer the viewfinder of the SL over the T.)

Edited by tom0511
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Do you prefer the color of the T over the SL in LR or in Capture One? Because the default color profile of Capture One makes the SL colors look completely different than what LR shows. By the way, color is what you make it, not what some RAW converter shows you by default.

Edited by Chaemono
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

dont you thin the pumpkin and tomato color in the first image in first thread is off/worst of all 4 images? (raw from SL)?

By the way I was really surprised how good the T holds up at ISO1600 against the SL.

I even go so far and say I prefer the color from the T over that from the SL.

(Of course I prefer the viewfinder of the SL over the T.)

 

 

I couldn't say. The difference in rendition is quite small in my browser, and it's obvious that the JPEG has had more sharpening, saturation, and contrast added. Do the same thing to the first image and it is identical. Based on this amount of variability, what you're describing could very well be the difference in display calibration and profile between one system and another.

 

You've already said (in another thread) that you're ambivalent about whether the SL is the right camera for you. Perhaps it isn't. If you prefer the color from the T and find its size and quality more to your liking, just stick with it and sell off the SL. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see slight differences between your images, but, given that these are images processed and sized for the forum, I can't deduce anything about them.

Like Ramarren, I developed my own Adobe profile for the SL when it came out, but successive updates of ACR produced a profile in LR that was close to my custom profile, so I just use Adobe's now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you prefer the color of the T over the SL in LR or in Capture One? Because the default color profile of Capture One makes the SL colors look completely different than what LR shows. By the way, color is what you make it, not what some RAW converter shows you by default.

 

LR, I havent used C1 for some time.

I am usually happy if default values of a converter/profile is already close to what I like because it saves me a lot of time.

Thats - IMO - what a good profile is about: to get it close in the first step.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

I am usually happy if default values of a converter/profile is already close to what I like because it saves me a lot of time.

Thats - IMO - what a good profile is about: to get it close in the first step.

 

 

So either: 

  1. make a camera calibration profile that produces results you like more, or
  2. obtain a camera calibration profile that produces results you like more, or
  3. take a reference image, use the standard Adobe calibration, tweak the result to what you prefer, and save that as the default. 

No raw converter's output is set in stone. All that is happening is that the data in the raw file is being interpreted to someone's notion of what is correct by default. If your notion differs, adjust what the converter does to suit and save that as your default. It only takes a couple of minutes to do that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't say. The difference in rendition is quite small in my browser, and it's obvious that the JPEG has had more sharpening, saturation, and contrast added. Do the same thing to the first image and it is identical. Based on this amount of variability, what you're describing could very well be the difference in display calibration and profile between one system and another.

 

You've already said (in another thread) that you're ambivalent about whether the SL is the right camera for you. Perhaps it isn't. If you prefer the color from the T and find its size and quality more to your liking, just stick with it and sell off the SL. 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can build your own profiles with DCamProf (which produces more sophisticated profiles than the XRite or Adobe DNG Profile Editor).  In my case, they are, however, very close to the Adobe Standard profile (but with slightly less contrast).  The Adobe Standard profile also handles super-saturated colours (as you get in night scenes) better.  So I tend to use the custom profiles less, but adjust the Basic Toning sliders quite a lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So either: 

  1. make a camera calibration profile that produces results you like more, or
  2. obtain a camera calibration profile that produces results you like more, or
  3. take a reference image, use the standard Adobe calibration, tweak the result to what you prefer, and save that as the default. 

No raw converter's output is set in stone. All that is happening is that the data in the raw file is being interpreted to someone's notion of what is correct by default. If your notion differs, adjust what the converter does to suit and save that as your default. It only takes a couple of minutes to do that. 

Thank you for the suggestions and #3 is what I will probably do, but I dont agree that those options only take a few minutes. I have made profiles for other cameras with the passport and what works for one sort of light doesnt have to work for another sort of light. And if I tweak the default based on my pumpkin, it doesnt have to work for skin good as well.

 

To be clear: this is NOT a BIG problem, I can allways adjust to what I like, but a better profile would save me quite a bit of time and thats what I request from Leica/Adobe.

This has been a big advantage for previous Leica cameras that the color, contrast etc. with standard setting already looked very good. This is also the case for the Leica S and M240 profiles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by ramarren
Link to post
Share on other sites

...I have made profiles for other cameras with the passport and what works for one sort of light doesnt have to work for another sort of light...

The same applies to default profiles for any application. They are a starting point, Tom, not a magic bullet.

Edited by EoinC
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ramarren: I appreciate that you suggest "solutions" for my little problem. Thank you, thats why I come here to exchange experience and solutions.

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The same applies to default profiles for any application. They are a starting point, Tom, not a magic bullet.

 

I would assume that an adobe profile has been optimized and tested for various sorts of light and conditions to make sure it is a good starting point. Maybe my expectations are to high, hower it seems to work quite well for other cameras like the S for example, I also believe the M240 is a very good starting point. The SL profile seems a starting point as well, but one which needs more work to add on, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...