Lightroom Camera profile for M10

[Adam Bonn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

28 minutes ago, Almizilero said:

I'll add a question here. So far, I've been quite happy with the M10 profile in Lightroom (Classic). Every now and again I have a picture where the Adobe profile provides a FAR better colour represention than the M10 profile, but 95% of the time, I prefer the camera profile. I had one of those “outliers“ recently where the Adobe profile fit much better. That's when I noticed that changing the profile also changes the white balance setting (the “as shot” setting). I have my camera on Auto-WB and thought that the camera chooses a WB and that is set as standard for the DNG. Why would it change with the profile I choose in LR?

This would actually be a VERY long and complicated answer, so I'm going to gloss over LOADS of technical stuff for brevity.

The adobe and the Leica profiles are different.

The displayed WB setting is derived from a TAG within the DNG (AsShotNeutral, ASN) and the profile itself (the Color Matrices, CMs)

The CMs in the Leica and the Adobe profiles are different (hence different colours between them)

Lets call the ASN "5" 

Let's call the Adobe CM 1000

Let's call the Leica CM 900

So DNG, L12345. ASN =5

5 x adobe CM (1000) = WB 5000 

5 x Leica CM (900) = WB 4500

(IRL ASN is a 3 separate digit value, the CM is 9 separate digitals, there's actually 2 CMs and the WB is derived from a weighted mathematical equation based on a value from the inverse of the CMs. It's quite a long formulae!!)

[Adam Bonn]

14 hours ago, theseahawk said:

vs an SL2 file

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!

it's called embedded and can be found under legacy

Click the star next to it (and all the profiles you use regularly) and it'll appear in the drop down at the top (where it says adobe color)

Photo copyright Dan Bracaglia DPR https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/8394780689/leica-sl2-sample-gallery/2541481639 

 

 

 

[Almizilero]

vor 12 Minuten schrieb Adam Bonn:

This would actually be a VERY long and complicated answer, so I'm going to gloss over LOADS of technical stuff for brevity.

The adobe and the Leica profiles are different.

The displayed WB setting is derived from a TAG within the DNG (AsShotNeutral, ASN) and the profile itself (the Color Matrices, CMs)

The CMs in the Leica and the Adobe profiles are different (hence different colours between them)

Lets call the ASN "5" 

Let's call the Adobe CM 1000

Let's call the Leica CM 900

So DNG, L12345. ASN =5

5 x adobe CM (1000) = WB 5000 

5 x Leica CM (900) = WB 4500

(IRL ASN is a 3 separate digit value, the CM is 9 separate digitals, there's actually 2 CMs and the WB is derived from a weighted mathematical equation based on a value from the inverse of the CMs. It's quite a long formulae!!)

Thank you for the answer and breaking it down into understandable terms!

[Adam Bonn]

2 minutes ago, Almizilero said:

Thank you for the answer and breaking it down into understandable terms!

No Problem.

The Leica profiles are generally more 'punchy' because they have only CMs.

CMs control only the WB values and work by mapping the standard XYZ colours (for each illuminant) to the native camera RAW space.

LR/ACR actually needs more than that to work, it requires that each illuminant is chromatically adapted (CA) into XYZ D50.

When a profile doesn't contain this instruction (such as the Leica ones or ones you make yourself with freeware) LR/ACR tends to guess the CA.

By contrast the adobe profiles have this instruction (Forward Matrices) and additional instructions that control what happens with colours as they start to clip, these are called Hue Sat Map tables (a form of LUT basically)

Additionally to this adobe also use a profile LUT that adds subjective colour changes that they believe people will like (and also to control the gamut)

Left unchallenged the D50 CA is a linear process, as a wooly analogy it will rev like an engine until it hits the limiter.

The adobe profile dials back the D50 CA (well they do these days, earlier profiles from some years back not so much) then use the HSM tables to bring the colour back up. In practice this means that the RAW will be able to withstand fiercer edits before nasty things happen!

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!

Here we see the downsides of the linear CA D50 profile (Leica Embedded, right) Vs adobe standard (left)

See what is happening to the blue?

But see also how the photo is more punchy with the embedded profile?

But all is lot lost for punchy embedded profile fans!!

That panel called 'calibration' actually contains the tools to tweak the D50 CA on the fly!

See here I've made a small reduction to the blue channel and fixed the blue issue!

[Shepherdphotographer]

On 27/6/2023 at 15:26, evikne said:

1. Per aprire il browser LR Profile, fare clic sul simbolo con quattro quadrati nella parte superiore del pannello Base.
2. Sotto i profili Adobe RAW, normalmente troverai il profilo Leica M10 incorporato.

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!

Hello everyone, I turn to you again and thank you again today, after a long time since the beginning of the thread, in particular evikne, because your intervention, which I quote in this answer, was truly precious for me. However I have a problem at this point. I have the version of Lightroom Classic 9.1. I found the "four squares" in the "Development" module, exactly where indicated by evikne, but the "Leica M10" or "Leica M9" profile (which is the one that really interests me) is not there.... ..: there are standard profiles, divided into categories: the categories are: Favorites, Adobe RAW, Artistic, Modern, Vintage. However, I also found the button to add a profile: I have the Leica M9 profile (the one I'm interested in) and I added it from the hard disk. So far so good, but it was added by Lightroom not among those in the right column of the Develop module among the favorites, but rather among those in the left column of the Develop module, under the "Presets" category. I don't understand why...... From a practical point of view it makes no difference, it's true, but I would like to understand why. I also discovered that by right-clicking on the Leica M9 profile (which is in the left column), I can choose to have Lightroom apply it at the beginning of each import. The profile is exceptional, just the colors I was looking for!!! Thank you again and I hope you still want to help me. Thank you in advance!

[Shepherdphotographer]

Riporto lo screenshot. Il profilo si chiama Leica M9 DF_2020. Obviously the photo has no technical value, it is only a test.

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 January 26, 2024 by Shepherdphotographer

[Adam Bonn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

unless you're meaning some 3rd party profile (or one you've modified yourself - although this seems unlikely given your query) you won't get the M9 profile for your other cameras because the M9 profile has this tag in it

"UniqueCameraModel": "M9 Digital Camera",

Meaning that it will only appear as available for cameras that have the corresponding tag in the RAW file.

You could of course locate/extract the M9 profile from the adobe system files/the DNG, convert it to a text format and change the tag to read

"UniqueCameraModel": "M9 Digital Camera some other camera",

Then convert the text file back into a .dcp again...

This might even look good on some images... but most likely the colours will be weird and the WB numbers will be strange.

It's generally considered impossible to make camera A render as if it was camera B, and it's certainly not as easy as finding the profile for camera B and convincing ACR/LR that camera A is really camera B

Looking at your screen shot, it looks like your M9 profile is really a preset.

[dugby]

I am using the last perpetual licenced Adobe Lightroom v6.14 (on Windows 11 PRO) which came with my M240, and am most pleased with the development of my M10-R DNGs.

However as a retired technologist, I am a little surprised about the apparent working coexistence of technologies in my scenario below:

- Adobe Lightroom v6.14 was released December 2017

- M10 was released Jan 2017

- M10-R was released July 2020

----------------------------------------------------

In my "Develop Menu" of Lightroom 6.14

- Camera Calibration

- Process: 2012 (Current)

- Profile: Leica M10-R

 

I am very happy with the resulting exports of LR6.14 developed M10-R DNGs but am surprised that a 2017 software release can interpret the "2020 M10-R"

I have neither modified nor created an M10-R profile for my LR6.14, it just displays the profile by default against my DNGs.

 

Hoping that those experienced Adobe LR users here, could shed some light (pun intended !) on this please.

 

Edited January 27, 2024 by dugby

[Adam Bonn]

6 hours ago, dugby said:

I am using the last perpetual licenced Adobe Lightroom v6.14 (on Windows 11 PRO) which came with my M240, and am most pleased with the development of my M10-R DNGs.

However as a retired technologist, I am a little surprised about the apparent working coexistence of technologies in my scenario below:

- Adobe Lightroom v6.14 was released December 2017

- M10 was released Jan 2017

- M10-R was released July 2020

----------------------------------------------------

In my "Develop Menu" of Lightroom 6.14

- Camera Calibration

- Process: 2012 (Current)

- Profile: Leica M10-R

 

I am very happy with the resulting exports of LR6.14 developed M10-R DNGs but am surprised that a 2017 software release can interpret the "2020 M10-R"

I have neither modified nor created an M10-R profile for my LR6.14, it just displays the profile by default against my DNGs.

 

Hoping that those experienced Adobe LR users here, could shed some light (pun intended !) on this please.

 

As per the adobe DNG specification, which those utilising DNG must adhere too, Leica embeds a (a basic) profile (a .dcp file) within their DNG files that ARC/LR can read.

A small irony here is that over the years adobe have watered down their own dcp files so that they stand up to vigorous exiting at the expense of initial ‘punchiness’ whereas Leica haven’t, ergo the ‘Leica embedded’ profile often looks more satisfying upon first viewing.

I made a post a few above this one with some of the differences between profile types and the limitations of a ColorMatrix only profile.

[Shepherdphotographer]

10 ore fa, Adam Bonn ha detto:

a meno che tu non intenda un profilo di terze parti (o uno che hai modificato tu stesso, anche se questo sembra improbabile data la tua domanda) non otterrai il profilo M9 per le altre tue fotocamere perché il profilo M9 contiene questo tag

"UniqueCameraModel": "Fotocamera digitale M9",

Ciò significa che apparirà come disponibile solo per le fotocamere che hanno il tag corrispondente nel file RAW.

Ovviamente dovresti individuare/estrarre il profilo M9 dal file di sistema Adobe/DNG, convertirlo in un formato testo e modificare il tag da leggere

"UniqueCameraModel": " Fotocamera digitale M9 di un'altra fotocamera",

Quindi riconvertire nuovamente il file di testo in un file .dcp...

Potrebbe anche avere un bell'aspetto su alcune... ma molto probabilmente i colori saranno strani ei numeri WB saranno strani.

In genere è impossibile considerare rendere la fotocamera A come se fosse la fotocamera B, e certamente non è così facile come trovare il profilo per la fotocamera B e convincere ACR/LR che la fotocamera A è davvero la fotocamera B

Guardando la tua schermata, sembra che il tuo profilo M9 sia davvero un preset.

 Yes, it's a third-party preset, which I left unchanged or I personally modified by giving it another name. Too difficult for me to identify/extract the M9 profile....... I just need to use one that I'm very happy with and modify it if necessary, possibly saving it among my favorites or setting it to apply by default to every import with LR. It's too difficult for me to identify/extract the M9 profile....... It's enough for me to use one that satisfies me a lot and modify it if necessary, possibly saving it among the favorites or setting it as to be applied by default to every import with LR. Unfortunately, as time has passed I have become increasingly realised/convinced that, even if I do a very scrupulous job in creating new customizable presets, I will never arrive at one that does not require even a minimal correction to the photo to which it is applied. , to obtain the desired colors. Thank you very much!!

Edited January 27, 2024 by Shepherdphotographer

[Adam Bonn]

IMHO there is no ‘one size size fits all’ profile or preset, sometimes we can apply a profile/preset (or use the standard settings) upon import and the photo looks ok, other times it takes some work. 

”Getting it right in camera” can help, but sometimes the scene is such (high DR normally) that we must shoot in a way that we know will require edits to look good.

It’s all about finding what works for one’s style.

Oh and trying to extract a profile from one camera and using it for another would be unlikely to look good.

Profiles basically work by mapping a particular camera’s native colour space into white balanced XYZ values (well in adobe anyway.. other apps possibly use LAB or something else, same principle though) so what works for one camera is unlikely to work for another

[Shepherdphotographer]

Evikne and Bonn, you were invaluable!! It took me some time to understand why the four little rectangles didn't appear to me in the development window. When importing I always included tifs and/or jpegs... I went crazy until I read your comments! I still haven't understood why, however, the new favorites created only appear on the left window and not on the right one of the development window, but it's enough to use the left instead of the right!

[evikne]

53 minutes ago, Shepherdphotographer said:

I still haven't understood why, however, the new favorites created only appear on the left window and not on the right one of the development window, but it's enough to use the left instead of the right!

I'm not sure if this is the case for you, but if you for example have made a preset containing a profile, the preset will still be available even if the profile isn't, but it will be grayed out, like in the example below. The Canon profile is not available in the profile browser because the image was taken with a Leica camera. And if you assign the preset, it may seem to work, but it will not work properly; the missing profile will be substituted with the Adobe Standard 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!

Edited January 27, 2024 by evikne

[Adam Bonn]

1 hour ago, Shepherdphotographer said:

Evikne and Bonn, you were invaluable!! It took me some time to understand why the four little rectangles didn't appear to me in the development window. When importing I always included tifs and/or jpegs... I went crazy until I read your comments! I still haven't understood why, however, the new favorites created only appear on the left window and not on the right one of the development window, but it's enough to use the left instead of the right!

I think it's an adobe thing... profiles on the right, presets (favs) on the left.

A preset can contain a specific profile, and/or any mix development settings, but a profile can't (well unless it's one of those newer RGB Colour table things - but those things are baked in when the profile is created, but let's not set side tracked...)

[mujk]

On 1/27/2024 at 3:42 AM, dugby said:

I am using the last perpetual licenced Adobe Lightroom v6.14 (on Windows 11 PRO) which came with my M240, and am most pleased with the development of my M10-R DNGs.

However as a retired technologist, I am a little surprised about the apparent working coexistence of technologies in my scenario below:

- Adobe Lightroom v6.14 was released December 2017

- M10 was released Jan 2017

- M10-R was released July 2020

----------------------------------------------------

In my "Develop Menu" of Lightroom 6.14

- Camera Calibration

- Process: 2012 (Current)

- Profile: Leica M10-R

 

I am very happy with the resulting exports of LR6.14 developed M10-R DNGs but am surprised that a 2017 software release can interpret the "2020 M10-R"

I have neither modified nor created an M10-R profile for my LR6.14, it just displays the profile by default against my DNGs.

 

Hoping that those experienced Adobe LR users here, could shed some light (pun intended !) on this please.

 

As @Adam Bonn already pointed out this is the profile embedded in the DNG.

I have the same situation as you have. There is no M10 Adobe profile to be selected in this version., but at some point in the Lightroom upgrade path it was apparently possible to have the Adobe profile of another camera as default in the Development module. So I managed to get M10 images edited with the M9 Adobe profile applied. In some later upgrade this then changed and I suddenly had a number of edited images with a "missing" profile, defaulting to the embedded profile and resulting in the edits being garbled.

After that I started to play around with the Adobe profile editor, with the goal to create a custom M10 profile based on the M9 Adobe profile. As could be expected, I managed to get a perfectly usable M10 profile, but not with the results I wanted. So I use the embedded one for now.

[Adam Bonn]

4 hours ago, mujk said:

After that I started to play around with the Adobe profile editor, with the goal to create a custom M10 profile based on the M9 Adobe profile. As could be expected, I managed to get a perfectly usable M10 profile, but not with the results I wanted. So I use the embedded one for now.

That would be quite a big ask IMHO...

Also IMHO what makes the M9 render the way it does is the tonality, yeah sure the colours are nice, but adding sat and pushing red and green (and blue for that matter) towards blue won't an M9 replicant make..

You might get quite far with a dedicated profile design tool like lumariver...

If you want to play this game with adobe profile editor, you'll get further starting from scratch that modifying the adobe one.

The way adobe weights what the various parts of the profile do has changed a lot between the M9 and M10.

I'd personally go about this thusly...

1. convert both M9 and M10 adobe profiles to text and delete everything south of the forward matrices

2. Split each profile into single illuminant (so you'd have 4 profiles, 9 and 10, one with StdA the other D65) and reconvert them back to DCP

3. Use the calibration sliders to eyeball the M10 images to match as close as possible the M9 images (using only the profiles from step 1)*

4. Make the changes you decided on in adobe profile editor

5. repeat the above, but add the appropriate HSM tables back into the M9 profiles and all in adobe profile editor using the eyedropper colour tool to build up the HSM tables in the M10 ones

6. Convert your 2 M10 '9alike' profiles back into text, then combine them to make one dual illuminant profile and convert it back into DCP

you will never get an exact match between two different cameras

 

*The adobe M10 forward matrices might never be capable of matching the saturation of the M9 ones... The M9 ones are more or less linear Branford Chromatic Adaptation ones (like adobe recommend in their DNG spec!) the later profiles have somewhat truncated Forward Matrices made using propriety maths.

[mujk]

1 hour ago, Adam Bonn said:

That would be quite a big ask IMHO...

Also IMHO what makes the M9 render the way it does is the tonality, yeah sure the colours are nice, but adding sat and pushing red and green (and blue for that matter) towards blue won't an M9 replicant make..

You might get quite far with a dedicated profile design tool like lumariver...

If you want to play this game with adobe profile editor, you'll get further starting from scratch that modifying the adobe one.

The way adobe weights what the various parts of the profile do has changed a lot between the M9 and M10.

I'd personally go about this thusly...

1. convert both M9 and M10 adobe profiles to text and delete everything south of the forward matrices

2. Split each profile into single illuminant (so you'd have 4 profiles, 9 and 10, one with StdA the other D65) and reconvert them back to DCP

3. Use the calibration sliders to eyeball the M10 images to match as close as possible the M9 images (using only the profiles from step 1)*

4. Make the changes you decided on in adobe profile editor

5. repeat the above, but add the appropriate HSM tables back into the M9 profiles and all in adobe profile editor using the eyedropper colour tool to build up the HSM tables in the M10 ones

6. Convert your 2 M10 '9alike' profiles back into text, then combine them to make one dual illuminant profile and convert it back into DCP

you will never get an exact match between two different cameras

 

*The adobe M10 forward matrices might never be capable of matching the saturation of the M9 ones... The M9 ones are more or less linear Branford Chromatic Adaptation ones (like adobe recommend in their DNG spec!) the later profiles have somewhat truncated Forward Matrices made using propriety maths.

I believe you.

In this case I just wanted to see what happens when you convert the M9 Adobe profile to something that Lightroom accepts as an M10 profile because my Lightroom installation had initially made this possible. I don't really know what happened in Lightroom at that point and cannot repeat it anymore, but the M10 images looked quite nice with the wrong profile both before and after editing. It is of course possible that I got some other Adobe profile than the one for M9, but the results were very much the same for M9 images.  In any case, after the upgrade that reverted to embedded profile the effect was that the thumbnails initially looked as before until i "touched" them, at which point the thumbnails (and of course the full-size images as well) were refreshed. Also the profile I managed to create with the profile editor might of course be deficient in some way, but the result was quite pleasing and close to what happens when using Adobe profiles with images from other cameras. I did not do any color or other changes in the editor at all, just applied te profile and saved it with the M10 tag.

[Adam Bonn]

14 hours ago, mujk said:

I believe you.

In this case I just wanted to see what happens when you convert the M9 Adobe profile to something that Lightroom accepts as an M10 profile because my Lightroom installation had initially made this possible. I don't really know what happened in Lightroom at that point and cannot repeat it anymore, but the M10 images looked quite nice with the wrong profile both before and after editing. It is of course possible that I got some other Adobe profile than the one for M9, but the results were very much the same for M9 images.  In any case, after the upgrade that reverted to embedded profile the effect was that the thumbnails initially looked as before until i "touched" them, at which point the thumbnails (and of course the full-size images as well) were refreshed. Also the profile I managed to create with the profile editor might of course be deficient in some way, but the result was quite pleasing and close to what happens when using Adobe profiles with images from other cameras. I did not do any color or other changes in the editor at all, just applied te profile and saved it with the M10 tag.

It’s relatively simple to change the unique camera tag in a dcp file (say from Leica M9 to Leica M10) iirc you can do it in exif tag editor. If you also overwrite the ColorMatrices in the M9 adobe profile with the ones from the M10 profile the displayed WB values will be consistent with the M10 too (ie if the adobe m10 profile says that as shot wb is 5000/2 then the modified m9 profile would display the same values. Once a profile has forward matrices and HSMs the part that makes the WB numbers doesn’t have that much bearing on the colours in the profile)

[Adam Bonn]

OK I was bored and had 10 mins!!

Forgive the slightly different exp settings

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!

The M10 (left) has the adobe M9 profile, but adobe thinks it's for the M10... (the M9 has the adobe M9 profiles that's for the M9)

For comparison

Heres the M10 real/correct adobe profile Vs the M9

You can draw your own conclusions about which looks better between the real m10 profile and the M9 one hacked to make LR think it goes with the M10.... 

 

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[dugby]

Adam, Thankyou for taking the effort to provide the above 3(4) images, it would be interesting for you to inform us as to which of the images more closely resembles reality.