SL2 & Adobe Lightroom (Cloud)

[SJH]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all - I've moved over to the cloud version and whist with my M10 I can see see a camera specific profile named as 'M10" along with the standard Adobe ones like 'Adobe Standard', 'Adobe Colour' etc when I load an SL2 DNG I don't see an SL2 profile. Under 'Legacy; there are two show as 'Embedded' and 'B&W Embedded', the former being for colour. Are these for the time being the M10 profile equivalent for the SL2? Same thing seems to happen for my Q2!! 

[Advertisement]

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

[Jared]

The “Embedded” profile is what Leica put into the DNG in terms of color response.  In my experience, the “embedded” profiles are a reasonable stop gap and occasionally produce excellent results, but also seem to run into strange clipping issues in the highlights that can distort, particularly, recovered highlights. I haven’t looked at SL2 images in particular—this is based on M9, M(246) images, and even M10 images. Adobe Standard I find works better most of the time, with Vivid and Landscape also occasionally useful.  However, I tend not to like how the greens are handled on Leica cameras with any of the Adobe profiles.  I usually start with Adobe Standard and then in the HSL section add a little yellow to the greens.  
 

Basically, there is no “right” answer on any of this.  If you find you tend to like a particular profile, use it.  If you don’t, then don’t.  Just because a profile is “embedded” doesn’t make it better or worse.  It just means Leica made it rather than Adobe.  Profiles made by Adobe for a given camera are no better or worse than those made by the camera manufacturer.  Use whatever you want.  The same is true for white balance.  Should you use the cameras “auto” setting?  Choose something manually?  Use Adobe’s “Auto” value?  Just set it by eye using a calibrated monitor?  I usually avoid Adobe’s version of “Auto” since it tends to be warmer than I like.  I usually just set white balance based on what looks good on my monitor and what fits my memory of the scene.  But there’s no “right” or “better” solution for white balance.  Set it to “auto” and do it by eye?  Set it to cloudy because it’s cloudy?  In camera or in software?  Whatever works for you.
 

The only exception to this is that some commercial uses require high degrees of color accuracy.  If a designer spends a lot of time determining the colors for a particular fabric, for example, they don’t want those colors coming out different in magazines or on the net.  In these cases, you will probably want a color checker and will want to profile your camera yourself for the specific lighting.  That’s really the only way to guarantee true accuracy.

[SJH]

8 hours ago, Jared said:

The “Embedded” profile is what Leica put into the DNG in terms of color response.  In my experience, the “embedded” profiles are a reasonable stop gap and occasionally produce excellent results, but also seem to run into strange clipping issues in the highlights that can distort, particularly, recovered highlights. I haven’t looked at SL2 images in particular—this is based on M9, M(246) images, and even M10 images. Adobe Standard I find works better most of the time, with Vivid and Landscape also occasionally useful.  However, I tend not to like how the greens are handled on Leica cameras with any of the Adobe profiles.  I usually start with Adobe Standard and then in the HSL section add a little yellow to the greens.  
 

Basically, there is no “right” answer on any of this.  If you find you tend to like a particular profile, use it.  If you don’t, then don’t.  Just because a profile is “embedded” doesn’t make it better or worse.  It just means Leica made it rather than Adobe.  Profiles made by Adobe for a given camera are no better or worse than those made by the camera manufacturer.  Use whatever you want.  The same is true for white balance.  Should you use the cameras “auto” setting?  Choose something manually?  Use Adobe’s “Auto” value?  Just set it by eye using a calibrated monitor?  I usually avoid Adobe’s version of “Auto” since it tends to be warmer than I like.  I usually just set white balance based on what looks good on my monitor and what fits my memory of the scene.  But there’s no “right” or “better” solution for white balance.  Set it to “auto” and do it by eye?  Set it to cloudy because it’s cloudy?  In camera or in software?  Whatever works for you.
 

The only exception to this is that some commercial uses require high degrees of color accuracy.  If a designer spends a lot of time determining the colors for a particular fabric, for example, they don’t want those colors coming out different in magazines or on the net.  In these cases, you will probably want a color checker and will want to profile your camera yourself for the specific lighting.  That’s really the only way to guarantee true accuracy.

Thanks Jared that's really helpful.

[jaapv]

9 hours ago, Jared said:

In these cases, you will probably want a color checker and will want to profile your camera yourself for the specific lighting.  That’s really the only way to guarantee true accuracy.

Very true - but you will only be shifting the problem down the line. There is no way of predicting the colour rendering in print, or in case of digital display the (lack of) calibration of the monitor used, or even the interpretation of the colour space by the browser... And then there is metamerism...😵

[SJH]

Thanks both.

I moved over to Lightroom partly so that I get the integration on the FOTOS 2 App on my iPad Pro as well as the cloud sync with my Macs etc, to me this really assists my mobile workflow now I'm fully in with Leica.

So are we therefore saying that when it comes to the specific profile named as 'M10" along with the standard Adobe ones like 'Adobe Standard', 'Adobe Colour' this is the only camera profile that specifically is referenced by Adobe in profiles when you're viewing a DNG shot on that camera and that for the moment (for the cameras I own) there isn't an SL2 or Q2 equivalent of the M10 profile shown by Adobe in the menu, just the embedded option referred to above under the legacy menu in profiles?

[Exodies]

If I’m not mistaken the Adobe standard profiles etc are specific to the camera, they just don’t include the camera name in the name.

[SJH]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

58 minutes ago, Exodies said:

If I’m not mistaken the Adobe standard profiles etc are specific to the camera, they just don’t include the camera name in the name.

Thanks for this as well, I think this is where confusion lies as on the one hand my M10P has a specific 'M10' camera profile named as such in the options amongst the Adobe ones, my SL2 & Q2 don't and just have the 'embedded profile for colour and B&W' under Legacy Profiles and the standard Adobe Profiles.

 

[Jared]

3 hours ago, Exodies said:

If I’m not mistaken the Adobe standard profiles etc are specific to the camera, they just don’t include the camera name in the name.

This is my understanding as well.

[Jeff S]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

Very true - but you will only be shifting the problem down the line. There is no way of predicting the colour rendering in print, or in case of digital display the (lack of) calibration of the monitor used, or even the interpretation of the colour space by the browser... And then there is metamerism...😵

And, with prints, all the issues associated with display lighting conditions, effects of cover glass, etc.  

Jeff

[Exodies]

Not forgetting the colours brought to the show by the viewers costumes.

[SJH]

Thank you all very helpful.

[Jared]

15 hours ago, jaapv said:

Very true - but you will only be shifting the problem down the line. There is no way of predicting the colour rendering in print, or in case of digital display the (lack of) calibration of the monitor used, or even the interpretation of the colour space by the browser... And then there is metamerism...😵

Presumably, the printer will also follow the same calibration processes as the photographer to make sure color accuracy is maintained as much as possible.  Of course, they will have A much more limited gamut and contrast range, but I’m sure they still rely on the photograph being accurate as a starting point.

As to monitors... of course there is no way to ensure everyone properly profiles their monitors, but the manufacturers seem to be improving accuracy in general each year as well as widening gamut’s and gaining additional contrast.  On average, they are now generally quite good.  Mobile devices as well, for that matter.

[jaapv]

An interesting book on the subject is Real World Color Management by Fraser et al. Not new, but still quite up-to-date.

[SJH]

Thanks Jaapv and I'll take a look at that book, difficult times for all but we will make it through this and the forum provides a welcome source of contact. As photographers I think we also need to look at ways of documenting all this for future generations and what day to day life was like. With all the creative people on this forum I'm sure we can do this well.