Superb new camera profiles and camera & film emulation presets (Cobalt-Image)

[ALLinONE]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If these profiles were free, I would immediately forget about them. And I'm not complaining, but I warn people against buying a low-quality product. Worse do those who buy, disappointed but silent.

[Advertisement]

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

[Adam Bonn]

53 minutes ago, ALLinONE said:

If these profiles were free, I would immediately forget about them. And I'm not complaining, but I warn people against buying a low-quality product. Worse do those who buy, disappointed but silent.

how do you find their standard profiles?

have you bought every 'style pack' they offer?

do you own all of the cameras and film stocks that their style packs attempt to emulate?

you might not be in such as position to warn people without all of the above being a yes

[ALLinONE]

What do you think, looking at these examples? - Do I need a leica m8 or kodachrome to make sure that the emulation data is just a misunderstanding? Rhetorical question.

https://ibb.co/TK8WpbC
https://ibb.co/DQZyKrF
https://ibb.co/0sPV0BX

Edited March 20, 2022 by ALLinONE

[SrMi]

4 hours ago, Adam Bonn said:

I suspect that @SrMi is talking about the base (standard) profiles and @ALLinONE is talking about the s5pro emulation one

colours in photos are like tunes in music, we don’t all like the same ones

Did you ever buy (say) the VSCO ones then get annoyed because (say) Portra doesn’t look exactly the same as real film? No. You understood that the VSCO preset is an approximation. It’s the same here

FWIW I’m most happy with the profile(s) I made myself, not being super happy with profiles and presets I’d bought from other people spurred me on to 1) learn some about how profiles work technically, 2) invest a tangible sum of money in hardware and software that’s required to make profiles and 3) invest a colossal amount of time in learning to work with 1 and 2

Because of this I actually consider that I’ve never wasted a penny on profiles/presets because being motivated to tackle a new skill has considerable value IMHO

Yes, I mostly use Cobalt base profiles (Standard and Repro). Occasionally, I enjoy experimenting with one of their film/camera emulation profiles. I guess that ALLinOne and I have different expectations. I do not expect the exact emulation. I expect that the profiles convey the spirit of a film/camera. If I want my output to look like film, I shoot film.

[Adam Bonn]

28 minutes ago, ALLinONE said:

What do you think, looking at these examples? - Do I need a leica m8 or kodachrome to make sure that the emulation data is just a misunderstanding? Rhetorical question.

https://ibb.co/TK8WpbC
https://ibb.co/DQZyKrF
https://ibb.co/0sPV0BX

 

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!

One of these is a genuine CCD camera, the other is a CMOS camera with one of the Cobalt styles applied.

The colours are quite different, but which is which?

Would you say that the CMOS camera is obviously a CMOS camera and that there's no way that a CCD could ever produce an image that looked like that?

I think no...

 

 

 

[Olaf_ZG]

I tried Cobalt as well: bought the portra and ccd monochrome packs for my gfx, sl and new to come m10.

expensive, yet I like them and I like the fact that they are not presets, so my sliders are untouched.

my aim is to get the same look among the different cameras, so I hope it will be as promised.

[buj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Am 8.5.2022 um 14:50 schrieb Olaf_ZG:

I tried Cobalt as well: bought the portra and ccd monochrome packs for my gfx, sl and new to come m10.

expensive, yet I like them and I like the fact that they are not presets, so my sliders are untouched.

my aim is to get the same look among the different cameras, so I hope it will be as promised.

i think buying the cobalt profiles as well - what do you think about? - worth the money ???

[ALLinONE]

1 hour ago, buj said:

i think buying the cobalt profiles as well - what do you think about? - worth the money ???

I trusted the ads on their website, and bought three packages at once.  And if you ask me, I wouldn't use their profiles even for free. Money down the drain...

[Olaf_ZG]

2 hours ago, buj said:

i think buying the cobalt profiles as well - what do you think about? - worth the money ???

Can’t answer it yet. I do like the output, but am not sure if all output is the same throughout all cameras which is what they promised. It will take me a while to test this.

[ejg1890]

1 hour ago, Olaf_ZG said:

Can’t answer it yet. I do like the output, but am not sure if all output is the same throughout all cameras which is what they promised. It will take me a while to test this.

Did you also get the film simulations along with the basic pack? Wanted to learn if the film simulations are profiles or presets as the tutorial calls the film emulations "presets".  Each is applied differently.  Thanks

[Olaf_ZG]

@ejg1890i am on C1, bought the basic pack for the gfx, and the emulation packs for gfx, sl and now m10. 
I do like the results as said, but since I didn’t took the cameras out on the same shoot, I can’t compare if the look is the same.

[ALLinONE]

10 hours ago, ejg1890 said:

Did you also get the film simulations along with the basic pack? Wanted to learn if the film simulations are profiles or presets as the tutorial calls the film emulations "presets".  Each is applied differently.  Thanks

I have three emulation packages. These are not presets, but corrective LUTs superimposed on the base profile. But again, this is a low-quality product not worth the money. And I know what I say, as I have experience in building profiles.

[Olaf_ZG]

4 hours ago, ALLinONE said:

I have three emulation packages. These are not presets, but corrective LUTs superimposed on the base profile.

And that’s why they appeal to me. Being a LUT it leaves all other settings untouched and mine to adjust.

In the part I bought many presets, but since some years I came to appreciate LUTs. 

as the aim of a lut is to change the color, i don’t get why a lut is bad or good, one likes them or not, it is a matter of taste, not of quality.

I am also not sure if cobalt manages to equal portra or not. It is over 20 years that I shot the film. I do like the output of cobalt though. 

But, I bought them cause of the promise that output among cameras would be equal, and here I am curious will it be or not: this is what I expect: I have a shoot, using both my SL and GFX, same wb etc, upload images, run the profiles, adjust there where needed and I have a consistent set in tones and colors.

if cobalt delivers this, I am happy as they made their promise true. Time will learn.

that said, I dont have the knowledge nor the will to learn how to make profiles. That’s why I buy them. If one can do its own, I don’t understand why you buy them.

[Adam Bonn]

The Cobalt base profiles are .dcp files. The same type as adobe standard. Like adobe standard dcp files the Cobalt ones have the same ingredients (eg 2 color matrices, two forward matrices, two hue sat delta tables and a profile look up table)

Of course the actual values within the Cobalt profiles are different to the adobe profiles as the Cobalt ones were made by them, not by adobe

These profiles are technically superior than ones who could make yourself by using a colour chart and the free color checker software, however if you use something like Lumariver/dcamprof to make your profiles you'd be producing dcp profiles with the same content as adobe/Cobalt. (If you want to try this I recommend the user manual, it's not exactly a next, next, finish type process to design a profile)

The Cobalt emulation packs are xmp files ("adobe enhanced profiles"). Adobe has a whole SDK available if you want to make one for yourself. (You'll need a later version of PS)

Adobe already gives you (and will default too) it's own xmp files, they're called adobe color, adobe landscape, adobe portrait and probably some other ones as well. (I don't really care tbh. I make my own profiles)

The LUT within an xmp file is an RGB colour table (you can make one by converting a .cube file within PS) and it gives several advantages over the look up table (or LUT) found in a dcp file. Namely the ability to adjust along the neutral axis, with the dcp file you cannot tint the neutral axis or change its brightness - the xmp has no such limitations.

However.. an xmp file need not be all about the RGB colour table...

It can contain entries such as:

  crs:Exposure="+x"
   crs:Highlights="-x"
   crs:Shadows="+x"
   crs:Texture="+x"
   crs:Clarity="+x"
   crs:Dehaze="+x"
   crs:Vibrance="+x"
   crs:Saturation="-x"
   crs:HueAdjustmentOrange="+x"
   crs:HueAdjustmentGreen="+x"
   crs:HueAdjustmentAqua="+x"
   crs:HueAdjustmentBlue="+x"

So just like a regular preset an xmp file can contain instructions pertaining to clarity, hue, shadows, etc etc

It's true that an xmp file will leave your clarity, hue, shadows, etc etc on 'zero' but it is touching them under the hood

For my €0.02

if you have two shots of the same thing from camera A and B taken at the same time, then you won't really need a profile/preset to close the gap between them (eyeball it or PS/C1 users measure the colour space differences!!), but it can help save time.

If you have shots from camera A and some different shots from camera B and you want to match them up as if they were the same camera, then it's a success if you're happy, because that's not a very a scientific way of working... you can't really compare that shot you took of tower bridge in London in winter 2001 with your (say) M9 with the shot you took of tower bridge with your (say) M10R in summer 2021. That's a fools game IMO.... all you can do is edit your M10R shot to a place that you're happy to believe it could've been with an M9 (or whatever)

 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2022 by Adam Bonn

[Adam Bonn]

9 hours ago, Adam Bonn said:

London in winter 2001 with your (say) M9

Holy typo batman, I meant 2011 (you’d need a time machine to take an M9 anywhere in 2001 😂)

[Olaf_ZG]

@Adam Bonnthank you for the extensive explanation. Though I am on c1, I guess the logic is the same with adobe.

Cobalt provided me with to types of files: one as icc profile, one as preset. Never understood why. If someone from Cobalt is reading this, an explanation would be nice as most info is based towards adobe.

My need is really for different cameras on the same day/event. And though I could so it may be myself in post, I sincerely hope cobalt will match the outcome for me.

 I do enjoy processing images: one or two. When it is a bunch, I prefer to be quick as I don’t want to spend too much time behind a computer.

[Adam Bonn]

16 minutes ago, Olaf_ZG said:

@Adam Bonnthank you for the extensive explanation. Though I am on c1, I guess the logic is the same with adobe.

Cobalt provided me with to types of files: one as icc profile, one as preset. Never understood why. If someone from Cobalt is reading this, an explanation would be nice as most info is based towards adobe.

My need is really for different cameras on the same day/event. And though I could so it may be myself in post, I sincerely hope cobalt will match the outcome for me.

 I do enjoy processing images: one or two. When it is a bunch, I prefer to be quick as I don’t want to spend too much time behind a computer.

icc profiles work differently than dcp files. There's not the same limitations with their LUTs and they're not camera specific, which is why you can select any profile you like from the profile drop down menu in C1 (they work best for the camera that they're designed for though!)

It's a while since I half heartedly played at creating some icc files.. I seem to recall more than one LUT and three tone curves and a WB matrix... Mainly c1 one seems to work in LAB, but maybe they're some XYZ ones... but don't quote me on that!!

If you browse to the Cobalt C1 preset ("style" I guess?) and open it in a text editor you'll see what it does. (That's true of all presets and profiles tbh. dcp files you have to convert to a human readable format first such as json)

C1 has a far better colour management tools than LR and you can tweak existing C1 camera profiles and save them as a new icc (.icm) profile

Copying and pasting edits across same time and place photos is every digital photographer's friend.

 

 

[Dennis]

Interesting thread! I like the concept behind Cobalt Image, and maybe I will give it a try. I just have one doubt. For example, I like the Astia emulation, and my most used cameras are Nikon D5 and M10. To give them the Astia look on both cameras, do I need to buy two basic packs (one for each camera), plus the Fuji digital pack?

I probably have no interest in making multiple cameras look the same. First, I appreciate the different and (sometimes) unique output of each camera. Second, cause I usually don’t mix the cameras for the same application; it’s work, street photography, daily life, or projects/assignments. And depending on what it is about, I pick one body only and choose the proper output for that situation.

I used VSCO for a few years, but not professionally. I was just curious about the different emulations, and I tried for a while. Since then, I didn’t buy any presets. Just work with the basic Adobe standard or the camera profile, curves, and adjustments. The only presets I saved in LR are curves (a few custom standalone options) that work most of the time. So now, after a few years, and for the first time since I own a Leica, I would love to give it another try.
I’m just not sure if I “really” need more than one basic pack. I could try only the basic pack for my M10 and see how it works first, then add a pack later. I will see.
Did you all buy packs for more than one camera? Maybe you are trying to make all your Leica cameras look like the Sony A1 

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Olaf_ZG]

2 hours ago, Dennis said:

Did you all buy packs for more than one camera? Maybe you are trying to make all your Leica cameras look like the Sony A1 

 

 

 

Ha! May be, but as the only Sony I once had was a 10mp r1 I am not sure if I know how this would look like.

As I am on c1, i need to buy the packs individually for each camera. So far I bought for the gfx, sl and m10: the monochrome ccd and kodak portra packs. 
 

I am playing to do some long term projects, where I might use different cameras and I want to have a consistent look with a color which is too my liking.

 I am still not able to give a final judgement. At the other hand, for my m8 I managed to find great profiles based on LUTs from lutify.me: one for regular use, one for foliage and one for infrared….

[Adam Bonn]

6 hours ago, Dennis said:

To give them the Astia look on both cameras, do I need to buy two basic packs (one for each camera), plus the Fuji digital pack?

Exactly that.

Adobe works like this:

Camera specific base dcp file + generic style xmp file (eg adobe color/landscape/etc)

So Cobalt has to follow the same mechanism (much like every vehicle manufacturer has to make the wheels rotate)

Cobalt camera specific base dcp file +  generic style xmp file (eg CCD Fever/Astia/etc)

6 hours ago, Dennis said:

I probably have no interest in making multiple cameras look the same

That’s good because it’s basically impossible! An Elvis impersonator can sing an Elvis song but not write songs as if he was Elvis 😅

Generically speaking making camera A look like camera B involves making both cameras look like look C

6 hours ago, Dennis said:

I’m just not sure if I “really” need more than one basic pack. I could try only the basic pack for my M10 and see how it works first, then add a pack later

You need a basic Cobalt pack for each camera you want to use Cobalt profiles with.

Super briefly (cos I’m not convinced many of you care about all of this stuff)

adobe process =

1. Map camera RAW colour space from XYZ values of standard illuminants (eg cloudy and tungsten)

2. Chromatically adapt cloudy and tungsten  light to XYZ D50 light (natural sunshine)

3. Apply a pleasing profile look via a look up table, that also serves to (vaguely) harmonise the look across multiple cameras

Cobalt process =

1. Map camera RAW colour space from XYZ values of standard illuminants (eg cloudy and tungsten)

2. Chromatically adapt cloudy and tungsten  light to XYZ D50 light (natural sunshine)

3. Apply a pleasing profile look via a look up table, that also serves to harmonise the look (you MIGHT find the match vague) across multiple cameras

A profile is a set of compromises.

Sometimes erm lots of times a spot on match with one colour too much messes up with another. The look up table is also a matter of taste.

So liking one profile more than another is somewhat subjective and subject dependant.

I like Cobalt’s base M10 profile more than adobe’s, but less than mine… but then I would say that wouldn’t I! 😇

Seriously though, it’s not that my profile is better than Cobalt’s, it’s just that it’s made by me with me in mind, tailored to my exact camera and the things I shoot with a look up table that makes subjective adjustments I find pleasing.

Someone else could (and would) hate my profile.

And that’s the rub in buying profiles and presets. Maybes you love ‘em maybes you don’t.