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

[Ouroboros]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 6/12/2021 at 6:28 PM, Nowhereman said:

....Some photographers use the Cobalt camera emulations for achieving essentially the same look from two different cameras: say, you have a Sony and a Fujifilm camera and want to have the Fujifilm colors from both cameras — as well as the various JPG film simulations that the Fujifilm digital cameras are famous for. 

 

I use Nikon and Fuji X cameras for my wedding photography.  They each have a specific use for specific aspects of the event; ie formal bride and groom portraits, family groups, bridal party photographs etc are taken with Nikon dslr's.  I use Fuji X for less formal shooting during the day, such as the ceremony (the cameras are small, silent and I never use flash) and documentary and informal photographs of the guests etc where perfect colour matching is not critical.

Possibly it's just me, I doubt it, however, but I can't think of a situation where I would use two different cameras from the same manufacturer (current vs obsolete, FX vs DX etc), let alone two or more completely different camera systems from different manufacturers for commissioned work (weddings are but one example) where consistency is paramount. 

Having waded through the FM thread, and actually finding it mostly pretentious or boring, I take the developer's claims that Cobalt is a solution for 'Pros'  with a pinch of salt. 

It seems to me that they have identified a potential niche that other plug-in developers haven't previously thought of, namely that we (pros!) need a silver bullet for consistency across camera platforms, which presumably is intended to add some credibility to their product. 

That apart, I see nothing in the split 'before and after' comparisons on the Cobalt website that cannot be done with ease in pp by a competent operator, despite the relevance of the underlying colour science. The landscape image and the soldier in dress uniform (look at his skin colour!) on the website, as examples, have no merit at all post Cobalt

I would agree the profiles potentially give some pleasing alternative starting points and as an asset for a competent retoucher, there may be a case in favour of Cobalt as long as a Silver Bullet and the cost isn't a consideration.   The problem I have with this thread after looking at many of the images on the FM thread and the OP's images here, I think there is a whiff of The Emperor's New Clothes involved.

Time and money is always better spent learning post processing thoroughly first.

 

[jankap]

Agree, it is a standardization procedure. Not more, but let the semi-pros test it here first.

They have found an interesting market gap. Not bad in my eyes.

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest Nowhereman]

2 hours ago, Ouroboros said:

...Having waded through the FM thread, and actually finding it mostly pretentious or boring, I take the developer's claims that Cobalt is a solution for 'Pros'  with a pinch of salt... 

Of course this is a matter of taste, but I take your "pretentious and boring" as reflexive in meaning. Takes all kinds...
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

[Ouroboros]

18 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

Of course this is a matter of taste, but I take your "pretentious and boring" as reflexive in meaning. Takes all kinds...
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

As you clearly demonstrate.

 

[jankap]

It is a standardization procedure. So the colors, that you camera produces, are translated into those of another camera/sensor/film. With this result - for instance Kodachrome - you can edit the picture according to what you like to have it.

So you have CaNiSony camera, with the right Cobalt profile you change the picture into one, that could have come out of an M9. The rest is up to you: contrast, brightness, exposure, but also changing colors.

 

[Adam Bonn]

It's always interesting when something new that's a new way of doing something old comes to the market

From their website

 

Quote

Our Method

-600 samples tested (Xryte SG has 140 samples )
-two main illuminants d65 and StdA (DNG standard)
-different transformation than the Bradford model used by Adobe for the d50 calculation.
-for DNG the internal forward matrix is limited in the Prophoto/ Human Locus in order to avoid posterizations.
-Looktables and ICC (C1) are adjusted to be relative to any different contrast curve.
-CIECAM02 is the transformation model (better tonal separation)
-main colorimetric stadium is proprietary, to build profiles we use DcamProf.

 

Personally I've a few questions about their blurb/spiel that no doubt my lack of knowledge of such things forces my mind to ask

So if the X-Rite SG has 140 patches they made one with 600?

The DNG spec specifies a Bradford CAT. Perhaps they're using Von Kries then? (Or XYZ scaling but I doubt that...) Or using a product such as Lumariver or dcamprof that curtails the FMs only to use the hue sat deltas and LUT to bring the colour back up. (Actually come to think of it, adobe AFAIK seem do a very similar thing with their modern DCPs)

A limited forward matrix suggests they've using a product such as Lumariver or dcamprof which (advertises that it) behaves in this regard

AFAIK Adobe in their modern DCPs use the LUT to perform tone curve type duties, but Lumariver or dcamprof also does this AKAIK

Ahhh yes dcamprof. This is a free download (or a paid for version with GUI called Lumariver)

By many (but not all) accounts you can achieve special things with profiling in Lumariver or dcamprof.

Seems like these folks have worked out a bunch of profiles using the tools developed by Anders Torger.

Of course Anders Torger makes these tools available FOC (in dcamprof), but one would need some idea of how to use them... 

..........................

 

Things like this, IMO

Either one is happy with the profile that the RAW convertor uses, or one buys profiles from a 3rd party or one makes ones own.

There's no wrong answer

Full disclosure: I'm sometimes happy with the RAW convertor profile, I've paid for profiles from 3rd parties and I've made my own using tools such as x-rite, adobe dng editor, dcamprof, and lumariver.

I've never really managed a one size fits all profile, but like I said I do have a lack of knowledge of such things

 

 

 

 

[pedaes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Adam Bonn said:

that's a new way of doing something old comes to the market

Agree. I think the title of the thread is a bit over ambitious - 'superb new' is a bit OTT, and starting "Camera...'' would be more honest.

[Guest Nowhereman]

On 6/19/2021 at 1:46 PM, pedaes said:

Agree. I think the title of the thread is a bit over ambitious - 'superb new' is a bit OTT, and starting "Camera...'' would be more honest.

I don't think that I have been dishonest: I feel that the Cobalt profiles for the M10 that I bought are, indeed, superb: "superb" defined in the sense of being more accurate than the Adobe or embedded Leica profiles, so that I don't feel that I would get better results by getting custom profiles made or by learning how to make my own custom profiles.

On @Adam Bonn's post, I doubt that the developers would state they used 600 samples (against Xryte SG's 140 samples) if they didn't do so — since this is the basis for their claim of greater accuracy. And, anyone who doubts that can ask the developer this question on the Fred Miranda thread that I linked earlier, since "Ulyssesita" has been forthcoming in responding to questions posted there.

I have continued to reprocess some of my M10 shots on the basis of the Cobalt profiles. As stated earlier, I haven't yet tried any of the film or camera emulations, of which more examples have been added to the Fred Miranda Forum thread. Someone who has used some of the Cobalt-Image emulations was going to post here some examples and comparisons, but has been delayed by the Australian Covid lockdown that has just been announced — he'll do so once it's feasible for him to go out and make the photographs necessary for this.

Below are images that I've reprocessed with the Cobalt Standard (first image) and the Cobalt Neutral (second image) profiles. The second one is quite close to the Adobe Color profile, with the crucial difference that the blues are more accurate — that day was quite blue, just after a storm.

M10 | DR Summicron 50 | ISO 200 | f/2.0 | 1/750 sec | Bangkok

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!

M10 | Summaron-M 1:5.6/28 | ISO 200 | f/5.6 | 1/125 sec | Turks & Caicos________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

Edited June 26, 2021 by Nowhereman

[pedaes]

1 hour ago, Nowhereman said:

I don't think that I have been dishonest:

I didn't mean to suggest you were dishonest in the literal sense, as the opposite of honest! Please accept my appologies if you thought I did.

I bought this package based on your review and the review on F&M, using the discount code that was given there. Yes, if you flick between  Adobe Color and Cobalt M10 profiles you can see a slight difference in favour of Cobalt. However, I personally would not be satisfied to leave the image there and would apply further adjustments in Lightroom. The adjustments needed to match the Cobalt profile are minimal (the "Auto' adjustment option in Lightroom is based on thousands of images processed  by Jeff Schewe), so for me it is easier to work from the Adobe Color profile, which is why I would challenge 'superb'.  I appreciate we all have different workflows and needs, but as an amateur working on a 27" monitor time is not of the essence for me.

Like you, I will 'play' further with the Cobalt package, and also sense there will be improvements through updates over time, as the developers seem very committed.

Edited June 26, 2021 by pedaes

[Guest Nowhereman]

1 hour ago, pedaes said:

...Yes, if you flick between  Adobe Color and Cobalt M10 profiles you can see a slight difference in favour of Cobalt. However, I personally would not be satisfied to leave the image there and would apply further adjustments in Lightroom...

I agree with you that the difference between the Adobe and Cobalt profiles are slight for most images; but for images that have certain colors in predominance, such as saturated reds and yellows in the same image, the difference can be huge — and these are the types of images for which the greater accuracy of the the Cobalt images are an advantage, because these are images that are particularly difficult to process.

I also agree that the images to which only a basic profile has been applied always require further processing. But here is where the Cobalt film and camera emulations can be most interesting, in that some of these packages may make it possible to achieve a finished photo with just a few clicks. We'll see.

I intend to buy the Kodak film emulation package some time after it comes out and possibly the Kodachrome package as well. I'm in no hurry while activity is limited by Covid, because I'd rather try this  this on new photos than on ones that I've already processed to my satisfaction some time ago.

In the meantime, we'll probably see some examples here of some of the film and camera emulations from our friend in Oz, once the lockdown there is over. Stay tuned...
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

[otto.f]

I find your argumentation convincing, in the sense that you point at the essential problem since Leica stepped over to CMOS, but neither of the shown examples in this thread are convincing in that sence. Indeed I find that about 80% of the M10 files go well in LR or C1, so a solution for the rest, where indeed oversaturated yellow is impossible to correct in these programs, is what’s needed. The lady in #28 however is not convincing, too magenta, and the second image in that post is flat (or too cyan). Maybe the promised Kodachrome profile could solve that: what we need is neutrality without flatness. 

Edited June 26, 2021 by otto.f

[Adam Bonn]

3 hours ago, Nowhereman said:

On @Adam Bonn's post, I doubt that the developers would state they used 600 samples (against Xryte SG's 140 samples) if they didn't do so — since this is the basis for their claim of greater accuracy. And, anyone who doubts that can ask the developer this question on the Fred Miranda thread that I linked earlier, since "Ulyssesita" has been forthcoming in responding to questions posted there.

I'm sceptical they have a 600 patch color checker, if they say they looked at 600 sample photos, then who is anyone to doubt them...

(That said Capture Ones state that their lens profiles are developed using xxxx samples -I can't remember the number , it's like 200 or something- and I'm not sceptical about that... but then again their Summarit 35 profile doesn't fix the highly visible distortion -Adobe's does- so I'm a little sceptical that anyone actually looked at those xxxx samples 😅) 

All profiles/presets/etc are usually starting points... occasionally they're not and the picture looks reasonable enough as a SOOC dng or SOOC RAW plus a preset/profile...

For my €0.02 (worth far less, no refunds!!) 

Things run smoother when one has a quite clear idea of the look one wishes to achieve &/or correct an issue one has with the incumbent solution offered by the RAW software you're using.

Notions such as accurate, M9-a-like, CCD-look, nice colours, great skin tones, pleasing contrast etc are far more in the eye of the beholder than they are the coding of the developer...

I like to think I know a teeny-tiny bit about how DCP profiles work...

Ideally you start with correctly derived color matrices for the standard illuminants. These matrices really do need forward matrices (as per the DNG spec) to function to their best.

After this you get into Hue Sat Deltas, a LUT and possibly embedded tone curves.

Those last things can add value, but after the matrices (which deliver specific values against known light sources) everything else amounts too what someone thinks it should look like 

There's no shame in using presets/profiles etc that others have developed, but like size medium in T-Shirts, it ain't gonna fit everyone...

Personally as someone who owns preset packs and some profiles made by others, and also someone who's made his own profiles (in both LR and C1), I find in comparisons with my own xxx sample images that it's win some/lose some (as it always is when you make enough comparisons between 2 things that do the same job)

So much of how the image looks is subjective** to the 'tog or the viewer (or the subject) that IMHO it's tricky to label anything as superb instead merely superb to my (sic) tastes

For example

1 hour ago, otto.f said:

in the sense that you point at the essential problem since Leica stepped over to CMOS,

So what's going to happen now Otto has said this (a statement that he's perfectly entitled too) is that sooner or later someone will be along linking that Farkas article about CMOS vs CCD, because for them, as far as they're concerned the Farkas preset makes 240 CMOS look exactly like M9 CCD.

So I feel that's a classic (and enduring) case of what I'm talking about... The M9 look from CMOS. Some feel Farkas cracked it... some feel the M9 can never be matched, and now Cobalt say they've cracked it.

That's a bold claim (much like superb).... and one my spidey sense tells me won't pass muster with everyone...

===================

**Except fashion/product etc - but then you've probably got a well dialled in camera/lights system and aren't really buying subjective look profiles off of the internet if you shoot that...

 

[Crem]

The Kodak Film pack is for sale. I just purchased it and I'm liking the results. They have a new "silver" pack to emulate B&W film coming out in a few weeks. Supposedly HP5 and a bunch of others.

Edited June 29, 2021 by Crem

[erudolph]

FWIW, there is now a Base Profile for the CL

[Simone_DF]

Just purchased the SL2s and Kodachrome profiles. I do like them so far.

[Guest Nowhereman]

1 hour ago, Simone_DF said:

Just purchased the SL2s and Kodachrome profiles. I do like them so far.

Can you post some of the images processed with these profiles?

I intend to get the new Kodak film emulation package and am thinking about the Kodachrome one. However, I'm holding off until I finish some work on a book that I'm helping someone with as, if I get the emulations now, I'll be sidetracked.
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

[Simone_DF]

13 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

Can you post some of the images processed with these profiles?

Sure, here's one.

0 post processing except some cropping.

Adobe on the left, Kodachrome on the right. No other setting touched.

Profile set to 100 (default)

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 July 5, 2021 by Simone_DF

[Guest Nowhereman]

13 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

Sure, here's one...

Thanks. Not bad for no processing at all. 
Have you figured which of the Cobalt Kodachrome versions you like?

[Simone_DF]

12 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

Thanks. Not bad for no processing at all. 
Have you figured which of the Cobalt Kodachrome versions you like?

The Last Roll Dark (light), same I used for the photo above.

The Haas is interesting too, I may use it for an image or two.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest Nowhereman]

I read in the Fred Miranda thread that Cobalt-Image has introduced on the Kodak Films emulation package, its newest film emulations, three different curves to enhance flexibility:
Linear (linear information from the sensor with film emulation applied)
Flat (base exposure curve, no contrast added)
Standard (full exposure curve and contrast added)

I assume they will add these new curves to the Kodachrome and Fuji packages as well.
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook