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

[Guest Nowhereman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

M10 | DR Summicron 50 | ISO 200 | f/5.6 | 1/1000 | Cobalt Standard

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!

________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

[pedaes]

I have been remiss in not posting that I found one image that I had processed in LrC considerably enhanced by the Cobalt M10 Profile, which brought the reds nicely into the correct shades. Yet on other images there is undetectable difference. Fun experimenting!

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

29 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

M10 | DR Summicron 50 | ISO 200 | f/5.6 | 1/1000 | Cobalt Standard

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!

________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

The color/saturation/contrast looks very different on my phone screen depending if I click to view (I prefer the unclicked, more subdued rendering).  I’m sure it would look different, too, on my calibrated desktop monitor, and probably different still on my laptop. And no way for you or others to know what I’m seeing on my screen(s). 
 

For me, only the print matters anyway, and that involves many more variables dealing with ink, papers, paper profiles, display lighting, etc.  
 

The only thing that matters is whether you’re happy with whatever workflow and output you use.  
 

Jeff

[Guest Nowhereman]

4 hours ago, Jeff S said:

...The only thing that matters is whether you’re happy with whatever workflow and output you use.

No, that is clearly not the only thing that matters for the purposes of this thread. First, presets/profiles, as plugins for Lightroom, cannot be tried out like other software because they are usually not available in trial versions because they are difficult(?) or impractical to copy-protect. VSCO, presumably because there was so much pirating, quit selling the computer versions of its presets and continued only with the smartphone ones which, were in any case, a larger market. Second, reliable evaluations of presets/profiles are difficult to come by as most online reviews, with a few exceptions, have been written by shills for the developer. 

I doubt that someone seriously interested in deciding whether to buy Cobalt-Imaging profiles and emulations is going to decide on the basis of what they see online on an un-profiled monitor or on a smart-phone screen. So, I see little point in your statements in the first paragraph of your post; nor in the (perennial) point you make about printing. 

The display of images on LUF is not as accurate as a JPG file out of Lightroom — a point that @Steven has made convincingly some time ago. Ironically, images are represented more accurately on the Fred Miranda forum, from where I linked the Cobalt-Image thread. That is also why I added the point of clicking on the images here to see a better version.
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

[Jeff S]

12 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

That is also why I added the point of clicking on the images here to see a better version.
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

 Worse version to me, as noted above.  I agree with your first sentence in the second paragraph.  So, in turn, I see little point in posting pics.  But we're each entitled to an opinion.  Hardly matters if you don't like mine. There is an ignore button.

Jeff

 

[Cobram]

17 hours ago, Nowhereman said:

M10 | DR Summicron 50 | ISO 200 | f/4 | 1/1000 | Cobalt Kodak Porta 400 (Linear)

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!

________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

Great rendering. Thank you for posting these examples. Keep posting. Kodak profiles seems interesting.

 

Edited July 27, 2021 by Cobram

[Guest Nowhereman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Unfortunately, I don't have any new images and am getting tired of reprocessing old ones, without any purpose except to get some experience in using the Cobalt profiles. Here is an image that I posted some time ago. The colors in the earlier one were warmer.

M10 | DR Summicron 50 | ISO 1600 | f/4 | 1/60 sec | Cobalt Kodak Porta 800 (Linear) | Chiang Mai

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!

________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

[250swb]

On 7/26/2021 at 6:34 PM, Nowhereman said:

That is also why I added the point of clicking on the images here to see a better version.
 

FWIW I can't see any difference in colour fidelity and tone clicking between the forum version and the 'improved' version on my monitor so I wouldn't worry about what Jeff S says, likewise if I look at it on my iPad. The last one with the Portra 800 emulation looks particularly good so I'm glad the discussion has moved beyond Kodachrome.

[Guest Nowhereman]

Another image for which the Basic DNG profile was sufficient, in this case Cobalt Repro. I tried the Cobalt Kodak 800 emulation, but preferred this.

M10  | DR Summicron 50 | ISO 800 | f/2.8 | 1/125 sec | Cobalt Repro | Tokyo

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!

________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

[otto.f]

On 7/27/2021 at 9:02 PM, Nowhereman said:

Cobalt Kodak Porta 800 (Linear) |

Convincing development, not so much as a perfect emulation of Portra 800, I can’t judge that so much, but as a filmish look, like a movie from the 80’s 👍🏼

[Guest Nowhereman]

@otto.f - After looking into all this and trying out various ways of processing color images, I've gone back to looking at all film emulations as a starting point for further processing, and to thinking about the film name used as a mnemonic that gives an indication of a type of look. If you're after a real film look you have to shoot film but, in a hybrid workflow, you may still be off what you're looking for depending how skillfully the film is digitalized. 

As noted earlier, with the Cobalt profiles, I've found that most of the time I ended up using the Basic DNG profiles and using the film emulations in the Kodak Films Pack less. However, for the image below I used the Cobalt Kodak Portra 800 (Linear) emulation and found that the Color Repro Profile didn't work quite as well in this case; but it could probably produce the same look, although with substantially more effort. Generally, I've always liked (real) Portra 800 film and, interestingly, I've often found that I preferred Portra 800 emulations among the various emulations I've tried — The VSCO Portra 800 in the Push & Pull package and the Portra 800 Push 2 in the Kodak Films package by The Archetype Process.

M10 | DR Summicron 50 | ISO 3200 | f/4 | 1/2000 sec | Cobalt Kodak Portra 800 (Linear) | 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!

________________________
Frog Leaping photobook Edited July 28, 2021 by Nowhereman

[Guest Nowhereman]

Here are a few more M10 photos that I've reprocessed using the Cobalt-Image profiles and posted recently on LUF. The profiles I used are indicated below.

Cobalt Repro

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!

Cobalt Repro

Cobalt Portra 800 (Linear)

Cobalt Portra 800 (Linear)

Cobalt Portra 800 (Linear)

Cobalt Repro

Cobalt Neutral

Cobalt Repro

Cobalt Portra 800 (Linear)_______________________________________
Frog Leaping photobook and Instagram

 

Edited August 10, 2021 by Nowhereman

[SrMi]

On 8/10/2021 at 8:21 AM, Nowhereman said:

Here are a few more M10 photos that I've reprocessed using the Cobalt-Image profiles and posted recently on LUF. The profiles I used are indicated below.

Cobalt Repro
 

<snip>

 

Cobalt Repro is a linear profile. There has been an increased interest in using it as the first step in processing.

Tony Kuyper has a nice writeup about using linear profiles (and a repository of linear profiles):

The Linear Profile: A new beginning in Lightroom and Camera Raw

 

Edited August 16, 2021 by SrMi

[Stuart Richardson]

I figured I would just chime in and say that I got the standard profiles for the Leica S3. I used the S006 for years and loved the color (primarily with a custom profiling), but when I got the S3 I did not like the Adobe Color profile at all, as it seemed to be "graded", rather than neutral. It has what feels like clarity applied, as well as tweaks to shadow saturation and highlight gradation. Basically, to my eyes it is a mess. Custom profiles I made help, but then the shadows show magenta casts and certain extreme tones have weird gamut issues. I think that is a limitation imposed by my use of amateur profiling equipment (color checker passport etc). Adobe now seems to be tying certain noise reduction to their profiles, or at least correcting for more than just colors. C1's profiles are better, and in general the camera looks better in C1 than Lightroom, but I am tied to lightroom for work/workflow reasons.

So. I bought the Cobalt profiles, and I think the starting point is significantly nicer than Adobe. The files are not as saturated, and the colors are more natural. When pushed, the shadows hold up better than my custom profiles did, and in line with Adobe, but without the strange adobe grading. Greens in particular look better, where they were often bordering on brown with the Adobe profiles. All in all, I think these are a helpful addition, and the price of entry was not significant to me in relation to the time saved. I am still not sure about the repro profile...I had hoped that would be the true neutral that I was looking for, but it presents as at least a stop and a half underexposed, so I am not sure what is up with that. I will say however, that even if what I am describing sounds like a massive difference, it is not. It is subtle, but to me quite important. I found that it was difficult to undo what Abobe had wrought with their weird profile...hard to walk back the gradation changes and seemingly tone and shade specific saturation adjustments. The Cobalt profile seems to bring me back to a nice neutral, which is much more desirable than the solution adobe provided for the camera.

 

Edited August 20, 2021 by Stuart Richardson

[Guest Nowhereman]

@Stuart Richardson - Thanks for chiming in on this. As I haven't wanted to get into making profiles myself, I'm glad to to hear that you prefer the Cobalt ones to the custom ones you've made yourself — and this was something that I wanted to know.

Like you, I was also wondering why the Cobalt Repro looks about 1½ stops underexposed. Do you know the Raw Photo Processor (RPP)? It's a free raw developer that is reputed to have accurate colors which, like Cobalt Repro, starts with a linear curve. The RPP manual explains that images opened in RPP look hugely underexposed "Because they really are underexposed. By default RPP shows images as they captured by your camera in Raw with only essential tonal range adjustments. They may therefore look darker than you expect. Usually this happens because your camera’s light meter is calibrated to some low gray point value by the camera vendor. Most (if not all) modern DSLR cameras do this to preserve more highlights, and most other converters quietly apply compensation to your image to correct that."

Now, my feeling is that the Cobalt Repro profile is doing the same thing as RPP, in order to achieve the most accurate color as a starting point for processing. Incidentally, the user interface in RPP is something only an IT professional can love: no sliders, it requires numerical inputs — a method that one can learn with practice but that is impractical if you want to use RPP only occasionally. With Cobalt Repro, I have the feeling that I'm getting much of the accuracy of RPP and the ability to work directly on Lightroom.
_______________________________________
Frog Leaping photobook and Instagram

[Stuart Richardson]

Thanks Mitch. That makes sense, and in reading a bit about linear profiles, it makes more sense. I have used RPP, mostly to rescue otherwise very challenging negatives. I found it useful for situations where gamut clipping causes harsh tonal transitions, or when a different method of bayer dematrixing might remove a bothersome noise pattern or moire etc. But like you I found it too complicated and ergonomically difficult to bother with. It is a program of last resort for me. To be honest, even C1 feels like that to me. As much as I am not a fan of a number of Adobe's corporate practices and some of their decisions regarding processing, I find that Lightroom and Photoshop are still light years ahead of the other companies in terms of workflow. Since I manage my business through Lightroom as well, using another processor just because it has slightly better results is impractical. I am glad that these profiles can adjust the baseline colors while still providing the same quality of noise handling etc.

As for custom profiles, I have made a lot of them over the years, but I am not an expert. I think in order to make truly high quality profiles you need to do more than just photograph charts in the right lighting. I noticed in my custom profiles for my printing business that I was unable to achieve the same DMax using the i1 Pro2 that the printer could do when printing using AdobeRGB simulation. This was particularly true for matte papers. What I suspect is the issue is flare or reflectivity from the lamp in the spectrophotometer. When reading the darkest patches, the light shining off the patch to make it readable artificially brightens the density value, so when the profile is generated, that black reads as greyer than it actually is. It is quite visible even in the gamut plots that you can look at in ColorSync. I think the true profiling professionals have access to equipment to account for this, or at least have the knowledge to go into the profiles and manually adjust for this. At this stage, I find that often just converting to Adobe RGB in photoshop and printing as AdobeRGB in the printer yields the best results...I am not alone in this...Ctein was the one who put me onto it in the first place. So in this context, I find it useful to have custom profiles in certain situations, but I think they are best left to people who truly, truly know the science behind it.

[Guest Nowhereman]

@Stuart Richardson - About custom profiles being " best left to people who truly, truly know the science behind it": that was my intuitive reason for not trying to make profiles myself — that, and the feeling there is already enough effort in just post-processing and wanting to provide the most time possible for just going out to shoot.

In your first post above you stated that the difference between a Cobalt profile and one from Adobe "is subtle, but to me quite important". That is also my feeling — for the bulk of images. However, for images with either difficult light (strong backlight) or difficult  colors (combinations of saturated reds and yellows, for example), the difference becomes compelling. In my post #92 above, all the images are ones that I've never succeeded in processing in color using the Adobe profiles. 

Indeed, my view on which of the Cobalt profiles to use is skewed by the fact that I've used them mainly to reprocess images that previously I completed only in B&W. Therefore, I've mainly been using the Cobalt Repro profile, which I feel has the most accurate colors: although it requires a bit more work, Cobalt Repro gives the best results with these difficult images. For less challenging files I try Cobalt Standard for files where skin tones are most important, otherwise I try Cobalt Neutral — if these don't get good results, I go to Cobalt Repro.

I also have the the Cobalt Kodak Film emulation pack, of which so far I've mainly used the Kodak Portra 800 (Linear) profile. Again, I'm mainly using the Linear because I've been working on difficult images. Sometimes, I get slightly better results with the Kodak Portra 800 (Linear) than with Cobalt Repro, sometimes it's the other way round. Often, if i use Kodak Portra 800 (Linear), I have to remove some orange from skin tones using the Lightroom HSL tools. On a few images, with easy light and colors, I've used Kodak Portra 800 (Standard). 

I haven't been attracted to the Ektar and Ektachrome profiles in the Kodak Film Pack because the Black and White points of these profiles are brought in quite a bit from the edges and "baked" into the profiles, so that the sliders can't be brought out. I've corresponded on this point with Guiseppe ("Ulysseita") of Cobalt-Image, who told me that they are aware of this issue and will probably issue an update to these profiles.  

Below are two more images on which I previously had not been able to achieve the color that I wanted. The first one worked better in Kodak Portra 800 (Linear) and the second one in Cobalt Repro. Also, the first image indicates the importance of getting the white balance where you want it: I like the cool colors in the image below, but in another context, if it were not a stand-alone image,  I might want warmer colors.

M10 | Summaron-M 1:5.6/28 | ISO 6400 | f/5.6 | 1/180 sec | Bangkok | Kodak Portra 800 (Linear)

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 | Summicron 35v4 | ISO 200 | f/4 | 1/45 sec | Chiang Mai | Cobalt Repro

_______________________________________
Frog Leaping photobook and Instagram

[Guest Nowhereman]

I was hoping that some of the people who bought Cobalt-Image profiles would post images that they feel benefitted from these profiles — or that have not. Almost all the images I've posted in this thread are ones that I previously used only in B&W because it was difficult to get the colors that I wanted without the Cobalt profiles. I like the colors in the image below a bit better than in the non-Cobalt version that I used previously.

M10 | Summilux 35 FLE | ISO 3200 | f/1.4 | 1/125 sec | Cobalt Standard | Paris

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!

 _______________________________________
Frog Leaping photobook and Instagram

[jankap]

I did not know RPP. I´ll give it a try. The last version is of 2014, so ...................

Edited August 31, 2021 by jankap

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest Nowhereman]

@jankap - The 64-bit version of RPP works with the M10 and, on the Mac, with Mojave and probably with the latest operating systems as well.
_______________________________________
Frog Leaping photobook and Instagram