Images very different JPG vs Lightroom "Embedded profile" DNG

[Patrick NL]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm struggling with what Lightroom makes of my Q3 DNG files. The images by itself look very, very nice, but for example blues are not what the JPG file shows. On a regular bases I shoot the Q3 with my Nikon Zf with another prime on it (Z85/1.8S, Z50/1.8S, etc.). The images these cameras produce are so different that I cannot really combine them in a single post. The JPG files the Q3 produces are far more in line with the Nikon. Besides difference in colors, also the amount of red in the images is very different, the saturation is also much more in Lr.

What are your experiences? I do like the images the Q3 produces, but I would like to have a simple way to process my DNG files to make them more "normal" looking. I tried making a new profile, but have not succeeded.

[Advertisement]

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

[elmars]

This is an Adobe problem, because Adobe produces the Adobe Standard profile. You can only solve this with your own profile or with a preset. However, it is very difficult to create a preset that makes the DNG look like the JPG created in the camera. That's why I suggested to Leica back in the days of the M9 that they should offer such presets for Lightroom or have the camera write them directly into the DNG. This is possible, as you can see from the tints of the M11 monochrome or the perspective corrections in all M11 cameras. As far as I know, Leica is also working on such solutions for other settings, but I think a lot of labour capacity has been tied up by the freeze problem. So it will probably take some time.

[Stuart Richardson]

You could try Cobalt Image. They sell very good profiles. You could get them for the Nikon as well and it should help everything hold together well. You should also see if changing the profile to Adobe Standard helps. The default profile is Adobe Color which has more of a contrasty and saturated look than the old baseline, Adobe Standard, which was more neutral. I usually prefer Adobe Standard myself. In general, Adobe has quite cyan skies and reds that are a bit off to my eyes. I think Cobalt does a better job, though the differences can be pretty subtle at times.

[pacnwleica]

13 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

You could try Cobalt Image. They sell very good profiles. You could get them for the Nikon as well and it should help everything hold together well. You should also see if changing the profile to Adobe Standard helps. The default profile is Adobe Color which has more of a contrasty and saturated look than the old baseline, Adobe Standard, which was more neutral. I usually prefer Adobe Standard myself. In general, Adobe has quite cyan skies and reds that are a bit off to my eyes. I think Cobalt does a better job, though the differences can be pretty subtle at times.

This is very interesting, I must do more research on Cobalt Image, thanks for sharing

[Rhyser]

On 4/13/2025 at 5:42 AM, Patrick NL said:

I'm struggling with what Lightroom makes of my Q3 DNG files

I’ve also been struggling.  I have a bit of red-green colorblindness and have used a ‘focus group’ of friends and family to compare different Lightroom profiles against real life.  I’ve found that different profiles are better with different colors and subjects.  YMMV, but I’ve found that the Leica ‘Embedded’ profile does the most accurate job with blue.  Adobe Standard does the best job with reds and the portrait profile from Color Fidelity (https://www.colorfidelity.com/leica.htm) does the best job with skin tones.

I’ve had my Q3 43 for a little over three months, but I’ve never shot jpeg.  Your topic prompted me to do so.  I guess I assumed that the embedded profile would produce a result very close to the Leica Standard jpeg.  Found that was not the case as the jpeg was a bit washed out compared to the embedded.  So what the heck is this embedded profile anyway?  Does anyone know if Leica has ever provided any explanation or comment on the intended use of this profile?  Doesn’t really matter in the end.  I use the embedded profile  as the starting point for 90% of my shots and am very satisfied with the results.

BTW, I also compared the colors from my GR IIIx using the Ricoh Standard profile.  The Ricoh images were most similar to the Leica ‘embedded’.

[Patrick NL]

Thanks for the reactions so far!

I want to express that I really like the embedded profile. It is a very nice look. Maybe I should try using the profile with my Nikon files too. 😁

[Tarekith]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What are people referring to when they say “embedded profile”?  You mean the camera matching option in Lightroom?  I thought that was still an Adobe creation?

[Rhyser]

What I’m referring to as the embedded profile is discussed here : https://www.tamasdragon.photography/blog/how-to-get-the-correct-leica-q3-profile-in-lightroom

[Patrick NL]

I've been trying a lot lately, and the Adobe profiles work well enough and are a good basis to start from. Until now I'm most pleased with Adobe Landscape, Vivid and Color.

[Le Chef]

I don’t understand the issue. The whole point of post is to adjust images to something that suits what you want, not what Leica or Nikon think you should have. What does YOUR eye tell you? Then adjust accordingly.