Adobe Adaptive Profiles - experience?

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been aware of Adaptive Profiles in Lightroom for some time, but have only occasionally tried them to see what happens. I have otherwise stuck to Adobe Standard in my Import Preset, or Adobe Monochrome; these are my starting points for further editing (all my DNG images are subject to further editing).

Does anyone here use them all the time? In your Import Preset? Are there pitfalls in their use? Do they produce images that revert to a standardised impersonal 'look' (iPhone perfection), or are they just useful ways to produce a starting point that you can then edit further to achieve your goal for that image?

[Advertisement]

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

[graphlex]

I’ve found them useful for underexposed images and not much else. On M11. 

[SrMi]

I have been using Adaptove Color/B&W but then stopped. After import, I often apply either Auto or Adaptive Color/B&W to all imported images (equalize brightness for review). Adaptive profiles are slower, and I dislike not being able to see what adjustments were made. Once I have my selection, I may revert or modify what Adaptive Profiles or Auto settings have selected.

[LocalHero1953]

7 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I have been using Adaptove Color/B&W but then stopped. After import, I often apply either Auto or Adaptive Color/B&W to all imported images (equalize brightness for review). Adaptive profiles are slower, and I dislike not being able to see what adjustments were made. Once I have my selection, I may revert or modify what Adaptive Profiles or Auto settings have selected.

Thanks. When you write "Adaptive profiles are slower", do you mean they make LR run slower?
I tried Adaptive Color on a large batch of images, and I found it slow moving from image to image for culling. 

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Thanks. When you write "Adaptive profiles are slower", do you mean they make LR run slower?
I tried Adaptive Color on a large batch of images, and I found it slow moving from image to image for culling. 

It takes more time to apply Adaptive Color to a number of images than applying Auto to those images.

 

[LocalHero1953]

A limited report back. I photographed a play rehearsal on Sunday, ending up with a bit short of 1000 images*, which were imported with the Adobe Standard profile applied. After culling to about 400 I ran batch editing. Normally this would be Auto tone, AI Denoise and a simple custom preset (clarity, tone curve, sharpening, vignette etc). This time I set the profile to Adaptive Color and omitted Auto tone. (These are just the preliminary steps before I adjust tone, crop etc for each photo individually).

Adaptive Color did a reasonable job of tone adjustment, but not better than Auto tone. As I worked through the images, though, I could see that skin tones were poor: colour too saturated, a bit too orange, and too contrasty. After comparing a few images with both processes, I switched them all back to Adobe Standard and Auto tone. I also got the impression that stepping from image to image was slower: perhaps the profile and preview had to be reanalysed each time.

I am sure Adobe will continue to develop adaptive profiles, but they're not ready for prime time IMO. As SrMi says, there is no time benefit to using adaptive profiles and, at the moment, no editing benefit that I could see. 

Edited August 26 by LocalHero1953

[hoolyproductions]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've also been playing around with these for the last few months, with a positive impression overall.

I also would previously tend to go for my favourite profile (usually Adobe standard, sometimes Vivid or Modern 01 if I want a punchy look) and then taking it from there.

For my outdoor photography (landscapes/cityscapes/people) I use the adaptive profile most of the time. I find it to be a good starting point for the image, although it does sometimes lift the shadows and blacks to the point it moves into HDR territory - but then I compensate with the shadow/black and exposure sliders.

For indoor stuff, in particular low light photography the results are a bit more mixed but I still use them about 70% of the time as a starting point and then go from there. The music venue where I shoot has horrible multicoloured LED lights that usually mess up the skin tones whichever profile I use. (It works a lot better in the summer when there is still a little bit of natural light from the window). I fool around with Profile, WB and colour mixer until I get something acceptable (but my technical knowledge of skin tones and how to adjust is anyway pretty poor).

Overall I think the AP is great for daylight stuff and can often work (for me) in indoors settings. I think I still do about the same amount of tweaking on average than before, but the process is a little different and I feel I get slightly better results.  

[Luke_Miller]

I get best results with the Adaptive profile starting with no adjustments to the image and then adjust to taste.  One venue I regularly shoot in has large windows on three sides and during processing I am challenged to balance exposure on the subjects with the view through the windows in full sun. I often run out of adjustment on the Highlight and Shadows sliders. The Adaptive profile got me most of the way there needing only minor adjustments afterwards.