Jump to content

New Beta Profiles in LR 2


chris_tribble

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been dealing with apparent red shift problems with M8 images and have found that the new LR "Camera Standard beta" profile does a very good job ...

 

Two versions of the same image below. First with ACR 4.4 profile, the second processed using Camera Standard Beta. I've found that this profile produces a darker result (with fewer blown highlights) and that I need to adjust my default brightness and contrast adjustments from 25,25 to 50 Brightness / 30 Contrast. This done, I get an excellent starting with "As Shot" WB. Its then the usual process of adjusting tonality etc. One of the striking things for me is that the image appears to more "modeled" with a greater sense of three dimensions...

 

Certainly worth investigating if you're using LR (download profiles and the DNG profile editor from DNG Profiles - Adobe Labs).

 

Interested to hear other people's experience on this.

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

x

They've definitely recalibrated the camera profiles and there is a difference in my files too Chris when I select the Beta. The rendering is different and yes, they do seem to go slightly darker, though I haven't done much processing of M8 files in LR2 as yet. I still think that Adobe colour has more bias to boosting reds than I seek. Greens seem also seem to be rendered in a distinctive manner and wish that there was an alternative.

 

Haven't had a chance to fiddle with the profile editor, but fully intend doing so. Had one quick attempt with DNG files I produced for the Rags Gardner scripts, but wasn't terribly successful.

 

It's a shame that they don't give us more choice as you get with Nikon cameras to simulate their Picture Controls settings.

 

Is there going to be a facility here where these DNG profiles can be shared?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The download appears to create two new options. The Calibration Profile menu now offers ACR 3.6, ACR 4.4, Adobe Standard beta 1, Adobe Standard beta 2 and Camera standard beta 2. On my system I don't see "camera standard beta 1" - maybe I never installed it...

 

The profile I'm finding most useful (with M8 RAW files generated under FW2.0) is the Camera Standard beta 2. Darker, but in the end more faithful I think, and easy to adjust the general look in the first instance by adjusting brightness / contrast to slightly higher levels than I'd been used to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops! Mine was Adobe Std Beta 1. No idea about that update, which is odd since I have just installed CS4 and LR2 and seem to have spent days on the Adobe site downloading something or other!

 

Have just downloaded the Beta2 update from 22 Oct and spent a quick few minutes seeing what the profiles do. No discernible difference between Adobe Std Beta 1 and 2. Camera Std Beta 2 makes it go much darker, but the reds seem strong to me in skin tones/lips. Will see in long run how this affects the files. Also had previously dialled in -2/3 stop compensation for metering, this might affect that setting. Just trialled it on a file with the Camera Std beta 2 and indeed exposure needs increasing by about 0.6 of a stop.

 

Glad to see that there has been movement from Adobe. I contacted them earlier in the year bemoaning the quality of colour from their initial calibration of the M8 which didn't seem to take into account the presence of IR cut filters. Posted info of my actions on the Skin tones thread some while ago back in the days when.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have just downloaded the Beta2 update from 22 Oct and spent a quick few minutes seeing what the profiles do. No discernible difference between Adobe Std Beta 1 and 2. Camera Std Beta 2 makes it go much darker, but the reds seem strong to me in skin tones/lips. Will see in long run how this affects the files. Also had previously dialled in -2/3 stop compensation for metering, this might affect that setting. Just trialled it on a file with the Camera Std beta 2 and indeed exposure needs increasing by about 0.6 of a stop.

 

Yes - it's darker, but I'm also finding that since the firmware before 2.0 I had stopped defaulting to -1/3 EV compensation as I was finding that clipped highlights weren't a problem - ALSO with ISO at 1250 or above there seem to be 1 to 1.5 stops of latitude at the highlight end - while any underexposure leads to serious noise problems.

 

Moral? M8 metering is good (so long as you know how to meter for highlights and use manual in complex lighting) and High ISO is very usable when correctly exposed.

 

Hooray! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Baxter - good to hear from you. re sharing profiles, not sure if these is. If any moderators are watching, what might be the best way????

 

I suggested this months ago when the profile sharing first emerged. I even offered to host them.

 

No one was very interested at the time. I most certainly wasn't sent any to host.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,

 

I tried this new "Camera Standard beta 2" and the result is nice. I attached three images. The first is with ACR 4.4, the second Adobe Standard beta 2 (similar results as the Adobe Standard beta 1, BTW) and the last one with "Camera Standard beta 2". I don't see a beta 1 version of this profile. The differences are huge! I have trouble to decide which one I like best for this picture. I think it has to be the ACR4.4 or the Camera Standard beta 2 profile.

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy - great if you're willing to help on this. What's the procedure? (I speak as someone who may not have the time to spend time working with the DNG editor, but who would love to benefit from the labours of others!)

 

Best

 

If you have profiles, email them to me, with a clear description of what they're for, and what they do, and I will put links up to them in a central location.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for offering to do this Andy.

 

It may be a while before I get to produce my own profiles but like Chris, happy to hitch on the back of others' effort for the time being (having a nightmare with keywording..). It looks as if Adobe have been busy and produced some profiles which yield far more agreeable colours and simplify getting files adjusted.

 

I missed your previous offer, having abandoned LR(1) because of the way it rendered colours, thus didn't follow the thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two issues:

 

1. About exchanging profiles: I hate to be a nay-sayer about acts of kindness & generosity, but I don't think it's a good idea to borrow custom profiles that someone else made for a different lens/camera. I know Andy means to do a favor, but there are a couple of problems:

 

a. Other folks' custom profiles aren't accurate for your camera/lens combination. The profiles are really correcting for lenses, as much as for camera sensors. If you think about it, your lenses all have a different color renditions: older Leitz lenses, greener/cooler; Newer Leica lenses, contrastier & warmer/redder; Zeiss, more exaggerated hues; CV, some problems rendering blues. All of this stuff is corrected by making your own profiles. On the other hand, if you borrow & use my custom profile made for a pre-Asph 35 Summicron when converting files from your newer Asph, you'll get noticeable inaccuracies. If you use it for files made with a CV lens, you might be even farther off.

 

b. Doing it right is awfully easy. The DNG Profile Editor is quick to use if you just get a Macbeth/XRite color checker, which is a good investment. Just take a shot of the checker (ideally for each lens), put it on the computer, & let the editing software do the rest.

 

2. About the new camera-specific Beta 2 profile: If you look at both the histograms & the colors of the new camera-specific profile, you'll see that

 

a. The conversion is much darker, as folks have already mentioned; & I can see no good reason for this. The other stock profiles (3.3, 4.4, etc.) & C1v4 yield roughly consistent histograms, but this one is way off from them. Until someone explains why starting with a darker conversion is better, I'll take it to be a mistake.

 

b. The Beta 2 retains the exaggerated reds (overly warm skin tones) of Beta 1. This is the most obvious thing you can correct by making your own custom profiles.

 

Kirk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kirk,

 

I don't see that as being a problem. The profile maker can just say what the profile is for, how it was generated and after that, anyone who uses it, can decide for themselves, where and when to use it. I use Jamie's Chrome C1 profile from time to time, as in the right circumstances it is just right. For example, even though it was written before the lens even was released, it suits the new Summarit 75 perfectly for sunny shots. I agree about the Zeiss lenses and while I was still using the 35 and 21 Biogons, I had a profile written with green desaturation.

 

Andy - this would be a very useful service and would earn you even more brownie points than your usual monthly ration.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kirk, I don't think that doing it right is so easy.

You need good lighting and no reflections in the chart. You also need two different captions with two different light sources to make it useable because of the different colors at sunlight and tungsten.

 

It's not that hard. The color checker isn't highly reflective. I first set up the chart in an indoor studio situation but found it wasn't necessary, nor are the two different light sources.

 

I got results identical to the indoor setup by using outdoor north light & placing 18% gray cards under the chart to prevent reflections.

 

As the instructions say, the two-light-source-comparison method is optional. You can get solid results with one source at neither of the extremes (2750 & 6300K).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,

 

I tried this new "Camera Standard beta 2" and the result is nice. I attached three images. The first is with ACR 4.4, the second Adobe Standard beta 2 (similar results as the Adobe Standard beta 1, BTW) and the last one with "Camera Standard beta 2". I don't see a beta 1 version of this profile. The differences are huge! I have trouble to decide which one I like best for this picture. I think it has to be the ACR4.4 or the Camera Standard beta 2 profile.

 

Maarten - it looks like you need a secondary adjustment to get the Camera Standard beta 2 profile feeling right. My experience has been that skin tones and greens are noticeably "truer" with this profile, but that default Tone control values need adjusting to "brighten" the image slightly. I've shifted from Brightness 25 / Contrast 25 to Brightness 50 / Contrast 30 as a starting point. Seems to work across a range of images.

 

Kudos to Adobe!

 

Best

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have profiles, email them to me, with a clear description of what they're for, and what they do, and I will put links up to them in a central location.

 

I still have access to my profiles to access via ftp if anyone is interested in using them or placing in a central location;Taken with 75mm Summilux, M8 UV/IR on.

 

http://fjmaresphoto.com/M8%20DNG%20Profile/M8%20Digital%20Camera_custom.dcp

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...