Importance of Lightroom Camera Profiles?

<p>I've been using Lightroom for forever. Since the public beta, over 10 years ago. I've never paid any attention to Camera Profiles. I don't even know when they were introduced; perhaps they were always there.</p>

<p>I've processed maybe 50,000 images, nearly all raw, and all with whatever the default is, which looks like Adobe Standard.</p>

<p>But, lately, I've been reading about how horrible that profile is, why there are better ones that match a camera's "styles", and why I should pay $10 for better ones. Experimenting a bit, I see that the choice of profile changes the appearance of the photo.</p>

<p>But I don't give a fig about camera styles.</p>

<p>My question is this: Is there anything going on with the choice of profile other than changing the starting point for processing? Is there some place I can get to with a particular profile that I can't get to with the various Develop Module sliders?</p>

<p>Tell me if I'm wrong about the following. Profiles are a way to:</p>

<ul>

<li>Get the benefit of camera styles when you're shooting raw, and/or</li>

<li>Speed up your workflow by starting at a point closer to the desired final result.</li>

</ul>

<p>Anything more?</p>

<p><em>Everything you thought you wanted to know about DNG camera profiles:</em><br>

<em>All about In this 30 minute video, we’ll look into the creation and use of DNG camera profiles in three raw converters. The video covers: </em><br>

<em>What are DNG camera profiles, how do they differ from ICC camera profiles.</em><br>

<em>Misconceptions about DNG camera profiles.</em><br>

<em>Just when, and why do you need to build custom DNG camera profiles?</em><br>

<em>How to build custom DNG camera profiles using the X-rite Passport software.</em><br>

<em>The role of various illuminants on camera sensors and DNG camera profiles.</em><br>

<em>Dual Illuminant DNG camera profiles.</em><br>

<em>Examples of usage of DNG camera profiles in Lightroom, ACR, and Iridient Developer.</em><br>

<em>Low Rez (YouTube):</em><br>

<em>http://youtu.be/_fikTm8XIt4</em><br>

<em>High Rez (download):</em><br>

<em>http://www.digitaldog.net/files/DNG%20Camera%20profile%20video.mov</em></p>

<p>Does Lightroom have camera profiles? Haven't used one yet, starting with Version 1.</p>

<p>Yeah, Edward... I think we may be in the same club. I'm going to check out the video Andrew pointed me (us) to tomorrow.</p>

<p>Marc, your PN response history going back to 2003 along with the information on how well versed you are about digital imaging and Adobe products on your website linked in your PN profile and your admission that you've been processing that many images using LR "forever" suggests you already know about camera profiles.</p>

<p>And as many times I've seen Andrew post that link to DNG profiles and your web presents tells me there's no way you don't know the uses and advantages of DNG camera profiles. It's been talked to death for years, so what do you REALLY want to know about camera profiles that is new information.</p>

 

well, i didn't know lightroom had camera profiles so thanks, Marc, for pointing this out and thanks, Andrew, for the link.

<p>@Tim: Strange message. You are telling me that I do know about camera profiles??? So what, I am posting a fake question?</p>

<p>As for what I REALLY want to know, I made that very clear in the last part of my OP starting with "Tell me..."</p>

<p>Instead of lecturing me about what you think I do and do not know, it would be more in the spirit of PN if you would just answer my question. Or don't answer it, if you don't want to. As I said, I am planning to watch the video later today.</p>

<p>(I don't understand how DNG got into this discussion, but was going to put that question aside until I watch the video. I haven't used DNGs in at least 5 years.)</p>

<p>It is a strange and kind of unnecessary message Marc. <br>

FWIW, DNG kind of came into the discussion simply because the camera profiles are called "<em>DNG Camera Profiles</em>" and I suspect Thomas did this so folks didn't confuse them with ICC camera profiles. And one doesn't need to work with a DNG workflow to use them. One advantage of the DNG container is that the DNG camera profile is embedded into the file which can be useful. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does Lightroom have camera profiles? Haven't used one yet, starting with Version 1.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes and you're using them but apparently not selecting anything but the default. Go into the calibration pane area under the PV (Process Version) dropdown menu. The DNG camera profiles associated with your specific camera will be found there.</p>

<p>@Andrew (and @Tim?)--</p>

<p>Watched the video, and it was all new to me. Very well explained.</p>

<p>However, I never heard on the video a statement of the PURPOSE of DNG Camera Profiles. But, from the examples you showed, I infer that the purpose is to achieve accurate color.</p>

<p>Now, for one of my original questions, also not answered in the video: "Is there some place I can get to with a particular profile that I can't get to with the various Develop Module sliders?" I suspect that the answer, even if "no", is not useful, since, as shown in the video, the production of the profile is automatic, and, even if the same result could be achieved in the Develop Module, it would (1) be a lot of work, and (2) there wouldn't be a way of knowing whether the colors were accurate, since there is no standard target.</p>

<p>I also now understand why I've never looked into Camera Profiles before: Because I never cared about accurate colors. In my photography, the original image is input into a creative process that involves Lightroom and Topaz Adjust or Detail. I'm working towards a result that pleases me, often very far from an accurate rendition of the scene.</p>

<p>But, knowing what I know now, if I ever got into a kind of photography where accurate color was important, I'd get serious about Camera Profiles.</p>

<p>Thanks, Andrew!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I never heard on the video a statement of the PURPOSE of DNG Camera Profiles.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Adobe builds profiles from samples of the one (or maybe a few) camera models they have access to. Not all cameras produce the same color results and just like making a ICC profile for a scanner or a camera, or even a printer, the idea is to build a <strong>custom</strong> profile for your (in this case) sensor and the illuminant you are capturing. <br>

<br>

So in a nutshell, better pleasing color (this has <strong>nothing</strong> to do with <em>color accuracy</em>, we can go there). </p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, I never heard on the video a statement of the PURPOSE of DNG Camera Profiles.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Years ago, in a galaxy far away, many people didn't like the Adobe rendered raw files. We heard it all the time here, "I prefer NX2 for raw conversion instead of Lr 2.". So Adobe made profiles (still called DX2 vivid etc) to mimic the manufactures look. Simply put, the profiles are a colour matching preset to get you close to what you would get from an in-camera jpg. The wonderful Michael Reichmann has a great article that goes over this. <a href="https://luminous-landscape.com/adobe-dng-profiles-and-profile-editor/">Adobe DNG Profiles and Profile Editor</a></p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>FWIW, DNG kind of came into the discussion simply because the camera profiles are called "<em>DNG Camera Profiles</em>" </p>

</blockquote>

<p>FWIW, the term 'dng camara profile' just confuses people and they are now simply refereed to as 'adobe camera profiles' or 'adobe custom camera profiles'. Even Google'ing these three different terms provides us with different results/subjects. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Years ago, in a galaxy far away, many people didn't like the Adobe rendered raw files.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>All generalizations are false, including this one</em>.-Mark Twain<br /> EVERY camera supported by Adobe uses a DIFFERENT camera profile DNG or otherwise! There was <strong>always</strong> some profile used even when you had no access to that profile. Even back in that galaxy years ago. </p>

<blockquote>Simply put, the profiles are a colour matching preset to get you close to what you would get from an in-camera jpg.</blockquote>

<p>No, not per se, sorry. That is the role of the <strong>specific</strong> Adobe supplied profiles who's name match those of the camera presets for JPEG. All others and those you can create yourself have nothing to do with matching a JPEG.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>FWIW, the term 'dng camara profile' just confuses people and they are now simply refereed to as 'adobe camera profiles' or 'adobe custom camera profiles'.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Clearly it confuses you. Other people? Please speak only for yourself when admitting to confusion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Google'ing these three different terms provides us with different results/subjects.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well one of two companies that provide software to actually build the camera profiles are pretty clear on their name: <br /> http://www.xrite.com/service-support/Are_DNG_profiles_camera_specific<br /> http://www.xrite.com/service-support/Benefits_of_using_Custom_DNG_Profiles<br /> Oh wait, so does the OTHER company (Adobe) as outlined in the documentation that explains how to build and edit DNG camera profiles:<br /> http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/cs6/DNGProfile_EditorDocumentation.pdf<br /> For example, on page 12:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Most digital camera sensors respond differently under different illuminants (e.g., switching from daylight to tungsten).<strong> DNG camera profiles</strong> address these differences by allowing color adjustments to be specified separately for two different illuminants (usually Illuminants A and D65).</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is also another data point for Marc about <strong>why</strong> we create DNG camera profiles. <br /> <br /> Another FACT: You have to START with an actual DNG to create or edit a DNG camera profile. After that, no. <br /> <br /> The reason there's so much ignorance on the subject of color management and DNG camera profiles, is that those who have it are so eager to share it!</p>

<p>One additional note, Andrew: I have for years paid a lot of attention to color management of my display and when printing. I calibrate my display with a hardware device, get ICC printer profiles from companies I use (e.g., Adorama, Bay Photo), and do soft proofing. (I no longer print myself.) My ignorance was limited DNG Camera Profiles.</p>

<p>And, about that name, DNG Camera Profiles, I learned of that for the first time in your post here. In Lightroom, they appear as the Camera Calibration Profile, and the two websites I looked at that provide them (one of them is Huelight) call them Camera Profiles. "DNG" is a misnomer because it refers to the technology used to make them, not to their purpose or function. So, please don't be so hard on Eric. ;-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Clearly it confuses you. Other people? Please speak only for yourself when admitting to confusion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Have you read this thread? Your first response was a lazy copy/paste that appears off-topic and caused frustration and a dozen more responses than were needed.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>No, not per se, sorry. That is the role of the <strong>specific</strong> Adobe supplied profiles who's name match those of the camera presets for JPEG. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Per se? Now that's confusing. The only camera profiles that come with my Lr are the same ones that are also in the camera. When you click on a nef and go to 'Camera Calibration' you get your in Nikon camera jpg options for vivid, portrait, neutral etc. When I click on a raf, those aren't available and I only get the in-camera jpg options for the Fuji. Confirmed here by Adobe https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1137846 and here http://www.image-space.com/Lightroom_Tips_Tricks/Develop_Module_Tips/adobe_camera_profiles/adobe_camera_profiles.html <br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>All others and those you can create yourself have nothing to do with matching a JPEG.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

What "all others"? Marc hasn't asked about "all others". Your answers are not only complicated, but distracting. Way too much noise for a simple subject.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Have you read this thread?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I should ask you the same question. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Your first response was a lazy copy/paste that appears off-topic and caused frustration and a dozen more responses than were needed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nothing lazy about providing a through video on the subject the OP and others appear to have found useful. Meanwhile, where's Eric's contributions to the education of others on this or any other topic? Zero. FUD, complaining and as pointed out above, misinformation. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Per se? Now that's confusing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're consistently confused. Use <em>"the goggle"</em>, your go to source for information and look up the term. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The only camera profiles that come with my Lr are the same ones that are also in the camera.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Like Adobe Standard? Boy you are confused. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"DNG" is a misnomer because it refers to the technology used to make them, not to their purpose or function. So, please don't be so hard on Eric. ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually the URL's above from both X-rite and Adobe indicate otherwise. But it isn't a hill worth dying on!<br>

</p>

<p>As for being hard on Eric, what do we owe people who are wrong (and often wrong)? <br>

<br>

If you've got any other questions, ask away. IF You own either a 24 patch Macbeth Color Checker or an X-rite Passport, you can build your own DNG camera profiles with free software from either Adobe or X-rite (the later working directly within LR). Just toggle between the one you build in say Daylight vs. Adobe Standard and see what you visually prefer. This is all about pleasing color! I've not yet seen a custom DNG Camera Profile I didn't visually prefer compared to the supplied profile on the two Canon's I use. This profile affects the data before you use any other controls in LR. Many of us have asked Adobe to place the option for selecting the profiles in both Basic and at the top of the Develop area to select them first and foremost because they do affect everything else you might adjust. Sounds like that might come to be in the future. In the meantime, I just use a preset (usually within Import) to call the DNG camera profile I wish to use. </p>

<p>Well, as long as we are discussing things in this thread...</p>

<p>Suppose Nikon decides they want to build a tool to make these "DNG Camera Profiles" for Lightroom, and their tool takes a NEF as input.</p>

<p>What would the resulting profile be called? A DNG Camera Profile? A NEF Camera Profile? A Camera Profile?</p>

<p>That's why DNG Camera Profile is a bad name. I'm not saying it isn't the actual name, or the common name, or the name used by Adobe and X-rite. Rather, I'm saying it's a bad name.</p>

<p>(I understand that the existing tools from Adobe and X-rite need to work with anyone's raw data, and that taking a DNG is the simplest way, but that's not the same as it being the ONLY way.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Suppose Nikon decides they want to build a tool to make these "DNG Camera Profiles" for Lightroom, and their tool takes a NEF as input.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And they support DNG or produce them from the camera (when pigs fly) .<br>

IF they produce a DNG camera profile as specified by Adobe, they should call it a DNG camera profile. Just as Adobe can't and doesn't, nor should they call their camera profiles ICC profiles. It ain't so. <br>

The source data, DNG or NEF isn't the reason the profiles should be referred to as DNG Camera Profiles. The facts again are, once you build a DNG Camera Profile, you can use it in ACR, LR and other raw converters on proprietary raw data! <br>

You know the story surrounding Adobe RGB (1998) and why Adobe named it that way? They were being responsible in naming a working space based on a big mistake they previously made in the release of Photoshop 5 when it was named SMPTE-240M. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>What would the resulting profile be called? A DNG Camera Profile? A NEF Camera Profile? A Camera Profile?<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>IF Nikon wanted to act responsibly like Adobe did with the above mentioned working space, they would call it a <em>DNG Camera Profile</em>. <br>

Look at the acronym for DNG and consider one can save a JPEG as a DNG. Kind of dumb, I admit it. That DNG isn't any more raw than the JPEG. Nor a digital negative. </p>

Marc,

 

To answer your question: the purpose -as I see it- of the various profiles in Lightroom in ACR is to create the general color

palette for a photo. I have used the Adobe profiles, profiles from Huelight, and custom profiles I have made for the

cameras I have used over the years.

 

For the most part those custom profiles were made using an X-Rite 24 patch color checker and both Adobe's DNG Profile

Editing software and X-Rite's own ColorChecker Passport software.

 

This fall I began using the X-Rite ColorChecker SG Digital target (144 patches) and BasICColor 5 profiling software. This

combination is far and away the best balance between Accurate and Pleasing Color renditions. Most acutely for my

purposes I am not getting accurate skin tones especially with people who are not Northern Europeans - particularly with

Asians, and Negroes. The difference is that the profile is removing an excess of reddish undertones. This is true with both

my Canon and the recent Nikon cameras I've been reviewing.

<p>Thanks for the info, Ellis.</p>

<p>For Ellis, Andrew, and anyone else who can answer: How much do sensors vary within the same camera model? Creating your own DNG Camera Profile for each camera allows you to compensate for sensor variation... but how great is that variation?</p>

<p>Andrew, have you ever attempted to measure this?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For Ellis, Andrew, and anyone else who can answer: How much do sensors vary within the same camera model?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Anyone expect a camera manufacturer or someone with a boatload of cameras they've actually proper measured will just make something up to answer you**. They vary. <br>

This entire discussion of color accuracy is often a load of either BS or marketing hype <strong>unless</strong> someone goes to the trouble of providing a colorimetric analysis of what they define as a color difference! Here's another shorter video that discusses color accuracy and color difference to give you an idea of what I'm talking about:<br>

<br>

<em>Delta-E and color accuracy</em><br>

<em>In this 7 minute video I'll cover: What is Delta-E and how we use it to evaluate color differences. Color Accuracy: what it really means, how we measure it using ColorThink Pro and BableColor CT&A. This is an edited subset of a video covering RGB working spaces from raw data (sRGB urban legend Part 1).</em><br>

<em>Low Rez:

<em>High Rez: http://digitaldog.net/files/Delta-E%20and%20Color%20Accuracy%20Video.mp4</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Creating your own DNG Camera Profile for each camera allows you to compensate for sensor variation... but how great is that variation?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In terms of the several camera I've profiled, it's visible so far more than a deltaE of one. It's enough that I think it is well worth trying, especially if you own the target. The rest of the work is 10 minutes and you can see for yourself. Your mileage may vary. I've profiled my two Canon's and I've taught many workshops where my students did the same. I've never not see a visible difference! </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Andrew, have you ever attempted to measure this?<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>No but it is doable. The process would be to take one shot, probably of something like a ColorChecker SG who's gamut exceeds sRGB (the MacBeth fully falls into sRGB expect for the Cyan patch). I'd then extract all the unique color values from a capture with one of the canned profiles and then one of my own. I could then calculate an average deltaE difference, standard Dev, max dE etc using ColorThink Pro. But what good would that be if instead, you just toggled the two profiles and picked the rendering you visually preferred? <br>

<br>

**Now perhaps our expert on Google will provide an answer with massive generalizations without a lick of colorimetric proof. <strong>I will not.</strong> The differences with a canned and custom DNG Profile are visible. </p>

<p>OK, thanks once again, Andrew.</p>

<p>So, Marc, what new information on camera profiles did you learn in this thread that will help you process 50,000 more better photos more efficiently? I'm REALLY curious.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So, Marc, what new information on camera profiles did you learn in this thread that will help you process 50,000 more better photos more efficiently?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>He <em>probably</em> learned not everyone posts here to aid others or to stay on topic and they have particular and odd agendas....</p>