EricM

"5.3 percent, 4.2 percent faster, 1.5 percent better" Hilarious. All the name calling and arguing and in the end you post data supporting my sentiments. This is two threads in a row now! Oh Andrew...

<blockquote> <p>In Geekbench 4.0.1, the 13-inch MacBook Pro with Touch Bar scored 3927 in the single-core 64-bit CPU test, which is 5.3 percent faster than the previous generation’s score, and 4.2 percent faster than the just-released 13-inch 2GHz MacBook Pro with function keys. The 15-inch MacBook Pro scored 4216, which is just 1.5 percent better than 2015’s 15-inch MacBook Pro with 2.5GHz quad-core Core i7 with 16GB of RAM and a discrete AMD Radeon R9 M370X. - Andrew<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>Lol. So for $4200, the 2016 is "5.3 percent, 4.2 percent faster, 1.5 percent better" than the older models that people are dying to have replaced? And you're baffled why the interent is freaking out on Apple over the 2016. You can find a Skylake Dell xps laptop that is two years old with the same specs on Craigslist for $800...Windows is getting a lot great press lately and $2200 buys a 32 gb Kaby i7...<br> </p> <blockquote> <p>Like Barry I work on a MacBookPro 15-inch (2013) which fully fulfills my needs when it comes to photography and I will keep it for some years on, until, maybe, you guys can agree on something.<br />However, as I don't have other Apple products (Iphone, Ipad etc), I wonder whether future MacBokPro's are intended for users like me. I have the impression, not ! - Anders</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> My 2013 i7 16gb ssd MBP will have to do as well, Anders. Besides, it's only a few slower that the 2016. I have a feeling there is going to be some buyers remorse with those that bought the 2016 MBP when in eight months Kaby Lake with 32gb of ram is released for the same amount of money :)<br> </p> <blockquote> <p>Was just wondering since people seem to be making an issue of the speed effect of using dongles or add-ons in order to use upload data. I'm not sure there are any. but was just wondering if anyone actually using a 2016 model noticed a slow down. - Barry</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Barry, what a great idea! Andrew can test for us! He can import 1000 raws, if he still has a camera, onto both of his machines with a stop watch and report back with the time difference. When could you do this for us, Andrew?</p>

<p>My internal and external hard drives (DAS) are synced via software (Syncback Pro) to my NAS, a 5 bay Synology unit. The NAS also has a synchronizing software service that will duplicate its data to various cloud services like Dropbox, Google Drive, and Amazon. I chose Amazon and about to stop my Crashplan subscription because it is so much better. So, in a nut shell, I open the Syncback software on my desktop, click "Run" and it synchronizes my DAS hard drives to the NAS. The NAS recognizes that new data has been added and it automatically syncs to Amazon. It's pretty slick and within minutes of new data on my computer, it's backed up in two other places and one of which has a mobile app that I have access to. </p>

<p>Strong demand? Curious, is that a bit more or a bit bit less than "lots and lots"?</p> <p>An insightful and honest article on Vox.<br /> <br /> "Less officially, the sheer amount of time that has passed since the last release of a Mac Pro desktop computer has users of high-end workstations convinced that Apple has effectively exited that market as well. Professionals in the market for muscular computers, after all, are almost by definition only going to be interested in buying machines that come with the latest and most up-to-date chips and hardware. A line of “pro” computers that isn’t updated regularly simply doesn’t work as a pro computer at all. Even if Apple does make a new Mac Pro at this point, buyers wary of the possibility of years-long gaps between updates will still find themselves thinking that people in the market for desktop workstations may need to look beyond the Mac.<br /><br />The state of Apple’s semi-withdrawal from the professional grade computer market even has some die-hard Mac fans daydreaming about the idea of bringing back operating system licensing so that some other company can put in the time and effort needed to build Mac compatible workstations without Cupertino needing to worry about it.<br /><br />Even Apple’s more popular laptop products show some signs of the same kind of neglect. The latest iteration of the MacBook Pro offers a number of impressive features, but it maxes out at a relatively low level of RAM, doesn’t offer many ports, and isn’t equipped with truly top-of-the-line internal chips. The computer is impressive in many ways — certainly the innovative new TouchBar looks cool — but, like most of Apple’s other products, it appears to be optimized for lightness and thinness rather than for true professional use.<br> <br /> But this all raises a more fundamental question. If GE can build jet engines, tidal energy farms, freight rail data systems, mining equipment, and medical devices, how is it that the world’s most valuable company can’t find the time to make a full line of personal computers and PC peripherals alongside its market-leading smartphones and tablets? The answer goes back to Apple’s corporate structure, which, though fairly common for a startup, is extremely unusual for an enormous company."</p> <p><a href="http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/11/27/13706776/apple-functional-divisional">Apple may have finally gotten too big for its unusual corporate structure</a> www.vox.com/new-money/2016/11/27/13706776/apple-functional-divisional</p>

<p>Those graphs do paint a sad picture of the 2016 in relation to the 2015, eh.<br> </p> <blockquote> <p>with the MPB I and other's are speaking of compared to the products it replaces!</p> </blockquote> <p> I and others? Lol. Who are these "others"? The whole internet (except Andrew) is freaking out about the 2016 MBP being so lame and disappointing that you think there's "others"?</p>

<p>Ouch. Can you explain how <em>Planet Eric</em> info jives with these 13 graphs from reliable and objective tech sites? #facetiousquestion<br> <img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5655/30412287233_6642512e6d_o.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <img src="https://c3.staticflickr.com/6/5616/31183968626_00fb3b22cc_o.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <img src="https://c6.staticflickr.com/6/5650/30412287573_bd2549dbaa_o.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <img src="https://c7.staticflickr.com/6/5642/31183968926_49509c0681_o.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <img src="https://c6.staticflickr.com/6/5506/30412287893_74c2b9c8a0_o.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <img src="https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5820/31183969476_2d27626cb1_o.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5657/30412288393_cf9bdccf72_o.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <img src="https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5796/31183969916_f208b45c8f_o.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <img src="https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5652/31076112452_1268a5d6a7_o.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <img src="https://c3.staticflickr.com/6/5500/31183970666_f79d6b2550_o.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <img src="https://c3.staticflickr.com/6/5675/31076113002_47ccf3466e_o.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <img src="https://c4.staticflickr.com/6/5506/30412290043_e341db7055_o.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <img src="https://c3.staticflickr.com/6/5343/31183971826_423ab29dc6_o.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<blockquote> <p>Sure it can.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> How much did your dongle cost?</p>

<p>Barry, we're comparing the 13" to 13" as per my Nov 10, 2016; 05:11 p.m. post. I can't do much about the noise if others have wandered off-topic comparing different sizes while in their typical fanboy fashion attempt to attack the character and not the argument.</p> <p>I'd have to spend $3500 (before dongles) on the top of the line MBP and it wont give much a performance bump over my 2013 MBP with i7/16gb/ssd. Furthermore, with sd card readers now going through slower dongles and adaptors on the 2016, and not through the included sd slot like I have, it will be even slower importing 900 raws a day. Wifi on the 13" is half as fast as my 13". Wirless data transfer will be so much fun. So, again, no compelling reason for me and thousands of others to update. The keynote and this 2016 MBP resulted in a synchronised "WTF??" around the creative world. Some big names in here that aren't too tickled with the new direction of Apple.<br> <a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/mjtsai.com/blog/2016/10/27/new-macbook-pros-and-the-state-of-the-mac/">New MacBook Pros and the State of the Mac</a><br> mjtsai.com/blog/2016/10/27/new-macbook-pros-and-the-state-of-the-mac/</p> <p>One computer out of six gets an update. A 2016 iPhone can't be plugged into a 2016 MBP for charging or data transfer. The wireless earphones for the iphone can't be used on the MBP. Jobs must be rolling in his grave. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I don't know about the "dongles". I get the complaint about that. But from people who have actually used it, it seems that it is an excellent performer, not slower than a 2012 model<br> <br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>I'm not sure what "excellent" and other subject terms indicate but the 2016 base model is aimed as a MacBook Air replacement. At first the cynics judged it as slower but benchmarks are coming in now that it is on the market. It is indeed <em>slightly</em> faster than the one it's replacing...like 7%. Info and data in the link. And some of the comments are spot on, as well.<br> <a href="http://www.macrumors.com/2016/10/31/2016-vs-2015-base-13-inch-mbp-benchmarks/">New 13-Inch MacBook Pro Sans Touch Bar is Marginally Faster But More Efficient Than Last Year's Base Model</a> www.macrumors.com/2016/10/31/2016-vs-2015-base-13-inch-mbp-benchmarks/</p> <p>I'm not sure why anyone that has an internet connection would buy the 2016 when the 2017 with Rubylake was rumoured long before the 2016 release. Blind faith, a fool and his money is soon parted...<br /><br />Have you had to try this, Barry? I have. Closing the lid and powering off your Mac is pointless in terms of security access. Speechless, I can't believe it takes 45 seconds to get into <strong>ANY</strong> Mac without a password and then have access to all the files. And even issue a new pw. <br> <a href=" Any Mac OS X Password without Administrative Access or Losing Data</a> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p> <br> I know a few people, not in for photography that have been seriously hacked with some very nasty data encryption hostage programs on windows machines. I don't know if mac is susceptible to that at this time. But a couple of instances were quite serious on more than just an individual dealing with personal pc issues. But yes, when I used windows for my personal pc, I did spend a lot of energy over possible malware, and drivers, etc. Haven't really had that problem with my macs, though still need to be very careful about what you allow to open from the web.</p> </blockquote> <p><br />I don't know any but yes, ransomware is on the rise. From the business and security journals I read that at least half the businesses in England have been held ransom for their files. <br> </p> <blockquote> <p>FWIW, I'm very happy with the 15" Mac Book Pro mid 2015 model. </p> </blockquote> <p> <br> I'm very happy with my 13" MBP 2013, Sebastian. It's i7, I bought 16gb of ram and a sumsung pro ssd. It's pretty decent for when out in the field and must resort to using a laptop. But there's no compelling reason to get a 2016 MBP let alone one for "pro" use. The 2017 with Ruby and 64gb of ram that's due out in the summer however... </p>

<p>Lol, Barry. Dave's not home! </p> <p>Andrew, ouch. Could be the beginning of another round of #GPUGate. Not a good start...</p> <p><a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/forums.macrumors.com/threads/graphic-card-freaks-out-with-brand-new-mbp-2016.2015545/">Graphic card freaks out with brand new MBP 2016</a> forums.macrumors.com/threads/graphic-card-freaks-out-with-brand-new-mbp-2016.2015545/</p> <p><a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/forums.macrumors.com/threads/graphic-card-issue-new-2016-15-bto.2015343/">Graphic Card Issue? New 2016 15"</a> BTO forums.macrumors.com/threads/graphic-card-issue-new-2016-15-bto.2015343/</p> <p><a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/forums.macrumors.com/threads/senior-apple-advisor-admits-that-mbps-have-battery-issues.2016044/">Senior Apple Advisor admits that MBPs have battery issues</a> forums.macrumors.com/threads/senior-apple-advisor-admits-that-mbps-have-battery-issues.2016044/</p>

<p>Rare interview!<br> <a href=" Engineer Talks About New 2016 Macbook Pro</a>

<p>Dogmatic. The Digital Dog-Matic. Want a logo to go with that?<br> <br> I don't know man. They have six computers and only "refreshed" one of them. And did it with Skylake. </p> <p>A point of view of another video editor. <a href=" Macbook Pro 2016 Review: The Sad Demise of Apple</a><br> <p>That's sound advice. I should have sold off my appl in Oct.</p> <p>At least I can plug my Nexus 6P (usb-c) into the new MBP without buying any dongles and adaptors. Cook needs to go.</p>

<blockquote> <p>So, once again, Eric is wrong, confused and not worth the time listening to</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Hmm. Odd thing to say when you repeatedly respond with 400 words to my 40.</p>

<p>The VP of Apple releases a marketing fluff piece and that's were you get your facts from? Okey dokey.</p> <p>Can you answer the question? Please share with us which MBP you ordered, and the reasoning why are inclined to spend so much cash on a slower and less versatile machine than your current 2013 MBP? </p>

<p>Glass houses, throwing stones...</p> <blockquote> <p>According to Apple lots and lots and lots of customers!</p> </blockquote> <p>Lots? Sounds like something Eric would say. Do you have data to verify this "lots" or is it, how do you say Andrew, "mumbo jumbo"? Right, it's all hunky dory. Kidding aside though and on a serious note, how about you share with us which MBP you ordered, and the reasoning why are inclined to spend so much cash on a slower and less versatile machine than your current 2013 MBP? I'm also curious if you're aware that they've dropped Nvidia graphics cards and gone with on-board AMD? Seems like a strange move to many as even Nvidia’s entry level el-cheapo notebook gpu, the GTX 1060m, is almost twice as fast as the best AMD option offered for the 2016 MBP. I know it's just on stats on paper but I'm having a hard time imagining what kind of experience we're going to have with this AMD trying to run Lr let alone running it with an external monitor.</p> <p>I can see Christmas now. People are going to open presents and find that a $1000 iPhone 7 and a $1700 MBP can't be connected with the cables provided. Similarly, you can’t connect your Lightning earbuds to your new laptop. Incredible. I can see the memes now.</p>

<p>I'd love to update my mid 2013 MBP to a newer cpu, gpu and more than my 16gb of ram. But it isn't possible. Who's going to spend $3500 for a slower machine with less functionality? The armchair Strarbucks photographer? Even the wifi is half as fast as the MBP it is replacing. Unbelievable. </p> <p>The new Touch Bar just killed the new MBP for two of its distinct markets, video and DJ. I don't know anyone that uses Lr and is looking forward to trying to the touch bar.</p> <p><a href="https://www.slrlounge.com/an-open-letter-to-apple-from-the-actual-working-pros/">"an open letter to apple from the actual working-pros"</a></p> <p>https://www.slrlounge.com/an-open-letter-to-apple-from-the-actual-working-pros/</p> <p>"We have to deliver results based on client expectations and to do that all our equipment has to work seamlessly. While I appreciate that technologies like USB-C are the way forward, this is a case where a gradual approach isn’t just recommended, it’s necessary. As professionals we could care one bit if dropping the port has made the laptop 2mm thinner or slightly lighter. Not to mention that I’ve not once heard a single professional complain that their <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/871860-REG/Apple_MC975LL_A_15_4_MacBook_Pro_Notebook.html/BI/5982/KBID/6868" rel="nofollow external" target="_blank">MBP</a> is just too big and bulky. What we covet is flexibility, performance, and stability. Sure, we can buy a bunch of adapters and go on with our lives, but things just aren’t that simple. Adapters create an extra point of failure and when you look at something like camera tethering–which is often problematic enough–it’s just a recipe for errors at times when we need our gear to work. Furthermore, adapters are yet another item that we need to remember to bring with us in an already mile long list of tools."</p> <p>"Typical everyday scenario: You have a new 2017 Apple laptop, and a person hands you a USB stick to copy files, or an SD card, or ask you to plug in an HDMI cable in for a large screen presentation. You take the USB stick, SD card, and HDMI cable and throw it out the f%^*ing window, as they are now deemed useless without having to carry around an adapter. So the simplicity of having an Apple computer with a few different ports built in the side of it for different applications is now gone. You now have to purchase yet another gizmo to make it work. You’ve just lost yet another loyal customer."<br /><br />"It seams that in the search to innovate, you’ve inconvenienced and alienated the actual working pros that use your devices and depend on your computers to make a living and streamline efficiency. In the quest to make things thinner, lighter, and faster we’ve made it harder to shoot tethered, too expensive to fit into an existing ecosystem, and full of features that pro’s don’t really want. I think it’s time to address that these computers aren’t built for pros but for the audience aspiring to <em>be</em> a pro, with the dreams that they can one day have a <a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Apple/Ntt/Apple+MacBook+Pro+with+Touch+Bar/N/0/view/GRID/BI/5982/KBID/6868" target="_blank">MacBook Pro</a> hooked up to two matte screen monitors and a RED Dragon on their workstation. My suggestion to you is to actually solicit advice from the pros and provide computers with solutions that make our jobs easier.'<br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>Listen to the complaints. The dongle doesn't even work<br> <a href="http://www.apple.com/shop/reviews/MJ1K2AM/A/usb-c-digital-av-multiport-adapter?page=0" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.apple.com/shop/reviews/MJ1K2AM/A/usb-c-digital-av-multiport-adapter?page%3D0&source=gmail&ust=1478900701956000&usg=AFQjCNHV9qpUjiV9vSNYTG0WCCJqnT91ZA">http://www.apple.com/shop/reviews/MJ1K2AM/A/usb-c-digital-av-multiport-adapter?page=0</a><br /><br /></p>

<blockquote> <p>How do the Fuji X camera profiles fit into the discussion. When I use the XPro2 raw files, I tend to also use the Fuji presets in the profile drop down. This gives the same choices at least by name as the incamera jpg profile settings, i.e., velvia, acros, classic chrome, etc. I use these a lot.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Oh what the hell. Adobe made profiles 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/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Adobe DNG Profiles and Profile Editor</a></p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>Conceptually NO different Barry. In LR/ACR those are the <strong><em>Camera Matching P</em><em>rofiles</em></strong> outlined above with text by Adobe. In this case, profiles that <em>attempt</em>(quotes on purpose) to mimic the settings on your camera (<em>Film Simulation modes</em>).</p> </blockquote> <p><br /> Hilarious. I wonder where I've heard this before.</p> <blockquote> <p>What a fascinating thread! .~</p> </blockquote> <p>I know! I'm booking-marking this one along with is ETTR and DNG threads. The insults, heat, and confusion and then at the end, he parrots my words! Classic </p>

<p>Mac World...where fanboys write reviews? I'm sure you'll get the straight goods there. But report back and let us know how much you spend on dongles, cables and adaptors in order to swap out your older and more powerful MBP. </p> <h1 id="a808" ><a href="https://medium.com/charged-tech/apple-just-told-the-world-it-has-no-idea-who-the-mac-is-for-722a2438389b#.qg9zzfbi2">Apple just told the world it has no idea who the Mac is for</a> </h1> <p>"For a company that prides itself on ecosystem, and thinking of the ‘end to end’ experience, Apple has utterly lost its way. Yesterday, the world got an iteration on something the company’s been doing all along, rather than something that’s a vision for the future. Apple spent the entire event comparing itself to its own past, rather than showing us the future, and even then painted a very clear picture: it has no idea who the Mac is for."</p> <h1 id="a808" > </h1> <p>https://medium.com/charged-tech/apple-just-told-the-world-it-has-no-idea-who-the-mac-is-for-722a2438389b#.qg9zzfbi2</p> <p> </p> <h1><a href="/bboard/arstechnica.com/apple/2016/11/review-cheapest-2016-macbook-pro-is-good-but-its-missing-all-the-cool-stuff/4/">Review: The $1,499 2016 MacBook Pro is an expensive MacBook Air on the inside</a></h1> <p> "But when you dig down to find the root cause of most people's angst, it’s less about the new MacBook Pros individually and more about the way Apple has been treating the Mac lineup in general for the last two or three years. Even if you consider the MacBook and MacBook Pros to be solid computers—and they are, in most respects for most users—these refreshes by themselves don’t really right the Good Ship Macintosh. The Mac Mini is two years old, the Mac Pro is three years old, and the iMac just missed out on a yearly refresh for the first time since the 2012 models came out. The company is serving its entry-level Mac customers by selling them 2015’s laptops virtually unchanged for the same price as it sold them for last year. And Apple being Apple, we never hear about future products before they’re ready, which does nothing to ease the minds of longtime Mac customers who are uncertain about the platform’s future in a time where iOS is clearly (and rightfully, based on Apple's earnings) the top priority." arstechnica.com/apple/2016/11/review-cheapest-2016-macbook-pro-is-good-but-its-missing-all-the-cool-stuff/4/</p>

<blockquote> <p>And, about that name, DNG Camera Profiles, I learned of that for the first time in your post here.</p> </blockquote> <p> </p> <blockquote> <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> </blockquote> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>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> <br> Because not even Adobe calls it the "DNG Camera Profile" anymore. Unless you're Andrew from 2007...</p> <blockquote> <p>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/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Adobe DNG Profiles and Profile Editor</a> -Eric</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> </p> <blockquote> <p>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 <a href="http://www.image-space.com/Lightroom_Tips_Tricks/Develop_Module_Tips/adobe_camera_profiles/adobe_camera_profiles.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(link)</a> - Eric</p> </blockquote> <p>What Andrew, no quotes and arguments after answering the question?<br> <br> Yes, that's all they are, Marc. They're aim is is to get you near the in-camera jpg setting. If you have different raws from different manufactures, it's plain as day the CAMERA PROFILES are the same choices as the camera jpg options...no "others".</p> <p>Further reading:</p> <blockquote> <p>Then, Adobe edited this profile to create a few other versions correcting defects always in the same way but with more or less saturated renderings mostly. They're called Camera Portrait, Landscape, etc. The Camera Standard profile is supposed to be the closest to the body's JPEG rendering.</p> </blockquote> <p><br /><a href="http://www.color-management-guide.com/color-management-and-camera-raw.html">http://www.color-management-guide.com/color-management-and-camera-raw.html</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Check out the new Adobe Camera Profiles. They allow you to import your images and then apply a profile that gets close to the LCD view that you saw on the back of the Camera. <br />So rather than having Lightroom apply its own profile you can now have the RAW image show a good approximation to the JPEG version.</p> </blockquote> <a href="http://www.image-space.com/Lightroom_Tips_Tricks/Develop_Module_Tips/adobe_camera_profiles/adobe_camera_profiles.html">http://www.image-space.com/Lightroom_Tips_Tricks/Develop_Module_Tips/adobe_camera_profiles/adobe_camera_profiles.html</a> <blockquote> Adobe Standard will not correctly reflect the image in your camera’s LCD. Although the LCD is innacurate, it is the image that many photographers check against in the field, and is also at least consistently inaccurate (and therefore easy to correct once you have experience with a particular camera). It is therefore often desirable to select a profile that more fully reflect the LCD at least as a starting point in your post processing. If you have set camera styles in-camera and also selected RAW, your profiles will be lost during import to Lightroom. The only way to get them back may be via the camera calibration dropdown. Alternatively, if you did not set styles in the field, you can experiment with them after the event using the camera calibration dropdown to add styles. </blockquote> <a href="https://howgreenisyourgarden.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/using-lightroom-camera-profiles-and-why-adobe-standard-is-a-liability/">https://howgreenisyourgarden.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/using-lightroom-camera-profiles-and-why-adobe-standard-is-a-liability/</a>

<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>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>

<p>Well, what a disappointment the new MBP is. We waited four years and this latest one has a weaker gpu, slower cpu, and slower ram than the one it is replacing...along with no sd card reader, no usb3, no hdmi...How are the final cut pro people going to use that Touch Bar? I don't get it. A good read:<br> <a href="https://medium.com/charged-tech/apple-just-told-the-world-it-has-no-idea-who-the-mac-is-for-722a2438389b#.vtv6zod7p">Apple just told the world it has no idea who the Mac is for</a></p> <p>But kudos MS for listening to the creative markets. That Surface Studio sure looks like a winner.</p>

<blockquote> <p>And I do have to grin a little when you two lads go at it, but I just have to say for the record, I've known Eric's photography for years now, and he happens to be a very very good photographer and a working professional for years. </p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Cheers Barry, thanks. It's all in good fun. Grinning is all we can do here with this deimatic behaviour and incendiary rhetoric. It's like Emerson, Lake and Palmer vs The Sex Pistols. <br> </p> <blockquote> <p>Andrew really does know his stuff, really none better here on photo net for a deep understanding of digital color and how to understand the theory behind it and how the technology actually operates. </p> </blockquote> <p> <br> And that's what he should stick too. My mechanic knows everything about fuel injection, but he can't friggin drive if his life depended on it...at least he's honest about it.<br> </p> <blockquote> <p>Time to move on Eric, the OP got correct, factual answers to his questions, from those of us <strong>actually using</strong> the products he asked about.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Haha, and then Andrew said, haha...did you even type that? Scroll up, you you must missed it, the op returned taking my advice. This is to be expected when credible info is posted along with links to verify a statement. Do you have any links that can back-up your "factual answers"?<br> </p> <blockquote> <p>He'd like the members here to believe that the size of one's computer somehow <strong>compensates</strong> for their knowledge and abilities. </p> </blockquote> <p> <br> How about catalog? My catalog is bigger than your catalog...my dad can beat up your dad. Post a pic, lets see your work-space, your digital darkroom, Andrew.<br> </p>