I made a brief test with NX2 using my special raw file with a test chart inside and ---- result from D300 and D90 isn't exactly the same, but differences are small - up to about 2 degree in hue and up to about 2% in saturation (but mostly less), while tone curve / brightness seems to be the same. So D300 profile should would work quite well with D90 (after changing camera model name in the profile)
Are these twisted or untwisted profiles?
I find that the recovery slider on many of my files alters the colour so badly that I can't touch it. eg,
Having discovered a fix for this I now find that once untwisted I tend to get more yellow in skin tones colours in the shadows but also a curve change which looks very much like a bit of fill light and recovery has been used. Orange shadowy areas. Odd. I can't seem to correct this problem but it does mean I can use the recovery slider.
It would be great to have the Nikon profiles remain the same but not alter colours when exposure or recovery are used.
Ok, I did as directed. Now I notice that there are two folders in Camera Profiles: Adobe Standard and Camera. Now also Camera v3 beta, highlighted in green. How do I know that Acr is using the new data, that green type color? Adobe Standard has the same file extensions as Camera v3 Beta.
PS: Will this work in CS4 as well?
I have no idea what's happening. Everything works as before. Everything looks as before including the files already tweaked in ACR. I renamed "Adobe Standard" folder to "~Adobe Standard" (w/o the quotes). No difference. I moved that folder out of it's location to the desktop, no changes. Now there is no reference inside the beta folder for the D90, but there are profiles for the D3, D300 and D700. So, how is ACR, when looking for D90 profiles supposed to reference the D300 and not any of the others?
I have reset the Sdobe Standard folder to normal back in it's proper location.
Edit: I re-read Vit's comment about renaming the profiles. Opening the v3Beta folder, there are three profiles for the D300, which I assume I need to rename D90 individually. Correct?
OTOH, what was ACR looking at when I removed the Camera Standard folder from it's location? I still got all the expected profiles and like I said, no changes to any doc I opened. I would expect to at least see the default profiles one sees when moving to a new camera for with no profiles have yet been posted.
So I cannot trust what I am seeing.
Message was edited by: Hudechrome
ACR references profiles by exif tag "Unique Camera Model" and not by the file name. You can change it with exiftool, or decompile with Sandy's dcptool, change that string in resulting text file and compile file back to dcp format (which is a kind of tiff container, like dng and other raw files). I suggest doing it only with one profile first (standard for instance)
Behaviour regarding profile folders depends on operating system. In case of XP, ACR will look for the profiles in folowing folder and all of their subfolders, no matter which name they have (files and subfolders)
c:\documents and settings\All users\Application data\Adobe\Camera raw\Camera profiles
c:\documents and settings\<user name>\Application data\Adobe\Camera raw\Camera profiles
Since v3 profiles are calibrated for baselineexposure=0 and ACR assumes that it's not '0 for most cameras, you should see the difference in brightness when selecting v3 profile, including this one, made from a v3 profile for D300
Thanks, Vit. I see it isn't a simple task at all. (More learning curves!)
The bottom line then is what's in it to go through the exercise? I don't shoot studio nor for the most part, need really accurate matches for color rendition. I get nice skin tones when I need them, which isn't often. But the enthusasim here for the beta is catching, so I became interested. I do landscapes and architecture. The architects like to have the colors match the building for sure. They don't mind departure from reality concerning tonal values, so long as it enhances the building. However, if this beta profile gets me closer to "normal" to begin with, I am all for it as an upgrade to the current profiles, not unlike sccurate profiles in printing.
Actually, the Win7 is a different path but it loaded.
Now for some feedback. here is a shot seen in Bridge, Camera Standard for the top and Camera Standard v3 for thebottom.
FAPP, they are identical, but they are not with respect to the ACR settings.
The one marked copy is processed with the v3 Beta but the settings in the Basic panel are dramatically different. WB is Temp, 5450 ; Tint +26.
The bottom one is WB is Temp 4800, tint -4, my As Shot values. The top image values show up as "As Shot" which they are not.Therefore, any of the canned WB selections are no longer valid. They are off by a huge margin.
What is interesting is the only correction I had to make manually was Exposure which for the v3 Beta comes out to -0.3, a bit off Eric's suggestion of -0.5. That isn't surprising but the auto shift in WB is.
To tell the truth, it doesn't appear as if the beta buys me anything on a first look, but perhaps others might suggest places to look for subtle improvements worth noting.
D90 Camera images
All images ©2011 Lawrence Hudetz
I do use Vivid for tweaking colors so that I have greater range of tonal controls when converting to B&W but for that I can remain with the earlier profiles.
The probelm with the major shift away from the set value of 4800 in WB may be the deal breaker, for using D300 for D90.
Try this one
It's my D90 calibration using NX2, but I made it in a "quick and dirty" way, and also I can't test it right now (I must correct some tags in this dummy raw file for ACR to accept it, but exiftool doesn't want to write them), so I labeled it "NX2 standard test". Anyway, lookup table and tone curve looks similar to those in D300 v3 beta, so I hope it's ok. White balance is the same as in Camera standard (v1). Default value for blacks is 0 for my profiles (instead of 5). As about Exposure, Adobe dng converter returns strange value -0.55 for one raw file downloaded from imaging-resource.com, meaning it should be +0.55, but I'm quite sure it should be negative, probably -0.5 or so. Unfortunately, that photo was taken with d-lighting auto, so can't make comparison on that one
I'm only running ACR, and View NX on another machine for my SO. I still would like some feedback as to the differences in normal shooting. I can live with the funny "As Shot" values because the WB tool does work. And the Standard Profiles are available as well.
I would like to hear from D300 users, and especially from Eric about this WB. It seems damn far off considering Vit's experience with tge D90.
It sometimes happens with megaupload, and links becomes available several minutes later. Checked it now and it's ok.
Strange baselineexposure value I got with that sample could be because of enabled d-lighting, causing Adobe DNG converter to set different value.
Tested two standard D90 profiles in the meantime - The one, made from D300 v3 beta and the profile I posted yesterday. Result is very similar, hard to see differences between these two and NX2
However, on 1 of the 6 photos I used for testing, there are visible differences in blue highlights using both v3 beta and my profiles, that didn't show up on the test chart at the same position. Probably the same thing as in sample from D700 that menno100 sent me yesterday by PM. At this moment I'm not sure that this can be emulated with a profile, looks like a kind of automatic recovery algorithm in NX2 that can't be turned off. Also, I'm not sure that it makes sense to try to emulate this
No, all my cameras are Canon
You mean WB temperature/tint displayed in ACR both look too high with modified D300 profile? I presume that D90 has different WB than D300 for some reason, although rendering is very similar. I wouldn't blame Adobe team for that "mismatch", unless unmodified D300 profile, used on actual D300, has the same issue, which I don't believe.
However, I also copied Color Matrix1 and 2 from D90 Camera profile to modified D300 profile (and changed camera name to D90, of course), so WB is the same as with D90 Camera profile
Yes, the WB is the same "As Shot" visually but the numbers have changed.
As Shot is set in the D90 so that in ACR, the numbers are Temp 4800, Tint -4
Using beta, Temp is 5450 ; Tint +26.
They look the same, a cool daylight which I prefer (and curiously enough, neutral gray under overcast skies is quite neutral). Now this puts
As Shot" in the beta version a bit lower than daylight in the WB choice sequence and if Flash is selected instead of "As Shot" things look very green! (Flash Temp 5500, tint 0) ACR is posting 5450 but showing it as 4800.
No blame, just observation. I believe that is what is asked for here. I may be that the D90 is set up different than the D300, for whatever reason Nikon decided. I assume it is a disparity between cameras at this point until proven otherwise. Given that the D90 performs admirably for even professional submissions to agencies like Corbis, I am surprised that this difference shows up. It's supposed to be RAW. right?
And to Eric, if he is reading this, you know I use DXO for lens corrections resulting an a linear dng file. This test is run only on an original .nef file which has never been opened. I ran some new shots I took yesterday through DXO and the result in ACR is the same as the nef.
That's why I asked for feedback as to what the beta actually buys you in day to day performance.
As for me, I dont have nor D90 nor Nikon gear, I have Canon but use these nikon profiles. Of course numbers of WB and tint completely different from standard profiles but this issue have no influence to my developing because numbers to me do not mean anything. I just made presets for new WB and use them (if needed).
Normally that would also be true for me, but given that I deviate, at times, from my Default profile, I certainly don't want Daylight to go green!
If I get a chance later this week, I'll go to my dealer, grab a D300 and shoot a couple of frames and see what happens there.
Having to deal with car problems is a damn nuisance!
The numbers do matter, Flyshow. Look, supposing you set the WB on the camera for say 7500. It opens in ACR (non beta) and looks like it is set to that Temp. Now click on say daylight and the image looks like daylight (in the Nikon, too much magenta for me so I use Flash). If, on the otherhand, you set the WB on the camera to 4800 and open it, it will look much cooler than the one at 7500. Expected. Now if you set the second sample, starting at 4800 and again select Daylight, the first and second versions will match perfectly.
That's not what we have here. Beta moved the color Temp to 5450 and the Tint to 26, but the image still looks like 4800. So no problem, just reset the WB to Daylight and you get...way off! I mean it subtracts the tint and becomes green.as well as the temp shift also way off.
Here's the same set both files now reset to Temp 5500K, Tint 0
They should continue to match and they don't
I do not use built-in WB presets in Lightroom - I use my own presets accordingly which profile I use. Sometimes "as shot" but mostly 'custom' based on my taste or WB pipette. ;-) And I do not mix standard profiles and V3 while developing. Simply I do not use standard profiles anymore.
Just decompiled profiles from Nikon D3S and applied to images from D3 and wondered that V3 profiles almost identical to standard profiles from D3S comes with LR 3.3. May this mean thad Adobe team already use new method of building profiles to D3S?
Good morning, Vit
Just d/l your sample and it does not mess with WB value, and matches Camera Standard. The same correction for Exposure as is required in Flyshow's...-0.3. Do you have a set that matches the Nikon Range?
Here is the new profile for D90
This one has name "NX2 Standard T02". I hope that I resolved an issue about hue shifts in highlights, that was caused by wrong value of some tags in testing raw file (as I said, I made it in a quick and dirty way), that confused NX2, although it recognised file as D90 raw file. With new version of test nef file, it also turned out that baselineexpoure is indeed -0.55, as DNG converter shown me previously. So, with this profile, default setting of exposure slider, that should match result from NX2 is +0.55. Default blacks value is 0. Tested on two photos and looks ok, so I'm leaving it to D90 owners to make further testing ...
Using Camera Standard as my standard in ACR, I have to offset the baseline exposure by 0.55 and set Blacks to -0- to match. Since I don't use NX, it does not matter to me that the offset be -0.55; in fact, it's counterproductive.
Is there that much demand that NX and ACR/Lightroom match? I can load NX and see, maybe I should adopt that since my second computer as well as the laptop only has NX. Not much concerned about the laptop as it's function is to have a place to dump files during a long trip. It's not even profiled, although it's pretty good.
The rest, especially banding I'll have to spend some time. I do have files by which I should be able to see these effects.
The highlight artifacts show up how? I'm not aware of them per se, although I recognize artifacts showing up upon sharpening. When I use Smart Sharpen, I generally dial the Highlights back to practically nothing.
Like a few other posters I can't get these profiles to show up in ACR. I've tried to place them on 2 different computers with the same results. Both computers run Windows xp
The new files have been placed in the correct folders with my other dcp files but they don't show up in ACR like my other profiles do. ( If I remove the folders (eg: Adobe Standard and Camera) that were originally there, I have no profiles in ACR; adding these folders back makes my old profiles for my D300s return to ACR.)
Is the problem because I have a D300s instead of a D300?
I have CS4 and ACR is Version 5.7
Thanks for any advice you can offer.
Europe, Middle East and Africa