Skip navigation
Othmar Atzor
Currently Being Moderated

raw development versus camera JPG

Jul 14, 2013 8:46 AM

Tags: #raw #lr4 #jpg_raw

Im working with lightroom 4.4.1. My camera is a panasonic FZ200. Most of the time i do my photos using th raw - format.

Special photos  made at night with lightning shows i get no good result comparing the photo in JPG, witch was developed by my camera, with the raw format.

 

I have done a lot of tests in the different development sections of LR 4 special also in the camera calibration section, but i still cannot develop a good photes as it is develop in the jpg-format of the camera.

The colours purple or blue are always differently.

I don't thing that the white balance is wrong. I also tried different raw-conwerters (silkypix, rawtherapee) and the effect was still the same.

 

At the moment i also asked in a german lumix-forum, but also these guys over there have no idear.

 

With other picture made at night or during day, there is no special problem within the development. Mostly i find my self-developed picture better than the cameras JPG.

 

Hopefully, you understand the problem, which is seen in the attached file.

 

I came from germany and i hope my english is good enough for explaining the problem.

 

The original raw and jpg are on a share - see https://mediencenter.t-online.de/auth/guest/shareToken/6A5625D3BF0A7CC 60646DF85E7DB2C6DDCC9214B

I hope th link works.

 

Thank for your comments.

 

Othmar

 

Raw vs JPG_2.jpg

 
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 12:48 PM   in reply to Othmar Atzor

    To generate a image with LR which is exactly the same as the in camera generated jpeg is impossible. The raw engine (software algorithm) used in your camera is different from the ACR engine. Also the Adobe standard camera profile will add more differences (I can not find a specific camera standard profile for your camera in the Adobe CameraRaw folder). You could consider to generate a camera profile with ColorChecker passport for a more lookalike image (colors)?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 1:17 PM   in reply to Othmar Atzor

    Yeah - that's pretty bad. I'll download the original to have a look, later.. In the mean time, consider using the rgb/channel curves to help remedy.

     

    There may be something off about the camera profile for your model, but it's too soon for me to tell - maybe just a (pv2012) personality quirk that requires compensatory action by the person at the helm..

     

    Out of curiosity: did you try using PV2010? Same problem?

     

    R

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 1:22 PM   in reply to janh1948

    janh1948 wrote:

     

    ... exactly the same ... more lookalike image (colors)? ...

    It's not just the colors or differences that are at issue, it's the abrupt transitions in the highlight gradients.

     

    Still, I hear ya - a new profile may improve...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 4:22 PM   in reply to Othmar Atzor

    Othmar Atzor wrote:

     

    I have done a lot of tests in the different development sections of LR 4 special also in the camera calibration section, but i still cannot develop a good photes as it is develop in the jpg-format of the camera.

    The colours purple or blue are always differently.

    I don't thing that the white balance is wrong. I also tried different raw-conwerters (silkypix, rawtherapee) and the effect was still the same.


    With other picture made at night or during day, there is no special problem within the development. Mostly i find my self-developed picture better than the cameras JPG.

     

    I downloaded the JPEG and RW2 files and clearly the raw file can not be adjusted anywhere close to the JPEG image. My first guess is that both the LR Adobe Standard profile and demosaic processing are incorrect, but you say most other raw images look better than the JPEG. This leads me to believe there is significant "in-camera processing" that is NOT being replicated inside LR with the RW2 raw file processing, such as chromatic aberration correction, highlight compression correction, etc.

     

    You will need to use a raw processor that actually replcates the in-camera JPEG processing applied to these type of images, which may be available from Panasonic. You could then save the image as a 16 bit ProPhoto RGB TIFF file for further procssing in LR.

     

    http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/silkypix/index.html

     

    Development and Adjustment of RAW Data Files


    The SILKYPIX® Developer Studio 3.1 SE uses an advanced development algorithm to provide high-level, basic image processing capabilities. It lets you control problems like unnatural edges from saturated color borders, false colors in structures with intricate detail, and chromatic noise in photos taken at high sensitivity settings. This utility provides a unique combination of high resolution and extraordinary color separation performance.

     


     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 15, 2013 12:26 PM   in reply to trshaner

    I downloaded SILKYPIX DS 3.1 SE to see if I could get the RW2 raw file to look the same as the in-camera processed JPEG. SILKYPIX contains a proprietary 'Highlight Controller,' which  can not be replicated inside LR. Here's a screenshot showing the settings for the RW2 file, which is very close to the JPEG image:

     

    Silkypix Screenshot.jpg

     

    I tried exporting the image to both Adobe RGB and sRGB output using the SILKYPIX 'Development' output module. For some reason the image color shifts very heavily to purple when using sRGB 'Out' profile in the 'Colorpsace' settings or 'Developed images settings' 'Output colorspace.' Using Adobe RGB the SILKYPIX processed RW2 file output looks good. When I convert the output file to sRGB using LR's Export module the image looks identical to the Adobe RGB profile image, which indicates something is wrong with SILKYPIX's color management. I suggest using Adobe RGB and do conversion to sRGB using LR, PS, or any other editing application. There is no option to use ProPhoto RGB profile, but it's probably not an issue with most images.

     

    Here's the LR processed JPEG and SILKYPIX TIFF output file with Adobe RGB profile using the same exact LR settngs for both:

     

    JPG vs Silkypix TIF.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 15, 2013 3:44 PM   in reply to Othmar Atzor

    The controls currently in LR cannot duplicate the SILKYPIX Highlight Controller's functions. The best suggestion is to process these type of image files first with SILKYPIX for highlight recovery. As long as the white point and black point are properly established you can export with the SILKYPIX Development module to an Adobe RGB JPEG file, which will keep the file size small. Then process the SILKYPIX JPEG in LR as you normally would. I just tried it using the same SILKYPIX settings, output to Adobe RGB JPEG, processed in LR PV2012, and exported from LR to an sRGB JPEG file. No gaps are showing in the histogram due to processing an 8 bit file with a wide gamut Adobe RGB profile in LR. You can probably create a preset in SILKYPIX (i.e. Development Parameter) that will work with most of these problem images.

     

    You can also post a Problem Report here:

     

    http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family

     

    Provide links to the RW2 and JPEG files in the report and a link to this post. It's not likely they will implement something like the SILKYPIX Highlight Controller unless it can be designed for use with all raw file formats. Even if they can it's unlikely to happen until LR6. But there may be something Adobe can do now to the LR demosaicing process to provide better highlight recovery with these Panasonic RW2 image files.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 16, 2013 3:12 PM   in reply to Othmar Atzor

    Othmar Atzor wrote:

     

    I could not sign into photoshop.com because they are changing to the revel 2.0 service and do not allow new members.

    I believe the Photoshop Feature Request & Bug Reporting site will remain on Photoshop.com. Only photo storage is moving to Revel. You should be able to create a new login  if you don't already have an Adobe ID. You can  login with a 'Get Satisfaction' account or create a new 'Get Satisfaction' account:

     

     

    Photoshop.com Login.jpg

    Let me know if you need further assistance.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2013 1:22 PM   in reply to Othmar Atzor

    I had to create a separate account as well for Photoshop.com. If you create a Photoshop Family Bug Report please post the link here. I will add my +1 vote!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 21, 2013 5:38 AM   in reply to Othmar Atzor

    I downloaded the raw file, and it has unrecoverably clipped highlights. I haven't done any effort to analyze the individual clipping in the three color channels, but my guess is that the clipping in the three color channels occured at different light intensities because the light was not an even mixture of red, green and blue.

     

    Consequently you get rather abrupt color shifts when moving from a part of the photo where no color channels are clipped and into a part of the photo where one color channel is clipped. And the same when moving from 1 clipped color channel to 2 clipped color channels, etc.

     

    Obviously, we would all like our raw processing software to handle this as painlessly as possible, and it is annoying to see the camera's raw conversion handle it better than Lightroom's. But the first advice should be:

     

    Don't clip your highlights when you are exposing.

     

    By the way, you may want to try Process 2010 Lightroom with this photo. The handling of clipped highlights changed between 2010 and 2012, and I can get a smoother transition above the lamps with 2010. But below the lamps, the color transitions are just as bad, and neither are as good as the original JPG.

     

    Actually, the in-camera JPG is so smooth that I wonder if the camera had access to more highlight information than it put into the raw file.

     

    Edit:

    I just saw T Shaner's posting in your other thread. That is of course also a possibility: That Lightroom has clipped highlight information, even though it was present in the raw data.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 21, 2013 7:09 AM   in reply to Allan_Olesen

    Here's the RawDigger image showing highlight clipping. The solid red area is clipped in all four channels (R, G, B, G2), so I'd expect that to be white and the red speckled area (partial channel clipping) to be color shifted. Everywhere else the color should be correct, but it isn't.

    RawDigger RW2 File.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 21, 2013 7:34 AM   in reply to trshaner

    trshaner wrote:

     

    Here's the RawDigger image showing highlight clipping. The solid red area is clipped in all four channels (R, G, B, G2), so I'd expect that to be white and the red speckled area (partial channel clipping) to be color shifted. Everywhere else the color should be correct, but it isn't.

    I see what you mean. In the areas where there is no clipping, the JPG has some magenta tones which are blue in the raw. The most obvious place is the vertical post between the two first lamps from the left side.

     

    If I open the photo in Lightroom and apply Process 2010 instead of 2012, a lot of this magenta color is restored. But not all of it, compared to the JPG.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 21, 2013 7:51 AM   in reply to Allan_Olesen

    Another note - I don't really know if this has any relevance:

     

    I have always had a problem with some blue tones in my photos from a Sony DSLR. Lightroom's rendering differs from the in-camera JPG (which looks most correct). Though the difference is usually rather subtle, I have created a Lightroom preset which makes adjustments to Aqua, Blue and Purple in the HSL panel.

     

    When I apply this preset to Othmar's photo, the effect is very strong. A lot of the blue is changed into magenta, but not exactly in the same natural way as in the original JPG.

     

    So it seems that this photo has a color combination which really triggers the otherwise subtle problem I have with blueish color tones. Which makes me wonder if Lightroom in general has a problem with these color tones. I always thought that it was a special Sony/Lightroom compatibility problem.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 21, 2013 7:55 AM   in reply to Allan_Olesen

    With all my Canon DSLRs I see no color shift in clipped highlight areas between PV2010 and PV2012, only tonal differences. The differences observed between PV2010 and PV2012 with this RW2 file is just another indication that something is wrong with the LR demosaicing process. The SILKYPIX raw editor provides additional controls for recovery of partially clipped highlights that aren't available in LR, but both LR and SILKYPIX should be rendering unclipped highlight areas with the same color accuracy.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 21, 2013 10:01 AM   in reply to Allan_Olesen

    Allan_Olesen wrote:

     

    Another note - I don't really know if this has any relevance:

     

    I have always had a problem with some blue tones in my photos from a Sony DSLR. Lightroom's rendering differs from the in-camera JPG (which looks most correct). Though the difference is usually rather subtle, I have created a Lightroom preset which makes adjustments to Aqua, Blue and Purple in the HSL panel.

     

    This is most likely a difference between LR's camera profile and the in-camera profile used to create the JPEG. This is not the specific issue with the Panasonic raw files.

     

    Save your HSL sliders for creative purposes, not camera calibration. You can use the LR Camera Calibration controls at the bottom of the Develop panel, but  I'd suggest modifying LR's camera profile(s) using the Adobe DNG editor and/or use a ColorChecker Passport.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 21, 2013 10:28 AM   in reply to Othmar Atzor

    Othmar Atzor wrote:

     

    I have put some more picture on the share.

    When i look to my photo series Klangwelten it looks like, that the problem ist only in the color purple/blue area?

     

    When you look at the example blue- or yellow klangwelten i see not that big problem over there in principle.

    Both exhibit the same color shift issue due to improper demosaicing of the unclipped highlight areas. It could be as simple as the wrong maximum signal value (i.e. too low) is being used, which would cause additional clipping and color shift in the unclipped highlight areas.

     

    For the two new RW2 files posted I need to drop Exposure by nearly -2 EV to turn off the highlight clipping indicator in the central fountain area of the image. In RawDigger this area is unclipped in the Blue Klangwellen_20120927_20-53-57 RW2 and only very slightly clipped in the Klangwellen_20120927_21-35-14 RW2. This is a indication of improper RW2 raw tile demosaicing implementation. To be honest RawDigger does a better job of rendering highlights in these images than LR. Try it for yourself:

     

    http://www.rawdigger.com/

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 21, 2013 11:34 AM   in reply to trshaner

    If you are not pleased with the LR/ACR rendition of your cameras raw files the correct site to report a "Feature Request or Bug Report" for Adobe to address the situation is at the following site.

    http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/products/photoshop_fami ly_photoshop_lightroom

     

    At the same time you need to get as many users of your camera model to support the request.

    Posting the problem at this site is not going to attract the attention of the correct support staff at Adobe.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 21, 2013 12:53 PM   in reply to DdeGannes

    DdeGannes wrote:

     

    If you are not pleased with the LR/ACR rendition of your cameras raw files the correct site to report a "Feature Request or Bug Report" for Adobe to address the situation is at the following site.

    http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/products/photoshop_fami ly_photoshop_lightroom

     

    Please read post number 12 in this thread.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 21, 2013 1:04 PM   in reply to trshaner

    trshaner wrote:

     

    For the two new RW2 files posted I need to drop Exposure by nearly -2 EV to turn off the highlight clipping indicator in the central fountain area of the image. In RawDigger this area is unclipped in the Blue Klangwellen_20120927_20-53-57 RW2 and only very slightly clipped in the Klangwellen_20120927_21-35-14 RW2. This is a indication of improper RW2 raw tile demosaicing implementation.

    Could you elaborate on this?

     

    For files from my Sony camera, this behaviour is quite normal, and I see nothing wrong with it. As far as I know, Nikon and to a lesser extent Canon raws have the same behaviour. The raw files contain highlight information above the level where highlights are clipped in the JPG files. So if Lightroom applies the same tone curve to those raws as the camera did, the highlights will appear clipped until you pull the Exposure slider down.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 21, 2013 2:07 PM   in reply to Allan_Olesen

    Sorry I overlooked the post. I have added my support.  I somehow think we need some additional support only 3 persons indicate they have this problem.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 21, 2013 2:18 PM   in reply to Allan_Olesen

    With my Canon 300D, 600D and 5D MKII DSLR camera images that exhibit little or no highlight clipping a -1 EV Exposure setting in LR will generally removes all highlight clipping indication. I can't speak to the behavior of your Sony camera raw images, but examine them first using RawDigger. Find an image that shows very little or NO highlight clipping and then open it in LR and see what Exposure setting removes the clipping indication, with all other settings at defaults.

     

    This would indicate to me that LR's is setting the highlight clipping level too low (~-.5 to -1.0 EV), which is not the actual raw data clipping level. You need to use a raw processor like RawDIgger that displays the R, G, B G2 raw data values to determine the actual clipping level. There's really no way you can determine this inside LR with the camera profile and tone curve applied.

     

    The other possibility is that the sensor in this Panasonic camera becomes non-linear at some point near the clipping level (i.e. -1 to -2 EV), but I doubt that.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 21, 2013 2:37 PM   in reply to trshaner

    trshaner wrote:

    This would indicate to me that LR's is setting the highlight clipping level too low (~-.5 to -1.0 EV), which is not the actual raw data clipping level.

    If the clipping level in the JPG photos from the camera is lower than the clipping level in the raws, and Lightroom applies a tone curve intended to give the same (highlight) brightness as the original JPG, this is the expected behaviour.

     

    You have to remember that the clipping indicator in Lightroom is an output clipping indicator, not an input clipping indicator.

     

    So as long as we don't know the difference between raw and JPG clipping level in the files from the OP's camera, the highlight clipping indication in Lightroom is not an indication that Lightroom is doing anything wrong. And even if it turns out that this difference is not two stops, the explanation could be as simple as a different tone curve in Lightroom.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 21, 2013 3:10 PM   in reply to Allan_Olesen

    It's pretty clear LR is doing something wrong when converting these RW2 raw files. Download RawDigger and compare the RW2 image files to what's observed in LR. Also compare your Sony camera raw files. Then tell us what you think is the cause of the highlight color shift observed inside LR.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 21, 2013 4:13 PM   in reply to trshaner

    We already agree that something is wrong with Lightroom's treatment of the OP's files.

     

    What we do not agree on is what you can deduce from the highlight clipping indicators in Lightroom. You have not adressed the points I raised. So I try again:

     

    If the same exposure leads to clipping in the JPG file from the camera while it does not lead to clipping in the raw file, and Lightroom applies the same default tone curve as the camera did - then why would you expect Lightroom to preserve the highlights in a raw file you have not yet adjusted?

     

    I repeat: Lightroom's clipping indicator indicates clipping in the output, not in the raw input.

     

    (And for the record: I have already downloaded Rawdigger. I can't trust it to show clipping for my Sony files. I can sample a 59x49 pixel area where every single G and G2 pixel has the same value of 15980, and yet Rawdigger doesn't show highlight clipping in that area because some single pixels in other areas have a value of 16084. Why highlight clipping occurs just below the max. level I can't explain. I don't know if this an artefact from Sony's pseudo-logarithmic raw compression scheme or an error in Rawdigger. But it is not a discussion for this thread anyway.)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 22, 2013 6:17 AM   in reply to Allan_Olesen

    Allan, I agree with everything you're saying. When a raw image file without any clipping is opened in LR the applied tone curve and color profile often will show clipping in both the histogram and highlight clipping indictor in the Loupe view. Lowering Exposure and/or Highlights sliders will recover all of these areas that are showing as clipped.

     

    What I was trying to point out is that these Panasonic RW2 raw files behave differently than similar image files shot with my Canon DSLRs (i.e. unclipped images need -2 EV vs -1 EV). This could be due to the tone curve, but clearly that's a difference in how LR is processing RW2 images. Also, when shooting Raw + JPEG with my Canon DSLRs the differences between the camera JPEG and raw file with LR defaults are usually very small. The differences in all of the posted JPEG and RW2 files are quite dramatic, indicating major problems with LR's raw conversion of the RW2 file. Why this is happening is still a mystery and my guess is that there are multiple issues. So, what do you think is the cause?

     

    Allan_Olesen wrote:

     

    (And for the record: I have already downloaded Rawdigger. I can't trust it to show clipping for my Sony files. I can sample a 59x49 pixel area where every single G and G2 pixel has the same value of 15980, and yet Rawdigger doesn't show highlight clipping in that area because some single pixels in other areas have a value of 16084. Why highlight clipping occurs just below the max. level I can't explain. I don't know if this an artefact from Sony's pseudo-logarithmic raw compression scheme or an error in Rawdigger. But it is not a discussion for this thread anyway.)

    RawDigger default highlight clipping threshold is set to 'Auto' with a Sensitivity of 0.1% (99.9%). You can also the set the threshold manually in 'Preferences.' Below is the original RW2 in RawDigger with 0.1% Auto highlight threshold of 3951 and Manual threshold of 3954. As far as I can tell RawDigger accurately displays raw data clipping.

     

    RawDigger RW Clipping Threshold File.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 22, 2013 8:16 AM   in reply to trshaner

    trshaner wrote:

     

    So, what do you think is the cause?

     

    Well, I am a Sony owner, and in the Sony community we have known for years that there was a difference on this point between Canon and Sony. Sony's cameras will leave much more unused highlight information in the raw file than Canon's cameras do.

     

    I have tested this with my own cameras by taking a series of raw+JPG photos with 1/3 stop exposure increment and then examining which of them are clipped in JPG and which are clipped in raw. Usually, the raw clips in all channels at least 1 stop later than the JPG.

     

    So, knowing this difference between camera manufacturers, I guess I am more open to the thought of a camera leaving even more stops of unused highlight information in the raw file.

     

    But this doesn't mean that you can't be right. Obviously something else is wrong here when we look at the unclipped areas. I am just saying that you have no proof that the clipping difference is caused by a demosaicing error.

     

     

    trshaner wrote:

     

    RawDigger default highlight clipping threshold is set to 'Auto' with a Sensitivity of 0.1% (99.9%). You can also the set the threshold manually in 'Preferences.' Below is the original RW2 in RawDigger with 0.1% Auto highlight threshold of 3951 and Manual threshold of 3954. As far as I can tell RawDigger accurately displays raw data clipping.

    It is not so much the limits for the clipping indicator which worries me. What I don't understand is that I at the border of a clipped area have single pixels with a higher value than the pixels inside the clipped area. This could be a sign of either some strange property of the camera processing or a faulty decoding of pixel values by Rawdigger.

     

    But my life just got much easier with this adjustable treshold. Thanks.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 22, 2013 10:38 AM   in reply to Allan_Olesen

    Yes, areas that are -2 EV to -4 EV also appear to be color shifted, which may indicate the Adobe Standard camera profile has some color accuracy issues. I use a ColorChecker Passport (CCPP) and prefer the DNG camera profiles it produces with my Canon DSLRs. The differences between the CCPP profile and the Adobe Standard profile are small, but I suspect with the Panasonic RW2 images it might help a lot more. Regardless, the CCPP is a useful tool for establishing white balance in LR, especially for images shot under less than normal lighting conditions. It looks like Amazon is selling it for $82.99.

     

     

    Allan_Olesen wrote:

    trshaner wrote:

     

    RawDigger default highlight clipping threshold is set to 'Auto' with a Sensitivity of 0.1% (99.9%). You can also the set the threshold manually in 'Preferences.' Below is the original RW2 in RawDigger with 0.1% Auto highlight threshold of 3951 and Manual threshold of 3954. As far as I can tell RawDigger accurately displays raw data clipping.

    It is not so much the limits for the clipping indicator which worries me. What I don't understand is that I at the border of a clipped area have single pixels with a higher value than the pixels inside the clipped area. This could be a sign of either some strange property of the camera processing or a faulty decoding of pixel values by Rawdigger.

     

    But my life just got much easier with this adjustable treshold. Thanks.

     

    Glad I could help! Try increasing the RawDigger view size to the maximum 1,000%. Each camera pixel is represented by a box containing four R, G, G2, B sub-pixels. You may have some "speckled" areas that looked clipped because only one sub-pixel is over the highlight threshold. If not post a file for download and I'll be happy to look at it.

     

    RawDigger Pixel Detail.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 22, 2013 2:13 PM   in reply to Othmar Atzor

    I've noticed the same kind of strong tint deviation with DMC-LX3's rw2 files under LR5, although not as dramatic as in your example. It requires a bit of tweaking to the H/S/L values (or to the Camera Profile sliders) in order to achieve something close to the out-of-camera Jpegs. The deviation is also not consistent throughout varying exposure levels - it takes quite a bit of work to fix each and every pic.

     

    The best solution would be perfect calibration through a DNG color profile (using one of these expensive Color Checkers). In the meantime, processing Adobe's default camera profiles might produce some interesting results too, by removing their color twists (see dcptool's website for examples and howtos + the DNG profile editor doc)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 22, 2013 4:27 PM   in reply to ShotRu

    For those less inclined with command line applications like dcp Tool the ColorChecker Passport is a good alternative. The CCPP software creates linear (non-twisted) DNG profiles and is very useful for establishing White Balance inside LR by shooting the CCPP "on-location" and for creating  "standard" lighting condition (daylight, tungsten, flash) Develop presets. It comes with both a LR plugin for creating your DNG profiles and stand-alone application that works independent of LR. You can also create dual-illuminant profiles, such as daylight + tungsten.

     

    You can also use your CCPP calibration shots with the free Adobe DNG Editor (ADE) to create  "custom" calibrated twisted profiles. You will need to Export the CCPP image files to DNG format to use them with ADE.

     

    I've created CCPP profiles for each camera body using both the CCPP software (linear) and ADE (twisted). To be honest I prefer the CCPP software generated profiles. I've also created tone curve modified CCPP profiles with ADE for portrait images (i.e. lower contrast).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 23, 2013 2:31 PM   in reply to Othmar Atzor

    I think they have sent you a canned response. I would not be satisfied.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 23, 2013 3:51 PM   in reply to Allan_Olesen

    I have followed this thread with some interest because I also have a Panasonic Camera G3 and I am not totally happy with the Lightroom created profiles and rendition.

    Adobe is  providing a third party rendition of raw files from many Camera Manufacturers with numerious models each requiring individual attention.

     

    They provide their own engineer's profiles and rendition of the raw data. They are not about providing you with the exact / same taste/ rendition of the file, its just not pysically possible since there is human input from different thinking individuals. They are using their own technology since they do not have the use of Panasonic's processes. I believe Adobe is quite aware that it is in their own interest to provide a competive or superior alternative and will make every effort to achieve this within their resources. Your camera manufacturer has provided you with SilkyPix Software an alternative since they are in a competive market with Adobe.

    As an example it took them (Adobe) at least six months to optimize their profile/ processing of Fujifilm Trans X sensor files, just saying.

     

    One additional thought, I use several different raw processing software and have been since ACR 2.4 in 2004. Adobe is providing top of the line raw processing software but IMHO are not the best for "ALL" Camera Manufacturers and Models. There are more than half a dozen providers that can match their quality with varing camera models. I consider SilkyPix on of the top of the list. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 23, 2013 3:41 PM   in reply to Allan_Olesen

    Definetly a canned message with no acknowledgment of the actual issue presented in the Bug Report.

     

    You could try sending Eric Chan a private message. Not sure he will reply, but he's the one at Adobe who usually responds to camera profile issues like this one. The images you posted should be very helpful in determining the root cause. Provide him the link to this post and the Bug report site link.

     

    In the meantime you might want to consider purchasing a ColorChecker Passport and create your own DNG profiles. Based on what I'm seeing with the Adobe Standard profile it could resolve much of the color shift you are seeing in these night shots. I think you will  find it a useful tool even if Adobe corrects the issues with the current Panasonic DMC-FZ200 Adobe Standard camera profile.

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 Previous Next
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (3)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points