For Canon and Nikon (and a Leica and a few Pentax) cameras, besides their standard Adobe profile, Adobe makes Camera-matching profiles that attempt to simulate the way the camera JPGs look. Unfortunately, there are no Camera-matching profiles for Olympus cameras...perhaps a resource-allocation decision based on the perceived number of Olympus users vs the time and expense of creating camera-matching profiles. Even with the additional profiles the colors aren't always the same, just closer more of the time.
You can see what cameras are supported with the camera-matching profiles by looking in:
You can try creating your own camera profile for PS and LR using something like an X-Rite Passport:
What is the WB of the RAW file? Was there fluorescent lighting in the mix?
Thanks for your reply. WB is set "As shot", no fluorescent WB. Other colors are ok, just this orange is way off.
I don't think it's an issue of color profile. Adobe colors are usually quite accurate, Olympus JPEG seems exaggerate things a bit, not not that much. This time the color in raw is a bit off, I need to tune the color by changing the yellow hue to -60! Adobe color is not only different from JPEG, but different from the subject I shot.
Just to be sure, I took the same shot in the daylight. XZ-1 using iAuto, WB Auto.
RAW developed with default setting from Lightroom, the orange color tinged towards yellow.
I check the physical object, the orange color is very close to the JPEG version, it should be far more orange than yellow.
I feel that XZ-1's red and yellow might need some further calibration from Adobe.
Luke, try this one
I made it from Adobe standard, but replaced a lookup table in the profile with version that was used in older Adobe standard profiles (hence the name - Adobe Standard Old). Should have lower orange hue, although not as low as jpeg from camera. Hope it will work, as I don't have XZ-1 to try it. That's all I can do
From my reading, the Adobe Standard conversion in LR isn't orange enough. Does "lower orange hue" mean more orange or less orange?
Comparing the camera-embedded preview JPG extracted with ExifTool with the Adobe Standard LR conversion of a sample ORF downloaded online, there is clearly a difference in hue for a specific range of colors, and in this example it is the wall behind the clown. Either Adobe hasn't spend much time with the profile because it is not for a Canon or Nikon DSLR or if their shifting orange to yellow is on purpose, perhaps they are trying to optimize skin colors to something less snookie-like (less orange) but it obviously affects things besides skin:
Looking at a RAW+JPG pair file from my own Canon camera, the old-style ACR 4.4 profile is clearly more yellowish and the Adobe Standard is close to the in-camera JPG conversion:
Just clarify what I wrote before.
Yes, I mean increase the orange color, but that in operation, is actually ask Lightroom to "decrease" the value of orange hue, so it will shift orange towards the red side. so better say it's to reduce the color of yellow.
In reality, it's hard to say whether the yellow is too strong or the red is not enough. Shifting the yellow will work for this photo, but create problem for other photos. A calibration is a better way to fix it.
you are right about the impact of the hue shift, it impacts a lot of my photos. In your example, it's hard to judge whether it's the problem of JPEG or RAW, I was highly suspicious of the JPEG until I get hold of the physical object. The JPEG looks so much closer to the real color. Even in your example, the ORF's version clown's background looks more natural. Looks like JPEG is more saturated. It's very easy to blame the JPEG for this problem.
Is there anyway can get Adobe to have a look at this?
My comments about shifting the hue were directed towards Vit who supplied a different Adobe Standard that was modified to use the older calibration matrix, and from my experiment with my Canon Adobe Standard vs the older ACR x.x, the ACR x.x calibration was more yellow and that applied to a too-yellow image would make it worse not better. Did you try Vit's Adobe Standard Old and was it even worse or did it fix things, somewhat?
Whether the ORF or the JPG is more correct depends on the color of the stain of the wood in the background. I thought the JPEG looked better if it was something like cherry that had been used.
As far as Adobe caring or not, Eric Chan/MadManChan is the main RAW engineer that chimes in when he feels like it sometimes so if he doesn’t say anything you can imagine that the issue will be ignored but perhaps it'll be addressed silently. If nothing changes it'll be up to you to create your own profile(s) with something like the X-Rite Color Checker Passport by photographing the standard color target in a couple specific colors of lighting and then using the free program to create your own profile.
It has been my experience that it is impossible to get a perfect calibration and fixing one color makes another further off, so it's possible that Adobe has done the best they can do with their particular calibration methods and taking another look wouldn't change anything. Or maybe a mistake was made and things could be better.
To demonstrate the difference in color-rendering a different profile can make, take a look at these experiments I did some years back, using a script Tom Fors created and Tindemans and others modified that would compute the optimum positions of the calibration sliders to minimize the color error in different lighting. On my slow computer, it would take hours, sometimes, for the scripts to converge on the optimal values. Adobe releasing their own tool to create profiles made the scripts mostly obsolete and they have stopped being maintained so likely won't work in the current version of ACR, anymore.
The images in this gallery represent two different color-checker photographs that were rendered with various camera profiles and/or optimal slider values, and the distance of between the circle and the square is the amount of error, with the number in parenthesis being the error and the lower is better. The "error" is interpreted as the 3-dimensional "distance" between the RGB value measured from the photograph with the color-profile/slider-values applied compared to the published standard RGB values for each color patch. For my camera, a custom-created camera profile had the smallest error for the incandescent (2700K) photograph, but the ACR 4.4 profile + Tindemans slider values had the least error for the Hazy Sun (6500K) shot. The last item on each row is the profile that Adobe tries to make as most like the in-camera JPG as possible. At the time of my experiments Adobe was just developing their new camera-match profiles so these were the results with the first beta release of them.
Having the colors be the most accurate isn't the same as having things look the most pleasing in a wide range of photos, so maybe Adobe has perfected their Adobe Standard profile for your camera as much as they want and won't give it any more attention, or maybe someone will see this thread and decide to tweak things. It is not Adobe's job to make their Adobe Standard profile recreate the in-camera JPG conversion so don't hold your breath.
My suggestion would be to wait until ACR is released and see if things have improved, and if not, buy a color-checker passport and make your own profile for different lighting situations. I have my default color-profile as one I've created myself, but sometimes switch to one of the Adobe-created ones if it looks better for a particular situation.
I made that profile using Adobe standard for XZ-1, but replaced a lookup table with a table from one of older Adobe standard profiles. So color matrices and forward matrices in this profile are the same as in the profile Adobe Standard for XZ-1. Profiles like ACR 4.4 used only matrices and no lookup table
As I thought, orange hue is slightly lower with this profile (right half of the attached picture), but there are also some differences in red hue, which is also lower.
However, you won't get the same rendering as the camera with this or any other "Adobe standard" profile (in case Adobe changes color matrices in the release version of the profile) - you need a "camera profile" for that
Vit's profile solve my problem. I understand Adobe has their own calibration process, hopefully they have a second look at this. It does improve my pictures significantly, it's amazing how tiny bit of orange can improve the skin tone. Before people looks sick with pale yellow skin. The rendering was not very attractive.
I checked your pbase site, very impressed by the X-Rite result for your 7D in Best Buy Skin tone. I can see the calibrated skin tone is much better!
X-Rite seems to be great value, the color checker alone is selling for half the price. The passport is a convenient package even with calibration software included, great!
Thanks for your extremely detailed explanation. I feel like today had a crash course in calibration 101.
The whole color calibration is all new to me. It took me several hours already to figure out what X-rite calibration does. I download their manual from website and reading it. I think the DNG profiler also is very interesting.
Just a question about DNG profile:
I know I can create a profile to match the correct value. But what if I want to create a profile similiar to camera JPEG look and feel. say I want to create a profile similiar to the portrait mode.
so what I do is to set the camera to portrait mode, take a photo of the colorchecker chart, then convert the JPEG to DNG, open it in DNG profiler to create a color table. Then save and export profile.
Is it roughly how I do a camera profile? Am I on the right track? could this be done in the calibration software in X-rite? I read their manual under the impression that they can only calibrate to the "correct" value.
Thanks in advance,
I'm not familiar with X-rite software or any other widely used calibration software, but I'm affraid you can't get "camera profile" that way.
In my piece of software that I'm using for this I have a color chart with the same number of colors as the lookup table in the profile. And this number is 90x16x16 = 23040, as in latest camera profiles from Adobe, which is way more than those widely used color checker charts. To make a profile, I first have to make a raw file containing this chart with another program, get it developped by Canon Digital Photo Pro or Nikon NX2 and then calculate a profile on the difference between input and output. Unfortunately, I only found a way how to make Canon and Nikon raw files that are recognizable by those programs (using parts of the code found on the internet), so I can't make Olympus camera profiles. I suppose that Adobe is using similar approach, although details of their calibration procedure is unknown
Another approach would be to use camera profile for some other similar camera (with some simple modifications concerning camera model name in the profile). But, it seems that Olympus is using CCD made by Panasonic, unlike Canon G12 and Nikon P7000 that are probably using CCD made by Sony, so its color response is probably significantly different and profile wouldn't work very good
Anyway, try these
I combined XZ-1 Adobe standard profile with some camera profiles for Canon G12 (standard and portrait), that are also made by Adobe. On the test photo from dpreview, colors look relatively good to me, so maybe they will be usefull for you in some situations. However, rendering in Canon cameras is a bit different than in Olympus (Olympus generally returning 'warmer' colors than Canon), even under assumption that response of the sensor is the same, which probably isn't. You will also notice differences in brightness and contrast, because of different tone curve than in Adobe standard profiles
Vit, been keeping along with this thread with some interest just out of curiosity. Glad I came across someone as knowledgeable about this as you.
From the work and research you've indicated here, what makes sensors different from one brand to another assuming as you said their response isn't the same.
A CCD is a CCD, so is it the Bayer filter spectral radiance? the electronics such as the A/D converter or is it all made different by the demosaicing algorithm?
Also where do you find this color target with 23040 samples to build the look up table for the "camera profile"? How proprietary is all this camera profiling?
The electronics behind and the filters in front of the sensor can change things even if the photosites, themselves are the same, and there is competition in the sensor market with pressure for less noise, higher density and lower power consumption/heat-generation, so it would be unlikely that two cameras had the same sensor unless they came out at the same time and only features were different, but Adobe is not a camera manufacturer so it is better they profile every camera. Some of the profiling has to do with noise-reduction slider settings, and standardization of ISO to brightness, so it's not just colors Adobe has to deal with, and plastic vs metal cases can change the heat/noise characteristics even if the colors are the same.
There is a nice comparison between Canon and Nikon camera regarding spectral characteristics of their sensors and resulting color matrix in the profile
Of course, I don't know the details, but as general rule, sensors with bigger pixels have sharper spectral response of each color channel. I presume it's because color filter in front of the pixel is more effective if the pixel is bigger. Also, I presume there are some differences in materials being used for filter between manufacturers.
Regarding profiles, first I have to point out (although I hope it was evident from my posts) that XZ-1 profiles I attached in this topic are just combined from several profiles made by Adobe, so take them as experimental.
Camera profiles are another story. As I described in some previous topics concerning profiles, I made a program for making camera profiles for Canon compacts that have no raw mode out of the box, but can produce raw files using chdk software. Those cameras are not properly supported by any raw development program, so I tried to make a program to profile them, mostly out of curiosity. One of the functions in chdk software is 'develop raw', so you can take a photo in raw mode and develop this raw in the camera to jpeg later. Or - you can make a raw file with a program, put it into camera and develop it to jpeg. So I came to idea to make a kind of test raw file that contains a test chart and develop it to jpeg with the camera. Comparing input and output, I calculated a profile. It's a simple idea, although implementation took a lot of experimenting. The biggest problem was jpeg compression, which was spoiling the results. So I tried different methods and my final version of test chart looks like this
It contains millions of colors and covers all points in the lookup table of the profile. This test chart does not exist physically, but just as raw image. Of course, it's not simple like that - various parameters have to be taken into account, like white balance, white level, black level etc ... to produce useful test raw file that can be used to make a profile
Making raw file for those compacts was easy, because it's just binary dump of data, recorded by sensor. Ordinary raw file, produced by cameras that "have raw mode" is a complex tiff structure. But I found some code to make cr2 and nef raw files, so after correcting some misconceptions in that code, I was able to make proper raw files for Canon and Nikon cameras and get them developped by Canon Digital Photo Pro or Nikon NX2, so I profiled my 400D, because camera profiles provided by Adobe several years ago had some flaws. But their calibration method improved significantly in the meantime, as I shown in one topic on this forum, so their "v3" camera profiles are now almost as precise as mine. I hope they'll become even better ...
Thanks for your camera profile for G12.
I generally have no complaints about colors, as long as they look right to my eyes. This XZ-1 is just an one off case. I am otherwise quite happy with the default profile. I trust that Adobe has the expertise. So I think I will skip the LX5, panasonic colors just not the way i like it.
I never expect that much "trouble" to create a camera profile. Well, I just think it's interesting to show you this, the comparison between different profiles.
RAW (With vit's custom profile)
RAW with Adobe standard Profile for XZ-1
RAW with G12 Standard Profile
RAW with G12 Portrait Profile
The rice on the plate is a good judge of white balance. That rice was prestine white.
The XZ-1 JPEG is about right, you are right, slightly warmer, but not much as the rice stays white. and Canon Portrait is on the cooler side of white balance. All the others looks way too warm. As the rice turns yellow.
You can see the pork rib on the rice, with adobe xz-1 standard profile, the meat look very yellow., but with your fix, it is a very close match to the JPEG. Quite amazing how big the difference!
I also like the G12 portrait look very much, it yield a very pleasant clean feeling.
After I tune the WB down a bit with your profile, they look great! I wonder if it is possible to add a white balance shift in the profile?
@spprengel - thank you so much for all your help before!
all profiles I attached here have, believe or not, the same WB, because I used color matrices from Adobe standard profile (checked once more to be sure). They have different lookup table, and in case of camera profiles, forward matrices and tone curve. However, rice on your photos looks different, because with WB that you used, it's not white in the photo (meaning R=G=B), but a kind of orange color with hue around 40 and saturation around 50. Since we have AWB built in our eyes and brains, it still looks almost white, because other orange colors are more saturated. And, since rice doesn't appear white, it looks different, depending on profile used
You can use WB dropper tool on the rice, that will set WB to rice and it will be about white. In that case, it should look more or less the same with all of these profiles. However, photo will look quite 'cold' in that case, it will loose this orange cast
Of course, it's possible to tune WB of profile by changing its color matrices. It can be done even with DNG profile editor. But, since Adobe team surely has equipments to determine WB properly, I think there's no reason to change it. Also, if you used WB As shot in ACR for these photos, it wouldn't make any difference - photos would look the same with 'wb tuned profiles', only color temperature and tint displayed in ACR would be different. However, if you set WB manually in ACR with those 'wb tuned profiles', WB of resulting photo would be different in that case
Spent some time reading the DXO link and what others here have posted including the past threads Vit participated in concerning his camera profiling methods, a subject that's intrigued me since I edited my first Raw off my Pentax K100D DSLR.
I'm not a programmer, just a former photo realistic painter who's studied the visual effects of light on color. Just can't wrap my head around writing code to manipulate pixels on screen. It's very interesting seeing how someone goes about doing this.
I have a ton of questions mainly concerning tertiary color detail and color constancy manipulation through profiling from a visual rather than mathematical code matrix perspective that's most likely beyond the scope of this thread.
Just want to thank all for their input to my questions and answers to Luke's.
Thanks for your clarification on WB.
I just figured out that there could be put a lot of things manufacturer could throw in to "bake" the JPEG engine.Why JPEG color cannot be duplicated, because maybe it's not simple color variance.
with automatic scene detection, if the processor detect landscape mode and blue sky, it can automatically calculate how to shift the blue to make it more attractive depends on the measurement. Each time they could shift a different amount. landscape with sunset, the camera can add a a reddish cast to the scene. They can add different amount of red given their exposure information, to make image look natural. If the technology like that is happening, there could not be a standard "landscape" color profile. I also notice my xz-1's auto mode even automatically correct the black level to some degrees.
RAW and JPEG probably have to go separate ways in term of color. As long as the color look good enough and similiar to camera's P mode. Adobe has done their job. I just wish there is something easier in Lightroom to help photos looks more attractive, e.g if a particular color looks a bit off, e.g. purple looks like pink, people should be able to pick a color, or pick the color they want from another image, lightroom shift the color automatically. present people different previews, people choose the version they like the most. Since there will be different combinations to get to the shift, some will make more sense than others.
Shift the Hue,luminance might not be second nature for many beginners, it can be quite hard. you never know which colour is too much or something else is missing.
I think it really helps to have an alternative profile for each camera. With the default adobe profile for xz-1, it didn't work well for the food. It's useful to switch between different profiles. again with vit's custom profile, the orange looks great, similiar to the JPEG. however, the red can cause some problem, some red shifted towards magenta, making everyone "wearing lipsticks" in rare occasions. I've made different presets to address different situations, that's temporarily sorted now.
Again, I think a x-rite color card sounds like a good investment, at least an easy way to make a picturel look "right".
Anyway, Thank you again vit and spprengel for all your help. :-)
With the Adobe Standard profile, Adobe's job is not trying to duplicate camera processing in P mode as you say. It is going for a look that is consistent across all the camera brands and models it has dealt with over the years, and historically probably geared toward commercial magazine and catalog print output where clothing colors being correct for the end consumer are the most important, so using Adobe Standard probably won't produce images like the in-camera JPGs.
For Canon and Nikon cameras and a very few others, Adobe makes some effort to replicate in-camera JPG processing with additional "camera-match" profiles. Because your camera is from a less common manufacturer, Adobe has chosen not to produce camera-matching profiles for it, and you're left to beg from others or create your own with third-party color-targets and software.
You will find that producing your own color profiles with an x-rite color checker passport may also not match the in-camera JPG, since you're not involving JPGs in the process, only RAWs converted to DNG. But it should make the colors look more correct as far as the original scene, to the extent that using a 18-color-patches + 6 grays can cover the full spectrum of color, and this correctness may or may not be right for a particular scenario.
I helped with a wedding last summer and dutifully took a few shots of the color checker at various points in the church to get the mixture of daylight, artificial light, and a touch of multi-colored stained-glass coloring things here and there. However, I ended up using Adobe's Camera-Standard (camera-match) profile for my Canon DSLR, because my own custom profiles brightened the colors too much.
Specifically, the church had neutral-colored walls along the sides, and various colors of artificial high-pressure lighting overhead, and one set of bulbs in particular had an ugly yellowish cast, so wherever this artificial lighting was close to the wall, there was a yellowish area compared to the more bluish diffused daylight elsewhere. For this particular shoot, it was more important to minimize the saturation of this ugly yellow area than it was the have all the colors correct.
I was able to almost neutralize the yellowish areas by selective HSL adjustments in LR where by using the Camera-Standard profile there was less of this color to remove so it was easier. Had I not taken so many pictures, and had more time to experiment, I might have found a set of tweaks to the RGB adjustment sliders beneath my own custom profile would have also minimized the yellowish area, but I spent my time perfecting various things for each photo, rather than perfecting the color profile for all of them. In this photoshoot, having the correct colors was less important than having pleasing photos.
I have another non-standard camera brand, Pentax K100D DSLR, that Adobe doesn't include Picture style profiles nor makes an attempt to replicate the jpeg with either Adobe Standard or default ACR 4.4 profiles, but it still does pretty decent job on a wide range of memory colors like orange.
See below the four color variants of orange compared to the Pentax jpeg of a test shot lit under a Philips "Natural Sunshine" 5000K/91 CRI fluorescent tube bought at Home Depot. Exposure specs are...AutoWB, 35mm, 1/30's, f/7.1, ISO 400. All that was changed in the three non-Pentax jpeg was the profile with the forth being a custom DNG dual illuminant profile made from an X-rite ColorChecker chart.
Here it is, I found it somewhere on the disk ... however, I don't know is it the same sensor as in Canon, made by Sony. If the sensor is made by Panasonic (like in LX-5), I suppose colors will be undersaturated, as that sensor is less sensitive to colors