24 Replies Latest reply on May 7, 2011 3:40 PM by George in Seattle

    Camera profile information needed

    George in Seattle Level 1

      Where do I find write-ups on camera profiles. The site search turns up nothing.  Specifically, how do I determine whether I have the latest Cannon and Nikon camera profiles?  We use mostly 5DM2, D3/D700 DSLRs.

       

      I am specifically concerned whether the Nikon D3/D700 profiles are up to date because they appear (to my eye) to have some weirdness happening.  There appears to be an unnecessary tradeoff between accurate color and contrast, especially in orange vs highlights.  I happen to have a very keen eye for certain animal hair color and can tell when its not perfect.  The color appears to be most accurate when the whites are totally blown out!?  Attempts to make my own have as well fixed the contrast, but with very unacceptable color.

       

      I've seen some 3rd party articles, but they tend to ramble, and I have no idea of their veracity.   Are there any "white papers" on this?  And are there any links with which to verify stock profile dates?  Is there a list of current profiles?  Any help would be appreciated becuse I feel like I'm continually googling dead ends.

        • 1. Re: Camera profile information needed
          Geoff the kiwi Adobe Community Professional & MVP

          George, if you have the latest version of Lightroom - LR 3.3 you will have the latest camera profiles available. There has been a lot of discussion over profiles and I guess you could say they are still a "work in progress" as with most things digital!!

          I suggest you might want to talk to Sizzling Badger over at Lightroomforums who is up on this. He has posted in this thread on the topic:

          http://www.lightroomforums.net/showthread.php?11718-Untwisted-and-Invariant-camera-profile s-2-threads-merged&p=83892#post83892

          1 person found this helpful
          • 2. Re: Camera profile information needed
            Todd Shaner Adobe Community Professional & MVP

            George said:

             

            I happen to have a very keen eye for certain animal hair color and can tell when its not perfect. The color appears to be most accurate when the whites are totally blown out!?

             

            I had my own color darkroom for many years until I switched to digital photography medium. I developed a very keen eye for color balance and exposure, so can appreciate your concern and criticism. You should not expect the Adobe or camera manufacturer's (Nikon) profiles to be "perfect." Camera imaging sensor spectral response can vary significantly from one production wafer to the next. A color profile created for your specific camera model will not be accurate unless it has a sensor from the same batch as used to create the profile.

             

            My best suggestion from personal experience is to use a camera profiling device to create profiles with your camera. I use the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport and create custom Daylight, Cloudy and Tungsten profile for each of my camera bodies. It is a very simple process! For a critical shoot or one at a unique location (high-altitude), you can use the ColorChecker Passport "on location," and create a new profile later just for these images.

             

            Most importantly, ALL of these color matching efforts are for naught if you do not regularly calibrate your computer monitor using a colorimeter or other hardware calibration device. I use the X-Rite i1 Display 2 and very pleased with the results. The difference in appearance of my LR processed images using Adobe or Canon's camera profiles versus my own are like night and day. They have more accurate color hue, saturation, contrast and overall tonal quality and I speak from over 35 years of both film and digital photography processing experience. Follow these suggestions and I am certain you will be very pleased with the results – Enjoy!

            • 3. Re: Camera profile information needed
              George in Seattle Level 1

              Thanks for that link.  The reason I asked is because in my search I saw reference to "D3X" profiles, which do not exist in 3.4RC and CR 6.4.

              • 4. Re: Camera profile information needed
                Geoff the kiwi Adobe Community Professional & MVP

                George, the profiles for D3X and D3S  are in LR 3.4RC and ACR 6.4RC.

                On a Mac they are in: Library>Application Support>Adobe>Camera Raw>Camera Profiles and both Adobe Standard and Camera folders.

                 

                The profile creator is found here: http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles:Editor

                1 person found this helpful
                • 5. Re: Camera profile information needed
                  George in Seattle Level 1

                  Geoff the kiwi wrote:

                  George, the profiles for D3X and D3S  are in LR 3.4RC and ACR 6.4RC.

                  That suggests there was an install problem on my system because they are not there.  The "About" is correct for both.  The folders seem to be in order including the one containing my color checker-generated ones.   I don't see a uninstall for CR so that I might try again.

                   

                  The profile creator is found here: http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles:Editor

                  Oh wow, thanks!  There are actually several "canned" profiles I like, but each one is flawed in some way that makes it unusable for all photos.  And it is usually overbright whites or harsh color luminance --in trade for color accuracy in the mid to lower range.   The goal is to merge what I like into one profile that works on any photo from that camera.  None of the flaws that I've seen are inherent in the raw data so that should be possible.   I'm also assuming profile creation is easier said than done or else there would already exist one pleasing to my eye

                   

                  Anyhow, that is the sort of thing I am looking for.  Part of my problem is that searches across the entire adobe.com turn up nothing most of the time.  --even if you are looking to buy a product!   I'm using the wrong keywords or something.  And google searchs often contain too much junk for my add-tormented mind to sift through.

                   

                  Thanks again.

                  • 6. Re: Camera profile information needed
                    George in Seattle Level 1

                    Thanks for the reply.  I use an i1 device and "Spectraview" to calibrate nec monitors and that appears to work well.  I've made colorchecker profiles and am very happy with how they for example, render human skin tones.  Everything appears to break down however when there is need for detail in highlights, such as a white dress.  I do some dog photography, and many dogs have dark coats with pure white markings.  The dark coat hairs need to be seen and in the right color, and the white hairs need to be seen at the same time.  According to the camera, none of this detail is missing, nor are the whites saturated, but they show up that way using most of the profiles.  I'm still reading up in this topic..

                    • 7. Re: Camera profile information needed
                      zyboo
                      On a Mac they are in: Library>Application Support>Adobe>Camera Raw>Camera Profiles and both Adobe Standard and Camera folders.

                      There are four sub-folders in this folder, namely "Adobe Standard" "Adobe Standard beta2" "Camera" and "Camera beta2".

                       

                      I notice that all my cameras are in "Adobe Standard" and - with the exception of my old Fujifilm F810 - in "Camera", whereas both beta 2 sets lack my G12.

                      Is there any point in keeping both beta 2 folders?

                      Obviouslsly the non-beta profiles are more recent and I fear keeping all profiles might lead to an older one being applied.

                      • 8. Re: Camera profile information needed
                        Todd Shaner Adobe Community Professional & MVP

                        Thanks for the reply. I use an i1 device and "Spectraview" to calibrate nec monitors and that appears to work well. I've made colorchecker profiles and am very happy with how they for example, render human skin tones. Everything appears to break down however when there is need for detail in highlights, such as a white dress. I do some dog photography, and many dogs have dark coats with pure white markings. The dark coat hairs need to be seen and in the right color, and the white hairs need to be seen at the same time. According to the camera, none of this detail is missing, nor are the whites saturated, but they show up that way using most of the profiles. I'm still reading up in this topic..

                         

                        George, I don't understand what you mean by "According to the camera, none of the detail is missing, nor are the whites saturated." Do you mean looking at the in-camera histogram, before importing images into LR? The in-camera histogram on most cameras is an sRGB JPEG image created suing the RAW file for viewing on the camera's LCD display. The LCD image and histogram are NOT a good indication of the actual RAW image dynamic range (white/black points), it will show less range! There is something else you are doing that is causing the problems you describe. How does the histogram look in LR after you apply the different profiles? Are they showing highlight or shadow clipping with no (0) exposure correction? Perhaps you can you post a link to one of the problem RAW files for download? I am also using LR 3.4 RC with an X-Rite i1 Display 2 calibrated monitor setup.

                        • 9. Re: Camera profile information needed
                          zyboo Level 1

                          Geoff the Kiwi wrote
                          On a Mac they are in: Library>Application Support>Adobe>Camera Raw>Camera Profiles and both Adobe Standard and Camera folders.

                          There are four sub-folders in this folder, namely "Adobe Standard" "Adobe Standard beta2" "Camera" and "Camera beta2".

                           

                          I notice that all my cameras are in "Adobe Standard" and - with the exception of my old Fujifilm F810 - in "Camera", whereas both beta 2 sets lack my G12.

                          Is there any point in keeping both beta 2 folders?

                          Obviouslsly the non-beta profiles are more recent and I fear keeping all profiles might lead to an older one being applied.

                          • 10. Re: Camera profile information needed
                            Geoff the kiwi Adobe Community Professional & MVP

                            I would remove the beta ones.

                            • 11. Re: Camera profile information needed
                              George in Seattle Level 1

                              trshaner wrote:

                              George, I don't understand what you mean by "According to the camera, none of the detail is missing, nor are the whites saturated." Do you mean looking at the in-camera histogram, before importing images into LR?

                               

                              Thanks for the reply.  I just mean while still on camera, I can zoom into a point of question and verify that the detail/texture exists in a white highlight area.  In other words, it's never actually overexposed, but is rendered that way in LR.   In order lower the white exposure enough to show detail, the colors often become dull.    Also interesting is that a black dress, or the coat of a black dog does not conversely have the opposite problem --it is very easy to see texture on a black object in most any of the profiles without any color luminance compromise.   I will locate a good example of what I am talking about and post it, because it's a bit hard to describe.

                              • 12. Re: Camera profile information needed
                                Todd Shaner Adobe Community Professional & MVP

                                If the images look better on your camera's LCD display than on your computer display with LR, you have a bad monitor or calibration problem. Try this simple test. Set your camera to shoot RAW + JPEG. How do both images look in LR? I bet they both look equally as bad as you described, but the JPEG image has NO profile applied to it. ERGO, this is not a "profile" problem. Next email or move some of the good looking in-camera JPEGs to a different known good computer and see how they look. Images will only look worse in LR than on your camera's LCD display if you have a bad computer monitor setup. What type of monitor are you using and are you able to calibrate for 100 cd/m2 luminace level and 6500K color temperature? You say you use an i1 and Spectraview software with NEC monitors. Is it an NEC bundled package, what model #, etc. Something is obviously wrong with your calibration setup that is causing your highlights to clip (i.e. lost white detail).

                                • 13. Re: Camera profile information needed
                                  George in Seattle Level 1

                                  I have dual NEC 2090UXI monitors which should be calibrated to D65 115 cd/m2 Gama 2.2.   However I dont think that affects what is going on in the samples below:

                                   

                                  Adobe profile:  Dogs white collar is blown out.  The dogs orange color has great contrast but a tiny bit too red. The "Camera portrait" happens to achive the best collar detail but not without washing out the midtone contrast.

                                  Zeke-75232-1-2.jpg

                                   

                                  If I lower exposure the collar detail becomes visible, like it is in real life. But obviously the rest is too dark.

                                  Zeke-75232-1.jpg

                                   

                                  This is a colorchecker profile with some tone curve tweaking, and is the closest I can get without using the brush. This dogs orange color is perfect, but the white still lacks detail and has a slight blue tint. Obviously fixing the blue tint will mess up the color. There is also some haloing where it meets the dark.  If this were a pick photo, I would have to do some tedious brush work.

                                  Zeke-75232-1-6.jpg

                                   

                                  In summary this is the sort of thing that is going on with these mostly dog photos.  But it can happen with white shirts and dresses as well.  The difference is the audience, and dog owners can tell when the color is off --moreso than people can with their own skin tone.  This is what I am trying to read up on.

                                  • 14. Re: Camera profile information needed
                                    MadManChan2000 Adobe Employee

                                    If you have installed the latest version of Lightroom (i.e., 3.4), then you have the latest official camera color profiles installed.

                                     

                                    For the D3, D700, and D300, we do have a newer set of profiles still under testing (i.e., in "beta"). You can find them here:

                                     

                                    http://forums.adobe.com/thread/780605

                                     

                                    Please be sure to read the "beta release notes" in the first post in that thread, should you choose to try those profiles.

                                    • 15. Re: Camera profile information needed
                                      Todd Shaner Adobe Community Professional & MVP

                                      I'm still concerned with your comment that images "look better" on the camera's LCD monitor. Please try shooting a similar "static" test subject using RAW + JPEG and compare both file format images in LR......and as I asked tell us what you see. If none of the camera's built-in JPEG profiles look any better in LR, then you have to start suspecting the monitor. Are you having the same issue with the Canon 5D Mark II images? I'm just trying to make sense out of what you are telling us. I do not see the drastic differences you describe in the posted images, so again points back to your monitor setup.

                                       

                                      Also, what is your final output format - Prints, Onscreen viewing, etc. For screen viewing you can rest assured most people will NOT have a calibrated monitor! For print output you have told us nothing, or even if you have made prints to see what they look like. What ya gonna do with the darn LR images anyhow?

                                       

                                      Go to this site and check the ‘White Saturation’ and Black Level tests, and report your viewing results with the current monitor setup:

                                       

                                      http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

                                      • 16. Re: Camera profile information needed
                                        George in Seattle Level 1

                                        Thanks for the reply and the link.  I am set to collect raw & jpg samples and will get some the next time out, next day or so.  The target audience for these dog photos is about 50% online publications, the rest print advertising dog owners 8x10s. I've never had a problem with hardcopy.  It only seems to be a display problem.

                                         

                                        Go to this site and check the ‘White Saturation’ and Black Level tests, and report your viewing results with the current monitor setup:

                                         

                                        http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

                                        Black level: Calibrated: 1-7 are barely if at all noticable.  The differences are not linear to my eye --the difference increases as they get lighter.   Uncalibrated: All are visible, The darker squares have a very faint red tint. The differences are more linear.

                                         

                                        White Saturation:  Calibrated:  All are visible and the differences appear to be linear.  Uncalibrated:  --not much difference except the gray is slightly off.

                                         

                                        The Windows 7 CM utility shows the correct profile attached to each monitor.  By "correct", I mean they have the  name and date I gave during the last Spectrview calibration/creation.

                                         

                                        My video card is a dual head Nvidia GeForce GTX 470.

                                        • 17. Re: Camera profile information needed
                                          Todd Shaner Adobe Community Professional & MVP

                                          I've never had a problem with hardcopy. It only seems to be a display problem.

                                           

                                          I think you have already identified the problem and it is your monitor. Screen images are capable of displaying a wider dynamic range than hardcopy "print images." The usual scenario is that you get everything adjusted to look great onscreen, but the darn prints don't look as good! You have the opposite situation, again clearly indicating something is defective with your monitor and/or the calibration is off (bad hardware calibration device, software, or other compatibility issue).

                                           

                                          Go to this site and check the ‘White Saturation’ and Black Level tests, and report your viewing results with the current monitor setup:

                                          http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

                                          Black level: Calibrated: 1-7 are barely if at all noticable. The differences are not linear to my eye --the difference increases as they get lighter. Uncalibrated: All are visible, The darker squares have a very faint red tint. The differences are more linear.

                                           

                                          The Black Level test needs to be performed with your browser in full-screen mode (F11 with IE) and very low room light. Even if the room lighting is a little high you should still be able to see all of the squares (6-10). It appears your black level settings OR room lighting is off.

                                           

                                          Thanks for the reply and the link. I am set to collect raw & jpg samples and will get some the next time out, next day or so.

                                           

                                          I'll be interested in your RAW + JPEG test results. Since you say 50% of the viewing audience will be "online," I highly suggest that you try viewing the processed images on a number of different computers that have NO monitor calibration. It will probably be necessary to "adjust" the images slightly for best image quality on "typical" bright uncalibrated displays. Considering your target audience, this will be more challenging than making good prints!

                                          • 18. Re: Camera profile information needed
                                            George in Seattle Level 1

                                            trshaner wrote:


                                            I think you have already identified the problem and it is your monitor.

                                            . . .

                                            It appears your black level settings OR room lighting is off.

                                             

                                            Yes, that is now obvious. What's now curious is that my final exported product does not appear "overcompensated" on something like an uncalibrated laptop display.  Otherwise I would have seen this problem sooner.

                                             

                                            The culprit has to be Spectraview so I am going to contact them.  The spectraview setup program has been behaving funny on windows 7, like starting up with the wrong default profile, however the correct one is always called out by the OS.

                                            • 19. Re: Camera profile information needed
                                              Todd Shaner Adobe Community Professional & MVP

                                              Latest software for your NEC 2090uxi monitor is Spectraview II Version 1.1.07 rev 1 - build 110112 - January 12 2011:

                                               

                                              STEP 1 - Before installing the new Spectraview II update I suggest downloading and installing the latest video driver for your graphics card. The best source for latest drivers is the graphics chip manufacturer's website (Nvidia, ATI, etc.). Find your chipset model to verify proper driver before downloading! I had a display issue with a less than one-year old HP desktop system, and HP's Update Utility told me all the drivers are up to date! I went to the Nvidia wesbite, found a "newer"  version number driver, and installed it. The problem was fixed!

                                               

                                              STEP 2 - Next check the 'Readme' file here, download the Windows Installer, and install it.

                                               

                                              http://www.necdisplay.com/support-and-services/spectra-view-II/Downloads

                                               

                                              STEP 3 - Create a new profile with Spetraview II v 1.1.107.

                                              • 20. Re: Camera profile information needed
                                                George in Seattle Level 1

                                                According to the last batch of photos: Success I think! --definitely an improvement.

                                                 

                                                Notes:

                                                The lighting was bright today and is always different so I will need to see a few more shoots before I can tell for sure.  I think this is now at least workable if not fixed.  I'm not ruling out the possibility there were two problems, and we fixed  the worst one. The Nikon profiles still might have a slight contrast  problem in the "Lights" and "Highlights".

                                                 

                                                After comparing the JPGs to the the RAW appearing in LR, the highlight contrast difference is negligible in a noramally exposed photo, except they tend to be more forgiving than LR of actual over and under exposure.

                                                 

                                                I updated video driver, spectraview II, and generated a new profile.  SV was acting weird since win7 --it was opening up with the wrong calibration profile, but Windows was reporting the correct one (because of this I assumed it was OK).  The new SV version fixes this. Now after thinking about it, this problem began to appear after Windows 7 was installed. The test site's black level now shows only the first 2 not visible (down from 7), and they are evenly different .   The white saturation is about the same except that 254 is no longer visible.

                                                 

                                                Thanks for all the help and the links!    Due to time constraints, I tend to learn only as much digital stuff that is needed to to get a photo to its intended audience.  Someday I need to catch up with the tech.

                                                • 21. Re: Camera profile information needed
                                                  Todd Shaner Adobe Community Professional & MVP

                                                  Thanks for all the help and the links! Due to time constraints, I tend to learn only as much digital stuff that is needed to to get a photo to its intended audience. Someday I need to catch up with the tech.

                                                   

                                                  Glad to hear this corrected your problem. It's a shame that you have to be a computer engineer to keep up with all of the mess operating system upgrades create! Just like you, I want to spend as little time as required to accomplish my objectives with computer applications. We will try to help you out anytime you get stuck!

                                                  • 22. Re: Camera profile information needed
                                                    George in Seattle Level 1

                                                    MadManChan2000 wrote:

                                                     

                                                    If you have installed the latest version of Lightroom (i.e., 3.4), then you have the latest official camera color profiles installed.

                                                     

                                                    For the D3, D700, and D300, we do have a newer set of profiles still under testing (i.e., in "beta"). You can find them here:

                                                     

                                                    http://forums.adobe.com/thread/780605

                                                     

                                                    Please be sure to read the "beta release notes" in the first post in that thread, should you choose to try those profiles.

                                                    Thanks for the link!

                                                    I finally realized what is throwing me off is the use of the name "D2X" in a profile intended for a camera whose  model name is D3. That does not look right, or else the D2x means something other than model name.   If it means something else as I suspect, I think the D2X is confusing name choice.

                                                    • 23. Re: Camera profile information needed
                                                      Geoff the kiwi Adobe Community Professional & MVP

                                                      George the name D2X comes from Nikon who use it as a name for their in camera settings on different cameras - the Adobe profiles emulate those.

                                                      • 24. Re: Camera profile information needed
                                                        George in Seattle Level 1

                                                        Geoff the kiwi wrote:

                                                         

                                                        George the name D2X comes from Nikon who use it as a name for their in camera settings on different cameras - the Adobe profiles emulate those.

                                                         

                                                         

                                                        Thanks!  I began to figure it was something like that