Nothing unusual is happening. Lightroom's default rendering of most RAW photos requires the user to edit the photo (or apply a preset) to increase saturation and add other desired effects.
There's no reason that Photo Mechanic and Lightroom should match on RAW photos. (And Photo Mechanic is probably showing you the embedded JPG in the RAW file anyway, which will have saturation and other effects added)
Thanks but I do think there's something going on here. Even when I add my custom preset that I've been using for years, the image looks pretty bad. My typical fully edited image looks much closer to the version seen in Photo Mechanic than either of the two in LR. Also, this just started happening today - my files looked fine before that.
PM is showing the embedded JPG that is inside every RAW file and not the real RAW. Since it is a JPG that is being displayed it take on whatever In-Camera settings that are set for JPG output.
Can you upload 2 RAW file to dropbox, one from an older shoot and the one you are displaying in this thread, so we can load them into our install of LR?
When you say it looks pretty bad, I am seeing horizontal bands on the image, is that what you are reacting to?
No, I don't see any horizontal banding. I'm referring to the overall colors of the image as they appear desaturated. Presets I've been applying for years don't look the same at all - everything looks a little off color-wise.
Have you calibrated your monitor since this started happening?
I have been using my 5D Mark IV for about a week now without a problem in LR CC. Last week I updated my version of LR CC and, today, I just imported a batch of files from my 5D Mark IV and they look really bad - sort of desaturated.
I don't think this was caused by the LR update. Since you've been using the camera for about a week you may not have realized this until today after going through more 5D MKIV image files.
It appears the Adobe Standard profile metrics have been "silently" changed by Adobe sometime in Q3 2014. All Canon and perhaps all other make camera models introduced since Q3 2014 have Adobe Standard profiles with lower color saturation. In short it looks like Adobe has changed the "standard." Please read through this post:
You can create a preset that applies the below Camera Calibration or simply try the 'Camera' named profiles (Standard, Neutral, Faithful,etc.). You can also use the Adobe DNG Profile Editor to create a "custom" version of the Adobe Standard profile with more color saturation and perhaps a slight adjustment to the Base Tone Curve.
I preset created year ago for some other camera would work the same with a new camera.
I download the files you uploaded to dropbox and it looks exactly the same as your screen shot. Photo Mechanic is showing you the embedded JPG.
I think trshaner hit the nail on the head.
Here are some screen shots from your image.
First is after I made a virtual copy then adjusted that.
Second is with a different camera calibration setting set to Camera Portrait.
I added a bit of sharpening and detail to both.
Check the in-camera settings for JPG images to see if the saturation has been boosted.
After looking at this further the Canon 5D MKIV Adobe Standard profile requires the below Camera Calibration panel settings to exactly match the rendering of the older Canon model's (5D MKIII, 6D, etc.) Adobe Standard profile (i.e. legacy Adobe Standard). Only the Red Primary needs correction. CORRECTION: This requires the below Red Primary settings AND a Vibrance setting of +25. I was unable to fully correct the Canon 5D MKIV Adobe Standard profile using just the LR Camera Calibration panel and/or Basic panel Saturation controls. This NOT the preferred method (i.e. Vibrance) for correcting a camera profile since the results may vary dependent on the subject's color intensity. Sorry for any confusion.
You can create a preset named 'Canon 5D MKIV Legacy Adobe Standard' or whatever and check just Camera Calibration.
For those of us who don't like the look of Adobe Standard, do you have any information about how to make Camera Standard match between the various cameras?
I checked the Camera Standard profile for the following Canon EOS models using test charts downloaded from Imaging-Resource's website and they are all very similar. With most "normal" subjects the differences will be hard to detect. See this post: Re: Canon 1dx II Color Issues with LR 6.7 HELP
I also checked numerous Nikon D series test charts and found larger differences in the Camera Standard profile rendering. This is actually expected since Adobe is only "emulating" the manufacturer's camera profiles with no regard to any "standardization." That is the whole purpose of the Adobe Standard camera profile–It is supposed to provide uniform color and tone rendering regardless of camera make or model. Unfortunately, the standard was apparently changed sometime around September 2014. All camera models introduced after that date appear to have Adobe Standard profiles with lower color saturation.
IMHO–This makes it very difficult to use multiple camera models (old and new) of even the same make on a shoot. LR Users should not have to resort to creating "custom" camera profiles or applying presets simply to "normalize" Adobe Standard camera profile rendering. Using a ColorChecker Passport for this function will not fully correct the rendering since it requires a Base profile (i.e. Adobe Standard) when creating the calibration profile. Color Saturation and Tone Curve differences in the new Adobe Standard profile are applied to the CCPP camera profile.
If the Camera Standard profile is really as similar as you claim, then Canon must have changed something about the way the 5D4 renders color, because the files are meaningfully different to previous cameras.
I have now spent eight months trying to get my 5D4 images to match my 6D/5D3 images and I still haven't figured it out.
From the tests I ran using Imaging Resources CR2 test image files the 5D MK III, 6D, and 5D MIV Camera Standard rendering is virtually identical. It's not unusual to see slight differences in color rendering due to manufacturing tolerances, but that should be very subtle.
I can't see any real difference in the below 5D MK IV, 6D, and 5D MK III test images using Camera Standard with LR CC 2015.10. I suggest uploading a 5D MK IV and 6D or 5D MK III CR2 file shot of the same scene, at the the same time, that exhibits the issue to Dropbox and post the share links in a reply here.
(Click on image to see full-size)
I've been having the same issue with the Mark 4. I am considering selling it and getting a mark 3 instead
My edits are based on skin tones which 5dmk3 does a fantastic job and and 5dmark 4 is horrible at it..
2 people found this helpful
You can download and install the below 5D MKIV custom camera profiles. They have been modified to match the 5D MKIII rendering.
Download the files, install in the below User folder location, and restart LR to load the new profiles. They will appear in the Develop module Camera Calibration Profile selector.
Windows—C: \ Users \ [your username] \ AppData \ Roaming \ Adobe \ CameraRaw \ CameraProfiles \
Mac—Macintosh HD / Users / [your username] / Library / Application Support / Adobe / CameraRaw / CameraProfiles /
I am am having a hard time with the camera profiles for Canon 5d Mark iv as the color saturation is too intense (red/orange)-especially in the shadows (look near hairlines) and/or the curves are too strong and my shadows get clipped and appear muddy. I downloaded and tried Trshaner's Camera Standard Profile (MKIII BASE...)-THANK YOU!!- and while I see a slight improvement in the color, it doesn't solve the issues I'm seeing. I've had Canon cameras and Lightroom/PS for as long as I can remember and while no profile has ever been perfect, I have never had as hard of a time as I have been having with this one. In fact, what I once thought was a bad profile match with my 5D Mark ii, I would GLADLY take in place of my options now. I find I am forced to start with Adobe standard, which lacks any contrast and depth and while I believe it is too red, it seems brighter and generally easier to add to it than try to take away from the other clown-ish saturation I get from camera portrait and even camera standard. Camera standard is better (less red) than camera portrait with regard to Caucasian skin tones, but the color in the shadows looks like I just upped the contrast and didn't care that faces/dimples/creases/hairlines are now tinted orange like a badly blended makeup job. I can't seem to get rid of the tint in the shadows without affecting the entire image. I really need to solve this at the Profile level and I can't figure out how. I also can't find a place where people create-and share- "normal" camera profiles (without special tints/tones/cinema effects...). I can't be the only one, and there must be someone smart enough to help??? I guess I should start by hoping you see the same problem I do...
I take portraits of people, so comparing images of fall colors or products isn't helpful or equal when it comes to getting colors accurate for people. I included 2 RAW files (I kinda wish I knew I was going to share my experiment and I'd have used more exciting pictures, haha) that you can use to compare as you'd like and then lots of screenshots that hopefully will convey the differences that I see (the file names tell what type of image is being compared. Note: the mac preview cr2 file is simply showing the camera generated jpg). I am working with a calibrated monitor (Spyder 5 Elite) and my unadjusted professional prints match in color and density. I recognize that there will inevitably be color differences between my monitor and yours, but hopefully the screenshots will convey enough that you can see my problem in contrast and color choices. I'm not asking if you like the colors from the profiles that lightroom offers, obviously the people at Adobe don't mind them either, but am more curious if you notice AS MUCH of a difference between your camera's jpg/your monitor's preview of a RAW file (that's from the jpg), and/or DPP4's standard camera preview and the options given in Lightroom as far as profiles go. Does every camera profile vary as much as I think this one does?? Does every photographer have to choose between 3 terrible profiles? Do you guys see what I see or am I being a perfectionist? I really do struggle and spend a lot of time trying to get white balance perfect out of camera-mainly with an expoDisc- only to have it all messed up in post-production options.
Pay attention to the histogram in the DPP camera standard vs. Adobe camera standard and it shows the clipping of the shadows. I find that I generally need to shoot at least 1/3 stop up to counter-act what lightroom does to the images that I see in my previews. Look at the histograms from DPP to lightroom and you can see that lightroom clips my shadows that were otherwise fine on my iin-camera histogram. The answer isn't to shoot 1/3 stop up, however, because the curve applied in the camera profiles doesn't evenly shift the histogram to the left, my highlights get blown and my shadows clipped in outdoor scenes. AGAIN, this is when the histogram on my camera shows a decently exposed image and changes when imported into Lightroom.
I would love to have images straight out of the camera look like they do in the jpg previews, but I am learning that that is too much to ask. I WOULD love at least an OPTION that doesn't take out all contrast and mess up the color completely. I am so intimidated by the dng editor, and my spyder checkr doesn't help with creating a custom profile-I can use it to adjust the hue/saturations as a preset, but the results are so random that I don't trust them either. I just want to be able to deliver consistent color and contrast and I'm re-inventing the wheel every session. I realize editing is subjective, and often times I'll think my edits look great as far as contrast/color goes, and then I get ready to export and compare my finished session to another session and I realize one looks better than the other and I want to re-edit one of them. It's never ending and I feel like part of it is because my baseline-the profiles I am forced to start with-are soo off that I have to play around with lots of settings even if I start with a perfect histogram. My intention is not to complain about my job; I love what I do, I just want a good baseline to start editing from and I'm not trusting Adobe with my Canon Profiles right now. I also recognize that shooting in RAW should be bland-it's like a blank canvas that I can build on... But when bland changes my histogram and makes my images dark, muddy and tinted orange, I get frustrated. Any help is appreciated!!
If you are experienced with making custom profiles, I'd love any tips (basic curves points to try) so I might be able to tackle it if there isn't someone better who already has...
Thank you !!
I definitely understand where you're coming from.. and im still going through it with the mark 4
Im not sure if you're shooting full raw or medium raw but from my experience, there is a color cast and shadows are muddy when shooting medium raw. So switch to full raw..
while I did play around with the color balance bracketing option, it wast enough.. so i switch my white balance to AWB-W
It wasn't perfect, however yielded much better result when combined with camera profiles mentioned above on import ..
this fixed about 70% of total issues and 90% of color issues im having with my mark 4
now all that remains is figuring out why the exposure meter on the view finder differs from the the one in live view
and getting the camera to work with 3rd party flash.
To everyone landing here with Canon 5D MKIV raw file rendering issues please provide your comments and 'Me To' vote at the below Problem Report link. This is the best way to get Adobe's attention. Thank you!