Skip to main content
Adobe Photoshop Family

85 Messages

 • 

1K Points

Sat, Jan 13, 2018 10:28 AM

Lightroom/Camera Raw: Camera Standard profile for A7R III is terribly off

The Camera Standard profile Adobe has created for the A7R III adds a notable yellow cast to the image (unlike say Neutral or Vivid). Clearly not a match for the in-camera Standard profile when shooting jpg.Dear Adobe, can you please correct this?thanks

Responses

85 Messages

 • 

1K Points

3 years ago

Thanks Steve, also had the same doubt about stronger yellows vs cast. But the issue seems with the profiles that Adobe has created. And Standard is the worst in terms of overboosting yellows. DRO should not affect color rendition of jpg, i think it affects tone curve slightly.

Is there a chance that Adobe will redo these camera profiles?

Will post scenes with more colors when i have a chance.

Champion

 • 

2.2K Messages

 • 

36.9K Points

3 years ago

DRO should not affect color rendition of jpg, i think it affects tone curve slightly.
Are you sure about that? Try shooting with Dynamic Range Optimizer set to OFF and check the ARW file Camera Standard rendering to the Camera JPEG file. The Imaging Resource A7R III test images (shot under controlled conditions) match the camera JPEG file with Camera Standard profile, but 'Dynamic Range Optimizer is set to OFF. Your DNG file is also pulling some errors in EXIF tool related to the DNG file data also reported here:

https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1852381

It may be of no consequence, but I suggest checking it. Does the original ARW file render the same as the DNG file?
_____________________________________________________
---- ExifTool ----
ExifTool Version Number         : 10.25
Warning                         : Bad IDC_IFD SubDirectory start
Warning                         : Bad AdobeSR2 offset for MRWInfo
Warning                         : Error reading SR2 data
---- File ----
File Name                       : 2018_01_Ghana_637.dng
Dynamic Range Optimizer         : Auto
Dynamic Range Optimizer         : Standard
SR2 Sub IFD Offset              : 54016
SR2 Sub IFD Length              : 56958
SR2 Sub IFD Key                 : 0x44332211
____________________________________________________
---- ExifTool ----
ExifTool Version Number         : 10.25
---- File ----
File Name                       : A7R2hSLI000100NR0.ARW
Dynamic Range Optimizer         : Off
Dynamic Range Optimizer         : Off
SR2 Sub IFD Offset              : 50924
SR2 Sub IFD Length              : 56958
SR2 Sub IFD Key                 : 0x44332211
_____________________________________________________

85 Messages

 • 

1K Points

3 years ago

Todd, I am not sure about DRO but the manual says “By dividing the image into small areas, the product analyzes the contrast of light and shadow between the subject and the background, and creates an image with the optimal brightness and gradation.” So I would not expect to see different color saturation or rendition, but not sure. Will test it.

Interesting observation on the dng. Luckily I haven’t deleted the arw files yet (I usually keep only the dng) so i can test also that. You are saying that the same camera profile will give different results in dng and arw?

Champion

 • 

2.2K Messages

 • 

36.9K Points

Interesting observation on the dng. Luckily I haven’t deleted the arw files yet (I usually keep only the dng) so i can test also that. You are saying that the same camera profile will give different results in dng and arw?
The Adobe  DNG converter is over-writing and/or truncating some of the Sony proprietary MakerNote fields in the DNG file.
When converting Sony ARW-files (tested with Sony A7/ILCE-7 with ARW v2.3.1), DNG converter seems to be truncating the proprietary information it's copying over into the DNGPrivateData tag. Specifically, It's writing two Adobe-specific sections into the tag

- Sony MakerNote (Adobe-tag "MakN"): This seems to be fine

- Sony SR2-IFD, referenced from DNGPrivateData tag in ARW (Adobe-tag "SR2 "): Here DNG converter seems to truncate the SR2SubIFD (checked with hex-editor and Exiftool also refuses to parse it).

As I mentioned it may be of no consequence, at least inside LR and ACR since they probably don't read those fields. But none-the-less that data is lost forever if you delete the ARW files and Adobe adds some new feature that requires those fields. If the original ARW file renders the same as the DNG file in LR after applying the same settings to both then it's probably not an issue. I found very few posts on a Google search concerning issues with ARW>DNG conversion so probably not of any real concern.

85 Messages

 • 

1K Points

So going by exclusion, if dng and arw look the same, and dro also does not explain the difference, then it is an adobe profile problem?

251 Messages

 • 

6K Points

It's highly likely that the dynamic range optimizer setting is the culprit. color perception is generally not intensity independent (except when you work in Lab color spaces) so this sort of dynamic optimization of local contrast and brightness really will mess with the perception of the color. If you shoot raw, you generally want to keep any dynamic range option turned off on your camera regardless of the camera maker.

85 Messages

 • 

1K Points

Jao do you know if DRO affects Raw files as well? And why the same file with Adobe Standard does not show the same problem?

251 Messages

 • 

6K Points

I don’t know about this camera but on canon and Nikon the comparable option will actually slightly underexpose the raw and write a flag in the raw file to compensate for this that only the camera maker’s software understands. This then leads to muted images in Lightroom that can be fixed by dialing in a bit of exposure compensation. The reason that camera profiles might react differently might be because they are somewhat “skewed” in that the perceived hue varies throughout its brightness range in order to try to reproduce the camera jpeg engine and Adobe standard perhaps has less of that. It is known that many jpeg engines and camera profiles do this.

Champion

 • 

2.6K Messages

 • 

33.7K Points

3 years ago

For fun, try taking a RAW+JPG photo of this color chart as displayed on your monitor, perhaps slightly out-of-focus to keep the moire patterns from the LCD dots from causing issues, and upload both the RAW+JPG so we can compare how things look with various color profiles.  Keep the DRO off.
https://www.atozdesigns.com/CMYK.jpg


Or if that has too many colors, try this one:
http://www.diem2.com/images/color-chart.jpg


I'd suggest opening them in LR and go to full-screen but zoom in or out to leave a bit of a margin of neutral gray around if you can, or black or white, to make the differences in colors more obvious and cut down on any distracting background in the photo.   Turn off the room lighting to keep screen reflections to a minimum.

White-balance the camera to a white screen on the monitor, first, so there isn't a cast from that.

The purpose of this exercise is to see if RAW and JPG look the same over a wide range of colors.

85 Messages

 • 

1K Points

Will do

Champion

 • 

2.2K Messages

 • 

36.9K Points

3 years ago

So going by exclusion, if dng and arw look the same, and dro also does not explain the difference, then it is an adobe profile problem?
That would only exclude the DNG conversion and DRO as the cause. There still could be differences in other camera settings, camera defect, firmware difference that is causing the issue. Using the Imaging Resource A7R III test image files there is virtually NO difference in rendering between the camera JPEG and ARW file with Camera Standard profile. So by process of "exclusion" I can say with confidence there's something "different" with your camera settings or LR system rendering (installation, monitor profile, etc.).

Click on the below image to launch it an then right-click and select 'Save Image As.' Open the saved file in LR or PS and measure any of the color patches for comparison using the Eyedropper sampling tool. The only LR settings applied to the ARW file are 'Camera Standard' profile, 'As Shot' WB, and 'Exposure' = -0.12 to match the JPEG midtone reading.

1 Message

 • 

60 Points

Actually, the left image is more yellow in the sense that some of the pinks got stripped. Compare the left brownish color. The right one is much better color-wise. It looks more cardboard colored.

85 Messages

 • 

1K Points

3 years ago

Ok, I have done some of the home-works

1) Here is the arw file for the castle picture. When I apply Camera Standard in LR I get the same yellow boost I get with the dng, so I think we can exclude a dng conversion issue, agreed?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qa0n3x0d7r4bq53/DSC01411.ARW?dl=0

2) Here are jpg and arw of a pic just taken with DRO off. When I apply Camera Standard to the raw the pic does not look bad but it is not a match to the jpg. I still see a notable yellow boost, most notable in the first floor of the building top left (eggshell paint). The pure white of the van, the red of the door and the blue of the car do not seem much affected, I don't see an overall yellow cast. Can we exclude it is a DRO issue?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ulhb8xfrggi5xea/DSC02421.JPG?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vcrbxiwsnwgbb70/DSC02421.ARW?dl=0


3) Here are the RAW and jpg of the color chart (DRO off) 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lbcpuppcxna77tu/DSC02422.ARW?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6eq3stnmfn723wr/DSC02422.JPG?dl=0
Not sure what conclusion to draw here.


It seems to me it is a yellow saturation issue of the profile created by Adobe, do you agree? I would not say it is an issue of the camera as the jpg look fine.

Champion

 • 

2.2K Messages

 • 

36.9K Points

1) The DNG and ARW files render the same so NOT an issue!

2) Using the ARW and camera JPEG files with DRO OFF I see the yellow cast with Camera Standard applied. However the ARW matches the JPEG perfectly with Adobe Standard, As Shot WB, and Exposure = +0.12.

3) The color chart image files also shot with DRO OFF behave just the opposite! With Camera Standard and As Shot WB applied the ARW and JPEG look virtually identical. With Adobe Standard applied they look quite different. I checked the MakerNotes in both ARW files and can't see any camera setting differences that might cause this behavior. Also note that the Imaging Resource A7R III ARW and camera JPEG test files match perfectly with Camera Standard profile. Try them for yourself. So we have two out of three ARW files rendering properly with Camera Standard.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a7r-iii/A7R3hSLI000100NR0.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a7r-iii/A7R3hSLI000100NR0.ARW.HTM

The only major difference I can see is in a field called 'Blue Balance.:

DSCO2421.ARW
Blue Balance = 1.386719
WB RGGB Levels: 2796 1024 1024 1420

DSCO2422.ARW
Blue Balance = 1.617188
WB RGGB Levels: 2312 1024 1024 1656

What's interesting is when the ARW file is converted to a DNG file there is no 'Blue Balance' field in the MakerNotes (or any other metadata). So this may be what's causing the yellow shift for specific images (i.e. Blue Balance >1.39). Adobe is not applying the Blue Balance calcualtion to the image data.

85 Messages

 • 

1K Points

OK, so we established that neither the DNG conversion not the DRO have any adverse effect.

I noticed the same thing on the color chart, there the Camera Standard is a match for the jpg, maybe because there is no yellow to boost in the other colors? Not sure.

I would not say that Camera Standard works in 2 out of 3 cases, I would say it only works with color charts in controlled environments.

This is because I downloaded a couple of additional arw files (real life outdoor images) from both DPR and Imaging Resource (so not taken with my camera)
https://www.dpreview.com/samples/8653329160/sony-a7r-iii-sample-gallery-updated
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a7r-iii/sony-a7r-iiiGALLERY.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a7r-iii/sony-a7r-iiiTHMB.HTM

and I see the yellow cast also there to some extent when applying Camera Standard. What I forgot to do is to compare it to the equivalent jpg, will do later.

All in all the camera profile seems the culprit, right? As it is it is not usable, hit and miss. Is there a way to work with Adobe to correct it? Will they read this discussion?

Thanks



 

1.5K Messages

 • 

20.1K Points

>>All in all the camera profile seems the culprit, right?

Nope.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

85 Messages

 • 

1K Points

Want to elaborate? Where is the issue in your opinion? Would be great to get practical advice, I was not lucky with the calibration discussion :-) 
Thanks

1.5K Messages

 • 

20.1K Points

>>Want to elaborate? Where is the issue in your opinion? 

You need to understand the full roll of the profiles, how they are created and what you're working with. You're dealing with a generic (canned) profile. You're not testing the profile on a good control; a reference of known colors like a Macbeth color checker. You could then create a custom profile for your specific sensor. Next you could edit that profile too if necessary or desired. Next you could alter the rendering settings on top of the profile to produce just about any rendering you desire. 

The goal is pleasing color. You've got to start testing with a color reference that has known color values in a defined color space and then and only then can we compare the reference with the capture and come up with an actual accuracy metric based on just that set of renderings! Nothing stops you from altering the rendering or producing a custom .dcp profile. Or a custom import preset with differing rendering settings (like white balance which has nothing to do with the camera profile; they are independent of each other by design). 

The canned profiles you get from Adobe are built from their camera sample. Build a profile from your own, then run tests using a color reference and then we can understand more about the profile and the entire rendering chain upon which it is one small part. 
Or use a different profile to produce the rendering goal with the rendering settings you have at your disposal. 

There is a reason Adobe provides a suite of canned .dcp profiles and why they may differ and produce more or less satisfaction in producing nothing more than pleasing, subjective color. There IS a reason Adobe provides tools to build custom .dcp profiles. Or edit them. Unless you really incorrectly believe that every camera each manufacturer produces creates identical color after rendering (they don't), there is again a important reason we have the simple tools to build our own custom camera profiles for our specific sensors!

You don't get lucky or unlucky with any calibration. Not that a custom .dcp profile is doing this. Calibration is putting a device into a known and desired condition. The condition is either known and desired or it's not. 

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

251 Messages

 • 

6K Points

3 years ago

Camera standard is supposed to approximate the out-of-camera jpeg at all standard settings on the camera (no dynamic anything). If sony’s Cameras give different rendering for jpegs than when you run the raw through their own software I would have no clue what to try to approximate if I were Adobe. I would take the raw software as the reference normally.

163 Messages

 • 

2.7K Points

3 years ago

"Because X-Rite's software doesn't generate the same forward matrix transforms as DNG Profile Editor or Lumariver (Which gives you the option to use ACR Matrices)"

"Thanks Cameron, meaning that DPE and Lumariver are superior?"

No it just means it works differently. 

85 Messages

 • 

1K Points

3 years ago

Well now that they are reading this let's not give them an excuse not to at least try it! :-) 

1.5K Messages

 • 

20.1K Points

3 years ago

>>Well now that they are reading this let's not give them an excuse not to at least try it! :-) 

NO profile will fix metameric failure of a camera sensor. 

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

85 Messages

 • 

1K Points

3 years ago

My CC Passport will arrive next week!

In the meanwhile I will be suing Adobe Standard, I think it is the most accurate in terms of color (I mean closer to jpg) and does not exhibit any color shift under any scenario (which is what we would like Camera Standard to do...). It is quite muted but nothing that cannot be fixed in the Basic Panel that I would use any way.

Champion

 • 

2.2K Messages

 • 

36.9K Points

3 years ago

Andrew Rodney sid: Yes, the JPEG output's a desired rendering based on proprietary processing inside the camera. The raw can be rendered any way one desires within reason. 
I don't believe Adobe EVER guaranteed that their profiles will match the camera JPEG exactly nor should they. BTW, exactly would be within 1 or less deltaE; every pixel matches.
Andrew, I think you're over-analyzing this issue. I've checked numerous raw + JPEG file pairs shot with my Canon cameras. In all cases the camera JPEG very closely matches Canon's Digital Photo Professional raw converter with 'As Shot settings. They also very closely match LR's Camera Standard rendering of the CR2 raw file with As Shot WB and a very slight adjustment to Exposure (+0.05 to +0.10 EV). The images look virtually identical when doing a critical AB comparison using LR's Loupe with the right or left arrow key to quickly swap the image previews. I can't tell you what the Delta E is, but they are far and away much, much closer than the OP's Sony A7R III Camera standard images.

I rest my case and leave it up to Adobe to decide if it's something worth fixing. That's not my call, or yours, or anybody else's here. Thank you!

163 Messages

 • 

2.7K Points

3 years ago

Seems like it'd be Sony's problem before Adobe's. They should "fix" their RAW Converter so Adobe has a better reference. Now what happens if someone liked the Sony Imaging Edge result and all the Adobe profiles were made to match SOOC JPEG? Would the story be flipped the other way? "ACR Camera Standard doesn't match Sony Imaging Edge Camera Standard with the same RAW".

85 Messages

 • 

1K Points

haha I think they should all aim to match the jpg. I don't think people want to match a bad Sony conversion. I am sure Sony will not do anything, converters are not their core product. Does Adobe really need Sony to fix their converter before they can fix their profile? Can't they aim for jpg instead of RAW+CS in the Sony converter?

1.5K Messages

 • 

20.1K Points

>>In all cases the camera JPEG very closely matches 

But you have no deltaE values to tell us how close. You're telling us subjectively they appear close

>> I can't tell you what the Delta E is,

I can! But you have to understand deltaE only compares TWO solid values. An image contains perhaps millions of pixels so we'd need an average dE which again, I can produce. 
You also need to accept the issues surrounding metameric failure for some of those groups of pixels being compared. You cannot fix this with a profile. Neither can Adobe or anyone else. Unless the camera follows the Lurther Ives condition, and I know of no shipping camera that does, this is another issue.  

>>I rest my case and leave it up to Adobe to decide if it's something worth fixing.

You can rest the case, don't hold your breath that the evidence you have will convince Adobe of anything other than to move forward improving all aspects of how it renders colors. You may see newer profiles in the future for all cameras but that in no way implies these profiles are anything but Adobe's continuing work in improving their colors. 

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

85 Messages

 • 

1K Points

Without overcomplicating, we are just hoping Adobe can achieve with Sony profiles the good results they achieved with Canon ones. If we like what we see and we manage to print what we see who cares about deltaE we cannot see (nor measure us human)?
The ultimate user of the pic will judge a picture based in what he sees, never heard anyone complaining that deltaE were too high when looking at a print.

251 Messages

 • 

6K Points

It is not unlikely that an early version of the camera rendered identical to the raw software but that Sony did a firmware update (wasn’t there one that ate stars?) that changed the rendering and that they did not update their raw software.

85 Messages

 • 

1K Points

The firmware v1 should have addressed only a bug in the naming system plus other minor bugs. Would be surprised if they changed the rendering.

85 Messages

 • 

1K Points

3 years ago

The CC Passport has arrived...it is going to be a fun weekend... stay tuned :-D
I was hoping to hear something from the Adobe employees that monitor the forum.

85 Messages

 • 

1K Points

3 years ago

Guys, I shot the colour checker and created single and dual illuminant profiles with both the Adobe (did not change any settings in the Color Tables and Tone Curve tabs, is that right? What is the base profile I should start from?) and X-Rite software.

Here are the target shots I used to build the profiles, in case you want to check whether the set up was right
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5gdgwm778iy4650/2018_01_untitled_001.DNG?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xzinsxxjil9wb6i/2018_01_untitled_004.DNG?dl=0

Here are the profiles
Adobe
https://www.dropbox.com/s/odniyeec69snrh1/DPE%20A7R%20III.dcp?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0r90eqwbvjeqvkl/DPE%20Dual%20A7R%20III.dcp?dl=0
X-Rite
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0jrko90bt4y5y48/X-Rite%20A7R%20III.dcp?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/c8xgji7ynnqcxso/X-Rite%20Dual%20A7R%20III.dcp?dl=0

For convenience I am putting here the link to my images (raw and jpg) from the previous posts

1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mpgmgxstlpcfixx/DSC01411.JPG?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fsmt09hr3pvouyv/2018_01_Ghana_637.dng?dl=0
2
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1n9ftiaqqcwk9u7/DSC01695.JPG?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v252om2fq3c4l7f/2018_01_Ghana_891.dng?dl=0
3
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6eq3stnmfn723wr/DSC02422.JPG?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lbcpuppcxna77tu/DSC02422.ARW?dl=0
4
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ulhb8xfrggi5xea/DSC02421.JPG?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vcrbxiwsnwgbb70/DSC02421.ARW?dl=0

I was surprised to see that using the same target pictures Adobe and X-Rite produce different colours (look at the blanket in n2!), who is right and who is wrong? If one color is accurate then the other is not and if you spend £80 for the CCP to get accurate colors this does not make you happy...

In certain instances (shot n. 3 but obviously not n.1), Camera Standard seems a better match to the jpg.

No yellow issue with the X-Rite and Adobe created profiles.

Overall I think I prefer the X-Rite profiles, they are more pleasing (castle shot, compare the color of the shirt of boy running, or compare color of the car in n.4)  but not sure they are more accurate (if I see that car again want to check with my eyes if it is blue or violet!).  

What is your opinion?
Thanks!