Lightroom/Camera Raw: Nikon Z7 RAW processing and White Balance

I sent over the images. If you need more, let me know and I'll send of a bunch.

Thanks. I've received them and forwarded them to the engineers for review. Once they reach a determination we will post back on this thread. 

Is there any update on this issue?

Is there any update?

From Rikk back on October 29th: Both requests remain unresolved but still open in our system. I have no other update I can provide at this time.

I can confirm that there is no issue with this in ON1 or Luminar. I've tried both and the white balance looks great. I'm digging Luminar.

Just try developing a raw file from z7 in Nikon in NX-D an Lightroom an choose Landscape Picture Profile and Daylight-WB.

It's very frustrating that the fix hasn't happened, yet. I've tried and bought several other RAW processors and have started to recommend those programs over Lightroom to my photo workshop students over this issue.

This should be a priority fix.

I strongly agree that this should have priority. I don’t want to change my raw developer but this is a no-go. Shouldn’t be difficult to fix.

That's why the fix should be a high priority. It's inexcusable that Abode hasn't fixed this for everyone that owns a Z 7.

yes, please, looking forward for that!

I'm willing to test the solution.

Hi Rikk,

I no longer have the Z7, but still have thousands of images I can use. If that works, I'm definitely willing to try something.

Cheers,

Jeffrey

Hi, I'm willing to test the solution too, regards, Stephane.

Thanks for responding. I've contacted you each via Email. 

Ah that makes sense from a technical standpoint.

However it seems like a flaw.

Aren't the profiles supposed to help with standardization? Not so helpful if when trying to sync multiple files it doesn't switch from "Adobe Standard (D500)" to "Adobe Standard (Z6)"

Even ” Adobe Standard” differs per camera.

Right... I'm confused. Isn't the reason there are different versions of the "Adobe Standard" for different cameras so when you select "Adobe Standard" on a file from one camera and then "Adobe Standard" on a file from another camera you can have starting points as close as possible to each other? Why would it ever be helpful to apply one of the Adobe Profiles (which in theory must exist for each camera) meant for a different camera?

What I am saying is that it is inane to have different standardized profiles, that in the menu show no difference in name, and paste it on a different camera with no warning that the profile is not meant for the camera.

I guess I am making the assumption if it has the same name its intention is to achieve the same visual output.

It that's not the case the flaw runs deeper than I thought.

Andrew is correct. You cannot paste Standard profiles from/to different camera models. 

It's working on my system using Copy & Paste settings and using a preset. If the target image file has a profile with the same exact name it will update the file with that camera model's same name profile. This includes all of the Adobe Raw profiles and Camera Matching profiles. If the camera model of the target image file does NOT have a "same name" profile the profile will not be updated.

I just tried it using a Nikon D500 NEF with Adobe Vivid and Copy & Pasted it to a Nikon Z6 NEF file. The profile was updated AND the As Shot WB settings were changed. I tried the same Copy & Paste to a Nikon Z7 file with the profile updating to Adobe Vivid and NO change in the As Shot WB settings. So the Copy & paste settings from a different camera model to the Nikon Z6 NEF appears to be different (bug?)

How do you know which actual profile is being pasted, the one for the 'other' camera or the one for the 'actual' camera???

The Z6 has two profiles -- the original and the version 2. If Lightroom is applying the original version of the profile, it would appear magenta. The version 2 corrected the issue with the Z6.

If Lightroom is applying the original version of the profile, it would appear magenta. The version 2 corrected the issue with the Z6.

Bingo. That explains why the WB is changing when Copy & Paste Adobe Standard (from any camera raw file). The Temp & Tint numbers change (EX- 5100 -5 to 4950 -55), but the WB does NOT change. Josh Barber must also be Copying & Pasting the WB settings, which would over-ride the WB setting for the v2 profile. Try it for yourself on a Nikon Z6 file. Assign 'As Shot' WB and Adobe Standard v2 and note the WB Temp and Tint settings. Next select the Adobe Standard profile (v1) and you will see a large change in the WB settings, but no change in actual WB.

This should probably be its own thread because this thread is Z7 specific issues.

But it seems to me that during a copy and paste Lightroom is defaulting to version 1 of profiles instead of the most recent version. That's probably a bug if the latest version was developed to fix a problem with the original.

Actually the Z7 WB issue appears to be the same as the Z6. An Adobe v2 profile is also most likely required to fix the Z7 WB issue.
When you Copy & Paste the Nikon D500 (or any other camera model) 'Adobe Standard' profile LR looks for a matching profile for the target camera. Note the D500 profile spelling–No v2. Therefore the Z6 Adobe Standard profile is selected and assigned.

Camera profiles by design are WB agnostic. You are supposed to season to taste.

Correct, but you can add a WB calibration in the profile, which creates an offset in the Tint and Temp values like what is happening here.

You're not adding anything to the profile! No more than if you alter Tint/Temp. These are just additional sliders. Again, the profiles themselves are utterly WB agnostic by design. Here's what Eric Chan of Adobe explains about the profiles, the processing order and their separation by design of WB:

Eric Chan on DCP Profiles and WB:
”The processing order is roughly as follows. DNG color profiles contain at least a color matrix, and (optionally) one or more lookup tables, and (optionally) a tone curve. So at the minimum, there is a color matrix applied during image processing. This is applied very early in the imaging pipeline, while the image data is known to be in a linear, scene-referred space. The optional lookup tables and tone curve follow, and can be used to correct problem colors and residual issues, and apply a desired scene-to-output mapping.
 
Regarding white balance: It is applied along with the color matrix, i.e., very early. You can think of it as scaling the camera-native RGB coordinates till the desired values are neutral (i.e., R = G = B). This scaling, along with the color matrix in the profile, are effectively responsible for transforming from the camera-native RGB color coordinates -- which vary from model to model -- to a colorimetrically-defined system: CIE XYZ with a D50 white point, in the case of the DNG and ICC models. The user's chosen white balance is applied during this matrix step. 
 
For example, if your chosen WB is Temp = 7500 K and you're using an Adobe Standard profile, then the DNG profile model calls for using the D65 color matrix. On the other hand, if your chosen WB for an image is Temp = 5200 K, then you'll be using a blend of the A and D65 matrices, with the latter more heavily weighted (since it's closer to D65 than to A). The DNG spec goes into more details on how this is done.
 
So to answer the question of WB and it's relevance to building & using DNG profiles: in principle, the applicability of a profile with a given WB has to do with how close the spectrum of the scene illuminant (used to photograph your real image) is to the spectrum of the illuminant used to build the profile. The closer they are, the better the results. Many flavors of natural daylight are spectrally similar (weighted differently), so this is why a daylight profile tends to work well in many flavors of daylight regardless of the actual CCT (e.g., 4700 K thru 7500 K). So even if you built your own profile under real daylight that ended up being around 6200 K, you should not hesitate to use such a profile under other similar daylight conditions, even if the CCT values vary a lot. But if you end up using a very different type of light (e.g., a fluorescent tube) then you should effect quite different, possibly unpleasant results, even if the CCT measures the same (e.g., a 6000 K office fluorescent tube).”

Andrew, clearly the current Nikon Z7 Adobe Standard camera profile affects the 'As Shot' WB settings as the other users and I reported above. The Z6 Adobe Standard profile had the same issue, which was fixed by Adobe creating a new Adobe Standard v2 profile. So it is possible for the camera profile to affect the WB settings inside LR in a very deleterious manner.

"That explains why the WB is changing when Copy & Paste Adobe Standard (from any camera raw file). The Temp & Tint numbers change (EX- 5100 -5 to 4950 -55), but the WB does NOT change."

The profile may be WB agnostic, but clearly it can affect the WB settings causing the 'As Shot' and WB presets (Daylight, Cloud, etc.) to apply incorrect WB to the image. That's the issue being reported here!

So what do you think is the cause of this issue and what do you suggest is the correct solution?

The profile doesn't affect WB but reports the values differently than other profiles based on Erics explanation.
The solution is to set WB AS DESIRED.

The solution is to set WB AS DESIRED.

Following your suggestion download the below Nikon Z7 NEF reference image shot with electronic flash that is approximately 5500K. Select the "desired" Daylight WB preset. You should now see 5500 Temp and +10 Tint WB settings, which is Adobe's reference target for Daylight. The image WB now has a strong magenta tint. Next use the WB eyedropper on the colorchecker neutral patch in the below image file. The WB settings are now 5000 Temp and -32 Tint.  That's -500 Temp and -42 Tint, which is way off from Adobe's target 5500 Temp and 10 Tint Daylight preset settings! I don't have any reference files shot with tungsten lighting so can't check those settings, but Adobe's reference target is 2850 Temp and 0 Tint.

I checked CCPP files shot with my Canon EOS cameras (300D, 600D, 5D MKII, 6D) at noon with no clouds  and the Adobe Standard WB eyedropper sampling of the neutral patches are within 5500±500 Temp and 10±5 Tint.

The only solution to achieve the same degree of normalization with the Z7 camera files is for Adobe to create new v2 camera profiles.

BTW- When I create custom camera profiles using a CCPP the eyedropper sampled WB settings are often slightly different than with the Adobe camera profiles. It's usually not a large difference (±200 Temp ±10 Tint), but enough to be visible. I use the DNG Profile Editor's WB Calibration controls (posted in an earlier screenshot) to make them identical. That way when I change camera profiles during editing the WB doesn't change.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-z7/Z7hSLI000100NR0.NEF.HTM

The solution is to set WB AS DESIRED.

Following your suggestion download the below Nikon Z7 NEF reference image shot with electronic flash that is approximately 5500K. Select the "desired" Daylight WB preset. You should now see 5500 Temp and +10 Tint WB settings, which is Adobe's reference target for Daylight. The image WB now has a strong magenta tint. Next use the WB eyedropper on the colorchecker neutral patch in the below image file. The WB settings are now 5000 Temp and -32 Tint.  That's -500 Temp and -42 Tint, which is way off from Adobe's target 5500 Temp and 10 Tint Daylight preset settings! I don't have any reference files shot with tungsten lighting so can't check those settings, but Adobe's reference target is 2850 Temp and 0 Tint.

I checked CCPP files shot with my Canon EOS cameras (300D, 600D, 5D MKII, 6D) at noon with no clouds  and the Adobe Standard WB eyedropper sampling of the neutral patches are within 5500±500 Temp and 10±5 Tint.

The only solution to achieve the same degree of normalization with the Z7 camera files is for Adobe to create new v2 camera profiles.

BTW- When I create custom camera profiles using a CCPP the eyedropper sampled WB settings are often slightly different than with the Adobe camera profiles. It's usually not a large difference (±200 Temp ±10 Tint), but enough to be visible. I use the DNG Profile Editor's WB Calibration controls (posted in an earlier screenshot) to make them identical. That way when I change camera profiles during editing the WB doesn't change.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-z7/Z7hSLI000100NR0.NEF.HTM

There are so many misunderstandings just above I don't know where to start.
1. Nikon Z7 NEF reference image shot with electronic flash that is approximately 5500K: meaningless value as CCT defines a huge range of possible colors running along the lines of correlated color temp.



2. The numbers are from the camera (as shot), metadata from a device that isn't designed to measure the spectrum (a Spectroradiometer could). It's basically a guess providing a number that defines a huge number of possible colors. 
3. The camera metadata reported could be a 'mile off' but ACR/LR and all other raw converters only report this range based on what they are provided and as such: GIGO:Garbage In Garbage Out! 
4. Each camera profile can take that value and report differing values as explainedexpalined by Eric. Again for you to attempt to read and decipher:

"scaling the camera-native RGB coordinates till the desired values are neutral (i.e., R = G = B). This scaling, along with the color matrix in the profile, are effectively responsible for transforming from the camera-native RGB color coordinates -- which vary from model to model"

A bogus value or visible result is as likely from the camera itself as anything else. As yet, NO ONE here has proven this is specifically an Adobe 'bug', profile 'bug' or Nikon bug. It could be any or all three. 

The solution until further proof is defined is simple: season to taste, ignore the numbers, set WB (like it's been designed) using the tools provided in the raw processor to render a WB rendering the image creator desires. 

As for Adobe creating new profiles no. You can and should do this yourself for each camera as they vary and the reason we have simple but effective TOOLS to build custom DCP camera profiles that AGAIN by design, are WB agnostic. 

Further data points on WB and profiles here:

https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=80130.msg646523#msg646523

The whole reason that Thomas Knoll designed Camera Raw to have two separate DNG profiles; one for Standard Illuminate A (2856oK) and a different profile for D65 was to account for the differences in the sensor's response under those two SPDs. Note that this isn't about correcting for white balance...DNG profiles are designed to correct for different spectral responses AFTER white balance has been corrected.

Jeff Schewe:
Actually, if you think about it, you really WOULDN'T want a DNG profile to alter the white balance of an image...that would seriously limit the usefulness of that profile. DNG profiles are designed to adjust the color and tone rendering of a given camera's spectral response. However, white balance is a shot by shot situation.
 
So, DNG profiles specifically DON'T take white balance into consideration. If they did, you could only use that profile for single white balance situations. The whole camera profiling issue is made far more complex that profiling a printer. You need a camera profile that allows color and tone adjustments over a broader range of light sources...compared to a printer that should remain consistent given a specific paper and printer setting.

Hi, Andrew,

Whatever the technical reasons behind it doesn't change the practical consequences. On the Z7, when you change the white balance to anything other than "As Shot" it introduces a magenta color cast that requires a manual fix. I'm not aware of any other camera that requires this. 

With the Z6, there was originally the same or a similar problem. Adobe corrected that issue by updating the profile to a version 2 profile, which is the current default profile for the Z6. You can experience the original Z6 issues yourself by loading a Z6 file into Lightroom and then enabling the original profiles and comparing  a virtual copy developed with the original profile to the virtual copy using the version 2 Z6 profile. 

I hope this helps you see what the issue is.

There may be an issue. The cause thus far is an assumption.
Have you created a custom profile?
Ignore the CTT numbers.
Do tweak tint/temp for desired rendering.

Hi Andrew,

I would like to apologize for an indignant tone in my original posts and thank you for your responses as well as all the others. I also missed the key detail that I was actually working with the "Adobe Color" profile which is not a DCP, but an Enhanced Profile. This explains why when pasting settings from the Z6 to the D500 with "Treatment and Profile" checked in Lightroom it was not giving me similar issues. There is no file "Nikon D500 Adobe Standard V2.dcp" so instead of trying to and paste a DCP it was only pasting the "Adobe Color.xmp" and everything is gravy. When I have tried to paste settings from the Z6 to the D500 with "Adobe Standard V2" selected it gives me a small error notice in the profile settings.

After some testing I would like to offer that I have found a sample NEF from a Nikon Z7 running firmware NIKON Z7 Ver.01.00 that does not seem to have the magenta shift issues when using "NIKON Z 7 Adobe Standard.dcp" The sample file that Todd Shaner posted that firmware is NIKON Z7 Ver.01.02 does have the issues with that DCP. I have reproduced my issues with files from a Nikon Z6 camera having the magenta shift when "Nikon Z 6 Adobe Standard.dcp" is applied with my own Z6 running Ver.01.01 and Ver.03.00. I found a file from a Z6 running "NIKON Z6 Ver.01.00" and unlike the Z7 of the same version number it had the same issue. (Both files are linked below and all firmware version names are as Lightroom displayed them)

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Pb2GYbF02Wd4CJCf19tZwfU8T4s2az2l

https://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_z7/photos/nikon_z7_05.nef

One last question is are there files that "Nikon Z 6 Adobe Standard.dcp" does not produce the magenta shift for? Would there be any harm in renaming the DCP files for the moment?

Hi Andrew,

I would like to apologize for an indignant tone in my original posts and thank you for your responses as well as all the others. I also missed the key detail that I was actually working with the "Adobe Color" profile which is not a DCP, but an Enhanced Profile. This explains why when pasting settings from the Z6 to the D500 with "Treatment and Profile" checked in Lightroom it was not giving me similar issues. There is no file "Nikon D500 Adobe Standard V2.dcp" so instead of trying to and paste a DCP it was only pasting the "Adobe Color.xmp" and everything is gravy. When I have tried to paste settings from the Z6 to the D500 with "Adobe Standard V2" selected it gives me a small error notice in the profile settings.

After some testing I would like to offer that I have found a sample NEF from a Nikon Z7 running firmware NIKON Z7 Ver.01.00 that does not seem to have the magenta shift issues when using "NIKON Z 7 Adobe Standard.dcp" The sample file that Todd Shaner posted that firmware is NIKON Z7 Ver.01.02 does have the issues with that DCP. I have reproduced my issues with files from a Nikon Z6 camera having the magenta shift when "Nikon Z 6 Adobe Standard.dcp" is applied with my own Z6 running Ver.01.01 and Ver.03.00. I found a file from a Z6 running "NIKON Z6 Ver.01.00" and unlike the Z7 of the same version number it had the same issue. (Both files are linked below and all firmware version names are as Lightroom displayed them)

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Pb2GYbF02Wd4CJCf19tZwfU8T4s2az2l

https://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_z7/photos/nikon_z7_05.nef

One last question is are there files that "Nikon Z 6 Adobe Standard.dcp" does not produce the magenta shift for? Would there be any harm in renaming the DCP files for the moment?

I have found a sample NEF from a Nikon Z7 running firmware NIKON Z7 Ver.01.00 that does not seem to have the magenta shift issues when using "NIKON Z 7 Adobe Standard.dcp"

That appears to be the cause and the same reason for the Nikon Z6 white balance issue. Adobe must have used an early production sample of the Nikon Z7 camera for creating the camera profiles. Nikon apparently made changes that affected the white balance readings inside LR/ACR in a later camera firmware update.

One last question is are there files that "Nikon Z 6 Adobe Standard.dcp" does not produce the magenta shift for? Would there be any harm in renaming the DCP files for the moment?"

Although the Z6 and Z7 cameras are very similar the sensors are not identical. However, you can use the DNG Profile Editor (DPE) to change the Z7 Adobe Standard Base Profile to the Z6 Adobe Standard v2 camera profile, but that only changes the color tables. I tried it and the WB readings are the same!

What you can do with DPE is to "correct" the WB readings so they more closely match the As Shot readings. I've done that and you can download the WB corrected Z7 Adobe Standard camera profile at the below Dropbox link.

(Link Corrected)
Adobe Standard Corrected

Download and copy the file to the below folder location and then restart LR to load the new profile. It will appear in the LR Profile Browser under the 'Adobe Raw' list. You can make it a Favorite by clicking to the right of the profile name.

Windows—C:\Users\NAME\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\CameraRaw\CameraProfiles

Mac—Macintosh HD / Users / [your username] / Library / Application Support / Adobe / CameraRaw / CameraProfiles


Keep in mind ALL of the Z7 camera profiles have the same WB issue. When (and if) Adobe creates new v2 camera profiles the 'As Shot' WB readings may be slightly different than using the WB corrected profile I've created. Anyhow it would be good to see if this "simple" correction to the camera profile's WB fixes the issue. Please give it a try and let me know. To enable easily changing back the profile at a later date you may want to add a unique keyword to the files as you edit.

After some testing I would like to offer that I have found a sample NEF from a Nikon Z7 running firmware NIKON Z7 Ver.01.00 that does not seem to have the magenta shift issues when using "NIKON Z 7 Adobe Standard.dcp"

Thanks! So much for this being an Adobe profile issue. 

One last question is are there files that "Nikon Z 6 Adobe Standard.dcp" does not produce the magenta shift for? Would there be any harm in renaming the DCP files for the moment?

If indeed you can use it as you desire and get the results you want, NO issues. 

This is an Adobe profile issue in that Adobe Standard profiles are producing unexpected and undesirable results. From Adobe's perspective this a frustrating issue to have because the issue seems to be created by a Nikon decision to drastically change how they were dealing with tint after these cameras been released.

I only use a Z6 so my interest in Z7 files was only insofar to understand what was happening.

Renaming my Z6 Adobe Standard DCPs did not fix the problem.

After learning what the problem is I would ideally like it solved by removing the problematic DCP named "NIKON Z 6 Adobe Standard" for users who don't need it and substituting with the correct DCP currently named "NIKON Z 6 Adobe Standard v2"

Also it would be nice to allow presets for which develop settings to copy like currently exist when syncing files in ACR

How do I go about seeing those two issues addressed? Separate posts?

” From Adobe's perspective this a frustrating issue to have because the issue seems to be created by a Nikon decision to drastically change how they were dealing with tint after these cameras been released.”

No, there is no ”tint” in raw data; it's essentially grayscale data.

Ah. Sorry should not have said that.

Though I am correct in that Nikon has made some change and it has created an issue Adobe needs to fix?

I would ideally like it solved by removing the problematic DCP named "NIKON Z 6 Adobe Standard" for users who don't need it and substituting with the correct DCP currently named "NIKON Z 6 Adobe Standard v2"

Regardless of the Nikon Z6 Adobe Standard WB issue some users may have edited many of their image files using it. If it were removed in a future update all of those files will revert to the new Adobe Standard v2 profile and their WB will need to be corrected. For this reason the original Nikon Z6 camera profile must be retained.

Also it would be nice to allow presets for which develop settings to copy like currently exist when syncing files in ACR.

The issue you are seeing when copying and pasting the Adobe Standard profile from a different model camera is not unique to the Nikon Z6. Their are numerous camera models that have v2 profiles AND for the reason I cited above the original Adobe Standard profiles must be retained. There's no workaround when Treatment & Profile is selected in the preset other than to create separate presets for the Z6 camera and other camera models that have v2 camera profiles.

I understand that there are some users whose Z6 files will behave predictably with the original DCP.  They are not included in "users who do not need it". I don't have any of files that require that DCP so it frustrating when synchronizing settings between two images in LR, either through a copy of the settings or otherwise, that I have to remember to uncheck "Treatment & Profile" when in fact I would like the them to sync to a "Adobe Standard", just because of the second version of the DCP it behaves predictably, but undesirably.

There are 800 different cameras DCPs in the Adobe Standard folder on my laptop. Z6 is one of the 1% of them have v2 DCPs

Currently my workaround is to not select "Treatment & Profile" when copying or synchronizing in LR. A drop down menu in the Copy and Synchronize dialogs in LR that allowed you to set the Default subset of checked options like already exists in ACR would make it easier to implement this work around.

@Josh - I'd recommend starting  your own thread specific to the problem that you are having. That way you can get it acknowledged instead of having it disappear into the comments of an unrelated camera/problem.

I agree with Brian concerning starting a new post for your Z6 request. I can't see how Adobe could implement a change to accomplish your objective, but you may get replies from users with other suggestions.

Thank you will do.