Camera Raw/Lightroom: 5D Mark IV, wrong dcp profile from adobe

  • 10
  • Problem
  • Updated 3 months ago
  • (Edited)
Raw Files : 5D Mark IV
Software : Camera Raw 9.10.1
Issue : lights and colors rendering

While opening a raw in Digital Photo Professional (DPP), you can set up your space colors to sRGB or adobe98.

- When I open a raw taken by a 5D Mark III, in sRGB/sRGB, i have a normal rendering (lights / colors).
- If I set sRGB/adobe98 by changing the space colors, the light are more strong/contrasty, and the red are more saturated.
- If I open the 5D Mark III raw in Camera Raw, the rendering is like sRGB/sRGB in DPP.


Now, same operation but with 5D Mark IV raw files...

- When I open a raw taken by a 5D Mark IV, in sRGB/sRGB, I have a normal rendering (lights / colors)
- If I set sRGB / adobe98 byu changing the space colors, the light are more strong/contrasty, and the red are more saturated.
- If I open the 5D Mark IV raw in Camera Raw, the rendering is like sRGB/adobe98 in DPP, and that's NOT good.

To see differences between files and rendering I put jpeg files :
1) 5DMarkIII in DPP with sRGB/sRGB, 5DMarkIII with sRGB/adobe98, 5DMarkIII with Camera Raw
2) 5DMarkIV in DPP with sRGB/sRGB, 5DMarkIV with sRGB/adobe98, 5DMarkIV with Camera Raw


5DMARKIII :







5DMARKIV :





As you can see, the problem with the 5DMarkIV : to much contrast in camera raw, causing wrong colors (red saturation, light saturation with less saturation in the highlights etc.).

So, Is there a way for ADOBE, to make dcp profile camera standard to a sRGB look instead of an adobe98 look ?

All put all these capture and raw files on this link for ppl who want to check :

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ak5vIZqwJCnXjK14AXupfcB8wEkclw


Crossing my finger for the giant Adobe hearing this post !

Thank you !
Photo of benjamin vingrief

benjamin vingrief

  • 30 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes

Posted 1 year ago

  • 10
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 592 Posts
  • 103 Reply Likes
DCP profiles are color space and white balance agnostic. 
If you see differences in the two (sRGB vs. Adobe RGB (1998)) beyond the color gamut of sRGB, it's a color management issue where the current software isn't properly recognizing the embedded profile.
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 592 Posts
  • 103 Reply Likes
I download raw of woman in green. Rendered in sRGB and Adobe RGB using ACR. They appear absolutely identical! 

Adobe RGB (1998) on left, sRGB on right. 
Photo of benjamin vingrief

benjamin vingrief

  • 30 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
And, the problem is with "camera standard" profile, not "adobe standard" what you have used while opening the raw and making your screenshots
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 592 Posts
  • 103 Reply Likes
I assume between different raw converters, looks can't be similar.. All manufacturers have their own feelings about the lights, the colors etc.
Exactly so. 
Does DPP even support DCP profiles? Be news to me but I don't use it. 
Bottom line: you can't expect two different raw converters, even with the identical camera profile (if both supported such profiles) will render the same color appearance. 
Photo of benjamin vingrief

benjamin vingrief

  • 30 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I don't want Adobe making exactly and strictly the same rendering intent.
I just want my RAW from my camera 5D Mark IV not having strong reds and strong shadows.

For example, in a shooting, if i shoot the same scene with a Canon 5D Mark III and a 5D Mark IV, shadows will be "normal" on 5D Mark III, and red are feelings like i see them in real life... and unfortunately, with 5D Mark IV, shadows are very, very strong, reds are to saturated, and lights are to contrasty overall.

So, yeah, i just want a "normal" profile. Something Real.

If I take the same scene with the two camera :

in DPP the rendering in sRGB / sRGB for my 5D Mark III is pretty the same as my 5D Mark IV (some minors changes of course)
in DPP, the rendering in sRGB / adobeRGB for my 5D Mark III is pretty the same as my 5D Mark IV (some minors changes etc etc).
in Camera Raw differences between 5D Mark III and 5D Mark IV are to obvious. 5D Mark III less saturated (reds) and less "contrasty".

So, it's not about how i Feel my Lights and Colors, it's more how the Sensors capture my scene and how Adobe is destroying the rendering in his camera raw.

If i take my scene with : Nikon D810, 5D Mark III, Sony Alpha 7RII, i got the pretty same feelings, not perfectly identic, but very similar... If I compare with 5D Mark IV, i want to cry..
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 592 Posts
  • 103 Reply Likes
I don't want Adobe making exactly and strictly the same rendering intent.
I just want my RAW from my camera 5D Mark IV not having strong reds and strong shadows.

Then fix it by altering the controls, using a different DCP profile etc. 
It's like saying: I want my raw converter to look exactly like the camera JPEG. Only the camera manufacturer can do this. Other's can try to get close but that rendering is proprietary. The sensor doesn't capture full color anyway; you're shooting raw and you have to render the color. Anyway, I can't see anything you've reported that is a bug or isn't to be expected. 
Photo of benjamin vingrief

benjamin vingrief

  • 30 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
If i read you well :

Adobe has edited 78 Canon profiles for Canon Camera.

For these Camera , 77 are made with the rendering intent matching pretty well the "sRGB/sRGB" look of DPP's "camera Standard".

Only one camera, 5DMarkIV, (not true but I don't want to mention the three other camera having this "issue") have a DCP profile with "sRGB/adobeRGB" look, and i should be ok with that ?

The main problem: Adobe force the raw to have a wrong base while importing in Camera Raw, because of a wrong dcp profile. So editing a RAW, it's ok, but editing a RAW with the worst base ever, is harder, and the results are poor.

Just an example to explain why it should be rework :

The curve inside the dcp is strong... Particularly in the shadows, where the curves is made with a tiny circle. It made the shadows strong, clipped, and, plus because of the "circle" of the curve, there is a saturation created because "raising contrast increase saturation".

So, in camera raw if you edit the saturation sliders, you affect the entire photo, while the problem above is only in the shadows part of the images.

So, how in camera raw i can play with the saturation only in the shadows ? Nowhere. And that's why, the DCP profile must be "correct". Not perfect, but correct.

One other problem :

In the DCP, colors have been edited with their three values :  HSL. According to the "adobeRGB"-look.

And for example the skin got an orange tone, and with the difference of light, the orange turns to red in shadows and yellow in highlight.
Because of the contrast with the curve, the yellow are less saturated, and red, more saturated.
I edited the base tone curve to get contrast well... but, i can't edit each saturation of each colors...

So, with my custom profile, i got correct lights... but the colors(hue and saturations so) are made with the "adobeRGB"-look, and not the "sRGB"-look, and... saturations and hue in camera raw are still not good. And this is not editable easily.


So, i just hope that Adobe take the time to make the DCP profile like the 77 others Canon Camera : with a "sRGB"-look
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1111 Posts
  • 360 Reply Likes
I've done extensive research on the Adobe Standard and Camera Standard profiles for Canon DSLRs:

https://forums.adobe.com/message/9095782#9095782

On further investigation and 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. The 5D MKIV Adobe Standard profile looks similar to the 1DX MKII (lower color saturation). Ironically the 1DX MKII Camera Standard profile has higher saturation previous profiles. When viewed in Canon's Digital Photo Professional 4 (DPP4) with Standard default settings ALL of these CR2 image files look virtually identical. In LR I had to readjust WB and Exposure, but they still looked different than DPP4's Camera Standard rendering.

These image files are Adobe RGB profile so you may need to save them and view in LR or PS. Click on the image to launch it, right-click, and Save to a drive location.

https://forums.adobe.com/message/9099804#9099804

I've already reported this issue to Adobe Engineering.
(Edited)
Photo of benjamin vingrief

benjamin vingrief

  • 30 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
In your link there is one information not given.
While shooting in RAW, you can set up your camera to sRGB or adobeRGB.
This settings doesn't affects the raw, but, in DPP, the rendering will be affected.
A raw shooted with the setting "sRGB" as color space in your camera, will put the setting to "sRGB/sRGB" in DPP.
A raw shooted with the setting "adobe98" as color space in your camera will put the setting to "sRGB/AdobeRGB" in DPP.

When you take that in account, you see that the profile made by Adobe are pretty the same than the "adobeRGB" look.

But, i'm shooting to sRGB color space... DPP renders my raw correctly (sRGB/sRGB) and Camera Raw still get his strong curve inside the DCP file.

To demonstrate a little the thing, i have taken the DCP profile from 5DMarkIV and i have put the 5DMarkIII curve in it.
By doing this, I got for my 5DMarkIV a look that is corresponding to the look in DPP with "sRGB/sRGB".

I give you my DCP files if you want to test them.
Compare next in DPP / Camera Raw.
But my DCP file corrects only the tonal curve, i can't manipulate the saturations.

DCP files :
https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ak5vIZqwJCnXjK4J7rQPBii7ymS4lg
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 592 Posts
  • 103 Reply Likes
You're NOT shooting sRGB or Adobe RGB (1998) unless you capture a JPEG, period. The settings have ZERO affect on the raw. It's simply a metadata tag that DPP may use to set it's rendering to mimic the camera JPEG. LR tries to do this but it's not going to appear the same as the camera JPEG rendering is proprietary. The DCP profiles with 'look' names that match the camera are an attempt to get closer to that JPEG, there's zero guarantee it will match the camera JPEG or the raw processed in DPP.  You can build your own DCP profiles and edit them in an attempt to get a closer match. But everything you report is to be expected, it's not a bug. 

There IS a reason Adobe provides the features to build and edit a DCP profile! There's a reason why canned DCP profiles may not produce the results you expect; they are not based on your specific sensor for one. 
(Edited)
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2656 Posts
  • 341 Reply Likes
Changing the Profile in ACR from Adobe Color to Camera Portrait goes a long way to getting the same look as the camera JPG:


However, you can go a step further and just click Auto to get the Adobe auto-fix adjustments applied; however, it is a step too far in my opinion as the denim has a bit too much glow:


If you want to use Auto with a human subject, probably start with an Adobe Portrait profile not Camera Portrait so the colors aren't so saturated; however, Auto is just a starting point and you should adjust things to taste, afterwards.


One trick is to not click Auto but double-click on some of the settings adjustment-slider Thumbs to get their auto-setting without the rest.  I usually do this with the Blacks and Whites after making some other adjustments:
(Edited)
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1111 Posts
  • 360 Reply Likes
At the risk of beating a dead horse with information already provided–Here are my findings concerning the IMG029 JPEG and CR2 files.

Proprietary in-Camera Settings that LR does not know how to use:

---- File ----
File Name                       : IMG_029.CR2
File Size                       : 38 MB

---- EXIF ----
Camera Model Name               : Canon EOS 5D Mark IV

---- MakerNotes ----
Contrast                        : Normal
Saturation                      : +1
Color Tone                      : +1
Tone Curve                      : Standard
Picture Style                   : Portrait
Color Space                     : Adobe RGB
Auto Lighting Optimizer         : Off
Highlight Tone Priority         : Off

Interestingly the in-camera CR2 file's embedded JPEG preview does not match the camera JPEG file rendering. This is not normal, but has no impact on the raw file data. I'd call it a Canon 5D MKIV bug! The rendering in LR is virtually identical to the camera JPEG file when Camera Portrait profile, Exposure = +0.12, and Saturation = +10 settings are applied. The only minor difference is that the blue denim dress is slightly darker with these LR settings, which can be corrected using Vibrance = -5 and Saturation = +15. Personally I'd leave the settings as shown below. You can create a Develop preset to apply them on import or using Sync.

Photo of Amanda Byler

Amanda Byler

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
OKay people!!!!  I think I got it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Happy Dance!!!!  Thank you guys so much!!!!   Pretty simple fix and I probably had you guys doing way more work than needed.  So now my question is, why can't adobe read what my settings are? 
And how do I set this as my default so that I don't have to plug this in every time?  Is that even possible?  Because every time I open another RAW image it's set back to the default.
And where do I change this setting in LR?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ku4fxh8o3m4kvch/Screenshot%202018-08-26%2021.40.42%282%29.png?dl=0

Photo of Laura Kent

Laura Kent

  • 98 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
At the bottom of the develop module panel, hold option+Reset and you'll see it change to Save default.  Depending on your settings, it will change the default for the selected image's camera model and possibly the serial number and ISO.  Another option is to save a preset with the profile (and any other settings you want applied), then select that preset when importing.  
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2656 Posts
  • 341 Reply Likes
You probably want to create a few presets for various types of photo sessions. Currently  you are working on portraits outdoors in the shade.  It might be useful to create a preset for when you have a similar photoshoot in the future and apply it when you are importing the photos.  I suggest several presets rather than just one set of default values, because the adjustments may be a bit different if you are shooting outdoors in the sun or indoors with tungsten or fluorescent lighting.

Here is an article from back from when LR 4 was current, but the concepts are still the same, including saving a subset of adjustments as a preset and applying that preset during Import:
https://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-create-a-standard-import-preset-in-lightroom-4/

Here is a video from a few months ago about how to create a preset for an artistic effect but the way to save the preset at around the 7 minute mark is the same for any preset:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afva0Y_dvgk
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1111 Posts
  • 360 Reply Likes
I totally agree with Andrew Rodney. In addition your working color space should be set to a profile that covers the full gamut of your display at a minimum. LR uses ProPhotoRGB and you can set DPP to use the Wide Gamut RGB profile. Beyond that you should use LR or PS soft proof with the target printer paper profile or destination color space for screen evaluation. I assume you are using a wide gamut display and have calibrated it with an X-Rite or Datacolor monitor calibrator.

The Adobe Standard profile is much more suitable profile for portrait work than Camera Standard for any Canon DSLR. There is an issue with the 5D MKIV Adobe Standard profile, which I discuss at the links provided. You can "fix" this as outlined at the below link or use the Adobe DNG profile editor (DPE) to apply these changes and create a custom camera profile.

https://forums.adobe.com/message/9519425#9519425

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/cs6/DNGProfile_EditorDocumen...

http://supportdownloads.adobe.com/detail.jsp?ftpID=5493

http://supportdownloads.adobe.com/detail.jsp?ftpID=5494
(Edited)
Photo of benjamin vingrief

benjamin vingrief

  • 30 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I will make a step by step "guide" to show that it's not a calibration problem. You want to see a calibration problem because i talk about sRGB / adobe98 and rendering intent so you focus on that, but clearly it's a DCP profile issue.

If it is a calibration problem, why my nikon and others canon cameras are not affected by this "problem" ?
Calibration problem are not dependent to the camera used.
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1111 Posts
  • 360 Reply Likes
The reason I asked is because I don't see a significant difference between Camera Standard renderings for the Canon EOS 5D MKIII and MKIV bodies. The below screenshot is with LR default settings and Camera Standard profile. The image file is Adobe RGB color space. Click on the image, then right click on the full-size image, and select 'Save Image As' to your desktop. View it in PS or LR and not your browser.

CORRECTION: You'll need to assign Adobe RGB profile to the below screenshot JPG file as it appears Adobe strips the profile when it is posted.

You can download these test images from Imaging Resource and check them for yourself: http://www.imaging-resource.com/

(Edited)
Photo of benjamin vingrief

benjamin vingrief

  • 30 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes

My post is here to show the different tone mapping done by Adobe in Camera Raw in different DCP Profile and to show that old Canon Camera Raw DCP Profiles were made to get a Tone Curve to perform a the transformation from a Linear Gamma (not talking about Linear space color, but Linear Gamma !) to an sRGB Gamma. And for new Canon Camera Raw DCP Profiles, the Tone Curve is performing a transformation from a Linear Gamma to an AdobeRGB gamma.

And I’m talking only about the « Tone Mapping » in this post.

Just to say it : after the tone mapping, Adobe Camera Raw convert the rendering in the color space you have chosen (sRGB ? Adobe98 ? Prophoto ? etc.). That’s why when you chose different color space in Camera Raw, the rendering is always the same. And that’s why it’s important to get a correct Tone Mapping according to the final space color you want. What Adobe doesn’t do !


In fact : Adobe makes a Tone Mapping (DCP Profiles) per DCP Profile, and you have no choice here. So when you select « Camera Standard », you are using one and only one « rendering intent ».

In DPP, the Tone Mapping is set up while changing the space color. If you setup the Colors Space to Adobe98, the Tone Mapping will convert the RAW data from Linear to Adobe98 colors space.

In Adobe Camera Raw, the Tone Mapping is set up while changing the DCP Profiles and after it is converted to the space color.

So, you can have a DCP Profile with a base tone curve that describes a tonal mapping for sRGB rendering intent, but converted in the Adobe98 colors space.

So, you can have a DCP Profile with a base tone curve that describes a tonal mapping for AdobeRGB rendering intent, and finally converted to Adobe98 colors space.

Two images displayed in Adobe98 color space, but with two different rendering intent.

Etc.
Adobe provides us for our cameras one and only one profile. For example : the DCP Profile « Camera Standard » gets a « rendering intent ». Is it sRGB ? Is it AdobeRGB ? Is it Log ?



So... As you can understand, it’s not about how the image is displayed in Camera Raw under a colors space, and it’s not a display calibration problem.

In this post, I show that old Camera Raw DCP Profiles for Canon Camera were made with a sRGB tone mapping (no dependent to the color space where it is displayed !).
And, I show that new Camera Raw DCP Profiles for Canon Camera are made with an AdobeRGB tone mapping (still no dependent to the color space!)


Link for the different files :

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ak5vIZqwJCnXjK14AXupfcB8wEkclw


I created some DCP profiles just by taking Adobe’s datas and mixing them to get some rendering.

  • Canon EOS 5D Mark III Camera Standard.dcp (original file)

Profile for Canon EOS 5D Mark III to mimic the « Camera Standard » from DPP with sRGB/sRGB setting. The base tone curve is an sRGB Tone Mapping. 

  • Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Camera Standard.dcp (original file)

Profile for Canon EOS 5D MarkIV to mimic the « Camera Standard » from DPP with sRGB/AdobeRGB setting. The base tone curve is an AdobeRGB Tone Mapping,

  • Canon EOS 5D Mark III Camera Standard - 5D Mark IV Curve.dcp (custom file)

Profile for Canon EOS 5D Mark III to mimic the « Camera Standard » from DPP with sRGB/AdobeRGB setting.

This is the original 5DMarkIII DCP Profile where the original base tone curve as been replaced with the curve from the 5DMarkIV file. And this profile is now made to mimic the rendering of the DPP sRGB/AdobeRGB setting. And so, the base tone curve is now an AdobeRGB Tone Mapping.

As you can see, I didn’t tweak anything, and all I have done is to take curves made by Adobe.

  • Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Camera Standard - 5D Mark III Curve.dcp (custom file)

Profile for Canon EOS 5D Mark IV to mimic the « Camera Standard » from DPP with sRGB/sRGB setting.

This is the original 5DMarkIV DCP Profile where the original base tone curve as been replaced with the curve from the 5DMarkIII file. And this profile is now made to mimic the rendering of the DPP sRGB/sRGB setting. And so, the base tone curve is now a sRGB Tone Mapping.



Folder Content :


  • 1-1 5DMarkIII_Layer1_sRGB.TIF

5DMarkIII file opened in DPP with sRGB rendering, exported to .tif file

  • 1-2 5DMarkIII_Layer1_sRGB - Converted sRGB.TIF

Previous file converted from Canon sRGB to standard sRGB, exported to .tif file

  • 2-1 5DMarkIII_Layer2_AdobeRGB

5DMarkIII file opened in DPP with AdobeRGB rendering, exported to .tif file

  • 2-2 5DMarkIII_Layer2_AdobeRGB - Converted sRGB.TIF

Previous file converted from Adobe98 to sRGB, exported to .tif file

  • 3-1 5DMarkIII_AIO.TIF

Contains all the previous layers to compare them.

  • 3-2 5DMarkIII_Layer3_CameraRaw_CameraStandard.TIF

5DMarkIII file opened in Camera Raw with « Camera Standard » DCP Profile from Adobe, exported to .tif file in sRGB.

  • 4-1 5DMarkIII_Layer4_CustomDCP.TIF

5DMarkIII file opened in Camera Raw with custom DCP Profile « Camera Standard - 5DMarkIV Curve », with a tonal curve from 5DMarkIV « Camera Standard » Adobe DCP Profile, exported to .tif file in sRGB.

  • 5-1 5DMarkIV_Layer1_sRGB.TIF

5DMarkIV file opened in DPP with sRGB rendering, exported to .tif file

  • 5-2 5DMarkIV_Layer1_sRGB - Converted sRGB.TIF

Previous file converted from Canon sRGB to Standard sRGB, exported to .tif file

  • 6-1 5DMarkIV_Layer2_AdobeRGB.TIF

5DMarkIV file opened in DPP with AdobeRGB rendering, exported to .tif file

  • 6-2 5DMarkIV_Layer2_AdobeRGB - Converted sRGB.TIF

Previous file converted from Adobe98 to sRGB, exported to .tif file

  • 7-1 5DMarkIV_AIO.TIF

Contains all the previous layers to compare them

  • 7-2 5DMarkIV_Layer3_CameraRaw_CameraStandard.TIF

5DMarkIV file opened in Camera Raw with « Camera Standard » DCP Profile from Adobe, exported to .tif file in sRGB.

  • 7-2-2 5DMarkIV_Layer3_CameraRaw_CameraStandard Corrected Offset.TIF

5DMarkIV file opened in Camera Raw with a custom DCP Profile « Camera Standard - Offset 0 ». 

  • 8-1 5DMarkIV_Layer4_CustomDCP.TIF

5DMarkIV file opened in Camera Raw with a custom DCP Profile « Camera Standard - 5DMarkIII Curve ».


  • Canon EOS 5D Mark III Camera Standard - 5D Mark IV Curve.dcp

Adobe DCP Profile « Camera Standard » for 5DMarkIII customized only by removing the tonal curve and replacing it with the tonal curve from the Adobe DCP Profile « Camera Standard » for 5DMarkIV.

  • Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Camera Standard - 5D Mark III Curve.dcp

Adobe DCP PRofile « Camera Standard » for 5DMarkIV customized only by removing the tonal curve and replacing it with the tonal curve from the Adobe DCP Profile « Camera Standard » for 5DMarkIII.

  • Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Camera Standard - offset 0.dcp

Adobe DCP Profile « Camera Standard » for 5DMarkIV customized only by raising up the base exposure called « offset » in the original DCP file.




STEP BY STEP :



1 :

Open « 5DMarkIII.cr2 » in DPP

Be sure to get the info « sRGB/sRGB » in the top right of the window, if not set it in preferences settings.
Export to .tif 16bits 300dpi sRGB. (File Name : 1-1 5DMarkIII_Layer1_sRGB.TIF)

Open it in photoshop, convert to sRGB profile (the prevent profile was a canon version of sRGB). Export to .tif 16bits 300dpi sRGB (File Name : 1-2 5DMarkIII_Layer1_sRGB - Converted sRGB.TIF).


2:

Open « 5DMarkIII.cr2 » in DPP

Change the setting of the colorspace to « AdobeRGB ».
Export that to .tif 16bits 300dpi Adobe98. (File Name : 2-1 5DMarkIII_Layer1_AdobeRGB.TIF)
Open it in photoshop, convert to sRGB profile. Export to .tif 16bits 300dpi sRGB (File Name : 2-2 5DMarkIII_Layer2_AdobeRGB - Converted sRGB.TIF).


3:

Open « 5DMarkIII.cr2 » in Adobe Camera Raw. No importance about the colorspace in Camera Raw, as we ALL know, the rendering of camera raw will match whatever the colorspace you choose... So choose sRGB/Adobe98/prophoto, no importance. Chose « Camera Standard » in the Calibration tab of the Camera Settings.

When document is opened, convert it in sRGB color space.

Export to .tif 300dpi 16bits sRGB. (File Name : 3-2 5DMarkIII_Layer3_CameraRaw_CameraStandard.TIF).


4:

Make a new Document in sRGB, put in the layer 1-2 the layer from the first document.
Put in the layer 2-2 the layer from the second document.

Put in the layer 3-2 the layer from the third document.
Export to .tif 300dpi 16bits sRGB. (File Name : 4-1 5DmarkIII_AIO.TIF)




TO SUMMARIZE :


In the document « 4-1 5DmarkIII_AIO.TIF », we have three layers :


Layer 1-2 : from DPP Camera Standard, « sRGB tone mapping »

Layer 2-2 : from DPP Camera Standard, « AdobeRGB tone mapping » and converted to sRGB color space

Layer 3-2 : from Adobe Camera Raw Camera Standard, « which tone mapping ? »


The purpose here is to compare these three layers, and see how they’re made.
Of course, between each layers, there are some differences, in the lights, in the hue, in the saturation. The importance is not to get perfectly the same thing, but to get something similar.
The main thing we can clearly see, is that the rendering intent with Adobe Camera Raw and the DCP profiles, to get the same rendering as in DPP. And here the rendering mimic the sRGB tone mapping. The histogram for « sRGB » layers (Layer 1-2, Layer 3-2) are in a similar way, (sRGB tone mapped ?) where the « AdobeRGB » layer (Layer 2-2) is more contrasty and shadows are stronger.


For me, here, there is nothing bad. All works as intended. No problem with calibration, all layers have been exported to sRGB properly etc.



The steps to get an AdobeRGB tone mapping for 5DMarkIII file with Camera Raw instead of DPP :


5: 

Open « 5DMarkIII.cr2 » in Adobe Camera Raw, chose in the calibration tab the custom dcp profile called « Camera Standard - 5DMarkIV Curve ».
Convert document to sRGB.

Export in .tif 16bits 300dpi sRGB. (File Name : 5-1 5DMarkIII_Layer4_CustomDCP.TIF).
Copy that layer, past it to « 3-1 5DMarkIII_AIO.TIF ».


If you compare the Layer 5-1 from Camera Raw with the Layer 2-2 from DPP, you will see that they are similar and the histograms are telling the same story. Some differences in base exposure and colors, but this is very « similar ».


So, we have 4 Layers : Two layers with a sRGB tone mapping (Layer 1-2, Layer 3-2), Two layers with an AdobeRGB tone mapping (Layer 2-2, Layer 5-1).





Of course, to convince you more, I need to perform all these steps, with the 5DMarkIV file, and shows you the different rendering.


6:

Open « 5DMarkIV.cr2 » in DPP

Be sure to get the mention « sRGB/sRGB » in the top right of the window, if not set it in preferences settings.
Export that to .tif 16bits 300dpi sRGB. (File Name : 6-1 5DMarkIV_Layer1_sRGB.TIF)

Open it in photoshop, convert to sRGB profile (the prevent profile was a canon version of sRGB).

Export to .tif 16bits 300dpi sRGB (File Name : 6-2 5DMarkIV_Layer1_sRGB - Converted sRGB.TIF).


7:

Open « 5DMarkIV.cr2 » in DPP

Change the setting of the colorspace to « AdobeRGB ».
Export that to .tif 16bits 300dpi adobe98. (File Name : 7-1 5DMarkIV_Layer2_AdobeRGB.TIF)
Open it in photoshop, convert to sRGB profile. Export to .tif 16bits 300dpi sRGB (File Name : 7-2 5DMarkIV_Layer2_AdobeRGB - Converted sRGB.TIF).


8:

Open « 5DMarkIV.cr2 » in Adobe Camera Raw. No importance about the colorspace in Camera Raw, as we ALL know, the rendering of camera raw will match whatever the colorspace you choose... So choose sRGB/adobe98/prophoto, no importance. Chose « Camera Standard » in the Calibration tab of the Camera.

When document is opened, convert it in sRGB color space.

Export to .tif 300dpi 16bits sRGB. (File Name : 8-1 5DMarkIV_Layer3_CameraRaw_CameraStandard.TIF).

Because the « base exposure » of the DCP profile is to much in the left, i moved it to the right a little to match the « black point » of the histogram.
You can open the RAW with the DCP profile called « Camera Standard - Offset 0 ».
Convert document to sRGB. Export in .tif 16bits 300dpi sRGB. (File Name : 8-1-2 5DMarkIV_Layer3_CameraRaw_CameraStandard Corrected Offset.TIF).

Copy that layer, past it to « 7-1 5DMarkIV_AIO.TIF ».


9:

Make a new Document in sRGB, put in the layer 6-2 the from the first document.
Put in the layer 7-2 the layer from the second document.

Put in the layer 8-1 the layer from the third document.

Put in the layer 8-1-2 the layer from the fourth document.
Export to .tif 300dpi 16bits sRGB. (File Name : 9-1 5DmarkIV_AIO.TIF)




TO SUMMARIZE :


Layer 6-2 : DPP Camera Standard, « sRGB tone mapping »

Layer 7-2 : DPP Camera Standard, « AdobeRGB tone mapping »

Layer 8-1 : Adobe Camera Raw Camera Standard, which tone mapping ?

Layer 8-1-2 : Adobe Camera Raw Camera Standard, with corrected Base Exposure (Offset), which tone mapping ?


The purpose here is to compare these layers, and see how they’re made.
Of course, between each layers, there are a lot of differences, in the lights, in the hue, in the saturation. The importance is not to get perfectly the same thing, but to get something similar.
The main thing we can clearly see, is that the rendering with Adobe Camera Raw and DCP profiles gets the same rendering as in DPP. And here, the rendering mimic the AdobeRGB tone mapping. The histogram for « AdobeRGB » layers (Layer 8-1, Layer 8-1-2) from default Camera Raw profile and custom Camera Raw profile (offset 0) are in a similar way (AdobeRGB tone mapped ?) than the layer from DPP (Layer 7-2).

The key point is here. And it’s why I’m convinced that Adobe make a AdobeRGB tone mapping in his default Camera DCP Profiles for new Canon Camera.



The steps to get an sRGB tone mapping for 5DMarkIV file with Camera Raw instead of DPP :


10:

Open « 5DMarkIV.cr2 » in photoshop Camera Raw, chose in calibration tab the custom dcp profile called « Camera Standard - 5DMarkIII Curve ».
Convert document to sRGB. Export in .tif 16bits 300dpi sRGB. (File Name : 10-1 5DMarkIV_Layer4_CustomDCP.TIF).
Copy that layer, past it to « 9-1 5DMarkIV_AIO.TIF ».



If you compare the Layer 10-1 from Camera Raw with the Layer 6-2 from DPP, you will see that they are similar and the histograms are telling the same story. Some differences in base exposure and colors, but this is very « similar ».


So, we have 5 Layers : Two layers with a sRGB tone mapping (Layer 6-2, Layer 10-2), Three layers with an AdobeRGB tone mapping (Layer 7-2, Layer 8-1-1, and Layer 8-1-2 which is the 8-1 with a corrected base exposure).




CONCLUSION :


With this post, and the different steps etc, we can clearly see that the DCP Profiles have a tonal base curve made to perform what I call a rendering intent. And we have identified two rendering intents : a sRGB , an AdobeRGB. These rendering intent are next converted to the space colors you chose in Camera Raw, and so, that’s why when you change the color space, the rendering is not modified, until you change the DCP Profile containing the REAL rendering intent.

So, you can have an AdobeRGB rendering intent for the tonal curve in your file, but displayed and converted in an sRGB color space. You can have an sRGB rendering intent for the tonal curve in your file but displayed and converted in an Adobe98 color space.


And, normally we should have different DCP Profile that help us to have these different rendering intent.

For example : some people have tweaked different DCP Profile to get a « Log » rendering intent just by changing the tonal curve. (EOSHD, CineLog DCP etc.).

They just transforms the tonal curve in the DCP to make the tone mapping mimics these different gamma etc. And again, these rendering are displayed in the colors space you chose. Cinelog dcp  rendering intent in a Prophoto color space for example.


So, Adobe should help us to get a DCP Profile for two or more possibilities like in DPP, like in Capture One :

Camera Standard - which is a sRGB tone mapping

Camera Standard High Contrast - which is a AdobeRGB tone mapping

And maybe adds the last one : Camera Standard Linear

And just to say it :

DPP do it while changing the « colorspace », with 5 settings : sRGB, AdobeRGB, RGB Colors, Apple RGB, ColorMatch RVB. And let us to get the linear tone map with an other settings.

Capture One do it while changing the Curve setting in the Characteristic Base, with 4 settings : Film Extra Shadows, Film High Contrast, Film Standard, Linear Response.



Why I need Adobe makes the « good » profiles :


When you take the Tone Curve from a DCP Profile from a Camera and put it to an other Camera, you don’t take in account that the Tone Mapping has been made with two considerations :

The first one, a Tone Mapping to a specified Gamma (sRGB or Adobe RGB for example), and the second one, the camera sensor !
Because they don’t capture the light in the same way, the tone curve must be mapped correctly for each camera.


So for example, Canon EOS 5D Mark II has a sRGB Tone Mapping, and Canon EOS 5D Mark III has a sRGB Tone Mapping too. But when you edit their respective DCP Profiles and look at the Tonal Curve in Adobe DNG Editor, these curves are different because of the Raw Data and the sensor.

But, they gets in common the fact that they are made to make a sRGB Tone Mapping while performing the transformation from Linear Gamma to sRGB Gamma.
So, when I put the 5DMarkIII tone curve to a 5DMarkIV DCP Profile, I don’t take in account that the sensors of these two cameras are different and so the curves, normally, should not be the same.

Adobe has the tools to make better curves and it’s not Adobe DNG Editor that do the work. Too imprecise.

DPP do the work.
Capture One do the work.


Why Adobe force us with one and only one tone mapping ? And why they were making sRGB tone mapping before, and AdobeRGB tone mapping now ?
Photo of Christoph Hardt

Christoph Hardt

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
hi, thank you so much for your hard work. but the download seems expired. can you up your profiles once more? i have no clue how to edit and really would like anything better but whats "camera standard" in lightroom now.. ;(
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1111 Posts
  • 360 Reply Likes
You make a convincing argument. I can see the difference you describe between the Canon 5D MKIV DPP sRGB convert and LR Export to sRGB using Camera Standard. Whether or not that's a good thing I don't know. Andrew Rodney is the expert on color management so hopefully he will comment on your observations. I'll also report this to Adobe Engineering and see if they have any comments on your observations.
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 592 Posts
  • 103 Reply Likes
As far as I'm concerned, this is mostly CWOBaT (colossal waste of bandwidth and time). Nothing reported is anything I'd not expect to see. 
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1111 Posts
  • 360 Reply Likes
OK, Thanks Andrew. The DPP sRGB converted test image has noticeably lower saturation in the blues and greens compared to LR's Export to sRGB, Adobe RGB, and DPP's convert to Adobe RGB. Soft proofing the test image used in PS there is very little "visual difference" between the ProPhoto RGB color space image and sRGB soft proof rendering. DPP is doing something that is unexpected when its working color space is set to sRGB. Obviously if you like that rendering it can be achieved easily enough using any number of tools available inside LR.
Photo of Brand New

Brand New

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
This is most definitely not a colossal waste of time.  I noticed the same issue immediately after upgrading from my 5D3 to the 5D4 and haven't found any camera profile which will give me accurate renditions of my photos.  With the 5D3, Camera Standard worked beautifully, and on my 1D4 photos, Adobe Standard is excellent.  The profiles for the 5D4 are way off and what is a colossal waste of time is using any of them as a starting point to try to re-work back to a usable photo.  Yes, my monitor is calibrated and I used to work for the company whose color calibration tool I utilize.  This might not seem like a big deal until you have to try to work with your own real-world images, and see how off they are.

There are more people who have noticed this:
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2214154
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2318486
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2315885

and others on DPreview, too.  I hope Benjamin continues pursuing it, because at this point, it looks like I may have to install DPP for the first time in about 6 years.
Photo of benjamin vingrief

benjamin vingrief

  • 30 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Try my profils, they works pretty fine.
The best way i have to edit well my raws actually, is to use my "Linear DCP Profile" which displays the raw in Linear in Camera Raw, and in the curve tab, make my own Curve to create the "gamma curve" i want.
There are some post on the web about the "why you should edit your raw in linear gamma". And it is very usefull (keep back details in shadows or highlights)

Or in our case : Get a Correct gamma curve for our new Canon Camera !

I have edited the New and Old DCP Profiles for Nikon camera, and they are all made with "srgb gamma tone curves" (smooth starting base tonal curve for proof).

So there is only the new Canon Camera that are impacted.
Why ? It's a mystery :D
Photo of benjamin vingrief

benjamin vingrief

  • 30 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
https://we.tl/7sltAsvFNK

Links for my two Camera Profile :

The first is the 5DMarkIV Camera Standard with the base tonal curve from 5DMark III (not accurate, but better than nothing).
The second is the 5DMarkIV Camera Standard with the base tonal curve in Linear.
So you have to manually edit the curve in the curve tab of camera, here is an example of my last edit :



Try them !
And cross your fingers for all of that being solved :D
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 591 Posts
  • 102 Reply Likes
Tone. Mapping is important as they differ within RGB working spaces and to be expected.

Unless you've rendered scene referred the discussion is accuracy is moot!
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1111 Posts
  • 360 Reply Likes
A good post in the LR forum on this very topic concerning a similar issue with the Canon EOS 5DS and Eric Chan's response from Adobe Engineering:

https://forums.adobe.com/message/7905445#7905445

It is clear Adobe has changed the metrics for their Adobe Standard camera profile, which is a separate issue. According to Eric Chan the changes to the Camera Standard profile on later Canon EOS models (5DS, 5D MKIV, etc.) were done to match rendering in DPP with Canon's 'Standard' profile.

As you (and others) have observed the Canon 5D MKIV Camera Standard profile has a negative area and steeper curve near the black point when compared to the 5D MKIII. However, the LR/ACR 5D MKIV Camera Standard renderings match DPP's Standard Picture Style rendering very closely. I do see slight differences in tonal rendering between the 5D MKIII and 5D MKIV Camera standard renderings, but I see similar differences in DPPs Standard picture style renderings. What appears to be happening is that these differences coupled with small scene referred differences in lighting, etc. for the 5D MKIII and 5D MKIV pictures taken years apart become additive and are more apparent.

Also keep in mind that there can be small rendering differences in the same camera model due to manufacturing tolerances (CMOS sensor wafer processing).

So I ask again that you shoot a model with both cameras, in one session, with all settings and lighting identical, to limit these differences. I'd do it myself, but don't have 5D MIV or MKIII cameras.
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 592 Posts
  • 103 Reply Likes
LR vs. DPP vs. (fill in the blank name of any other raw converter): I would expect a different rendering.
Photo of benjamin vingrief

benjamin vingrief

  • 30 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Yes Andrew, nobody says the opposite. It's a common fact. Converters do their own stuff. It's not the problem here ^^
Photo of Christoph Hardt

Christoph Hardt

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
So is there a solution to this problem? I am having a hard nighit shift and the raw files are killing me in lightroom... everything red and fucked up. the jpgs look fine... cant match.
Photo of Christoph Hardt

Christoph Hardt

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
No its exactly what has been discussed here: the "camera standard" setting applied to RAWs out of a 5D MarkIV in lightroom does not in a million years match the jpg out of cam. skin tones are far from ideal and overall shadows and highlights/contrast differ massively. After reading this thread carefully again it seems I have to manually edit Lightroom's DCP-Profile? I dont understand why this "problem" appeared in the first place anyway. the 5DMarkIV is one of the most popular cameras by canon and almost every photographer uses lightroom...so by now there should be an army of angry people out there realizing their raw edits horribly differ from their jpgs. this is very bad for skin tones for example. the reds are too strong compared to the jpg for example. So can anyone confirm that editing the DCP will do the job and "camera standard" afterwards is pretty close to the jpg again?
(Edited)
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 893 Posts
  • 275 Reply Likes
Please read my reply from July 23rd:

https://console.getsatisfaction.com/photoshop_family/conversations/5d-mark-iv-wrong-dcp-profile-from...

I'm not seeing "large" differences between the 5D MKIII and MKIV Camera Standard rendering when using raw files shot under controlled conditions of the same subject. However you're saying the 5D MKIV camera JPEG file shot with in-camera 'Standard' profile does not match the camera raw file Camera Standard Rendering inside LR. This is slightly different than what is being discussed here (5D MKIII vs MIV Camera Standard raw file rendering differences). The best way to trouble-shoot your issue is by uploading and posting the share links to a 5D MKIV camera raw file and an unedited camera JPEG file that exhibits the issue.
Photo of Christoph Hardt

Christoph Hardt

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Dude, I know its slightly different from whats being discussed here. The issue is known, common, everybody who owns a 5d mkiv has it. It just blows my mind that nobody seems to care though for example skin tones are completely out of the window when working with raw compared to the jpgs. I dont have to upload anything to make you believe the problem. reds are oversaturated and shadows are too intensive in the curve. I just want to know how to FIX THIS. is there for example a replacment dcp profile made by somebody other than canon or adobe to download from anywhere?
(Edited)
Photo of eartho

eartho

  • 723 Posts
  • 177 Reply Likes
Have you tried seeing if C1 has any issues with 5DIV rendering?
Photo of eartho

eartho

  • 723 Posts
  • 177 Reply Likes
Have you tried seeing if C1 has any issues with 5DIV rendering?
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1111 Posts
  • 360 Reply Likes
I never said I didn't believe you.

You said two days ago, "So can anyone confirm that editing the DCP will do the job and "camera standard" afterwards is pretty close to the jpg again?"

Yes. The Camera Standard profile can be edited using the Adobe DNG Profile Editor. If you upload a camera raw file and unedited camera JPEG file I'll see what can done to match the two.
Photo of Laura Kent

Laura Kent

  • 98 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
Hi all,
I too, am having a hard time with the profiles for Canon 5D Mark IV.  My monitor is calibrated monthly with Spyder 5 Elite and I find my professional prints to match my monitor colors very well.  I have a Retina 5K, 27-inch iMac.   In my opinion, the purpose of a camera profile is to get a baseline for editing RAW files that matches the jpg rendered previews on the camera.  There are no profiles that come close to fulfilling that purpose for my Canon 5D Mark IV.  None that I would even deem useable like past camera profiles have been.  Maybe my expectation of camera profiles is too high??   Because if it doesn't match how the jpg rendered preview looks on my camera (it doesn't) or DPP's preview, then WHAT is it matching and can someone fix it?  I would LOVE to find a Camera Standard Profile in Lightroom that better matches the previews-in color and contrast- that I see in DPP straight out of the camera.   I, like others have mentioned, think the camera profiles are oversaturated and the contrast is terrible (according to what I see on a datacolor calibrated monitor).  Am I asking for too much by saying keep the colors of Adobe standard but give me a healthy dose of contrast to make the image less dull and to be what I saw in my camera when I took the picture?  It's like a mean joke: I take what looks like a beautiful picture, only to get home and have to choose between 1) DPP Software that gets the base image correct but isn't user-friendly or 2) Lightroom that makes all the once-pretty images either look dull or make people look like they could star in a circus.  

I downloaded Todd Shaner's profile and while the contrast is better, the colors are still more saturated than I like.  I really like the colors in the adobe standard profile as they seem more accurate, but there is not enough contrast.  My fix is to start with the Adobe Standard and add contrast with a tone curve, but lets agree that that is NOT a perfect alternative to a good camera profile because it's not a baseline that can be built upon.  Example: Adding contrast through a tone curve to an image with a tone curve just cancels out the first tone curve, while adding contrast through a tone curve to an image with a well contrasted camera profile just adds contrast.  If the previews on the back of my camera are unreproducible by anyone but Canon, then life sucks all the sudden for me.  But if it's not, and can be achieved in the form of a better Camera Standard Profile, then surely another Canon 5D Mark iv photographer's already done it and can share it or Adobe can try a bit harder to make a better one.  I'm not smart enough to know how to do it, but I do know that every session is me trying to re-invent the wheel and get back to the colors I had in my camera while trying to find the perfect blend of contrast-usually similar to the jpg preview I had.  

While I am confident that what I see on my monitor prints accurately by professional labs, and I am confident that the Lightroom profiles for my camera look clownishly saturated,  I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more about color than Adobe or the next professional photographer.  So I'm forced to question if there is a chance that some of our camera profiles could be corrupt?  Could what I see on my monitor be different than what you guys or Adobe sees on your monitors (assuming they are calibrated the same).  It's the only way I can make sense of the profiles that continue to be released- someone somewhere must think they look good.  If that's true, then surely they are seeing something different than I am. I do tend to be a perfectionist, so maybe the color differences bother me more than others, but color and light are pretty crucial to photographers so I think it's OK to fret over the color of my client's faces and to expect that editing software accurately reflects what the jpg rendered preview looked like on my camera (that's the purpose of a camera profile, am I right?.)   Which brings me full circle-SOMETHING is either off with the profiles or something is wrong with those of us who think the current Lightroom camera profiles are oversaturated and ugly and I'm hoping someone has found a solution so we aren't all re-inventing the wheel.


It's clearly important that you see what I see to help diagnose the problem and compare it to what you see, although I don't know the best way to show that other than screenshots that capture the differences in camera profiles.  You can download the RAW file and some screenshots comparing DPP's standard preview with Lightroom's: Adobe Standard/Camera Portrait/Camera Standard/ as well as Todd Shaner's Camera Standard for Mark IV.   The profiles being compared are in the filenames.


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6hkm3wineeoiogm/AADbid0DSyux7r-jVfEWPmlDa?dl=0
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1111 Posts
  • 360 Reply Likes
I downloaded and checked the 2017-11-09_Blakely_047.CR2 image file on my NEC PA272W Spectraview II calibrated monitor. The DPP 4.7 rendering with Standard default settings and sRGB work color space looks virtually identical to LR 7.1 with my custom Camera Standard with Mark III Tone Curve.dcp camera profile. It's important to adjust the Exposure and WB so the LR image matches the DPP image. I had to use WB 6259, Tint +12 and Exposure +0.08, which is a very small adjustment, but necessary for critical evaluation.

I noticed in your screenshot comparison you display a LR screenshot and a DPP screenshot. Please try viewing both images from inside LR by going to File> Convert and save in DPP and save as a 16bit TIFF file. Make sure 'Embed ICC Profile' is checked in the DPP 'Convert and save settings panel. Then select both images from inside LR and use Compare ('C' key) to view both images side-by side. Don't forget to adjust the LR Exposure and WB in the CR2 image as detailed above. You can use the down-arrow key to switch between the Select and Candidate images to quickly see them as an overlay. This helps to reveal subtle rendering differences.

If you're still seeing a large difference it may be due to an issue with the Monitor profile. Make sure the Datacolor calibration app is set to create ICC version 2 (not 4) matrix (not LUT) profiles with 2.2 Gamma. Try recalibrating, close LR, and then reopen LR to load the newly created display profile.

For the Adobe Standard profile you can download one I created that very closely emulates the Legacy Adobe Standard rendering (i.e. camera models released prior to Sept. 2014):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qe6hhlzthep4lzp/Canon%20EOS%205D%20MKIV%20Legacy%20Adobe%20Standard.dcp?dl...
Photo of Laura Kent

Laura Kent

  • 98 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
Mr. Todd Shaner, YOU ARE AMAZING!!!  
    That Legacy profile is a very near perfect match to DPP4, but even better because it's in LIGHTROOM.  I feel so relieved I could cry!  2018 is looking up!  Thank you for listening, and for helping!  You completely eliminated the yucky color saturation in the shadows (trouble spots are typically on foreheads by hairlines), while retaining the prettier skin tones overall.   Your profile is going to save me so much time because I will have a good base to start with.  

    I checked my spyder calibration and while I can't find where it says matrix, I did see that I'm not using a profile with LUT (it does NOT adjust for lighting changes, I use measured mode).  Apparently ICC v. 2 is the standard option so I should be fine there as well. 

   And thank you for the tip on viewing the DPP preview as a converted tip in Lightroom.  That will make comparing images a lot easier!

    I don't want to press my luck, but is there a way to send the formula for your legacy profile?  I am quite happy with it as it is, but this has sparked a curiosity and I'd love to see the type of curves used and how you manipulated the colors in case I ever find myself wanting to experiment further. 

Thank you again, and Happy New Year!!
(Edited)
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1111 Posts
  • 360 Reply Likes
The custom Legacy Adobe Standard camera profile does match DPP's rendering when the work color space set to sRGB and not Adobe RGB or Wide Gamut RGB. Soft Proof check of your 2017-11-09_Blakely_047.CR2 image file shows no sRGB out of Gamut areas except for the green weed leaves at left-bottom of the picture. Why DPP behaves this way is a mystery since the image has virtually no content outside the sRGB color space. In addition it is always preferable to use a working color space larger than sRGB since many monitors and printers have gamut outside sRGB gamut. So even though DPP with sRGB work color space provides the desired rendering with this one image file it's going to cause loss of color saturation with other image files with more intense colors. ERGO-This is not a good solution.

I would simply use the Legacy Adobe Standard camera profile inside LR. It uses the ProPhoto RGB work color space, which is much wider than any display or printer (or eyes!) available today.
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1111 Posts
  • 360 Reply Likes
I don't want to press my luck, but is there a way to send the formula for your legacy profile?
Yes, I will do that here, but the currently posted Adobe DNG Profile Editor v1.0.0.46 is not compatible with the new Adobe camera profiles. I contacted Adobe Engineering back and August and they provided a Pre-Release version 1.0.0x47 that does work. Unfortunately it still has not been posted to a public download link. I sent a request yesterday to the same Adobe Engineer and she will check on posting a download link for the new version.

https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/dng-profile-editor-issue-with-canon-g9-x-mark...

Here are the DPP settings used for the Legacy Adobe Standard camera profile:

Photo of Laura Kent

Laura Kent

  • 98 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
Update:  After using Todd Shaner's profile I feel like I've made progress toward better images.  But I was still baffled that some people- including Mr. Shaner and Andrew stated that they couldn't SEE much difference between the DPP standard preview and lightroom's camera standard profile.  I couldn't see how they couldn't see it.  So.  I've been wracking my brain trying to figure it out, and after reading this forum over and over I could tell it must have something to do with the sRGB and Adobe RGB working space (and perhaps prophoto RGB) as a couple here have mentioned.  And I think it ultimately does.

 It's overly simple, actually.  I'll start at the beginning.  Andrew mentioned that shooting in Raw makes the sRGB or Adobe RGB info useless.  But that's not true in DPP.  Because whoever is in charge of matching up DPP previews and Lightroom profiles is matching to one or the other.  In my opinion, Canon 5d Mark ii's standard profile in lightroom matches DPP's preview best when viewed in sRGB (see my screenshots).  However, 5d Mark iv's standard profile in lightroom matches DPP's preview ONLY if viewed when Adobe RGB is set as the preferred working space (see screenshots).   I realize this isn't scientific.   The other guys were giving you that.  I'm giving you the files so you can import them into lightroom and compare as you'd like, but I do think you can see what I'm referring to if you compare the colors in the shadows- i.e. close to hairlines, cheeks and necks to see the saturation differences.  That's what I'm trying to show.  In all cases there are no other adjustments made- other than changing the working space in DPP before converting the RAW images to 16-bit Tiffs with the ICC profile.  I realize the Tiffs are softer and have some weird sharpening/noise reduction happening from my in-camera settings-but that's NOT what I'm trying to show.  

Anyway, when I was saying my profile didn't match DPP it's because it WASN'T.  At all.  Not even close.  BUT I was viewing my raw files in DPP with sRGB as the working space.  Maybe that's not correct, maybe it is, but what IS certain is  that all my previous RAW files from Canon 5d Mark ii with a camera standard profile match DPP's preview- in saturation and tone- when viewed with sRGB as the working space  and standard settings.  The same raw file from 5d Mark ii in DPP viewed with Adobe RGB as the working space has yucky over saturated shadows.  They are less flat, but if you look in creases and hairlines you'll see the added orange that you wouldn't see in Lightroom's camera standard preview.  UNTIL 5D Mark iv.    Lightroom copied the Adobe RGB working space preview when they made the 5d Mark iv profiles.  All of a sudden, the srgb working space DOESN'T match Lightroom's profiles. You have to switch the working space to Adobe RGB in order to get the previews to match.  And match they do, but it's UGLY.  Thus why people are noticing the "sudden" oversaturated colors in the shadow areas.  You kept saying they matched, and apparently you had your preferences set to Adobe RGB, but that's NOT how it used to be for us.  When they matched before, they matched off sRGB colorspace.  

For those of us who have been swearing that something is OFF, we weren't meaning it was slightly off and we were too lazy to fix it or adjust the settings, we were saying that something was WRONG and couldn't be fixed by adjusting the sliders one way or another in any sort of combination like we used to be able to do.  All my presets became useless with my new camera because the difference was so drastic.  I feel like I have re-invented the wheel since I got my 5d Mark iv a year ago  in lightroom and with my photoshop actions just trying to get back to what was good.  We weren't just whining.  Having a "normal" profile to start editing is essential to getting great shots.  I think the difference between the adobe rgb and the srgb profile is worse now than it was with my 5d Mark ii, but I don't know why that is.  I can see the differences, which is why I'm here, but they are definitely harder to spot if you aren't looking in the shadowy spots and comparing the color there.

I am not asking anyone to make the previews match another camera.  But I would like there to be consistency in the profiles with regard to the color space they are copying.  If in the past camera profiles were copied from sRGB DPP previews, can we please stick to that?  

Is this enough proof to get someone to match the sRGB camera standard profile instead of the Adobe RGB one?  Am I still crazy?  

In summary:
1.  As far as I can tell, past Canon camera standard profiles (at least 5d Mark ii and the 40D) matched the sRGB working space previews in DPP.  
2. Currently, at least with my 5d Mark iv, the camera standard profiles more closley match the Adobe RGB working space previews in DPP which are over saturated in the shadows.  
3. This is not consistent for editing purposes and therefore has been problematic in maintaining consistent editing as long as this profile remains.  

Links to main folder with Raw files and tiffs as well as screenshots:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6hkm3wineeoiogm/AADbid0DSyux7r-jVfEWPmlDa?dl=0
The subfolder has other examples from earlier (all srgb working space).
Photo of Christoph Hardt

Christoph Hardt

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thank you very much for both files. I will try them on my LR and see if it helps. :) Is it possible to add profile files to the drop down menue on the camera mode options or do I have to replace an existing file with one of these?
(Edited)
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1050 Posts
  • 337 Reply Likes
Christoph you need to place the custom dcp files in the User folder as outlined in my post above from Dec. 27, 2107: https://console.getsatisfaction.com/photoshop_family/conversations/5d-mark-iv-wrong-dcp-profile-from...

There are actually three profiles I provided, but I suggest downloading and trying just these two:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jlkvizsbyn1y8xy/Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV%20Camera%20Standard%20With%20...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qe6hhlzthep4lzp/Canon%20EOS%205D%20MKIV%20Legacy%20Adobe%20Standard.dcp?dl...
Photo of Christoph Hardt

Christoph Hardt

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
thx :)
Photo of Laura Kent

Laura Kent

  • 98 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
Hi again!
   Todd, I think you have offered the best solution so far, and I'm thankful for a more workable scenario upon import.  However, the profile you gave (specifically the Legacy profile for 5D Mark iv adobe standard) doesn't match the DPP sRGB in terms of color.  I think you got rid of the yucky saturation in the shadows and your profile is very comparable to the contrast Adobe Standard profile for 5d Mark iv, with better colors. (ie-skin tones finally HAVE color  instead of being undersaturated).  However the color is very yellow/orange when compared to DPP preview in sRGB.   That you stated: "The custom Legacy Adobe Standard camera profile does match DPP's rendering when the work color space set to sRGB and not Adobe RGB or Wide Gamut RGB" has me concerned that our colors on our monitors are off.  I have checked my calibration, and re-calibrated (coming up with exactly the same settings), and as far as I can tell my test prints from my lab still accurately match (as close as can be expected when comparing a backlit monitor to prints under controlled Solux lightbulbs).   That's not to say yours is off, I'm just saying if the colors in my files match as you believe they do, then something is off somewhere.  Please note the differences in the 3 new screenshots in the link below.  It is a big enough difference in color to me and adjusting the WB is not able to correct it fully, that I still feel like I need Adobe's help correcting their profiles and would love to get feedback from somebody there.

    Possible solutions offered through this site so far:  
1) Use Todd's custom Legacy profile and adjust the WB to get a better match. NOT an acceptable solution to me because  the fact is that adjusting the white balance to correct the profile doesn't offer the same results as correcting the WB with a correct camera profile.  The colors in the shadows are affected differently and while I don't know how it all work, I know that adjusting the profile with WB sliders isn't solving my problems.  And I never had to start off with such a huge difference in WB- so WHY is it OK to ask us to settle for less?   

 2)  Make our own profiles.  We can't do that because, as Todd mentioned, the DNG editor doesn't work anymore- all the colors go whacko with any color adjustment.  We are at Adobe's mercy.  We DEPEND on Adobe to have correct profiles in Lightroom/Photoshop in order for our cameras to be worth anything.  What's the point in having a great camera only to be halted with terrible images because of a wrong profile?  That someone at ADOBE CAN FIX probably within a few minutes but NOBODY is Listening to the actual problem. Other than Todd and those who experience it.  And please, I'm not trying to blame ADOBE for my photography skills or lack there of, but I would like someone else to use a wrong profile and see how much it hinders your photography and editing when compared to using the right one.  We Canon 5D Mark iv users-and anyone else who may have a wrong one- deserve the correct profile.  My camera is worth less without one (not worthless, just worth Less).

    I understand that there WILL be differences between DPP previews and Lightroom's Profiles, and that's OK, but honestly when I look at past cameras and Lightroom profiles, they match VERY well, until this camera.  So I don't want to be picky, but surely people someone from Adobe should understand that the Lightroom profiles are what makes or breaks our pictures straight out of the camera and starts post-processing off on the right foot.  I've tried adapting, and settling, and now that I see people have pinpointed the mistake (copying the Adobe RGB preview/curve/colors when making the Lightroom Camera Standard Profile for 5d Mark iv) , it's REALLY hard for me to sit back and wait for someone from ADOBE to be convinced they should fix the problem.  I think editing the colors from DNG editor is probably pretty complex, and using another profile base (ie 5d Mark iii or whatever).  

     I also understand that using sRGB profile (if forced to convert in DPP) is not as good as Adobe RGB, and I agree.  I don't believe that was ever debated.  The part that was debated is 1) that the camera profiles MATCHED in DPP (and they do IF viewed in sRGB while in DPP- which has NEVER BEFORE BEEN THE CASE, and is NOT CORRECT) and 2) that the camera profiles were UGLY-too saturated in the shadows and the contrast/blacks were clipped.  So we argued that there was a mistake  when coming up with this profile.  

    Side issues: Why does DPP change it's look/preview when the working space is changed from sRGB to Adobe RGB?  While it is weird, especially if no colors are out of gamut (ie-if I change the profile in photoshop I see ZERO changes), as far as I can tell that's how it's ALWAYS been, so it's a moot point/issue.  I see changes when I look at my 40D, 5D Mark ii, and 5D Mark iv.  My (and other commentor's) suspicions are that someone didn't think it mattered when they went ahead and copied the profile because Adobe RGB is a "better" color space.  Andrew keeps stating it shouldn't matter.  BUT IT DID AND DOES.  Look at my screenshots for past lightroom profiles compared to the sRGB and Adobe RGB workspace in DPP.  They all matched sRGB best until 5d Mark iv.  The guys who are trying to prove it to someone at Adobe are probably right with the fact that DPP isn't changing the colors, per se, but the Tone Curve or tonality- giving the images an sRGB "look" or an Adobe RGB "look".  Either way, I think it's irrelevant.  DPP has clearly behaved this way for a long time, and someone at Adobe copied THE WRONG Preview and gave us crappy profiles.  Can't someone just copy the correct DPP sRGB preview and call it a day?  Cause I know they'd do a better job than those of us who have no formula or whatever they use to do it.  And, like Todd said, regular people don't even have access to the correct DNG editor- as Andrew mistakenly said we did- to try to fix it.
 
   Until Adobe fixes it, and I'm just praying they will somehow see this....  I have another question.  I was trying to experiment with how Lightroom may see a Raw file if shot is sRGB or Adobe RGB, because DPP clearly does.  I, like Andrew, have always been under the impression that the color space set in camera DIDN'T matter when shooting RAW, and as far as my pathetic tests go, I think that where Lightroom and Photoshop are concerned, it doesn't matter how it's shot as far as color space goes.  But, when it comes to the sRGB preview in DPP (that will hopefully be copied as a camera profile in lightroom), I notice that  a RAW photo-shot in sRGB- but viewed in Adobe RGB workspace looks MORE vibrant and contrasty than a Raw file shot in Adobe RGB and viewed in DPP as Adobe RGB.  Anyone know why this might be??  I have my camera set to shoot as sRGB-thinking it didn't matter.  But that may be affecting how I am seeing the DPP previews when viewed in Adobe RGB (because that's when they match best).  And how whoever creates profiles shot their RAW photo.  It seems it'd be important to match the color space setting in my camera to Adobe's setting if trying to compare DPP's preview to Lightroom's profile.  It DIDN'T seem to matter if a Raw file was shot in sRGB or Adobe RGB when both photos are viewed in sRGB.  Neither are as vibrant or contrasty-resembling PAST Lightroom camera standard profiles.  If Adobe does correct the profile to have an sRGB look in DPP, then it shouldn't matter how the camera settings were shot.  Until then, it may be another reason why some people can see a  bigger difference in DPP's previews and Lightroom's camera profiles than others.

PLEASE look at the latest 3 screenshots comparing Todd's Legacy profile and an sRGB tiff converted from DPP to see the color difference.  When compared to the other profiles, it seems the best match, however, it  still seems to be settling for less than what Adobe has given in the past.  The 3 new screenshots are in the main folder of the dropbox link below (Subfolders have other comparisons and the RAW files):
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6hkm3wineeoiogm/AADbid0DSyux7r-jVfEWPmlDa?dl=0


   
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1111 Posts
  • 360 Reply Likes
I think you got rid of the yucky saturation in the shadows and your profile is very comparable to the contrast Adobe Standard profile for 5d Mark iv, with better colors.
Sorry, I may have been comparing it to the DPP Adobe RGB rendering. I've created another camera profile to more closely match DPP's sRGB workspace Standard picture style rendering. It's not exact, but close. Give it a try and we can talk more tomorrow.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0uf4jmhy9u2ku4h/Canon%20EOS%205D%20MKIV%20DPP%20Standard%20Match-sRGB.dcp?...

You can also try creating your own version of Adobe Standard using the Tone Curve and settings in the Camera Calibration panel. These very closely emulate what I'm doing in DPE and can be easily transferred over to create a new camera profile. See my reply here: https://console.getsatisfaction.com/photoshop_family/conversations/5d-mark-iv-wrong-dcp-profile-from...
(Edited)
Photo of Laura Kent

Laura Kent

  • 98 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
Thanks, Todd!
   This one swings the other way- and is more red.  I've been trying to adapt the Legacy profile using the HSL sliders as well as the camera calibration panel and am using the Raw file with the spyder color chart in it, as you can see more skin tone details as well as a range of colors in the chart. My hope was that if I could get as many of the colors/tones correct in that image and make it a preset it would apply more consistently to other photos with different tones/colors.   But I've been playing around all day and it's just so tricky!  Every time I think I'm close, I'll test it on another image and another color or the curve will be way off...   I'm sure it's a combination of sliding them all in the right proportion or something, but I just can't nail it down the color and the tone.  I played around a bit to see if the last profile would be easier to adapt, but it's just as hard for me.  
    I added the screenshot of the last profile to the dropbox link.  Would you mind attaching a screenshot as well, so I can see how close those same profiles look on your computer?  

    I  was unable to see your reply with the link provided, but I think your reply is on this page so I'll try to find it. 
Photo of Laura Kent

Laura Kent

  • 98 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
I played around some more and with the following settings I think I am getting close to matching DPP's sRGB rendered preview with the settings below.  Not perfect, but it's working on multiple images.  Todd, is there a way you could create a DNG profile with these settings using your Legacy profile?  I created one with the tone curve, and I like it, but I can not figure out the colors with my version.  I'm adding the recipe with the tone curve below and the profile to the link below.

Using the 5D Mark IV Legacy for Adobe Standard Profile:
(any adjustments not listed =0/default)

Tone Curve LR% (DNG Editor coordinates):
28.2/26.3% (72, 67)
50.2/50.2% (128, 128)
79.2/78.8% (202, 200)

HSL:
Hue:
    Orange: -3
Sat:
    Orange: -2
Lum:
    Orange: +3
    yellow: +26
    blue: +10
    purple: +4

Camera Calibration:
Red:
    Hue: +3
    Sat: 0
Green:
    Hue: +5
    Sat: -15
Blue:
    Hue: +5
    Sat. -15

I added screenshots labeled Legacy with new adjustments: 
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6hkm3wineeoiogm/AADbid0DSyux7r-jVfEWPmlDa?dl=0

Recipe (Legacy w/ New tone Curve):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nixeb0uw6u09c4g/Legacy%20new%20tone%20curve.dcpr?dl=0

Camera Standard, Custom (needs color adjustments):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fkwrh7e52y0vp1i/Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV%20Camera%20Standard%2C%20Cust...
(Edited)
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1111 Posts
  • 360 Reply Likes
Laura, your screenshots have no embedded color profile. Without an embedded profile the assumption is sRGB, which may not be correct (i.e. s/b the display profile?). You'll will need to open them in PS and assign your display calibration profile or the sRGB profile, whichever matches what you are seeing onscreen.

The settings you used to match DPP include HSL sliders, which can't be easily replicated in DPE. I noticed you have a Datacolor 24 patch chart.  The patches are in different locations compared to the standard Macbeth Chart that DPE uses.  Have you used it with the Datacolor software to create custom camera profiles for the 5D MKIV?

Below are links to the DPP Standard sRGB file and DPP Match-sRGB profile file. I changed the DPP NR and Sharpening settings, which were too high and affecting the LR rendering comparison. IMHO the LR DPP Match-sRGB rendering provides better skin tone and color on my calibrated display. To be honest I would focus on creating a camera profile that creates the "most accurate" rendering rather than trying to "replicate" the DPP sRGB rendering. You may need to create and use more than one (1) camera profile. For example I often use Camera Faithful as a starting point on images with high-contrast. BTW what Luminance level setting do you use with your Datacolor calibrator? It should be in the range of 100-120 cd/m2 with the Brightness control on your display adjusted to achieve that setting. Mine is set to 100 cd/m2, which correlates well with my print results. YMMV

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6j1hdmp63u8bgu9/2017-11-09_Blakely_047_DPP4%20sRGB_NR%200_Sharp%203%202%20...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ya30eps39kuhn25/2017-11-09_Blakely_047-DPP%20Standard%20Match-sRGB.jpg?dl=...
Photo of Laura Kent

Laura Kent

  • 98 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
Thanks, Todd!
I have used the spyder checker chart to create profiles (presets using hsl sliders) but every single one yields such different results, while subtle, that I don’t trust them much. The results depend on how well I adjust the black/white levels, and what camera calibration I choose when I create them. Even when adjusted exactly to what datacolor recommends (90% white; 4% Black) I don’t find accurate/consistent results even under similar lighting/lens/camera situations. I still try it on most sessions, especially when in a pickle with this camera and the given profiles. I almost think it’s a backward issue-I need a profile that works and then fine tune it with the color chart. The saturation/contrast isn’t there with adobe standard and I do t know that adjusting the white/black sliders make up for that in all the colors. Camera standard profile messes all the colors up. So, I try. Different combinations of everything until I’m thoroughly confused and frustrated... Do you have that chart also?

I really just wish Adobe would correct the profiles. Do you agree that they are wrong? That’s it’s not a personal preference thing but a mistake? That whoever was in charge of matching the profile used the Adobe rgb rendering instead of the srgb rendering (like all the other profiles looked like)? I’m not talking about which color space is better, just the fact that all profiles in the past LOOKED like the sRGB rendition in DPP until this one. I realize you don’t prefer it, but I’m curious if my settings look similar -on your monitor- to the srgb rendition of camera standard in DPP? Do you think yours match better? Or do they not match as well but you prefer the colors in your profiles? I’m only trying to figure out if we are both trying to get to the same end result-because our solutions vary in color. Haha! But if you don’t like the sRGB and aren’t trying to match those colors, that would explain why yours differ in color. As you said, multiple profile are often needed and I think I could use either profile depending on an image’s colors.

Which brings me to the next point: IMHO I do think that the DPP srgb rendering is accurate as far as the colors go, which is why I’d like to replicate it. I am happy with the settings I came up with on top of your profile. I’ve tested lots of pictures today and they instantly turn better (I had been importing with Adobe standard as default). The colors straight out of camera (assuming I got white balance correct IN camera-which is my goal) are warm but not too warm or red. I like the contrast as a base to start out with. And with the better base curve in the profile it frees me up to edit more creatively and consistently applying other curve presets as needed. I don’t think the color settings will be a problem if they aren’t in the profile.

There’s so much that is subjective in photography and hard to know if we are seeing different things because of a calibration issue (so that the profile I made on my screen may well look exactly like what you made on yours but when we trade files they don’t match...???) or we just prefer different colors? I can adjust the color setting in the screenshots in the hopes you can see what I see, but I don’t have a clue what color space that should be. I would assume srgb, but I know that’s just as subjective-it doesn’t mean you’ll see what I see. But you can still see a difference between the images. If two match better, you’ll know see that.

As far as my display goes, I set it at 6500K, 2.2 and 75 luminance and have much more confidence that what I edit is what will print. I have struggled with the luminance on my display when set to the recommended settings my results/prints end up too dark (as they appear brighter while I edit so I must adjust accordingly). I have had much more consistent results with the luminance set to 75. I’m working on an iMac 5K retina, if that matters. Maybe they are brighter? Not sure, but everything was too dark in my prints at 100.
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1106 Posts
  • 357 Reply Likes
Laura, in the final analysis you're rendering preference may be different than mine and that's OK. The problem is that you're having difficulty achieving that rendering, especially using just a custom camera profile to get to that "starting point."

I have used the spyder checker chart to create profiles (presets using hsl sliders) but every single one yields such different results, while subtle, that I don’t trust them much.
I looked at the SpyderChecker and it appears to use the HSL controls to "calibrate" the color settings. That's a very poor method IMHO since you want to keep the HSL controls available for specific image corrections. I use the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport (CCPP) with both the X-Rite software and DPE. Both of them allow creating custom DNG camera profiles without using any other LR controls such as the Tone Curve, HSL, and Calibration panels. All of your LR controls stay at their 0 default settings.  Datacolor in their marketing wisdom have chosen to use a different layout for the 24 patches when compared to the CCPP, which is identical to the Macbeth ColorChecker chart. My best advice is to purchase an X-Rite ColorChecker Passport and try using their software and DPE when the new version is made available. Shoot the CCPP and open the CR2 file in DPP with sRGB workspace. Make sure to set the WB on one of the neutral patches (80% preferable) and then Convert and save to 16 bit TIFF with sRGB embedded profile. This is your "preferred" rendering and you can use DPE's Color Table and Tone Curve tools to manually adjust each of the 24 patches to match the DPP Tiff values. Adobe should be posting the updated version of DPE shortly, but you can start learning how to use it here:

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/cs6/DNGProfile_...

As far as my display goes, I set it at 6500K, 2.2 and 75 luminance and have much more confidence that what I edit is what will print. I have struggled with the luminance on my display when set to the recommended settings my results/prints end up too dark (as they appear brighter while I edit so I must adjust accordingly). I have had much more consistent results with the luminance set to 75. I’m working on an iMac 5K retina, if that matters. Maybe they are brighter? Not sure, but everything was too dark in my prints at 100.
A 75 cd/m2 Luminance is very low and probably only needed if your room lighting is very dark. The other possibility is that your Mac 5K Retina display has an Ambient Light sensor working in the background and over-riding your monitor calibration. TURN IT OFF before calibrating the display and LEAVE IT OFF. Also uncheck the Spyder Elite software automatic room light sensor. Here's an example:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202089

Let's deal with the print issue separately for now. You may have other issues at work (printer or viewing light levels). Also use the Spyder Elite Expert console mode as outlined at the below link. I suggest setting the targeting Luminance level to 100 cd/m2 and adjusting the Retina display's Brightness control to achieve that reading.

http://www.colourspace.xyz/advanced-monitor-calibration-with-datacolor-spyder5-elite/


Take your time, don't get stressed out, and keep an open-mind, ENJOY!
(Edited)
Photo of Laura Kent

Laura Kent

  • 98 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
Todd,
You have given me lots of great info, and I think the X-rite color checker passport sounds like a great way to help pin down accurate colors.
As far as calibration goes, I don’t calibrate with the room light sensor and do use the expert console. I hear what you are saying about the luminance, and I’ve read and read about it and everyone says the same thing. I was excited that maybe you were right about my monitor’s auto ambience setting, and that would explain why I think my print tones match best at 75 which is against professional advice. But it isn’t turned on... The problem is that I followed advice of everyone else for months, keeping the setting at 100, and tried to edit to an unnatural brightness to account for my dark prints. But it wasn’t consistent because that’s dumb. So I don’t know, but I decided at the end of the day the thing that is real- my prints- is what I need to match in order for my edits to be real. So I bought solux lightsbulbs to view my uncorrected professional prints under and played around with the luminance until it matched them best. Blacks, contrast and colors matched best at 75. It’s not exact, since paper isn’t backlit, but my prints are what I expect them to be and consistent with my edits. Does that make sense? I edit with the lights on, window closed to keep it consistent day and night, and no lights shining directly on the monitor. I print through Millers, who actually recommend a monitor profile at 5000K. I was afraid to go against their recommendation so for a period of time I “obeyed”, and had super yellow online photos (they looked good on my monitor but not on my phone or anyone else’s monitor) and all non-millers prints were yellow. That, for me, was dumb advice to follow. While I can’t make or even hope my clients will have a calibrated monitor, most monitors are 6500K and I can’t hope to GET clients if my work doesn’t look good online. Prints are only half the battle, and maybe even less than that. So I switched back to 6500K and I am happy with the way my stuff looks online (granted I really only use safari) and-funny enough-my prints still match my monitor. That was a huge waste of time stressing about, not to mention the time it took to go back and re-edit all the things I had thought looked good at 5000K that looked awful at 6500K.

All that to say that I know most things say I should be at 100-120 luminance, I’ve tried it and it didn’t work. I came across this on another forum-(you posted on it too):
“You are right it used to be even more extreme at only 80 candles. Many current LCD screens will only be close to 120 cd/m2 at their very lowest brightness settings (usually less than 10 on a 1-100 scale). Recent iMacs have to be around their lowest brightness settings to reach it. The spectral output of the backlights does vary with intensity and so you have to worry about that.”

I’m not at the lowest setting, I’m at the 5th brightness setting, out of 16. Whether my computer is wrong, my calibrator is off with regard to luminance, I’m old school and extreme and like it closer to 80, or I’m just crazy for going against the advice of experts, the way I see it is we have to have a tangible standard to base our edits off of to make sure they are REAL for more than just ourselves. I can check my monitor color and tone with prints and I feel confident(-ish) with the calibration settings I’ve got.

That is, until today. Because today, when I went to see if my monitor was set to auto brightness, I noticed that the display profile was set to iMac. NOT my spyder profile. WTH?? I actually thought I noticed the same thing the other day when checking something about the calibration you had asked me about, but I chalked it up to me accidentally clicking something and just re-selected my Spyder profile from 12/31/17 and kept working. Today when I opened the display settings and saw iMac was selected again I videotaped my display as I switched it back to my Spyder profile and the difference is quite disturbing. Was it wrong when I was trying to make a new camera profile for Lightroom? I don’t think so because my screenshots match (but would they match either way since there was no profile attached to them??? Too much for my brain to wrap around.) The only things I can think of that would have anything to do with the profile switching by itself is that I have installed updates on my computer since I calibrated last (safari, Lightroom classic cc, bridge) and I have opened Spyder to check the LUT/matrix settings you had asked about, but I didn’t change any settings or recalibrate. Surely just opening the program would never reset it to iMac (that would be awful). My fear is that I know it changed without me knowing and I didn’t notice. I‘m not sure how frequently it may have done that in between my monthly calibrations. I calibrated 12/31/17 so this could have been an entire month that I edited on an un-calibrated monitor if I didn’t happen to catch it this morning by accident. I’m afraid to look at past sessions and see which are screwed up. It’s this sort of stuff that makes this job feel impossible. I was-until today- confident that my prints were real and since they matched my monitor then my monitor (and the edits I made) must be real and accurate also. But there have been countless times where I’ll edit a session and come back the next day and wonder what the hell I was thinking. Now I wonder if my monitor profile switches frequently and I just don’t notice. It would explain my bi-polar editing issues, haha. The iMac profile is more contrasty (and colors are different) than my spyder profile- which would make an image with good contrast on a calibrated display appear to have too much contrast and look ugly if it happened to switch over to the iMac display profile. Same with white balance, and I fret over that WAY too much. I chalk it up to being a perfectionist and indecisive, but maybe it really IS changing. Ugg. I’m not enjoying this much. I will look into this issue more. I will just need to make a habit of checking the display profile before editing and make a note if it changes and what I may have done to trigger it. My problems seem to be getting worse, haha! But at least I’m figuring out where my problems lie.

*I updated my computer to High Sierra this afternoon, just turned my computer back on to check if updates changed display settings and the auto brightness WAS checked (profile didn’t change though). I took a screenshot of the screen earlier so I know I didn’t make a mis-read it. I recalibrated my monitor, just for the heck of it. Will keep checking my settings and see...
(Edited)
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1106 Posts
  • 357 Reply Likes
*I updated my computer to High Sierra this afternoon, just turned my computer back on to check if updates changed display settings and the auto brightness WAS checked (profile didn’t change though). I took a screenshot of the screen earlier so I know I didn’t make a mis-read it. I recalibrated my monitor, just for the heck of it. Will keep checking my settings and see...
OSX Updates have been know to hijack the display profile and change settings such as the ambient light sensor. I suggest checking these after every update!

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/8084663

In addition your Syder 5 Elite display calibrator software may not be compatible with High Sierra OSX update. See below concerning X-Rite's:

https://www.xrite.com/service-support/knownmacosxhighsierra1013issues

http://support.datacolor.com/index.php?/News/NewsItem/View/23/i-have-spyder5-and-cannot-save-the-pro...

These system color management issues need to be nailed-down and resolved before working further on the 5D MKIV camera profiles. I suggest contacting Datacolor Support and asking if they've tested their software with High Sierra 10.13.2 (Latest version?) and if an update has been made available for the Spyder 5 Elite:

http://support.datacolor.com/

Good luck!
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1111 Posts
  • 360 Reply Likes
The updated 1.0.0.47 version of Adobe DNG Profile Editor that works with the new camera profiles (5D MKIV, etc.) has finally been posted. For some reason  Adobe was unable to change the download date. It's still showing as 'September 2012" at the below link, but rest assured it takes you to the updated DPE  v1.0.0.47 files.

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/digital-negative.html

Here are the direct links to the DPE tutorial and v1.0.0.47 downloads:

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/cs6/DNGProfile_EditorDocumen...

Mac
http://supportdownloads.adobe.com/detail.jsp?ftpID=5493

Windows
http://supportdownloads.adobe.com/detail.jsp?ftpID=5494

Please let me know if you have any questions.
Photo of Laura Kent

Laura Kent

  • 98 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
Thank you so much, Todd!  
    Monitor Update: I think my monitor issues are fixed and stable again.  As far as I can tell my problem stemmed from NOT updating to High Sierra but still updating Spyder software and other apps.  Not exactly sure.  I ended up recalibrating to 100L (just one more bar on the brightness scale) and although I feel like my eyes are burning in safari, I am not noticing the difference in my monitor and my prints- which is good.  I figured out how to make smaller Luminance adjustments using the slider in the display settings during calibration instead of just clicking my keyboard brightness buttons.  That allowed me to be right at 100, instead of too far under or over.  The proof will be in my prints, I'm curious to see if I edit the same or if I end up darkening my images to account for the additional brightness.  Until then though... 

   Custom Profile Progress: I have been "playing" around with DPE (old and now new version) and watching a million tutorials the last few days.  I purchased a color checker and love it already.  It's much better than my Spyder Checker, has more white balance options than my Expo Disc in post production and will surely help with custom profiles.  I started taking pictures with it under different lighting situations with both my main cameras (5d Mark ii and iv) and am trying to nail down a structure for creating and naming my custom profiles.  I think my plan is to have 2 (main) tone curves to use as a base for color adjustments in each basic lighting situation (studio, tungsten, shade, etc.).  The first tone curve being an improved camera standard curve and the 2nd one with contrast in between the first and Adobe Standard.  I keep getting carried away with making more tone curves though, and have to restrain myself from making a million base profile options just from curves.  The way I see it, the purpose of a camera profile is to get better RAW pictures straight out of the camera upon import, and they should be pretty generic in their usefulness, leaving the precise tone curves for after import.  I just have to hold myself to that, and decide on a good curve that works for lots of situations.  I have a couple questions for you, if you don't mind:

1. It sounds like lots of people create custom color profiles after each session.  Is that necessary?  I was frustrated only having one decent profile to work with (Adobe Standard) because it wasn't all that helpful, but it seems slightly overboard to have to do this for every session. The most I've ever chosen between before were 2 (old camera standard for Mark ii wasn't too bad).  Does it make that much difference between sessions?

2. If I: select a base profile > run the color chart > save > export a profile ; and want to use the same color chart with a different base, it gets all wonky and desaturated.  Is this normal?  I exported a few, thinking they'd correct themselves inside Lightroom and they didn't.  I guess I can only do one color profile with one base at a time. I don't think that was the case with the last DPE version.
 
I think that's it for now.  Thanks for all your help!  It's been a really long year with this camera but I'm finally feeling like I am taking control back and will be able to edit more efficiently upon import.  YAY!!  
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1111 Posts
  • 360 Reply Likes
Some suggestions concerning the 100 cd/m2 Luminance level and eye burning. Try to keep the ambient room lighting a little higher, which will make the screen appear less intense (pupils constrict) and probably also help with print matching. When doing non-photography work (email, web browsing, etc.) I also find the image too bright and switch to a 70cd/m2 calibration setting using the NEC Multiprofiler app. When done I switch back to the 100cd/m2 calibration profile setting, which is still loaded into LR and PS. Just remember when you change the system display profile open color managed apps may look different. If you want to work with the current system display profile you'll need to close and reopen them to load it. I'm not a Mac user, but there may be something similar to the NEC Multiprofiler available in the OS X Color Management tools. The other option is to use a second display that you always keep calibrated at a lower luminance level (70cd/m2) for non-photography usage. This seems like the best option.

1. It sounds like lots of people create custom color profiles after each session.  Is that necessary?  I was frustrated only having one decent profile to work with (Adobe Standard) because it wasn't all that helpful, but it seems slightly overboard to have to do this for every session.
Absolutely not necessary! All you need is a single dual-illuminant Daylight/Tungsten profile created using two CCPP image files shot at high-noon daylight and in a darkened room using a standard 100 tungsten light bulb. This will work well with all daylight, flash, and indoor tungsten light shots. If you do a shoot that has other lighting such as fluorescent, mercury vapor, or mixed lighting then you may want to shoot the CCPP for each unique situation. You can create dual-illuminat profiles with both DPE (see tutorial) and the CCPP software or LR plugin. Keep in mind the profiles will be different so I suggest creating both and see what you like. When using the CCPP software it uses it's own tone curve so the base profile (Adobe or Camera Standard) has less effect on the final results.

2. If I: select a base profile > run the color chart > save > export a profile ; and want to use the same color chart with a different base, it gets all wonky and desaturated.  Is this normal?
After saving the new CCPP camera profile you need to clear the current adjustments by going to Edit > Clear All Adjustments. Then select the new Base Profile and run the Chart again to create a new color table. Make sure to select only a 5D MKIV camera profile for your Base Profile. I suggest reading through the entire DPE tutorial at the link I provided.

Don't get too crazy creating multiple camera profiles with different tone curves. One or two should suffice and then use the LR Tone controls to achieve the desired look. With very high contrast images I switch to the Camera Faithful profile and start over using a virtual copy with all Tone settings reset. This is a good way (virtual copies) to compare results using different profiles. You can download a tutorial I created on the PV2012 Tone Controls, which may be helpful. Enjoy!
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lsl4jfswwoc1yo4/Lightroom%20PV2012%20Basic%20Tone%20Control%20Adjustments.pdf?dl=0