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
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 :
Crossing my finger for the giant Adobe hearing this post !
Thank you !
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.
I've already reported this issue to Adobe Engineering.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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 :
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 :
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).
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).
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).
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 :
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.
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).
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).
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 ».
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 :
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).
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 ?
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.
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?
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:
The subfolder has other examples from earlier (all srgb working space).
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):
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.
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...
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.
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)
I added screenshots labeled Legacy with new adjustments:
Recipe (Legacy w/ New tone Curve):
Camera Standard, Custom (needs color adjustments):
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
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.
Here are the direct links to the DPE tutorial and v126.96.36.199 downloads:
Please let me know if you have any questions.
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!!
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!