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

  • 4
  • Problem
  • Updated 8 months ago
  • (Edited)
The Camera Standard profile Adobe has created for the A7R III adds a notable yellow cast to the image (unlike say Neutral or Vivid). Clearly not a match for the in-camera Standard profile when shooting jpg.Dear Adobe, can you please correct this?thanks
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes

Posted 2 years ago

  • 4
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1374 Posts
  • 350 Reply Likes
Some examples would help diagnose the issue.  Can you post screenshots? 

Do the exported versions of your pictures when using this profile still exhibit the yellow cast?
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 926 Posts
  • 189 Reply Likes
You can fix this! .dcp profiles are white balance agnostic and users must still apply WB.
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
@Rikk, will do when I have a sec

@Andrew I know I can still fix it changing the WB but if Adobe got the profile right in first instance I would save time...Canon ones are very good.  What is the origin of the yellow cast, is it color rendition or the profile is also applying it's own white balance on top of color rendition and tone? With the Canon profiles I never experiences any color cast/WB shift.
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 926 Posts
  • 189 Reply Likes
There is no 'right' here! You have a warm cast; fix it. The profiles don't handle this by design. Or roll your own profile for your specific sensor:
Everything you thought you wanted to know about DNG camera profiles:

All about In this 30 minute video, we’ll look into the creation and use of DNG camera profiles in three raw converters. The video covers:


What are DNG camera profiles, how do they differ from ICC camera profiles.

Misconceptions about DNG camera profiles.

Just when, and why do you need to build custom DNG camera profiles?

How to build custom DNG camera profiles using the X-rite Passport software.

The role of various illuminants on camera sensors and DNG camera profiles.

Dual Illuminant DNG camera profiles.

Examples of usage of DNG camera profiles in Lightroom, ACR, and Iridient Developer.


Low Rez (YouTube):

http://youtu.be/_fikTm8XIt4


High Rez (download):

http://www.digitaldog.net/files/DNG%20Camera%20profile%20video.mov

Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I mean the other profiles (Adobe Standard, Sony Camera Neutral, Vivid etc) do not have the same cast, I assume it was a mistake on Adobe side when creating the profile rather than a  problem of my hardware?
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1454 Posts
  • 487 Reply Likes
I see no difference in the A7R III Camera Standard and Camera Neutral WB and no yellow tint on my 6500K  calibrated display. Images downloaded here:

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

The embedded preview looks identical to the LR Camera Standard rendering. Ditto for the camera JPEG file at the above site. My guess is you have a monitor calibration issue download the files for your own comparison:

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

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

Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Todd, see my last message with the picture comparison below. My monitor is also calibrated to 6500k 
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 926 Posts
  • 189 Reply Likes
Don't make such assumptions. Do shoot say a color checker in daylight and provide  example here AFTER WB. 
(Edited)
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
would love to but I don't have a color checker. Will see what I can do but other people have noted the same yellow cast using that profile.

While you are here, can you take a look here? https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60635548
Thanks Andrew!
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 926 Posts
  • 189 Reply Likes
The DPR post is kind of meaningless. CCT values define a range (a large range) of possible colors and differing values can define the same color! 
http://digitaldog.net/files/22Thecolorofwhite.pdf
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
You are The expert on the subject and I only have limited knowledge of color science so i struggle to follow you. All in all shall I be happy with the hardware calibration and profiling I obtained vs my targets (D65 for whitepoint) or have to do it again?
Thanks
PS probably worth contuining the whitepoint discussion on dpr and leave this thread to the profile discussion
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 926 Posts
  • 189 Reply Likes
There is only one object that can produce D65 (an average of many measurements) and its 93 million miles from your display.
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
So the short answer is that I shall be happy with the result achieved by the calibration (despite the dispcal fail)? Would appreciate a straight, non technical answer, thanks
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 926 Posts
  • 189 Reply Likes
What calibration? You are working with generic .dcp profiles. For display, the values WILL vary.
(Edited)
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
:-) Difficult to get a straight answer from you. I am talking about the DPR post.
Shall I be happy with the results of that calibration (to D65) or not? If you can answer with a YES or NO would be great.
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 926 Posts
  • 189 Reply Likes
Watch the video! If you get a visual match to (whatever) that IS the correct number! If not, the calibration target is incorrect. Simple.
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 926 Posts
  • 189 Reply Likes
About display calibration targets:
Why are my prints too dark?
A video update to a written piece on subject from 2013

In this 24 minute video, I'll cover:

Are your prints really too dark?
Display calibration and WYSIWYG
Proper print viewing conditions
Trouble shooting to get a match
Avoiding kludges that don't solve the problem

High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/Why_are_m...
Low resolution: https://youtu.be/iS6sjZmxjY4
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
@Rikk

Going back to the main topic. Here is an example. 
Left is camera Standard, right is camera Neutral (also Adobe Standard looks similar)

You can see there is a yellow cast in camera Standard (eg color of the wall). Also, I was shooting in RAW + Jpg with Standard profile and in the jpg file there is no yellow cast.


Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1454 Posts
  • 487 Reply Likes
Differences you see between the other profiles is probably due to higher color saturation with the Camera Standard profile. Do you have LR's WB panel set to 'As Shot?' If not that's what's causing the difference you're seeing between the camera JPEG and Camera Standard raw file rendering. If it is set to 'As Shot' please post a camera JPEG and ARW file pair that exhibit the issue to Dropbox and we can see what's happening on our systems. Thank you!
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
yes, as shot.

take this raw https://www.dropbox.com/s/fsmt09hr3pvouyv/2018_01_Ghana_637.dng?dl=0

apply Camera Standard and then compare with the related jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mpgmgxstlpcfixx/DSC01411.JPG?dl=0

Thanks! 
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2677 Posts
  • 349 Reply Likes
Comparing the DNG and JPG images on DropBox, to me it looks like all the Camera xxxx profiles have stronger yellows.  This is NOT the same as saying there is a yellow color cast because neutrals still seem neutral so no overall cast where whites are yellow, but the yellows are stronger.  Since the image does not have a full range of colors it is difficult to tell if it is only yellows or various other colors--do you have any market scenes with a range of vibrant colors?

Here are some comparisons the camera JPG and camera DNG with no corrections in LR, using side-by-side Reference View (Shift-R) mode:

First, here is using the Adobe Standard profile, which has slightly muted colors and in my opinion even weaker yellows than the camera JPG:


Here is the Camera Standard comparison where the yellow on the wall at the top right is more intense:


Here is the somewhat closer result after messing with the Camera Calibration Hue sliders for a bit to make the Camera Standard DNG closer to the JPG, though it's difficult to say how well these adjustments would work with other images with more colors:


One final comment is that checking the JPG metadata in EXIF Tool, while most settings are Standard, it appears that Dynamic Range Optimizer was set to Auto and if the camera actually did some auto-fixing before creating the JPG this could make things slightly different than whatever Adobe used when they did their calibrations and can make matching a RAW to a JPG a moving target from one photo to the next:

(Edited)
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

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

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

Will post scenes with more colors when i have a chance.
(Edited)
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1747 Posts
  • 586 Reply Likes
DRO should not affect color rendition of jpg, i think it affects tone curve slightly.
Are you sure about that? Try shooting with Dynamic Range Optimizer set to OFF and check the ARW file Camera Standard rendering to the Camera JPEG file. The Imaging Resource A7R III test images (shot under controlled conditions) match the camera JPEG file with Camera Standard profile, but 'Dynamic Range Optimizer is set to OFF. Your DNG file is also pulling some errors in EXIF tool related to the DNG file data also reported here:

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

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

Mario Adario

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

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

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1645 Posts
  • 561 Reply Likes
Interesting observation on the dng. Luckily I haven’t deleted the arw files yet (I usually keep only the dng) so i can test also that. You are saying that the same camera profile will give different results in dng and arw?
The Adobe  DNG converter is over-writing and/or truncating some of the Sony proprietary MakerNote fields in the DNG file.
When converting Sony ARW-files (tested with Sony A7/ILCE-7 with ARW v2.3.1), DNG converter seems to be truncating the proprietary information it's copying over into the DNGPrivateData tag. Specifically, It's writing two Adobe-specific sections into the tag

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

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

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

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
So going by exclusion, if dng and arw look the same, and dro also does not explain the difference, then it is an adobe profile problem?
Photo of Jao van de Lagemaat

Jao van de Lagemaat

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

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Jao do you know if DRO affects Raw files as well? And why the same file with Adobe Standard does not show the same problem?
Photo of Jao van de Lagemaat

Jao van de Lagemaat

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

Andrew Rodney

  • 859 Posts
  • 179 Reply Likes
>>The Adobe  DNG converter is over-writing and/or truncating some of the Sony proprietary MakerNote fields in the DNG file.

At least one expert thinks otherwise and he's got a long history of being correct:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60650613
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1645 Posts
  • 561 Reply Likes
Yep, after working with the profiles in DPE it appears to be simply a color calibration issue. ;)
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2677 Posts
  • 349 Reply Likes
For fun, try taking a RAW+JPG photo of this color chart as displayed on your monitor, perhaps slightly out-of-focus to keep the moire patterns from the LCD dots from causing issues, and upload both the RAW+JPG so we can compare how things look with various color profiles.  Keep the DRO off.
https://www.atozdesigns.com/CMYK.jpg


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


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

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

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

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Will do
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1747 Posts
  • 586 Reply Likes
So going by exclusion, if dng and arw look the same, and dro also does not explain the difference, then it is an adobe profile problem?
That would only exclude the DNG conversion and DRO as the cause. There still could be differences in other camera settings, camera defect, firmware difference that is causing the issue. Using the Imaging Resource A7R III test image files there is virtually NO difference in rendering between the camera JPEG and ARW file with Camera Standard profile. So by process of "exclusion" I can say with confidence there's something "different" with your camera settings or LR system rendering (installation, monitor profile, etc.).

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

(Edited)
Photo of Tiffany Fay J

Tiffany Fay J

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Actually, the left image is more yellow in the sense that some of the pinks got stripped. Compare the left brownish color. The right one is much better color-wise. It looks more cardboard colored.
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Ok, I have done some of the home-works

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

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


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


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

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1647 Posts
  • 561 Reply Likes
1) The DNG and ARW files render the same so NOT an issue!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
OK, so we established that neither the DNG conversion not the DRO have any adverse effect.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks



 
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 859 Posts
  • 179 Reply Likes
>>All in all the camera profile seems the culprit, right?

Nope.
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Want to elaborate? Where is the issue in your opinion? Would be great to get practical advice, I was not lucky with the calibration discussion :-) 
Thanks
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 859 Posts
  • 179 Reply Likes
>>Want to elaborate? Where is the issue in your opinion? 

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

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

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

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

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

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Thanks Andrew, I appreciate the time and effort you put in answering my questions, but there is a big knowledge gap between you and me. I am not able to create a custom profile and hope it is the last resort for me to have to learn how to do that. As you say, I am hoping for the canned solution, as i prefer to get the tech aspect out of my way and focus on the photography.
When I said lucky with the calibration, i meant that I was not successful in getting a straight answer for you. I know that as an expert you have to answer "it depends" most of the time, but i was hoping to get an answer like "your calibration is/is not close enough to D65 (the desired condition) so do not/do bother about that delta".
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 859 Posts
  • 179 Reply Likes
Anyone can create a custom .dcp profile.
Anyone can edit an existing one too with free tools from Adobe but I'd start with a custom profile. 
Or NOT use the profile from Adobe you don't like. That's easy. 
Sorry, I don't see the problem here. It's like stating a canned printer profile isn't as ideal as a custom one, or a non calibrated display (or one incorrectly calibrated) doesn't produce as close a match to (a print or something else) as a custom and correct calibration. 

Or you can wait on Adobe maybe releasing newer .dcp profiles but the one you have is the one you'll have to use, or not. Up to you. 

>> Clearly not a match for the in-camera Standard profile when shooting jpg. 

That's a nearly impossible goal for all images and it's why Adobe never promised what you expect above. IF you really love the camera JPEG, shoot JPEG or use the manufacturers raw converter. The JPEG rendering is proprietary! 
(Edited)
Photo of Jao van de Lagemaat

Jao van de Lagemaat

  • 222 Posts
  • 74 Reply Likes
Mario,

Adobe engineers do read posts here and investigate. I have seen profiles get tweaked based on feedback on here. I have no direct line to Adobe but you found the way to engage that usually seems to work.

Andrew is right though that the camera profiles cannot fully reproduce the behavior of the in-camera jpeg engines. What we get is an approximation based on color charts Adobe shoots with the camera and they run those through an engine that gets you profiles that should give the best approximation possible. Due to Adobe's raw engine not being the same as the camera's manufacturer and the limitations of the .dcp formalism, it is impossible to get this 100% perfect and there will always be cases in which you can see differences. This doesn't mean any result is better or worse, just that there are always going to be differences.
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Jao, sure, I don't expect to exactly reproduce the jpg, but not even to add an awful yellow cast. I shot with many other cameras and been using LR since version 3 and never had this issue. Maybe I am asking too much but would be nice to have a Standard profile that is a good starting point.
Would you or anyone here be able to tweak the LR Sony Camera Standard Profile by loading it in DNG Editor with a test pic (that I provided) and eliminating the yellow cast? I tried but I was not able to do it.
Thanks  
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 859 Posts
  • 179 Reply Likes
Don't want a yellow cast, don't use the profile. OR use the supplied rendering controls to remove what you call a 'yellow cast'. Again, this is all easier than writing and expecting Adobe to do anything for your specific deficiency differences between their Sony used to build their profile for all Sony's when they provide tools so you can end up with a custom camera profile for your specific Sony sensor. They vary. That's their burden too. 
Photo of Jao van de Lagemaat

Jao van de Lagemaat

  • 222 Posts
  • 74 Reply Likes
In the example you posted above I can see the cast you are referring to in the wall and in the kids face (very strong in the boy with the striped shirt). I don't have much time in the coming days to really chase this unfortunately. What I would do is to take the image into dng profile editor, load the camera standard profile as a base and then create patches on the wall and face and move them until the color is more to my liking. Then write out an updated profile. You can do more or less the same thing inside Lightroom and work it as a preset. This is not that hard to do but is not always really trustworthy as it tends to only work in one situation.  It's better to shoot a color chart and build a new profile. That takes more work.
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1647 Posts
  • 561 Reply Likes
Guys please read my post here https://console.getsatisfaction.com/photoshop_family/conversations/camera-standard-profile-for-a7r-i...

It appears the A7R III Camera Standard profile (and other A7R III profiles) are not properly applying the MakerNotes data concerning a value titled 'Blue Balance' When this value differs significantly a non-linear hue shift appears in the image that cannot simply be fixed with the WB controls, HSL controls, or DPE's controls because the amount of shift varies with Luminance. This appears to be something similar to what is seen with twisted versus un-twisted camera profiles.

http://dcptool.sourceforge.net/Hue%20Twists.html

Adobe is not properly applying the ARW file metdata during the demosaicing process.
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Todd, you are a genius. The first link you provided does not work, is it a link to your earlier post in this same discussion?
Above all thanks for not assuming that me or my workflow are wrong (default position for many experts on many forums).
I assume also Adobe Standard has the same issue as it is camera specific (even though it does not try to emulate a camera profile)?
Do you think Adobe can easily fix this? Is there a “direct line” with them or we need to wait for them to hopefully read this discussion?
If I understand correctly this is not an issue with the profile created by Adobe but with the way LR works so will require a new LR release, correct?

Finally, this might be irrelevant but I am using a [calibrated] wide gamut display and this might have exacerbated the yellow cast I see (and also explain why not so many people are complaining of such an obvious issue).
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1647 Posts
  • 561 Reply Likes
All of the A7R III camera profiles are probably affected. It appears to be due to a basic camera sensor reading (Blue Balance and perhaps Red and Green Balance) that isn't being properly applied to the raw data. The fix should only require creating new versions (v2) of all the camera profiles. I will contact Adobe Engineering to make them aware of the issue.
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Fantastic! Would you let us know what they say and whether they will give you a timing for the fix?
Thanks
Photo of Jao van de Lagemaat

Jao van de Lagemaat

  • 222 Posts
  • 74 Reply Likes
Good find Todd
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
PS Is that the cause of the issue beyond any doubt or you guys think it might still be something else?
Photo of Jao van de Lagemaat

Jao van de Lagemaat

  • 222 Posts
  • 74 Reply Likes
It's definitely possible that that is it. Can't say with certainty.
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 859 Posts
  • 179 Reply Likes
>>It's definitely possible that that is it. Can't say with certainty.

If someone would take the time to capture a stinkin Macbeth Color Checker, some of us here have multiple products that build .dcp profiles and we could say with far, far more certainty. 
Easier to blame Adobe. 
Photo of David Kilpatrick

David Kilpatrick

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
My Macbeth dual source camera checker profile is WAY different from any of the Adobe profiles - most notable on blues, which are darker and stronger with the custom profile.
Photo of David Kilpatrick

David Kilpatrick

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
In this - Adobe Standard conversion left, Camera Standard centre, Macbeth Dual Checker created via DNG profiler right.
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
In the end with the color checker you will get accurate colors, which is different from pleasing colors. "Canon colors" are pleasing but not accurate. I prefer pleasing to accurate.

In your pic I like the Camera Standard red better than the custom profile. I also note the yellow wall near the exit sign. 
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1647 Posts
  • 561 Reply Likes
Andrew we already did this exercise two days ago (see above) with color checker screenshots using a camera and downloaded color checker ARW files from Imaging Resource. Some image files look good and some don't with the scene referred color temperature the determining factor. There's a basic WB non-linearity with the Adobe camera profiles, which is most noticeable with Camera Standard and to a lesser degree in the other profiles.

It appears the Adobe camera profiles for the A7R III are not properly applying the sensor data (ref. Blue Balance field) in the MakerNotes. So if you don't have a properly functioning camera profile to use as the base profile any custom profile will probably have the same issue, correct.

Here's an AR7R III ColorChecker ARW file if you'd like to try and build a better camera profile that doesn't exhibit the yellow shift issue: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a7r-iii/A7R3hVFAI000100.ARW.HTM
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 859 Posts
  • 179 Reply Likes
>>Andrew we already did this exercise two days ago (see above) with color checker screenshots using a camera and downloaded color checker ARW files from Imaging Resource. 

So you think building another 'generic' profile is the fix? I would think otherwise. 
The OP needs to capture the Macbeth with HIS sensor and supply for a custom profile from differing packages. Then an Adobe or 3rd party .dcp profile can be generate and he's got a custom camera profile. Or as I suggested, not use the profile who's rendering he doesn't care for (without further edits). 

>>In the end with the color checker you will get accurate colors, which is different from pleasing colors.

Shooting a Macbeth and producing a profile does NOT produce more accurate colors! One has to capture scene referred color (which isn't easy at all in the ACR engine) to evaluate color accuracy. This paper I co- authored with Jack Holms of HP for the ICC explains the differences: 

http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_20_Digital_photography_color_management_basics.pdf

Color accuracy can ONLY be defined when you have a color reference (what a specific solid color should be in Lab from measurements of a Spectrophotometer) and the capture of that color after which, one can produce a deltaE metric of the differences. Now and only know can you speak of color accuracy:

Delta-E and color accuracy

In this 7 minute video I'll cover: What is Delta-E and how we use it to evaluate color differences. Color Accuracy: what it really means, how we measure it using ColorThink Pro and BableColor CT&A. This is an edited subset of a video covering RGB working spaces from raw data (sRGB urban legend Part 1).

Low Rez: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy0BD5aRV9s&feature=youtu.be

High Rez: http://digitaldog.net/files/Delta-E%20and%20Color%20Accuracy%20Video.mp4

Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1647 Posts
  • 561 Reply Likes
Andrew Rodney said: So you think building another 'generic' profile is the fix? I would think otherwise. 
The OP needs to capture the Macbeth with HIS sensor and supply for a custom profile from differing packages.
Great, any suggestions on a specific package to use and instructions on using it for this specific application?
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 859 Posts
  • 179 Reply Likes
No instructions needed, just shoot (correctly) the Macbeth/Passport target and load into a non Adobe software for creation of .dcp profiles: X-rite's, Lumariver Profile Designer, etc. I'd avoid like the plague, the DataColor product that thinks it creates .dcp profiles. 
The OP states he doesn't have a Macbeth target. I guess I could loan him a spare. Without it, this is rather pointless. The debate is whether there's a problem with the Adobe supplied profile based on questionable testing. So shoot a single raw of the Macbeth, build differing profiles in differing packages and see if the suspected 'issue' is Adobe's or not. 
And by the time all this takes place, it's kind of possible all this .dcp stuff in LR will change a bit..... 
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1647 Posts
  • 561 Reply Likes
Following Andrew Rodney's suggestion I took the Imaging Resource ColorChecker ARW file, converted it to a DNG with Camera Standard profile, opened it in DPE, and ran the ColorChecker to create a new base profile. It looks way better than the original Camera Standard profile and actually slightly better than the in-camera JPEG with Standard Picture Style. I never would have expected to see this much difference, but it is what it is. You can download the custom camera profile here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3uo4se9jmll5f58/Sony%20ILCE-7RM3_Camera%20Standard_DPE%20ColorChecker.dcp?...

Install the dcp file in the below folder location and restart LR to load it.
Windows—C: \ Users \ [your username] \ AppData \ Roaming \ Adobe \ CameraRaw \ CameraProfiles \

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

Obviously there's still some issue with the Adobe camera profiles OR simply the A7R III camera Adobe used has different rendering than the OP's Mario Adario camera. Let me know what you see on your system with this profile
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Fantastic! Will try now.
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Todd, you are right, it looks much better than the Camera Standard and also better than the jpg (I am comparing results using the castle picture provided). 
On my wide gamut monitor Camera Standard is totally off, while the jpg has a greenish cash compared to your profile. Your profile is neutral to slightly tilting towards magenta. Do you see the same?

BTW wasn't Andrew suggesting a different workflow (ie taking a picture of Colorcheker vs using IR file, not using Adobe DPE, etc)? If I understand correctly you have not created a new profile, you have edited the existing Camera Standard, right? Does this means that everything else (tone curve, saturation, WB etc) will be the same as Camera Standard? 

So since you used a raw file not taken with my camera, as long as my camera (or anyone else's camera, is not distant from the one used by Imaging Resource I should be good to go right?

Would you mind if I point other people to your dropbox link?

Thanks for taking the time to do this!
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I just did another test this time using the picture of the colorchecker on my screen that I provided previously. In the old test the Camera Standard was a good match to the jpg color, now if I apply the your Modified Camera Standard it looks quite different vs the jpg, very similar to Adobe Standard.  
Photo of David Kilpatrick

David Kilpatrick

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
It's useful to have a good range of profiles. My Macbeth checker profile, as with one I did for the A7RII, produces very good blue skies at the expense of blue being darker overall. Todd's profile produces extremely saturated reds, almost Canon-like, where Adobe Standard always seems to do the opposite - but if you shoot a red rose in sunshine, the Adobe Standard profiles have always shown more gradation within the reds and less tendency to clip. But not as good a red. Mario you mentioned the yellow in the wall in my shop shot near the Exit sign on the Camera Standard version - should be more neutral. With Todd's profile, it's slightly pink, conversion here.
Photo of Cameron Rad

Cameron Rad

  • 161 Posts
  • 49 Reply Likes
Part 1: A7R3 Profile Test. All images converted/encoded sRGB. Some clipping may be present. 

Profile: Adobe Standard
Tone Curve: ACR Default
WB: From G5 Patch (5250/10)



Profile: Camera Standard 
Tone Curve: ACR Default
WB: From G5 Patch (5250/10)



Profile: Camera Neutral 
Tone Curve: ACR Default
WB: From G5 Patch (5250/10)



Profile: Custom Built (Lumariver used) 
Tone Curve: ACR Default
WB: From G5 Patch (5250/10)

(Edited)
Photo of Cameron Rad

Cameron Rad

  • 161 Posts
  • 49 Reply Likes
Part 2: A7R3 Profile Test. All images converted/encoded sRGB*. Some clipping may be present. Linear profile curve used.

Profile: Adobe Standard 
Tone Curve: Linear
WB: From G5 Patch (5250/10)



Profile: Camera Standard 
Tone Curve: Linear
WB: From G5 Patch (5250/10)



Profile: Camera Neutral 
Tone Curve: Linear
WB: From G5 Patch (5250/10)



Profile: Custom Built (Lumariver used) 
Tone Curve: Linear
WB: From G5 Patch (5250/10)

Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Custom Built looks the best, followed by Adobe Standard. Camera Standard, like in my experience, looks a bit yellow/green. Will you let us try your Custom Built?
Thanks
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 859 Posts
  • 179 Reply Likes
Lots of clipping with that target. Even with the 24 patch MacBeth, Cyan patch is out of sRGB color gamut. The target above was built with much wider gamut colors. 
Now, did you white balance each using the same neutral white? 
Photo of Cameron Rad

Cameron Rad

  • 161 Posts
  • 49 Reply Likes
Hi Andrew,

It's definitely super clipped, however I uploaded them in sRGB because I'm not sure what everyone's browser/color management situation is like. WB was achieved both in camera and then verified both pre and post applying profiles via the G5 patch. Each of the profiles when verifying from G5 returned 5250/10. "As shot" WB returned the same values as well. If you want I can upload some Adobe RGB or Prophoto RGB images. 

Mario, I will possibly distribute it later but only once I've built a Tungsten illuminant calibration and I test it. However from my own experience, I find that Adobe's provided profiles are far more versatile on a wide range of images. Such as neon lighting. 
(Edited)
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Great thanks, look forward to testing them. In the end the more the better.
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 859 Posts
  • 179 Reply Likes
>> WB was achieved both in camera and then verified both pre and post applying profiles via the G5 patch. 

But it's raw so the camera settings are moot. But it sounds like you did WB each image on the same white square, in LR after profile selection, right? 
Photo of Cameron Rad

Cameron Rad

  • 161 Posts
  • 49 Reply Likes
Ya double checked after applying each profile. Used ACR to drag a WB Selection on the G5 patch. The WB never changed with the profiles. Stayed at 5250/10. LAB "AB" values for that patch stayed at 0,0. L value changed with profiles though. From 85 (Adobe Standard) to 88 (Camera Standard). I'll test the linear tone curve images as well.
(Edited)
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1647 Posts
  • 561 Reply Likes
Mario Adario said: So since you used a raw file not taken with my camera, as long as my camera (or anyone else's camera, is not distant from the one used by Imaging Resource I should be good to go right?
That is correct, but you'll get better results shooting the ColorChecker with your specific camera serial number. Due to manufacturing tolerances there can be slight rendering variations from one production run to another. In addition you should create dual-illuminant color profiles shooting the CC at 5500K+ Daylight and 2700K Tungsten bulb lighting. Both the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport (CCPP) software and Adobe DNG Profile Editor (DPE) have this capability. All Adobe camera profiles are dual-illuminant and they are more versatile.

Mario Adario said: I just did another test this time using the picture of the colorchecker on my screen that I provided previously. In the old test the Camera Standard was a good match to the jpg color, now if I apply the your Modified Camera Standard it looks quite different vs the jpg, very similar to Adobe Standard. 

Concerning the DPE Camera Standard ColorChecker profile I do see a slight magenta tint. In addition the color checker screenshots look different because the profile has been "calibrated" using the Imaging Resources color checker (24 patch) chart insdie DPE. The Camera Standard Tone Curve is retained, but not the color rendering that Adobe created to "emulate" Canon Standard Picture Style look. You can achieve that using the tools in DPE with a ColorChecker Passport, which I highly recommend you purchase. I would focus on creating profiles that achieve the "look" you desire and NOT Canon's or Adobe's "Standards."

BTW I ran the Imaging Resources A7R III ColorChecker through the X-Rite software and its camera profile looks almost identical to Adobe's Camera Standard exhibiting the yellow color shift. You can edit the X-Rite camera profiles in DPE or simply start there using the Adobe Standard, Camera Standard or any other profile. Here are the links for the DPE downloads and instructions:

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

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

Windows
http://supportdownloads.adobe.com/detail.jsp?ftpID=5494
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 859 Posts
  • 179 Reply Likes
Of the examples shown above of the ColorChecker SG, I can see that indeed white is neutral but gray isn't. Not surprisingly you'll see the grays are low a few points in blue, so it appears warm (yellow). But gray balancing in Photoshop removes that cast while the white patches all remain the same neutral values of 247/247/247. Maybe consider opening in Photoshop and using the gray balance tool on one of the gray patches to see if that is visually preferred. I played with the top image and Adobe Netural and they produce the same results. 

Do you want numeric neutrals? Doable and perhaps visually preferable. On my calibrated NEC PA272W, I can see the warm cast before gray balance and after, the image appears neutral but it isn't my image and it's subjective if this edit is useful or not. 
(Edited)
Photo of Cameron Rad

Cameron Rad

  • 161 Posts
  • 49 Reply Likes
Hi Andrew,

I have the same monitor as you and notice the non-neutral neutrals as well. Personally for me it's not a big deal as I either use a custom profile or just learn to edit around it/modify it, but it might be useful to others in the thread? 

I'm not too concerned about it honestly as there's so many variables that go into the color processing in RAWs. I can spend all day making a profile for daylight today that won't work properly tomorrow. Or I can work really hard on a custom reflectance target profile that looks like crap with neon lights. 
(Edited)
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1647 Posts
  • 561 Reply Likes
The Lumariver Camera Standard Linear profile shows the same non-linear WB (yellow shift in midtones and shadows) the OP is experiencing. The X-Rite ColorChecker software creates has the same exact issue. Running a Camera Standard CC chart through DPE's ColorChecker calibration doesn't have the yellow shift, but exhibits a slight magenta tint in the midtones. Not sure what the best way is to correct that.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3uo4se9jmll5f58/Sony%20ILCE-7RM3_Camera%20Standard_DPE%20ColorChecker.dcp?...
Photo of Cameron Rad

Cameron Rad

  • 161 Posts
  • 49 Reply Likes
Todd I wouldn't overthink the profile so much. The Lumariver profile works just fine.
The yellow noticed in the SG image I posted is more likely to have been caused by reflectance from the dirt..

The X-Rite ColorChecker Software doesn't use the same Adobe matrices for it's profiles as DNG Profile Editor or Lumariver, so a WB adjustment is needed.
(Edited)
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1647 Posts
  • 561 Reply Likes
I am setting the WB and it makes no difference. Your Camera Standard Linear profile image has the same strong yellow cast, which is not present in the Adobe Standard Linear or Lumariver Linear images. This is the issue we're discussing.

I repeat: Running a Camera Standard CC chart through DPE's ColorChecker calibration doesn't have the yellow shift, but exhibits a slight magenta tint in the midtones. So obviously there's something wrong with Adobe's Camera Standard profile and the actual cause hasn't been identified. DPE CC makes a big improvement but still not perfect. Since it appears to be a non-linear function how would suggest correcting the camera profile using DPE. If this is not possible what are the possible causes? The Lumariver Linear profile looks like a good "equivalent" of the Camera Standard profile wthout the yellow color shift issue. Can you make it available for download so others here can give it a try? Thank you!
Photo of Cameron Rad

Cameron Rad

  • 161 Posts
  • 49 Reply Likes
The "issue" with the camera standard profile is the ForwardMatrix transforms. You can use DCPTool to look inside the DNG Profiles.

You will see that the Adobe Standard Profile has two different ForwardMatrix (1&2) transforms, whereas the Camera Matching Profiles share the same ForwardMatrix transform between 1 & 2. Adobe Standard profiles are dual illuminant and will interpret between color tables. Camera Matching profiles aren't. That's likely what you are running into. It's been this way for a while with multiple cameras/dng profiles.

Eric Chan touched on it briefly here:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=84129.0
The ForwardMatrix tags are used to transform white-balance linear camera coordinates to CIE XYZ space (D50 reference illuminant).  In many cases these tags perform the majority of the color correction (e.g., a matrix that performs the color transform).  The advantage of the matrix is that it's a very smooth transform and also very efficient.  A disadvantage of the matrix is that some colors can clip.  Therefore, in some cases we instead use an empty (null transform) matrix and perform the bulk of the color correction using tables.  This helps to preserve detail in saturated colors.  In the cases where we use an empty/null transform matrix, you'll see the same values used for both ForwardMatrix1 and ForwardMatrix2.
(Edited)
Photo of Cameron Rad

Cameron Rad

  • 161 Posts
  • 49 Reply Likes
Anyways has anyone tried just modifying the Color Calibration sliders with the Adobe Standard profile and coming up with their own base preset? I messed with it last night and got results similar to what was found in the Lumariver profile.

Not exactly the same but close enough to work with and be versatile on a wide variety of images. From my own experience custom built profiles often times can be more troublesome. Especially if you build a profile from a reflectance target it and try to use it with colored lights. 
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1647 Posts
  • 561 Reply Likes
That explains why some images appear to have a non-linear WB with the 'Camera' named profiles and NOT Adobe Standard, which brings up another issue.

It appears Adobe changed the Adobe Standard camera profile "metrics" sometime around Sept. 2014. All camera models introduced after that date have Adobe Standard profiles with a lower contrast tone curve and saturation. Call it 'Adobe Standard Muted.' A lot of users have complained that it's difficult to match image rendering when multiple cameras (both old and new) are used for an assignment such as a wedding. Any ideas what's up with that? More info here:

https://forums.adobe.com/message/9095782#9095782
Photo of Cameron Rad

Cameron Rad

  • 161 Posts
  • 49 Reply Likes
I'd imagine it's to leave more headroom for editing. Likely a conscious choice by Adobe in order to try and provide more room for people to push a file rather than recover it.  Especially with contrast.
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Thanks all, I think we (you really) made a lot of progress.
Let's try to summarise what we learnt so far:
1) It is not a dng conversion issue
2) It is not a DRO issue
3) It is not a truncated MakerNotes info issue
4) Editing the Camera Standard using a Color Checker improves things but leaves a slight magenta cast
5) The issue is likely the Forward Matrix transform (I have no clue what that is :-)))

Is this a fair summary?

What is the way forward to solve the issue?
Can (and will) Adobe fix this?
Shall I buy a colorchecker and build my profiles? I hear Cameron Rad does not recommend this.

Appreciating any advice.
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 859 Posts
  • 179 Reply Likes
>>What is the way forward to solve the issue?

Use the rendering controls found throughout the application designed to alter color and tone if necessary! 
If you really, really must fix this using a profile (and that's a rabbit hole that will never work for all images), edit the profile. 

>>Shall I buy a colorchecker and build my profiles?
YES!
Photo of Cameron Rad

Cameron Rad

  • 161 Posts
  • 49 Reply Likes
It's not that I don't recommend it. I definitely recommend having a Colorchecker. It's always great to use as reference and to help balance an image. 

What I should say is that you shouldn't always rely on a Colorchecker Profile. There are some cases where they work really well and some that they don't. Don't expect that making a Colorchecker Profile will solve all the issues. The profiles really just serve as a base to modify with the rest of the tools in Lightroom and sometimes you won't have the ideal base. 

In some instances Adobe Standard might work best, in others maybe the Camera Matching profiles or your own custom one. Use your judgement to evaluate which profile works best for your image. 
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Meaning that each picture will need a different adjustment? I so miss Canon when Camera Standard suited pretty much every image.

Which colorchecker you reccomend? The Passport is quite expensive
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B002NU5UW8/_encoding=UTF8?coliid=I2RS3KJ0EDLYRA&colid=3NF31P31XIN8K&...
There are also these
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B000JLO31C/_encoding=UTF8?coliid=IME954IGRFNHF&colid=3NF31P31XIN8K&a...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00LPS46TW/_encoding=UTF8?coliid=I31WYI513V3F2E&colid=3NF31P31XIN8K&...

somewhere I had found also a cheaper Xrite mini version.

Do I need a custom profile for every lightning situation? The color checker will deal with colors, what about the other ingredients of the profile (tone curve, saturation, color temp)?
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 859 Posts
  • 179 Reply Likes
>>Meaning that each picture will need a different adjustment? 

Maybe yes, maybe no. Depends on a huge number of variables. 
I'd purchase the ColorChecker Passport. You get a lot for the money besides just a 24 patch Macbeth you'll use for making profiles. The mini will certainly work but it's fragile while the Passport has a nice case. And other useful targets. But if all you need is a profile, buy or borrow the lest expensive 24 patch Macbeth target you can find. 

And I've yet to see a custom .DCP profile not produce more pleasing colors than any profile supplied by Adobe. Because sensors differ from unit to unit! 

You only need a tiny handful of profiles and no, not for each lighting situation and certainly not for each setup, but rather for each kind of illuminant (daylight, tungsten, Fluorescent etc). All outlined in my video! 
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1647 Posts
  • 561 Reply Likes
What they said!

Try creating CCPP profiles using both the X-Rite software app or LR plugin AND DPE. The results are quite different. You can also try editing the current Adobe and Camera Standard profiles with DPE. Read the DPE tutorial for more details. Here's an example:



The ColorChecker Passport costs around $100 US versus the Sony A7R III for $3,000 US. We're talking 3.3% additional investment! Add in the cost of your lenses and other equipment and it's probably less than a 1% investment. This is the one to get. Enjoy, but don't go crazy!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/X-Rite-MSCCP-ColorChecker-Passport-Affinity/dp/B002NU5UW8/ref=sr_1_1?s=elec...
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I wish it was just 3000 USD, here it is 3200 GBP (4400 USD)!

CC Passport on order. never felt the need with 6D and Camera Standard but sounds like the time to buy it has arrived.
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Cameron, still planning to make your custom profile available? Thanks

After this discussion I assume that Adobe will not see this as a problem and will not look into it? Todd, did you speak with their engineers?
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1647 Posts
  • 561 Reply Likes
Cameron Rad said: I'd imagine it's to leave more headroom for editing. Likely a conscious choice by Adobe in order to try and provide more room for people to push a file rather than recover it.  Especially with contrast.
Correct me if I'm wrong.  The primary purpose of Adobe Standard profile was to establish a camera profile that provides near the same rendering regardless of camera make or model (i.e. STANDARD).

All of my Canon cameras (300D, 600D, 5D MKII) produce very similar color and tone rendering using Adobe Standard. Newer cameras (from ALL manufacturers) released after Sept. 2014 have Adobe Standard profiles that produce very noticeable lower contrast and color saturation. Adobe has made NO official announcement concerning this change. My contact with Adobe Engineering has been met with, "Let me look into this and see what I can find out," with no further response. Numerous professional and serious amateur photographers have posted complaints in the various Adobe forums concerning this issue. Again, no official statement has been offered on any of these posts including this Photoshop Family problem report forum that Adobe Engineering monitors.

IMHO–This makes absolutely no sense. Let's take an example. Coca-Cola decides to change the flavoring in its flagship product 'Coke' to make it sweeter. Customers revolted and Coca-Cola put the original product back on the market in three months and called it "Coca-Cola Classic" (no pun intended concerning LR Classic and CC renaming).

A better solution would have been for Adobe to make a public announcement concerning changes to the Adobe Standard profile. Then offer two camera profiles: 1) The original rendering (call it Adobe Standard) and 2) the new rendering (call it Adobe Standard Neutral or whatever!). The amount of work involved to create two Adobe Standard profiles should be minor since they are variations of the same profile.
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1647 Posts
  • 561 Reply Likes
Mario Adario said: After this discussion I assume that Adobe will not see this as a problem and will not look into it? Todd, did you speak with their engineers?
Adobe is not likely to look into this unless more users add their 'Me To' vote and comments here. Currently there is 1 Vote. My initial Adobe contact has not replied to my email as of yet. I looked through similar images shot with my older Canon 5D MKII, 600D, and newer model G7X MKII. The Camera Standard rendering with all three cameras is very similar. If anything Camera Standard causes a very slight magenta color shift (not yellow) compared to Adobe Standard and my custom CCPP dual-illuminant profile created with X-Rite software. I created a profile with the Imaging Resource A7R III ColorChecker ARW file using the X-Rite software app. It looks almost identical to the Camera Standard rendering with the same yellow shift using your ARW files. It may very well be that your camera has slightly different rendering than the ones Adobe and Imaging Resource used.

Please let us know your results when you receive the CCPP. Create a dual-illuminant profile using the CCPP and X-Rite software and also DPE. Try both! The X-Rite profile I created had the same issue as Camera Standard, but not the DPE color checker created profile using Camera Standard as the base profile. Your custom camera profiles created using CCPP images shot with your A7R III may be different!
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 859 Posts
  • 179 Reply Likes
I can state with pretty good authority and some inside knowledge that indeed, Adobe will not look into this. 
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Thanks, also my experience with 600D and 6D.
How do you explain that from the same colorchecker image X-rite will give you the color shift while DPE not?
Shall I be concerned with my camera and send for repair? But then also the jpg should exhibit the same defect? But it doesn't.

Another thing I noticed is that if I open the ARW in Image Edge (Sony own converter) the image does not look like the related jpg but exactly like the RAW+CS in LR (so with the yellow shift).

So if Adobe's goal was to match the look of the RAW file in IE with the same camera profile they have definitely achieved that....if they wanted to match the jpg then they failed.

Maybe the source of the issue is that the Sony profile in their own converter is off (vs the jpg) and Adobe just used a bad target to create their own emulation profile? 

PS @Andrew: but they have done so for the 5DS/R by issuing v2 profiles?
(Edited)
Photo of Cameron Rad

Cameron Rad

  • 161 Posts
  • 49 Reply Likes
How do you explain that from the same colorchecker image X-rite will give you the color shift while DPE not? 

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

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Thanks Cameron, meaning that DPE and Lumariver are superior?

I received three profiles from another unhappy user
I think they are quite good, especially the first, I don't see any yellow or magenta cast for now

https://www.dropbox.com/s/y2a5xxysn553hse/Sony%20ILCE-7RM3%20A7R3%20CUSTOM.dcp?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ngocfbckzo9ors6/Sony%20A7R3%20DAYLIGHT.dcp?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/v19jpa5qck798o6/Sony%20A7R3%20OVERCAST.dcp?dl=0
(Edited)
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1647 Posts
  • 561 Reply Likes
Mario Adariosaid: Another thing I noticed is that if I open the ARW in Image Edge (Sony own converter) the image does not look like the related jpg but exactly like the RAW+CS in LR (so with the yellow shift).

So if Adobe's goal was to match the look of the RAW file in IE with the same camera profile they have definitely achieved that....if they wanted to match the jpg then they failed.

Maybe the source of the issue is that the Sony profile in their own converter is off (vs the jpg) and Adobe just used a bad target to create their own emulation profile?
BINGO! I downloaded and installed Sony's Image Data Converter 5.1 here: http://support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp/www/disoft/int/idc/index.html I see the exact same results as you and the Image Data Converter output file matches the Adobe Camera Standard rendering perfectly, or should I say equally imperfect! The Sony Image Data Converter 5.1 app is very buggy and locked up on me numerous times. I checked all of the color management settings and see the same image rendering from inside the Sony's Image Data Converter 5.1. So it's definitely an issue with Sony's own camera raw profiling in that app, which is what Adobe probably used as the "reference" for creating their 'Camera' named DNG profiles.

Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
LOL, makes me laugh that in all my ignorance of the subject matter I managed to be useful...

So worth telling Adobe that they used a "corrupt" target to emulate and they should do it again??
Can we comfortably say that the Sony own profile is "wrong"? Could be an issue with my camera (but then again, in that case also the jpg would be off?)?
 
(Edited)
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 859 Posts
  • 179 Reply Likes
What makes you believe it is the target?
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1647 Posts
  • 561 Reply Likes
I think Mario means a corrupt Sony raw converter reference image not the actual color checker target used.
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Andrew in all frankness I don't know what I am talking about (as everyone must have realised by now). I am just using some common sense. Too much of a coincidence that the two images look equally "wrong". So technically speaking I don't know how Adobe create their profiles but they could have tried to match an image opened in IE with Camera Standard on instead of trying to match a jpg with Sony's color engine? Do not know if this makes any sense. 
(Edited)
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 859 Posts
  • 179 Reply Likes
If you guys would provide examples of known colors like from a Macbeth, we could state IF colors are right or wrong! Subjectively you believe the colors are wrong.
Photo of Cameron Rad

Cameron Rad

  • 161 Posts
  • 49 Reply Likes
Andrew let me try to clarify what I think is going on.

Basically the JPEG that is spit out of the camera directly has the desired color look.

The RAW from camera processed in ACR/LR (Adobe Standard Profile) does not have the desired look and does not match with Sony Imaging Edge.

The RAW from camera processed in ACR/LR (Camera Standard Profile) does not have the desired look and does provide a reasonable match with Sony Imaging Edge.

Sony Imaging Edge and Adobe both do not match the straight out of camera JPEG rendering.

So I believe the question Mario is asking is "How do I match my RAWs with the direct from camera JPEGs"
(Edited)
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Yeah, thanks Cameron, let me add that I know that a camera profile will never make my RAW to exactly match the jpg....but come closer though, like we are used with Canon. First Point.

Second point. The hypothesis Todd and I are making is that coming closer would be possible if only Adobe validated their Camera Standard profile against the jpg, while it looks like they tried to match the RAW+CS in Imaging Edge.

Cameron, would you reply to my earlier question, just in case you missed it, thanks.

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

"Thanks Cameron, meaning that DPE and Lumariver are superior?"
(Edited)
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Gents, someone senior from Adobe just "liked" my post ("Thanks, also my experience with 600D and 6D. ....") where I first hypothesised that Adobe targeted the wrong image for their profile. Looks like we are getting some attention hopefully. Would love to hear an official comment from them.
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 859 Posts
  • 179 Reply Likes
Yes, the JPEG output's a desired rendering based on proprietary processing inside the camera. The raw can be rendered any way one desires within reason. 
I don't believe Adobe EVER guaranteed that their profiles will match the camera JPEG exactly nor should they. BTW, exactly would be within 1 or less deltaE; every pixel matches. 

A long time ago, in an ACR far, far away, there were no custom .dcp profiles and there was a way to 'calibrate' ACR's rendering, thought up by the late and great Bruce Fraser. He took a 24 patch Macbeth and shot a raw. Then, he adjusted the numerous sliders in the Calibration tab (which exist today because thankfully, Adobe rarely removes legacy features). The adjustments were such that each of the 24 patches produced Lab values after rendering that matched the Lab values of the Macbeth. A bit later on, a script was produced to do this kind of automatically as moving each slider and inspecting the 24 patches for targeted Lab values was a huge amount of work. The results in any case were 24 patches that colorimetrically matched; capture to scene! 

If you had a properly calibrated display, the MacBeth looked a lot like the actual target but keep in mind, the Cyan patch falls outside sRGB gamut and that's an 'issue' on sRGB gamut like displays. But you ended up with a capture we could state IS accurate! 

If you shoot lots of MacBeth's, you got accurate results, within reason. The illuminant still plays a role. White balance might too. Now you turn around and shoot something totally different from that Macbeth. Was it also accurate everywhere? Not always. Because digital cameras suffer what is know as metameric failure. We can go there but the point is, some colors under some illuminants under some conditions were not close to accurate. 

What some of you are doing is what we see above. You're not shooting a known color reference with known values in Lab. So when you view these images, your response to them being right is highly subjective. You may feel one rendering is 'too warm' but if I view that on a display that is run 'cooler' in white balance, I may not see that. Or dislike the rendering  as you did. That wouldn't be the case with the Macbeth! One can numerically see the Lab values which are published! Not at all the case with images shoot without such a reference using this tweaked profile (well tweaked calibration setup). 

Are Adobe's profiles perfect or close to that? No. But they try. Can they do better (we may see....). Is this mostly a subjective evaluation? So far yes. Will any profile fix the issues of metameric failure? Not at all. 

So we have tests without reference and we have assumptions that the results are an issue due to the profile. That's a huge leap to make. It may indeed be true but no colorimetric data has been provided that I've seen. I may have missed it. Can and should you consider making a custom profile and maybe tweaking it? I've said so too many times now. That again will not solve all the issues but it reduces some in some cases. 

Why are there a suite of profiles that differ? Because this is a subjective process. A scene with a prefect colorimetric match of a Macbeth in 25% of the image may look unacceptable in areas outside that 25%. Now what? 
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 859 Posts
  • 179 Reply Likes
>>Sony Imaging Edge and Adobe both do not match the straight out of camera JPEG rendering.

Who (outside a marketing dept) guaranteed they would? To what average deltaE value?
What makes the camera JPEG so correct and special? It isn't. It's one rendering. If people love the camera JPEG rendering, they should just shoot JPEG! 
Photo of Cameron Rad

Cameron Rad

  • 161 Posts
  • 49 Reply Likes
I agree haha
Photo of Jao van de Lagemaat

Jao van de Lagemaat

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

Cameron Rad

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

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

No it just means it works differently. 
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Well now that they are reading this let's not give them an excuse not to at least try it! :-) 
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

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

NO profile will fix metameric failure of a camera sensor.