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

  • 4
  • Problem
  • Updated 3 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 Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
My CC Passport will arrive next week!

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

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1576 Posts
  • 535 Reply Likes
Andrew Rodney sid: Yes, the JPEG output's a desired rendering based on proprietary processing inside the camera. The raw can be rendered any way one desires within reason. 
I don't believe Adobe EVER guaranteed that their profiles will match the camera JPEG exactly nor should they. BTW, exactly would be within 1 or less deltaE; every pixel matches.
Andrew, I think you're over-analyzing this issue. I've checked numerous raw + JPEG file pairs shot with my Canon cameras. In all cases the camera JPEG very closely matches Canon's Digital Photo Professional raw converter with 'As Shot settings. They also very closely match LR's Camera Standard rendering of the CR2 raw file with As Shot WB and a very slight adjustment to Exposure (+0.05 to +0.10 EV). The images look virtually identical when doing a critical AB comparison using LR's Loupe with the right or left arrow key to quickly swap the image previews. I can't tell you what the Delta E is, but they are far and away much, much closer than the OP's Sony A7R III Camera standard images.

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

Cameron Rad

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

Mario Adario

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

Andrew Rodney

  • 817 Posts
  • 162 Reply Likes
>>In all cases the camera JPEG very closely matches 

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

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

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

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

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

Mario Adario

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

Jao van de Lagemaat

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

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
The firmware v1 should have addressed only a bug in the naming system plus other minor bugs. Would be surprised if they changed the rendering.
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
The CC Passport has arrived...it is going to be a fun weekend... stay tuned :-D
I was hoping to hear something from the Adobe employees that monitor the forum.
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is your opinion?
Thanks!
(Edited)
Photo of Jao van de Lagemaat

Jao van de Lagemaat

  • 211 Posts
  • 70 Reply Likes
I'll repeat a previous post here: "no profile will fix metameric failure of the camera".

The profiles you create using the color checkers are only valid in the exact same lighting conditions as you shot the color checker. If the light spectrum changes in any way, it is no longer valid. 
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I would agree with you if it was not for the fact that the very same picture that I used to build both profiles looks different under the two profiles. Try the second link I posted, the shot of the CC passport "...004", then pls flip between the DPE and XRite single illuminant profiles and look at - say - the orange square at the bottom. Night and day.They cannot be accurate at the same time.

With the CC Passport next to the screen I have to say X-Rite colors are a much better match.
(Edited)
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 818 Posts
  • 163 Reply Likes
Again there is no right or wrong: only preferred subjective color OUTSIDE known measured reference solid colors (like on the Macbeth itself)!
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
But here we are INSIDE the known measured reference solid colors. We are discussing the rendering of the CC Passport. How can it be different? It is the same shot that I used to build both profiles.

What is the whole point of doing all this if they can't even match the colors from the same pic from the same camera? Let alone from different cameras and different pictures.

It seems to me this is a giant waste of time, I think the Adobe Standard after all is quite accurate and works in many situations.
(Edited)
Photo of Jao van de Lagemaat

Jao van de Lagemaat

  • 211 Posts
  • 70 Reply Likes
I have noticed the same thing. The passport software produces profiles that generate better matches with the visual appearance of the color checker than adobe's profile editor and overall more pleasing color. I generally don't use Adobe's software for that reason. I remember reading that Adobe's software doesn't touch the tone curve in the final profile and just uses the curve embedded in the base profile you start with. Don't know whether my memory is correct.
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
So you can't just ignore the base profile you start with? I ignored that tab, I think by defaults the base profile is Adobe Standard and not the camera emulation one you used to shoot. Should you get better results using Camera Standard instead of Adobe Standard as base profile?
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 818 Posts
  • 163 Reply Likes
Extract 24 lab values and you’ll have the answer!
Photo of Jao van de Lagemaat

Jao van de Lagemaat

  • 211 Posts
  • 70 Reply Likes
I believe that's right. It only matches the hue and not the lightness of the patches. You can see that in the color tables after you loaded the chart. The patches will not be exactly equal in lightness if you look closely and you won't see the grey scale patches. Not near my main machine to test but that is what I remember. The X-rite software works different and does use the grey patches to change the tone curve. However there are way too few greyscale patches on the checker to build an accurate tone curve which is probably why Adobe simply ignores them.
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Which method you recommend when building a profile? Ignore base profile and/or Tone curve or setting base profile to say Standard and Tone curve to...what?
Photo of Jao van de Lagemaat

Jao van de Lagemaat

  • 211 Posts
  • 70 Reply Likes
I don't use DPE anymore because of this. Never could get pleasing looking results so I just use X-rite's software. Haven't rigorously checked the Lab values of the patches after the profile creation as I am mostly interested in making the results look good.
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1575 Posts
  • 535 Reply Likes
Mario, what you are seeing is totally expected and all good! Relax and I'll try to help explain WHY you're seeing differences in the DNG camera profiles created with the X-Rite CCPP software versus Adobe DNG Profile Editor.

Earlier in the discussion I mentioned the yellow hue shift appeared to be similar to the difference seen in twisted and untwisted profiles.

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

The X-Rite software creates less complex "untwisted" DNG camera profiles, which are typically about 1 KB to 3 KB versus 100 KB to 200 KB in size for Adobe profiles. The X-Rite software will create the same profile if the Base DNG file profile used is Adobe Standard or Camera Standard–It doesn't matter! X-Rite applies its own matrix values and tone curve independent of the base profile used to create the CCPP DNG file.

All Adobe profiles are twisted including custom profiles created with DPE and the Base DNG Profile does affect the color and tonal rendering. I suggest creating DPE CCPP dual-illuminant profiles using Adobe Standard and one using Camera Standard as a starting point.

I prefer the X-Rite CCPP software created profile for general work such as landscapes, Adobe Standard when the things don't look quite right, and Camera Faithful for high-dynamic range images with over-saturated colors and blown highlights. Beyond that the Basic panel controls can be used to "dial-in" the desired tonal and color rendering.

So what do things look if you create a custom CCPP profile with DPE and "calibrate" the color and grayscale patches using the picker to match the actual "measured" patch values? In a one-word–HORRIBLE! The eye see colors differently over the luminance range (light and dark areas), which is why twisted profiles were created. The X-Rite CCPP software created "untwisted" profiles look good for "general work" because the colors simply appear more saturated. It depends on the subject, lighting, and desired final rendering. And again the LR Basic panel, HSL panel, Dehaze, and other controls can accomplish that regardless of what camera profile you use. The camera profile you select for a specific image just gets you closer to that final rendering BEFORE applying any adjustments.
(Edited)
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 818 Posts
  • 163 Reply Likes
>>The eye see colors differently over the luminance range (light and dark areas), which is why twisted profiles were created. 

Nit picking but maybe helpful; it's brightness, not luminance. There's a significant difference! Brightness is a human perceptual attribute. Luminance (Luminosity) is a measure of the total radiant energy from a body. It has nothing to do with what a human observer perceives but rather describes the total radiant energy, such as watts/second of a source (the surface of a radiating object like a display). Brightness is the perception of Luminance.
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1575 Posts
  • 535 Reply Likes
BTW- Make sure you are using the latest DPE 1.0.0.47 version available below. The older .46 version has issues with the color matrices controls (and others?) when editing profiles for cameras released after Sept. 2014. From inside DPE go to Help> About:


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

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

Andrew Rodney

  • 818 Posts
  • 163 Reply Likes
I downloaded from your link, compared to what I had on the Mac, and this is very odd! 

My copy is to the LEFT, the download to the right. Both 1.0.
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1575 Posts
  • 535 Reply Likes
Apparently Adobe has a small non-product support team that manages things like DPE, DNG Converter, and Lens Profile Creator & Downloader. Here's what I was told:
"Sorry for the delay. Here arethe updated build for Mac and Win, we were able to manually correct the size,but the date remains as 2012"

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

71.0 MB  

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

22.0 MB

So the larger file download at the new links are the latest version .47 installer. From inside DPE go to Help> About to see what version you currently have installed. Not sure what they changed, but the new installer is much larger. I discovered the issue with the older version when trying to make adjustments to the Color Matrices 'Saturation' controls. Even a small setting of  Saturation = 1 caused the preview to become over-saturated. Like I said this is only with the newer camera profiles created after Sept. 2014. If your camera model (5D MKII) was released prior to that date all is well inside DPE.

As an FYI the Lens Profile Downloader is missing in action. The links were broken and I was told they were having "trouble" getting them to work so they simply removed everything. This is the main page for these tools:

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/digital-negative.html
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Thanks Todd. I am not angry but I feel colour management takes too much time compared to time shooting :-) Especially when considering the marginal improvement. But I guess it is part of the fun.

BTW, I uploaded the pictures from my week in Ghana here if you guys want to have a look! http://www.marioadario-photography.net/Ghana/

I am using v47. I created a new set of profiles (single and dual illuminant) starting from the Camera Standard profile as base profile (tone curve as base profile). 
Here they are:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2cxqcpjcdnb82i/DPE%20CS%20A7R%20III.dcp?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2iekripa4pgp7xu/DPE%20Dual%20CS%20A7R%20III.dcp?dl=0

I am not entirely sure whether I created the dual one in the correct way: when I load the first pic I change base profile to CS from Adobe Standard, then create the first color table, then I load the second pic, at this point the base profile dropdown menu says "colorchecker", I switched this back to CS before creating the second color table. Is this right or shall I leave it on "color checker"?

Also wanted to be 100% sure that after creating the table you can export the profile directly, without the need to save the recipe first. 

Profiles so created seem to be more pleasing than the ones starting from Adobe Standard. What do you guys think?
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Thanks Todd. I am not angry but I feel colour management takes too much time compared to time shooting :-) Especially when considering the marginal improvement. But I guess it is part of the fun.

BTW, I uploaded the pictures from my week in Ghana here if you guys want to have a look! http://www.marioadario-photography.net/Ghana/

I am using v47. I created a new set of profiles (single and dual illuminant) starting from the Camera Standard profile as base profile (tone curve as base profile). 
Here they are:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2cxqcpjcdnb82i/DPE%20CS%20A7R%20III.dcp?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2iekripa4pgp7xu/DPE%20Dual%20CS%20A7R%20III.dcp?dl=0

I am not entirely sure whether I created the dual one in the correct way: when I load the first pic I change base profile to CS from Adobe Standard, then create the first color table, then I load the second pic, at this point the base profile dropdown menu says "colorchecker", I switched this back to CS before creating the second color table. Is this right or shall I leave it on "color checker"?

Also wanted to be 100% sure that after creating the table you can export the profile directly, without the need to save the recipe first. 

Profiles so created seem to be more pleasing than the ones starting from Adobe Standard. What do you guys think?
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1575 Posts
  • 535 Reply Likes
Your procedure is correct as you've described, but you can open both the CCPP Daylight and Tungsten DNG files in DPE at the same time. There's no need to create separate Daylight or Tungsten camera profiles. A single dual-illuminant profile will provide the best results under those lighting conditions and "mixed" Daylight + Tungsten lighting.

1) Select the Tungsten file and assign the target camera profile in the 'Base Profile' selector. In the Chart panel align the four color dots, in step 3 select '2850K Only' and create the 1st Color Table.

As you've observed the Base Profile selector is fixed with the 'ColorChecker' setting when you now select the Daylight DNG file. I believe this is a bug and using Edit> Clear Color Adjustments or Clear ALL Adjustments and in the Chart panel does not change it. Normally when you open a DNG file in DPE the embedded WB setting and camera profile is automatically loaded and appears in the Base Profile selector. You'll need to manually select the target Base Profile.

2) Select the Daylight file and assign the target camera profile in the 'Base Profile' selector. In the Chart panel align the four color dots, set Daylight '6500K Only' in step 3 and create the 2nd Color Table.

3) Use CTRL + E to export the camera profile to the User Camera Profiles folder giving it a unique descriptive name. Optionally you also save the recipe to another folder for future use. I suggest doing this so you can go back later and add changes using the Tone Curve or Color Matrices panel without having to run the ColorChecker again.

For more details download the PDF tutorial here:

https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/cs6/DNGProfile_EditorDocumentation...

Profiles so created seem to be more pleasing than the ones starting from Adobe Standard. What do you guys think?
IMHO-The DPE dual-illuminant camera profile with Camera Standard base profile appears the best and has the most accurate colors. Good job!
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Yes, maybe there is a misunderstanding, I did not create separate Daylight and Tungsten, I was talking about the procedure to create dual illuminant (but if you mean the "pairs" I have linked, one is daylight and the other is Dual Illuminant).

What I did is exactly what you described. With one difference, you say:

"As you've observed the Base Profile selector is fixed with the 'ColorChecker' setting when you now select the Daylight DNG file. I believe this is a bug and using Edit> Clear Color Adjustments or Clear ALL Adjustments and in the Chart panel does not change it."

In my case ColorChecker is not fixed in the base profile menu, I just replace it with the Camera Standard option when building the second table.

Anyway I tried to build another one leaving base profile on "ColorChecker" instead of CS and to me looks identical?

Have a look
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cmqo3z5wzvv3rlo/DPE%20CS%20II%20A7R%20III.dcp?dl=0

I agree with you that the result is pretty good, no yellow cast and good color accuracy. I think X-Rite Dual and this modified CS will be my go-to options to start with. X-Rite if I want something more punchy, mod CS if I want something more subtle. 
I have noticed that X-Rite Dual does a terrible job (yellow cast) on the colorcheker shot in tungsten light (file ending "...001"). Any idea?

What about tone curve, is "Camera Raw default" an improvement over "Base Profile"?


BTW I am still puzzled that X-Rite and DPE will render colours so differently in the very same target pic.


PS My CC Passport is very clunky, very stiff, feels like I have to brake it to open it, same with yours?
 
(Edited)
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1575 Posts
  • 535 Reply Likes
What I meant is that you don't need to create a separate 'Daylight' OR 'Tungsten' camera profile. The dual-illuminant Daylight/Tungsten camera profile "automatically" switches between the two tables based on the LR or ACR WB setting. Scroll down to Adobe Engineer 'madmanchan's' reply here:

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=43733.0

Anyway I tried to build another one leaving base profile on "ColorChecker" instead of CS and to me looks identical?
Good to know it doesn't matter. I checked both of your profiles (CS and CS II) are they look identical when applied to the Tungsten and Daylight CCPP image files.

What about tone curve, is "Camera Raw default" an improvement over "Base Profile"?
In the DPE Tone Curve panel check 'Show Base Tone Curve' and compare it to the 'Camera Raw Default,' which is what Adobe Standard uses. You can create a dual-iluminant DPE Camera Standard profile with the 'Camera Raw Default' setting. It will have lower contrast, which may be useful with some images.

BTW I am still puzzled that X-Rite and DPE will render colours so differently in the very same target pic.
I see the exact same X-Rite camera profile rendering with all my cameras in the Tungsten CCPP test shots. The X-Rite camera profiles are not twisted, which may be causing the difference with lower color temperature lighting. That's why I said, "When things don't look quite right" I use the Adobe Standard profile. It seems to work better with non-Daylight lighting (Tungsten, Fluorescent, Mercury Vapor, Purple UV). Also consider the Camera Faithful & Neutral profile to tone-down high-contrast shots. That's why it's also useful to create a custom Adobe Standard Legacy profile with a moderate 'S' Tone curve and Color Matrices Saturation boost. The DPE Tutorial has examples for both.

PS My CC Passport is very clunky, very stiff, feels like I have to brake it to open it, same with yours?
Same here with both of my CCPPs. Open carefully and try not to touch the chart patches. ;.)
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Thanks Todd, very helpful.

Ok, I understand what you mean. I created a profile for Daylight and one Dual Illuminant out of curiosity, to compare results. While in the case of X-Rite there is no difference when rendering the daylight shot, in the case of the Adobe profiles I do see a difference in the blues, quite subtle. Your experience is different?

Regarding the tone curve tab, I guess the profiles I created starting from Adobe Standard as base profile (and not Camera Standard) already have the Camera Raw Default curve incorporated even though the tone curve setting was on "Base Profile" because as you say that is what adobe standard uses so I already have them.
A third possibility would be to use CS base profile + Camera Raw default tone curve. But at that point probably will look identical to AS base + base tone curve?  
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1575 Posts
  • 535 Reply Likes
While in the case of X-Rite there is no difference when rendering the daylight shot, in the case of the Adobe profiles I do see a difference in the blues, quite subtle.
This is as expected and explained by Adobe Engineer at the link I provided.

Dual Illuminant Profile Characteristics

Interpolates between the two tables based on your white balance setting. Specific method is inverse correlated color temperature. See DNG Specification if you wish to see the details & mathematics.

Improved color reproduction over a wider range of scenes. Degree of improvement depends on the camera model. If the scene lighting conditions (e.g., office fluorescent) varies greatly from the two illuminants used to build the profile (e.g., Solux bulb and natural cloudy daylight) then all bets are off. You will get something "ok" but results will be better under the unusual lighting condition by building a profile for that condition.

It's not the shooting temperature that matters, but the spectrum of the illumination. This is more complex and not easily measurable. General advice: if you tend to photograph under daylight, not worth building profile for each flavor of daylight, regardless of the color temp. There will be minor variations between ~D50 and ~D75 lighting (roughly 5000 K and 7500 K CCT) but this tends to get eliminated once WB is considered. If you photograph under unusual artifical lighting often, consider building a profile for that lighting.

A third possibility would be to use CS base profile + Camera Raw default tone curve. But at that point probably will look identical to AS base + base tone curve
No. The CS profile has different color matrices values than AS, which have higher color saturation.
Photo of Cameron Rad

Cameron Rad

  • 161 Posts
  • 48 Reply Likes
I'm surprised this topic is still going...

Here's a generic dual illuminant profile I made. It's not meant to match camera standard or anything and I can't promise it'll work right for you or your specific camera 
 http://cloud.cameronrad.com/p8BV/download/RAD%20-%20Generic.zip
(Edited)
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Well, just playing with the profiles and comparing differences...

Thanks, for the profile, what software did you use to build it?
Photo of Cameron Rad

Cameron Rad

  • 161 Posts
  • 48 Reply Likes
Lumariver Profile Designer
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1576 Posts
  • 535 Reply Likes
I've just discovered the root cause of the Sony A7R III camera profile rendering issues:

https://forums.adobe.com/message/10263842#10263842

It appears Adobe used a pre-production camera to create the Sony A7R III camera profiles. Apparently Sony made available a number of these cameras for test purposes with firmware v0.01. Images shot with these cameras look fine with the Adobe created camera profiles:

http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/sony_a7r_iii_photos

Production cameras with firmware version 1.0 or the later 1.0.1 version exhibit the rendering issues being discussed here.
(Edited)
Photo of Mario Adario

Mario Adario

  • 85 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Interesting. Hopefully Adobe will fix it once for all. Seems Eric Chan is on it.
Photo of Chris Hase

Chris Hase

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Could someone please clarify if this color rendering issue has been fixed in a software patch yet, as currently thinking of purchasing Lightroom...?
Thanks,
Photo of Johan Elzenga

Johan Elzenga, Champion

  • 2269 Posts
  • 939 Reply Likes
This is just one particular profile that is/was off. Other profiles for the A7III are fine. I have this camera and I love the Adobe Landscape colors. No reason to base your decision on one profile.
Photo of Chris Hase

Chris Hase

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
ok thanks for that, I'll be using the a7R III so I'll have to give it think i spose.
Photo of Guilherme Escosteguy

Guilherme Escosteguy

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
I ́m still struggling with this issue.
My images present a yellow/greenish tint in the middle to dark tones, specialy visible in skin tones.
Also the color transitions in dark areas of the skin present an abrupt color change in certain tones oversaturating the yellow to orange tones and crating very strange artifacts in the blue chanel. The highlights and small specular whites are never clean of yellows making the hair look awfull...
Mosto of the time people I photograph looks like a Simposon character and trying to solve this with camera calibration just mess with any other color in the scene.
Adobe profiles are terrible, but the Camera matching ones are way worse.

In Capture One I tried other camera profiles and had better results with Canon 1Dx profile anda with Adobe DNG colorspace with bumped saturation adjustments.