Camera Raw/Lightroom: Canon 6D Camera Calibration Profiles are different from results when raw is processed into jpeg in camera

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 5 years ago
  • (Edited)
Canon 6D Camera Calibration Profiles are different from results when raw is processed into jpeg in camera or in Digital Photo Professional software.
Results in Lightroom 5.3 should provide the same result and be consistent.

For example Camera Potrait profile is more reddish than result from camera or Canon's software.
Photo of Trek

Trek

  • 6 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like

Posted 5 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2657 Posts
  • 341 Reply Likes
The results will never be identical between the camera manufacturer and Adobe because they are separate corporate entities and have proprietary methods for doing things that they don't share with others. Canon is a Japanese company and Adobe is a USA company.

While the sensor data and the As Shot white-balance data is the same, the precise colors you see either from Canon or Adobe are determined by a camera profile and some mathematical formulas which convert the sensor photon counts into a range of numbers that are more consistent with how the human eye sees things. This camera profile and some of the math are proprietary and different for each raw converter.

You might just as well post on Canon's forums that the way the 6D converts colors is different than default settings in Adobe products and you expect Canon to issue a firmware update that makes your camera identical to Lightroom. Unlikely, right?
Photo of Trek

Trek

  • 6 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Thanks for comment. I respectfully do not agree. If conversion is not the same then it should not be called Camera Faithful, Camera Portrait, etc. in Lightroom, it should be called Adobe Faithful, Adobe Portrait.

I expect either Adobe contacts Canon and obtain parameters to reproduce conversion exactly the same as in camera and Canon's software or rename profiles in Lightroom to not to be misleading. Nothing difficult here.
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2657 Posts
  • 341 Reply Likes
Adobe Camera-match profiles approximately simulate, but cannot replicate the camera modes.

Sure Adobe could add another word or phrase in each profile's name like "similar to" (i.e. "Camera Similar To Portrait") but that would just make the profile name longer.

It is not a case of Adobe contacting Canon (or Canon contacting Adobe), the methods used to convert raw data to RGB data are the intellectual property of each company and the camera profiles each manufacturer's software use are particular to their different methods. In other words Canon cannot send Adobe their camera profile and Adobe produce identical results because the underlying formulas are different. Even if Canon told Adobe their underlying methods, there are many others camera manufacturers and dozens of camera models from each. Adobe is not attempting to be a conglomeration of all camera manufacturer's methods, it is trying to do the same thing for each camera with their own methods.

Imagine a sports magazine (SI) or a travel magazine (NG) or a large multi-photographer photography business, where different photographers have different models and brands of cameras. What do you think happens after and especially during the Superbowl or the World Cup when thousands of images come into Sport Illustrated's photo department on the way to their website within minutes. They need to be able to run scripts and process images in an automated way, with special attention only to selected images. If Adobe was processing each camera in a different way this would be much more difficult even with 100% cooperation from each camera manufacturer, and Adobe is not interested in doing this.

You might think that using Adobe Standard is how to do things the same for each camera model and the camera-match profiles are the way to do things the same as each camera does them, and while that is approximately true, it is not possible to do perfectly, due to the different methods each camera uses to process the raw data. Adobe only has one way to process the raw data across all cameras, and having different camera match profiles on top of the same processing method across all cameras is the closest Adobe can come to simulating individual camera processing.

Here is an article about the camera-match profiles written in Dec 2008 when the profiles were first introduced:
http://blogs.oreilly.com/lightroom/20...
Photo of Trek

Trek

  • 6 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I disagree with you in all points.

Profile names do not need to be longer, e.g. instead Camera Portrait there can be Adobe Portrait.

Canon's raw format is also proptietary so theoretically Adobe should not manipulate Cannon's raw files, but Adobe is, so they can communicate conversion method too.

How do you know, that formulas are different? They are proprietary, so you can know this only if you worked in Canon and Adobe. How do you know what methods are using other manufacturers?

How you know what Adobe is interested in or not? Are you Adobe representative, so you can claim that Adobe is not interested in processing camera in some way? Is this official statement?

How do you know that Adobe Standard does things the same for each camera model? Are you programmer of Adobe camera raw? What is "the same"? Same algorithm with different parameters, same method, module, library?

There is nothing special about article.

It would be nice, if you clarified your position, origin and experience, because you write like you should be authority, are you Adobe representative?
Support your claims please with technical documentation, references, sources.

From my point of view conversion should be the same as Canon's, they should communicate this, license it if necessary, make new code modules, I do not care how they do it, but they should to maintain consistency and trustability in raw conversion methods with those profiles named as "Camera".
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2657 Posts
  • 341 Reply Likes
The underlying algorithm for all cameras that Adobe supports is the same, it is only some parameters, including the camera profile that are different.

Each camera can have a different algorithm in the camera firmware to optimize for that camera's capabilities and optimize marketing potential.

Adobe Portrait would suggest it is something Adobe is doing the same for each camera, which it is not. Camera Portrait indicates it is more like what the individual camera does and not the same from one camera's raw to the next when processed in Adobe products.

The article explains the rationale for what the Camera-match profiles were created for, and it does not say that they are for exactly replicating what each camera manufacturer does.

Neither Adobe nor forum users are responsible for your happiness. Think whatever unrealistic thoughts you want to make yourself feel better about what should have been a minor confusion that has been more than adequately explained.
Photo of Trek

Trek

  • 6 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
It is up to Adobe to decide whether my issue reporting is unrealistic or not. I am reporting Lightroom software issue where profiles differ too much from what is applied in camera. Adobe either accepts or rejects this issue, simple.

It is true that in manual Adobe writes: "These profiles attempt to match the camera manufacturer’s color appearance under specific settings." However in case of Canon 6D discrepancy is too high so these profiles should be adjusted.
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2657 Posts
  • 341 Reply Likes
Asking for Adobe to more closely match in-camera treatments is a more realistic request.

Can you provide specific examples of where the conversion is not working well, including the raw photos, and perhaps side-by-side screenshots that show the discrepancy.