I Love Adobe Standard Profile

  • 1
  • Praise
  • Updated 4 years ago
While its still a little magenta-y sometimes for my tastes (I frequently knock 5 to 10 off the tint when using it), there are some things it seems consistently better at than the other profiles. One of those things is highlight rendering. And since the D300 version of it no longer has the hue shifts of old when using highlight recovery, it has become my most frequently used color profile.

Here is a comparison of a simple sunset shot with two different profiles (Nikon D300):

Adobe Standard:

Note: Gorgeous color gradations extending from the sun.

ACR 4.4:

Note: Don't have words to describe...

PS - These shots are using Adobe factory defaults. Other than camera profile, there is no difference between them.

Highlight rendering results were similar for Nikon camera profiles, in Lightroom and NX2.

PS - Adobe Standard is also the only profile I can get true reds from. Nikon reds are always orangy compared to real life (in Lightroom and NX2), ditto for ACR-4.4.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 387 Reply Likes
  • getting happier all the time with Lightroom image quality!

Posted 8 years ago

  • 1
Photo of sizzlingbadger

sizzlingbadger

  • 31 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I took the Adobe Standard profile and changed it slightly and now use it all the time. I have tried many custom & canned profiles but this one seems to be the best now.

I used the DNG Editor to modify the Color Matrices:-

+5 Red Hue
+10 Blue Hue

fixes the magenta issue...

I reduced the tone curve in the highlight areas as it was too bright in my opinion. You can grab the profiles from here for the D300 & D700.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 387 Reply Likes
First impression of modified D300 profile: Niiiiiiiiiiice... - thanks for sharing.
Photo of sizzlingbadger

sizzlingbadger

  • 31 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thanks, I don't like Nikon's "orange" reds either.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 387 Reply Likes
SizzlingBadger - I used your modified AdobeStandard again today, here's example:

Adobe Standard (courtesty sizzlingbadger): Edited to taste, but As-shot white balance:

Note: No pinky/magenta-y look, and not so bright.

Adobe Standard (factory default): same as previous (including As-shot white balance):


Conclusion:
----------------
When using the factory default version of Adobe Standard profile, I often have to knock 5 or 10 from white balance. sizzlingbadger has corrected that problem using the DNG profile editor. Most photos look better this way using as-shot white balance. Also, brightness has been attenuated as a personal preference. This may or may not need to be adjusted on a per photo basis, but more often than not will go better with the default brightness of 50, in my opinion as well.

What do you think?
Photo of sizzlingbadger

sizzlingbadger

  • 31 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thanks for the feedback,
I based the tone curve reduction on the Camera Standard profile with brightness at 50 as that was less prone to blowing out highlight areas which I preferred. Skin tones look more natural with this profile. I also find skies look less cyan and more natural. Even though the adjustments are quite simple it took a long time to find a balance that worked with many photos.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 387 Reply Likes
I've checked out the blues a bit too now - they seem truer - knocks the aqua edge off.
Photo of sizzlingbadger

sizzlingbadger

  • 31 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Here are the adjustments for anyone that wants to create their own profile. You have to start with Adobe Standard selected in the first tab Color Tables.



Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 386 Reply Likes
Thank you.

The dip in the tone curve does tend to preserve more "visible info" in the top-end.

I've previously accomplished similar color objectives by adjusting white balance (and HSL and camera calib and split-toning...), but its nice to have a color profile that has it closer to right to begin with, and have the colors be more consistent with other profiles that one might try or prefer for a given photo (so one doesn't have to adjust white balance when switching profiles, for example)

I've accomplished similar tone objectives by lowering brightness and increasing fill. But its nice to have more detail in the top end to begin with, and have tone a little more normalized to the other profiles, for comparison purposes and possible switching...

PS - definitely notice improved skin tones too (at default wb/color settings...)

PPS - I've only scoped out the blues briefly, but it seems they may be a bit truer, taking the aqua/cyan edge off.

Good job - and thanks again.
Rob
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 386 Reply Likes
It seems the same results can be obtained in Lr proper using camera calibration section and ordinary tone curve - is it just for logistical reasons why to have it as a stored profile vs. a preset, or are there subtleties of effect I'm missing?
Photo of sizzlingbadger

sizzlingbadger

  • 31 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I just like my standard starting point to be at zero ;-)
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 386 Reply Likes
Gotcha. I worked with it enough to convince myself that the end results were the same in either case, so whether done via DNG profile editor or presets is a matter of personal choice.

Thanks again - I do like to be able to start with colors being fairly accurate. *Then* if I decide to get creative, I may tweak color for effect (or choose a different profile)... With your profile I have all the benefits that are built into the Adobe Standard profile, but it creates more accurate color than the factory default, as I experience it.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 386 Reply Likes
What does the 'NP' stand for? - not knowing is driving me crazy ;-}?
Photo of sizzlingbadger

sizzlingbadger

  • 31 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
My initials
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 386 Reply Likes
OK - you don't have to answer, but I have to ask: "What is your name?"
Photo of sizzlingbadger

sizzlingbadger

  • 31 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Nik Player
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 386 Reply Likes
Ah. I think I have one of your profiles from a couple years back called "Nik's Default" or something like that. - cheers...
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 387 Reply Likes
My conclusions (as experienced with Nikon D300 version only):

- Adobe Standard has improved a great deal in this last year or two.

- Problems with highlight rendering that are plastered all over the web have mostly (if not entirely) been resolved.

- If you like your reds really red, as opposed to Nikon's warmer orange-y reds (I don't always, but I like having the option), then Adobe Standard may be required (or some extra color adjustment work).

- Adobe Standard sometimes leans too far into the reds, often resulting in a pink/red/magenta cast. But its correctable, and once corrected often results in some very nice color rendering.

- Brighter at the top end than the camera matching profiles - this is sometimes a good thing, or may require some compensation, either in a "permanent" fashion via DNG profile editor, and/or on a photo by photo basis.

Final Notes:
=========

Taking my cue from sizzlingbadger, I have opted for defining default settings that use a preset instead of custom camera calibration profile (if camera profile editor were integrated with Lightroom, I may have gone the other way) with the following camera calibration settings:

- Adobe Standard (factory default)
- Red Hue +5 (takes the edge off the magenta cast)
- Blue Hue +10 (works with the change to red hue to make for more natural skin tones, etc., and reduce aqua/cyan casts).

Reds this way are red, not too orangy like Nikon reds, and not too magenta-y like Adobe Standard (factory default) reds. Skin tones are more natural, browns look brown instead of red-orange brown, blues & purples are more accurate, etc...

I opted to leave the tone curve alone by default, which results in a brighter more contrastier look at the expense of detail loss in the top end. I made a tone-curve preset that mimicks sizzlingbadgers tone curve mods in his custom profile, in case I want to favor highlight preservation and a lower-key look over mid-tone contrast and brightness.

I highly recommend checking out these color mods if you use a D300 (can't speak for the other versions) - they are better almost without exception than the default profile, in my opinion. Tonal mods really depend on the photo and the desired look.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 387 Reply Likes
sizzlingbadger - would you mind posting the recipes too? (dcpr files) - reason available upon request...
Photo of sizzlingbadger

sizzlingbadger

  • 31 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 387 Reply Likes
Thank you :-)
Photo of Paul Beckwith

Paul Beckwith

  • 58 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I've noticed Adobe Standard in it's starting point, has a lot more black clipping for my camera (Nikon D3100) than say compared to 'Camera Neutral/Standard etc. Using the contrast slider pushes a lot more tones into black clipping too. It's really noticable if i instead use Camera Neutral etc to compare and see hardly any black clipping.

Is there a reasoning behind this? Is this common for Adobe Standard for all cameras to have this black clipping and over contrasty problem ? Is there a technique used to counter this?

I have to use Adobe Standard for my camera in Lightroom 4.4 as the non Adobe Standard profiles have faulty white balance tables that will give issues when I eventually upgrade to a corrected Lightroom 6.

Thanks