PDA

View Full Version : Adobe Camera Profiles



Visual Reality
10-14-2008, 07:33 PM
I've had some discussion lately about the RAW conversion between the later versions of ACR vs Capture NX.

I did some more digging and found that Adobe has released what they call "Camera Profiles" and initial reports say images in ACR appear nearly identical to CNX - which many people say they preferred the look of.

Might be worth investigating:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikon_d300_users/discuss/72157606654169378/

http://blogs.oreilly.com/lightroom/2008/08/adobe-camera-profiles-and-ligh.html

http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles


So, what exactly is this thing?

In simple words - This is adobe’s take on coming up with better camera profiles for Nikon and Canon cameras. If you own a recent DSLR from either of these two manufacturers, Adobe has created camera profiles that are really excellent. In fact, if you have a Nikon camera - this is about as close as you can get to Capture NX standards using Adobe’s Lightroom or Bridge.

http://www.8thcross.com/blog/?p=346

achuang
10-14-2008, 08:08 PM
This looks interesting, I'm going to try it out. I've always wondered how different (or better) capture NX conversions are to ACR.

K1W1
10-14-2008, 08:20 PM
I have been playing with them in Lightroom 2.
They are certainly an improvement in reds in particular.

achuang
10-14-2008, 08:22 PM
Just installed it for ACR and it looks like a nice variety of profiles. Not sure which one to use though, I have no idea which one is most similar to the output of NX since I don't have NX. Anyone got any suggestions?

K1W1
10-14-2008, 08:35 PM
Adobe say to use the D2x profiles as the default for Nikon cameras.

accord2003
10-14-2008, 09:05 PM
I am certainly not an expert on PP. I tried the profiles. Initially I like the output. As KIWI indicated, the reds were much better. After a while though, I went back to ViewNX. I have been converting the RAW to TIFF. I imported the TIFF into lightroom. I find the colours were much better. I am not sure if there is a difference between Capture and View though

just my 2c.

Rooz
10-14-2008, 09:09 PM
ACR wont import your RAW settings though will it ? for me thats important cos it saves alot of PP time.

Visual Reality
10-14-2008, 09:13 PM
No it won't, that's Nikon language and Nikon doesn't share that information...

So far I hear the reds are better. Define better - because Capture NX tended to overdo the reds for me, and upon looking it up further, other people noticed it as well.

So are you guys saying the reds now match Nikon's software? Is that good or bad? Because I can play with Vibrance and Saturation all I want in ACR and I really doubt I couldn't get the same result with a little change to a slider, but I have yet to try these.

I save PP time by creating batch actions. My resize and smart sharpening (which CNX can't match) are part of a batch and I just que up all my pictures and do something else while they are resized, sharpened, bordered/watermarked (optional) and saved as high quality JPEGs.

K1W1
10-14-2008, 09:16 PM
The new camera profiles that Adobe have do a much better job at interpreting the RAW data than the old generic ACR settings. Theoretically with the Profile loaded in Lightroom you will be able to open a RAW image and see the real image just like in Capture rather than what happened in the past when you saw the nice jpeg version first then the sometimes yukky interpretation of the RAW image.
For us Lightroom users it's a big improvement. If you are a dedicated Capture NX person it may not be enough to convince you to go to Lightroom - yet.

accord2003
10-14-2008, 09:19 PM
VR

This person did a demo on how the reds were better. hope it helps.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3UM4D88P5W9EV

Visual Reality
10-14-2008, 09:21 PM
See in ACR I have never had trouble with my shots. I convert them to DNG since they are smaller and there are no sidecar files. And yes, pixel peeping shows the NEF and DNG to be 100% identical down to the pixel.

I've never had a problem with the quality and the images look very natural and accurate to what I saw, more so than CNX. I haven't tried NX2 though.

Visual Reality
10-14-2008, 09:23 PM
VR

This person did a demo on how the reds were better. hope it helps.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3UM4D88P5W9EV
Thanks, that's quite a difference in that example. I'd like to see more.

Rooz
10-14-2008, 09:39 PM
I've never had a problem with the quality and the images look very natural and accurate to what I saw, more so than CNX.

and the reverse is true for me. i've never been happy with the PS interpretations of my files, nor can i get the quality output with PS that i can with NX. and its nowhere near as fast for me to make localised adustments, and it doesnt have U-Point.

and they cant read the info i shoot with so thats more time. then theres a bunch of converting and all sorts of other stuff that just adds to time and workflow. i dont want to sit there moving sliders around and all sorts of other stuff. i just want to open, possibly tweak a little then save. end of story. if i do a shoot and everything off in a certain area, i make the changes i want to one shot, save that change and run batch process on every photo. easy.

i think its just time you let it go VR. :)

wannabe
10-15-2008, 06:57 AM
Are these profiles only available with LR 2?

Turo
10-15-2008, 08:28 AM
Are these profiles only available with LR 2?

Well the link says it is for sure with Lightroom and Camera Raw. I believe Camera Raw is used by Photoshop, so these profiles could be used in photoshop also. I'm not a photoshop user though (not yet anyways, looking forward to CS4 :cool:), so someone correct me if I am wrong.

Visual Reality
10-15-2008, 02:02 PM
and the reverse is true for me. i've never been happy with the PS interpretations of my files, nor can i get the quality output with PS that i can with NX. and its nowhere near as fast for me to make localised adustments, and it doesnt have U-Point.

and they cant read the info i shoot with so thats more time. then theres a bunch of converting and all sorts of other stuff that just adds to time and workflow. i dont want to sit there moving sliders around and all sorts of other stuff. i just want to open, possibly tweak a little then save. end of story. if i do a shoot and everything off in a certain area, i make the changes i want to one shot, save that change and run batch process on every photo. easy.

i think its just time you let it go VR. :)
Let go of what? My workflow in CS3? Hellllllll no :eek:

I'm gonna try the profile though and get these "better results" from CNX that everyone talks about.

Visual Reality
10-15-2008, 03:37 PM
Added another link:

http://blogs.oreilly.com/lightroom/2008/08/adobe-camera-profiles-and-ligh.html

K1W1
10-15-2008, 03:41 PM
Are these profiles only available with LR 2?

Yes.
You just download the profiles from Adobe and install them (the file does that automatically when you run it) and when you edit a RAW image in LR2 the profiles are available in the editor down on the panel on the right under camera Calibration

Start at this link. (http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles)

Visual Reality
10-19-2008, 05:57 PM
So far, my thoughts are mixed. While some photos look better with Adobe Standard Beta 1, most photos look better with my original ACR 4.4, as far as recreating accurate color on different types of clothing, plants, and animals. I don't want to have to tweak each one individually, but I wasn't able to settle on one being a new standard for me.

Adobe Standard Beta 1 is the closest by far, but it seems too heavy on the red/magenta and can have a negative effect on skin tones in a lot of my images, even after trying to play with WB and other things to compensate.

Reds and Blues in general are handled better, some some images are just plain wrong which is preventing me from applying this as a preset for newly imported images.

Anyone else notice the same?

K1W1
10-19-2008, 08:06 PM
Anyone else notice the same?

I'm still fiddling. I agree that different profiles seem to work better with different images which is a bit of a worry. I was like you hoping that there would be one profile that could be applied that would effectively make LR2 into NX2 but that's not going to happen.

Visual Reality
10-19-2008, 08:54 PM
So far, zoo animals are a no go, sticking with ACR. Some animals are changing fur colors with these presets...for example yellows are turning orangish and pink flamingo wings are turning red.

Indoors, generally sticking with ACR. The other presets are trying to make wood furniture the wrong color (too brown or too dark).

Outdoors, people, clothes, generally prefer Adobe Standard Beta 1. I've shot a couple of city runs recently (10k, 5k) that my girlfriend has run in - this is an instance where I've found an improvement.

Haven't tested landscapes - trees, grass, sky so that is still up in the air.

I had trouble with a bar scene also.

Still experimenting and there always exceptions to these which is making things difficult to define standards for.

cdifoto
10-19-2008, 09:32 PM
Try the D2X profiles further down the list. I don't use any of the Adobe profiles anymore...I use Camera Neutral most of the time, which is what Adobe called the Neutral profile for Canon. It renders everything "normal" - ie pretty close to reality - when the white balance is correct.

jcon
10-19-2008, 09:34 PM
Anyone try CS4 yet? Ive been playing with it and I think its pretty sweet!

Visual Reality
10-20-2008, 03:55 AM
Try the D2X profiles further down the list. I don't use any of the Adobe profiles anymore...I use Camera Neutral most of the time, which is what Adobe called the Neutral profile for Canon. It renders everything "normal" - ie pretty close to reality - when the white balance is correct.
The D2X modes I didn't like at all. They are Standard, Neutral, and Vivid in that order (Mode 1, 2, 3). They give unpredictable results...sometimes lightening an image dramatically, while darkening others. I have to play around with it more still, last light was my first chance with it. Also messing with LR2...what an adventure that is...

cdifoto
10-20-2008, 04:48 AM
The D2X modes I didn't like at all. They are Standard, Neutral, and Vivid in that order (Mode 1, 2, 3). They give unpredictable results...sometimes lightening an image dramatically, while darkening others. I have to play around with it more still, last light was my first chance with it. Also messing with LR2...what an adventure that is...
That's odd. On my Canon side of it, Neutral does a wonderful job, IMHO.

Visual Reality
02-14-2009, 12:55 PM
Just wanted to return to this thread and after much more time with it I realized that it really depended on what camera I used. With the D80 the results were hit and miss. However with the D300 I am getting excellent results. For people I sometimes switch to Camera Portrait which does some magic with enhancing skin tones but darkening most everything else, giving a contrast only to the person though it is a very subtle shift. It is just enough for that slight portrait pop.

The D2X modes are useless to me. I only use Camera Neutral, Camera Standard and Camera Portrait and I have images on my screen that are 98% the same as what is on my camera LCD. It gives the perfect starting point for every image depending what it contains.

On my D300 I am using a Neutral color mode and Active D on Normal, so this may or may not have an effect on my RAW files in Lightroom.

Also noticed that these profiles handle highlights much better. I always had a lot of blown highlights before and couldn't figure out what the heck I was doing wrong, figured the camera just overexposed all the time. Well, it was the default Adobe ACR profile causing the problems and after switching to Camera Neutral I have much better color, shadows, and highlights. It's wierd having a picture with blown highlights, and simply switching the profile and watching the blown areas disappear.

So, everything I said before is null and void. The camera profiles are essential to good results in Adobe programs.

These profiles were included in Lightroom 2 by default starting with 2.2.

K1W1
02-14-2009, 01:38 PM
I love them they have converted me back to RAW.
I must admit to using the camera vivid on more then one occasion as a way of boosting the sky.
I'm not sure whether you are aware but Release Candidate 2.3 is available for download. It's been getting very good reports and Adobe seem to have fixed the memory leaks when using the local adjustment brushes. I haven't downloaded the RC but I'm eagerly awaiting the public release which can't be far away.

Visual Reality
02-14-2009, 02:16 PM
Vibrance is an excellent way to boost the sky, and won't affect the rest of your image as much as changing profiles, maybe give that a try. I almost always use that as its much safter than Saturation.