aolander
Well-known member
Most certainly are. What does it say next to "Profile" in the Basics panel of the Development Module?
Why process image files? Here's why...
- Thread starter Viathelens
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
The camera profiles are a must in Lightroom. You have to choose Adobe color or Adobe standard or whatever. If you click the four square menu to the right of the profiles you can browse to see if they offer a camera matching profile to simulate the look of the in-camera picture styles. It will say camera standard or whatever. Here is a list of which cameras have camera matching. Mine doesnt. Some reason they aren't doing recent Canon. Nikon d850 and other Nikons do have it.
If you use color checker passport the result appears as a profile in Lightroom. For similar Spyderchecker you don't get a profile but rather a preset that impacts the HSL sliders. Either way you get color true to the color patch card they provide.
Nikon has picture controls. Neutral, STANDARD, vivid, and a few more. Neutral is as little processing as you can get I believe. There is no way I know to turn picture controls off. They affect every raw file you take. I have no experience with other brands.
Since this is my thread I'm adding something that maybe pertains to the direction this discussion went with people weighing in on the the technical side instead of the art side of photography, not my intended direction but O'well. From LrC I opened PS with a RAW file to play with it. In PS I turned it BW and added some layers, did my usual save and close commands, and this very brightly colored file is what went back into LrC. It's a nice bright modern art piece! I think this image might reflect basic raw data in some way? It was not a problem as I simply put the original file (which was the brightly colored image) back into PS and there was my changed coyote image when it opened in PS: I saved it again with a new name and it popped back into LrC in the normal manner. A glitch in the RAW data conversion? The file is still a little "wonky." Kind of interesting.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
If you don't use Nikon software to convert the raw, you don't get Nikon picture control, in Lightroom you get Adobe color or Adobe standard, or Adobe's imitation of Nikon in their Camera Standard
I believe you can find and use the Nikon colour profiles supplied with Nikon NX-i to use them in other image viewers/converters. One way How to get Nikon ICM profiles .
They then need to be installed correctly for the chosen image viewer/converter, see below.
On Windows you might/should find some ICC/ICM profiles in "C:\Windows\System32\spool\drivers\color" to use, see below for NX-i selection.
Nikon NX-i for example has a help site here that lists the supplied colour profiles it can use and how to change them in NX-i.
NX-i can also use profiles not supplied, click on the down arrow of "Default RGB color space" to see the list of profiles available.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
XnViewmp has selection of the ICC or ICM profile in Settings/General/ICC, you choose the profile/s from where the files are located and the software then uses those profiles until changed.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
ART / Rawtherapee, see Preferences/Color Management, select from the list or choose your own.
Usually you can set which colour profile you wish to use for your RAW viewing, you can/should be able to set your output/print colour profile/s as well.
You might also look at NikonPC which has a number of profiles that you can test online and download.
With some software you can generate your own colour profiles to use in your chosen viewer/converter.
Apologies for the long loong post.
Palouse
Well-known member
SOOC into what? If not into a viewer or editor you can't see it; it's all 0s and 1s. ALL editors and viewers have to interpret the data because each has to interpret the data for an image to show. The same image brought into Nikon NX Studio, DxOPL4, Affinity, Fast Raw Viewer or even Mac Finder/Preview all look different because each defaults to different initial interpretations.
The image should look very similar if you select the same viewing ICC profile in each viewer/converter you use.
Palouse
Well-known member
Ah, but they don't/can't. And it's still NOT SOOC.
How so?
RAW files should look similar if the same profile is used to view the resulting image whatever the software.
I agree though that some viewers/converters cannot change the viewing ICC profile, why would one use them if that is the case?
Never suggested they are SOOC, they have been processed in some way to provide an image that is viewable, however they are viewed.
That is interesting information. How would it work in Lightroom, which uses .dcp profiles for raw conversion?
A Google search for "adobe lightroom color profiles" took me to this page which at the bottom of the page shows a "how to" for installing a color profile in Lightroom.
No mention of .dcp files there, but things may have changed since that was written.
I do not use Lightroom so cannot help with that, maybe someone who does might give you a few pointers?
gbodave
Active member
In lightroom I find I am partial to the Adobe Color profile since my camera doesn't have a camera matching profile. In Canon software I like Faithful. The most color neutral profile in lightroom would be the one from the color checker passport, that way the color of a given subject would look the same no matter which camera was used. Otherwise every camera profile looks just a little different, sometimes in a good way.
In my opinion the initial LR import profile just allows you to view the photo. Same for any raw editor. It enables you to see/cull photos. Which profile you decide to use to edit can (usually) be changed after the import depending on the software.
Some profiles will alter what you can do with a photo. For example if you use a camera profile without the usual contrast curve you will have a bit more leeway with deep shadows, but there is a major trade off in how you do further edits. I will occasionally use mine when it is a photo I really love, taken in less optimal light, that I really want to play with. It can be very time consuming and an exercise in frustration until you get the hang of it.
Camera profiles are a VERY deep rabbit hole. I understand the DNG editor just enough to get me in trouble. I know it can use recipes, but am not sure if a .dcp file is the same thing as the .dcpr file it wants.
When you open a RAW file in an editor/viewer It is RAW as you can't get it and still view it. What you see initially though is still slightly from what you would see in different raw editor. It may or may not be obvious.
Some profiles will alter what you can do with a photo. For example if you use a camera profile without the usual contrast curve you will have a bit more leeway with deep shadows, but there is a major trade off in how you do further edits. I will occasionally use mine when it is a photo I really love, taken in less optimal light, that I really want to play with. It can be very time consuming and an exercise in frustration until you get the hang of it.
Camera profiles are a VERY deep rabbit hole. I understand the DNG editor just enough to get me in trouble. I know it can use recipes, but am not sure if a .dcp file is the same thing as the .dcpr file it wants.
When you open a RAW file in an editor/viewer It is RAW as you can't get it and still view it. What you see initially though is still slightly from what you would see in different raw editor. It may or may not be obvious.
You can not view a raw file, you need to process it. Even an in the camera jpg is a processed raw file - the camera does the processing.
In LR you get the Adobe versions, but they also provide Camera matching profiles for the most common settings. You can add Camera Profiles if they are not there by default.
Camera Profiles give you the option to choose from settings similar to the Picture Controls so they are applied by default. You can choose from a large number of Camera Profiles - Flat, Neutral, Standard, Vivid, Monochrome, Portrait, Landscape or a large number of creative profiles for special effects. There are 31 Camera Profiles to choose from in LR for my Z7II.
The camera profiles for my D200 are more limited - matching the Picture Control options in that camera.
You can also create your own profiles. For example, my D600 is converted to IR, and I could create a profile with DNG profile editor and make it the default preset for that camera. It allows me to start with a WB that is different from Standard, and then further adjust WB as needed. Without the Custom Profile, the required WB adjustment is outside the range available. With the Custom Profile, I can start reasonably close and refine the WB further as needed.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Interesting. I never played with that setting or knew what it did. I always just selected me desired profile from the dropdown after import. Looks like I need to do some more learning.
O
Well-known member
There is another option that works reasonably well for overall enhancement and its all in camera, its not perfect in every case but for a lot of applications it works really well.
Here goes ...
In camera presets, up sharpening from 2 to 6, up contrast 2, up saturation 2 etc etc both these last two work well on a sightly over cast day.....
You have to play around with it a little and get it how you want it and then just shoot.
98% of what i shoot is Jpeg fine and always has been.
2% is TIFF full size. I cant remember the last time i ever shot RAW......
I only avoid using vivid at night with hi iso the colours clash a little but with lower iso it still works great im ean sub 2500 ISO.
Some times i will only bump the stauration up pr just shoot in vivid......its really worth playing with and very very handy.
I find used well that the images come out really nice and at most the images only need cropping if that as i prefer to always shoot wider than needed.
Its cut processing time by 80%, now this is not for everyone but gee it works well a lot of the time especially in the range of Z cameras.
Only an opinion
Oz down under.
Here goes ...
In camera presets, up sharpening from 2 to 6, up contrast 2, up saturation 2 etc etc both these last two work well on a sightly over cast day.....
You have to play around with it a little and get it how you want it and then just shoot.
98% of what i shoot is Jpeg fine and always has been.
2% is TIFF full size. I cant remember the last time i ever shot RAW......
I only avoid using vivid at night with hi iso the colours clash a little but with lower iso it still works great im ean sub 2500 ISO.
Some times i will only bump the stauration up pr just shoot in vivid......its really worth playing with and very very handy.
I find used well that the images come out really nice and at most the images only need cropping if that as i prefer to always shoot wider than needed.
Its cut processing time by 80%, now this is not for everyone but gee it works well a lot of the time especially in the range of Z cameras.
Only an opinion
Oz down under.
@Viathelens , @SandyW , @EricBowles , @bleirer
Interesting video posted by Andy Astbury on linear profiles for Lightroom here and about Lightroom's use of profiles and how you can make and use profiles yourself in Lightroom.
Interesting video posted by Andy Astbury on linear profiles for Lightroom here and about Lightroom's use of profiles and how you can make and use profiles yourself in Lightroom.
Last edited:
I agree with this. Back in the day when I shot slide film it was necessary to get it right in the camera. I consider it an improvement that we can now correct minor issues by using editing software. Why wouldn't you take advantage of that? Doesn't make sense to me.
kimball
Brian Kimball
Something that is ever-so-slightly missing in this discussion is that raw files are very "loosely" interpreted, while JPG files (for example) are strictly displayed.
Raw files are merely a large collection of exposure level measurements for each pixel. There's no one set of authoritative instructions for turning those data numbers into a final image. Each program does it differently. The camera does it one way. LR does it another. Capture One does it a 3rd way. And so on and so on.
JPG, on the other hand, (and HEIC, and TIFF, and etc) is much more strict about how to turn the JPG's 1s and 0s in its file into a viewable image.
Just because both are digital does not mean both have to be subjectively interpreted. One is strictly defined, the other (raw) is not really well-defined at all.
The style of conversion from raw data to visible image is left entirely to the software doing the conversion. There's no strict spec, and there can't be, because each camera has a different CFA and different sensor.
Raw files are merely a large collection of exposure level measurements for each pixel. There's no one set of authoritative instructions for turning those data numbers into a final image. Each program does it differently. The camera does it one way. LR does it another. Capture One does it a 3rd way. And so on and so on.
JPG, on the other hand, (and HEIC, and TIFF, and etc) is much more strict about how to turn the JPG's 1s and 0s in its file into a viewable image.
Just because both are digital does not mean both have to be subjectively interpreted. One is strictly defined, the other (raw) is not really well-defined at all.
The style of conversion from raw data to visible image is left entirely to the software doing the conversion. There's no strict spec, and there can't be, because each camera has a different CFA and different sensor.
I could not agree, more. Well done.
I'd modify this description slightly based on my knowledge of Nikon NEF files. Raw "data" is captured on the sensor and processed to a limited extent. But the NEF file has further processing to embed information to render the file including ICC color data, EXIF data, and create three different embedded JPEG files plus an embedded XMP file. The embedded XMP file contains a lot of information about the picture control settings, noise reduction, lens corrections, Active D-lighting, and more. With recent cameras, Adobe is using a lot more of this information to apply the profile and other settings to the RAW file, or allow alternative settings. Nikon has used this data for years in it's own software, and it could be licensed by others.
I suspect Adobe has incorporated standards to enhance compatibility with camera makers, and camera makers use those standards to improve communication and processing. Everything does not need to be a created from scratch, and it's in camera companies best interest to produce data in a format that can be read and interpreted by others.