Color Profiles(Picture Control)

[jpawlan]

As bleirer wrote, raw files out of the camera do not have a color profile nor a real color space. I have intentionally calibrated my monitor with the Spyder X as Adobe Pro Photo and I do all of my editing with that color space assigned to every photo. I even put my photos on my website in that color space. If someone has a laptop or a monitor that is sRGB then they will only see a portion of the true colors in my photos but they are really there. I ordered the DataColor SpyderCHECKR 24 based on Mike's and dabhand's advice.
see my photos at https://jeffreypawlanphotography.com

 

[Marty K]

I’m not colour blind, but I’m left eye dominant. My left eye is also very short sighted. My right eye is 20/20 following cataract lens replacement a few years ago. As a result, I see blue better with my right eye and I see red better with my left! So colour profiles are something of an enigma for me. I’m sure I’m not alone,

Does that mean you can see the old ‘3D’ movies in 3D without needing those cardboard glasses?

Marty

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

ajm wrote that Adobe LR and Camera Raw do not work well with RAW Z9 files. I have not seen that myself. I always shoot in raw and adjust the color profile in LR. Sometimes it is necessary to adjust the color temperature in LR. I have tried an older version of DxO Pure RAW but did not find it was a significant improvement to my LR workflow.

My issue with LRC/ACR is primarily noise not colour. I currently prefer the output from DxO Pure Raw 2 Deep Prime. Maybe it is a phase. Since I cannot really travel this year, I am going back through selective images taken on shoots in africa dating back to 2016 and reprocessing them with my current process and finding I like the current result better than the output I achieved back then. Those were shooting D810, D5, D500 etc...

 

[Ken Miracle]

I am struggling to follow this topic and thread.
For me (and I assume most) colour profiles are largely used when shooting JPG/TIF or videos . However, since I exclusively shoot RAW my question is how to bring them into my workflow. As previously noted I am not remotely happy with how Adobe treats Nikon Z9 Lossless RAW files, as a result I use DxO Pure RAW to convert Lossless RAW files into DNG and then work on them in LR or PS. At which time I apply a range of presets OR use DxO FilmPack 5 to obtain the "look" I wish to achieve.
@Patrick M - I use reference shots of either a ColorChecker Passport or DataColor Spyder Checkr 24 to ensure that I understand what the "correct" colour is for each of my set ups and to remove guesswork later. This allows one to build an ICC and import preset that can be applied to the images taken in your shoot. Then one can compare the "treatment" between a "reference" process and one's own attempts.

Unfortunately using color checkers only works if you have time to do a reference shot. Data Color does not list bird photography as one of the uses for their color checker for a reason Now that I discovered something with the Z9 and LRC that I should have known but did not until I read about it on Nikonians and posted a link here, I will have far less processing editing to do with my Raw or HE* files since I can choose my picture control and adjust the settings in the chosen picture control and then with LRC Global settings changed to camera settings LRC uses those settings on the raw files in the develop module.

 

[bleirer]

Unfortunately using color checkers only works if you have time to do a reference shot. Data Color does not list bird photography as one of the uses for their color checker for a reason Now that I discovered something with the Z9 and LRC that I should have known but did not until I read about it on Nikonians and posted a link here, I will have far less processing editing to do with my Raw or HE* files since I can choose my picture control and adjust the settings in the chosen picture control and then with LRC Global settings changed to camera settings LRC uses those settings on the raw files in the develop module.

I think I have to at least partly disagree. You shoot the color card once and the software produces a calibrated Lightroom profile (with the color checker passport) or a preset of the hsl panel (with the Spyderchecker). No need for a bird reference shot.

 

[dabhand16]

Unfortunately using color checkers only works if you have time to do a reference shot. Data Color does not list bird photography as one of the uses for their color checker for a reasothe develop module.

I don't think that Datacolor list any genre as suitable or unsuitable for use with the Colorchecher passport. Its use is purely to get a custom color profile for the camera in the current light and has nothing to do with what you are photographing.

Once you have a profile for your camera in (say) full sunlight, that profile can be used for any image from that camera taken in full sunlight regardless of the subject.

The reference shot is taken as the first shot of the session in that lighting condition. You don't have to take a reference shot every time you see a new subject!

 

[Neil H.]

In one of Jim Welninskis' courses he strips ALL profiles away - both adobe profiles and the camera manufacturers' profile. He then teaches how to make what he calls a "Real Raw" profile for your specific camera (e.g. D850). It is VERY instructive to click on those basic profiles and compare them to the "Real Raw" profile for your camera. You will see immediately that many of the common profiles have already done some substantial processing. I'm not trying to say that using these profiles is in any way bad. However if you start with a "Real Raw" profile for your camera you will be able to see what has been gained and what has been lost from your original Raw image. I can assure you it is not ALL GAIN with many favoured profiles.

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

I don't think that Datacolor list any genre as suitable or unsuitable for use with the Colorchecher passport. Its use is purely to get a custom color profile for the camera in the current light and has nothing to do with what you are photographing.

Once you have a profile for your camera in (say) full sunlight, that profile can be used for any image from that camera taken in full sunlight regardless of the subject.

The reference shot is taken as the first shot of the session in that lighting condition. You don't have to take a reference shot every time you see a new subject!

Correct.

I shot reference profiles for each body and lens in my lineup (with the filters I use on them) in full sunlight and these work great. Do you have to do it NO, but if you are shooting product or fashion then YES you do.
Everytime I shoot with mixed lighting or full studio lights I take a reference shot for every set up. I takes seconds and you immediately know what "right" is.
I do the same every time I shoot a vid as well.
Colour grading is simple when you can pick the white point and black point and correctly map the colours in between.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I don't think that Datacolor list any genre as suitable or unsuitable for use with the Colorchecher passport. Its use is purely to get a custom color profile for the camera in the current light and has nothing to do with what you are photographing.

Once you have a profile for your camera in (say) full sunlight, that profile can be used for any image from that camera taken in full sunlight regardless of the subject.

The reference shot is taken as the first shot of the session in that lighting condition. You don't have to take a reference shot every time you see a new subject!

It does have everything to do with what you are photographing when said subjects and you are moving constantly with constantly varying light. For mobile run and gun bird and wildlife photography they have no practical use.

I have used data color spyder products for years. Currently Spyder x elite one for my mac studio and one for my 2 macbook pros.

When I first talked to them about one of their color checker products years ago they told me this would be a great product if I was shooting in studio, landscapes, weddings, even sports in a static position with consistent light on the subjects but it is really not practical for my run and gun wildlife shooting. A hint to my photography I have not used a tripod in over 2 years.

For what data color says about it's use check out defined detail and more.

About Spyder Checkr Photo | Datacolor

spyderx.datacolor.com

 

[MikePapple]

It does have everything to do with what you are photographing when said subjects and you are moving constantly with constantly varying light. For mobile run and gun bird and wildlife photography they have no practical use.

You CAN take a reference pic for each shoot, but you don't have to. I use the same presets all year long.

 

[dabhand16]

Fair enough. I keep forgetting I'm not a wildlife photographer!

 

[bleirer]

All they do is remove color bias from different camera/lens combinations. The 24 colors on the card are standard colors printed accurately and the software generates a lightroom profile to bring the camera back to the standard when it wanders. So just another tool, but useful if colors look off for any type of shooting.

 

[Ken Miracle]

Fair enough. I keep forgetting I'm not a wildlife photographer!

I have tried to get the birds to do a better job of taking direction from the photographer Color is a crazy game with birds like a Mallard drake whose head color changes from bright green to deep purple to blue and many hues in between as it turns its head or adjust it's feathers. And then there are Wood Ducks and Hummingbirds When I got an e mail from data color announcing their latest spyder checkr photo ... I immediately tried figuring out how to get the birds to hold it for me

All they do is remove color bias from different camera/lens combinations. The 24 colors on the card are standard colors printed accurately and the software generates a lightroom profile to bring the camera back to the standard when it wanders. So just another tool, but useful if colors look off for any type of shooting.

One color profile tool that does give me a speed up at times as needed is something I found out about here in the forum a few years ago. Colin Walker's camera specific Color Fidelity Profiles. They have a range of adjustment levels, light, medium, high, portrait etc.. that can be applied for quick adjustments if needed.

It could be possible to use something like the spyder checkr photo tool to shoot reference shots in a wide range of light levels and colors, essentially creating a number of color profiles but that would be a "lot" of options for me but I try to never say never but that one is close LOL.

White balance is usually the biggest variable and important on bird ID shots when subtle shades can be important. Natural Light auto ISO works quite well but not perfect ... there are also a number of times I have to use select subject, brush or some other tool to adjust the WB on the bird when it was in deep shade in the brush and the outside and around the brush is in bright sun

My subjects today were congregation members at a rally day picnic at church. Today they a color challenge not only were some in the same frame in deep shade when some were in the bright light but we had constantly changing levels and colors of fire smoke drifting through today from the wildfires burning all around Idaho.

 

[Wink Jones]

Nikon's Paul van Allen recently suggested placing a lot more emphasis on getting it right in the camera with Picture Control selection and customization and even shooting JPEG in the camera. Because what you see is what you get with mirrorless, he is shooting a lot of JPEG images with minimal correction needed. Obviously that would not be the approach for fine art or images intended to be highly edited.

I am somewhat ashamed to admit this, but somehow my camera decided to shot Jpegs along with my Raw. I imported photos of my Birds of Prey into Lightroom, edited them, then when I went to look to be sure the import had actually moved the photos I saw the jpegs were in the folder too. I opened them one by one, and in only one case had I done a better job than the Jpeg.

I think I will continue to shoot both the high quality Raw and the Jpeg and not share anything that I did not process to better than the Jpeg. I am learning a lot about how to process better, now that I see how well the Jpegs are looking.

 

[Patrick M]

I am somewhat ashamed to admit this, but somehow my camera decided to shot Jpegs along with my Raw. I imported photos of my Birds of Prey into Lightroom, edited them, then when I went to look to be sure the import had actually moved the photos I saw the jpegs were in the folder too. I opened them one by one, and in only one case had I done a better job than the Jpeg.

I think I will continue to shoot both the high quality Raw and the Jpeg and not share anything that I did not process to better than the Jpeg. I am learning a lot about how to process better, now that I see how well the Jpegs are looking.

I know how it feels. I gave up shooting both raw and jpeg as I'm not really very good at photography and seeing the out of camera JPEGS were mostly better than my modified RAW I found somewhat demotivating, Still do - hence I post so few images. So I shoot raw. Hmmm must get me that T-Shirt!

 

[Wink Jones]

I know how it feels. I gave up shooting both raw and jpeg as I'm not really very good at photography and seeing the out of camera JPEGS were mostly better than my modified RAW I found somewhat demotivating, Still do - hence I post so few images. So I shoot raw. Hmmm must get me that T-Shirt!

So, we could form a club, and then try to get out of it as soon as we learn how to process our photos better than an out of camera Jpeg... In the meantime, we could wear the t-shirt and have the ladies gagging at the thought of seeing either of us in the raw...

 

[EricBowles]

I am somewhat ashamed to admit this, but somehow my camera decided to shot Jpegs along with my Raw. I imported photos of my Birds of Prey into Lightroom, edited them, then when I went to look to be sure the import had actually moved the photos I saw the jpegs were in the folder too. I opened them one by one, and in only one case had I done a better job than the Jpeg.

I think I will continue to shoot both the high quality Raw and the Jpeg and not share anything that I did not process to better than the Jpeg. I am learning a lot about how to process better, now that I see how well the Jpegs are looking.

With Nikon, you can render a JPEG based on the original capture at any time using Nikon NX Studio. It's free. The RAW file contains all the information to render a JPEG as shot in the camera including Picture Control and other settings. If you open the RAW file in NXStudio you can create a JPEG as needed.

There are also JPEG's embedded in the NEF file. It contains a basic JPEG, a thumbnail, and a full size JPEG for zooming to 100% or beyond. These JPEG files are used for playback in the camera, but are also used by programs like Photo Mechanic. PM can export those JPEG files in the size needed - and it allows cropping.

 

[Patrick M]

With Nikon, you can render a JPEG based on the original capture at any time using Nikon NX Studio. It's free. The RAW file contains all the information to render a JPEG as shot in the camera including Picture Control and other settings. If you open the RAW file in NXStudio you can create a JPEG as needed.

There are also JPEG's embedded in the NEF file. It contains a basic JPEG, a thumbnail, and a full size JPEG for zooming to 100% or beyond. These JPEG files are used for playback in the camera, but are also used by programs like Photo Mechanic. PM can export those JPEG files in the size needed - and it allows cropping.

I only use NX Studio….I’m too tight fisted to pay () for software.

 

[Replytoken]

I have intentionally calibrated my monitor with the Spyder X as Adobe Pro Photo and I do all of my editing with that color space assigned to every photo. I even put my photos on my website in that color space. If someone has a laptop or a monitor that is sRGB then they will only see a portion of the true colors in my photos but they are really there.

I am assuming that the monitor that you are calibrating is a wide gamut monitor that fully supports the Adobe RGB space. And, I do not understand why you would post images to the web in Adobe RGB. The vast majority of people viewing them will be doing so in programs that support sRGB, and these programs/devices would not necessarily display your images correctly. Higher gamut files typically do not display well in programs that are not color managed and can sometimes look far less than optimal. Do you find that tradeoff worthwhile?

--Ken

 

[EricBowles]

I am assuming that the monitor that you are calibrating is a wide gamut monitor that fully supports the Adobe RGB space. And, I do not understand why you would post images to the web in Adobe RGB. The vast majority of people viewing them will be doing so in programs that support sRGB, and these programs/devices would not necessarily display your images correctly. Higher gamut files typically do not display well in programs that are not color managed and can sometimes look far less than optimal. Do you find that tradeoff worthwhile?

--Ken

This gets a little complicated. There is a difference between working color space for editing and output color space. As Ken correctly points out, most people will not see colors beyond sRGB, and many see only a portion of sRGB. The result is banding, color shifts, and other problems.

Replying to jpawlan:

For storage purposes, it may make sense to store a ProPhoto file on your website. But for viewing by others, sRGB is the recommended approach.

Having the widest possible working space means the software does not clip as much when you are editing. You can edit in a color space you can't see on your monitor - most of us can't see all of ProPhoto on any monitor but that does not mean it's not helpful. When you are ready to convert to a JPEG for viewing by others, you do need a final output that is sRGB. But your software usually has a choice of settings and algorithms for resizing and interpolating to sRGB. Doing this at the end of your editing workflow usually means the software works properly and can minimize the impact of any gamut clipping. But if you have a problem, you can try a different resizing algorithm or make additional editing changes to resolve the issue.

 

[SandyW]

Short version. You can convert your color space to sRGB for viewing on the web, or let the viewer's software do the conversion and hope they get it right.

 

[Replytoken]

There is a difference between working color space for editing and output color space.

Correct. It was a two-part question. First I wanted to confirm if the monitor was wide gamut, as trying to calibrate a narrower gamut monitor to a wider space is not recommended.

And I concur with your workflow. Raw files are worked on in LR Classic (Pro Photo RGB aka "Melissa") and then assigned a color space on export depending on the purpose of the file.

--Ken

 

[Replytoken]

Short version. You can convert your color space to sRGB for viewing on the web, or let the viewer's software do the conversion and hope they get it right.

Unless I know my audience and their software and device, hoping they get a file right would not be my first choice. sRGB is the lingua franca of the internet for images, and I try to stick to it when sharing an image generally.

--Ken

 

[kimball]

Interesting topic. FYI, many are using the term calibrating when they mean profiling. One cannot calibrate a camera, but they can definitely use a colorchecker to profile a camera.

Generally speaking, calibration is step 1, and involves using a device's hardware controls to zero in on a target output (brightness level, different RGB levels, etc). Monitors should be calibrated before anything else is done. The raw output of a camera cannot be calibrated in any meaningful way.

Profiling is step 2, which involves measuring that device's already-calibrated output and creating a custom profile that describes the characteristics of said device. With a monitor, that's done with a spyder, colormunki, i1Display, etc. With a camera, that's done with a colorchecker.

Hope that helps.

Calibration Versus Profiling | Image Science

An explaination of Calibration and Profiling and the differences between them.

imagescience.com.au

 

[Butlerkid]

Interesting topic. FYI, many are using the term calibrating when they mean profiling. One cannot calibrate a camera, but they can definitely use a colorchecker to profile a camera.

Generally speaking, calibration is step 1, and involves using a device's hardware controls to zero in on a target output (brightness level, different RGB levels, etc). Monitors should be calibrated before anything else is done. The raw output of a camera cannot be calibrated in any meaningful way.

Profiling is step 2, which involves measuring that device's already-calibrated output and creating a custom profile that describes the characteristics of said device. With a monitor, that's done with a spyder, colormunki, i1Display, etc. With a camera, that's done with a colorchecker.

Hope that helps.

Calibration Versus Profiling | Image Science

An explaination of Calibration and Profiling and the differences between them.

imagescience.com.au

With Calibrite, you take a photo of a card containing very specific colors. Calibrite's s/w compares the cameras colors in the photo to the control colors. It then writes a short bit of code that adjusts the colors to match the control colors. That bit of s/w becomes a selectable color profile when using LR, PS CC, DxO, etc.. which can be designated as the default color profile instead of Adobe Standard, Cloudy, etc.