Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sony RX100 DNG custom camera profiles - download  (Read 7465 times)
mac_paolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


« on: September 11, 2012, 09:04:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Today I made the usual dual illuminant camera profiles I make for each new model I test.
I find them to be much more accurate than Adobe Standard.

Both dual illuminant, the first has been made from ISO 125 shots and the second from ISO 3200 shots.

RX100 DNG Profile

RX100 DNG Profile Hi-ISO

Feel free to test them and please let me know what do you think about. Smiley
Logged
mac_paolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2012, 07:54:37 AM »
ReplyReply

5 downloads but no replies.
What do you think about them? Smiley
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 781



« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2012, 09:59:44 AM »
ReplyReply

and what was the procedure for you to find them more "accurate" ? a matter of your personal subjective taste or you actually measured (and how ?) something (using a shot with a totally different target, from another manufacturer for example) ?
Logged
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2012, 10:56:51 AM »
ReplyReply

5 downloads but no replies.
What do you think about them? Smiley

I may give them a try ... but I have been very pleased with the Adobe Standard profile in LR.

What is your big beef with that profile that lead you to create your own?
Logged
thierrylegros396
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 651


« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2012, 11:45:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I've also made a profile (with Adobe dedicated software) and the colors are really better than the Adobe standard.

Thierry
Logged
GT2554
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2012, 06:49:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for sharing. Have you made any Canon profiles? 5D Mark III?
Logged
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1146



« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2012, 07:40:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I've also made a profile (with Adobe dedicated software) and the colors are really better than the Adobe standard.

Oh dear, looks like another chore to do this weekend.   Smiley
Logged

mac_paolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2012, 02:20:16 AM »
ReplyReply

and what was the procedure for you to find them more "accurate" ? a matter of your personal subjective taste or you actually measured (and how ?) something (using a shot with a totally different target, from another manufacturer for example) ?
You know, high end display just profiled, good illumination. Colorchecker next to me.
Adobe standard: colors are similar to the ones represented on the CC.
Custom profile: colors match perfectly.

I then open a number of real world photos. Switching from one profile to the other the difference is substantial and, comparing them on Lightroom with no hints on the screen, I end to always guess which one has the most accurate colors, and that's the custom profiled.
The flash tone changes dramatically.

I didn't use fancy instruments, just made very precise exposure for both the 2850 light (which was between 2750-2800K) and the D65 light (which was around 6000K).
I then used DNG PE, not the Xrite utility, as I found several times that the latter produces unnatural saturated tones. Adobe's app doesn't show that issue.
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 781



« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2012, 10:03:09 AM »
ReplyReply

which always brings the question about Adobe... I am yet to find/see a posting (here and many other forums) when somebody creates a profile and claimes that it is worse (or no better) than Adobe's standard for a regular daylight (let us skip exotic illuminations here)... so is it something utterly wrong w/ how Adobe profiles cameras  Roll Eyes ? and I mean that I read this for all cameras ? every single Joe takes a consumer level target, takes a shot (or two) and voila - not only colors are more subjectively pleasant to this person, but they are claimed to be more precise in terms of the measurements Cool ... I wish to hear comments from the horse's mouth or at least people like Schewe...  how come that Adobe gives us such a waste in the form of the standard profiles Cool something is not right.
Logged
thierrylegros396
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 651


« Reply #9 on: September 14, 2012, 10:44:20 AM »
ReplyReply

which always brings the question about Adobe... I am yet to find/see a posting (here and many other forums) when somebody creates a profile and claimes that it is worse (or no better) than Adobe's standard for a regular daylight (let us skip exotic illuminations here)... so is it something utterly wrong w/ how Adobe profiles cameras  Roll Eyes ? and I mean that I read this for all cameras ? every single Joe takes a consumer level target, takes a shot (or two) and voila - not only colors are more subjectively pleasant to this person, but they are claimed to be more precise in terms of the measurements Cool ... I wish to hear comments from the horse's mouth or at least people like Schewe...  how come that Adobe gives us such a waste in the form of the standard profiles Cool something is not right.

All sensors are differents, so, yes you have to do your own profile.

Thierry
Logged
mac_paolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


« Reply #10 on: September 14, 2012, 11:27:51 AM »
ReplyReply

which always brings the question about Adobe... I am yet to find/see a posting (here and many other forums) when somebody creates a profile and claimes that it is worse (or no better) than Adobe's standard for a regular daylight (let us skip exotic illuminations here)... so is it something utterly wrong w/ how Adobe profiles cameras  Roll Eyes ? and I mean that I read this for all cameras ? every single Joe takes a consumer level target, takes a shot (or two) and voila - not only colors are more subjectively pleasant to this person, but they are claimed to be more precise in terms of the measurements Cool ... I wish to hear comments from the horse's mouth or at least people like Schewe...  how come that Adobe gives us such a waste in the form of the standard profiles Cool something is not right.
You seem to be surprised, but I'm not. Adobe Standard means what it is. It doesn't mean Adobe Calibrated nor Adobe Exact Colors.
I want to start from a calibrated point for each and every camera I own, so I make profiles via DNG PE.
I'd be happy to purchase better color targets, but the software only supports CC24. My tools are consumer grade when I'm forced to do that. I'm not Joe and I do a lot more than a single shot to achieve a result, trust me Wink

Beside that every sensor is slightly different from the others, so you may (should, IMHO) profile it.
Everything is right for those who understand what's going on under the hood. Smiley
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 781



« Reply #11 on: September 14, 2012, 12:27:45 PM »
ReplyReply

All sensors are differents, so, yes you have to do your own profile.

Thierry

certainly they are different and lenses too, and consumer level targets are too... so why do you think that your unmeasured target vs some numbers stored in Adobe software for those patches does not make a bigger difference vs difference in your camera/lenses...  hence comes the question - did you really measure that your profile is indeed more precise ? I was advised to make a shot of 2 targets (different ones, not 2 colorcheckers) at once, build profile using one target (remember - we have 2 targets in one shot), convert the raw using that profile and Adobe Standard and then compare numbers for patches off the 2nd target using babelcolor patchtool... now that is a test, isn't it  Cool ?
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 781



« Reply #12 on: September 14, 2012, 12:40:59 PM »
ReplyReply

You seem to be surprised, but I'm not. Adobe Standard means what it is. It doesn't mean Adobe Calibrated nor Adobe Exact Colors.

and what is yours vs Adobe Standard ?

I want to start from a calibrated point for each and every camera I own, so I make profiles via DNG PE.

that is a good idea - I question implementation though for a normal light unlike for some unusual one


I'd be happy to purchase better color targets, but the software only supports CC24. My tools are consumer grade when I'm forced to do that. I'm not Joe and I do a lot more than a single shot to achieve a result, trust me Wink

so what you did exactly to achieve a result... may be you can share 2 raw files used to create a profile to illustrate the source ? I mean if you share the profile then raw files are not a bigger secret, are they ? then we can see how the target was really illuminated, shall we ?

Beside that every sensor is slightly different from the others, so you may (should, IMHO) profile it.

targets are different too (manufacturing is not precise) and Adobe tools only have some average numbers that you can't replace w/ your own measurements.


Everything is right for those who understand what's going on under the hood. Smiley

do you ? you said you do not have an individually calibrated target neither you run any real test (other then you were pleased subjectively by what you see - people tend to like their work even if it is actually worse - hence something to exclude that subjective factor is necessary) and yet you claim that you understand what is going under the hood  Cool ... I also doubt that your light and how target was illuminated were better than Adobe does... and if that is not the case then again - something really wrong in Adobe Labs.
Logged
mac_paolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


« Reply #13 on: September 14, 2012, 01:10:04 PM »
ReplyReply

deejjjaaaa, you keep being rude without a reason.
You really should get some fresh air and realize that I'm only trying to help people by giving away something without asking anything back. I like to.
My profiles have been downloaded 20 times so far. Not a single thank you, but that's fine, really.

Trying to sum up your (meaningless?) interrogation, here's the deal.
Don't keep pushing that "you-think-you-know-more-than-Adobe-so-prove-it". It's quite puerile.
What you may have read too fast is the first line of my previous post. Adobe standard doesn't mean perfect colors as for the vast majority of users, right color doesn't mean best color. I 100% agree with that.
Photography is art before math.
Camera Raw itself was created to standardize the look&feel of the different makers and to better manage the colors that some camera manufacturers seemed to badly represent. Very badly.
I still haven't heard from a single Adobe employee that Adobe Standard is the most accurate profile color wise. Again, maybe it really shouldn't.

There are however a number of photographers (I'm one of them, the worst of them if you like) that like to profile their cameras to still start from a common base, but a different one. Not a pleasant compromise but a standard one. Standard doesn't mean perfect. CC24 is as standard as I need it to be.
As you know (do you?), custom DNG profiles are made based on existing ones. In this case "Adobe Standard". The 18 color patches are just a way to manipulate Adobe's effort to better match a specific sensor working with sort of gradients for a differential equation (math terms may be wrong, I'm trying to find the bast translation).

I may well upload all the DNG files I used to make the profiles but, why? You'd see a CC24 covering almost 95% of the frame. You can't see the light. At most you'd see the white balance.
The 2850K light is tungsten bulbs and the 6500K is sun light. There's little to add. No secrets here.

If you're not interest in this matter you may well apologize for the rudeness and help with other threads. I don't have to persuade you at all costs, really.
Peace Smiley
Logged
thierrylegros396
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 651


« Reply #14 on: September 14, 2012, 01:35:47 PM »
ReplyReply

certainly they are different and lenses too, and consumer level targets are too... so why do you think that your unmeasured target vs some numbers stored in Adobe software for those patches does not make a bigger difference vs difference in your camera/lenses...  hence comes the question - did you really measure that your profile is indeed more precise ? I was advised to make a shot of 2 targets (different ones, not 2 colorcheckers) at once, build profile using one target (remember - we have 2 targets in one shot), convert the raw using that profile and Adobe Standard and then compare numbers for patches off the 2nd target using babelcolor patchtool... now that is a test, isn't it  Cool ?
My first (cheap) target was clearly bad.
That's why, I've invested in a professional target with special patches.
I've also checked the patches with my PrintFixPro and yes it's not perfect but enough to make good measurements.
So, after building the profile, I've done side by side comparison with "perfect software implemented target" and photo of the the target with the profile inside Photoshop, almost perfect match ;-)
Far better than Adobe Standard.
I've done 7 profiles and satisfied with all.
Note than Adobe Standard for Nikon D5100 is good, very few differences only with "home made" profile.
For Canon, it's very different !!!
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 781



« Reply #15 on: September 14, 2012, 01:48:04 PM »
ReplyReply

That's why, I've invested in a professional target with special patches.
I've also checked the patches with my PrintFixPro and yes it's not perfect but enough to make good measurements.

so you tried at least to measure the patches on your target with colorimeter... now, we are talking about Adobe .dcp profiles here (there are only so few COTS solutions to build such profiles... adobe's, xrite's, QP's, datacolor's - am I missing something ?) - so what was the software that you used to build those and how do you know the difference between your measurements and what hardcoded in that software for those patches... it is not like that software can accept a custom .cie file w/ your measurements of your own target, is it ? so how do you know whether it was "enough" or not ... I am genuinely interested


So, after building the profile, I've done side by side comparison with "perfect software implemented target" and photo of the the target with the profile inside Photoshop, almost perfect match ;-)

you need to use different target - because to use the same target which was used to build a profile is not exactly a test, is it ? and what was "perfect software implemented target" - was it something supplied w/ the product that you used to build a .dcp profile and was using the exact data that this software is using for patches ?
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 781



« Reply #16 on: September 14, 2012, 02:19:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I still haven't heard from a single Adobe employee that Adobe Standard is the most accurate profile color wise.

but you say that yours is more accurate than Adobe Standard, hence I am asking how do you know beyond your own subjective impression... if you like your profile better than Adobe's that is totally fine - but the claim was about being more accurate that Adobe's for a regular outdoor daylight, was it not... if it is - then my beef is with Adobe, because such claims fly around all the time and then you start to think, WTF is going on w/ camera's profiling in Adobe Labs... I mean how come that this product is supplied w/ such bad profiles (at least for many cameras) so that under a regular outdoor condition it is not a big effort to make it more precise Roll Eyes


As you know (do you?), custom DNG profiles are made based on existing ones. In this case "Adobe Standard".

"When using the Chart Wizard feature of DNG PE, the color matrices are taken from the choice of the Base Profile (ColorMatrix* and ForwardMatrix* DNG tags), and the color tables (HueSatMap1 and HueSatMap2 DNG tags) are replaced by the ones calculated by the Chart Wizard.  If the Base Profile has a look table (LookTable DNG tag), it is removed.
Effectively, matrices are used to perform linear color correction, and the color tables are used to perform non-linear (usually targeted) color correction.  Ideally a simple matrix would suffice, but for complex reasons they cannot map all colors perfectly." (c) Eric Chan...

but that does not answer the question about how precise are the corrections vs Adobe Standard for a regular outdoor daylight... I am not talking about corrections to achieve colors that more pleasant for your eyes (that is subjective and can't be argued), but more precise by numbers (using a different target to verify)...

I may well upload all the DNG files I used to make the profiles but, why? You'd see a CC24 covering almost 95% of the frame.

because I am curious to see the shots (raw files) that were used to achieve a more precise profile than Adobe's standard... I will study the shots and may be I can gain some extra knowledge... which is far better than just use a profile...

Logged
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1146



« Reply #17 on: September 14, 2012, 03:09:59 PM »
ReplyReply

dejjjaaaa, your argumentative and insulting posts add absolutely nothing of substance to this forum, I wish you would just to over to DRP to do your trolling.  This is not that kind of forum.
Logged

stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #18 on: September 15, 2012, 06:44:11 AM »
ReplyReply

+1

And thanks Mac Paolo for taking the effort to make the profiles and share. Ignore the people with missing brain cells.
Logged
mac_paolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


« Reply #19 on: September 15, 2012, 09:06:28 AM »
ReplyReply

+1

And thanks Mac Paolo for taking the effort to make the profiles and share. Ignore the people with missing brain cells.
You're more than welcome Smiley
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad