[DeadJohn]

Which color profile are y'all using as a starting point for your K-1 DNG development, and why? I recently added a K-1 to my Pentax collection and noticed that LR gives more profile choices. My K-5 photos only offered Embedded and Adobe Standard; I used Embedded.

The new K-1 options include Camera Bright, Camera Landscape, Camera Portrait, Camera Vivid. The few test photos I've taken show strong colors for Bright, as expected,and too strong for Vivid. Landscape looks almost identical to Embedded.

[Some of you might be thinking "hey, lazy, go check your photos to see which looks better!" I won't have a large library of K-1 photos to check until Spring; any profile I pick now will be tested with snow on the ground rather than my usual landscape, street, astro, and architecture.]

[stevebrot]

The new K-1 options include Camera Bright, Camera Landscape, Camera Portrait, Camera Vivid. The few test photos I've taken show strong colors for Bright, as expected,and too strong for Vivid. Landscape looks almost identical to Embedded.

This has been the case for several recent models. Camera-specific profiles beyond "Adobe Standard"* are provided by the manufacturer. For recent model Pentax, the extra profiles correspond to the "custom" image settings available for in-camera JPEG.


Steve

* Despite the name, the Adobe Standard profile is camera-specific. If such is not available, "embedded" (provided by the camera as part of the DNG) is the only choice.

[enoeske]

Which color profile are y'all using as a starting point for your K-1 DNG development, and why? I recently added a K-1 to my Pentax collection and noticed that LR gives more profile choices. My K-5 photos only offered Embedded and Adobe Standard; I used Embedded.

The new K-1 options include Camera Bright, Camera Landscape, Camera Portrait, Camera Vivid. The few test photos I've taken show strong colors for Bright, as expected,and too strong for Vivid. Landscape looks almost identical to Embedded.

[Some of you might be thinking "hey, lazy, go check your photos to see which looks better!" I won't have a large library of K-1 photos to check until Spring; any profile I pick now will be tested with snow on the ground rather than my usual landscape, street, astro, and architecture.]

I use the HueLight color profiles from here. I love em

Huelight Pentax Camera Profiles

[Na Horuk]

For some past models I used.. RawStudio advanced profile profiles. I've heard about Huelight as well.
Or you can make your own

The new K-1 options include Camera Bright, Camera Landscape, Camera Portrait, Camera Vivid. The few test photos I've taken show strong colors for Bright, as expected,and too strong for Vivid. Landscape looks almost identical to Embedded.

With my Pentax cameras I usually keep it to Embedded. I enjoyed RawStudio's advanced profile for flowers and sunsets (due to red, orange rendering), but I haven't downloaded them since I upgraded LR. So now I stick to embedded. I recommend you stick to Embedded and only change it if you notice a problem, like some colours being dramatically oversaturated, like the Adobe standard profile does with orange.

I use the Bright, same as I use in camera. They are really close so what I see on the LCD is what I get. Almost anyway. The Adobe Standard is to flat.

[stevebrot]

Or you can make your own

Adobe provides the tools and there is a strong case for doing so for some types of shooting where color fidelity is very important and the work flow is strictly color managed. Three tools:

• Adode DNG Profile Editor 1.04: Windows | Mac
• X-Right ColorChecker: Targets
• dcpTool (for power users and inquiring minds): dcpTool

The last is for those interested in seeing the actual workings of a DNG profile and who are familiar with XML (FWIW, the Pentax "embedded" is fairly primitive and rudimentary) and/or who can't resist tweaking the actual settings. For additional links, tutorials, videos, etc., Google is our friend ("adobe dng profile editor").

Addendum: https://petapixel.com/2014/10/01/colorchecker-how-to-get-perfect-skin-colors-with-every-camera/


Steve

[MikePlunkett]

I agree with Tjompen1968 that the Adobe Standard profile is too flat. With my K-5 I always switched to Embedded and now that I'm using a K-1 I tend to go to Natural as a default, possibly using Landscape or Portrait as necessary although the results can be a bit over saturated.

Supplementary question: when in your workflow do you change from the default Adobe Standard to one of the embedded profiles? For me it's one of the very first things that I do.

[peterh337]

This is a dumb Q for sure but what does this actually do?

I have never used this... I have LR 6.5.

This is a dumb Q for sure but what does this actually do?

I have never used this... I have LR 6.5.

It changes how the colours are presented.

[peterh337]

I see only the Embedded profile



and it has always been ON by default.

This
"Embedded" camera profile for .dng file? |Adobe Community
suggests that it is the profile embedded in the DNG file (necessary for the display device to know how to render the DNG) so why would this not be pretty well optimal, for most users?

It seems to me that any other kind of colour calibration (if it is to be better than the factory one in the DNG) requires the camera to be calibrated against some reference light source, like the monitor calibration below. I see e.g. X-Rite do something
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6497352654/get-more-accurate-color-with-camera-calibration-
but I can't see how this can work without having a calibrated light source, which is not going to be cheap.

I have a pricey "pro" monitor, which I colour calibrated with the X-Rite device which is placed against the screen. That actually does make quite a difference.

[noelpolar]

I use the HueLight color profiles from here. I love em

Huelight Pentax Camera Profiles

Me two...

[Na Horuk]

"Embedded" camera profile for .dng file? |Adobe Community suggests that it is the profile embedded in the DNG file (necessary for the display device to know how to render the DNG) so why would this not be pretty well optimal, for most users?

Sure, but just because some camera technicians decided to embed that profile doesn't mean that profile is the best for all kinds of photos. For example, you might want colours to be represented slightly differently for portraits than for landscapes. The subtle differences in blue and orange hues, saturation,..
But if you like the Embedded one, go ahead. Heck, if you like the jpeg profiles you can shoot jpeg. But its good to have this tool available

When it comes to calibration, you can make your own one for "general" stuff, or you can make one for each lens you use, or you can make one for each studio setup you use. Or you can buy a pack made by someone else, or you can use the Embedded one. It really depends how far you want to go. For something like photographing ancient artworks, you might want the colors to be really really well represented. For portraits you probably want people to look better than they actually do, so you use slightly more flattering tones, contrasts, saturation. For something like photos of a week long travel vacation, you might not find it worth your while to calibrate the camera every three hours when shooting conditions change.

And yes, you can do many of these things in post. But the profile is the base upon which the PP is done. Sometimes its next to impossible to fix everything in post if you don't have a stable base to build upon

[peterh337]

My view would be that a camera should produce an accurate image. No more and no less.

If one wants to shoot a lot of landscapes in which the water is yellow and the grass is blue (or whatever, obviously false colours seem to be fashionable these days, with some 90% of photo competition winners being patently false colours ) then one can create a LR profile which does that, with the added advantage that if within the 500 shots you have 20 which are of your grandmother, you need to use that LR profile only on the landscape ones.

Am I missing something big?

[DeadJohn]

...Supplementary question: when in your workflow do you change from the default Adobe Standard to one of the embedded profiles? For me it's one of the very first things that I do.

It's my first step. I try to put it in a default that gets applied during import.

Settings like highlights, white balance, and contrast are affected by the selected profile. If you change the profile after those other settings, then you might need to redo them.

This is my general workflow:
Profile
Optional crop
Optional B&W conversion
Exposure, including white, highlight, shadow, and black sliders, starting with the slider that needs the most fixing.
Contrast or Clarity. Boosting one is good, boosting both looks overprocessed.
Saturation, Vibrance, or individual HSL sliders. If I don't like colors I might decide to do a B&W conversion now; if yes then earlier exposure setting might need to be revisited.
Other stuff as needed. Sharpening, CA, distortion, etc.
Revisit crop decisions

[beholder3]

My view would be that a camera should produce an accurate image. No more and no less.

Am I missing something big?

Oh, yes. You have absolutely no understanding of the concept of color(management) in (digital) processing. Spend some hours reading about this on the net.

Color "accuracy" can only (!) be achieved using a good, recently well calibrated monitor using a camera (color) profile that is well made for the exact situation specific scenario of the one shooting. And it will only be accurate when the viewing lighting situation is absolutely the same when viewing the monitor image (e.g. no windows in the room with changing natural light).
Further the lens and filters used must the the exact same as they all provide different colors. And obviously white balance must be set perfectly set (which can only be done manually if you really care for the result).

Once you have at least these seven preconditions met you have a chance for "accuracy". "the camera" has the least influences of all things.

Very, very few people (probably no ten on this whole forum) actually care enough for color accuracy to do this well. The rest just plays around with settings in the raw converters "until they like it".

---------- Post added 10th Jan 2017 at 13:53 ----------

Which color profile are y'all using as a starting point for your K-1 DNG development, and why?

A self made dual illuminant profile based on color checker adjusted for red color hue and saturation plus counterbalancing Adobe's crappy -0,5 EV automatic hidden exposure compensation for the K-1. Actually I often use a variant profile of this with a slightly adjusted contrast curve which saves me doing it on each image itself.