[beholder3]

Now that is "Nonsense", as you call it.

It is anything but nonsense. Filters are algorithms that change the look of the image, they are calculations to change data. There is no limitation to that. That is a very broad term.

Camera profiles come into effect at the start of the image processing pipeline, they work on the RAW data, whereas Presets are just combinations of regular image manipulation tools.

Raw needs to be converted into normal Bitmap formats by a sequence of calculations. The fact that someone calls the first steps of this calculation chain "profile" and the later "preset" doesnt make them fundamentally different. That's why other software doesnt need to have that split. You could as well have 5 different thingies or 50. They all "work on raw data".
It's like saying in "A +X+Y+Z" only X was "working on" A, but Y and Z were just "regular manipulation tools".

While both profiles and presets can be used to change the appearance of an image, they do it in different ways and by having access to different data. For instance, you cannot implement a "LUT"-based transformation with a Preset, but you can with a profile now.

Because Adobe chose to do it this way. And with a profile you can not apply raw denoise mechanisms or raw sharpening.
Still you can create a preset that emulates a profile to a very large degree. The other way around is not possible.

Anyhow my key statement is that creating a profile is a very, very simple and low effort gimmick.
The "general performance improvements" in Pentax firmware updates probably require a multiple of this.

[Class A]

It is anything but nonsense. Filters are algorithms that change the look of the image, they are calculations to change data.

You said that both "camera profiles" and "presets" are synonyms for "digital filters". Ergo, according to you they would be synonyms of each other as well. Hence, according to you they ought to mean the same thing. However, they don't mean the same thing. Your claim was nonsensical and you know it.

I wouldn't necessarily have commented on your mistake, but you called someone else's statement "Nonsense", countering with a claim that actually was nonsensical. That deserved a comment, AFAIC.

You are mistaken in believing that every stage in an image pipeline works on "RAW" data. Some stages work on actual RAW data (not demosaiced yet), others work on RGB data without a tone curve applied, some stages assume a colour space some don't, etc.

Still you can create a preset that emulates a profile to a very large degree.

If you admit that it isn't 100% but "to a very large degree" only then your original statement was nonsense. The terms are not synonymous. It is not just Adobe choosing to use a meaningful distinction between "camera profiles" and "presets". Other converters use the same terminology.

Anyhow my key statement is that creating a profile is a very, very simple and low effort gimmick.

On what kind of technical insider knowledge are you basing your statement?

[stevebrot]

We are talking about two different things here.

Yes, at least two different things.

Nonsense. Both "camera profile" and "presets" just set parameters in Adobe's proprietary chain of algorithms creating output color rendition.

Ummmm...sort of. Presets are a combination of user settings. They are not the same as proprietary import/camera/color/DNG/DCP (choose your synonym) profiles for ACR/Lightroom. Those are quite different and are not directly traceable to LR or ACR develop settings. They are also not the same as ICC color profiles (note the word proprietary) and potentially quite a bit more complex. A good explanation of what they are and how they work along with tools for decompilation and editing may be found at:

dcpTool: DCP FIles

dcpTool: Hue Twists

Have fun!

Hint: DNG profiles dynamically account for relative intensity in real time while editing...very complicated and very cool. BTW...the embedded profiles in Pentax-generated DNG and PEF are amazingly simplistic.


Steve

(...has used dcpTool to edit .dcp files for use with other than the intended camera...)

[Oakland Rob]

Yes, at least two different things.



Ummmm...sort of. Presets are a combination of user settings. They are not the same as proprietary import/camera/color/DNG/DCP (choose your synonym) profiles for ACR/Lightroom. Those are quite different and are not directly traceable to LR or ACR develop settings. They are also not the same as ICC color profiles (note the word proprietary) and potentially quite a bit more complex. A good explanation of what they are and how they work along with tools for decompilation and editing may be found at:

dcpTool: DCP FIles

dcpTool: Hue Twists

Have fun!

Hint: DNG profiles dynamically account for relative intensity in real time while editing...very complicated and very cool. BTW...the embedded profiles in Pentax-generated DNG and PEF are amazingly simplistic.


Steve

(...has used dcpTool to edit .dcp files for use with other than the intended camera...)

Yikes. Thanks for that. I didn't realize the developer has a GUI dcptool in the Mac App Store. Cool. I still haven't quite sorted how all these relate to the new XMP files/profiles I find in my Settings folder. Or the difference of say using a cube file in a profile vs making a dcp. Seems the dcps are more dynamic, or at least can be.