[sylvainp]

What are your though if you tried it ?

It is long due and initial tests give me mixed feelings. For example on a red Ara and a cardinal if I switch to adobe colour profile I find it overwhelming and almost synthetic. The bird was not that red and it look like a typical fuji or nikon over saturated jpg.

Maybe I need to redo my adjustment once the profile is selected and compare but for that test I used vibrance and saturation both at 0.

Is it a move from adobe to produce more "pleasing" colours at the expense of realism ?

[stevebrot]

What profile are you referring to?


Steve

[sylvainp]

I've done a comparison between the two shots.

The left of the picture is close to the bird colour of that day. Once processed and transfered in jpg etc it isn't as much as a difference. The upper right part of the picture does change a bit in the blue-gray area where it get a bluer tint.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/gGlDAw2LFHZhmkVJ2

---------- Post added 04-03-18 at 07:50 PM ----------

What profile are you referring to?


Steve

The new adobe profile called color added in the update released today.

[stevebrot]

The new adobe profile called color added in the update released today.

Got it. For those still wondering...

April Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw Releases: New Profiles and More | Adobe Blog

From the description on that page:

Adobe Color was designed to greatly improve the look and rendering of warm tones, improving the transitions between certain color ranges, and slightly increasing the starting contrast of your photos. Since Adobe Color is the new default (but only for newly imported photos), it was designed to work on the widest range of photos and ensures that regardless of the subject, your photo will look great.

Your comparison definitely does show a difference that is consistent with the description. If it is not to your liking you may change the default import profile to Adobe Standard or one of the K-1 profiles (Bright, Landscape, Natural, etc.) or create your own.


Steve

[sylvainp]

There is a big change in the yellow colour. Big enough that you need to rework the highlight to compensate for a lost of "detail" from the boost. It is more pleasing for sure I have to compare more and see if it's more realistic.

In some picture it doesn't change much and other the changes are big and generally it give more punch to the colours and more contrast overall.

I tried with pictures from my K1 and my EM1.2 and results are similar.

It's a tool, I'm not sure it will be a clear case of always using adobe color. Sometime one may be prefered than the other and for birds I tend to prefer the old adobe standard if they are of vivid colours.

I've found some pictures that use more the blue and magenta tints where the new profile helps a lot.

Adobe also added groups of presets. Some are good.

[fwbigd]

Just more junk from Adobe...my recommendation is to change to Capture One!

[sylvainp]

I have both and prefer lightroom but I also use rawtherapee for some specific situation.

[Oakland Rob]

There is a lot more to the profiles than just a switch from Adobe Standard to Adobe Color. There are also profiles optimized for BW. And camera profiles that aim to mimic what your camera does (Bright, Landscape, etc). And legacy profiles you've made before, and then a bunch of artistic and more wild ones. Each can be muted via an amount slider.

But the cool thing is for Lr users it's now easier to use effects created in Photoshop, since you can create a profile using a LUT generated in Photoshop (or lots of other ways, like Affinity Photo, or even utilities that can generate one just by reading an adjusted PNG or JPEG). I've got ones to mimic moonlight, and one that is fakey infraredish, turning blues red. And a ton of VSCO film emulations specific to certain cameras. Of course some of this was possible with Lr adjustments, but you could do way more in Ps. And now by using LUTs and looks you can pass that to profiles and use 'em in Lr on batches of photos easily, as where maybe you wanna colorgrade a whole look on a whole shoot. And it doesn't mess with the sliders for doing other raw processing like using some presets would have.

Of course some of us don't guess about the color, and use a color card, like the Passport Colorchecker. That still works.

[sylvainp]

I tried the new monochrome too and it's a nice addition. I will be checking for color accuracy with the cards soon. Still busy going through my library comparing the profiles.

But what's the point since Darryl said it's all junk

[beholder3]

While it might not be junk (same as a 10 year old compact is no junk), I think these gimmicks are just as worthless as it gets.
Even low level amateurs can easily create profiles to their personal tastes in a few minutes.
It seems they invested 4 hrs of an intern (I wouldnt call it even developer intern) to create some profiles and then set 500 marketing zombies into motion to advertise it.

Hm. I guess "junk" was not that far off.

[sylvainp]

We are talking about two different things here.

The profiles you are talking about is what called presets in LR. It's something we do our-self and save so it streamline the process and give nice starting point for a style. Sure anyone can do some and give them away or purchase them but they added some so it give a nice startup variety.

The new release included new raw color (or b&w) treatment profiles which is a different thing and what we asked for some time. Those too can be done manually with manual calibration or through ps but it's more work and not just adjusting sliders. Adobe added a more modern basic raw profile which is nice and I'm getting used to it.

The presets are nice and useful when you want to try different quick style to a photo and determine what kind of treatment would suit it better.

Either way none of this is junk and this is stuff we use with any of those software. It's called differently but I would use rawtherapew for some editing because I had more choice of raw engines in it but now I won't need it as much.

Capture one start with too much color sharpening for my taste and tend to give a syntetic look to my eyes but you can end up with the same results. For me it's a lot quicker with LR and I prefer the UI and compatibility with my camera and lenses. It does take more processing power which is not a problem with my desktop.

Calling it junk like he did is just a way to try to get attention in a discussion without bringing anything useful. There was no point to doing that.

I've met people which are angry that adobe went with the subscription model and just trash them since. Some of those where running hacked software for years and never paid a cents to use and make money using those software so 10$ a month is apparently too much.

[beholder3]

Nonsense. Both "camera profile" and "presets" just set parameters in Adobe's proprietary chain of algorithms creating output color rendition. And they overlap a lot.
Profiles are neither more complex nor necessarily different from a "preset". Actually a "preset" can do way more complex stuff than a camera profile and it can be much more effort to create a full blown preset.
Both are synonyms for "digital filters".
The one thing where a profile is better at is extra fine tuning of individual colors, due to the primitivity of LR UI in this area (Photoline for example can adjust colors much more detailed without having to go the "profile" detour). That is why it has to be used.
It is definitely not a lot of effort or needs skill beyond what an average high school intern can be taught to do.

[Class A]

Both are synonyms for "digital filters".

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

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. 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. Typical for Adobe, they implemented it in a half-assed manner that requires Photoshop.

Another vote for Capture One. More powerful and no subscription nonsense.

[Class A]

The left of the picture is close to the bird colour of that day.

That's what I would have guessed.

The colours on the right hand side look oversaturated and assume a fake hue. Not an improvement, in my book.

[Oakland Rob]

Presets in Lr are just a group of parameters (like x amount of exposure, y amount of sharpening, etc) that are stored and can be applied. They can also include profiles.

Profiles are more fundamental in Lr. They apply during the RAW rendition. The Adobe Standard, eg, attempts to set a neutral rendition among many different cameras in order that they look as alike as possible. They also emulate camera-specific profiles, like the "Vivid" or "Portrait" you might have in your camera body to render JPEGs with a certain look. As with Capture One, Apple, Skylum, Affinity or any other developer they are essentially reverse engineering what the camera manufacturer does to get those looks. I don't see many high schooler interns making raw converters, but maybe someone here has worked at Adobe, Apple or Affinity and has inside info on how raw converters are developed. Maybe that explains why they take so long to appear in C1, Lr, etc

And of course profiles have always been important to those who use Lr and want accurate color; Colorchecker Passport users have been using that color card and the software to produce dcp files to insure correct color in any particular shoot for a long time. I guess they are mere "digital filters" but if you want accurate color then such a profile is rather essential.

Profiles have also been created by developers outside Adobe, commonly for film emulation. They usually sell those as presets, but those presets include profiles, which are more difficult to create. But presets were an easier way to deploy them. VSCO for example. The profiles within say their Olympus Film Kodak Gold preset is specific to that camera.

At the core of many of them are LUTs. These are used extensively in color grading for video work for many reasons. Often to give a certain cinematic look, but also to make sure different scenes shot at different times have a uniform and unjarring appearance. The LUTs can be created in say Photoshop or Affinity Pro, and applied in layers, which can also be blended. Then exported and turned into profiles, which if one wanted to, could be part of a preset. And sure, any dope with Photoshop can make a LUT. Making one that satisfies your DP or helps win you an Oscar is of course different, just as it's true that any high schooler with a Nikon can churn out photos, but may not be getting much gallery space.

The big deal about the profiles for Lr is that they are more convenient to use now, and they make the use of LUTs easier as well since now a developer can either produce them or any one who can use Ps or Affinity. Photoshop users, of course, have been using them for a while, ditto for Premiere Pro, etc. (can't remember about C1 since I stopped using it a while ago). Most photographers who want the utmost in control of course use Ps over Lr since it has so many more tools for adjustments. But it's far easier to do batch work in Lr, or to browse through different treatments for multiple photos quickly, which is why, as already noted, Lr users have wanted this feature.

So if you are satisfied with your control over color and LUTs in your existing software, good for you. It's one of the reasons I thought Luminar had some advantages for some people (Where to Get More LUTs | Skylum Blog (ex-Macphun)), as well as other programs (and BTW, if you can export a LUT as a .cube file from say Affinity or other program you use, you can use it to make a profile in Lr).