[house]

The Pentax dcp embedded in the dng's *and used for sooc) aren't very accurate. Reds blues and greens move quite a bit. I actually quite like the Pentax calibration but for some subjects the colours are noticeably off. A profile calibrated for accuracy is useful when this happens. Of course for significant PP work an accurate base is also better.

[biz-engineer]

The downsize of making a custom calibrated camera profile is that it flattens everything to match the color target, which includes flattening of the lens color rendering, and removes Pentax color science.
It's complicated. If I compare side by side various options:
1) the DNG preview (image embedded by the camera inside the DNG)
2) same image converted using the camera .dcp
3) JPEG export using calibrated .dcp
4) JPEG export from standard camera profile

The Pentax embedded JPEG (1) looks best.

Which asks the question: if I do my own color processing, how good am I compared to Pentax engineers?
Should I just shoot RAW and use the camera as my RAW converter, then use layers in Photoshop to do the equivalent of things like dodging & burning?

---------- Post added 19-01-21 at 08:44 ----------

The purpose of a custom profile is for per-session use with complex (e.g. multi-source) lighting. One may also create a replacement profile for that supplied by Pentax (included in the RAW) or those available from Adobe, but care should be taken that it actually does what you need. An alternative to Rawtherapee for creating profiles from the X-right Color Checker is the DNG Profile Editor available from Adobe.

The big advantage of DNG profile editor is the ability to tweak the profile, but that require to have a good mastery of "color" science, it open up an entire new field, and it becomes time consuming.

[house]

In my experience Rawtherapee with auto matched tone curve and the embedded profile get very close to the jpeg. But I shoot natural or flat (with +contrast) profile perhaps the difference is more noted with bright or some other settings. In some scenes a difference is noticeable but mostly very close.

So since i mostly like the Pentax colours I use the embedded profile through the standard option and get Pentax looking jpgs out of the raw converter. But the ability to compare to the Rawtherapee calibrated profile does show when Pentax takes things in the wrong direction. Brownish reds are difficult for me. I might like the overall image better with Pentax colour but, as an architect, if the main subject is made of certain types of brick I have to use the calibrated profile.

To add to you options you can load the Adobe dcp from camera raw. Either from an installed copy of Photoshop/CS or from the free trial standalone camera raw.

[BigMackCam]

The downsize of making a custom calibrated camera profile is that it flattens everything to match the color target, which includes flattening of the lens color rendering, and removes Pentax color science.
It's complicated. If I compare side by side various options:
1) the DNG preview (image embedded by the camera inside the DNG)
2) same image converted using the camera .dcp
3) JPEG export using calibrated .dcp
4) JPEG export from standard camera profile

The Pentax embedded JPEG (1) looks best.

Which asks the question: if I do my own color processing, how good am I compared to Pentax engineers?
Should I just shoot RAW and use the camera as my RAW converter, then use layers in Photoshop to do the equivalent of things like dodging & burning?

---------- Post added 19-01-21 at 08:44 ----------


The big advantage of DNG profile editor is the ability to tweak the profile, but that require to have a good mastery of "color" science, it open up an entire new field, and it becomes time consuming.

The real benefit of profiling against a Macbeth chart is better colour accuracy. This can be important in product and fashion photography, for example, but it also establishes a good baseline from which to perform any post-processing, especially if one of your objectives is to maintain the most realistic representation of your subjects and scenes. Looking at it another way - it's quite difficult to start with a colour-inaccurate photograph and make it accurate. Every adjustment to every colour, however small, results in a bunch of other related colours changing. It's time-consuming and tiresome, and whilst you might get pretty close, you're unlikely to get it "spot on". If, instead, you start out with a colour-accurate photo, you have the choice of keeping this representation or compromising absolute accuracy in return for the desired effects of your processing.

If your photography doesn't require colour accuracy - and that's certainly the case for plenty of folks - then the embedded profile or default "standard" profile from your raw conversion software is probably good enough.

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 01-19-2021 at 09:16 AM.

[biz-engineer]

Looking it another way - it's quite difficult to start with a colour-inaccurate photograph and make it accurate. Every adjustment to every colour, however small, results in a bunch of other related colours changing. It's time-consuming and tiresome, and whilst you might get pretty close, you're unlikely to get it "spot on". If, instead, you start out with a colour-accurate photo, you have the choice of keeping this representation or compromising absolute accuracy in return for the desired effects of your processing.

Sure. The Pentax "styles" are more punchy. But I actually quite like the rendering when using the calibrated .dcp in the color management input settings. It looks good without too much or too little punch, it just looks right. Apparently, .dcp files can also be used for post-processing non DNG raw files. Basically, if we post process raw images using camera own .dcp, we start from the same color baseline regardless of the camera and brand used, all colors aligned to the color chart reference, then apply our own presets. I had the X-rite color checker for many years, it's not cheap, but I never took time to use it fully. I glad I tried it.

I also like that Pentax use the DNG format out of camera, no need to convert from proprietary file format to DNG format for making the .dcp. I can take a shot , take another shot with the xrite checker in it, download the DNG via wifi, drag&drop the DNG into the Xrite software and get my .dcp done. It's pretty straightforward.

[TonyW]

I understood from your OP that you were looking to improve rendering in respect of pixel shift images, which to me suggested that you were in some way dissatisfied with the current choice of Pentax profiles available to you. So I am a little surprised at your current findings.

The downsize of making a custom calibrated camera profile is that it flattens everything to match the color target, which includes flattening of the lens color rendering, and removes Pentax color science.
It's complicated. If I compare side by side various options:
1) the DNG preview (image embedded by the camera inside the DNG)
2) same image converted using the camera .dcp
3) JPEG export using calibrated .dcp
4) JPEG export from standard camera profile

The Pentax embedded JPEG (1) looks best.

If you have fallen in love with the look of the sRGB limited JPEG shown on your LCD and want to use that either as starting point for further editing or as a finished image then you can consider issues resolved and need not look further.

Your profile can only be as good as the very limited range of colours contained in your target. Need more accuracy, get a larger target but be aware that even these targets will not cover all the colours your camera can capture.
Digital SG ColorChecker®; X-Rite

Your findings seem to confirm views expressed here that profiles come into their own particularly for odd lighting situations.

Which asks the question: if I do my own color processing, how good am I compared to Pentax engineers?

You could also rephrase the question to:
Should I accept a rendering of my images from someone who was not in attendance when I shot the image and was not privy to my visualisation of that scene at the time?

Should I just shoot RAW and use the camera as my RAW converter, then use layers in Photoshop to do the equivalent of things like dodging & burning?

Why not just shoot in raw and just accept whatever profile you like or even in raw and JPEG or just JPEG many event photographers do. The decision can only be yours

The big advantage of DNG profile editor is the ability to tweak the profile, but that require to have a good mastery of "color" science, it open up an entire new field, and it becomes time consuming.

I think you may be underestimating your own abilities to design either an accurate profile or perhaps more importantly a pleasing rendering of your data. If you have normal colour vision then the profile editor is easy to get to grips with (no more difficult than using your raw editor) and just requires a little investment in time to understand the features

[biz-engineer]

I understood from your OP that you were looking to improve rendering in respect of pixel shift images, which to me suggested that you were in some way dissatisfied with the current choice of Pentax profiles available to you. So I am a little surprised at your current findings.

Well. My explanation wasn't clear. I'm not using Adobe products, I don't like cloud mode software and especially not their pricing. So I tried various other raw processing software. Based on color consistency (for Pentax files) and loyal representation of shapes at pixel level, I chose to use Silkypix + the more functionalities that Silkypix Dev Pro has over PDCU (lets call it SPD). SPD noise processing vs detail and its automatic demosaics settings produce excellent JPEGs or 16bits TIFF output, also able to somehow process pixels shift images but there is zero control over it, it's used camera parameters for PS RAW motion control.

But, SPD isn't as feature rich as LR/PS, and SPD is very slow to process files (not taking advantage of graphic card acceleration). So I was recommended on this site to use Raw Therapee. However, I never like the default color rendering of RT, and in my RAW image processor comparison, RT wasn't as good as reproducing faithful details at pixel level, so in the past I chose not to use RT as RAW processor.

Recently I tried to make the most out of the Pentax pixel shift option again, but there is always the problem of motion correction in pixel shift exposures (I've open a new thread here last week), and was recommended to use RT. I installed the latest version of RT again, it worked great for motion control in PS, but I was still unsatisfied with how output colors looked. But I saw that it was possible to use a custom camera profile.

All that said, I still think Silkypix automatic settings give the best output quality. Silkypix looks at exposure parameters, and noise level, in focus and out of focus areas, and decide what are the best settings starting point for each particular image, then dynamically smooth out noise in areas that contains low details, less noise reduction is applied in high details areas, all this is automatic, very slow and CPU intensive, but the output quality is one of the best I've seen.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 01-19-2021 at 04:42 AM.

[TonyW]

Well. My explanation wasn't clear. I'm not using Adobe products, I don't like cloud mode software and especially not their pricing. So I tried various other raw processing software. Based on color consistency (for Pentax files) and loyal representation of shapes at pixel level, I chose to use Silkypix + the more functionalities that Silkypix Dev Pro has over PDCU (lets call it SPD). SPD noise processing vs detail and its automatic demosaics settings produce excellent JPEGs or 16bits TIFF output, also able to somehow process pixels shift images but there is zero control over it, it's used camera parameters for PS RAW motion control.

But, SPD isn't as feature rich as LR/PS, and SPD is very slow to process files (not taking advantage of graphic card acceleration). So I was recommended on this site to use Raw Therapee. However, I never like the default color rendering of RT, and in my RAW image processor comparison, RT wasn't as good as reproducing faithful details at pixel level, so in the past I chose not to use RT as RAW processor.

Recently I tried to make the most out of the Pentax pixel shift option again, but there is always the problem of motion correction in pixel shift exposures (I've open a new thread here last week), and was recommended to use RT. I installed the latest version of RT again, it worked great for motion control in PS, but I was still unsatisfied with how output colors looked. But I saw that it was possible to use a custom camera profile.

All that said, I still think Silkypix automatic settings give the best output quality. Silkypix looks at exposure parameters, and noise level, in focus and out of focus areas, and decide what are the best settings starting point for each particular image, then dynamically smooth out noise in areas that contains low details, less noise reduction is applied in high details areas, all this is automatic, very slow and CPU intensive, but the output quality is one of the best I've seen.

On the contrary your explanation in the first post was quite clear i.e. Rawtherapee for motion correction of pixel shift, and trying to improve on color rendering,

Your choice of raw editor should not really matter, if you do not like the rendering of a particular editor for your images either change it and save as your own preset or build one using either the X Rite or the Adobe Profile editor. Your own profiles will display your images exactly as you set the renderings in all raw editors providing at least 2 conditions are met, 1. That your monitor has been correctly calibrated and profiled and that the profile is being used by your OS, 2. That your raw editor is also correctly colour managed and capable of using others profiles (there may be some small changes to colour appearance due to the way the system interprets colours)

My preference is for the Adobe profile editor as this not only allows you to tune a colour checker DNG but also enables tuning of actual images starting with whatever base profiles you have available.

FWIW, you may wish to play with the Adobe Profile app
Just to show a very very rough example attached is an animation of different profiles that I have produced in the Adobe Profile maker without using a colour checker card. Please note that with the exception of one (skin tone and its partner reduce red (not included)) the profiles are fantasy or rather silly but do illustrate the potential for change of any DNG image you wish to look at and improve on or mess up

The first image in the animation shows some of the profiles I have played with highlighted in yellow. This first image using the Pentax embedded. Others have been produce loading a base profile for manipulation.

For me most of the time I just shoot raw and as I know how I want the final image rendered will start with the embedded profile and work from there as required rarely needing a special profile. Accepting that YMMV

[house]

It seems odd to use the dcp for look adjustments. Most raw software have much more comprehensive tools for that than the profile editor?

As described the manufacturer profiles tend to include adjustments for look and the main reason for creating your own dcp is to avoid the look data and achieve accurate colours as a baseline for further edits. Indeed also for countering lens and light colour characteristics when really going for accuracy.

- Embedded dng profile has Pentax tuned colours
- Adobe camera profiles have Adobe colours not tuned for accuracy. (has been stated in some interview)
- Rawtherapee "auto matched profile" is created for accuracy but the fidelity is dependent on the person creating the profile and the lens used.

[TonyW]

Not odd at all as a profile of some sort has to be applied to raw otherwise you will hate the look of a demosaiced raw if you could see it (very dark and low contrast) and it would need quite a lot of post lifting to be acceptable. Most users I believe want their data initially presented with a look that is close to an acceptable starting point rather than having to use the same edits for images taken under differing and challenging conditions

So the profile is applied to first display the raw data in a form that is seen to be acceptable and from there you will use the still limited set of tools available in most raw processors and if necessary move on to a pixel editing application of choice.

Agree that a good reason for creating your own dcp is to either attempt to achieve more accurate colour than available in pre installed versions. Here is a real example, a professional photographer who shoots hundreds of studio portaits with flash, tungsten and daylight etc finds that all his images from his particular Pentax, Nikanon, Hasseleica require too much fine tuning and they are typically displaying too much saturation in the reds and incorrect rendering of skin tones. None of the profiles available for each camera comes close to what he/she requires. So maybe there are solutions available

- Use the closest profile to desired rendering then edit individually, and apply that profile automatically when that camera/lens combo used (if that feature available in your editor of choice)
- Make a preset to apply colour correction to your raw
- Make a camera profile to your desired rendering to be applied automatically or manually

I can only speak from my own experience of Adobe profiles with Nikon cameras and Pentax 645. Standard Adobe camera profiles, Color, Neutral, Landscape, Standard, Portrait, Vivid and Monochrome have been tuned by the Adobe engineers to produce pleasing or acceptable starting points for further editing.

But that is only part of what Adobe offers as they also include for many cameras Camera Matching Profiles such as Pentax 645 Bright, Landscape, Natural, Portrait and Vibrant my experience of these and those from Nikon D800 is that they are a very close to the profile from the manufacturer. Accuracy will depend on how many camera samples they have used to aid in the profile making

[biz-engineer]

Your own profiles will display your images exactly as you set the renderings in all raw editors providing at least 2 conditions are met, 1. That your monitor has been correctly calibrated and profiled and that the profile is being used by your OS, 2. That your raw editor is also correctly colour managed and capable of using others profiles (there may be some small changes to colour appearance due to the way the system interprets colours)

Using two raw developers, I've displayed side by side the same raw file (.DNG), set the raw dev. software to point to the camera profile embedded in the DNG, both windows displayed on the same color calibrated display, with both application having their color managed output set to match my display .icc with perceptual rendering. Both images looks very close but not the same. It's as if each raw developer software has its own internal default settings to process and display, e.g. tone curve. It's difficult to compare using an random image file. My guess , to know if there is colors match or not, default contrast, exposure levels and saturation settings should be exactly the same.

[house]

TonyW again I don't quite understand. You speak as if people don't have their customized settings applied to raws at import. That it's only the dcp that determines the appearance of the raw when you open it. This thread is about Rawtherapee where I hope most people have dynamic profiles that apply sharpening, highlight recovery, chromatic aberration correction, luts, colour tweaks, noise etc etc. at import. Presumably profiles that are auto selected by camera iso lens etc to correct for each unique case.

I'm not that familliar with LR or C1 but I know that Adobe at least does a lot of stuff behind the scenes on any opened file. The dcp again seems like a very odd place to do looks. Luts would make more sense?

Both images looks very close but not the same. It's as if each raw developer software has its own internal default settings to process and display,

I mentioned this in my reply to Tony (crossposted with yours) Each raw processor does a lot beyond just the dcp and this will have subtle impact on the resulting files. Most, commercial, raw processors can't even display a demosaic only raw but instead apply a lot of hidden stuff that's out of your control. For one thing the demosaic algorithm will have tiny impact on percieved colours and for commercial software this is a black box we know nothing about. The same goes for sooc files and the in camera processing. Colour fringe corrections will subtly alter perceived colour of a file for instance.

[biz-engineer]

I mentioned this in my reply to Tony (crossposted with yours) Each raw processor does a lot beyond just the dcp and this will have subtle impact on the resulting files. Most, commercial, raw processors can't even display a demosaic only raw but instead apply a lot of hidden stuff that's out of your control. For one thing the demosaic algorithm will have tiny impact on percieved colours and for commercial software this is a black box we know nothing about. The same goes for sooc files and the in camera processing. Colour fringe corrections will subtly alter perceived colour of a file for instance.

I suppose each raw processor has its own internal recipe. My color matching excercise between RT and SPD, is even more basic: if I use the white balance picker on the same area of the same image, each software give a different color temperature! SPD gives 5330K and RT give 5800K. I changed the camera profile to see if the color temperature would change and it didn't. I changed other settings to check if it has any influence of color temperature calculation and it didn't. Now if I set both RT and SPD to select the embedded DNG profile and I set the color temperature manually to 5300K (and reset tint to 0), both images render very different. I'm puzzled !!!

[TonyW]

house, I agree we are not quite understanding each other , to try and answer your comments:

- You speak as if people don't have their customized settings applied to raws at import: I do not speak as if people have anything set when importing raw as I do not presume to know what people do

- That it's only the dcp that determines the appearance of the raw when you open it: It is if you have not set your editor to apply any other corrections or presets

- This thread is about Rawtherapee...: Well the thread title reads "Creating .dcp color profile for your camera" , as well as RT, X Rite and Adobe profiling being talked about!

- I'm not that familliar with LR or C1 but I know that Adobe at least does a lot of stuff behind the scenes on any opened file. The dcp again seems like a very odd place to do looks. Luts would make more sense?: Yes Adobe does a lot of stuff behind the scenes and this changes with each process version. You may be referring to Baseline Exposure corrections which changes the exposures prior to viewing in the case of Pentax 645 this is alteration of +1.5 EV exposure -33 etc which can lead one to believe that they are over exposing when in fact underexposure may be the case. RawTherapee and many others also apply BLE to the rendered image
LUT's are associated most commonly with post processing and usually in video applications (not exclusively) so we use a profile to achieve what we need either on import or after should we change our mind or similarly to a LUT we apply a preset. Can you apply LUT in RT?

- Each raw processor does a lot beyond just the dcp and this will have subtle impact on the resulting files: Covered above

[beholder3]

I know that Adobe at least does a lot of stuff behind the scenes on any opened file.

Yes.

But many people are not aware of one of the most fundamental things:
If you talk to post processing experts they will tell you that basically 60+% of ANYTHING they do in sw like photoshop is some way of adjusting the "curves".
And .dcp do exactly two things:
a) they adjust colors (input to output), so this for example tackles questions of "Nikon yellow faces" and "Canon/Pentax oversaturated reds"
b) they define the "base curve" / gamma. This has substantial impact on image perception, especially contrasts, which by themselves are the basis for "sharpness"

I recommend anyone to check out darktable's base curve toll and the base curve presets they have made for the look of all the manufacturers.