Reading mode: Light Dark

Buy Huelight or Colorchecker for 5Ds?

Go to last post
DugT

DugT

Senior Member
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
339
Location
Santa Clara and Truckee, CA, US
I bought a 5Ds and now I see why people have said Adobe's profile is inadequate. I've been making the most of it but it takes too much work to get decent results.

Should I buy the Huelight profile for $15 or should I buy the X-Rite Colorchecker for about $70? With the Colorchecker I could make my own profiles for my current and future cameras. However, if Colorchecker was that good and easy, Adobe would just use it and we would all be happy with their profiles so apparently Colorchecker is insufficient. I can't imagine why because it sounds too simple and logical to fail.

Any advice is appreciated.
 
Adobe's Standard v2 for the 5Ds is very similar to Huelight. But I prefer Huelight.
 
IMO you would be better off converting the files in DPP to 16bit Tiffs and import to Lr or Photoshop.

I have been colour profiling 5Ds files for Lr with Passport and have concluded the resultant files begin to fall apart with anything more than minor PP adjustments in Lr, while the same TIFF from DPP maintains colour accuracy over much more PP when imported to Lr.

One thing for certain. Lr can do far more with the TIFF files than DPP, but converting to TIFF's seems to preserve the colour integrity of the files in a way that Lr converted RAW files cannot.
 
If you buy a profile that's all you have, one profile. Buy the Colorchecker and you can make as many profiles as you may need.

I use LR for the bulk of my pp and I used to be happy using either Adobe's standard profile or their simulation of Canon's standard profile as a start point when processing my images. Then I took a photograph of a red car and the colour was just plain wrong and it took me a good while to get it anywhere near right. In the end I bought a Colorchecker passport and the problem was solved. Since then I have created profiles for a number of different situations, most recently in bright sunshine in the south of France, where the colours are very different from England's bright sunshine. Now, I wouldn't be without it. Of course, if colour fidelity is not critical to your work then maybe this is not so important.

But, when I buy the 5D4 in 6 months or so, I won't have to worry about how Adobe or Canon render the colours in their software because I'll just go out and make my own profiles as and when I need them.
 
DugT said:
I bought a 5Ds and now I see why people have said Adobe's profile is inadequate. I've been making the most of it but it takes too much work to get decent results.

Should I buy the Huelight profile for $15 or should I buy the X-Rite Colorchecker for about $70? With the Colorchecker I could make my own profiles for my current and future cameras. However, if Colorchecker was that good and easy, Adobe would just use it and we would all be happy with their profiles so apparently Colorchecker is insufficient. I can't imagine why because it sounds too simple and logical to fail.

Any advice is appreciated.
Click to expand...
 
I should have added in my OP that I'm just a hobbiest and color accuracy is not critical to me. I usually just adjust to taste. So, the Colorchecker might be overkill for me but it could save me a lot of time fussy with the slider. It could also be educational for me and could help train my eye.

Is the latest version of Adobe Standard generally acceptable with less "Crushed blacks"? I tried it on one photo and just noticed a little difference. The placebo affect of reading all of the complaints about Adobe's 5Ds profiles may have overly influenced my the judgement of my untrained eyes. It is possible that the complaints I read were written before the Adobe update.

I will search for madmanchen's profile and give it a try.

Thanks again.
 
DugT said:
I bought a 5Ds and now I see why people have said Adobe's profile is inadequate. I've been making the most of it but it takes too much work to get decent results.

Should I buy the Huelight profile for $15 or should I buy the X-Rite Colorchecker for about $70?
Click to expand...
if you worry about the money ebay has colorchecker mini for $30 ( http://www.ebay.com/itm/X-rite-colo...191580?hash=item43f588cadc:g:nfAAAOSwhkRWcsk8 )

it is a genuine piece, I bought a pair when it was just $20 a while back from the same seller (albeit I have many other targets - just for collection)
DugT said:
With the Colorchecker I could make my own profiles for my current and future cameras.
Click to expand...
manual = http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/dcamprof.html
tutorial = http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/photography/camera-profiling.html
discussion = http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=100015.0
DugT said:
However, if Colorchecker was that good and easy, Adobe would just use it and we would all be happy with their profiles so apparently Colorchecker is insufficient.
Click to expand...
you miss the point that there are miriads ways to make a profile and Adobe has certain goals when making their profiles ...
DugT said:
I can't imagine why because it sounds too simple and logical to fail.
Click to expand...
the lack of imagination is indeed a pity
DugT said:
Any advice is appreciated.
Click to expand...
use dcamprof
 
Dr_Jon said:
DugT said:
I bought a 5Ds and now I see why people have said Adobe's profile is inadequate. I've been making the most of it but it takes too much work to get decent results.

Should I buy the Huelight profile for $15 or should I buy the X-Rite Colorchecker for about $70? With the Colorchecker I could make my own profiles for my current and future cameras. However, if Colorchecker was that good and easy, Adobe would just use it and we would all be happy with their profiles so apparently Colorchecker is insufficient. I can't imagine why because it sounds too simple and logical to fail.

Any advice is appreciated.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/28286266@N02/sets/72157651767602507/
I never killed nobody and I didn't rob that train.
dt
Click to expand...
You can use other profiles, Lightroom comes with a bunch including Camera Standard. There is also a slightly tweaked version of the Adobe Standard one available (but I have to go out, so link later, from madman chen).
Click to expand...
of he can modify profiles supplied by Adobe (Adobe Standard or "Camera"-whatever) using either dcamprof or dcptool - including replacing tone curve, modifying hidden expocorrections, making profiles untwisted/invariant

dcptool = http://dcptool.sourceforge.net

huelight is for lazies
 
Last edited:
Blake Cook said:
IMO you would be better off converting the files in DPP to 16bit Tiffs and import to Lr or Photoshop.

I have been colour profiling 5Ds files for Lr with Passport and have concluded the resultant files begin to fall apart with anything more than minor PP adjustments in Lr, while the same TIFF from DPP maintains colour accuracy over much more PP when imported to Lr.

One thing for certain. Lr can do far more with the TIFF files than DPP, but converting to TIFF's seems to preserve the colour integrity of the files in a way that Lr converted RAW files cannot.
Click to expand...
 
I hate sorting and selecting photos in DPP. Could I do that in LR and then export my keepers to DPP and then bring them back to LR?
 
DugT said:
I hate sorting and selecting photos in DPP. Could I do that in LR and then export my keepers to DPP and then bring them back to LR?

--
Click to expand...
i regret telling you this, but you can't. (unless there is something i don't know) you must start from dpp. you can export tiffs from there directly to photoshop or lightroom in case you want to work on something special.
 
I use the Color Checker Passport, religiously, for event shooting so that I can globally adjust multiple images in a few seconds. It is not perfect, however, as any color lab technician will tell you, but it is fairly good. This can also be a bit of a pain when shooting a daylong event and the light is constantly changing, as well as when moving between indoor to outdoor shooting, not to mention flash vs available light shooting.

For my personal shooting, I tend to adjust all my images, individually, so I just use Huelight and "artistic"manipulation of the sliders. Hopefully, I am not colorblind. :-)

--
Jeff
Florida, USA
http://www.gr8photography.com
 
Last edited:
salamander1 said:
DugT said:
I hate sorting and selecting photos in DPP. Could I do that in LR and then export my keepers to DPP and then bring them back to LR?

--
Click to expand...
i regret telling you this, but you can't. (unless there is something i don't know) you must start from dpp. you can export tiffs from there directly to photoshop or lightroom in case you want to work on something special.
Click to expand...
I just realized that it doesn't matter. I could import photos into DPP, save as tiff and the import into LR. I wouldn't have to do any sorting or editing in DPP.
 
Blake Cook said:
IMO you would be better off converting the files in DPP to 16bit Tiffs and import to Lr or Photoshop.

I have been colour profiling 5Ds files for Lr with Passport and have concluded the resultant files begin to fall apart with anything more than minor PP adjustments in Lr, while the same TIFF from DPP maintains colour accuracy over much more PP when imported to Lr.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting set of comments although it leaves me a bit confused about your workflow. Seems like an apple/oranges thing. For example, would these circumstances still hold true if you used one of the Adobe's profiles?

So, I immediately pulled a recent image into DPP 4.5 to see if I could get your results. My main problem with DPP are the exposure and sharpening adjustments. However, using very similar adjustments in both, I was able to obtain nearly the same results from ACR that I got from DPP, the ACR result perhaps a bit more contrasty, but a tug on the contrast slider to the negative got things very close.
Blake Cook said:
One thing for certain. Lr can do far more with the TIFF files than DPP, but converting to TIFF's seems to preserve the colour integrity of the files in a way that Lr converted RAW files cannot.

--
Blake in Vancouver
Canon and Zeiss Stuff. Mac Stuff & annoying PC & Windows stuff.
Click to expand...
--
Once you've done fifty, everything else is iffy.
 
Last edited:
DugT said:
I bought a 5Ds and now I see why people have said Adobe's profile is inadequate. I've been making the most of it but it takes too much work to get decent results.

Should I buy the Huelight profile for $15 or should I buy the X-Rite Colorchecker for about $70? With the Colorchecker I could make my own profiles for my current and future cameras. However, if Colorchecker was that good and easy, Adobe would just use it and we would all be happy with their profiles so apparently Colorchecker is insufficient. I can't imagine why because it sounds too simple and logical to fail.

Any advice is appreciated.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/28286266@N02/sets/72157651767602507/
I never killed nobody and I didn't rob that train.
dt
Click to expand...
Hulight is better than Adobe for sure.

However, with a colorchecker you can do much more. Each lens can be calibrated to the same result. Its fast to use and once you "get it" its hard to go back. Its really something that can reduce the time you spend post processing and it can deal with very tricky light situations too.
 
Rick Knepper said:
Blake Cook said:
IMO you would be better off converting the files in DPP to 16bit Tiffs and import to Lr or Photoshop.

I have been colour profiling 5Ds files for Lr with Passport and have concluded the resultant files begin to fall apart with anything more than minor PP adjustments in Lr, while the same TIFF from DPP maintains colour accuracy over much more PP when imported to Lr.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting set of comments although it leaves me a bit confused about your workflow. Seems like an apple/oranges thing. For example, would these circumstances still hold true if you used one of the Adobe's profiles?

So, I immediately pulled a recent image into DPP 4.5 to see if I could get your results. My main problem with DPP are the exposure and sharpening adjustments. However, using very similar adjustments in both, I was able to obtain nearly the same results from ACR that I got from DPP, the ACR result perhaps a bit more contrasty, but a tug on the contrast slider to the negative got things very close.
Rick Knepper said:
One thing for certain. Lr can do far more with the TIFF files than DPP, but converting to TIFF's seems to preserve the colour integrity of the files in a way that Lr converted RAW files cannot.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top