Lightroom RX100 II support is released

Started Jun 18, 2014 | Discussions
Marc Heijligers Contributing Member • Posts: 530
Lightroom RX100 II support is released
2
 Marc Heijligers's gear list:Marc Heijligers's gear list
Sony RX1R Sony RX100 III Nikon D800 Sony Alpha a7R II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +8 more
Sony RX100 II
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
jlynchtx
jlynchtx Regular Member • Posts: 191
Re: Lightroom RX100 II support is released

I assume you mean RX100 III? That is great news! And very fast support. It will be awesome to have the update before I even get the camera.

OP Marc Heijligers Contributing Member • Posts: 530
Re: Lightroom RX100 II support is released

jlynchtx wrote:

I assume you mean RX100 III? That is great news! And very fast support. It will be awesome to have the update before I even get the camera.

Indeed, the III, long live these automatic spell checkers...

 Marc Heijligers's gear list:Marc Heijligers's gear list
Sony RX1R Sony RX100 III Nikon D800 Sony Alpha a7R II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +8 more
2eyesee Senior Member • Posts: 2,078
Re: Lightroom RX100 II support is released

Marc Heijligers wrote:

jlynchtx wrote:

I assume you mean RX100 III? That is great news! And very fast support. It will be awesome to have the update before I even get the camera.

Indeed, the III, long live these automatic spell checkers...

Wow that is fast - thanks for the heads-up!

OP Marc Heijligers Contributing Member • Posts: 530
Re: Lightroom RX100 II support is released

Marc Heijligers wrote:

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2014/06/lightroom-5-5-now-available.html

Looks like the camera profiles and lens profiles for the RX100-III are still missing.

There is only a Adobe Standard option, which gives yellow hues to the pictures when you compare it with the jpg’s out of the camera (on top RAW with Adobe Standard, in the middle the RAW with RX100II camera Standard Profile applied, at the bottom the JPG out of the camera). You can see the Adobe Standard profile results in more orange shifts, the Sony versions are more greenish.

You can also see that the jpg is sharpened pretty aggressively compared to the RAW files. This leads to some artifacts in certain patterns On the other hand, the Sony internal algorithms seem to take away some color shifts, and filter noise in large even areas. See the examples underneath (unsharpened RAW, sharpened RAW, jpg out of the camera).

All samples are from imaging-resource .

 Marc Heijligers's gear list:Marc Heijligers's gear list
Sony RX1R Sony RX100 III Nikon D800 Sony Alpha a7R II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +8 more
Dale Cotton Senior Member • Posts: 1,937
Re: Lightroom RX100 II support is released

Marc: LR/ACR do not use custom lens correction profiles, they use the profile embedded in the raw file header. In LR it's irrelevant whether you check Enable Profile Correction or not. The correction is automatically applied during import but there is zero indication of that in the LR interface. Same with the RX100 original and the Mark 2.

It would not be obvious whether the Sony profile is used or not, because Imaging Resource (and DPR) shoot the Mark3 at 70mm, precisely because that's where the lense has the least distortion. If you have a wide angle raw from the Mark 3 and it looks severely distorted in LR, then you would know that LR was not finding the embedded profile in the raw file.

As for colour profiles. Adobe profiles each camera, calling the result Adobe Standard. The purpose of this profile is to correct for inaccuracies in a given camera model's colour response. The OOC JPEG shows you the uncorrected response, the LR version shows you the corrected response.

To verify the accuracy of the corrected response, Imaging Resource included a standardized Gretag-Macbeth ColorChecker card in their studio test shot, propped up against the olive oil bottle. Comparing the ColorChecker from the LR5.5 develop output to the ColorChecker from IR's OOC JPEG and both to my own copy of the ColorChecker card, the LR version is much more accurate.

Marc Heijligers wrote:

Marc Heijligers wrote:

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2014/06/lightroom-5-5-now-available.html

Looks like the camera profiles and lens profiles for the RX100-III are still missing.

There is only a Adobe Standard option, which gives yellow hues to the pictures when you compare it with the jpg’s out of the camera (on top RAW with Adobe Standard, in the middle the RAW with RX100II camera Standard Profile applied, at the bottom the JPG out of the camera). You can see the Adobe Standard profile results in more orange shifts, the Sony versions are more greenish.

You can also see that the jpg is sharpened pretty aggressively compared to the RAW files. This leads to some artifacts in certain patterns On the other hand, the Sony internal algorithms seem to take away some color shifts, and filter noise in large even areas. See the examples underneath (unsharpened RAW, sharpened RAW, jpg out of the camera).

All samples are from imaging-resource .

Thomas Niemann Veteran Member • Posts: 4,353
Re: Lightroom RX100 II support is released

Dale Cotton wrote:

Marc: LR/ACR do not use custom lens correction profiles, they use the profile embedded in the raw file header. In LR it's irrelevant whether you check Enable Profile Correction or not. The correction is automatically applied during import but there is zero indication of that in the LR interface. Same with the RX100 original and the Mark 2.

This is partially true. In addition to using profiles embedded as metadata in Raw files (where they are applied and there is no indication to the user), there are also custom profiles that ship with Lightroom. For the latter you can choose whether or not the profile is applied and, in fact, create your own.

It would not be obvious whether the Sony profile is used or not, because Imaging Resource (and DPR) shoot the Mark3 at 70mm, precisely because that's where the lense has the least distortion. If you have a wide angle raw from the Mark 3 and it looks severely distorted in LR, then you would know that LR was not finding the embedded profile in the raw file.

As for colour profiles. Adobe profiles each camera, calling the result Adobe Standard. The purpose of this profile is to correct for inaccuracies in a given camera model's colour response. The OOC JPEG shows you the uncorrected response, the LR version shows you the corrected response.

When you take a picture the image is formed on the camera sensor. This is not a JPEG image but simply raw sensor data. The camera then interprets this data and creates a JPEG. It will, for example, sense whether you took the picture outdoors in sunlight, shade, or indoors under tungsten or fluorescent light and correct the image accordingly. So OOC JPEG images are corrected in-camera.

To verify the accuracy of the corrected response, Imaging Resource included a standardized Gretag-Macbeth ColorChecker card in their studio test shot, propped up against the olive oil bottle. Comparing the ColorChecker from the LR5.5 develop output to the ColorChecker from IR's OOC JPEG and both to my own copy of the ColorChecker card, the LR version is much more accurate.

OP Marc Heijligers Contributing Member • Posts: 530
Re: Lightroom RX100 II support is released

Hi Dale,

Marc: LR/ACR do not use custom lens correction profiles, they use the profile embedded in the raw file header.

Indeed, you are right, the profile is embedded and always applied.

As for colour profiles. Adobe profiles each camera, calling the result Adobe Standard. The purpose of this profile is to correct for inaccuracies in a given camera model's colour response. The OOC JPEG shows you the uncorrected response, the LR version shows you the corrected response.

Every response is "corrected" by nature, as you need to transfer a Bayer pattern to an RGB picture, so also a camera corrects a picture.

Adobe tries to come towards a more common color response over all different camera brands, but that doesn't necessarily means it is more accurate in absolute sense. The following website shows that the Adobe Standard profile may contain quite some twisted color hues, which means that the color accuracy drifts over different exposure:

http://chromasoft.blogspot.nl/2009/02/visualizing-dng-camera-profiles-part-1.html

To verify the accuracy of the corrected response, Imaging Resource included a standardized Gretag-Macbeth ColorChecker card in their studio test shot, propped up against the olive oil bottle. Comparing the ColorChecker from the LR5.5 develop output to the ColorChecker from IR's OOC JPEG and both to my own copy of the ColorChecker card, the LR version is much more accurate.

Underneath is a quick test I did with the DNG profile editor and my Colorchecker Passport chart. The inner squares are my own calibration with the DNG profile editor, the outer squares are the JPG and Adobe Standard profiles. Here indeed it is clear that the Adobe ones are more in line with the Colorchecker Passport.

JPG - Standard versus own calibration:

RAW - Adobe Standard versus own calibration:

That doesn't mean the Adobe profile is more accurate, it only shows that Adobe's own procedure and my own calibration are pretty close (because I guess they use the same software :-), only my test setup is less accurate).

When the results are compared to true colors (generated with Photoshop based on the colors mentioned on the wiki), there are quite some offsets for both cases (the true computer generated colors are in the small rectangles - and aligning the contrast curve for black-and-white to get comparable lightness values):

Own calibrated versus true colors:

Adobe Standard verus true colors (purplish blue misses some magenta, yellow misses some green)

JPG versus true colors (differences more in lightness than in color)

In general, cyan and orange are more off for the Sony profiles, green, yellow and blue are more off for Adobe. My observation is that Sony's colors give more natural skin tones.

Last but not least, my post was not intended to discuss the accuracy of color profiles (although a nice side track), but just to point out that the Sony Color profiles were not included yet in Lightroom 5.5. It is at least nice to be able to create the same results with Lightroom as the camera provides.

 Marc Heijligers's gear list:Marc Heijligers's gear list
Sony RX1R Sony RX100 III Nikon D800 Sony Alpha a7R II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +8 more
Dale Cotton Senior Member • Posts: 1,937
Re: Lightroom RX100 II support is released

Marc: first, apologies for thoroughly misunderstanding your post. Hope we can get you to stick around this forum long term. The information you just provided is invaluable (at least to me <g>).

Now, to try to shamelessly pick your brain a bit further: the extent of my camera profiling is to use the Passport as directed. The results are far from accuracy heaven. So I've simply got in the habit of using the Adobe Standard profile and ignoring the clear diff in luminance values for many of the CC patches. So a simple question: is there a moderately simple way to get an actual accurate LR profile for each camera I use? IOW, a profile that results in a shot of the Passport CC card looking like the actual CC card, at least within a fairly small margin of error.

I guess I have no critical need for true accuracy. It's just that, when I start mucking around with the colours in an image, I'd prefer to work off Mother Nature's palette instead of Adobe's.

Marc Heijligers wrote:

Hi Dale,

Marc: LR/ACR do not use custom lens correction profiles, they use the profile embedded in the raw file header.

Indeed, you are right, the profile is embedded and always applied.

As for colour profiles. Adobe profiles each camera, calling the result Adobe Standard. The purpose of this profile is to correct for inaccuracies in a given camera model's colour response. The OOC JPEG shows you the uncorrected response, the LR version shows you the corrected response.

Every response is "corrected" by nature, as you need to transfer a Bayer pattern to an RGB picture, so also a camera corrects a picture.

Adobe tries to come towards a more common color response over all different camera brands, but that doesn't necessarily means it is more accurate in absolute sense. The following website shows that the Adobe Standard profile may contain quite some twisted color hues, which means that the color accuracy drifts over different exposure:

http://chromasoft.blogspot.nl/2009/02/visualizing-dng-camera-profiles-part-1.html

To verify the accuracy of the corrected response, Imaging Resource included a standardized Gretag-Macbeth ColorChecker card in their studio test shot, propped up against the olive oil bottle. Comparing the ColorChecker from the LR5.5 develop output to the ColorChecker from IR's OOC JPEG and both to my own copy of the ColorChecker card, the LR version is much more accurate.

Underneath is a quick test I did with the DNG profile editor and my Colorchecker Passport chart. The inner squares are my own calibration with the DNG profile editor, the outer squares are the JPG and Adobe Standard profiles. Here indeed it is clear that the Adobe ones are more in line with the Colorchecker Passport.

JPG - Standard versus own calibration:

RAW - Adobe Standard versus own calibration:

That doesn't mean the Adobe profile is more accurate, it only shows that Adobe's own procedure and my own calibration are pretty close (because I guess they use the same software :-), only my test setup is less accurate).

When the results are compared to true colors (generated with Photoshop based on the colors mentioned on the wiki), there are quite some offsets for both cases (the true computer generated colors are in the small rectangles - and aligning the contrast curve for black-and-white to get comparable lightness values):

Own calibrated versus true colors:

Adobe Standard verus true colors (purplish blue misses some magenta, yellow misses some green)

JPG versus true colors (differences more in lightness than in color)

In general, cyan and orange are more off for the Sony profiles, green, yellow and blue are more off for Adobe. My observation is that Sony's colors give more natural skin tones.

Last but not least, my post was not intended to discuss the accuracy of color profiles (although a nice side track), but just to point out that the Sony Color profiles were not included yet in Lightroom 5.5. It is at least nice to be able to create the same results with Lightroom as the camera provides.

OP Marc Heijligers Contributing Member • Posts: 530
Re: Lightroom RX100 II support is released

So a simple question: is there a moderately simple way to get an actual accurate LR profile for each camera I use? IOW, a profile that results in a shot of the Passport CC card looking like the actual CC card, at least within a fairly small margin of error.

Color Management is a very complex topic, and I'm not the expert in this domain, so I can't help you much I'm afraid.

What I do know:

  • The ColorChecker Card works well under conditioned situations; e.g. flash light with a known color (preferably 6500K), and with the right exposure (calibrated with a grey card).
  • Your whole flow needs to be calibrated, i.e. also your computer screen is part of the game (obvious)

What I don't know:

  • The effect of white balace being not exactly 6500K
  • The effect of the exposure not being accurate

If it would be simple, I would assume it would have already been done, but I never was able to find those profiles. I wasn't able to do it myself as well.

I guess I have no critical need for true accuracy. It's just that, when I start mucking around with the colours in an image, I'd prefer to work off Mother Nature's palette instead of Adobe's.

I think manufacturers and Adobe already try to make something that gives the most accurate (with a certain context) or pleasing results. But things are tricky. Imagine you photograph someone underneath a colored umbrella, or with a reflection of a colored table, next to a person in the sun, and one person in the shadow. In such a case you can't do much more than to adapt to taste.

I feel that for Nikon the Neutral profile (with a bit of contrast enhancement), and for Sony the Camera Standard or Adobe profile provide good starting points.

 Marc Heijligers's gear list:Marc Heijligers's gear list
Sony RX1R Sony RX100 III Nikon D800 Sony Alpha a7R II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +8 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads