The story behind Adobe and missing camera matching profiles

Started Sep 19, 2019 | Discussions
boldcolors Senior Member • Posts: 1,648
The story behind Adobe and missing camera matching profiles
13

So, I started a thread over at the Adobe forums about the missing camera matching profiles, starting with EOS RP. (In fact, even the R which you will find out here)

I got reply from Adobe Staff saying that they are working on it since Canon has changed their file format (CR2->CR3).

Then I asked how come there's camera matching support for the EOS R (which also uses CR3) they admitted that they have not created any real profiles for that one, just a copy-paste from "a previous model". Likely the 5D4 due to the sensor design.

So that means that since the EOS R (which was released a YEAR ago) they still haven't managed to create real custom profiles for Canon. They seem to blame Canon for not being quick enough

Written on September 6th:

"The new sensors require a separate calibration method, and this is the part that is a lot more difficult with the file format change. As I mentioned previously, we're working with Canon to try to resolve this, but it's going to take time. We have already shared with Canon the sentiment that CM profiles are important to our mutual customers (such as yourself), so we're hoping we can get this taken care of. Unfortunately I can't offer a timetable for you"

Here's the full thread:

https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2650451

Two major players and they can't get this sorted out? Since they repeat "it's going to take time" and finally "no timetable" after ONE YEAR I get the feeling that they just don't care anymore. Hey, they have the smartphone apps right?

Discussion: Do you think Adobe is right? Is Canon holding back or is Adobe "fat and happy"?

 boldcolors's gear list:boldcolors's gear list
Pentax K-3 II Canon EOS RP Canon EOS R6 Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1,4/50 +5 more
gium Senior Member • Posts: 1,641
Re: The story behind Adobe and missing camera matching profiles
1

There are always two sides to the story. Too bad we don't hear Canon's side.
In the end I believe both parties are in some way responsible for this. And also in the end, it's very unfortunate for us as customers.

I hope they get this sorted soon, because my workflow is very Adobe oriented (I have tried DPP, but it just didn't work well enough for me) and I really prefer the camera matching profiles over Adobe's profiles.

 gium's gear list:gium's gear list
Canon EOS RP Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 85mm F1.2L II USM Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM +7 more
RDKirk Forum Pro • Posts: 16,263
Re: The story behind Adobe and missing camera matching profiles
7

I'm pretty sure Canon's attitude is, "We provide a free RAW processor for our customers, it's up to you to provide a RAW converter for your customers."

Unless Adobe is willing to pay a license fee, of course.

It costs Canon money even to send programmers to talk to Adobe. Unless Adobe is willing to pay for it, the Canon manager who incurs that cost will have to show that additional money spent will equal additional units purchased.

And vice versa. The Adobe managers have to show that spending money working on an R converter will equal additional subscriptions. I don't know why they think, however, that .CR3 isn't going to be the sole format of all Canon's future cameras. Maybe Adobe thinks Canon is going to tank completely next year.

-- hide signature --

RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

 RDKirk's gear list:RDKirk's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 70D Canon EOS 5DS R Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 +7 more
gium Senior Member • Posts: 1,641
Re: The story behind Adobe and missing camera matching profiles
1

RDKirk wrote:

I'm pretty sure Canon's attitude is, "We provide a free RAW processor for our customers, it's up to you to provide a RAW converter for your customers."

I hope they don't think like that. For many photographers, post-processing is as important and/or as time-consuming as taking the actual photos.

Adobe is market leader with their pp software, so a large amount of Canon photographers use Adobe software over Canon's own DPP (for good reasons) for post processing.

If the camera you have or would like to have doesn't fit inside your workflow, you can either adjust your workflow or don't go for that camera. The latter would of course be bad for Canon, I hope Canon realizes that. Otherwise they're just ignoring the obvious.

But I also understand your remark about license fees. I just hope Adobe and Canon can work it out.

 gium's gear list:gium's gear list
Canon EOS RP Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 85mm F1.2L II USM Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM +7 more
Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 28,076
Most...
7

gium wrote:

RDKirk wrote:

I'm pretty sure Canon's attitude is, "We provide a free RAW processor for our customers, it's up to you to provide a RAW converter for your customers."

I hope they don't think like that. For many photographers, post-processing is as important and/or as time-consuming as taking the actual photos.

Adobe is market leader with their pp software, so a large amount of Canon photographers use Adobe software over Canon's own DPP (for good reasons) for post processing.

I have always found that to get the most in terms of IQ and capability from a camera (Nikon or Canon) it's best to start with a RAW file in the manufactures own software...make global adjustment ...then convert to 16-bit TIFF and finish processing in Adobe. Best of both worlds and I'm not affected by how Adobe may "interrupt" what the manufactures intended. Lots of ways to skin that cat with many Pros and Cons

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

RDKirk Forum Pro • Posts: 16,263
Re: Most...
2

Mako2011 wrote:

I have always found that to get the most in terms of IQ and capability from a camera (Nikon or Canon) it's best to start with a RAW file in the manufactures own software...make global adjustment ...then convert to 16-bit TIFF and finish processing in Adobe. Best of both worlds and I'm not affected by how Adobe may "interrupt" what the manufactures intended. Lots of ways to skin that cat with many Pros and Cons

That's my process.  I use customized picture styles anyway that Adobe doesn't recognize.

-- hide signature --

RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

 RDKirk's gear list:RDKirk's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 70D Canon EOS 5DS R Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 +7 more
coso dp
coso dp Regular Member • Posts: 282
Re: Most...
2

That's starting to be a real problem though. I got an RP and can't process my images with anything but DPP4. Which is ok but very slow and I can't use my old presets. It's a real PITA. There are no advantages in using CR3 over CR2 which is even more insulting. I blame Canon more than Adobe though. It's a proprietary format it's not that 3rd party software companies should figure it out by themselves. A globally happy customer is important for Canon too. I love my RP and the Canon direction in ML, but I would not suggest an R/RP yet (or other ML bodies which use CR3) until the general issue about working on the RAW files is resolved.

rrc1967 Senior Member • Posts: 1,984
Re: Most...
4

coso dp wrote:

That's starting to be a real problem though. I got an RP and can't process my images with anything but DPP4. Which is ok but very slow and I can't use my old presets.

If I'm not mistaken CC/Lightroom both now load CR3 files, it was the camera profiles that are the problem.

I don't have lightroom loaded on my laptop, but I do know CC opens CR3 just fine, which usually means that CR3's load in lightroom.

CaptureOne supports CR3 as well.

So update your software perhaps?

It's a real PITA. There are no advantages in using CR3 over CR2 which is even more insulting.

sure there is. CR3 supports lossy and lossless compression, CR2 only supported lossless which was a lower compression rate.

I blame Canon more than Adobe though. It's a proprietary format it's not that 3rd party software companies should figure it out by themselves.

The same as every other camera company sans the one or two that also support DNG.

rrc1967 Senior Member • Posts: 1,984
Re: Most...

Mako2011 wrote:

gium wrote:

RDKirk wrote:

I'm pretty sure Canon's attitude is, "We provide a free RAW processor for our customers, it's up to you to provide a RAW converter for your customers."

I hope they don't think like that. For many photographers, post-processing is as important and/or as time-consuming as taking the actual photos.

Adobe is market leader with their pp software, so a large amount of Canon photographers use Adobe software over Canon's own DPP (for good reasons) for post processing.

I have always found that to get the most in terms of IQ and capability from a camera (Nikon or Canon) it's best to start with a RAW file in the manufactures own software...make global adjustment ...then convert to 16-bit TIFF and finish processing in Adobe. Best of both worlds and I'm not affected by how Adobe may "interrupt" what the manufactures intended. Lots of ways to skin that cat with many Pros and Cons

I do the same, partly because I shoot alot of infrared photos as well, and DPP handles those so much easier than lightroom.

If adobe actually got off it's keester and opened up the white balance range and added channel swapping, i could save so much time. alas, it's not there unless you use some ugly workarounds.

coso dp
coso dp Regular Member • Posts: 282
Re: Most...

If I'm not mistaken CC/Lightroom both now load CR3 files, it was the camera profiles that are the problem.

I don't have lightroom loaded on my laptop, but I do know CC opens CR3 just fine, which usually means that CR3's load in lightroom.

AFAIK without the camera profiles the results are still sub par compared to DPP.

CaptureOne supports CR3 as well.

Don't know, I might try their trial but this one costs quite a lot to me right now to be a justifiable purchase.

sure there is. CR3 supports lossy and lossless compression, CR2 only supported lossless which was a lower compression rate.

Didn't know, thanks

The same as every other camera company sans the one or two that also support DNG.

So let's just hope it become more widely used..

Craig Smith Regular Member • Posts: 496
Re: The story behind Adobe and missing camera matching profiles
7

DxO Photolab II supports CR3 and provides camera profiles for the M50, RP, and R. This company is no where near the size of Adobe yet they are up to date with support of Canon's new format. No reason why Adobe can't so the same.

 Craig Smith's gear list:Craig Smith's gear list
Canon EOS R6 Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon EOS RP Canon EOS R7 Canon 70-300 F4-5.6 IS II +3 more
gimp_dad Senior Member • Posts: 2,583
Re: The story behind Adobe and missing camera matching profiles

henrikbengtsson wrote:

So, I started a thread over at the Adobe forums about the missing camera matching profiles, starting with EOS RP. (In fact, even the R which you will find out here)

I got reply from Adobe Staff saying that they are working on it since Canon has changed their file format (CR2->CR3).

Then I asked how come there's camera matching support for the EOS R (which also uses CR3) they admitted that they have not created any real profiles for that one, just a copy-paste from "a previous model". Likely the 5D4 due to the sensor design.

So that means that since the EOS R (which was released a YEAR ago) they still haven't managed to create real custom profiles for Canon. They seem to blame Canon for not being quick enough

Written on September 6th:

"The new sensors require a separate calibration method, and this is the part that is a lot more difficult with the file format change. As I mentioned previously, we're working with Canon to try to resolve this, but it's going to take time. We have already shared with Canon the sentiment that CM profiles are important to our mutual customers (such as yourself), so we're hoping we can get this taken care of. Unfortunately I can't offer a timetable for you"

Here's the full thread:

https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2650451

Two major players and they can't get this sorted out? Since they repeat "it's going to take time" and finally "no timetable" after ONE YEAR I get the feeling that they just don't care anymore. Hey, they have the smartphone apps right?

Discussion: Do you think Adobe is right? Is Canon holding back or is Adobe "fat and happy"?

Thanks so much for digging out this story.  I agree with your assessment: not very satisfying status.

Lot's of finger pointing but none if it makes complete sense.  If they can decode a CR3 file (happened pretty quickly after R release) and they can map the old 5D4 camera profiles to the new file format, I don't totally get what the issue is.  On the other hand, I am shocked that both Canon and Adobe are not all over this issue.  This makes both companies look like amateurs for sure. It would be like Microsoft and Intel suddenly not supporting each other with the most recent processor release.  Massively self-destructive to both companies and just going to drive customers away from a very profitable business.

By the way, I don't know if you saw but there is a thread on here about an apparently similar set of RP camera profiles using the same technique derived from the 6D2 profiles (but this one was hacked together by a user rather than Adobe).  It actually takes a huge step forward for the RP in LR.  It isn't perfect but puts you at a familiar (and pretty good) starting point for RP captures.  You should try it.

Dave Lasker Regular Member • Posts: 344
Re: The story behind Adobe and missing camera matching profiles
1

henrikbengtsson wrote:

"The new sensors require a separate calibration method, and this is the part that is a lot more difficult with the file format change."

I tried to reply on the Adobe forum, but for some reason I don't see a Reply button there. So I will ask my question here:

Why does Adobe need to understand more of the CR3 file format to create a profile? I would have thought they would just photograph a color chart, and then fine tune the profile coefficients to match the various Canon picture styles. Adobe already understands much of the useful info in a CR3 so it can render the image, read the EXIF data, etc. What other info might be in the CR3 file that Adobe needs?

 Dave Lasker's gear list:Dave Lasker's gear list
Canon EOS RP Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 Apple iPhone XS
Sittatunga Veteran Member • Posts: 4,357
Re: Most...

coso dp wrote:

That's starting to be a real problem though. I got an RP and can't process my images with anything but DPP4. Which is ok but very slow and I can't use my old presets. It's a real PITA. There are no advantages in using CR3 over CR2 which is even more insulting. I blame Canon more than Adobe though. It's a proprietary format it's not that 3rd party software companies should figure it out by themselves. A globally happy customer is important for Canon too. I love my RP and the Canon direction in ML, but I would not suggest an R/RP yet (or other ML bodies which use CR3) until the general issue about working on the RAW files is resolved.

Why should Canon be helping the big boys to dominate the market even further?  Surely, it would make more sense to help the people behind the GIMP and RawTherapee so that Canon's customers have more money to spend on lenses and accessories.

PhotoKhan Forum Pro • Posts: 11,821
Re: The story behind Adobe and missing camera matching profiles

henrikbengtsson wrote:

So, I started a thread over at the Adobe forums about the missing camera matching profiles, starting with EOS RP. (In fact, even the R which you will find out here)

I got reply from Adobe Staff saying that they are working on it since Canon has changed their file format (CR2->CR3).

Then I asked how come there's camera matching support for the EOS R (which also uses CR3) they admitted that they have not created any real profiles for that one, just a copy-paste from "a previous model". Likely the 5D4 due to the sensor design.

So that means that since the EOS R (which was released a YEAR ago) they still haven't managed to create real custom profiles for Canon. They seem to blame Canon for not being quick enough

Written on September 6th:

"The new sensors require a separate calibration method, and this is the part that is a lot more difficult with the file format change. As I mentioned previously, we're working with Canon to try to resolve this, but it's going to take time. We have already shared with Canon the sentiment that CM profiles are important to our mutual customers (such as yourself), so we're hoping we can get this taken care of. Unfortunately I can't offer a timetable for you"

Here's the full thread:

https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2650451

Two major players and they can't get this sorted out? Since they repeat "it's going to take time" and finally "no timetable" after ONE YEAR I get the feeling that they just don't care anymore. Hey, they have the smartphone apps right?

Discussion: Do you think Adobe is right? Is Canon holding back or is Adobe "fat and happy"?

This is a bit hard to understand.

If the R profiles are a copy paste from a "previous model" why didn't they get them right the first time around and needed to come up with v2 versions?

PK

-- hide signature --

“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.humbertoborgesfotografia.com/
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
-------------------------------------------------

Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 28,076
open

PhotoKhan wrote:

This is a bit hard to understand.

If the R profiles are a copy paste from a "previous model" why didn't they get them right the first time around and needed to come up with v2 versions?

It can be a "copy paste" type operation if you just need to be able to just open the files for editing....but way more involved if you want to open the files and apply accurate camera profiles and edit based on those profiles.

Not unlike the work around were you simply changed the file extension (to an older file type) to get Adobe to open a file that wasn't yet fully supported

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Laqup Regular Member • Posts: 151
R profile way off as well
3

Maybe it is only me, but in my experience even the V2 camera matching profiles for the EOS R are way off.

For a better accuracy of the standard profile contrast and saturation have to be lowered by default and even then there are still obvious differences.

Anyone else with the same experience?

 Laqup's gear list:Laqup's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS M100 Nikon Z7 Nikon Z6 Canon EOS R +32 more
coso dp
coso dp Regular Member • Posts: 282
Re: Most...
1

Sittatunga wrote:

coso dp wrote:

That's starting to be a real problem though. I got an RP and can't process my images with anything but DPP4. Which is ok but very slow and I can't use my old presets. It's a real PITA. There are no advantages in using CR3 over CR2 which is even more insulting. I blame Canon more than Adobe though. It's a proprietary format it's not that 3rd party software companies should figure it out by themselves. A globally happy customer is important for Canon too. I love my RP and the Canon direction in ML, but I would not suggest an R/RP yet (or other ML bodies which use CR3) until the general issue about working on the RAW files is resolved.

Why should Canon be helping the big boys to dominate the market even further? Surely, it would make more sense to help the people behind the GIMP and RawTherapee so that Canon's customers have more money to spend on lenses and accessories.

Because software is not a market for Canon. Canon doesn't sell DPP, it's not their business model, they give it you for free for convenience.

But they should want their customers happy. And their customers are happy if they can use faster or alternative raw and photo retouching programs.

If I have a hard time finding a software to retouch my photos I won't buy more lenses and accessories, I will switch to another camera maker.

Sittatunga Veteran Member • Posts: 4,357
Re: Most...

coso dp wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

coso dp wrote:

That's starting to be a real problem though. I got an RP and can't process my images with anything but DPP4. Which is ok but very slow and I can't use my old presets. It's a real PITA. There are no advantages in using CR3 over CR2 which is even more insulting. I blame Canon more than Adobe though. It's a proprietary format it's not that 3rd party software companies should figure it out by themselves. A globally happy customer is important for Canon too. I love my RP and the Canon direction in ML, but I would not suggest an R/RP yet (or other ML bodies which use CR3) until the general issue about working on the RAW files is resolved.

Why should Canon be helping the big boys to dominate the market even further? Surely, it would make more sense to help the people behind the GIMP and RawTherapee so that Canon's customers have more money to spend on lenses and accessories.

Because software is not a market for Canon. Canon doesn't sell DPP, it's not their business model, they give it you for free for convenience.

Up to a point.  Other manufacturers give Adobe products away with their cameras.

But they should want their customers happy. And their customers are happy if they can use faster or alternative raw and photo retouching programs.

If I have a hard time finding a software to retouch my photos I won't buy more lenses and accessories, I will switch to another camera maker.

Well I, for one, would be very unhappy if I were limitted to Adobe software because Canon had given their secrets to Adobe and no-one else.  Adobe need their arses kicking, so we need some competition around to do that.  For now, there's plenty of competition, long may it stay that way, if only to keep everybody on their toes.

RLight Senior Member • Posts: 3,950
Funny how the tables are turned
1

Laqup wrote:

Maybe it is only me, but in my experience even the V2 camera matching profiles for the EOS R are way off.

Yup. Ditto.

For a better accuracy of the standard profile contrast and saturation have to be lowered by default and even then there are still obvious differences.

Anyone else with the same experience?

It's touchy, I have to do the formerly mentioned DPP4 > TIFF > LR. I don't mind, I get best of both worlds. Adobe is LAZY though with all that money they get from my subscription to not have done this. I mean a year? I don't care who's fault it is after a year. I'm paying Adobe, for their product that they are not delivering on. It's up to Adobe to share the pie (pay Canon from some of that subscription) or make it themselves in house. Or me to move to another product that will.

I've been saying this for a while, and at the time people called me picky, nuts, etc. Funny how now the tables are turned...

I'm telling you, these subscription models make developers fat and lazy. They love it. The only recourse us consumers have is to complain, but ultimately hit their wallet and choose another product. Hmph.

Oh, and Canon has seen the light here and may have incentive NOT to help Adobe (which technically it's Adobe's problem, not Canon's anyways even though it's a problem for their users that use both). DPP4 itself, for iPad, is going to become a subscription! Hey, if Canon can do it better, I'm for it. I think if Canon can combine the powers of LR with DPP4, sure, I'll take my Canon colors and DLO profiles. Which btw, even my CR2 equipped EOS M6 Mark I, looks better with said DPP4 > TIFF > LR even though it's supported, there's still slight nuances in colors that don't match. It's just not as extreme as the R in LR. That tells me Adobe reverse engineered it back then. If, Canon had helped, in theory I wouldn't have a picture profile matching issue on the "supported" CR2 EOS M6. But, I do. Just reverse engineer it Adobe and stop making excuses.

 RLight's gear list:RLight's gear list
Canon G5 X II Canon EOS R Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF-M 15-45mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM Canon RF 28-70mm F2L USM +1 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads