# Which Camera Calibration Profile?



## Modesto Vega (Feb 3, 2015)

This is my first post on a somehow heavy topic. It is rehash of a post I have on the official Lightroom forum, apologies for this if it causes any offence.

Before I go into detail, just a brief background. I currently use a Nikon D600 with picture controls set to "Standard" and a Sekonic light meter, my first digital was a Nikon D40 and I still have it although I don't use it to much. Although I am Nikon biased I have dabbled with Canon, hopefully nobody gets offended about that. I have used Lightroom since version 3, currently on 5.7.1. I have a developed workflow with a couple of shortcoming I am aware of.

For sometime I have been suspicious about how Lightroom was rendering some of my D600 photographs. I[FONT=adobe-clean, Helvetica Neue, Arial, sans-serif]n a nutshell quite a few photographs don't look in Lightroom as I envision them and, most importantly, they don't look the way they look in camera. With "the way the look in camera" I mean inspecting the histograms and clipping warnings. For sometime, I thought this was down to the ignorance an amateur but I also noticed a few patters emerging, for instance photographs with green seem to be more prone to exhibit that behaviour. So I decided to experiment with Camera Profiles, what I found was somehow disturbing considering that I have a catalog with almost 10,000 images most of them processed using a workflow based on using an "Adobe Standard" profile.[/FONT]

[FONT=adobe-clean, Helvetica Neue, Arial, sans-serif]Just to give an example of a very green and, perhaps, not such a great photograph. The photograph selection is intentional.

This is the histogram with the profile set to Adobe Standard (please not the photograph has a +17 black adjustment which I did not noticed before doing the screenshots):
[/FONT]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[FONT=adobe-clean, Helvetica Neue, Arial, sans-serif]

[/FONT]This is a screenshot of an after and before view, left "Adobe Standard" right "Camera Standard". The histogram has noticeably changed. In fact, I would said they are 2 completely different images, the greens are render very differently. I also know which one I'll pick for further work, the right image, the one with Camera Standard as the profile.






I am looking for advice on best practice regarding Camera Calibration and what profiles to use. My starting point regarding camera profiles is that they are designed to calibrate the colour rendering intent of a camera. Once I got some advice, I will think about adjusting my workflow accordingly.


----------



## Denis de Gannes (Feb 3, 2015)

Check the history (see screen capture) to see what you are comparing, the before is the original import and the after is with any other adjustments done since then. Including, I suspect, the +17 black.


----------



## Modesto Vega (Feb 3, 2015)

At the time I took the screenshots the history look like shown below.


----------



## Tony Jay (Feb 3, 2015)

Hi Modesto, welcome to Lightroom Forums!

First up, if you are shooting in RAW then the picture controls are completely irrelevant to how the RAW file will look. However, it will change how the JPEG preview is rendered. Since the in-camera LCD view is the JPEG file and not the RAW I would definitely expect that the RAW file would not be the same as the JPEG preview.

In particular, apart from the colours looking slightly different (courtesy of the limitations of AdobeRGB or sRGB versus ProPhotoRGB) the bit-depth of the JPEG versus the RAW image is also different, 8-bit for JPEG versus 14-bit for RAW, and so the tonal depth of the images are very different and the JPEG image will appear to clip long before the RAW image.

If you are shooting RAW then the entire point of the exercise is to make the image look the way that you want it too through the post-processing pipeline. One does not expect as-shot RAW images to be sorted. What the RAW image offers is the bit-depth that enables one to make very extensive image edits without breaking the image.

It is possible that you are inadvertently applying presets that are altering the look of the image but I personally think that is a less likely issue.

It is also possible to make your own camera profiles. I do this, but I must stress that it would not eliminate your observations and concerns since the differences between RAW files and the JPEG previews would persist.

The bottom line is that the camera profile is not the issue - no matter which one is used. Perhaps some more insight into camera profiles is pertinent: Any camera profile that is visible when one is editing an image is visible because it belongs to the particular camera model that generated the image file. They are meant, roughly, to mimic the in-camera picture profiles that are similarly named. The process is not exact though.

Which profile to use is completely a matter of personal taste and how to go about editing that RAW image is again a matter of personal taste. So, just choose a camera profile and edit from there. The end result is the key not the start.

Tony Jay


----------



## Modesto Vega (Feb 3, 2015)

I am shooting RAW. The only 2 things I check on the in-camera LCD are the histogram -  i.e., does it look I go my exposure right - and clipping warnings - just in case I missed a particularly bright or dark area. I also use a calibrated display for post-processing, calibrated with x-Rite iDisplayPro.

I understand that one does not expect RAW images to be sorted. But those 2 versions of the same image side-by-side on a colour managed environment are too different images. Therefore, they are just giving me two completely starting points. Besides I don't always set out with a fully define end result in mind.

Having said this, I think you just hit a nail on the head. My underlying problem is where do camera profiles sit within the post-processing pipeline: at the beginning, at the end, or in the middle. In a nutshell, my question: is where do camera profiles sit within the post-processing pipeline?


If it is a matter of personal taste, surely they should not sit at the beginning. If it is a matter of rendering "correct colour", then they might sit at the beginning.

P.S.: Currently all the votes seem to go to personal taste, which I don't find too reassuring for some reason.


----------



## Denis de Gannes (Feb 3, 2015)

If you wish to see what change was made by the camera standard profile then move the Black slider back to 0. 



Modesto Vega said:


> At the time I took the screenshots the history look like shown below.


----------



## Denis de Gannes (Feb 3, 2015)

If you wish to see what change was made by the camera standard profile then move the Black slider back to 0. 



Modesto Vega said:


> At the time I took the screenshots the history look like shown below.


----------



## Tony Jay (Feb 3, 2015)

Modesto:
The clipping warnings that the camera LCD provides are based on 8-bit JPEG information and not 14-bit RAW data and so are not accurate. This issue is exacerbated if you apply Picture profiles in-camera that increase the contrast.
My personal advice is to change the the Picture profile settings to Faithful (or whatever setting in your camera does not change contrast) in order to limit the misinformation about clipping.
Certainly, in the cameras that I use I get about a stop and a half extra highlight headroom above what the in-camera histogram tells me. Your Nikon D600 may even get you more!

As for exposure, bluntly put, if one is shooting RAW then the goal is not necessarily to get a correct looking exposure on the camera LCD. I actually could not care less what the JPEG representation looks like. Depending on the lighting conditions and dynamic range of the image being captured the in-camera LCD might project an image that looks hopelessly under- or over-exposed. My goal is to get as much information into the RAW file as possible so that subsequent post-processing is as easy as possible. In order to do this I just push the exposure as far to the right as possible without clipping important highlights. I stress again that I am interested in whether the RAW is clipped and NOT the in-camera JPEG and the in-camera histogram.

Camera profiles (DNG camera profile is the full name) are applied to RAW data and modify the rendering of RAW images. What they do is reflect (pardon the pun) the interaction between the camera's sensor and the light in producing colour and tone. So, DNG camera profiles are applied in the making of a rendered demosaiced RAW file. By definition this must occur very early in the post-processing pipeline and happens before one can even view a rendered RAW image. Applying a different profile requires re-rendering.
What this means is the DNG camera profile is an irrevocable part of how a RAW image is rendered and forms the basis of what the Develop module plays with.

Tony Jay


----------



## gregDT (Feb 5, 2015)

Wot he said. For me the main use of the LCD camera screen is for composition. As mentioned above you can get an idea of how you're exposure went but it's not definitive. Once in Lightroom I use a profile based on the type of images I have. I mainly use the old Nikon D2X modes. But these only act as a start point for my workflow. Unless I'm using a completely colour controlled workflow that uses an X-Rite Colour checker, then the profile is where I begin the process. If you like the second shot of your flow (as I do) then that's the profile to use as it seems much of your work is already done. If you were photographing a person possibly the first profile would be better, it's a matter of personal choice.


----------



## ruben.carmona (Feb 5, 2015)

Exactly, you should create your own profiles. I do that with a reference too (mine is called spydercheckr). Otherwhise you aren't really using a "correct", reliable profile


----------



## Modesto Vega (Feb 5, 2015)

*Does Lightroom shaw the actual RAW histogram?*



gregDT said:


> Wot he said. For me the main use of the LCD camera screen is for composition. As mentioned above you can get an idea of how you're exposure went but it's not definitive. Once in Lightroom I use a profile based on the type of images I have. I mainly use the old Nikon D2X modes. But these only act as a start point for my workflow. Unless I'm using a completely colour controlled workflow that uses an X-Rite Colour checker, then the profile is where I begin the process. If you like the second shot of your flow (as I do) then that's the profile to use as it seems much of your work is already done. If you were photographing a person possibly the first profile would be better, it's a matter of personal choice.



Thanks, this is starting to get interesting, you are the 1st person, followed by Ruben, that places Camera Profile at the beginning of the workflow, as a starting point. The 2nd shot in the OP is the one that requires less work which to my ears sounds like a more efficient workflow. Furthermore, I don't what I would have to the 1st shot to make it look like the 2nd shot; obviously it possible as they are the same file with 2 different camera profiles.

I am aware about the limitation of the camera LCD, I only use it roughly estimate if I got my exposure right. Pity that camera manufactures don't display a rendition of the RAW histogram.

Since I started this thread I have been tinkering around with various photographs and it is clear that different profiles are better suited for different subjects. However, something I find surprising that just by applying a profile like "Camera Standard", I can eliminate Lightroom shadow clipping and even highlight clipping warnings. I imagine this must mean that the actual RAW file is not clipped. This also leads me to conclusion that Lightroom is also not showing the actual RAW histogram neither, but the histogram adapted for the default camera profile. Could anybody comment on this please?

Does Lightroom shaw the actual RAW histogram or the histogram adjusted for the default camera profile? Do I really have to use RAW Digger to actually see the RAW histogram?

Could you please expand on why you use the Nikon D2X modes?


1st P.S.: Colour checker is on my list for this year but I like changing one thing at a time
2nd P.S.: Ruben - It is also in my list to create my own profiles.


----------



## Tony Jay (Feb 5, 2015)

Lightroom does indeed show the the RAW histogram.

Tony Jay


----------



## Modesto Vega (Feb 5, 2015)

Tony Jay said:


> Lightroom does indeed show the the RAW histogram.
> 
> Tony Jay


Why does the histogram change if I change the camera profile? Why does a change of camera profile from "Adobe Standard" to something else eliminates clipping warnings otherwise visible while using "Adobe Standard" as the camera profile? Are you actually saying that the "Adobe Standard" profile equals a RAW view of the file?


----------



## Tony Jay (Feb 5, 2015)

Modesto Vega said:


> Why does the histogram change if I change the camera profile? Why does a change of camera profile from "Adobe Standard" to something else eliminates clipping warnings otherwise visible while using "Adobe Standard" as the camera profile? Are you actually saying that the "Adobe Standard" profile equals a RAW view of the file?


I think I mentioned that the DNG profile is meant to modify the RAW data at a very early stage in RAW conversion.
It absolutely stands to reason that if the DNG profile is changing things at that early stage then it will alter the look of final RAW image and therefore the histogram.
Remember, there is no RAW image until it has been converted.

Tony Jay


----------



## gregDT (Feb 6, 2015)

The D2X profiles refer to three profiles that came as default with the Nikon D2X DSLR. Many, myself included, think they are some of the nicest looking profiles. They were used a lot by sport and news 'togs who shot jpeg for speed of turnaround (copy deadlines). D2X did the job and became something of an iconic look. I prefer them to the Adobe defaults as they tend do get me closer to my own preferred 'look'. They come in three flavours, very roughly, D2X mode 1 is a soft portrait look, 2 is middle of the road and 3 is punchy for landscapes.

For some clients I have to shoot a very strict colour workflow with no scope for interpretation or trying to get a certain 'look'. They're lighting designers architects and interior designers. The job for me is to show colour exactly as they designed it throughout the workflow. Which is why I use colour checker etc. For general photography I never bother using it.


----------



## Modesto Vega (Feb 7, 2015)

Tony Jay said:


> I think I mentioned that the DNG profile is meant to modify the RAW data at a very early stage in RAW conversion.
> It absolutely stands to reason that if the DNG profile is changing things at that early stage then it will alter the look of final RAW image and therefore the histogram.
> Remember, there is no RAW image until it has been converted.
> 
> Tony Jay



Sorry for the delay in replying to this, other matters (work) required my undivided attention.

I understand and don't disagree with anything you are saying. In fact, I am very grateful to everybody who has responded to the OP for making me look at RAW files an RAW conversion from a completely different angle, and angle I do not see very often.

Would it be fair to summarise the discussion so far by saying?

1) during the conversion of the RAW file the DNG profile controls how the tones are mapped
2) the DNG profile is the selected profile under camera calibration in Lightroom
3) the histogram shown my Lightroom is, therefore, the tone mapped histogram

Thanks again for sharing your help.


----------



## Modesto Vega (Feb 7, 2015)

gregDT said:


> The D2X profiles refer to three profiles that came as default with the Nikon D2X DSLR. Many, myself included, think they are some of the nicest looking profiles. They wereused a lot by sport and news 'togs who shot jpeg for speed of turnaround (cooy deadlines). D2X did the job and became something of an iconic look. I prefer them to the Adobe defaults as they tend do get me closer to my own preferred 'look'. They come in three flavours, very roughly, D2X mode 1 is a soft portrait look, 2 is middle of the road and 3 is punchy for landscapes.
> 
> For some clients I have to shoot a very strict colour workflow with no scope for interpretation or trying to get a certain 'look'. They're lighting designers architects and interior designers. The job for me is to show colour exactly as they designed it throughout the workflow. Which is why I use colour checker etc. For general photography I never bother using it.


No D2X profiles available for the D600 but they are available for the my old D40. Apparently Nikon has dropped D2X modes 1,2 and 3 for new cameras.


----------



## Tony Jay (Feb 7, 2015)

Modesto Vega said:


> Sorry for the delay in replying to this, other matters (work) required my undivided attention.I understand and don't disagree with anything you are saying. In fact, I am very grateful to everybody who has responded to the OP for making me look at RAW files an RAW conversion from a completely different angle, and angle I do not see very often.Would it be fair to summarise the discussion so far by saying? 1) during the conversion of the RAW file the DNG profile controls how the tones are mapped2) the DNG profile is the selected profile under camera calibration in Lightroom3) the histogram shown (b)y Lightroom is, therefore, the tone mapped histogramThanks again for sharing your help.


The DNG profile is also very important in determining colour as well as tones.Tony Jay


----------



## Modesto Vega (Feb 8, 2015)

Tony Jay said:


> The DNG profile is also very important in determining colour as well as tones.Tony Jay



Indeed, you are absolutely right. Just as an example the Camera Dx2 Mode 3 profile when applied to photos taken with a Nikon D40 produces green where Adobe Standard does not produce a recognisable green.

Curiously, green is the most affected colour on both the Nikon D40 and the Nikon D600. I know there are 2 green channels on the RAW file, do you (or anybody else) have any idea why determining green is so affected by the choice of profile?


----------



## Tony Jay (Feb 9, 2015)

One can think of these DNG profiles as a bit of a recipe - just like the picture profiles in nearly all cameras.
One takes an image and depending on the picture profile applied the whole look of the image can change.

The principle is similar with DNG profiles that Adobe offers.

Complicating matters a bit is that the sensor in your D800 may not be exactly the same (as pertains to performance) as another D800. Yet the DNG profiles from Adobe for the D800 are made from exactly one D800 model - perforce the profile cannot be an average of several or many cameras of the same model.
This was one of several reasons that convinced me to make my own profiles - the differences were subtle but noticeable.

I cannot provide an exact answer to the issues around your D600 and D40 but the more insight one gains into DNG profiles the better.

Tony Jay


----------



## Modesto Vega (Feb 10, 2015)

Thanks Tony, I thick the colour checker passport has just moved up my priority list, so I can start making my own profiles.


----------

