# I have noticed using Auto Tone and Profiles



## Zenon (Aug 15, 2018)

I use my Cameras profile. Auto Tone works well but I find sometimes underexposes. I always thought it was protecting highlights. I decided to set up a profile using Colourchecker Passport. To my surprise the new profile does not underexpose. I tried Adobe Colour and the same. No underexposure. 

First image is Canon'profile


----------



## Zenon (Aug 15, 2018)

Not looking for a solution. Just an observation I thought I'd pass on.


----------



## davidedric (Aug 16, 2018)

Interesting.  I would have been interested if you'd included the histogram/sliders panel in photo 1 to be able to compare.
Dave


----------



## Zenon (Aug 16, 2018)

Sure. I was quite surprised as I just thought that was normal. It doesn't happen every time. Maybe 25% of extreme exposure reductions. I have been applying the ColourCecker (CCP) profile randomly to files from various shoots and it is far more accurate. Same thing for Adobe Colour. It just does a better job.


----------



## Zenon (Aug 16, 2018)

Here is the file using the Transfer to DXO command and exported back to LR as a TIFF. It dropped the exposure but not as drastically.


----------



## Zenon (Aug 16, 2018)

I got CCP a few years ago but I really didn't like the blues. Seemed a little too saturated. I realize that using a colour chart makes it correct but Canon's profile looked closer to what I see everyday. I know the science behind it (worked in print media)  and in my world I don't really need profiling. My monitor is calibrated . Auto Tone is better and more consistent using Adobe profiles or the one generated by CCP.  The base starting point is much closer now. 

With the blues as you see in the flag  Adobe Colour is about half way between Canon and CPP.  I have been testing random files and I'm warning up to the CPP version. When I did first try it I have to admit skin tones looked good but I'm not in that business.


----------



## Zenon (Aug 19, 2018)

Not sure if you shoot  with Canon Dave. So while I understand CPP is correct it's just not doing it for me. I have it and will apply it in lighting situations as needed. For general shooting I have always liked Canon Colours and typically use Camera Standard. I guess it is what I'm used t. To get around the exposure thingy I was experimenting with Adobe.  Adobe Colour is close but lacks that little bit of punch I'm used to.  Adobe Vivid is more punchy than Standard but I have been messing around with it.

I realize I'm working with what I think are pleasing colours and not an industry standard. At least now I'm getting consistent exposures from Sensei. Here is my recipe using Adobe Vidid and Jeffrey's Personalized Auto Tone. I may tweak Saturation/Vibrance as I go to tone it down.

I compare Canon Standard and Auto Tone (and tweak exposure to match Adobe if needed) to Vivid and Personal Auto Tone.


----------



## Zenon (Oct 7, 2018)

And older thread but I came across this.

Getting autotone to work adequately


----------



## Zenon (Oct 13, 2018)

Not sure if anyone is interested but there is a workaround and it is solid. Apply Auto Tone using an Adobe profile, then switch to your preferred profile. I did a bunch of  tests applying AT to Adobe Colour then changing it to Canon Standard and it is consistent. It doesn't suffer the over protection the highlights.


----------



## Zenon (Oct 13, 2018)

I'm pretty happy with this. Canon has a little more punch to it which I couldn't match using Adobe Colour.  I tried black, contrast, a tad of DeHaze, etc but just couldn't get it. 

Contrast set to zero for all.

1. Image imported as Canon Standard 
2. Auto Tone applied
3. Back to square one and Auto Tone applied to Adobe Colour
4. Switched profile Canon Standard


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Oct 15, 2018)

Thanks for sharing your thought process Zenon


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Zenon (Oct 15, 2018)

It is pretty huge for me. Import as Adobe Colour, apply Personalized Auto Tone and Bulk Develop, then use a preset to switch to Canon profiles. After the import I can export a good looking file in about 20 seconds if I need to but typically I start to edit after applying the above steps.   

I have not tested to see how  Colorchecker Passport reacts to Auto Tone yet. I haven't used it in a while.


----------



## wildroverandy (Mar 9, 2019)

Thanks for this thread. I've been struggling with the profiles on my Nikon NEF files too here (D5100). I find the Adobe Color profile boosts some colours too much, especially noticeable is anything brown (such as bare earth), which becomes a strange chocolatey colour, and yellows which turn orange.

The Camera xxxx profiles work much better, I had been starting with Camera Standard, and then trying to use the Sensei Auto Tone (Command+U), which, as you say, can end up with very unusual exposure settings (usually under-exposure, and not enough shadow boost). But then started using Jeffrey Friedl's plugins more to try to control this a bit. That was kind of working, but not consistently, sometimes it'd be pretty spot on, sometimes it'd look awful.

Seeing Zenon's settings above, I have now tried those, using this workflow:

Import to (or Reset to) Adobe Color on initial treatment.
Apply Personalised Auto Tone (JF Plugin) according to those you show above.
Apply my Bulk Develop Settings (JF Plugin) for Luminance and colour noise, and the Sharpen Mask according to ISO increase etc..
Apply the Camera Standard profile using a preset.
That's just my preferred initial edit process, then I continue with:

Edit each image individually, tweaking any adjustments as needed.
Usually finish off with setting Black/White points as needed.
Re-apply Bulk Develop settings and check.
That does seem to work quite well for me.

And, FWIW, I see the same issue with my older Olympus E-Series ORF files, but have to use the ACR 4.x profiles on those.

Andy


----------



## Zenon (Mar 16, 2019)

Glad that worked for you. I was surprised when I stumbled into it but I'm glad I did. I don't mind the new Adobe Colour profile but the cameras standard profile just gives this extra bit of depth I can't reproduce.  Of course this is just for my hobby stuff so colour accuracy is not critical. I'm just going for pleasing. I did test it with the Colorchecker Passport and it seemed to play much nicer. 

I don't know anything about Nikon but Canon does not use DCP profiles which  would explain it I think.  I just thought Sensei's highlight protection was  a little too aggressive, which is not the case.


----------



## wildroverandy (Mar 16, 2019)

I don't like the Adobe Color profile at all here, it seems to give far too much saturation in some colours, but isn't consistent either. The Camera Profiles, and the old ACR profiles give more 'natural' results for me.

No, I agree with the Sensei highlights adjustment, that isn't bad at all, but I find the shadows are consistently under adjusted, and if I use the standard Auto Tone, every single image gets negative contrast applied. Your JF plugin settings were a good guid for me, although I have found on the Nikon images I have that 130% was better for the shadows tweak.

I think there's some good starting points there though, and everyone would have to play around a bit to find what they prefer. JF's plugins are a bit of a gem though, and I suppose with everyone having different personal tastes, it's unrealistic to expect even Adobe to get it dead right for everyone .

Cheers

Andy


----------



## Zenon (Mar 16, 2019)

Adobe is aware of the negative contrast and is working on it. I'm sure there will be other improvements over time as they stated it will be learning continually.  It is not perfect but saves me time at the start.


----------



## wildroverandy (Mar 16, 2019)

Indeed so, the auto adjust tools are often a good place to start, but you do need to remember that, and they're not really a magic wand (I sometimes forget that myself). I certainly wouldn't expect perfection, just a near-enough so that a few quick tweaks is needed.

Although, I  think there's a general tendency to over-boost some elements a bit too much when left to full auto in most softwares, probably to impress the audience initially. Personally I'd prefer to start with a more natural representation, and work from that.


----------



## victor9086 (Nov 19, 2019)

To my eyes, the new Adobe Color Profile is an improvement over the old one.  But I think it's a bit too saturated, too contrasty, too digital.  So I'd like to create a modified Adobe Color profile and use it as my default, rather than a preset. 

What parameters should I play with ?  Saturation and contrast for sure, but what else did Adobe do behind the scenes?  I would rather start with the Adobe profile and dial it back myself, rather than using somebody else's preset.


----------



## Zenon (Nov 19, 2019)

Jeffery Friedl has a plug-in that lets you control Auto.


----------



## wildroverandy (Nov 19, 2019)

Zenon said:


> Jeffery Friedl has a plug-in that lets you control Auto.



Indeed so, I use them myself to control the Auto function.

After a lot of experimentation, editing and re-editing, I've come up with something I'm currently reasonably happy with as a semi- automated starting point process, and that does make use of two of Jeffrey's plugins.

I initially set some Default Camera settings, just to set the Profile to Camera Neutral and add the Lens Correction settings.
Then I apply a basic Preset depending on the majority image type - one I use for a basic set of adjustments, but this is to primarily put back some saturation and vibrance to compensate for using the neutral profile (this gives me a more pleasing image than the Adobe Color profile) and a little Texture (Sharpening I'm leaving at default settings). Another is used to add a little extra boost to the image if needed.

Then I use Jeffrey's Personalised Auto Tone in the 'Bag-O-Goodies' plugin, so turn off the Auto Contrast adjustment, and reduce the Shadows and Highlights adjustments (you need to experiment to see what makes you happy, I found somewhere between 50-80% does OK), and leave alone my preset Vibrance and Saturation adjustments. From this I find that a small amount of final adjustment to the shadows, highlights, black and white points is all that's needed, although quite often it needs nothing more doing.

Finally I finish off with the Bulk Develop plugin to add some Denoise dependent on ISO and shadow adjustments and some Mask to the sharpen module.

Of course this is just my take  on it, my images are completely personal, and I don't sell any, and is just some info on one perspective to editing.


----------



## Zenon (Nov 19, 2019)

I also use canon colour profiles. I don’t mind a bit of saturation for my wildlife shots.


----------

