I know it is possible to import an icc profile from Capture One or a dcp profile from Lightroom. But what export method do I have to use if I want to create the profile from PL5 itself to be created in Colorchecker Camera Calibration?
If I use “Export to disk” I can choose between a dng and a tiff file, in both cases it says “all corrections applied”. But I don’t know which corrections should be applied or not, for example in colour rendering or white balance.
If on the other hand I choose “Export image for ICC profile” the confusion is even worse. In the option “Export as linear RAW” the resulting tiff image is extremely dark and sometimes it is not possible to create the profile. In “Export as realistic colour rendering” the image is very low in contrast but the profile is always created. In both cases, contrary to “Export to disk”, corrections are not applied.
Capture One for example exports a tiff to create the profile, but it is very clear which adjustments have to be made.
Could someone give me some guidance on which is the most suitable method?
I shoot the target as RAW in the camera, run it through Adobe DNG Converter, then open the exported DNG in ColorChecker Camera Calibration. Why do you think you need to do anything in PL5?
But, unless you need a very precise profile for a certain lighting condition, why not use the DCP profiles that come with Adobe DNG Converter, or even the camera profile built by DxO?
DPL cannot create a .dcp profile. Use the software that you can get to that end, e.g.
Adobe DNG Profile Editor might work, but it has not been updated for a long time.
PhotoLab, as well as Photoshop or Capture One, cannot create any dcp or icc profile, of course. Only Ligtroom can do this without the need to open ColorChecker Camera Calibration because it is internally connected. My question was which method is better to export an image taken from a ColorChecker chart inside PL5
That depends why you want to export it?
My question was not about how to do it in an external program and then import the profile into PL5. Within PL there are two options for exporting an image to create an icc profile and I suppose they will be of some use… I don’t understand the difference between the two options either, linear or realistic. In my case it is mainly important to reproduce paintings, I don’t know which one to choose and I don’t see the need to go to another program if PL already gives me the feature.
I don’t see such an export option in PL5 Mac. Can you post a screenshot of the dialog?
camera profiles are not enough accurate for reproductions
Not even if they are created from scratch using ColorChecker Camera Calibration? PL certainly doesn’t do anything of the sort.
It is: File/Export Image for ICC profile
I would still ask why on earth you would do this when all you should be doing is using the free Adobe DNG Converter to create a DNG version of the camera RAW file.
It is not a question of which PL5 corrections to export with, there should be absolutely no corrections applied at all, which is where ADC comes in, to provide a perfectly untouched DNG version for CCC to create the DCP file from.
Very well, then I would also ask myself why on earth is it useful to export to create an icc profile within PL? I know that option, also the C1 and LR ones, but I would like to know how the PL linear and realistic options can benefit me. One becomes very very dark and the other very low contrast. We also have export to disk as tiff and dng. For example, in my opinion, the icc profile created from C1 (tiff) is superior to the dcp created by LR (dng).
I was just asking about the difference between the various export options, if nobody bothers, of course! If nobody knows it is also okay…
Like I said, for profiling a camera, you should never involve any processing between taking the shot of the target and creating the DCP file, no matter what app you use.
My guess about the options for ICC profile is this intended more to embed such a profile into an image for printing or such, but definitely not for profiling.
And it doesn’t seem to appear on the Mac version
Hi vichenso:
The Export-to-disk dialog (on a Mac, at least) offers the option to choose (not make) an ICC color-gamut profile that already exists on your computer to be embedded in the exported image. When the exported image is displayed later on your computer or on another computer, the display software reads (or should read) the embedded profile information to determine the correct colour gamut for display. This is important because displaying an image in the wrong gamut will probably make it look horrible.
Examples of color-gamuts are ‘Adobe RGB’ or ‘sRGB’ (the most common and the ‘default’ for 8-bit color displays). PL will also allow you to embed the profile ‘As shot’ which is the color gamut that your camera uses (very often it’s Adobe RGB). When I export to disk I use the “ROMM RGB” profile which is the non-proprietary name for the ProPhoto color-gamut: the widest gamut in general use.
You’ll probably find several such .ICC color-gamut “profile” files lying around somewhere on your computer, especially if you use the ADOBE suite of programs.
There is a second way in which PL allows you to use either an ICC or DCP color profile. This is in development under “Color Rendering” (the “Rendering” drop-down). Here you can choose to view the RAW image (as you develop) in your own ICC or DCP profile: including a profile created by e.g. the Color Checker Passport program (There are other such programs, too. I use one called “LumaRiver”).
If one is trying to do color-critical print work then a sophisticated approach to color-gamuts and corrections (and monitor and paper/printer calibration) is essential. Here you would absolutely use a custom ICC or DCP profile tuned for the sensor in your camera during the development stages. But, as others have suggested, the DXO generic camera profiles are also very good for most purposes: especially if your output will be to images for screen-display (JPEGs, TIFFs etc).
Thank you so much Peter. I will test camera calibration with all 4 options available in PL5:
Export to disk (dng and tiff) and export for ICC profile (linear and realistic).
I wonder if Lumariver has significant advantages over ColorChecker Camera Calibration… I use Colorchecker Passport
You’re welcome, vichenso.
Lumariver is a little more controllable & will assist with dual-illuminant profiles (say, regular at 4500k for low key images, and a more lively profile at 6500k that uses a different gamma ie contrast curve). These can be combined in the one DCP file.
If you’re making a profile from a DNG (recommended) you need only the lower cost version of Lumariver.
But CC is also fine, straight forward & “accurate” — as are the DXO built-in profiles.
It’s a mistake, I think, to have too high an expectation of these things. Color accuracy is, to an extent, an illusion (all RAW file data are ‘monochrome’). Input profiles are most useful as a consistent starting point for your development routine, giving you the same output (luminance, chroma) for the same input from your sensor in every image. But your memory of a scene and your aesthetic choice for representation (or not) is the only metric that matters in the end.
P
It is true that camera profiles are only a starting point to further refine the image with other settings. In my case they are very important because I use them mainly to reproduce my own paintings and it is clear that colour accuracy is decisive.
I have already done all the necessary tests to understand the results that each option gives me. Using the camera’s own profile gives an optimal result for general photography, but for reproducing artwork Export to disk as DNG without corrections applied is much more accurate. Although it is true that it tends to overcontrast and oversaturate the colour a bit, something that can be easily fixed, it is also true that it corrects the chromatic deviations present in all sensors. It gives the same result as Lightroom.
However, I find the two export options for icc profile absolutely unusable, they require endless work to try to get close to an acceptable result but they never really achieve it, especially the linear one. It is at least my experience.
Of course in this particular case it’s not about any creative purpose, for that it’s more than enough to start with the camera profile integrated in PL5, or even to skip it, but to get the maximum precision in colour reproduction.
Thanks a lot for your help, Peter!