Capture nx 2 sharpening and DNG profiles..

I recently have had an (albeit quick) fiddle with nx 2 and was wondering if anyone else had noticed what I have...
1. The sharpening in NX2 seems to yeild much nicer details and less "criss cross" artefacts.
2. The DNG profile for nikon (in my case D3) vivid does match pretty well, but has a purple tinge to it that is horribly exaggerated if you start to process the image at all. The NX rendering seems a lot more natural, or less forced.
Any advice appreciated. I would love to stay in Lightroom for everything, but looking at the files I may not.
Thanks.

ok, a little more playing and the colour noise reduction seems to play a very big part in the "poseriztion" sharpness that Lightroom is producing. If I set it to off or set lower than default (say to 10) it does help level the playing field a lot more with regards to the sharpening.

Similar Messages

Camera Profiles and DNG Profile Editor beta 2 now available

Hi everyone,
Beta 2 of the camera profiles and DNG Profile Editor are now available. Please visit here and enjoy:
http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles
I hope to have more detailed release notes/changes for you soon. You are welcome to ask questions, but please note that it may take a while for me to respond.
Eric

Eric,
I followed very carefully your instructions for installing the new beta2 profiles and deleting the beta1 profiles, but have the same problems as many others. I'd like to provide a bit more information. I'm running Windows Vista Home Premium and have installed Photoshop CS4, updated with ACR5.1 and Lightroom 2.1 final release. As others have described, the default for all of my images was set to one of the Camera profiles (Canon faithful beta1), but now the profile name in Lightroom is blank. I tried looking at the other profiles and it does indeed appear that the beta2 profile is being used, but if I then reset the image it now shows ACR4.4, whereas the image had been imported with the camera profile as default. Also, if I open an image in ACR5.1 that was specified to use the same camera profile, it now shows ACR4.4 and it is not using the beta2 profile of what I had been using, I can see this by selecting the other profiles. Going back to Lightoom, I guess I could select all my images and select the Canon faithful beta2 profile, but then the mark shows up bottom right of the image showing that they have all been edited/modified, is there anyway to get all my images using the profile I was using but the beta2 version, without this happening and how about new imports?
Thanks, David.

**-Camera Profiles and DNG Profile Editor FAQ-**

A page containing answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Camera Profiles and the DNG Profile Editor can be found
here

New FAQ entries:
What changed between beta 1 and beta 2?
Is it safe to delete beta 1 profiles? What will happen if I do?
I now have the beta 2 profiles and want to delete the older beta 1 profiles. How do I do this?
Please read carefully.

Profile Editor and DNG Profiles - Still Beta 2?

Are the DNG profiles and Profile Editor still at Beta 2? I am confused because the Adobe Labs DNG Profiles resources page (http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles) has not been updated since Oct 22 2008, but Lightroom 2.2 provides non-beta profiles. What is the present status?
Thanks.

It has been several months since I originally posted this inquiry and Thomas replied, and so I'm just checking again.
Has there been any update to the DNG Profile Editor since Beta 2 was made available? (and, if not, is there anything you can share about what's going on with this tool?)
I am continuing to use Beta 2 with successful results, but I am curious as to the status...
Thanks,
/eddie

Camera Profiles and DNG Profile Editor

I saw the lightroom 2.0 eseminar and the presenter mentioned Camera Profiles and the DNG Profile Editor. All I see is ACR4.4 and 4.3. The the FAQ page says I need ACR4.5 and I can't find it and haven't gotten any update notice. Should I just wait for an update or forget it?
Don

>I have CS4. Will this overwrite ACR 5.1 in CS4?
If you have CS4, you should update to ACR 5.2. If you install 4.6, you will break your CS4 install. Either just run the Adobe updater app, or go to http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/new.jsp to download it. DNG converter is a separate download. Both camera RAW and NDG converter contain the final release version of the new profiles. DNG profile editor can still be downloaded from Adobe Labs: http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles. There is also a profiles download there that you don't need if you install DNG converter 5.2.

Camera Profiles and DNG Profile Editor in LR2??

This link describes the subject above. Did this make it into LR2?
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/lr2_review/lr2-review-3.htm

http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles

I have downloaded DNG Profile Editor 1_0_4 and prepared a profile which I can not see in my Camera Raw 6.0 (I have photoshop CS5). Could you please give me an advice?

I have downloaded DNG Profile Editor 1_0_4 and prepared a profile which I can not see in my Camera Raw 6.0 (I have photoshop CS5). Could you please give me an advice?

Uninstall Trusteer software
http://www.trusteer.com/support/uninstalling-rapport-mac-os-x
Remove Sophos
https://discussions.apple.com/message/21069437#21069437

Capture Sharpen (and other questions)?

I have been a very big advocate of capture sharpening for fine art workflow for more than a few years now (landscape fine art gallery enlargements). I was under the impression that in ACR (7.1) by using the Radius to the left (0.5) and Detail to the right (100) I was maximizing the deconvolution aspect of sharpening and maybe even drawing out a hair more real detail from the raw file.
Today I did a test on a high frequency raw image (trees) and had my settings at Amount 45, Radius 0.5, Detail 0, and masking at 20. But then I also did it on the same image, this way: I brought a second version of the raw file into PS with no capture sharpening, and saved it as a tiff, then I brought that tiff back into ACR 7.1 and then did the capture sharpening. In Photoshop CS6 I put them on top of each other as layers (one raw sharpened and one tiff sharpened) and at all viewing distances they were exactly the same to my eye (I did notice that the histograms of each were very, very slightly different).
But I could not see a single pixel or edge change anywhere in the image even at 1600% viewing distance. This seems to blow away my impression about deconvolution sharpening actually drawing out more real detail from a raw file. I totally understand that sharpening is not real detail, but on this forum years ago I came to believe that somehow a bit more real detail might be accessed in raw by the aforementioned settings. Any thoughts?
Second question: do you really think there is a quantitative quality difference in detail (or the illusion of) in an image that has capture sharpening applied in ACR (7.1) at its native size, then is enlarged substantially with further rounds of sharpening and grain simulation in the end (versus just sizing it up soft and doing all the sharpening at the end)? I did testing on this years ago and it seemed to be noticably better overall. I guess I'm just second guessing it again.
My basic workflow is capture sharpen Radius 05. / Detail 100, then upsize with Smoother (40, 50, 60, 70 inches...) then do some moderate high pass, then advanced use of unsharp mask (LAB - L channel - or Luminosity - RGB - also blending/blend if sliders for fall off if necessary) then ACR grain simulation (on a seperate layer - not to create grainy photos - but create the illusion of more detail and to camouflage artifacting). I believe after years of testing and practice this seems to be about as good as it gets for my content.
Lastly, smart sharpen... I have not used this much, but do you think this workflow might benefit from using it instead of USM (with the more deconvolution - lens blur/more accurate) type of sharpen near the end)?
Side note: for those involved with focus bracketing (for increased depth of field with the sharpest f/stop) it is common knowledge that capture sharpening at the raw stage (before the Auto Align and Auto Blend in PS) confuses the auto blend algorithm as to what are the real sharper pixels. So, we don't capture sharpen those images (this is common practice).
And after blending the images (Auto Blend) we usually just size up (for enlargement) and go. Now I am thinking that after the focus blending is finished and the file is flattened it might be a good idea to bring that tif file back into ACR and apply a little bit of capture sharpening before the upsize. Does that make sense to you?
Cheers for your time and feedback!
Message linebreaks added by: PECourtejoie

Disclaimer: I did not entirely understand the original post, and maybe some of this does not apply in your multi-step process, so take with salt...
ACRFREAK wrote:
With low ISO shots (100) I always try to use the least noise reduction possible in ACR (less is more approach) which means on correctly exposed images ("to the right") on Canon cameras, my ACR settings are often 0 on luminance and 0-5 on color noise.
At ISO 100, I rarely use any luminance noise reduction, however my experience is that even under ideal circumstances including low ISO, a modicum of color noise reduction is still essential for optimum image quality. - it is almost never desirable to set color noise reduction to zero, IMO - YMMV. (Note: in NX2 - you don't even get a choice about it - (true) color noise reduction will be applied, as Nikon sees fit).
Note: ACR's color noise reduction algorithm is image adaptive (it's more "aggressive" on higher ISO shots). You shouldn't see much (if any real) detail loss with color noise reduction at 25 on ISO 100 shots, eh?
ACRFREAK wrote:
My theory is that I am trying to keep a much of the fine detail as possible. Also the reason I like the 0.5 radius and 100 detail.
In my opinion, ideally, the sharpen settings should depend on the photo - type, and inherent focus... (.5/100 may be great for ultra-clean, ultra-sharp landscapes, but may not be appropriate for portraits...)
But different strokes for different folks. (and I don't know what kinds of photos you mainly (or only) shoot).
Rob

DNG Converter 5.2 and Camera Profiles

Hi!
I tried to search for an answer but did not find any.
Question - how and when DNG Converter will use Camera Profiles?
How do I specify which profile to use?
I assume it can use them - version 5.2 comes bundled with them...
Тhanks for the help!
P.S. Since new version has installer, I'd suggest to create uninstaller too.

>This somehow implies that DNG Converter reads settings from installed Lightroom. I'm not sure that this is the case - DNG Converter seems to be completely independent product.
Yes, it does...for the camera model, if you have modified the Camera Raw Default in either Lightroom or Camera Raw then DNG Converter will use the user specified default. If there is no user set default, then of course will use the regular Camera Raw Defaultwhich in the case of 5.2 is now Adobe Standard. (I can't remember what version of DNG Converter started reading the CR prefs).
>If I give DNG file to someone, who uses DNG-compatible program (other than Adobe's), do I have to give him all profiles as well?
If you are using a "custom" profile other than Adobe Standard, the behavior is to embed that profile in the DNG so it is self describing. The only complicating factor is what version of Camera Raw/Lightroom the recipient is using. If they are using a version prior to Lightroom 2 or Camera Raw 4.5, then those older versions ignore the embedded profiles and will use the earlier simple profiles that have been used since DNG/ACR was introduced.
As for checking on updating the DNG Profiles in the future, DNG Converter, as it's rev'ed, will include any new profiles that come out and will update them for any already installed and add any new profiles available for a given camera. The odds of updating existing DNG Profiles is not largethat's what the 2 beta rounds was for, to shake them out. But it's possible. It's more likely that profiles for new cameras will be added.

DNG Profile editor and white balance

I am very happy to see the practical realization of the extentions announced in the DNG 1.2 specification. This is a great step forward to achieve wide acceptance of DNG.
While reading the User's Guide, I found following statement (in the Tutorial 1):
>3. (Optional) If the image is not already white-balanced, you can perform a click-WB using a context click
Why would one white balance here? What effect does that have on the result? The profile describes, which HSV will be converted in which HSV; this has nothing to do with the WB of a particular image.

The WB feature in the DNG Profile Editor (PE) is there because it is possible that you might open a DNG file in PE that has not already been white balanced. Imagine you photographed an image under tungsten lighting but had the in-camera WB manually set to daylight. If you didn't set the WB before converting the image to a DNG, it will appear very warm when you open it up in PE. So PE's WB feature is designed to save you time by letting you do a click-WB instead of having to go back to CR or LR to adjust the image's WB.
PE is named "profile editor" because it only edits profiles. It is not an image editor. So you are correct, you do not really need an image to edit profiles, technically. However, unless you have an image open you have no way to evaluate how good your adjustments are.
Typically the only reason to make a profile or edit a profile is if there's something about an existing profile that you're unhappy with. And you'd be unhappy because you'd have an example of a "problem" image, where the existing profile doesn't produce the result you want. That's the image you want to bring into the PE, so you can pick out the colors that are "wrong" and fix them.
Then ideally you would open many more images in PE just to verify that your adjustments generalize well.

DNG Profiles and Camera Differences

The primary stated reason for performing a calibration before the DPE was to account for differences between units of the same camera. With the new Adobe Standard profiles, am I correct in saying that it is no longer possible to customize the Adobe Standard profile for a specific camera, since the ACR 4.4 version is always used by DPE as the starting point for the Chart operation?
I find that there is a marked difference between ACR 4.4 and Adobe Standard, with ACR 4.4 being much more saturated - it's not subtle - at least for my camera (Canon XSi/450D).
Thanks,
Selby

Eric - thanks for the response. I was afraid that would be the answer! :-)
Seems I'm likely asking for an enhancement based on the following:
As I understand it, the ACR 4.4 profiles were all based on processing color checker (or other target) shots made in the lab. Then Adobe Standard profiles were built using ACR 4.4 profiles as the starting point, but applying some adjustments to deal with issues raised by users. Due to the large number of cameras supported, I am guessing that this was applied programmatically - that each camera was not reprofiled?
So it appears that what I'm asking for is the ability to use the Chart facility in the DNG Profile Editor to use my image(s) of a Color Checker as the starting point, and then have the same changes applied that were used to build Adobe Standard. I gather that this is not possible at present.
I don't pretend to be an expert on the internal workings of the profiles which leads me to the following question: is this reasonable and/or practical?
BTW, I do find that Adobe Standard works better for me than either ACR 4.4 or anything I can generate with Chart. However, the insistence by those with much more experience than myself that the differences between instances of the same camera model are visible, led me to ask the question.
Since Adobe Standard is a big improvement over ACR 4.4, I'd like to pick up those changes since I doubt I could do anywhere near as good a job trying to make the changes "manually", unless of course, it is possible to describe the adjustments needed to use the DNG Profile Editor to accomplish this (other than by eyeballing it).
Thanks,
Selby

DNG Profiles and the ACR Calibrator

In the past the Fors ACR Calibrator (and the manual procedure conceived by Bruce Fraser) was required to account for production differences between instances of the same camera model. If I wish to use the new Adobe Standard Profiles, should I then rerun the Calibrator? I realize I will have to update the code to handle the new ACR version number - I already did this for 4.4.1.

Thanks for the nice feedback, Bill.
To clarify the point brought up by you and Richard: there are two basic ways to use the chart wizard feature.
First, you can use it to build a profile optimized for one lighting condition. This is the more familiar case, esp. to those of you who have used the CR calibration scripts in the past. This mode is described in Tutorial 5, and is enabled by choosing the 'Both Color Tables' option from the popup in the Chart tab. What happens here is that a single set of color lookup table adjustments is created, which is applied regardless of the white balance of the image. You can use any illuminant when photographing the ColorChecker; doesn't have to be illuminant A or D65. Such a profile will work pretty well as long as your real images don't stray too far spectrally from the illuminant you used to shoot the CC.
Second, you can use it to build a more general profile as described in tutorial 6, but you would need to shoot the CC in conditions as close as you can get to A and D65 for best results. (~D50 or ~D55 lighting as a substitute for D65 should work pretty well.) The DNG 1.2 profile format actually allows the two illuminants to be different than A and D65, but currently the DNG Profile Editor's chart wizard feature only supports these two.
Bill, you should be able to shoot the checker in the manner you describe (i.e., under noon sunlight on a blue sky day, and also under the incandescent bulb) and have it work well.
When I was testing this, I used a standard household incandescent (very close to illuminant A; I was curious and measured it with an Eye-One spectro) and then tried various flavors of daylight (including Solux bulbs, which aren't that close to D65) for the D65 "half" of the profile. The daylight portion didn't make that much difference.

Colorchecker passport and the DNG profile editor

I finally got around to getting a Colorchecker passport to use with the DNG profile editor.
I was secretly hoping I could save time by shooting the chart on location and make an instant profile out of that - then the colors would be at least "close ballpark" so I would just have to apply white balance and then move on to more specific adjustments. But of course it wasn't that easy, it still takes a fair bit of color tweaking to get right in most circumstances.
So I'm wondering if my energy would be better spent trying to perfect one good dual illuminant general profile. For this I would use 3000 K tungsten at one end and 5500 K studio flash at the other. Or would it be better to use overcast daylight? In either case it's obviously important to ensure the chart is absolutely evenly lit.
And then I should probably have a separate profile for fluorescent tubes.
I'm curious what other people's experiences with the colorchecker/DNG profile editor are? How are you using it?

The color profile changes with the lighting, so a profile that was computed for daylight won’t be right for tungsten or fluorescent. Keep in mind that a custom camera profile is the set of corrections on top of an existing Adobe profile that the DNG has assigned to it, perhaps Adobe Standard, and all Adobe profiles are dual-illuminant profiles, so it makes sense you’d want to also create a dual-illuminant profile for general purpose use that has the same two lighting scenarios as Adobe used: 2850K and 6500K. The 6500K is the tricky one because full sun is warmer, closer to 5000K, and you need the right amount of haze to create 6500K sunlight, unless you are using standard D65 bulbs, indoors, which is likely what Adobe does.
I use a dual-illuminant profile for general purpose use, but since the WB-Tint values of both the tungsten and daylight ends are close to zero, lighting that has a tint not close to zero needs a separate profile. The common example is the greenish light from fluorescents, and I have several single-illuminant profiles for various artificial lighting scenarios with WB-Tint values that are relatively non-zero. I also have ones for very red sunsets and very blue twilight. If I had studio lighting I’d make a profile for that. Sometimes I make a custom profile for a church or other venue that has significant non-neutral walls or ceilings, or where sunlight through the stained-glass windows shining on the walls are giving a significant color-cast including a non-zero tint value to the lighting. If you know you’ll be doing some shots near a large amount of tall, green vegetation then a custom color profile can correct for the green tinge to the ambient lighting coming down from above mixing in with the sunlight.
Adding to the suggestion about wearing neutral clothing, I’d argue for dark neutral clothing because something lighter clothing will reflect environmental colors (sunlit vegetation or brick walls, etc, outdoors) and not be neutral.
Besides non-neutral clothing, try to avoid areas that have green grass or tree leaves or brick buildings that also color the light and reflect off the colorchecker. For the sunlit shots, I put my colorchecker face up on the sidewalk or parking lot, to avoid coloration from the grass and far away from trees or buildings especially in the direction I’m pointing the camera, so the only lighting is direct sun and ambient blue-sky, possibly diffused by hazy clouds. I point the camera down at the colorchecker, at a 45-degree angle and at a compass direction and not directly toward the sun, nor directly away from the sun. I try to shoot the target that is face up on the ground perhaps at a 90-degree angle from the sun to minimize any residual glare from the colorchecker’s slightly non-matte surface. Obviously directly away from the sun, the color-checker will have my shadow on it or I will be blocking the light from the sky near the sun.
I use the same sort of process for the tungsten end, choosing a room with neutral walls and put the target relatively flat on the floor facing up, perhaps tipped up somewhat toward the light, but not so much as to have any glare from the lighting, either, in other words, not with the lighting directly behind the camera, but somewhat over to the side.

Colorchecker DNG profile using polarised studio flash and polarised lens

I am attempting to copy paintings and various 2D artworks using polarised flash and a polarising filter on my lens and need a really good camera profile for this exacting work.
The profile I have made using the DNG profile editor looks very weak across all the colours of the test chart and I could never apply this to my images.
Can anyone give advice on how to get a good result? Am I meant to be tweaking colours by eye to best match the colour checker? This would seem a really bad work flow!
I used to be very happy with the Thomas Fors calibrator. . . Cheers, Ian

You test the color accuracy of the profiles you make with scripts from this page:
ACR Camera Calibration and Validation
Or I like to use Imatest Studio which gives a graphical representation of the color error, as illustrated here:
Adobe Calibration Results Photo Gallery by Steve Sprengel at pbase.com
These measure hue error not luminance (brightness) error, and perhaps optimal hue doesn't lead to pleasing images.
You can try starting with a different default camera profile instead of Adobe Standard, maybe Camera Standard, and see if that results in a better profile.
You can compute the values for the RGB Hue/Sat sliders using one of the Rags-Gardner or Tindemans scripts, and then compute the profile with those slider values in effect.

DNG profiles, Calibration tab and HLS

X-Rite and Adobe have provisions for creating custom DNG profiles. DataColor just announced a product that appears to operate like these two but instead of making DNG profiles (or as we had in the old days, altering the Calibration Tab), updates the HSL controls. My understanding is that DNG profiles and the Calibration tab operate in a different order of the processing, prior to all the sliders above them. My understanding is there are benefits for doing this but I’d like to know more about this. The question is, what are the practical implications of “calibrating” via a target that affects HSL sliders instead of producing a DNG profile, or at the very least, altering the calibration sliders? Eric you out there bud?

Andrew,
Eric is very active in the ACR forum, including in the last 24 hours, and there's no way he'd be ignoring you if he had read this post of yours.
My impression is that this DNG forum has been neglected if not outright abandoned. Just look at the obsolete and mistyped "announcement" at the top of the index page.
I would suggest posting in the ACR forum instead.
Wo Tai Lao Le
我太老了

Capture nx 2 sharpening and DNG profiles..

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for