LookTable in Adobe Standard profiles - what is it meant to provide ?

The Adobe Standard profiles always include a so-called LookTable
(see dcpTool), and my question refers to the rationale behind this LookTable, and what it is meant to do / to provide (?).
The question goes back to the procedure of creating custom profiles with the Chart Wizard of the DNG Profile Editor,
where this LookTable gets automatically deleted while the hue/sat.-corrections are written into the HueSatDelta tables.
What is gained or lost, or what is difference when this LookTable is removed ? What precisely are the ideas behind the color shifts as stored in the LookTable ?
Appreciate your comments ans insights.
Best regars, Peter

Works,
There should be no need to deactivate, but you may wish to do it the three step way:
Uninstall, run the Cleaner Tool, and reinstall.
http://www.adobe.com/support/contact/cscleanertool.html

Similar Messages

  • Why does the Adobe Standard profile make a mess of old NEF files?

    Recently I've been reprocessing some old NEF files taken with the Nikon D50 camera years ago, and I was startled to find that the Adobe Standard camera profile does a bad job on them: the photos come out muddy-looking, really unacceptable, with too much yellow and magenta. I can fix the problem by choosing the Camera Standard profile, which gives acceptable results. However, I believe that Adobe Standard is generally recommended by Adobe, and I wonder what the problem is here. Does anyone know?
    I currently use a Nikon D7000, and Adobe Standard seems to work well enough with that camera.
    Later: After checking and comparing more carefully, I think that perhaps I prefer Camera Standard with the D7000 too. Adobe Standard is certainly acceptable with the D7000, but Camera Standard gives blue skies of clearer blue, and less exaggerated reds. So the best fix for me is probably to make Camera Standard my default for all cameras.
    Looking around the Web, I see various people complaining about too much magenta with Adobe Standard, although other people are happy with it.
    Message was edited by: Jonathan Palfrey

    Yammer P, thanks for the input.  I have been working with the DNG Profile Editor since the first version was available.  I also started using the Passport software when it was first available.  I first worked on a profile for the D200 and after many attempts I finally have one that works great.  The Camera profiles did not exist at that time and the D200 does not have Picture Control Profiles, I believe that was first available with the D300.  Adobe did generate Picture Control Profiles for the D200 and they are also available in Nikon Capture NX2. 
    I currently have a D700, and have spent a lot of time working on profiles for this camera.  I have used the DNG Profile Editor's Chart Tab to generate profiles for most of the Camera Profiles and Adobe Standard.  I find that Adobe Standard profile is brighter than the Camera profiles by about 0.25 stop.  After working on this for about 2 years I have decided to use the Camera Neutral with a modified tone curve and slight reduction in saturation as my starting point and no changes in hue.  I also generated a modified Picture Control profile for Neutral using the Nikon Picture Control software that has the same characteristics and loaded it into the camera.  I get good agreement between jpg's from the camera and the nef file that opens in ACR without adjustments.   The tone curve I used only has three points - the In/out values are 27/22, 127/127, 228/233 and saturation was set to -5. 
    I don't understand what Adobe changed when they genrated the Adobe Standard Profile instead of the ACR4.x versions, but I like the ACR4.x version better.  

  • Adobe Standard Profile - YMMV

    I've mostly not used Adobe Standard profile due to a significant magenta bias on my D300, but lately I've been using it more and more (and liking it) - the magenta bias is sometimes easily corrected simply by adjusting the tint slider toward green. - still not perfect for all photos, but is just what the doctor ordered for some...

    Ther are following differences:
    - D700 profile has the same forward matrix for both tungsten and daylight. D800 profile has different matrices, which means it is true dual-illuminant
    - D700 profile has different lookup table which does some rendering (so actually this one is more similar to camera profiles), while lookup table in D800 has minimal impact to colors
    - D800 profile has additional HueSatVal lookup tables for both illuminants, helping to calibrate colors more preceisely. That's why the size difference
    However, Adobe didn't aim to get Nikon colors, they are calibrating their profiles to give similar output for various cameras.

  • Adobe Standard profile for 5D mark II includes tone curve?

    In ACR, I see a "Point" tone curve with the "Adobe Standard" profile on Canon 5d Mark II files.
    I've never seen a tone curve before on standard profiles for other cameras. I understand that tone curves are included in the camera standard, faithful, portrait and landscape profiles in attempt to match the in-camera jpegs. But I thought the Adobe Standard profiles were supposed to target only color (hue/sat) and leave tone up to the user.
    Can someone verify that your system includes a point tone curve on 5D2 raws. Maybe my config is messed up.

    Dear Eric,
    I have Photoshop/Bridge CS3 and Camera Raw Version 4.5.0.175 on Windows XP (SP2).
    To "see" tone curves I launch Bridge, navigate to a folder, double-click a raw or DNG file and get the ACR window.
    In the ACR window, I click on the "Camera Calibration" tab and navigate through the various Camera Profiles.
    For each profile, I click on the "Tone Curve" tab and view both the "Parametric" and "Point" curves.
    For canon 5D Mark II DNG files there is always a "Medium Contrast" Point Curve, under every camera profile. I do not have a Canon 1Ds Mark III, but I have downloaded a sample raw file and converted it to DNG. For this DNG I also see a Medium Contrast Point Curve under every profile.
    For my Canon 20D and Canon 1Ds raw or DNG files the Point and Parametric curves are flat under every camera profile.
    When I downloaded the latest DNG converter and DNG Profile Editor, I'm reasonably confident I also downloaded and installed the most current camera profiles.
    For Canon 5D2 files I see the following profiles: Adobe Standard, Camera Faithful, Camera Landscape, Camera Neutral, Camera Portrait, and Camera Standard, in that order.
    For the Canon 1DS Mark III image I see all those profiles, plus ACR 4.4 and ACR 4.3
    For Canon 20D files I see all those profiles, plus ACR 4.4 and ACR 2.4
    To make sure I'm not picking up any presets, I have invoked the pop-up menu in ACR and selected "Reset Camera Raw Defaults". Then, for each file viewed in ACR I checked the pop-up menu again to make sure "Camera Raw Defaults" was checked.
    And a reminder, all this was after I had created a number of custom profiles from Macbeth Color Checker images using the DNG Profile Editor. Those custom profiles created a problem with Bridge previews, so I removed all of them before viewing Point Curves as described above. Still hoping to get some feedback on the Bridge preview problem I described in this message:
    http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.3bb6a869.59b790c8

  • Adobe Standard Profile for D800 vs D700

    Adobe Standard profile for the D800 appears to be a better color match to the Camera profiles for the D800 than Adobe Standard for the D700 color match to it's Camera profiles.  I notice that the D800 Adobe Standard Profile is a larger files (118KB) than the D700 Adobe Standard Profile (55KB), so it apparently uses an updated profile.  I have not used the  Adobe Standard profile for the D700 because it's colors appear to be wrong, but the D800 Adobe Standard profile does not appear to have this issue.
    Any comments?

    Ther are following differences:
    - D700 profile has the same forward matrix for both tungsten and daylight. D800 profile has different matrices, which means it is true dual-illuminant
    - D700 profile has different lookup table which does some rendering (so actually this one is more similar to camera profiles), while lookup table in D800 has minimal impact to colors
    - D800 profile has additional HueSatVal lookup tables for both illuminants, helping to calibrate colors more preceisely. That's why the size difference
    However, Adobe didn't aim to get Nikon colors, they are calibrating their profiles to give similar output for various cameras.

  • No Adobe Standard Profiles Found

    Discovered this on a file passed from Lightroom 4.3 to Photoshop CS6 (Up to Date)
    The file from Lightroom looks great and is using the Adobe Standard Profile. When passed to Photoshop, using the Edit in functionality, it is acquiring a yellow tint. Upon examination of the file by opening with ACR, it is having a custom 7D profile (created through the Profile Creator) applied on import instead of the Adobe Standard.
    When I attempt to open the file directly to PS CS6 and use ACR to apply the correct Camera Profile, only the 7D custom profile is available. Adobe Standard and all the Canon Shooting mode profiles are missing.
    Lightroom has all the profiles available-ACR does not.
    Macbook Retina (3 weeks old)  Mountain Lion 10.8.2 (Admin Account), LR 4.3, CS6, 13.1.2, ACR 7.3.0.1 (All products Creative Cloud)
    I (and Lightroom) can see the profiles in the Library>Application Support folder but ACR cannot.
    Anyone else see this-solution?
    Rikk

    Rikk Flohr wrote:
    Ultimately, as I understand ACR, everything was moved to the User-level last major version upgrade.
    I'm running ACR 7.3 on Mac 10.6.8 and in my Root level/Library/Application Support/Adobe there is a subfolder that is named CameraRaw and in that folder are two additional subfolders; CameraProfiles and LensProfiles. As far as I know, nothing about the location of Adobe supplied color and lens profiles has changed for many versions. The User level folder is designed to hold only user made color and lens profiles.
    I don't know why your profiles were relocated but it does seem that something is wrong, somewhere...the only differences between our system is the 10.6.8 vs 10.8.2. I checked on my laptop running 10.8.2 and the correct folders are correctly installed in the root level. The use level Library is actually hidden by default (which is really stupid of Apple) but I ran a Terminal command to make it visible. The only profiles in my user level Library are my custom profiles for color and lenses I've made.

  • Terrible magenta "splotchiness" in Leica M9 files with Adobe Standard profile?

    Anyone seen issues with the Adobe Standard profile and bad magenta casts in shadows with the M9?  Here's a shot (low light) with the Adobe profile and with the "embedded" profile, you can see on the bridge of the nose and around the side of the nose it's pretty bad.  Is the Adobe Standard profile supposed to be usable in these situations?

    I have just found this post while in search of a solution for a similar problem. I have the M9 also. At the base 160 ISO I have the same effect visible in very specific mid-shadowed skin-toned areas on four frames in a row but cannot detect it at all in surrounding areas nor another 60 or so frames in same location and lighting. Previously I had only noted this rarely in a couple of shadowed areas and it appears to be limited to very specific planes in one area of the shots. I have eliminated the possibilities of evironmental reflection or actual discoluration of the subject (fingers). WB has been set from a Colorchecker and Whibal card in a frame at same time and location.
    May I please send an original DNG to you for comment?

  • Fuji xt1 vs. Canon 5d3 Adobe Standard profiles

    I was checking out the 5d3 vs. X-t1 sensor using the RAW files on dpreview and at high ISO (6400 I tested) the colour charts of the two cameras are quite significantly different. However, at ISO200 they were much, much closer.
    I understand that no two cameras will produce the same results, but I expected them to be closer. One of the red patches especially was miles out.
    Adobe - is this something you're aware of? Is it something you can take another look at? I'm looking to introduce a Fuji element to my wedding kit and I could really do with the colours coming out of LR to be closer than they look like they'll be with the Beta of ACR 8.4..... and I thought that was the idea with "Adobe Standard"?

    PhilD11 wrote:
    it looks like a difference under tungsten light and nothing to do with ISO (which I suppose makes sense)..
    I agree Phil - intra-model sensor variations should really be very minor, and the role of Adobe Standard is to normalize inter-model variations to a common standard. And, I think you nailed the most common reason for discrepancies is typically white-balance.
    If you are finding excessive variance even after (manually) adjusting white balance (do not rely on w.b. presets), then such should be reported to Adobe as a bug.
    Rob

  • DNG Profile Editor vs. Adobe Standard

    I'm working in PS CS3, I shoot in Leaf 11.2 and process my files in Camera Raw 4.6. I've mostly be unhappy with the color differences between PS and Leaf. The adobe standard profile brings me close, but not enough.
    I've attempted to shoot a color checker and use the DNG Profile Editor, but the profile created seems overly saturated, and gets me further from my goal of matching what I see in Leaf. Where am I going wrong? I imagined Profile Editor would be much more precise.
    All comments/suggestions are welcomed
    Thanks.

    The short answer is the Leaf rendering is not "accurate" (a.k.a. "precise") by design. It is designed to look good, which is different. Attempting to build a very accurate profile using the chart feature of the profile editor will build a profile that is closer to being accurate, which is wrong direction if you are trying to match the Leaf rendering.
    Start with the Adobe Standard profile and apply manual edits from there to move it closer to the Leaf rendering.

  • Aptus II 8 Adobe Standard color profile missing from LR3.5?

    I was wondering, several versions ago, (2.7 I believe) the Leaf Aptus II 8 aka Leaf Aptus 40 was added to the list of supported cameras. My version of Lightroom 3.5 (MacOs 10.6.8) can read these files, however there is no Adobe Standard color profile for this back. When I go to the calibration tab it just shows embedded. These files are uncompressed .mos files and not jpegs or tifs. With my Leaf Aptus 75 I use the Adobe Standard profile and like it. Is this a bug or just an unsupported feature of the Aptus 40?

    Thanks, that sounded like a good idea and it got me thinking. Why not trash the profile and import it from another computer. Doing that I found that the file sepraratly downloaded on another computer has the same problem so I can't move it over. The other computer is OS 10.5 Leopard whereas mine is 10.6 Snow Leopard. This leads me to believe that this is an Adobe issue.
    Would any other Mac LR3 users please go to Library>Application Support>Adobe>Camera Raw>Lens Profiles>1.0>Canon and see if there is an "exec icon" next to the file named......  Canon EOS 5D Mark II (Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8 L USM) - RAW.lcp  
    I'd appreciate it and it will help isolate the problem.
    Thanks
    Greg Eddinger

  • Camera profile Adobe Standard for Canon 7D Mark II

    Hi,
    I am using the latest LR 5.7.1 with a Canon 7D Mark II.
    When using the Adobe Standard camera profile I found the colors to be very muted compared to the Camera Standard or Camera Faithful profiles.
    In the past, I used the Adobe Standard profile for all the photos that I took with my old Canon 7D.
    The results were always rather similar in color saturation to the Camera standard profile.
    But the final results from Adobe Standard were superior to the standard Canon profiles, but this seems to be no longer the case for the 7D Mark II.
    Has anyone else also seen this effect ?

    Would it really do any good for Adobe to communicate an official release date? If they didn't meet that date then you would just call Adobe a liar. Adobe has users from several different companies waiting for support. And whether you believe it or not, there is no providing of specs from camera makers. They don't care whether Adobe Camera Raw supports the camera. Adobe is just another company to them. Adobe has to purchase each camera and then create the profiles for it. The real solution? Camera makers, agree on a common file format. If you won't do that, then YOU take the blame for this delay that happens about four times every year.
    Actually, it would help, Jim. It does not have to be exact... it would help to know "this quarter" or "by the end of the year" or "mid-December". It would help because I could decide whether to find a workaround patch, or switch to a different system.
    The camera makers are more than willing to provide that info, but according to a contact at Canon USA, in 2008 Adobe changed the game and decided to be more proprietary with their compatibility, presumably so that people would be required to upgrade their software every year just to be able to use new camera technology. It was Adobe's decision, and they could easily decide to play nice. But it is an unfair characterization to say that the camera makers don't care if Adobe supports their camera. That is just a silly assertion.
    It comes down to he said - she said, and the two companies are simply pointing fingers at each other. Neither you nor I know the absolute truth about who is right... I only know that I am dissatisfied with Adobe's lack of communication, and slow response when compared to other companies, larger and smaller.

  • Severe Magenta Cast Some Cameras Adobe Standard

    Adobe Standard
    Generic Daylight Profile for Canon G10 Created by me with a Macbeth Chart and the DNG Profile Editor (not of this scene specifically) and Adobe Standard as the Base Profile.
    Images from a Canon Powershot G10.  Both have exactly the exactly the the same settings.  White Balance Auto and then Auto Tone with Brightness set back to default of 50.
    Download DNG file here
    Download Generic Daylight Profile for G10 used in this example here.
    Happens with my 5D (original) as well.  Does not happen with Leica M9 and can't say for any other cameras at this time.

    Actually, I wouldn't expect that much difference between most camera sensors under the same controlled conditions.  I suspect if you divided up the Adobe Standard profiles into sensors and other factors more meaningful than make and model, the differences might be more obvious.
    So, for example, I see little difference between a Nikon D80 and a Canon (which uses the same APC sensor technology [down to the manufacturer], I think) there is little difference. But when I compare Nikon and Ricoh I see a much more obvious difference. The fact is that the image guts of most DSLRs these days are made from one of at most three manufacturers.  The majority come from two. A few others that I recall had similar sensors and image processing engines also seemed pretty similar.
    The Adobe Standard is not about trying to pull the wool over our eyes.  It is about establishing a baseline for raw image manipulation.  The fact that most sensors and bodies will really respond pretty closely aside, there could be outliers. Making the standard based on the make and model allows for a more natural way to handle presets and what-not from the point of an application.  The fact that, under the covers, most cameras really respond quite similarly in similar median conditions is not all that interesting.
    It is at the extreme edges of image reproduction that the makes, models and even specific bodies will be most drastic (which is why getting to know your camera in extreme shooting conditions is important, and why being able to make your own profiles is so powerful.)
    At any rate, if your particular make and model (or even specific body) is not to your liking, it is pretty easy to make your own standard.  Because I don't have a studio, I've gone ahead and made "standards" like based on things like time of day (for natural light) or "my living room" which sometimes give me an easy out. No one needs to use Adobe Standard. Heck, if you really like the in-camera settings and Adobe profiling doesn't work then it may be that the vendor software is the way to go. Double heck, some professionals still think this whole raw thing is stupid and shoot JPEG. This solves a whole raft of problems -- decisions one doesn't even have to make.  Just get exposure right and go!

  • Olympus EM5 - profile issue (probably), raw file example provided

    Olympus EM5 - profile issue (probably)
    raw file in question, posted by somebody in dpreview forum = https://dl.dropbox.com/u/50147350/P8261159.ORF

    As evident from your screenshot, those letters are not blown in raw - there are only a few pixels where one of the channels (blue) is reaching saturation. However, that blue color is very saturated and is mostly falling outside output color space (which is usually sRGB or Adobe RGB) or in other words, your monitor isn't able to display that color
    Conversion from raw color space to output color space is done using profiles and can be colorimetric or perceptual. If conversion is colorimetric, colors outside output color space are simply clamped into the range (for instance RGB  -15, -30, 270 --> 0, 0, 255). If conversion is perceptual, colors that would fall outside color space are compressed into it (for instance it could be  -15, -30, 270 --> 10, 5, 253). In first case, colors inside output color space are 'correct', while those outside are wrong - less saturated and possibly with wrong hue. In the second case, colors outside color space are 'less wrong', but colors inside color space are also 'less correct', but overall result is mostly more pleasing to the eye. This compression is performed differently by each manufacturer.
    Each camera model has own set of profiles. Most simple profile is an 3x3 array named color matrix, used for this color conversion - it is embedded in ACR for all supported cameras and can be also written in raw file. It is colorimetric. Then there is Adobe standard profile for all supported cameras in form of dcp file. It is a combination of matrix and lookup table conversion, which is still close to being colorimetric (however, there are several versions). Other profiles that are emulating camera rendering are perceptual (on some cameras there is also one profile said to be colorimetric, for instance Faithful profile in Canon cameras). Unfortunately, there are no camera profiles for Olympus yet, so colorimetric conversion is the only option (ok, another option is using new version of sRGB profile and its perceptual rendering intent, but it is not possible directly in ACR).
    In this particular case, you can improve the look of those letters by moving saturation slider of blue primary (camera calibration tab) from 0 to about -15, which will modify color matrix used for conversion and desaturate whole blue range. Or do the similar thing with slider in HSL tab
    If PV2010 used, some of blown blue color turns violet. It's also a know issue, actually I also reported it several years ago, and is caused by usage of Photo pro color space as intermediate and some clamping of values in ACR workflow. In this case it may be corrected in calibration tab by moving blue hue slider a bit to left, which will change hues of blue range towards cyan.
    Etc. This area is quite complex, I'm familiar only with a small part of it, which I needed for making camera profiles

  • What is the rationale behind the "Adobe Standard" color calibration profile?

    Hi! I'm trying to figure out how to make the most of the various color calibration profiles Adobe offers for my cameras with Lightroom 5. I do understand the purpose of the camera-specific options--they're designed to help approach camera JPEG processing mode colors. And they work wonderfully--they're very helpful!
    But I don't really understand the purpose of the "Adobe Standard" calibration option. What is it for? Why does it look the way it looks? Has it been designed to ease certain processing goals? To enhance certain colors or tonal combinations? Is it designed to be more accurate than the manufacturer profiles in some way? What can I do with "Adobe Standard" that I can't do with one of the camera-specific calibration options?
    I would find it *extremely* helpful if someone who's involved with the engineering behind Lightroom's color (or anyone else who's especially knowledgeable about Lightroom's design) might talk a little bit about why "Adobe Standard" looks the way it looks. What's it for? To what purposes can I leverage it?
    Thanks so much!

    MarkJoseph wrote:
    I would find it *extremely* helpful if someone who's involved with the engineering behind Lightroom's color (or anyone else who's especially knowledgeable about Lightroom's design) might talk a little bit about why "Adobe Standard" looks the way it looks. What's it for? To what purposes can I leverage it?         
    Adobe Stadnard is the name for the individual profiles Adobe builds for each camera it receives. A new camera ships, Adobe gets their hands on one and builds a profile with that sample. It isn't suppose to mimic the in-camera JPEG settings, I don't believe it's supposed to mimic anything but instead produce what is (and quotes are super important in this context) the most 'accurate' color response from the target they use to create the profile. But here's the rub. Not all cameras from the same make and model behave identically. Adobe simply can't get piles of the same body and build then average that response. So they provide a means for you to build your own custom DNG camera profile and for differing illuminates. So if you want to leverage it, you'd get a target (MacBeth 24 patch, X-rite Passport) and build your own custom profile. It can really help depending on how your sensor deviates from the sensor Adobe got to build their profiles.
    For more info on DNG profiles and rolling your own:
    In this 30 minute video, we’ll look into the creation and use of DNG camera profiles in three raw converters. The video covers:
    What are DNG camera profiles, how do they differ from ICC camera profiles.
    Misconceptions about DNG camera profiles.
    Just when, and why do you need to build custom DNG camera profiles?
    How to build custom DNG camera profiles using the X-rite Passport software.
    The role of various illuminants on camera sensors and DNG camera profiles.
    Dual Illuminant DNG camera profiles.
    Examples of usage of DNG camera profiles in Lightroom, ACR, and Iridient Developer.
    Low Rez (YouTube):
    http://youtu.be/_fikTm8XIt4
    High Rez (download):
    http://www.digitaldog.net/files/DNG%20Camera%20profile%20video.mov

  • What is Adobe Standard and the other camera profiles?

    OK, so i'm using my Canon 5d mark II, shooting RAW in the Neutral picture style.  When I load the photo into Lightroom, at the bottom under Camera Calibration the program shows that by default it has loaded the photograph using the Adobe Standard camera profile.  My question is: Is Lightroom taking the end result of the RAW data being shot with the Neutral picture style and loading it into Lightroom where it translates the photograph (RAW + Neutral picture style) using Adobe Standard?  Or is Lightroom taking the photograph (RAW + Neutral picture style) and overriding the Neutral picture style setting in my camera and replacing it with another picture style it calls Adobe Standard?
    Another and potentially easier to understand way of asking the question would be if I shot two photographs in RAW, one with the Neutral picture style set in my camera and one with the Landscape setting, and then loaded them into Lightroom using Adobe Standard camera profile, would the two photographs look any different?
    Sorry, I am new to digital photography and all adobe programs, and would greatly appreciate the help of a veteran.

    The photos would look exactly the same. The picture style that your camera is set on makes no difference to the raw image. That picture style is carried in your raw file as just a tag that tells Canon's raw converter how to interpret the data. Adobe doesn't use that information.
    It's up to you to choose the profile that meets your artistic desires.
    Hal

Maybe you are looking for