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!

Similar Messages

How do I find/load more standard camera profiles than "Adobe Standard"

I have reloaded Lightroom 3.3 several times. Still the only camera profile I have available is Adobe Standard. I would like to have access to profiles like Camera Standard and Camera Vivid. How can I load and/or get these to show up?

MDButler17 wrote:
I expect that with some of the profiles are camara specific, but is there a reason I can't see more of the generic profiles (e.g., Camera Vivid)?
generic and profiles are two words that just can't go to together, a complete oxymoron I am afraid. Profiles are specific to a device that has been profiled, in this case the colour reproduction of a camera sensor. Adobe profiles every camera it supports, this is the profile called Adobe Standard for you camera. On some cameras Adobe also produce other calibrations, these often mirror the names used by the camera manufacturers to describe their own profiles. Most camera manufacturers do not actually produce more than one profile themselves, instead they produce a choice of different colour interpretations that can be applied only to the in camera jpgs. In these case Adobe don't usually produce anything other than the Adobe Standard.
You can, of course, make your own calibration profiles specific to your actual cameras sensor (sensors themselves varies so even the profiles supplied by the manufacturers and Adobe may not actually match your sensor. The tools and instructions on how to do this are supplied free by Adobe here.
If your camera has profiles other than the stand, it will be located
On Mac OS X: /Library/Application Support/Adobe/CameraRaw/CameraProfiles
On Windows 2000 / XP: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Support\Adobe\CameraRaw\CameraProfiles
On Windows Vista/7: C:\ProgramData\Adobe\CameraRaw\CameraProfiles

In light room 5 under camera calibration the only option I have is adobe standard. Nothing else.

I have seen the tutorial that shows different models of cameras coming up under camera calibration in light room 5. The only option I get for my sony cameras is Adobe standard. Is there some setup procedure that I have missed

Thank you Bob I have a sony a57 and a77.
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 09:38:28 -0700
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: in light room 5 under camera calibration the only option I have is adobe standard. Nothing else.
    Re: in light room 5 under camera calibration the only option I have is adobe standard. Nothing else.
    created by Bob Somrak in Photoshop Lightroom - View the full discussion
There may be only one profile depending on which camera you have. Multiple profiles are only available on some camera.
     Please note that the Adobe Forums do not accept email attachments. If you want to embed a screen image in your message please visit the thread in the forum to embed the image at http://forums.adobe.com/message/6286188#6286188
     Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page: http://forums.adobe.com/message/6286188#6286188
     To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at http://forums.adobe.com/message/6286188#6286188. In the Actions box on the right, click the Stop Email Notifications link.
           Start a new discussion in Photoshop Lightroom at Adobe Community
For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to http://forums.adobe.com/thread/416458?tstart=0.

Strong colour shift when reselecting Adobe Standard camera profile

I'm having this curious problem with Nikon V1 NEFs (raw files) in Lightroom 4 beta.
In the develop module, Adobe Standard is selected as the default camera profile. If I switch to one of the other profiles (for the V1, the options are Camera Landscape, Neutral, Portrait, Standard, and Vivid) and then switch back to Adobe Standard, I get a strong color shift in the blues, which move towards teal. It looks like a white balance shift, but the white balance settings themselves don't change.
I've attached three screenshots, the first showing an untouched file with Adobe Standard selected as the default profile in the develop module, then with the Camera Vivid profile selected, and then with Adobe Standard reselected. Besides changing the profile, there are no edits on this file: all I've done is import it, put it in a collection, switch to the develop module, select the Camera Vivid profile and then reselect Adobe Standard.
The color shift happens regardless of which camera profile I pick before reslecting Adobe Standard. Interestingly, while the colors are off in the develop module, they're correct in the library module. Switching back and forth between library and develop doesn't fix the problem -- as long as Adobe Standard has been reselected in develop, the colors are off in that module but correct in library. The only way I've found to clear the color shift is to click reset in develop. Select another camera profile, though, and then reselect Adobe Standard and the problem comes right back.

Yes. This is a bug that has been reported/fixed after the public beta build was made ready. Somehow it did not make it to the final public beta release note. The current workaround is to relaunch LR4 or
a) Copy Settings (check all except Calibration),
b) Reset,
c) Paste Settings.
This will invalidate some internal memory cache that went stale.
-Simon

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?

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.

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

On opening some pdfs in new tab, get a box labeled Adobe Acrobat with a ? in it. Right click on the link gets the pdf. What does the box and ? mean. Running W7, FF 10.0.2, Adobe Standard 9. Thanks

On opening some pdfs in new tab, get a box labeled Adobe Acrobat with a ? in it. Go back to the original link, right click on the link gets the pdf. What does the box and ? mean and why do I get it when trying to open some pdfs? Running W7, FF 10.0.2, Adobe Standard 9. Thanks.

Assuming that you are using IE10 / IE11 on Windows: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2716529

Adobe Standard Camera Calibration greatly underexposes in ACR 7.0

With all ACR defaults, including Adobe Standard (2012) camera calibration, when I open a Raw image (NEF from Nikon D3x or D3s), the blacks are blocked up and the entire histogram is "squashed" down and both ends are pulled in toward the middle, further reducing the dynamic range. The resulting excessive contrast looks horrible. All other settings are at zero, except lens correction is checked On. (Clicking that on or off has almost no effect on the histogram.)
Just changing the Camera Calibration to 2010 helps the image tremendously. But I notice it has set Blacks +25, Clarity +7, and has made a custom Point curve that is essentially an inverted S-curve. This successfully unblocks the shadows, but it seems bizarre that the new default Adobe Standard would be so far off.
I don't know if I'm missing a new, hidden setting, or if that's an issue unique to Nikon D3-series.
Any insight would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Tom

Thanks, Jeff. I hadn't made any changes to ACR, but went back and reset them anyway, with the same results.
What's puzzling is that the NEF opens pretty much the same in ACR 2010 as it does in Nikon's Capture NX2, with a histogram that looks similar to the JPEG one on the camera. When I use PV 2012, I get blocked up shadows, and an overall darker image. From top to bottom: ACR6, ACR7, Capture NX2.

Camera profile say Adobe Standard with DMC-LX3 files

Am I doing something wrong here.
I import raw files from Panasonic DMC-LX3. It is stated as supported in Lightroom 2.3, but under Camera Calibration I only see Adobe Standard?
Does this have something to do with the exception in DNG file handling for the camera (see, http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html?camerarawnav )
All the Best

It might but I don't think Camera Matching Profiles have been issued for other than Canon and Nikon at this point.

Lr5 Camera Calibration Only Adobe Standard under profiles

Hi I have Lr5 and I am shooting a Sony A77.
In the Develope Module - camera calibration - In the Profiles I only have Adobe standard and nothing else.
Can you help please.
Allan

The usual list of camera profiles is only for Nikon and Canon cameras. You'd have to create your own profiles, or find someone sharing.

Dark prints using CS5 & Epson R2400 ongoing problem, now new PC and magenta cast

Have tried every combination of set up in trying to solve problem. Had One Eye (now defunct lamp) various experts etc etc but compensated for dark prints by having screen lightened to bizarre point. Now having a new PC am faced with massive magenta cast. I really don't want to buy a new printer but have had the dark print problem since I got it. Have spoken to Adobe and Epson at length but eventually washed their hands. I feel it is something to do within the computer set up or Photoshop - don't think its printer problem. All drivers updated regularly. Thought it could be monitor problem but don't really think this is the case.
Any ideas welcome as I think I have tried everything. Use Windows 7.
Am retired and not very technically minded! Serious amateur photographer.

I have an Epson 1280 printer, and I have the same problem with prints. Part of the problem are the different color profiles in the monitor and the printer. The other problem to deal with is the type of photo paper used. While looking at web sites, I found that the ICC Color Profiles for the printer are on the install disc and are not automatically installed. One of the links describes which folder to install the profiles on both Mac & Windows computers.
As station_two wrote, calibrate your monitor first.
Below is a link about calibrating.
http://dpexperience.com/2009/12/18/calibrating-your-monitor-to-your-printer/
The next link is for printer tips
http://www.normankoren.com/printers.html#Printer_tips
And some more here
http://www.digitaldog.net/tips/
I do not have an exact answer for you because I have not figured it out myself, but here is what I have been doing on my prints. I might recommend that you work on a copy of the original.
In the Layer floating window, create a New Adjustment Layer by clicking on the half black/half white circle, and choose Hue/Saturation or Color Balance or Selective Color. Because the prints come out too red, you want to increase the green sliders, which is the opposite of red, and/or decrease the red. (Layer>New Adjustment Layer>Color Balance) is another way to do it.
Under the menu item Image>Adjust Levels. Move the center triangle at the bottom to lighten the mid-range, or use the center dialog box and change it to 1.20 or 1.30, for example.
Now press Print with Preview (but you really are not going to print).
When the dialog box comes up, make sure the Print Space: dropdown is set to Epson Paper or whatever you are using.
I have been using Relative Colorimetric. Press Print. Another dialog box will come up. At the bottom will be a button for Preview, which will generate a preview of what the photo will look like if printed.
Keep going back to the original and double click on the Adjustment Layer and adjusting it until the Print Preview looks ok.
Be sure when you actually print that the paper and color settings in the Epson dialog box match your settings in Photoshop. There is a dropdown that has Print Settings or Color. Often they don't match unless you print several photos in a row. I have found printing at the lower settings (less than 360 dpi) also messes up the color.
It is not an excellent solution, but until I can figure out more, I am in the same boat as you.
I'd suggest saving the lightening and color adjustments as two different Actions.

Stong Magenta Cast on Nikon D1x Compressed Raw files

I had to get some shots that I took in 2003 with my D1x. I'm on a MAC with Lightroom 1.3. I imported the photo's into Lightroom. I noticed something strange.
Some of the the images first displayed correctly in the grid view. bus as lightroom created the higher res thumbnails, the images developed a very strong magenta cast. Reminded me of slide film when the color developer was going bad. But some of the other images were fine, I had about 2000 from the shoot.
It took a while, but I did discover the differences between the files that displayed correctly and those that didn't. The difference was that the ones displayed incorrectly were Compressed RAW. I was beginning to run short of storage on the shoot and changed to the compressed option for about the last 200 or so shots.
If I ask Lightroom to open them in Photoshop CS3, they open as PSD with the same strong cast. Not good at all.
I then used Bridge to look at the files, they also show up with the sme strong magenta cast in bridge. But, when I open them in Camera Raw, they display fine and when I send them to Photoshop, they open correctly.
So I can use the files, but I'm wondering. Has anyone else noticed this? Is Adobe aware of this?
I looked for an article in the Knowledge Base and looked through the forum messages. I didn;t find anything except for an item in the forum about D100 files displaying the same as mine.

i just started having the same problem except that my magenta cast happens when i open an image through raw then ps and save from ps to a file. If i save from bridge or adobe raw there is no problem. I only get the cast when saved from ps and to jpeg and if viewed through bridge. have no idea what to do.

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.

Severe Magenta Cast Some Cameras Adobe Standard

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for