Camera Profile Comparisons - ACR 4.5 / LR2

[BigDaveE]

I'm staring to play around with the new/beta Camera Profiles that you can add to ACR 4.5 and/or LR 2.

I want to get some idea as to what people think is working best for them as far as camera profiles and get some examples.

Here is a shot I took last week... Notice the difference in blues & orange...

These are straight RAW's from ACR 4.5 - everything left at default exept the camera profile changed...

[BigDaveE]

And ...

[BigDaveE]

Notice the skin tone & the color of his shirt...

[BigDaveE]

and...

[davidcrebelxt]

I honestly don't have a "favorite." Though I can say pretty confidently I don't like the "pre-beta" conversions.

That's one thing I never gave much thought about even after switching from DPP to LR, but apparently missed since I like having it now.... that is different options to get me closer to the starting point I desire for further edits. I try out the different variations, and whichever strikes me as best I use for my starting point. I seem to grab the new "Adobe Standard" most often, so I've set that as my default upon import. I may look into possibly getting a color-checker and shooting my own since Adobe now gives us a tool for that.

[Robf]

for me DPP gives the best balance of colour, but i prefer working in ACR.

having the profiles brings it closer, for anything colour critical it gets fixed anyway.

which do you feel mirror what you shot best?

[Bob_A]

This looks very close to the difference I saw with my 20D files after installing one of EJ Peiker's profiles http://www.ejphoto.com/acr_order_page.htm . To me using a profile in ACR gives a big improvement. The colors are spot on (with proper WB), but there are differences in saturation/vividness compared to DPP. The result is not necessarily better or worse, just different.

[skifurthur]

I think it would be helpful if the actual DPP conversions in each profile was shown as well since that is what was reverse engineered.

[Glenn NK]

The result is not necessarily better or worse, just different.

I just quoted this line because I think it needs to be considered more carefully by many photographers.

If your goal is to just duplicate something you saw with your eye, then fine - try to obtain absolute reality. But if you want to convey an impression or feeling, then absolute colour accuracy may not be what you want.

I use a calibrated monitor (Spyder 3 Elite), but during PP, I often try all the profiles in conjunction with the white balance to get the combination that I feel best enhances the subject or adds to the impression. Many times with botanical images I use 3.3 and not one of the latest profiles.

I guess what I'm saying is don't get too hung up on reality - it can destroy creativity.

[blssdwlf]

I had moved away from ACR/Bridge and to DPP because of ACR's color profiles processed reds to look more orange. But with Adobe's Beta Color profiles, the Camera Standard and Neutral profiles have drawn me back. (There are some very nice things ACR can do that DPP can't, plus the metatagging in Bridge.)

It's less hassle for me to start from what I saw in color and get creative for fun rather than having to get creative to just recreate what I saw.

What'd be nice if there was a way of selecting between ACR and DPP's engine in Bridge :)

[René Damkot]

I prefer to start off with "Camera Neutral"

[bohdank]

Same here.... 99.5% Nuetral.

Once in a blue moon I start with Landscape, but it's because I am looking for a certain effect and it's a good starting point for those particular situations.

[Bob_A]

I just quoted this line because I think it needs to be considered more carefully by many photographers.

If your goal is to just duplicate something you saw with your eye, then fine - try to obtain absolute reality. But if you want to convey an impression or feeling, then absolute colour accuracy may not be what you want.

I use a calibrated monitor (Spyder 3 Elite), but during PP, I often try all the profiles in conjunction with the white balance to get the combination that I feel best enhances the subject or adds to the impression. Many times with botanical images I use 3.3 and not one of the latest profiles.

I guess what I'm saying is don't get too hung up on reality - it can destroy creativity.

It all depends what you want. Most of my images are of my kids. i tend to like to start with something that actually represents their real skin tone. :) But I agree, sometimes everyone gets hung up on things that are a pretty subjective.

[tepic]

Wow, I didn't know this existed before this thread. Thanks! I love the Velvia mode!

ACR 4.4 vs. Camera Landscape beta 2
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3050/2987874747_3c8a41b7e2.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3027/2988732666_fbdcc46ca8.jpg

[HyperYagami]

Yup Camera Landscape is great...I'm to the point to use this on all my outdoor photos...

Wow, I didn't know this existed before this thread. Thanks! I love the Velvia mode!

ACR 4.4 vs. Camera Landscape beta 2
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3050/2987874747_3c8a41b7e2.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3027/2988732666_fbdcc46ca8.jpg

[Glenn NK]

It all depends what you want. Most of my images are of my kids. i tend to like to start with something that actually represents their real skin tone. :) But I agree, sometimes everyone gets hung up on things that are a pretty subjective.

Ah yes, for people, I don't "mess around" with offbeat colours (it can be gross).

As an aside to the original golf pics posted, I wonder how many images posted in magazines (particularly advertising a golf course) are true to life. I suspect none at all - the greens would be "fixed" and of course the sky would be killer blue.:D