Custom Camera Calibration Profiles

I'm wondering if those with experience in creating their own profiles for their camera could provide input on if it is worth it? I currently shoot with the 5D2, my display is calibrated regularly, but about every camera profile has something I dislike about it. I would like to create my own for accurate color rendering and contrasts, but I really don't want to be out there shooting the color card every time to achieve this. If you profile it once, is it accurate enough to be used for all color temperatures? Does anyone have a custom profile to share so I can compare some images? So far, I've found the most accurate for landscapes with my body is camera neutral but I do have to bump up the vibrance a bit and sometimes images can be very flat with it. Looking for advice on this subject.......

Yes, custom camera profiles are worth the time and effort invested in creating them.
There are two types of custom profiles, Single Illuminant and Dual Illuminant. Dual Illuminant profiles are made using sample photos shot in shaded sunlight and Tungsten. They are sufficiently accurate that you don't have to shoot reference images for every shoot if you don't want to. With single illuminant profiles it is recommended that you shoot a reference image so you can fine-tune white balance.
Both the software profiled by X-Rite and Adobe allow you to make both kinds of profiles; many people think that the Adobe software produces more accurate profiles:
http://xritephoto.com …on=Support&Soft​wareID=986

http://www.adobe.com …ads/detail.jsp?​ftpID=5494

Canon_Shoe wrote in post #17011331
I'm wondering if those with experience in creating their own profiles for their camera could provide input on if it is worth it? I currently shoot with the 5D2, my display is calibrated regularly, but about every camera profile has something I dislike about it. I would like to create my own for accurate color rendering and contrasts, but I really don't want to be out there shooting the color card every time to achieve this. If you profile it once, is it accurate enough to be used for all color temperatures? Does anyone have a custom profile to share so I can compare some images? So far, I've found the most accurate for landscapes with my body is camera neutral but I do have to bump up the vibrance a bit and sometimes images can be very flat with it. Looking for advice on this subject.......

I agree with pretty much everything PM said.

I suggest you take a look at this video from Andrew Rodney:
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=_fikTm8XIt4

Thanks for posting that Rodney link.

Canon_Shoe wrote in post #17011331
Does anyone have a custom profile to share so I can compare some images?

Probably not worth it. The whole point of using custom profiles is that they are specific to your camera and its specific sensor responses.

There is another option; rather than making profiles from scratch you can modify the DNG Camera Profiles supplied with LR or ACR by using the free DNG Profile Editor. You can, for instance, change a profile's TRC, making it contrastier or flatter.

tzalman wrote in post #17013388
There is another option; rather than making profiles from scratch you can modify the DNG Camera Profiles supplied with LR or ACR by using the free DNG Profile Editor. You can, for instance, change a profile's TRC, making it contrastier or flatter.

I'm glad you brought this up. I've been using the camera standard profile because it is slightly more on the contrast side. I think I may have to do some experimenting with modifying some of my custom profiles.

I don't know which profile is the most accurate.......Adobe Standard seems like the most accurate to me, but I always need to add some vibrance and saturation to get the colors back from my RAW files. Always frustrates me!

It's no big mystery, if you want a "Default" that is adjusted differently to say Adobe Standard, then open an image, make adjustments in the Develop module, then press the Alt/Opt key and the Reset button will change to Set Default. Click it and you have the choice of having a new default!

tonylong wrote in post #17013762
It's no big mystery, if you want a "Default" that is adjusted differently to say Adobe Standard, then open an image, make adjustments in the Develop module, then press the Alt/Opt key and the Reset button will change to Set Default. Click it and you have the choice of having a new default!

That's true Tony and I definitely do have a default starting point, but I think we all seek the elusive, "true color" and it's very overwhelming to achieve that for most

I don't. I seek the colors that please me and hopefully will evoke a similar response in my viewers and to that end feel entirely free to modify colors and tonal relationships. I want software that maximizes my ability to do that. I don't give a plugged nickel for "true color" if that means real world colors, for two simple reasons. A. The camera perceives colors very differently than we do and with the right profile the converter might render them with "real world" accuracy, but that rendition will be quite different from what you or I saw - the human eye/brain cares nothing for accuracy; its first consideration is evolutionary survival and in addition to that it also brings a varied kit of psychological filters. B. Since I will always be mucking the colors around, the default starting point is a matter of workflow convenience, not necessity.

"Back" to what? Colorimetric accuracy as in a comparison with a color sample card (Color Checker, Kodak Q-14, QP 203)? An imperfectly remembered perception? A Canon jpg rendition?

I shoot indoor sports in several different venues. Each has very different lighting. I use a Passport xrite color checker to create custom profiles for each venues' lighting at the ISO's I use there. This gives me the most accurate colors and greatly reduces time in post processing. I apply the correct profile as a preset on import for files from that venue. Creating the profile is super easy. You shoot an image of the passport color checker color chart in the venue using RAW. Then with the Passport pluging to lightroom, you just crop the color checker image and use the pull down menu item in LR to generate the profile. Then restart LR once so the profile now shows up in your available profile options. Once you have it, you can use that profile for that venue forever after without needing to generate a new one unless their lighting changes at the venue. It sounds much more complicated than it really is. It takes an extra minute to shoot the photo at the venue of the color chart, another minute to process it in LR and generate the RAW, then another minute to close and restart LR. For me, custom profiles are certainly useful as a huge time saver with 1 to 2 thousand photos from a typical event at a venue to parse through and process.

tzalman wrote in post #17014163
I don't. I seek the colors that please me and hopefully will evoke a similar response in my viewers and to that end feel entirely free to modify colors and tonal relationships. I want software that maximizes my ability to do that. I don't give a plugged nickel for "true color" if that means real world colors, for two simple reasons. A. The camera perceives colors very differently than we do and with the right profile the converter might render them with "real world" accuracy, but that rendition will be quite different from what you or I saw - the human eye/brain cares nothing for accuracy; its first consideration is evolutionary survival and in addition to that it also brings a varied kit of psychological filters. B. Since I will always be mucking the colors around, the default starting point is a matter of workflow convenience, not necessity.


"Back" to what? Colorimetric accuracy as in a comparison with a color sample card (Color Checker, Kodak Q-14, QP 203)? An imperfectly remembered perception? A Canon jpg rendition?

I just dislike adding saturation and vibrance as to me, it takes away from the purity and realism of it. Everyone has their own style I know and no one is right or wrong. My RAW files just really lack the color I remember at the scene. My display is calibrated and accurate, I'd just really like accurate colors from my camera is all

Canon_Shoe wrote in post #17014986
I just dislike adding saturation and vibrance as to me, it takes away from the purity and realism of it. Everyone has their own style I know and no one is right or wrong. My RAW files just really lack the color I remember at the scene. My display is calibrated and accurate, I'd just really like accurate colors from my camera is all

The whole reason for shooting Raw (and using a good Raw processor) is that we can/want to make "creative choices" when it comes to processing our photos and producing a look that we find creatively pleasing.

Raw comes out of the camera as data that has not been "interpreted" into RGB pixels. Our software has to do that interpretation, either a very basic default interpretation or with our added touches. It's very normal, though, to want to add some touches. That's working in the "digital darkroom"!

I'm not sure how much of all this you understand. I typically advise folks who are new to shooting and processing Raw to check out the Canon Raw processing software Digital Photo Professional (DPP) because it gives you a "jpeg-like" view of your shots, using the in-camera settings that it would use if you were shooting jpegs. That can be an interesting "reference" if you are using another Raw processor, Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw have the profiles that resemble the Canon Picture Styles but they do leave a fair amount open to your interpretation. With the Canon software you can get an idea of how the in-camera software processes things. For example, you can set the Picture Style in DPP to Neutral, and dial back the Contrast and Saturation and Sharpening, and you can get a view quite close to what the Lightroom/ACR default would be...pretty neutral/flat looking! But then go to the Standard Picture Style in DPP and it would be like the "Standard" Picture Style in the camera if you were shooting Jpegs -- you'd have some Contrast and Saturation and Sharpening added by the camera, giving you the "look", or of course you could go to the Landscape Picture Style and all that gets pumped up even more!

I find that the Adobe profiles are a bit toned down compared to the Canon Picture Styles but I think that's fine, I'd rather add my own touches!

Your Raw files lack all color! Raws are greyscale images at best. Putting in the colors is part of the process by which data from the Raw serves as the basis for creating a color image by LR, DPP or the Digic processor in your camera. If you don't like the colors that LR creates, that's what all the sliders are for. Oh, I forgot, that would take away from the purity and realism. Make it sullied and artificial. Detract from the immediacy of the photographic experience. What you want is an application that will automagically reproduce at the push of a button what you think you remember. Some day maybe, not quite yet.