Does the Adobe Standard profile just lack life for you too?

I have done a lot of color tests, and for the bodies I've owned, Adobe Standard just seems to lack life to me. I've been using the X-Rite Color Checker Passport and the colors seem much more pleasing to the eye. Here's the same image, Adobe Standard on the left and the X-Rite on the right. Vibrance and Saturation at 0 for both images, only thing changed is the profile. This also was shot with a polarizer so it does have a lot of color. Does anyone else have any profiles or color settings they prefer?

For my Nikon D700 there is absolutely no difference between Adobe Standard and a dual illuminant profile made with the Colorchecker Passport. If you have a camera that is close to the one that Adobe used (there is some variation off the assembly line), and you use the correct light sources to make the profile then you should see no significant difference.

What's weird too is I can make a profile with the X-Rite software, use the same 2 images to make a profile with the Adobe DNG Editor and it looks much different.

Canon_Shoe wrote in post #17689275
What's weird too is I can make a profile with the X-Rite software, use the same 2 images to make a profile with the Adobe DNG Editor and it looks much different.

Maybe that explains it. I used the Adobe DNG Editor to make my profile.

I assume that you're referencing LR...I use portrait on people and should I want "dead-on" accurate skin tones...
nothing I've tried beats the X-Rite WB taken at the same time.
However, the "auto white balance" does tend to give more of a "golden-hour" look to an image.

The adobe standard profile I think is why people say Canon favors red tones. The X rite colors always have more pop to them in my experience

A few things to consider...

All Adobe profiles are made specific for each camera model. This includes the common "Adobe Standard" profile. So Adobe Standard for an older Canon 5D will likely produce different results than the Adobe Standard for a newer Canon 7D2. Differences between Adobe Standard profiles for Canon vs. Nikon vs. Sony may be even greater. When you discuss profile differences it's important to tell what camera body you use.

There are some key variables at play when making custom profiles. One is the tool used (Xrite or Adobe DNGPE), one is type of light used to shoot the target (direct sun, shade, etc.) and one is the base exposure.

Xrite and Adobe DNGPE have always generated significantly different profiles. The fact that each tool has loyal users only demonstrates that personal preferences vary a lot. Xrite, in my experience, generates profiles that produce much higher saturation. In your sample, the hues vary a little bit, but the main difference is in saturation.

The type of light makes a difference, of course, but it's a suprisingly small difference. It's been well demonstrated that the "spectrum" of the light makes the most difference while the color temp makes little difference. Direct Sun, skylight, cloudy, even flash have different temps, but very similar spectrums. Only when you use tungsten, CFL, or LEDs do you get significantly different spectrums.

The base exposure of the target makes a significant difference. Adobe recommends using the highest exposure possible without clipping. That usually translates to a LAB value of 96 on the white square. In my experience, targets shot at higher exposures generate profiles that produce higher saturation. Lower exposed targets generate lower saturation. In post processing, I prefer to add saturation instead of subtracting it. Especially on images with strong colors that might exceed display and printing gamuts. So I maintain profiles made from lower base exposures of the target image (LAB=92).

Summary-One: There is a lot of room for improvement in custom profiling. Neither Adobe nor Xrite have made any meaningful improvements in their profile generation software since version 1. And isin't it strange that none of the camera makers provide a profiling solution?

Summary-Two: When someone says they prefer one profile over another, that does not mean one is technically better. It just means they have different preferences and they likely used different values when generating the profiles.

This is all true! I mainly shoot landscape and several times I've use the adobe standard profile right next to the X-Rite and the X-Rite one is more accurate overall and gives you the proper green/yellow tones. Sometimes I think it does over-saturate and if I get a nuclear sunset, I have to take saturation down to -20 sometimes. I guess they all have their advantages/disadvantag​es, but I sure would appreciate much more accurate colors and saturation. If I shoot a landscape, I just don't feel right adding saturation or vibrance as it seems to lose the natural feel. I should say the image itself is fine, it's in my head that I would like a natural image as it was shot

645Z has a terrible Adobe profile too, although the embedded one isn't exactly accurate either. It seems that Adobe always tries to err on the side of muting the colors, in the same way that on-sensor CFA filters typically try to blend incoming light just enough that people don't have purple faces when shot under florescent light. There is certain subject matter where the default profile is actually desirable.

One of the first things I do is use the "Camera Standard" or "Camera Neutral" profiles when I import my raw files to Lightroom. I too think the "Adobe Standard" looks flat and dull

I use either a custom profile or camera standard. I believe custom profiles with the Xrite software adjust both color and contrast. Adobe standard is bland, but one can certainly use it as a good starting point. My experience with the portrait profile is that it is way to red. Faithfull is the only other profile I've used.

I only shoot RAW, but I like to set the camera itself Camera Landscape. The colors look really nice on the LCD and people are always amazed with how it looks in camera. The Camera Landscape profile in LR/ACR is way to orange and red to even be usable for my camera. I guess we all just would like accurate colors as a good starting point

Canon_Shoe wrote in post #17692498
I only shoot RAW, but I like to set the camera itself Camera Landscape. The colors look really nice on the LCD and people are always amazed with how it looks in camera. The Camera Landscape profile in LR/ACR is way to orange and red to even be usable for my camera. I guess we all just would like accurate colors as a good starting point

That's interesting, although I take another approach, since I don't tend to "showcase" my photos in-camera.

Instead, I set the camera Picture Style to Neutral, with the Contrast and Saturation dialed all the way back (-4). That way the shot comes out to resemble the Adobe default settings, and if you open the shot in the Canon Raw processing software Digital Photo Professional (DPP) it will reflect that without tweaking the Contrast and Saturation. To me it's a better "starting point".

I see no large difference with colors between any of my cameras (Canon or Nikon) when using Adobe Standard. There are huge differences in things like dynamic range though, say between my Canon 20D and Nikon D700, which can make a big difference in how similar exposed images look.

From what I remember from posts By Eric Chan and (if I recall correctly) Jeff Schewe, Adobe Standard is essentially equivalent to what most of us should achieve when producing a dual illuminant profile with the ColorChecker except:

• Adobe uses a bit more sophisticated approach than what is provided by DNG Editor
  
• Adobe uses ISO calibrated lighting to create the daylight and tungsten profiles. Creating the profile by shooting outdoors and under a tungsten bulb can cause some inaccuracies due to clouds, potential for mixed lighting, etc.
  
• Adobe uses a limited sample population for each camera make/model, so if the camera they created the profile for isn't "average", then the result could be off. They redo some of the profiles based on customer feedback.
  

It's never too far off for me, just always lacks color. I usually have to add vibrance and saturation to produce anything that doesn't suck with that profile