Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Log vs standard profile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Log vs standard profile

    Hi,

    I see that in Camera Raw and LR there are only rec709 kind of profiles with general contrast over the image. Is there a log profile (look up table fro 5d raw) to get a flat/low saturated image?

    I understand you do retouch to a dng file with a rec709 profile (standard, faithful), correct?

    Thanks

  • #2
    Re: Log vs standard profile

    Make a new profile with everything set to default and make it your default profile, so that every imported image has no adjustments applied to it?

    Also, no, there are no profiles that coincide with Canon "in camera" profiles, that's why there is it's proprietary software that applies canon-specific styles.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Log vs standard profile

      Those are intended for video workflows. There's no reason to build those kinds of profiles for rec709, so I don't think you'll find them. The standard, faithful, etc. profiles are things such as Adobe's standard processing vs as close as possible to what the manufacturer applies via in camera processing on jpeg exports.

      I want to point out that using an input profile to dictate contrast is borders on ridiculous. Adobe makes raw adjustments in a standardized profile that is significantly different from the input profile. Typically though the input profile should provide a description of hardware response with respect to a profile connection space and nothing else.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Log vs standard profile

        I have found this: http://www.vision-color.com/visionlog/

        It says "custom LOG profile - extract entire dynamic range from sensor".

        Yes, it is meant for video purpose, but this thing of "extract entire dynamic" appeals me a lot ad maybe it can worthwhile giving it a try for still photos.

        To me it seems to make more sense to apply a s-curve on a log raw rather then a standard or faithfull profiled one.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Log vs standard profile

          Originally posted by marameo View Post
          To me it seems to make more sense to apply a s-curve on a log raw rather then a standard or faithfull profiled one.
          Standard and faithful are not meaningful terms. It's just a matter of what Adobe thinks represents the data vs what the camera manufacturer thinks it should be. Neither is well explained or defined though.

          Applying an s-curve to this is a terrible idea. Perhaps once you try it you'll understand from the the results. Logarithmic and linear profiles are better for color correction if the tools are set up to accommodate them. This is not the case in photoshop. You have appropriate linear (well gamma 1.0) tools available in 32 bit mode in photoshop. Other than that they're designed to work with gamma corrected data, and even ignoring the waste of bits, an s-curve with respect to that basis doesn't resemble a mapping from a logarithmic basis to a gamma 2.2 one. You're looking for massive shadow problems with your current strategy. You might run into highlight problems too, but either way you're just trying to crush shadows and highlights after the fact to make them all fit into a narrower dynamic range. There are strategies for dynamic range compression, but none of them take this approach. You would also have to output to 32 bits per channel (not change to 32 bit mode, but actually be able to export that way without clipping at intermediate stages) to even implement that.

          edit: I guess the important thing to take away from this is that you need to do followup editing in a tool that can properly work with this data (such as Resolve). If you want to work with it in photoshop, you would export from that.
          Last edited by klev; 05-10-2015, 03:51 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Log vs standard profile

            https://www.flickr.com/photos/rudymc...posted-public/

            @Klev
            I use visionlog workflow. can you see any massive shadow problems or highlight problems?.

            I use that workflow because i suck in color correction.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Log vs standard profile

              https://www.flickr.com/photos/rudymc...posted-public/

              Workflow:
              - raw file to DNG
              - In DNG profile editor convert to log- gamma profile
              - In ACR load the log-gamma profile
              - Open file in photoshop
              - Cineon Conversion LUT layer
              - at the bottom of the cineon conversion layer load a CIN LUT
              - at the top of these layers a Filmbot_Color
              - Manny Sharpen

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Log vs standard profile

                Yes, there is a log profile to get a flat/low saturated image.
                Attached Files

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Log vs standard profile

                  above workflow after you make your image flat.
                  Attached Files

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Log vs standard profile

                    Originally posted by rudym View Post
                    https://www.flickr.com/photos/rudymc...posted-public/

                    Workflow:
                    - raw file to DNG
                    - In DNG profile editor convert to log- gamma profile
                    - In ACR load the log-gamma profile
                    - Open file in photoshop
                    - Cineon Conversion LUT layer
                    - at the bottom of the cineon conversion layer load a CIN LUT
                    - at the top of these layers a Filmbot_Color

                    - Manny Sharpen
                    You really should pay attention to what I stated, but you mentioned something extremely interesting. You had non-standard steps that made this feasible. If you go back and read my comment again, it was in response to the take this into photoshop and apply s-curve, although your results still exceed what I would have expected. They're very nice. The other method would have left some detail unclamped, then just compressed shadows and highlights to achieve suitable midtones, effectively losing a lot of that detail anyway. It's quite a bit different.

                    I guess I did mention photoshop in 8 or 16 bit mode in general, but I hadn't encountered this tool. Note the reason for resolve would have been the same thing. Make adjustments, add log->gamma corrected node, and export.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Log vs standard profile

                      You're correct. I used just a part of your comments. Sorry about that.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Log vs standard profile

                        Sometimes I'm quite snippy. It's because I attempt to keep the scope of things as narrow as possible to avoid misinterpretation or having "what ifs" applied to everything. Virtually all of this stuff has edge cases, and what the OP originally suggested was closer to using an s-curve in a gamma encoded space rather than levels in a linear one. That's the thing that causes shadows to go really blocky.

                        In this case the detail you contributed was extremely helpful though. It's probably of greater importance to the OP than any of what I mentioned, and I also thought it was interesting.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Log vs standard profile

                          Color Lookup Adjustment Layer is news to me as I understand I cannot use 3D LUTs in CS5.

                          Because Resolve Lite is free and has Log Controls based on the film timing approach (offset and contrast) I might want to give it a try just because.

                          I must admit if I had film scanned I would love it to have baked-in log profile similar to the Cineon log.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Log vs standard profile

                            You can also use Davinci Resolve lite but the log will be BMDfilm. From there you can generate a 3d out file for your specific image.
                            Last edited by rudym; 05-11-2015, 08:44 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Log vs standard profile

                              Oops! You will need CS6 or CC. In resolve you can convert to a tiff file then do the rest of your adjustments in CS5

                              Comment

                              Related Topics

                              Collapse

                              • MikeyPee
                                Custom DNG Profiles
                                by MikeyPee
                                If you don't know already, DNG profiles are basically the starting point of your photo when importing Raw photos through Camera Raw and Lightroom.

                                My default profile that I use most is "Camera Neutral" because it give me more dynamic range to work with.

                                The...
                                11-20-2011, 02:08 PM
                              • Doug Nelson
                                OEM Raw Converters vs. Adobe Camera Raw
                                by Doug Nelson
                                One of the surprises I've had while experimenting with my new Nikon D7000 is how much better the Nikon software is at converting the NEF files than Adobe Camera Raw. I'm only using the freebie View NX software, but there was a marked difference in grain and moire between the two. A bit of googling shows...
                                12-10-2010, 08:11 AM
                              • ysbryd
                                Please help - RAW desaturating and altering hue
                                by ysbryd
                                Hi,

                                I use a Canon 400D, with sRGB setting. I get the image as I want it in the camera, and it looks the same when I preview it on my laptop, but as soon as I open it in RAW (in CS4 - also set to sRGB 8 bit), or select 'develop' in Lightroom, the image changes hue and washes out. It's...
                                04-06-2011, 02:56 PM
                              • ozzo
                                camera color profiling
                                by ozzo
                                hi folks. need some experience knowledge... i have a possibility to create home made icc profiles for my camera (due to the fast i work with capture one). my inspiration was the theory behind rawdigger (standart curves for preview jpgs in camera or raw converter aswell). i think after creating one test...
                                11-21-2017, 04:20 AM
                              • brsaicnaztrkou
                                How come this photograph turns into this??
                                by brsaicnaztrkou
                                Hi everyone,

                                I've been trying to figure out what auto processes are done to correct the image below. I am shooting raw and the files have been saved in both .jpeg and .dng format. I've spent like more than a month now trying to get the same result with the .dng to make it look like the...
                                04-17-2016, 10:03 AM
                              Working...
                              X