# Lightroom 2 Camera Profiles



## davebmck (Dec 6, 2008)

Is anyone using the Camera Profiles in LR2?  Do you feel these give better results than the default profiles?  I downloaded and installed them last night, and they sure make a difference to the picture, especially with the reds and oranges.  It makes me wonder which is more accurate.


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 6, 2008)

I installed them in CS3... tried it... did not like it.  My own presets give me way more accurate results.  Others may like them a lot... I just felt that I took the time to set them up for my tastes and that worked way better for me.


----------



## chrisburke (Dec 6, 2008)

never tried them before.. i just downloaded them.. cant seem to figure out anything about them though.. is it something that i apply?

just watching a video about camera profiles.. i've installed them.. but when i go to "camera calibration" all i have is "embeded" cant choose any others

scratch that, figured it out. only works with the raws, and I was on a tiff


----------



## Garbz (Dec 9, 2008)

I use the adobe standard profile most of the time. Gave me quite a better picture (in my opinion) then the profile the came with Lightroom, but this will definitely depend on the camera. The Lightroom profiles I have always found lacked in the reds, and when I first started using CamerRAW I bumped up the default red saturation in the camera profile.

The new profiles seem to match well my old modified ones. Using a calibrated screen I find things look more lifelike, especially people. If you want to get 100% accurate ones the buy a Greytag-Macbeth colour checker chart and make your own profile. Shouldn't cost much but it would take at least a weekend to do properly.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 9, 2008)

I've been using the ACR 4.4 profile.

Not sure I understand what the other ones are for...  There's 'portrait', 'landscape', 'neutral', etc.  Are these just replicating what those settings would do on the camera?

If that's all they do, I think I'll just keep tweaking that stuff on my own...


----------



## davebmck (Dec 9, 2008)

As I understand it, the beta 2 profiles attempt to match what you see on your camera LCD screen.  This would represent what adjustments your camera would make to the image for output to the screen and I assume to a jpeg file.

The options such as Camera Standard, Landscape, Portrait, etc., I assume are supposed to match shooting modes supported by the camera in the program modes.

This is just what I can conclude from what I read on the adobe site.  I haven't seen a good and/or comprehensive explanation on the use of these yet, so I am mostly speculating here.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 9, 2008)

That's kinda what I was thinking.

If they only work on RAWs, and RAWs don't get that processing in the camera - what's the point?


----------



## davebmck (Dec 10, 2008)

There is some level of adjustment made to raw files for the previews you see on the LCD screen and the initial previews in Camera Raw or LR2.  Just speculation again, but I guess this gives you a starting point based on the camera manufacturers programming.  Probably similar to what you would start with if you were using the manufacturers Raw converter software.  If anyone has a more accurate suggestion, please chime in.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 10, 2008)

O|||||||O said:


> If they only work on RAWs, and RAWs don't get that processing in the camera - what's the point?



Well they don't, but the profiles address 2 issues. First was the critique that the ACR 3.4 and 4.4 profiles lacked in red saturation. Secondly was that the ACR did not match the camera. Some people preferred the look of CaptureNX over Lightroom as a processor. There were enough people on this very board posting questions on why the Lightroom photos looked greenish.

The new profiles provide options which match camera manufacturers RAW processing in camera and in their RAW software.
AND more critically; It includes the new Adobe Standard profile which is soon to replace the ACR4.4 profile and addresses the redness issue. Eventually we'll be using it anyway, may as well start now and get used to it. I like it 



davebmck said:


> There is some level of adjustment made to raw files for the previews you see on the LCD screen and the initial previews in Camera Raw or LR2.  Just speculation again, but I guess this gives you a starting point based on the camera manufacturers programming.  Probably similar to what you would start with if you were using the manufacturers Raw converter software.  If anyone has a more accurate suggestion, please chime in.



Exactly. Even more so there isn't "some level of adjustment" made. The preview on the LCD is a fully processed JPEG preview of the RAW. On most cameras when you shoot RAW and set it to greyscale you'll even get a greyscale preview on the LCD and opens in colour in the RAW processor. These camera profiles like "neutral, landscape, vivid" are here to provide some synergy for those who like to use the manufacturers look as a starting point.


----------



## davebmck (Dec 10, 2008)

That's better stated than my attempt.  Thanks, Garbz.

Some of these really make quite a difference in you images.  A good example is the Landscape profile.  The colors really pop, especially the sky.  It looks like a CP was used when it really wasn't.

Anyone know the difference between Camera Standard and Camera Faithful?  It sounds like these should be pretty much the same, but they do give different results.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 10, 2008)

davebmck said:


> Some of these really make quite a difference in you images.  A good example is the Landscape profile.  The colors really pop, especially the sky.  It looks like a CP was used when it really wasn't.



But can't you do the same thing with the other tools in Lightroom?  Are they doing anything that Lightroom didn't do already?


Maybe I'm just not getting it, but it sounds like all they do is adjust the saturation...  Is there something I'm missing?


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 10, 2008)

Garbz, are you saying that they're primarily for making the image (on default settings, before you do anything to it) match what you would see on the LCD?

If that's the case, I don't see how they're any different than a preset...  (There has to be more to it, right?)


----------



## davebmck (Dec 10, 2008)

Yes, that's pretty much correct.  In fact, you can make the setting a preset in LR2 and you can apply it during import if desired.  You can also make it one of your default settings.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 11, 2008)

O|||||||O said:


> Garbz, are you saying that they're primarily for making the image (on default settings, before you do anything to it) match what you would see on the LCD?
> If that's the case, I don't see how they're any different than a preset...  (There has to be more to it, right?)





O|||||||O said:


> But can't you do the same thing with the other tools in Lightroom?  Are they doing anything that Lightroom didn't do already?
> Maybe I'm just not getting it, but it sounds like all they do is adjust the saturation...  Is there something I'm missing?



Other thought. This isn't something that was or wasn't done by Lightroom. This is something that was done on the translation of sensor data to a default linear image. Each sensor reacts differently to curves and colours thanks to complex bayer filters and other factors. The camera profiles define HOW a camera image is converted to a usable file in terms of both hue and saturation of different colour bands, and the contrast curve applied to the linear data off the sensor.

In effect yes you could replicate any of these effects in lightroom and I don't actually use the Vivid or Portrait profiles, however these profiles define the starting points. Nikon's cameras in post processing apply certain effects in camera which are mostly lost on RAW converters like Lightroom, however Nikon's CaptureNX software can read the settings out of the EXIF and apply them as the default when you open the RAW file, a feature that was previously lost for Lightroom. It changes the starting point and nothing else. If you shoot a lot of portraits, setting the "Portrait" mode may just simply reduce the amount of post work you do if Nikon's own Portrait mode is the one you're trying to match.

But really all of these settings can really be matched by carefully setting Lightroom presets anyway. This is what I previously did. I took manually the red saturation up slightly in the ACR4.4 profile and then saved it as the Lightroom default.


----------



## ksmattfish (Dec 11, 2008)

davebmck said:


> Anyone know the difference between Camera Standard and Camera Faithful?  It sounds like these should be pretty much the same, but they do give different results.



Standard or neutral?  In my experience the standard, default settings on most DSLRs increase sharpness, contrast, and saturation.  Neutral is supposed to be as unmodified as possible from raw.  Faithful is supposed to give more accurate color under a specific color temp.  It's very similar to neutral, but may appear a smidge warmer.

I haven't tried the camera specific profiles for LR2, but I'm absolutely thrilled with LR2!


----------



## davebmck (Dec 11, 2008)

Well, I've played around with all the profiles and I think the Adobe Standard profile is the best all around to use as a default.  It is certainly better than the ACR 4.4 and the Camera Standard is too red and saturated.  The others like Landscape may be fine for their intended applications, but I personally didn't like the results from the Portrait profile.

Yes, I agree with you on LR2.  I have only been using it a month or so and there is no way I would go back to Camera Raw.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 15, 2008)

ksmattfish said:


> I haven't tried the camera specific profiles for LR2, but I'm absolutely thrilled with LR2!



Ignore the camera specific ones but get the new "Adobe Standard" Profile. From the Beta2 profiles pack on Adobe Labs site. You'll use it eventually one way or the other, but you may as well get started with the nicer look


----------



## ksmattfish (Dec 15, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Ignore the camera specific ones but get the new "Adobe Standard" Profile. From the Beta2 profiles pack on Adobe Labs site. You'll use it eventually one way or the other, but you may as well get started with the nicer look



Cool, I'll look that up.

Is anyone else experiencing the Lightroom memory leak problem?  After a while LR2 freezes up on me, and I have to use the task manager to shut it down.  Then I restart it, and there's no problem for a while.  I've googled it, and other folks seem to be having the same problem.  I've got 4gb ram, and 1gb on the video card.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 15, 2008)

I haven't had that problem, but it was starting to slow down a lot.

I separated my main folder into a few different catalogs then optimized them, runs much better now.


----------



## davebmck (Dec 15, 2008)

I haven't had that problem either.  I am running it on Vista.  Adobe Bridge used to crash on me all the time, but I've had no problems with LR2.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 15, 2008)

davebmck said:


> I am running it on Vista.



Me too. 4 gb of RAM, 2.4 GHz if that helps...


----------



## davebmck (Dec 15, 2008)

2gb ram and 2ghz here.


----------

