Adobe and OEM Colors (Nikon)

[Brev00]

I often see this statement that one must stick with Nikon brand processing for the truest rendition of the camera's colors (which seem to be very highly regarded). From this point of view, Adobe colors are so far off as to be undesirable. Or, just not close enough. Here are two versions of the same file. Just a demonstration. You can come up with any conclusions. Some might be tempted to do a color analysis which is fine. But, I am more interested in just how these two images appear more casually.

Nikon:



Adobe, default settings except for similar neutral picture control:



Adobe to taste:



I decided to change my pictures and the processing from my original post. First I used different files. Now, I used the same file. The Nikon one I converted from raw in Nikon NX2 and the Adobe one I processed in Photoshop Elements.

[Mike Buckley]

I've never been the least bit concerned with color accuracy so long as it looks realistic. It's in that context that I ask, especially with an image such as yours, why you would care which product renders the most accurate color; why wouldn't you adjust the color to your taste regardless of the software that you use?

[DanK]

Larry,

I don't think you gave us enough information to evaluate this.

Did you shoot raw? Did you shoot with a neutral picture style, or whatever Nikon calls them?

I shoot Canon, so I don't know anything about the specifics of Nikons. However, in the case of Canon, the picture style is embedded in the raw file's exif information. The company's proprietary software reads it, and to give you a starting point, it applies to the raw file the same processing parameters it would use if you shot jpeg with that picture style. For example, if you picked a style with saturated colors, the proprietary software would impose that saturation in its initial rendering of the image. Of course, you could undo it.

This is not a matter of color accuracy. It's simply replicating the jpeg processing parameters.

When you import an image into Lightroom, the software doesn't read that information and apply those edits in initial rendering. I believe the software either includes or lets you download profiles that emulate the manufacturer's profiles. (I'm not at the right computer to check, but I know it used to offer this.) I see no reason to use them, as I don't particularly care for pre-set picture styles, but some people prefer to start with them.

Dan

[Shadowman]

For me the most accurate colors are the ones that print well, your selection of reds is a good example of a color that sometimes need special treatment regardless of the colorspace used.

[Black Pearl]

Adobe's default profile is meant to be flat, thats not a negative thing it is a solid base point from which to add your own touch to your images.

If you are going to make the most from your raw files - regardless of which flavour they are - a starting point which isn't influenced by someones elves ideas of how your image should look is an absolute.


I feel you are coming at this from the wrong end.

[Brev00]

I do adjust every image to taste. This came up because I accidentally switched to jpeg when I started to take these tulip pictures. I noticed when I walked a few steps away what had happened. So, returned to the same spot after switching back to raw and took a few more pictures. I loaded the pictures to my Elements Organizer and moved them to the editing platform. Then, I noticed a greater similarity than I had remembered from several years ago when I did test out the two approaches upon buying Elements. I also remembered folks recently discussing the issue of Nikon colors v Canon and also v the OEM software. Many folks will indicate in a discussion that they use Nikon processing, save a tiff, then export to Lightroom or Photoshop to finish things up. So, my post was just a matter of opening up a discussion that I thought might be relevant to folks here. Apparently, I was mistaken. Live and learn.

[Mike Buckley]

So, my post was just a matter of opening up a discussion that I thought might be relevant to folks here. Apparently, I was mistaken. Live and learn.

You weren't mistaken and the proof is the content already in the very early part of the thread. So sad to see you responding to it this way.

[Brev00]

Larry,

I don't think you gave us enough information to evaluate this.

Did you shoot raw? Did you shoot with a neutral picture style, or whatever Nikon calls them?

I shoot Canon, so I don't know anything about the specifics of Nikons. However, in the case of Canon, the picture style is embedded in the raw file's exif information. The company's proprietary software reads it, and to give you a starting point, it applies to the raw file the same processing parameters it would use if you shot jpeg with that picture style. For example, if you picked a style with saturated colors, the proprietary software would impose that saturation in its initial rendering of the image. Of course, you could undo it.

This is not a matter of color accuracy. It's simply replicating the jpeg processing parameters.

When you import an image into Lightroom, the software doesn't read that information and apply those edits in initial rendering. I believe the software either includes or lets you download profiles that emulate the manufacturer's profiles. (I'm not at the right computer to check, but I know it used to offer this.) I see no reason to use them, as I don't particularly care for pre-set picture styles, but some people prefer to start with them.

Dan

First of all, a warning for those who do not find this an interesting topic: Read no further!

Sorry for my lack of thoroughness. Fortunately, that is easily corrected. I did shoot raw and used the neutral picture control in my D7100. I almost always use the neutral picture control as I find it and and my raw shooting work well together. I also used daylight white balance. I never use D-Lighting and turn noise reduction off. Since Adobe does not read a lot of Nikon settings, I just turn off what I can. I took the raw file directly into View NX2 and hit convert. That created a full size jpeg. I saved it to my desktop. For Adobe, I opened the file from my organizer into Element's ACR plug-in. I zeroed out my settings. I have created a starting point for all my images that I alter as I see fit. So, I moved my sliders to zero. I selected the neutral picture control and selected the 'as shot' white balance which is Adobe's translation of daylight, I believe. Around 5000K plus 1 red tint. I saved the 16 bit image to my Elements editing screen. Converted it to 8 bits and saved it as a full size jpeg to my desktop. This was the same raw file.

I do understand how the proprietary software works. And, I know that does not imply color accuracy, just the Nikon jpeg in camera processing palette. Which many people love and swear by. I also understand how Adobe does not read many of the Nikon in camera settings. Once I upload a pic to ACR, I process it according to my own desires. Sometimes it looks fine and dandy close to that standard set up but most often I adjust the sliders as I see fit.

Thanks for your comment and I hope I gave you the information you wanted. Feel free to ask more questions or share more thoughts if you want.

[Brev00]

For me the most accurate colors are the ones that print well, your selection of reds is a good example of a color that sometimes need special treatment regardless of the colorspace used.

Yes, I agree. I am having a show at a Tulsa gallery currently that required 12 20x30 prints as well as a 40x60 canvas print. Using Bay Photo, they all turned out exactly as I intended. This was with my standard workflow that I use to print images with my Epson printer at home.

[Brev00]

Adobe's default profile is meant to be flat, thats not a negative thing it is a solid base point from which to add your own touch to your images.

If you are going to make the most from your raw files - regardless of which flavour they are - a starting point which isn't influenced by someones elves ideas of how your image should look is an absolute.


I feel you are coming at this from the wrong end.

I really don't think I am coming at this from any end. I do not process images with Nikon's color palette in mind. Or anyone else's for that matter. I process images according to my own aesthetic taste. I shared an image above that I created as I wished as well as the two neutral examples. I am sharing this just to discuss a topic I see quite a bit: the difference between Adobe and Nikon colors. The two first examples were created specifically for this topic and have nothing to do with my own processing style. I guess this is a less interesting topic than I thought. Unfortunately, that is par for the course.

[Brev00]

You weren't mistaken and the proof is the content already in the very early part of the thread. So sad to see you responding to it this way.

I saw Dan's response as one that showed an interest in what I shared reacting to the topic and I responded in full to him. Sorry if I overgeneralized the quoted response. Don't be sad!

I really was asking for thoughts about the images I shared in terms of the color palettes that they displayed. Perhaps I was not clear about this as I have not received any such analysis. Yet. Maybe this elaboration will help. Do they look similar, in the same ballpark or very different? Are folks worrying about saving their Nikon colors unnecessarily or is there something to that premise? The two examples were processed without any effort to make them look similar in terms of additional color work past what the default software settings provided.

I was not expecting comments directed at me saying I am doing something wrong in my processing approach and implying I do not know about the way Nikon or Adobe work. I was not talking about myself yet I became the issue for some. That made me sad.

My conclusion from those who responded so far is that the topic that I wanted to discuss just doesn't connect. Maybe some members will correct me about that.

[Mike Buckley]

I am having a show at a Tulsa gallery currently

What gallery?

[Manfred M]

Larry - I have created a custom profile for my camera using the x-Rite ColorChecker passport and use it instead of the Adobe profiles. I have one for daylight conditions and another for studio lighting.

With the D800, I find that the custom profile enhances the red versus what the Standard Adobe gives me.

Just a bit more food for thought...

[dje]

Hi Larry

To my casual eye, the first two photos don't look much different but subject matter probably comes into it too. Other scenes may exhibit more colour differences between Nikon's processing and an Adobe "Nikon simulation" such as Nikon Camera Neutral. The Adobe treatment will always be potentially different as they use a different form of camera profiling to Nikon. (Well actually I've no idea what Nikon's proprietry profiling is like but I'm almost certain it won't use the Adobe DCP approach).

I selected the neutral picture control and selected the 'as shot' white balance which is Adobe's translation of daylight, I believe. Around 5000K plus 1 red tint. I saved the 16 bit image to my Elements editing screen. Converted it to 8 bits and saved it as a full size jpeg to my desktop. This was the same raw file.

White balance is one area where I'm fairly sure that Adobe Camera Raw (or LR) does read the As Shot Data from the raw file. This is from the White Balance RGB multipliers in the ColorBalance tag in the Maker notes in the case of Nikon.

Dave

[Brev00]

Hi Larry

To my casual eye, the first two photos don't look much different but subject matter probably comes into it too. Other scenes may exhibit more colour differences between Nikon's processing and an Adobe "Nikon simulation" such as Nikon Camera Neutral. The Adobe treatment will always be potentially different as they use a different form of camera profiling to Nikon. (Well actually I've no idea what Nikon's proprietry profiling is like but I'm almost certain it won't use the Adobe DCP approach).



White balance is one area where I'm fairly sure that Adobe Camera Raw (or LR) does read the As Shot Data from the raw file. This is from the White Balance RGB multipliers in the ColorBalance tag in the Maker notes in the case of Nikon.

Dave

Thanks for confirming that. I had not read that specific information before but it was my sense of things. Good to know. I actually thought the reds would differ more. I have yet to process the siberian iris image yet; I might see more differences with purple which I think is a tough hue to crack. I don't quite know what you mean my "Nikon Camera Neutral". I used Adobe Camera Neutral. Is that modeled after Nikon neutral or is it more generic?

One thing I find interesting about Adobe is their approach to white balance. 'As shot' seems pretty consistent with my own setting. But, auto seems absolutely crazy seemingly overreacting to what hues are in the image. Like it turns my red roses blue! Sometimes I like the result like when I get a strong blue cast in a late light image. That opposite reaction makes sense. The warmed white balance produces a nice, pleasant palette which can help me find an appealing white balance for that shot. But it definitely plays havoc with my flowers. A touch cooler can work but blue roses are just over the line.

[Brev00]

Larry - I have created a custom profile for my camera using the x-Rite ColorChecker passport and use it instead of the Adobe profiles. I have one for daylight conditions and another for studio lighting.

With the D800, I find that the custom profile enhances the red versus what the Standard Adobe gives me.

Just a bit more food for thought...

I have not tried that as playing with the different Adobe picture controls I can always find one that jibes with what I want even if I have to play with the white balance settings a bit. But, I do not use Adobe Standard anymore. At least it would be a very rare case if I did. I tend to use the others, though, preferring Portrait and Camera Standard much of the time. Depending. I also use neutral a lot with these high color tulip shots as it makes it easier to tame the reds and bring it into editing without darkening the entire image too much. Vivid is a rather rare choice for me. Elements' ACR does not have a color channel feature or any selective controls. I guess I could develop my own profiles but I just have not looked into that so far. I am just beginning to create my own presets for my plug-ins. So progress.

[dje]

I don't quite know what you mean my "Nikon Camera Neutral". I used Adobe Camera Neutral. Is that modeled after Nikon neutral or is it more generic?

Sorry the terminology can get confusing. It shows up as Camera Neutral in ACR/LR when you use the Camera Profile drop down box and I think we are talking about the same thing.

The actual file name of the profile is "Nikon modelxxx Camera Neutral.dcp" but the first part of the name is dropped by ACR/LR because it's un-necessary. There are two sets of profiles for ACR in two sets of folders

Program data/Adobe/Camera Raw/Camera Profiles/Adobe Standard/
This folder contains a set of Adobe Standard profiles for a range of brands and models. Only the one for the particular camera brand and model used for the shot is brought up in ACR/LR.

Program data/Adobe/Camera Raw/Camera Profiles/Camera/
This folder contains a set of profiles such as Camera Neutral etc for a whole range of Brands and models. I believe these are Adobe's attempts at simulating the manufacturer's proprietry profiles. Only the ones relevant to the camera used for the shot are brought up in ACR/LR.

I can't say where the LR profiles are kept but it would be a similar location I think.

Dave

[Black Pearl]

So, my post was just a matter of opening up a discussion that I thought might be relevant to folks here. Apparently, I was mistaken. Live and learn.

First of all, a warning for those who do not find this an interesting topic: Read no further!

I guess this is a less interesting topic than I thought. Unfortunately, that is par for the course.

My conclusion from those who responded so far is that the topic that I wanted to discuss just doesn't connect.

Would you care to explain why you feel the need to be continuously confrontational when in reality members are just discussing a topic like any other - that some don't necessarily agree or just question you is par for the course and not a personal snub.

[DanK]

Larry, thanks for explaining what you do. I understand now.

Dave, I had to look this morning to see where LR puts their emulations of camera picture styles, since I never use them. They are in the camera profiles section of the develop pane.

One thing I find interesting about Adobe is their approach to white balance. 'As shot' seems pretty consistent with my own setting. But, auto seems absolutely crazy seemingly overreacting to what hues are in the image.

I simply don't use it. I used it once, just to see what happens. I shoot raw and postprocess myself to gain control, so I rarely want to have LR/ACR make automatic adjustments. The LR interface has an eye-dropper tool for WB that I find extremely easy to use, if I have anything neutral in the image. It isn't always spot on--often there is nothing perfectly neutral, or a neutral area gives a displeasing result--but it usually gets me a good starting point, from which I adjust to taste.

Re the original issue: picture styles are just pre-set postprocessing algorithms. For example, in Canon's case, the portrait mode slightly increases saturation while slightly decreasing sharpness. The landscape mode imposes high sharpness, high contrast, and high green-blue saturation. Just speaking personally, I'd rather make the adjustments myself, based on my taste and the characteristics of the particular image, and I find Adobe Standard to be a good starting point (keeping in mind that I shoot Canon, not Nikon). If other people find other profiles better starting points for them, more power to them. Whatever works. It's convenient that Adobe provides its emulation of the picture styles for those who prefer them.

Larry--congrats on the exhibition.

[Brev00]

What gallery?

I thought I answered your question earlier but apparently I failed to post it. The images are showing at the Chrysalis Salon. While it functions as a salon, it is a great place to show art. I have enjoyed seeing some wonderful art work there and was quite happy and excited that the proprietor agreed to show my work. And nervous. I have never before printed 20x30 enlargements (one 40x60) and found his requirements quite challenging. I really had no idea if I could do it. So, I am thrilled to have the work on display. Tulsa has an Art Crawl on the first Friday of every month where crowds of folks come out to enjoy the many galleries in the Brady Arts District staying open late. There are many bars in the area and the event is something of a pub crawl. There are also musicians outside the galleries and even work displayed in alleys. The location of this salon is prime and we got lots of traffic. No sales, however. This has certainly helped bring me out of the dark of my office with my images just sitting in my hard drive.