Different colors between Capture One and Adobe Camera Raw
I'm experiencing different colors between Capture One and Adobe Camera Raw (Photoshop CS6). I have my camera tethered and the image that shows up in Capture One looks very different from when I open it in Adobe Camera Raw. Please see image (Capture One on top and Camera Raw below). Thanks!
http://s30.postimg.org/rn5fxeutr/Screen_Shot_2015_07_04_at_11_32_22_PM.png
http://s30.postimg.org/rn5fxeutr/Screen_Shot_2015_07_04_at_11_32_22_PM.png
0
-
Yep - as has been argued about a lot on here, other things (like White Balance) being equal, Capture One profiles are too warm and too biased towards orange/red, as you're seeing.
Phase One finally accepted this of the Canon 7D Mk II profile (which is the camera that generated much of the flak last time round) and created a more neutral profile for that camera: fine and all - it's a camera I use - but some of us insisted it was a systemic, rather than camera-specific issue, caused by how Phase One creates its profiles.
And here we are, with a Nikon D810 user seeing the exact same problem.
You can create a new adjusted preset by using the Colour Editor; or (what I've always done) track down an older Capture One camera profile that looks better, and rename that within your OS to become the D810 default.
Don't hold your breath waiting for Phase One to do anything about it.0 -
[quote="codeoverride" wrote:
I'm experiencing different colors between Capture One and Adobe Camera Raw (Photoshop CS6). I have my camera tethered and the image that shows up in Capture One looks very different from when I open it in Adobe Camera Raw. Please see image (Capture One on top and Camera Raw below). Thanks!
So what is it you are asking?
If you prefer a look that is not what C1 gives at this time you have various ways you can change things to suite personal preferences but first you need to be sure that there is nothing in the RAW interpretation stage as the tethered capture is ingested that is different in C1 to what happens in Camera Raw.
Bear in mind that the processing of a RAW file is interpretive and different editors work with different interpretations. You may of course be very aware of that but you have not commented on it so I thought I had better make the observation.
You have not said anything about which, if either, of the interpretations you have posted suits your needs best.
So really all one can say at this point is as above. There is no reason to expect two converters to give exactly the same result.
HTH.
Grant0 -
Aaah, come on now, Grant. The OP is obviously communicating that he's not impressed by the Capture One colour rendering in direct comparison to the ACR rendering - we've been here often enough - and as usual, the difference is:
...Drum roll...
The Capture One conversion is orange.0 -
I'm experiencing different colors between Capture One and Adobe Camera Raw (Photoshop CS6). I have my camera tethered and the image that shows up in Capture One looks very different from when I open it in Adobe Camera Raw. Please see image (Capture One on top and Camera Raw below). Thanks!
Go to ICC Profile.
Click in the dropdown panel.
Choose "Show All"
After that click the dropdown again.
Choose Adobe DNG Neutral.
That may get you a little closer. If not, find one in there you like better. Or do as Keith says and roll your own.
But everyone is right, C1 likes things more to the orange/red/warm,whatever. Its not neutral though.
I have some D3 files that aren't so bad and D70 files that are great.
I'd love to have neutral profile for the 800/810 though.0 -
This isn't just "not neutral", Jimmy - it looks like there's a sodium street light illuminating the scene. 0 -
I'm always a little confused by discussions like this.
First of all, like SFA said, the whole point of proprietary RAW conversion tools is that they are all a little different (while the differences are very subtle nowadays they have been huge in the past when this whole RAW thing was starting to take off).
Second, I can't say if the C1 interpretation is "too orange" or the whole color engine is "biased towards red/orange". Why? BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS SCENE REALLY LOOKED WHEN THE SHUTTER WAS CLOSING! How can anybody infer by random pictures posted on the internet shot by random folks, what kind of scene is "too orange" compared to the other?
When I was looking into C1, I was doing comparison shots and conversions ad infinitum. What really tipped me over to C1 was the incredible accurate color rendering. I was running conversions of textile pictures (shots of shirts, fashion) by Aperture, Lightroom and C1 and was comparing them side by side on screen. My initial thoughts were that Aperture did a really nice job of rendering the color UNTIL I was getting the actual shirt from the closet and holding it in front of the monitor. Actually both Aperture and LR were WAY OFF from the actual color (an orange-white striped jersey) and C1 had it nailed down 100% without any corrections from my side. So even your own eyes will fool you from time to time and color rendition by C1 is absolutely top notch.0 -
this is a very sensitive thema, which Photographer always really dont understanding it,
its like a black holl sacking you into. and you can't go away from it, this phenomen happens in the Digital Photography everytime, this way you find tools in the mark called Monitor or Color calibration software .
Colors are very importent in the digital photography, but if you buy a professional Software like C1 you dont have to give a big attention how they works at the background , if you see that the colors on your monitor not good, you have to keep making correction on Image untel its look good. the Big importing thinks for you is only WHEN YOU PRINT !
Every Raw Programs have a start point to works, c1 have a good one to save you allout of time starting up to work. this way you see the different colors interpretation when making competition to third party Apps. because they have another start point you dont mach.
i recomend you not wasting much time with it !
i am using to may Workflow only the sRGB and don't calibrate my Imac 27 Monitor, i use the standard Imac Apple ICC i
and i send my picture to a good print company, they make the rest corrections work .0 -
Ender,
no converter has any business rendering a white door a colour more appropriate to a satsuma.
This isn't a new discussion, and - as I pointed out up the page - Phase One accepted that for the 7D Mk II the original profile needed fixing. It looked just like this.
The issue is not whether Capture One's more recent profiles leave much to be desired - we won that argument - but what Phase One needs to do about it.0 -
[quote="CAPTURE NIKON D700" wrote:
Every Raw Programs have a start point to works, c1 have a good one to save you allout of time starting up to work.
An orange white door is not a good starting point, though. That's the entire issue.
Giving the OP the benefit of the doubt about white balance, this is far beyond a reasonable "within tolerances" representation of white.0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
This isn't just "not neutral", Jimmy - it looks like there's a sodium street light illuminating the scene.
I agree that its not a fix. I also agree that the colors are simply wrong. I'm just trying to help the man get closer to what he's looking for.
Just today I was shooting at some rocks under what was supposed to be a waterfall.(Missed the window) I was using a gold/blue filter on the lens so I had to do a custom white balance in camera before attaching the filter.
I get home, injest the pics into Photo Mechanic. Colors are dead on. ( I do realize that PM uses the imbedded Jpeg for viewing).
Photoshop CC, really close
C1, missed it.
Lightroom, pretty good.
Capture NX2, perfect.
So C1 missed it, again. I'll have to (A) figure out how to massage C1's version of color back to what I want, or (B). just work on it in another application.
Of course I can always (C) convert to black and white.
Thing is, I'm under no illusion that C1 colors are not off, and If I remember right, their reasoning is that their colors are "more pleasing". Thats fine. I'd love to have a non-pleasing dead nuts on Nikon icc to pick from.0 -
[quote="Jimmy D Uptain" wrote:
... I also agree that the colors are simply wrong. ...
That's a fact statement, which IMO you cannot make. RAW processing involves interpretation, therefore there is only like or dislike, not wrong or right.
I get that you (and Keith and the OP) dislike this interpretation. That is totally fine, but it's not wrong.
I, for one, tend to like the interpretation (in most cases anyway). That wouldn't make me wrong, would it 😄 😄0 -
Boy, this thread comes up every few months. I think who ever does CO's profiles is a little Orange/Red color blind.
The problem is that as usual CO never likes admits anything is wrong.
They have a choice of a few solutions.
1) Create a "Standard Color Profile" that matches a color chart exactly for each camera, I am not sure why this would not be that hard, as they should be doing it, then if they want to tweak the profile, to what they think is more pleasing, let them go for it.
2) Allow use to use the Color-Checker to produce a DNG profile, and apply that to the images.
Robert0 -
Solve it this way ... go outside on a sunny day and take a picture of a white piece of paper. Post that and let's see what it looks like. We all know paper ought to be white and bright day light is about 5500-ish Kelvin. Is the paper orange? 0 -
[quote="HCS" wrote:
[quote="Jimmy D Uptain" wrote:
... I also agree that the colors are simply wrong. ...
That's a fact statement, which IMO you cannot make. RAW processing involves interpretation, therefore there is only like or dislike, not wrong or right.
I get that you (and Keith and the OP) dislike this interpretation. That is totally fine, but it's not wrong.
I, for one, tend to like the interpretation (in most cases anyway). That wouldn't make me wrong, would it 😄 😄
No, of course you aren't wrong for finding something aesthetically pleasing. I like the way C1 renders colors in some cases.
I love the way C1 allows us to manipulate colors. However sometimes I need a starting point without an interpretation.
I just believe there should be a neutral version. And there has to be a standard somewhere, or else we wouldn't bother calibrating our monitors or profiling our printers/papers.
And why only select cameras?
My D70 images aren't orange, same for the D2H. It got worse with the D3 and now the 800/E/810.0 -
I believe that the reason why Phase One produced the new camera profile for the 7D MkII was because I shot the same scene under the same conditions with two different cameras.
One camera was a Canon 40D and the other was the 7D Mk II. I then processed both images using the default camera profiles in Capture One and submitted JPEGs from each to Phase One.
The Capture One default profile for the 40D doesn't produce the exaggerated orange tones, while its default profile for the 7D Mk II does. The JPEG from the 40D image looked much more like the actual scene than the 7D MkII.
Phase One used this comparison when they produced the new camera profile for the 7D MkII. This new profile produces a much more realistic colour balance than the original profile does.
Perhaps you could do a similar comparison for your cameras and request they produce a new, more realistic profile.
Richard0 -
Are there any disadvantages to using another camera's profile, if it looks better to you? 0 -
[quote="meanwhile" wrote:
Are there any disadvantages to using another camera's profile, if it looks better to you?
Not as far as i can tell. I do this regularly to find the look i think is most pleasing to me, or which best suits the picture.
I quite often try Phase One profiles for my Nikon cameras.0 -
The D800 profiles are not great. Which Phase One profiles work better? 0 -
I shoot Canon 5D3 and 5DS. If I want people faces to ne natural i used the 1DS Mark III profile!
Maybe they should just copy it into the 5D3, 5DS profiles and consider it done.
Is there a Nikon profile already that gives you the color you are looking for. If so, use it for now.
Dana0 -
As an engineer we see things often different.
Fact is that all vendors use their own RAW format, and that all camera's are B&W sensors. Colours are created by the Bayer filter (CFA) that are placed over the CCD's and or CMOS sensors (patchwork of Red , Green and Blue fields). Colours are create by referring to the match position of the bayer patches and the related sensor pixels.
That is common for all, how the RAW files are understood is a task for the RAW converter, and that converter needs to understand exactly the RAW format and what the content is. Gamut - Colorspace adjustments are critical.
A RAW file has typically the following fields:
-> A short file header containing the byte-ordering of the file, a file identifier and an offset into the main file data
->Camera sensor metadata required to interpret the sensor image data, including the size of the sensor, the attributes of the CFA (Color Field Array such as the bayer filter) and its color profile.
->Image metadata including the exposure settings, camera/scanner/lens model, date etc..
->Optional data
It is the RAW processor engine that needs to read that Data and process the colors. Adobe uses the generic profiles of the different camera;s as provided by the factory and applies it based on the RAW data Color profile field.
Where as CO, tests every camera in their labs and create an unique color profile ICC for each camera. In other words, when they read the RAW format , they extract the camera details and apply by default the self developed ICC . Which is far more accurate.... of course colors are a matter of taste ..... However if you do like to use the generic ICC profile of your camera then you can by setting it CO.
Even better, you can create your own with colorchecker and use it in CO. But note that the Colorchecker has by far not enough color patches to be as good as the lab developed ICC for your camera.
In the example that you provided , what was the CO setting ?
Did you check that the following was set to your specific camera ?
In this example below I had an IQ140. This should show your camera automatic if not you can set it :
http://flashsplash.smugmug.com/photos/i-7dgZqG7/0/X2/i-7dgZqG7-X2.jpg
And if you want to use the generic ICC profile for your camera then selected it from the pick-list as shown in the next picture:
http://flashsplash.smugmug.com/photos/i-QncxwwT/0/X3/i-QncxwwT-X3.jpg
Note that the use of a grey card will always sort out the issues as anyone that takes colours serious will do white balance adjustment in RAW. However the topic was why RAW showed different. Well here you have it..... its a matter of which ICC profile is used.
Note that LCC has nothing to see whit this , that is all about Lens Color Cast and not ICC profiles.
Kind regards, Steve0 -
I use my cameras to photograph flat artwork and to reproduce the paintings as close as possible. This is how I make my living and I need world class results...my artists have not only come to expect it, they demand it.
What I can tell you is that CO is not at all colour accurate. Not even close. In their [CO's] defence however, no Raw converter is all that accurate.
Perhaps my SG color checker does not have enough colour patches, however using it with Pictocolor's In Camera software produces far better results than CO generic profiles...at least with regard to accurately reproducing fine art. I wish the ICC profiles generated by In Camera could be used in general photography but they are so exposure specific that they only work for the exact lighting conditions used when creating the profile in the first place. More or less exposure distorts the image producing posterization.
The only solution is turning off as much colour management as possible, embedding the CO profile so that my own In Camera profile can later be applied in Photo Shop. This solution only works for reproducing art in my laboratory studio.
I am stuck with making the best of CO's profiles when shooting still life and landscape.0 -
[quote="Grant Kernan" wrote:
I use my cameras to photograph flat artwork and to reproduce the paintings as close as possible. This is how I make my living and I need world class results...my artists have not only come to expect it, they demand it.
What I can tell you is that CO is not at all colour accurate. Not even close. In their [CO's] defence however, no Raw converter is all that accurate.
Perhaps my SG color checker does not have enough colour patches, however using it with Pictocolor's In Camera software produces far better results than CO generic profiles...at least with regard to accurately reproducing fine art. I wish the ICC profiles generated by In Camera could be used in general photography but they are so exposure specific that they only work for the exact lighting conditions used when creating the profile in the first place. More or less exposure distorts the image producing posterization.
The only solution is turning off as much colour management as possible, embedding the CO profile so that my own In Camera profile can later be applied in Photo Shop. This solution only works for reproducing art in my laboratory studio.
I am stuck with making the best of CO's profiles when shooting still life and landscape.
Have you looked into what Capture One CH 8 might offer you?
Perhaps nothing - it's not my area at all - but it might be worth talking to someone to find out.
Grant0 -
[quote="Grant Kernan" wrote:
I use my cameras to photograph flat artwork and to reproduce the paintings as close as possible. This is how I make my living and I need world class results...my artists have not only come to expect it, they demand it.
What I can tell you is that CO is not at all colour accurate. Not even close. In their [CO's] defence however, no Raw converter is all that accurate.
Perhaps my SG color checker does not have enough colour patches, however using it with Pictocolor's In Camera software produces far better results than CO generic profiles...at least with regard to accurately reproducing fine art. I wish the ICC profiles generated by In Camera could be used in general photography but they are so exposure specific that they only work for the exact lighting conditions used when creating the profile in the first place. More or less exposure distorts the image producing posterization.
The only solution is turning off as much colour management as possible, embedding the CO profile so that my own In Camera profile can later be applied in Photo Shop. This solution only works for reproducing art in my laboratory studio.
I am stuck with making the best of CO's profiles when shooting still life and landscape.
I suggest read the whole (yes, all 30+ pages) thread here = http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/ind ... c=100015.00 -
Not going to spend 6K USD on that software.
I use the DSLR when customers want economy. It would take a lot of that work to pay for the software.
When my paying customers do want to splurge I use 216 megapixel scanning backs. Their colour is vastly better.
In fact a Betterlight scanning back.0 -
[quote="Grant Kernan" wrote:
Not going to spend 6K USD on that software.
I use the DSLR when customers want economy. It would take a lot of that work to pay for the software.
When my paying customers do want to splurge I use 216 megapixel scanning backs. Their colour is vastly better.
In fact a Betterlight scanning back.
I agree with Flashplash and as a monitor or a printer, a dslr needs to be caracterized when you wish accurate results.
Generic profiles done by DSLR manufacturers or software conceptors are always "manipulated" to be flattering.
I built my icc profile for my dslr with BasicColor Input software with DCAM+ target and CMP Digital Target 7 combines together.
After the quality of your result depends also on you colormanagement, differents between American or European because printers normes are differents.
For example I use, ProstarRGB as working color space (because L*, D50), ICC V4 from ECI for my printers profiles, L* as gamma for monitor.
If you wish more information regarding colour accuracy for DSLR, you could read on this website how calibrate a DSLR and how manage your colour. He is an expert for colour reproduction.
http://www.imagingetc.com/resources.php
And his works is contained also in this publication from RIT
http://www.rit-mcsl.org/Mellon/PDFs/Cam ... y_2014.pdf
Sorry for my english 🤭 , it is not my native
Regards0 -
[quote="Photocor" wrote:
I agree with Flashplash and as a monitor or a printer, a dslr needs to be caracterized when you wish accurate results.
This issue is not about accuracy - nobody expects colorimetrically accurate conversions out of the box from a consumer Raw converter - it's about the fact that Capture One's default profiles are arbitrarily, routinely and repeatedly absurdly bad, and always in the same way - they're too orange.
I have no problem with the idea that Capture One's profiles are intended to be "pleasing" rather than accurate. Back in the days that's exactly what they were, and I was as big a fan as anybody of Capture One's trademark colour rendering (the "Capture One Look").
Then something changed in how Phase One creates its profiles, and ever since, the default profiles have been horrendously biased towards this preposterously unnatural and unpleasant orange cast.
We've already won this argument, which is why Phase One introduced a new, much more neutral and far better (both in terms of accuracy and aesthetic appeal) profile - but only for the Canon 7D Mk II.
They have not, however, addressed the underlying - and continuing, obviously - systemic problem with their profiling regime, which is self evidently flawed.0 -
Well, there's no indication from the original poster as to whether he did a custom white balance to the image when he was in C1. Both images look warm, and the C1 image does look overly warm here, but seriously, a quick wb would solve everything. I've been using C1 for a dozen years or so now, and up to the latest versions with 5D3's as well as all manner of Phase, Canon and Nikon files and have never seen any evidence of overly orange images from C1. Studio shots on white seamless are actually too neutrally boring if you white balance on the seamless. Location shots are the same way. But more importantly, it's the job of the photographer, or whoever is processing the images to set an appropriate wb for that image or set of images and not rely on whatever was set in camera, which may or may be appropriate. What I do see from the Adobe conversions are colors ands tones that take a lot more work in Ps to get them where I want or need them to be than the files from C1, which are much closer out of the converter and much faster to get to that point. In fact, the only place where I find an advantage to Adobe products is in high ISO images - ISO 6400 and above, where Adobe's NR is better but their color and tonality inferior. Another option for comparison is to try Iridient and see if you like the rendering there. Possibly a little more neutral but with far more sharpening, NR and interpolating options than anyone else, at the expense of a less efficient overall workflow. 0 -
I have to say that I am also unfamiliar with the alledged "orange look" as a default in CO1. With all bodies I have used with CO1 (Several Sony, Olympus and Pentax bodies), color fidelity has overall been great, and none of them have the orange glow.
Compared to Adobe camera raw, CO1 does have a certain colorful glow, but that has more to do with the default high contrast of the standard film curve. Warm images can appear overly warm in CO1, but a simple thing such as opting for tne "extra shadow" film curve, can fully take that appearance of glow away. Certain tools in CO1 increase contrast and saturation, others do not affect saturation. Your eyes will get used to a certain look from a raw converter, but the impression of a colorful glow always sticks to CO1 due to the nature of the default tone curve (film standard). Other raw converters are more conservative here. I simply have made a corrective curves preset for each camera to go along with a selected "extra shadow" film curve, and contrast and color appearance are globally similar for all bodies. Other may have their own way of finding a satisfactory preset, CO1 offers all the tools you need to get this done.
Bottomline is however i.m.o., that the profiles for cameras are overall very accurate.
Chris0 -
It does seem like a lot of work time and effort to discover how to make better base characteristics...Characteristics which do not clip the highlights and are neutral and colour metrically correct...but this is exactly what I require.
When I signed on with CO version 4 or 5, the colour from my D200 was better than I could get elsewhere.
Not so with version 8 and the D800.
So why could they get it right back then and not now?0 -
[quote="codeoverride" wrote:
I'm experiencing different colors between Capture One and Adobe Camera Raw (Photoshop CS6). I have my camera tethered and the image that shows up in Capture One looks very different from when I open it in Adobe Camera Raw. Please see image (Capture One on top and Camera Raw below). Thanks!
http://s30.postimg.org/rn5fxeutr/Screen_Shot_2015_07_04_at_11_32_22_PM.png
This shot has not been properly white balanced. As such it cannot be used for a color nor contrast comparison. The only thing we can say from this is that CO and ACR reads the camera set WB slightly different.
Now, as I have done before, if you feel that you have off colors, please let us know. However, you have to document this quite throroughly before we can use your input. Here is what we need:
- 5-10 different scenes, shot in raw with the camera in question. We need the raw-files, and jpegs that indicate how you would like the rendering to be. Remember that only color should be corrected, not contrast or exposure. Remember to correctly set the WB, preferably using a greycard, visible in the scene.
- Preferably a shot of an X-rite Colorcchecker, correctly lit (no reflections, uniformly lit), filling the whole frame.
- If possible, the same scenes as above shot with another CO supported camera.
This data you send to our support, and reference this post. Then Support will forward it to me, and I will see to that the data is evaluated.
I must stress that sending these pictures to us will not garantee a revised profile for the camera in question, but we will carefully examine the samples and information provided.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
68 comments