P: Disable built-in lens profile

For whatever it's worth, here's another reason to extend control of correction profiles to older cameras and all lenses for currently allowed cameras. If I shoot with a Nikon Z6 and Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2, as far as I can tell, Lightroom is applying a profile for a Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 — how is it helping me to have a profile applied for the wrong lens? This refusal to allow us to control how OUR photos are rendered is patronizing and insulting. Do better Adobe.

OK so April 2025 guy here... my Panasonic cameras are all importing with the stupid "default lens profile applied" setting.

The problem with this is, in the $70 ACDSee Program, you open a raw file and that is what you get. No cropping of my wide angle photos.... which I LOVE. The problem with that program is that the raw files don't have any of the other color corrections etc. that LRC picks up on. I love THAT feature in LRC. I tried to make profiles that will remove the lens correction, but it hasn't worked. I have not seen a step by step instruction from anyone suggesting this. I am new to LRC and need an actual I-am-totally-new-at-this step by step on how to remove the default profile. What it seems like in the comments, this isn't possible. They really should fix this. For me, this is the ONLY flaw I have seen with LRC, except for the fact that you cant sync all of your files to the cloud unless you use the "new" lightroom cloud version.... I want all of my photos on my desktop AND the cloud, without having to do anything other than right clicking a folder on my PC within LRC and selecting sync with cloud and it copies and syncs all RAW, JPG, and XMP files with the cloud. 

Dang... I really hope they can fix the lens profile thing. I can deal without the cloud thing since I have a bunch of backups, but it would be nice to have a cloud backup since I have 1tb of storage space with my subscription. They never make a perfect camera or a perfect software I guess......

Just bought a new Z9.  Images taken with the Z lenses, especially ultrawide lenses, are STILL being autocorrected. I thought this was fixed??? C'mon, Adobe, get your act together. Otherwise, well,there are other editing packages, I use several. Adobe might go the way of the dodo on my PC if this is not resolved.  Storm and lighting shots look awful. 

Reviving this issue. PLEASE implement the existing fix for newer cameras to the first generation of Nikon Z cameras. 

@Victoria_Bampton_Lightroom_Queen Well, thank you for you reply, but my concern is not the ages ago cameras and lenses but new lenses and cameras we use like the Nikon Z equipment i have now. Adobe is a tool to make our life and work easier, not pleasing equipment companies!

Adobe really should enable this for older cameras. Most of the cameras that are not enabled for this are currently sold models. I find it terribly annoying I can't disable built-in profiles for the Nikon Z7 I mostly shoot with. Nikon's software easily allows me to disable the profiles and Adobe doesn't apply the built-in correction correctly in the vignette (Nikon does). 

@Ashraf Khunduqji the ability to disable the built in lens profiles was implemented ages ago, however the change only affects cameras added from that point on.

@chris_castleberry 

we pay for you when we use lightroom or adobe products, not sony not nikon not any other company!

I'll add that if you look at my profile all my recent posts relate to this topic. I don't post often, but I'm using LR/PS/Camera Raw all the time.

@Rikk I hate to come off confrontational, but there have been 8 replies to your comment and more than 3 months has gone by. You've provided no additional feedback regarding your comment but were asked straight out of the gate to provide more.

There are literally hundreds of posts about this specific issue littered across the internet going back to the release of the first generation of Nikon/Canon mirror-less barely just over 2 years ago so clearly there is a need for "Customer Advocacy" on this.

I didn't buy a 14mm lens to have it cropped down to 18mm equivalent because Adobe/Nikon feel lines should always be perfectly straight and fall-off is bad. It's art, not perfection! If I want to correct one image but not another for artistic reasons I should have that freedom. What is even the point of allowing "Custom" on those cameras if you can't even select the relevant lens profile in the drop down and are instead force to choose a "similar" lens and deal with far worse distortions?

This complaint has raged since those cameras were released and for those cameras to be ignored by this is unbelievable. The fact that such a recent crop of cameras is being thrown into this lot of "legacy" cameras is also confounding.

More to the point, this is not an issue with other mainstream RAW editors; editors that have become even more mainstream since the cloud model was adopted. As someone who shoots a large amount of wide angle photography, it is the very reason I began to look at ON1, C1, and Luminar that do not force this crop on _all_ our images; they give their users a choice.

The fact that I can download a Z6ii RAW from DPReview and disable this is infuriating and if my only option to have full control of my images in terms of forced crop on wide angle photos is to switch it's certainly cheaper than upgrading my camera. 

That said, I'd rather not switch as I truly enjoy working in LR (used it since 4.0); however, I much prefer to have the freedom to express my artistic license on such a heavy-handed feature than I care about sticking with LR. No one likes change, but once such a hurdle is passed it's not easily crossed again. Considering the other offerings add far more editing tools such as layering is compelling. The hassle of migration has been the main impediment to integrating such tightly integrated editing features into my workflow but if I have additional reasons to make the switch...

I will note that knowing that Adobe is willing to write-off a 2 year old crop of cameras as legacy and not worthy of "customer advocacy" is of concern long term if other similar issues arise. Given we pay month-to-month being "mostly ignored" on this is demoralizing considering the previous model netted me 18+ months for an $80 upgrade when the same now costs me over double that. I say mostly ignored because his isn't the only post on this topic where the response is "works as is" and requests for additional feedback are ignored.

At a bare minimum confirm the suspicion made above that it is contractual so those of us who've been hoping it would be resolved can move on, whatever that may entail.