P: Support for Canon .CR3 Camera-matching Profiles

I am wondering why Lightroom Classic still doesn't support Canon colour profiles for Canon 1 dx mark III, which has been on the market for nearly two years. I see all the time new colour profiles added for other brands and I feel like it is very unjust to discriminate canon users at the same time you support all others brands. 

I really love Lightroom and adobe products and I am really hoping to get the all functionalities, since I am paying the same amount for the software like sony and nikon users. 

it's unfair!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also thanks for your video which is very clear. I'll be looking for a second-hand color checker in order to test this 🙂

@andrew_rodney thanks for your opinion and the document you shared. 

You want an accurate match between JPEG and raw, you render both and examine as many Lab values as you can. If they match, within a measurable degree (called deltaE), it is accurate. If it doesn't, it isn't accurate. 

There are colors in a camera raw  after rendering in a wide gamut color space that simply cannot be reproduced in  a JPGE (which is also proprietary processing in sRGB or Adobe RGB); those two Working Space gamuts are too small compared to what can be rendered from raw into a much wider color gamut. 

There are colors in a rendered image that fall way outside the gamut of a display (and certainly an sRGB gamut display). Lab values reported don't care about what you 'see' on a limited gamut display when you assume you have a match. 

Want to go into metameric failure next? 

Or metamerism where colors can match and are inaccurate; without this, a display and print or two prints from differing processes can't match. Yet they do. 

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with accurate color. 

It has a lot to do with pleasing color. 

It may have a little to do with color matching (based on what kind of device and the abilities or lack thereof, of the viewer: look up color blindness and optical illusions). 

This is a rabbit hole few here can afford to travel down. Which is probably why, some like the profiles supplied by Company A and other's do not. It is subjective. 

disagree. we are trying to find to have a accurate match between the colors of JPG and RAW. Not interested here in the color accuracy of the scene at capture or the monitor etc. But this color accuracy (match) between both can exactly be measured and is not subjective at all...

It is kind of important to point out, none of this has anything to do with 'accurate color' and everything to do with pleasing color which is subjective. 

Accurate color is: Lab colors at the scene equal lab colors out. Meaning you better measure some or a lot of colors at the scene (and the illuminant), not easy for most even if the scene is a 24 patch MacBeth ColorChecker. 

This is outlined in a white paper, aimed directly at photographers from the ICC:

http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_20_Digital_photography_color_management_basics.pdf

Some people like the rendering from Profile X (using who knows what other settings, WB alone). Others do not. Utterly subjective. Nothing to do with color accuracy. 

@franz Grus I agree. Even with home-made color profiles or colorfidelity we got some color management problems - especially with highly saturated colors. But they're far better than the Adobe Color profiles which are completely yellowish and inaccurate. 

it always depends on your level of expectation in color accuracy... And if you try to calculate those profiles or 3DLUT you will see that these are different for different camera settings, thus a simple profile like the one you mentioned can never address this problem in an appropriate or professional way. maybe better then nothing, but in our hands also not better then the standard profiles Adobe provides... But I agree as said months earlier that it is ADOBE WHO SHOULD PROVIDE THOSE PROFILES...

In my experience (90D) the colorfidelity profiles worked quite good, with only a little shift in the yellow/orange. Very color accurate.