New Nikon D3, D300, and D700 "Camera" v3 beta profiles

[MadManChan2000]

Hi everyone,

I have posted a zip file containing updated "Camera" color profiles (Camera Standard, Camera Neutral, etc.) for the Nikon D3, Nikon D300, and Nikon D700. The zip file contains a copy of the readme, but I'll post it here for convenience, too:

For lack of a better name, I am calling these "v3" beta profiles.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

BETA RELEASE NOTES

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview

These updated Camera v3 beta profiles for the Nikon D3, Nikon D300, and Nikon D700 are designed to reduce banding and highlight color artifacts. They also address the "too bright" tone curve issues with the previous "v2" version of the D3 and D700 profiles.

IMPORTANT NOTE: When using these v3 beta profiles, if you wish to match the default tonality of Nikon's Picture Controls (e.g., match View NX / Capture NX), you must set the Exposure slider in Camera Raw / Lightroom to -0.5.

Of course, feel free to adjust Exposure to make your image brighter or darker as you like. But in terms of matching Nikon's default tonality, you must set the Exposure slider to -0.5, or the default will be too bright.

For workflow convenience, you can use presets in Camera Raw / Lightroom to take care of both (e.g., simultaneously set the profile to "Camera Standard" and set Exposure to -0.5).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Installation

If you are on Mac OS X, drag the "Camera v3 beta" folder to:

    /Library/Application Support/Adobe/CameraRaw/CameraProfiles

If you are on Windows XP, drag the "Camera v3 beta" folder to:

    C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Adobe\CameraRaw\CameraProfiles

If you are on Windows Vista or Windows 7, drag the "Camera v3 beta" folder to:

    C:\ProgramData\Adobe\CameraRaw\CameraProfiles

Note that the above path on Windows Vista and Windows 7 may be hidden by default. Check your folder settings.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Feedback

The profiles are currently in beta status. Please provide feedback via the online Adobe user-to-user forums here:

http://forums.adobe.com/community/cameraraw
http://forums.adobe.com/community/lightroom

Thank you!

[Noel Carboni]

Hudechrome wrote:

Noel, whay two loactions for the same data? Seems then that ACR has to then search both locationss if data is in both?

They would certainly search both locations whether or not you put files in there.

I don't claim to know what Adobe's motivations are/were, but I personally find it a Good Thing to keep the folders Adobe installs things into pristine.  Updates always just seem to go better when separation is maintained, not to mention I find it easier to keep track of my own files.

And it's been a long time since one could notice the difference between one or two disk operations.

I just did some disk benchmarks after installing some new drives in one of my servers...  At 700+ IO operations per second it would be hard to say looking in 2 places is slowing things down unacceptably in any practical sense.  The impact would be a few milliseconds.

-Noel

[Hudechrome]

A millisecond here, a millisecond there, pretty soon it adds up to serious time!

[Sucher888]

Here you go for the D300s files:

http://caarn.de/angepasstes-kameraprofil-in-lightroom-und-camera-raw/527/

It`s German and the links are easy to find in the middle of the page.

[John Blaustein]

THANK YOU!

Sucher888 wrote:

Here you go for the D300s files:

http://caarn.de/angepasstes-kameraprofil-in-lightroom-und-camera-raw/5 27/

It`s German and the links are easy to find in the middle of the page.

[Sucher888]

John, these D300 dcps will works as well with a little extra work!

[John Blaustein]

Thank you.

Sucher888 wrote:

John, these D300 dcps will works as well with a little extra work!

[Noel Carboni]

Given that a given profile is specific to a particular camera, and it seems likely there are differences even between siblings in two models from the same manufacturer released around the same time, I'm curious about whether you actually get color you like with it/them after hacking to work with a different model than they were designed for.

I fully understand and agree that Adobe's own profiles (at least for the cameras I've had) leave something to be desired.  Still, it seems a stretch that a profile developed for a different camera could deliver better color than what you get out of the box for your camera from Adobe.

Am I wrong about the differences between particular models being significant?

Thanks for the tip on the free "decompiler", Sucher888.

-Noel

[Hudechrome]

Better is a subjective word. Different and useable is more to my thinking.

The profile from the German site is a case in point. Most of the time if I use Adobe Standard, I tweak the color and keep the shading. The D90 profile has the same shading but "better" color. Yet, there are times I try Adobe Standard and go "Wow!

The profile labeled flash is FAPP, identical to the daylight version.

[Yammer]

Noel Carboni wrote:

Given that a given profile is specific to a particular camera, and it seems likely there are differences even between siblings in two models from the same manufacturer released around the same time, I'm curious about whether you actually get color you like with it/them after hacking to work with a different model than they were designed for.

I think this is a special case, as the D300s replaced the original D300 after 2 years, and was a minor revision to accomodate video, which had become popular since the D300 was introduced. Apart from the additional Quiet Shutter facility, I don't think much else was changed. Even the D90, which was introduced between the two, uses the same sensor.

[Hudechrome]

Yammer P wrote:

Even the D90, which was introduced between the two, uses the same sensor.

Welll, who'd a thunk! (Hitting my forehead with my hammer hand)

[Noel Carboni]

I don't want to be argumentative, and I know nothing about Nikon, but are we really sure these cameras use the same AA/IR block filter, same sensor filter compositions, same amplifiers and A to D conversion, and same raw data processing?

A small variance in any of these things could make a big difference in the color characteristics.

-Noel

[Hudechrome]

Not argumentative, but realistic. My guess is that things like noise control and other basic corrections done at the root level might be different, but it makes little sense to have the same sensor for at least three cameras that preculdes the use of common filters and profiles. I will grant you points around the converter and possibly the amp.

However, Nikon did not do that for the D700, (AFAIK!).

Perhaps decompiling the D300 and doing the same change as was done between the 300 and 300s might be in order. It's about time I learn about doing this kind of work. I have the d/l. (Yikes! )

On another front, I suddenly have the Nikon View NX looking like it's double profiling, or something. (My SO uses it on the other computer). So I have my work cut out for today.

Later.......

[deejjjaaaa]

> I don't want to be argumentative, and I know nothing about Nikon, but are we really sure these cameras use the same AA/IR block filter, same sensor filter compositions, same amplifiers and A to D conversion, and same raw data processing?

compare Nikon D300 Adobe Standard.dcp and Nikon D300S Adobe Standard.dcp... they are identical...

C:\ProgramData\Adobe\CameraRaw\CameraProfiles\Adobe Standard>fc /b "Nikon D300 Adobe Standard.dcp" "Nikon D300S Adobe Standard.dcp"

Comparing files Nikon D300 Adobe Standard.dcp and NIKON D300S ADOBE STANDARD.DCP

0000000E: 0B 0C

000000B4: 00 53

so there are several possibilities here:

1) simply a sloppy job (Adobe just copied data from D300 profile to D300s profile ... companies do that... PhaseOne copied once .icc profile from Pentax K7 /samsung sensor/ to Pentax K5 /sony sensor/ and did the same for some other cameрas in C1 v6.x)

2) no difference really or differences are not detactable using standard Adobe profile creation technology/tools (colochecker, DNG Profile Editor, etc)

3) differences are considered miiniscule based on how ACR/LR are working codewise during raw conversion using .dcp profiles

so what do you think

[MadManChan2000]

Updated profiles (v4) for D3, D300, D300S, and D700 are included with the ACR 6.6 public RC installer:

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2011/11/lightroom-3-6-and-camera-raw-6-6-available-on-adobe-...

[Thomas Geist]

Will they too need an exposure offset of -0.5?

[MadManChan2000]

Thomas, no:  the v4 profiles can be used with the default values of Exposure = 0 and Blacks = 5 (and are intended to be used that way).

All:  I have just discovered  that there is a bug in the Release Candidate versions of ACR 6.6 / LR 3.6 such that the Recovery slider does not work properly when using these v4 profiles.  The symptom is that the image becomes significantly lighter when using the Recovery slider.  The issue exists ONLY when using these v4 profiles.  The issue will be fixed with the final release.

[John Blaustein]

Thanks, Eric!  This is good news.

I prefer to wait for the final release rather than use an RC.  Will the final profiles be indentified with "v4," or will they just replace all other profiles for those cameras?  Thomas asked a good question too.

John

[MadManChan2000]

John:  The current intention is for the final profiles to be identified as "v4" by name.

[areohbee]

Eric,

Would you mind elaborating on the improvements made to the above-mentioned profiles?

Thanks,

Rob

[MadManChan2000]

Rob:  The main improvements over the earlier v3 profiles are (1) slightly better color-matching accuracy in the shadows, and (2) the ability to use the profiles with the normal ACR slider default settings of Exposure = 0 and Blacks = 5.

[John Blaustein]

Eric... thanks for the added info.

To say, "... I guess v4 profiles are for the cameras that Eric happens to use himself ? ..." is grossly unfair.  Adobe provides profiles for dozens of different cameras from many manufacturers.  Eric and the other PS/ACR/LR developers knock themselves out for us.  We should be thanking them for what they do to make our digital workflow as good and as easy as it is.  That's my 2c.

John

[deejjjaaaa]

what is unfair, dear ? that some very much improved "v4" profiles are created initially for the cameras that Eric uses himself and not for all cameras or for some other cameras ? that is very much fair in my book... why should I start the work w/ Canon cameras if I am not using Canon cameras...

[areohbee]

Thanks Eric.

It appears the changes are for the camera matching profiles only (not Adobe Standard nor ACR 4.X), right?

Also, it seems the profiles are not retroactive. i.e. no previously processed photos will change, however newly processed photos will all use the v4 profiles, if a camera matching profile is selected.

Given that there is otherwise no way to tell that a photo is using one version vs. another, I think its a good idea to have the designation evident in the profile name itself - as you said, this will be the case in the final release - much appreciated.

Rob

[MadManChan2000]

Correct, the changes are for the Camera Matching color profiles only.  The Adobe Standard and older ACR X.Y profiles (e.g., 4.4, 4.6) have not changed.

And yes, existing images using other profiles (e.g., Adobe Standard, the earlier v2 or v3 camera matching profiles, etc.) will retain their appearance as-is.  Users do not need to be concerned about the "v4" profiles being applied automatically to previously-edited images (thereby leading to unexpected changes in visual appearance).

[areohbee]

Thanks again Eric.

To be clear, if one goes to edit an old photo using a v2 or v3 camera matching profile, and changes to Adobe Standard (as example), then changes back to the original camera matching profile, by name, it will be using the new v4 profile now instead(?)

Right again?

How about if one reads  metadata from disk? - Will the profile switch to the new version?

I will definitely appreciate having the profile version in the name, so all of this is evident...

Rob