P: Lens Profile requests and information

[Rikk Flohr: Photography]

Lens Profiles apply to Camera Raw, Lightroom Classic, and the Lightroom Ecosystem products (Desktop, Mobile, and Web).

Lens Profiles are available for a wide array of lenses. Not every lens is currently profiled, and of those profiled, not all are profiled for all camera and file types. For example, there may be a profile for a particular lens and camera mount for the raw file but not for the JPEG. Normally, profiles for JPEG are not supplied unless the camera does not apply a correction (e.g. iPhone, GoPro). 

A complete list of profiled lenses can be found here: https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/supported-lenses.html 
other helpful info: https://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/lens-profile-support.html#Supported_lenses 

Lens correction for all Micro 4/3 (MFT) lenses and many newer cameras, including Panasonic and Olympus cameras, and other cameras (including Fuji X,  Leica Q, and Nikon Z series)plus many point-and-shoot models from Canon) happens automatically without any interaction by the customer. A notation will appear in the Lens Correction Panel designating this. 

Note: You should not expect to find any profiles listed in the pop-up notes, because the corrections are always applied.

If you are unsure whether your lens is supported automatically refer to the "info" button/icon on the Lens Corrections tab.

If your lens is not on the supported lens list and is not one of those whose correction happens automatically, you can create your own profiles using the Adobe Lens Profile Creator. Download the Adobe Lens Profile Creator: https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/digital-negative.html#resources 

If you desire an Adobe-created Lens Profile, please make your request in the comments of this thread, and be sure to include the full lens model/description and the camera mount you are desiring. ETAs for new lens profiles are not available.

Keep in mind that lens profiles cannot be made for tilt/shift lenses. There is no way to record the tilt or shift settings in the Exif data. A feature request exists here for Tilt-Shift Lens Profiles: https://community.adobe.com/t5/camera-raw-ideas/p-lens-profiles-for-tilt-shift-lens/idi-p/12221166 

Note: The Lens Profile Creator is currently supported for Windows and 32-bit Versions of the Mac OS. 

ETAs are not available for any lens request. 

[Jak0b]

Will do that, thank you! Anything that I have to be especially mindful of when reading the manual/using the tool? 

[TheDigitalDog]

Will do that, thank you! Anything that I have to be especially mindful of when reading the manual/using the tool? 

By @Jak0b

Not a topic for an Adobe user to user support forum! If this continues off topic, a moderator will step in to get back on track. 

[EarPlugs]

and yes I find the JPG (with correction on) still have way too much distortion. Do you actually have the lens?

[quirky_idea15A8]

poor lad... for me the optics correction done by Sony (raw files available for public) for example @ 20mm  https://www.dpreview.com/videos/0341598683/dpreview-tv-sony-20-70mm-f4-g-review https://www.dpreview... for this walk-around turisto-level zoom lens is perfectly fine ... if that is not enough for you, we have to agree to disagree ( and in any case it still beats nothing 🙂 ) 

[EarPlugs]

Just get your own copy of the lens and try. Try 20mm at closer distance.
the distortion is unbearable, or perhaps you really have a very low
standard?

[EarPlugs]

Iridient Corrected vs RAW. Sorry, no go for me.

[EarPlugs]

The problem is that it doubles the file size.

[John R Ellis]

"Sony .ARW raw file has optics correction for ALL parameters - but Adobe is not letting users to apply them ... Ask Adobe why"

I can't find any bug reports here about Camera Raw not reading Sony embedded distortion and vignetting instructions (I've searched both with the forum search box and Google).  Filing a bug report is the best way to "ask Adobe why".

[quirky_idea15A8]

> I can't find any bug reports here about Camera Raw not reading Sony embedded distortion and vignetting instructions (I've searched both with the forum search box and Google).  Filing a bug report is the best way to "ask Adobe why".

because it is not a bug - it is an intentional decision by Adobe - so do ask Adobe as to why 🙂 

[TheDigitalDog]

It is worth repeating again the aim of the Adobe forums and specifically this thread to those hiding behind an alias and pushing other products they may actually have a vested interest in:

From Adobe (community forums):
"Currently, the community on community.adobe.com is used as a destination for customers to ask questions and engage in peer-to-peer conversations. IOW, this is a user-to-user support forum. The Adobe Support Community is a place to ask questions, find answers, learn from experts, and share your knowledge. Because we are a community used by people of all ages, cultures, and people at work, we carefully moderate its content".

If you want Adobe to be viewing what you post, there are two ways based on what you are hoping to report:
If you wish to report what you believe is a bug, you do so by following these guidelines:
https://community.adobe.com/t5/photoshop-ecosystem-bugs/how-do-i-write-a-bug-report/idi-p/12373403

If you wish to provide a feature request, you do so by following these guidelines (then make a request in the product forum):
https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic-ideas/how-do-i-write-a-feature-request/idi-p/123863...

This tread is a feature request for specific lens profiles for Adobe products. 

[John R Ellis]

"because it is not a bug - it is an intentional decision by Adobe - so do ask Adobe as to why"

Do you have evidence that this is an intentional decision or is that your surmise? Filing a bug report is a constructive way to get a deeper understanding of the issue -- if Adobe thinks the current behavior was by design, they'll refile the report as a feature request.  

[TheDigitalDog]

"because it is not a bug - it is an intentional decision by Adobe - so do ask Adobe as to why"

Do you have evidence that this is an intentional decision or is that your surmise? Filing a bug report is a constructive way to get a deeper understanding of the issue -- if Adobe thinks the current behavior was by design, they'll refile the report as a feature request.  

By @John R Ellis

Best not to feed the troll and stay on topic. 

Plus he has no idea, can't and will not answer your questions.

[quirky_idea15A8]

> Filing a bug report is a constructive way to get a deeper understanding of the issue
I personally don't need to spend any time on that - I have no need to bother with Adobe for optics correction at all as I am perfectly fine w/ optics correction provided by manufacturers themseleves that I thankfully have full access to through Iridient for all my cameras and lenses ... 

[EarPlugs]

Just tried using Iridient to convert. The distortion is still quite bad,

[EarPlugs]

I am trying out diff profiles and found that the Sony FE24-240 and then add 18 to the manual adjustment seems to do a reasonable job, at least at 20mm.

[quirky_idea15A8]

> Just tried using Iridient to convert. The distortion is still quite bad,

you might want to actually read how to use it... distortion is as Sony own geometry correction is for example in OOC JPG ... do you see "The distortion is still quite bad" in OOC JPG ?

[Cord15D5]

I literally just went through this with the 24-70 GM ii (if you scroll earlier in the thread).  Basically you're just gonna have to wait or out until adobe finally releases a profile.  It took 5-months or so for them to release the 24-70 GM ii profile even though it such a pro grade lens.  Who knows when the 20-70 will release 🤷🏻‍:male_sign:. The 70-200 GM ii had almost no wait time at all so maybe you'll get lucky and a profile will pop up in the next lightoom/cameraRaw update.  It's a bit mind boggling that to this profile release discrepancy even exists but seems thats the world we live in.

[quirky_idea15A8]

nobody needs to wait for anything - you can either use Iridient S-Transfers or , if you do not want to use linear DNG, then write a script that (1) uses Iridient S-Transformer to make a linear DNG w/ all optics correction data fully provided by Sony inserted as DNG tags (2) uses Adobe DNG Converter to make a non linear DNG (3) transfer optics correction tags /exiftool or something similar/ from linear DNG (with tags containig data from Sony) to non linear DNG (4) delete linear DNG .... that's it

PS: better yet - write to the author of Iridient and vote for him to provide an option to simply generate a non linear DNG w/ optics correction data embedded... he will multiply his sales thanks to Adobe - win win (not for Adobe of course - they stay w/ bad rep)

[No Face Nappy]

I would like to see a lens profile for the Samyang XP 10mm f3.5 full frame lens for Nikon F Mount.

Asking for the 10th time.....

[No Face Nappy]

I would like to see a lens profile for the Samyang XP 10mm f3.5 full frame lens for Nikon F Mount.

I asked 2 years ago and still no profile!!! How can you expect us to support you Adobe when you don't support us??

[No Face Nappy]

Yes it was posted in the profile thread but with too many requests in there, they get overlooked!!

[wa-so]

Why are there still no lens profiles for the RF 600/4 with 1.4x and 2x extender?
Even for the RF 800/5.6 and the RF 1200/8 these already exist and these two are much less popular.

[Ian Lyons]

Missing lens profiles is not unusual, especially less common lenses such as those you mention. The fact that the 1200mm already has profiles would suggest that more users have requested the profiles or non availablity of the lens.

Note that your request will likely be merged with the lens profile request thread on the Camera Raw forum.

[wa-so]

That's exactly what surprises me.
The 800/5.6 and 1200/8 are far less(!) popular than the 600/4.

[Ian Lyons]

That may be so, but Adobe may have prioritised the others because they received more requests.

Also note that your thread has now been merged with the authoritive thread for lens profiel requests