P: Support for Canon .CR3 Camera-matching Profiles

[DNPhoto]

There is currently zero support for .CR3 camera color profiles in Lightroom... especially since the newer Canon cameras use a .CR3 format... making it difficult to get work done. Only slightly surprised that this wasnt planned for beforehand since there still isnt a 64bit version of the adobe programs that i can use on the most current version of MacOS.

[Rikk Flohr: Photography]

This thread is being merged into an existing authoritative thread for better tracking and response. Please review the official answer (if any) in the second post on the thread for more information. `

[danieledav]

@Rikk

I understand that not all cameras will receive a set of camera Matching profiles but here we are talking about the Canon R5, one of the top cameras from the top seller camera brand.

The R5 was released more than 9 months ago.

Adobe Lightroom Classic 10.2 still does not have Canon R5 camera matching profiles.

The colors we get in Lightroom are not good enough and skin tones are not natural.
We urgently need Canon R5 camera matching profiles made by Adobe.

Thanks to Adobe's lack of full support for the R5 we have now started using another software and we may soon decide to abandon Lightroom Classic.

[darrellc88140194]

Which software are you switching to?

[TheDigitalDog]

Danydd; this has nothing to do with how many cameras are made or how long they are out. Canon futzed again with their (unnecessary) proprietary raws. This makes it very difficult if not impossible for Adobe to build 'canned' (generic) profiles. Adobe isn't not providing profiles to upset people. Imagine how upset customers were if supplied profiles with 'names' people like, were worse than those they have today. Or produced differing results per camera sample.    

There are solutions per user like creating your own custom dcp profiles, editing existing ones, altering the Calibration Panel (which existed long before camera profiles existed), altering all the other sliders and creating a preset starting point. 

Again, that some profiles were not provided isn't due to a company not wanting to do so. That you find the existing profiles poor show what Adobe is up against with this proprietary raw and their proprietary processing. There are workarounds however. 

Demanding camera matching profiles isn't flying; pointless. 

[danieledav]

@Darrell Cadieux

We are now using Capture One 21 Pro

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

sold my eos r, now discovered that for for eos r6 those profiles are not availalbe, such a shame

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

sold my eos r, now discovered that for for eos r6 those profiles are not availalbe, such a shame

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Please kindly provide camera color matching profile for canon eos R6. I can see that external providers, such as color fidelity even increased their prices from 15 to 25 usd due to increased demand.  

my previous camera eos r had such support, why is it not possible to provide it to R6 as well?

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Why is there no Canon profile?

I strongly hope to add profiles for R5 and R6.

[johnrellis]

Why conversations get merged:

https://feedback.photoshop.com/conversations/lightroom-classic/lightroom-auto-import-to-folders-orga...

[JP Hess]

I am not a Canon user. However I have seen comments that camera faithful profiles will not be provided for all camera models. I haven't followed the discussions closely enough to know the explanation as to why that is the case. I was made aware of a company that sells profiles for Canon and other brands of cameras. It has been reported on other forums that these profiles are quite good. I cannot recommend them because I have not used them. But if you are interested the profiles are available for $25/set. Here is the link:

Color fidelity - third-party camera profiles

[ophth1]

are u linked to them? unfortunately, I have tried them... very unsatisfactory results in terms of "color fidelity" of original profiles.. not worth a penny...

[johnrellis]

Adobe employee Rikk Flor stated that, "Not all cameras will ultimately receive Camera Matching profiles." (see his Official Solution at the top of this thread for details).

Jim isn't connected to Color Fidelity.   Many people are quite satisfied with them, e.g. see the comments starting here:

https://feedback.photoshop.com/conversations/camera-raw-and-dng/camera-rawlightroom-classic-support-... 

But I've also seen comments similar to yours expressing dissatisfaction.

[ophth1]

Yes, I know some people state that... However, beside of "liking them" or not, the claim is to work as e.g. R5 specific profiles. This you can easily test by color profiling and you will see that objectively this kind of simple solution has nothing to do with what is necessary...

[johnrellis]

The profiles are clearly "worth a penny" to many people, though obviously not you and others -- different needs.

[etiennee63339093]

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

[ophth1]

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...

[etiennee63339093]

@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. 

[TheDigitalDog]

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. 

[ophth1]

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...

[TheDigitalDog]

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. 

[etiennee63339093]

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

[etiennee63339093]

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

[defaultzopr7cf50y8f]

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

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

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.