Known Participant

Question

Severe Color Shifts from RAW in LRC and LR with Sigma 45 L-Mount on Mac

Forum|Forum|2 years ago
December 7, 2023
3 replies
6011 views

Importing the DNG vom Leica TL using Sigma 45 2.8 L-Mount provides in LRC and LR super servere colorshifts. Importing to other RAW converters does not have any issues with color shifts at all. LRC says, that the integrated profile got applied. But it seems that LRC and LR are not able to read correctly the integrated profile of that lens? Sample DNG Export fron LR attached here.

macOS

This topic has been closed for replies.

J

Jao vdL

Community Expert

This is one of the reasons why we really need the ability to turn off built-in lens profiles for all mirrorless cameras, not just a select few recent ones. Still can't understand why Adobe does not allow us to just do this in the interface instead of having to manually edit the raw file.

johnrellis

Legend

@Jao vdL, "This is one of the reasons why we really need the ability to turn off built-in lens profiles for all mirrorless cameras, not just a select few recent ones. Still can't understand why Adobe does not allow us to just do this in the interface instead of having to manually edit the raw file."

Five years ago, I posted the following in the old feedback forum:

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

Camera Raw Engineer Chris Castleberry has stated that Adobe obeys the wishes of Sony with respect to external lens profiles:
https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/disable-built-in-lens-profile?topic-reply-lis...

So it's a reasonable assumption that Adobe is also obeying the wishes of manufacturers with respect to embedded lens profiles. If that's true, people should be complaining to the manufacturers at least as loudly as to Adobe. (In my opinion, both are equally negligent in ignoring the desires of their customers.)

The underlying dynamic is likely driven by Adobe's legal department, rather than a business or product decision for "currying favor" with camera manufacturers. In another context (reading capture-date time zones from metadata), an Adobe engineer indicated that Adobe's legal department believes that Adobe software should not, without the manufacturer's legal permission, read information from non-industry-standard, manufacturer-specific metadata fields (e.g. Makernotes and raw information).

Thus, it appears that Adobe needs contractual permission from each manufacturer to read their raw files. This gives the manufacturers like Sony negotiating leverage with Adobe over what LR may do.

I don't know of other software vendors who have adopted Adobe's legal interpretation about non-standard, manufacturer-specific data fields in raw files. There's certainly a lot of software out there that reads all sorts of non-standard manufacturer-specific metadata. I spent some time a couple years ago looking online to learn if this legal interpretation was used by other companies and couldn't find anything. In general, laws about "reverse engineering" are a complicated mess and vary by country (and even within the US).

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

In a much later bug report (which I can't find), Adobe employee Rikk Flohr explained that the manufacturers of newer cameras, not Adobe, decide which combinations of cameras/lenses can have their profiles disabled.

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

And in a recent post:

https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic-ideas/p-allow-override-of-automatic-lens-correction-in-lightroom-classic/idc-p/14364613#M21100

I speculated that the contracts between manufacturers and Adobe include information sharing about the raw formats, giving the manufacturers leverage in dictating to Adobe rhow embedded lens profiles should be handled.

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

And in a follow-up to the five-year-old post (which is lost from my archives), I guessed that the cost of having Adobe's legal department revise dozens of form contracts with the manufacturers would swamp the trivial engineering cost of allowing the lens profiles of older cameras to be disabled. Since the legal department reports to the CEO or CFO and not to the Creative Cloud business line, the legal costs would get charged to the Creative Cloud budget.

johnrellis

Legend

I know this explanation but unfortunately it is not true for most of the current slate of mirrorless cameras. Nikon for example couldn't care less if you lens correct their Z7 files or not. They even provide a switch in the raw file metadata (which Adobe strangely ignores even though it is able to apply all other camera settings). Adobe also explicitly said in an older thread requesting the switch for still sold but slightly older mirrorless cameras that the decision to not allow older versions of Nikon and Canon mirrorless to turn off lens correction was based on programmer bandwidth and priorities (they said they would need to go back and reprogram a bunch of stuff for this) and that they were only doing it for mirrorless cameras released after their update. Since so few people care or would even notice and they have more than enough to do to support newer cameras, I guess they stuck to that decision.

[This post contains formatting and embedded images that don't appear in email. View the post in your Web browser.]

"I know this explanation but unfortunately it is not true for most of the current slate of mirrorless cameras. Nikon for example couldn't care less if you lens correct their Z7 files or not. "

On 2/16/2021, Rikk Flohr stated that LR obeys Nikon's instructions not to disable the lens profiles of some recent camera/lens combinations, including for the Nikon Z 6II:

"Adobe also explicitly said in an older thread requesting the switch for still sold but slightly older mirrorless cameras that the decision to not allow older versions of Nikon and Canon mirrorless to turn off lens correction was based on programmer bandwidth and priorities"

It's too bad most of the content in the old feedback forum was discarded. I can't find that thread in my email my archives (but I can't find lots of things that I think should be there).

johnrellis

Legend

[This post contains formatting and embedded images that don't appear in email. View the post in your Web browser.]

You attached a JPEG, which I assume is either a screenshot of Develop or exported from the DNG? I see color artifacts in that JPEG, e.g. in the lower-right corner:

"13.0.2 with latest Mac OS Sonoma 14.0 on Intel"

You may be tripping over an extant problem with older Macs that first appeared in LR 12.4 and hasn't been resolved. To verify that's the issue here, click the Apple icon in the upper-left corner and do About This Mac. Post a full-resolution screenshot (not a phone pic) of the About window.
https://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/help/createscreenshot/

With that, we can likely provide the best information about which workarounds would apply.

johnrellis

Legend

Moderators, please don't merge this thread until we verify the hardware configuration.

Rikk Flohr_Photography

That doesn't look like the Odd Pixels issue but more like a Chromatic Aberration issue.

Rikk Flohr: Adobe Photography Org

GoldingD

Legend

This may have nothing to do with the camera or the lens, but with your OS and a LrC bug. This bug was specific to some MAC, and was fixed at LrC v13.0.1

M

mpauliksAuthor

Known Participant

Thank you for picking up, but I am on v13.0.2 with latest Mac OS Sonoma 14.0 on Intel. So, not fixed again?

M

mpauliksAuthor

Known Participant

Panasonic 20-60 for L-Mount does not have the issue. Guess the integrated profile is not handeled correctly. Next to LRC, LR shows the same issue for that lens.. And only that lens.

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded