Linear Profiles • What's so special?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лип 2024
- Linear Profiles... if you spend a great deal of time editing RAW files, you have more than likely heard of Linear Profiles. By design, Linear profiles are made from a DNG copy of your camera-specific RAW file. They are brought into Adobe's DNG editor, and the tone curve for the RAW file is flattened. This makes the curve linear and removes the contrast bump hidden in the camera manufacturer's RAW file.
Okay, so then what do we do with it? We use that Linear profile as a starting point in the RAW process. Is it worth all the effort? Do we genuinely gain anything from the process?
I'll give you my thoughts in this video today. This was NOT meant to be a how-to guide to making Linear Profiles. This video was made to show the process I use to see if something will change in my workflow.
Video Chapters
00:00 Introduction
00:47 Linear Profiles explained
02:59 Linear Profiles vs. Regular Profiles
09:20 When Linear Profiles AREN'T Necessary
13:08 Linear Profiles Primary Benefit
14:10 Linear Profiles and HDR Brackets
16:00 Benefits of Linear Profiles
16:50 Downsides of Linear Profiles
18:41 Blake's Linear Profile Conclusion
_______________________________________________________________________
Do you like the videos I make on UA-cam?
Want to grow your photography exponentially?
1. Subscribe! subscribers see the content first and are the most likely to succeed in Photoshop
2. Head to the f.64 Academy website and register on my subscriber list. I deliver all kinds of extra tips and subscriber-only live events!
f64academy.com/sign-up/
3. Become an Elite Member! I take Photoshop to levels you will never see on UA-cam for the members of f.64 Elite with courses, critique sessions, members-only events, a community forum, and big discounts on my most premium courses.
http:/www.f64.co/elite
Sorry I have to take exception with your comments/assertions about raw files... there is no profile hidden in the raw. The profile is applied by the chosen raw editor be it on1, LR, capture one... THere is a obviously a profile used by the camera maker when preparing their out of camera jpg and typical raw editor will try to emulate that but a basic edit of the raw has only the profile applied by the raw editor..in your case LR.... LR is a display referred editor so right out of the gate it doesn't benefit as much as it could from a linear profile. LR hits the image right out of the gate with a display referred profile. THe data is now edited in that profile. As such say something like exposure. If you double exposure you don't acutally double the output....the effect you see is impacted by the curve in the profile This is why HL often get blown out by processing. Linear profiles recover this and allow adjustments to behave acutially more intuitively not less. With a linear profile if you double exposure then you double the brightness and the same for other controls... there is that 1 to 1 relationship in your adjustments. and this can actually help you to edit in a way that is more scene like and preserve the light from the scene.... THe full manifestation of this is in a software that actually allows scene-referred edits....and can work with HDR display effectively. In that case you actually work mostly in a linear space and expose for the midtones not worrying as much about the top and bottom limits... this can often blow out the highlights intially but there is a ODT applied after most of the editing to map highlights and shadow to the dynaminc range around the middle gray.... So you can see you are fighting with the linear profile because of this display referred pipeline of LR with anchored black and white and a distorting curve applied to the image at the start rather than the end.... Linear edits when you have the right pipeline will not look like a display referred edit and they will be generally better in many ways... you just can't fully exploit this in LR because you cant control the pipeline and LR puts the profile at the start....
I found this video very interesting - thank you. I started using linear profiles a few years back, and I have to say that they really do work for me. For background, I use Canon gear to photograph wildlife and I process the RAW files in Lightroom then Photoshop. For wildlife work, I like to keep tone and colour in my prints as "natural" as possible and I used to really hate what was happening to my Canon RAW files (I can't speak for other camera brands) in Lightroom. Out of camera, they usually had far too much contrast and saturation. They looked garish and not natural at all - which meant editing them to flatten them out a bit and bring the colours back to reality. It didn't matter which "canned" profile I used - the problem was always there to some extent. I then built my own linear profiles for all my camera bodies and over time, I've developed a workflow that gives me the images I want and the extra effort is rewarded in the improved quality of my prints. I guess my experience is different to others - maybe wildlife work lends itself to linear profiles more because we often need to reduce contrast and saturation to avoid falling into the trap of editing too far? Anyway, I find it easier to flatten the profile and gradually build back the tone and colour than to fight against the canned profiles to remove the over-cooked contrast and colour. Thanks again for the detailed and very well researched video though - each to his/her own I guess!
I don’t use linear profiles and I don’t consider myself as “knowing” anything about them but I had a completely different impression on the reason to use a linear profile.
I thought the intent of using a different profile is it changes the starting point (and that is all that has changed). From starting at a different point, your thoughts and desires are altered and a person tends to end up at a different final image which they consider to be “better”.
A different profile doesn’t change the set of possible final images. It only changes the starting point and that tends to cause those who advocate linear profiles to end up with final images that they consider better.
I can agree with that for sure. It is a different starting point, but is it a better one? That's subject to interpretation. I know many people who sing their praises, but I have many profiles I use for different starting points that I feel are better than a linear profile. It's all subject to workflow and what, where, and how people want to start.
What a pity youtube doesn't allow multiple likes for a single video. This one definitely deserves multiple of mine. As a long time linear profile (and luminosity masks as well) user, I thank you so much, Blake, for this "workthrough" as you call it. it is indeed a personal matter with many psychological and even philosophical aspects (besides the technical ones) of when and how to use linear profiles. I tend to see it as the starting point that is closest to a "pure" raw image. Hence the differences in the adjusting sliders compared to other profiles. Again, thanks for this beautifully explained video.
That's awesome 🤣 multiple likes would be great 🤣
It sounds like the reason some want to use a linear profile is because they don’t like the starting points of the default profiles (too much contrast or saturation or whatever). If I understand this correctly, then a linear profile is a good move *only* if it really starts you closer to your intended final rendering than any other available profile. If it doesn’t do that, then a better solution is not a linear profile, it’s finding or creating a camera profile that actually is closer to your intended rendering (a better starting point, resulting in reduced editing steps and time).
I do allow Adobe Color to be the default on import, but I keep an open mind about switching to Adobe Portrait or Adobe Landscape for those types of photos, to see if one of those might be a better/faster starting point. And it often is.
Yes! Spot on!
For reference, Fuji and Sony colors are NOT baked into RAW files. Neither is a curve. RAW files REALLY are just RAW data, but because they're only data in the form of numbers and letters, they can't be viewed as an image. So RAW editing software has to create a base look just for you to understand what the image is supposed to be. But that is only the default. You can change the image in any way you want. For example, you can easily put Fuji color on a Sony RAW, and Sony color on a Fuji RAW, etc., because RAW data is RAW data. It has no base look, and is near infinitely flexible.
That's interesting, then why do they all look different? There must be something baked in otherwise everyone wouldn't reach for linear profiles, right? I'm genuinely curious, because this is all a mystery to me. My Nikon files look different from my Sony files even with the same exact settings. Sure, lenses are a variable too, but it always has baffled me.
@@f64Academy I will try to explain it. A raw file contains the signal reading that the individual pixel recorded during the exposure. Some pixels will record the Green light, some the red light and some the blue light. This is the Bayer array. To convert these voltage signals into an image the signals from these different coloured pixels have to be "interpolated" into colour pixels. This is a complex math computation where the result depends on the demosaic algorithm used.
So any raw converter has to demosaic the raw data to produce an image to display on the screen. There is no "raw image" only raw data numbers.
Raw converters like LR will improve their demosaic engines from time to time, and this is why you can change the "Process Version" if you want.
So each raw converter will crunch the numbers and produce what it thinks is a good starting point for editing. During this demosaic process the software applies a colour profile and a tone profile, usually an S-Curve. Exactly as you can do with the point curve tool in LR.
This is also why each camera, even if it uses the same sensor from eg Sony looks different to Nikon even though the Nikon is using a Sony sensor. Nikon want "Nikon" colour and "Sony" want Sony colour etc.
With a linear profile you are just removing the S-Curve that is normally applied during demosaicing and replacing it with a Linear curve. The idea of the Linear curve is to provide a better starting point with difficult, usually overexposed but not blown images for the simple reason any S-Curve will push the highlights into overexposure.
Better software like Capture One have provided the option of using a Linear curve since V8 in 2014, so this is not a UA-cam fashion idea, it's just a way making it easier to deal with difficult images in other raw converters.
Just a further clarification, the DNG generated by LR during HDR, Pano is a linear DNG, is effectively a Tif file in a DNG wrapper.
Hope that helps.
so gooood 😄
i've been working with linear profiles since a few weeks and trying to find an answer.... then here you are giving THE HELP I WISHED !! thank you do much Blake 🤗💚 today you are my hero!
sometimes i got a better result with fuji profiles (using fuji cameras, of course)
Oh that's great to hear. I was hoping this video would come off as a helpful guide rather than divisive. Phew!
I like a lot your scientific and confident approach. It's always a pleasure to watch this channel.
Glad you enjoy it! I really appreciate it :)
A fair point and worth your time to check. I personally photograph with Pentax cameras, which gives me quite well saturated colors and so far I have used your color settings and this work has been great on linear profiles. But I will also check what the images on Adobe profiles will look like. Greetings from Poland from the city of "Fortress Przemyśl". Thank you for encouraging me to explore the problem.
My pleasure! Glad you are seeing success.
It’s very helpful to understand the impact of using the lp process.
Glad I could help!
In Lightroom, after you apply a Linear profile you need to set the "gamma curve" with the regular curves. As ROMM (ProPhoto RGB) is the Colour Space when editing in Lightroom is encoded to a 1.8 gamma curve. You need also to bring the contrast slider to +50/85 to create the S curve you would've done with regular curves
Right... So you do all that to make it look like a regular photo without the linear profile 🤣
I jest, but it's true. You work harder to get your Linear profile to work for you than just working with the raw file to begin with.
@@f64Academy yeah ☹️. But it's super flat! 😂 I'm just joking cause I learnt about this stuff really yesterday. Need to dig more. But I'm more into camera calibration right now so the flat profile is in the middle of that process :)
I think exactly the same , this linear profile is a pointless job of restoring contrast again in a different way. I applaud you for your logical thinking👍
Thanks! It's definitely a mixed bag out there. Some are all for it and others not so much, not many in between.
@@f64Academy The gamma curve works before demosaing in the case of profiles from Adobe. This is a preference over other editors, but its are certainly very different approaches. What the person gave as an example is very approximate. Color is an abyss even to the eyes of an inexperienced viewer.
will get it. Just don't get burnt out. Whenever you need a break, take one.
I'm good 😉 thanks!
Clears that up for me...I have all of the linear profiles for all the cameras I have owned...but really don't use them...will do some testing...thanks for this information...
Glad you found it helpful
At minute 17:10 you talk about when this profile is added in the process, and you say this happens on top of everything but before Color grading panel. For my experience, that is correct for .xmp profiles, which are those creative profiles you create with a LUT inside it.
However, linear profile are DNG Camera Profiles (.dcp), and they work before Curve, not after. Infact, if you try to create a creative profile with your own LUT, starting from a Linear profile, then you apply this XMP profile to your raw file and you reduce it with the amount slider, the only thing reducing is the LUT, not the linear profile. This one remains 100% active even if you reduce the Amount slider.
Really thorough and helpful analysis, Blake. In my own experience, it feels (but not very scientific!) that I can "move the sliders farther" when I use a linear profile. Your thought on "dual profiles" is interesting. Conceptually, one could dual-process the image with different profiles, then blend together in Ps. I might try that!
Thanks for sharing! That's interesting. I think that may be because you have to push them further to get the data you need. It's almost as if with a regular profile even the slightest movement in the Whites or Blacks make s huge difference, but with Linear profiles you have to push them further to compensate for the flattened curve. I would think that would be mostly true for Exposure, Highlights, and Whites. Maybe not as much with Shadows and Blacks, though.
Interesting!
Thanks for the video!
You bet!
Playing with curves is hard, most of time the classic curve is the best solution. Applying a négative exposure is more usefull and far easier.
I've played around with linear profiles a bit, but it seemed in most cases I just ended up pushing sliders a lot to essentially get it back to what the "normal" profile would already be like. Now I just keep it in my back pocket as an option with some problematic, high-contrast images, and try it to see if that helps or not -- but most of the time I don't bother with it now.
Exactly how I felt about them at first. It took me a while to realize that the sliders are all going to be different in the way they operate because of the Linear nature of the file.
Totally agree, that's not a a panacea.
You should try a reverse approach.
Create a profile (based on neutral) that maximally mimics the straight out of camera JPG's...
I think this will be a better starting point than linear or Adobe profiles, at least psychological.
As always, great study Blake.
Bravo!
Thanks! I did make a profile in my new Chroma Profiles and Presets that mimics JPEG quality color. But I never thought about that for other things like sharpening, NR, and such.
In a linear profile, details are not taken out of context, as happens with your highlights slider, which has moved below the zero mark. The problem is that the entire curve of raw files is not visible if we work in a regular, non-linear profile. And moving the shadows above zero and the highlights below is the last Chinese warning.. Movement in such a repertoire does not occur smoothly, unlike working with whites and blacks.
But! What I liked about your video was that you tried to break down the topic, albeit with some flaws.
Other bloggers simply copy each other on the topic of how to create a linear profile itself, without even being interested in the first tab in dng editor. Not to mention the fact that very few people actually tell and show “what is he doing that’s so interesting” using this approach. They try to “escape” from this topic, or to show an example using butterflies, twigs, and bushes. But not on portraits of people. And, as a rule, very high-quality photographs are taken.
I'll be the first to admit I don't know the science behind everything in photo editing. I just practice a lot, and try to find patterns. When I see a pattern I teach on it. My brain is not capable of all the pixel science stuff, I blank out, I got a degree in finger painting, not astro physics 🤣 But I do see patterns, test hypotheses, and record my findings. It might not be the best approach, but it has gotten me pretty far in my editing.
@@f64Academy Well, "visually" it looks like this:
You omit whites and the program increases the detail in the highlights, pulling information from the entire highlight curve - and from the part of it that is not visible in the histogram (since the entire raw curve cannot be displayedthere the range of the histogram is much larger than the human eye can see). That is, the work happens smoothly.
In the case of lowering the highlights, the program simply seems to shift !!! the curve sharply. Only with a little shading, without pulling anything out from anywhere. Head-on. Visually, on the fingers, we get a parasitic HDR effect.
The situation is similar with working in the shadows. Raising the shadows still produces the same parasitic HDR effect. This is not a theory. This is just how the program tools are designed. This is true when working with any profile - linear or non-linear.
@@f64Academy Personally, I get the impression that Adobe has a little trick with all these curves in non-linear profiles - the developers made sure that this gamma is applied before demosaing, and not after :) That is, if you repeat this trick in the darktable/rawtherapee etc, then there will be no questions)). Adobe is the only one that does this. Even the program does everything head-on.
Then it turns out that you, of course, can repeat something, but so.... only approximately.
All these experiments are tested very well not on "twigs", "trees", "sunsets" and other "landscapes", but on portraits of people, or in photographs of a group of people.
Many people who produce videos and share their work give examples only in "landscapes" and "birds" - this is not the case. Landscapes can always look good. With different approaches. But when working with photographs where there are scenes with people, various burrs immediately appear. The brain immediately sees the difference.
Therefore, many such bloggers either avoid such examples, or simply do not think that this is a much better option for giving examples. True, in this case a person must also have taste. Both for the teacher and for the viewer of such lessons.
I wonder if all linear profiles are equal? I find the ones I use flatten the highlights and shadows and I do not have to use any negative for my files. Where I have to pull down the highlights in a profiled RAW, I do not have to do that with the linear profiles I downloaded. This then puts the slider in the middle and I have more range of adjustment without stacking adjustments by using a brush. It reminds me of the 90s when RAW was flat. I also used Photoshop to make some profiles which are the normal profiles over a linear profile. Then I can apply for example the Adobe color profile over a linear profile and adjust the percentage. Which once I set it up, it gives me a very fast controlled starting point. Of course since that is my that is my work flow, all my profiles and presets are based on that. I also do my final editing in PS with various luminosity masking and blend ifs in folder with subject masks to guide my viewers eye with luminosity, contrast, detail, saturation, etc. Which may make a difference. I would say my workflow is get all the detail I can to globally start and then accent or lessen it in areas to get the look I want. When I an helping other people, I do recommend choosing the profile you like the best and then edit from there. It can be faster and easier many times. My way is to make a print I can sell which will more emotion and be what I see in my mind for that photo. Before linear profiles were available, I always started from muted which seemed to give me the most range to adjust.
I think they would all be different, but have the same intent. All cameras and raw files are different so I guess they wouldn't be created equal, if you know what I mean? But in this video I did work with a Nikon Raw file and a Sony Raw file and saw similar concepts when editing. The ones you downloaded are more than likely created with the Adobe DNG Converter and therefore they'd all be Linear Profiles created in the same way.
I think the best way to work is exactly as you mentioned here. Making a Linear Profile, then using that as a base to build a LUT profile in PS that takes advantage of that data being flattened. That's my experiment for today.
I do not agree. I use Olympus em1 together with the em1 m2. with the linear profiles I notice that the details in the shadows improve, that the noise is lower (not only with ettr), that the rendering of the colors and the wb are more precise and with a better rendering (it seems to have worked in Lab with Ps) and that the images of the two cameras are almost identical in terms of rendering.
Personally, on my old and cheap Canon 70d, the detail drops significantly if I use a linear profile. And nothing can be done to correct this state of affairs.
I'm looking for a reason.
I'm pretty certain there is more to adobes profiles than a adjustment to the curve. Texture, color, sharpening etc.
More than likely, for sure! I'm not sure about sharpening or texture inside a profile though. Those are pixel based adjustment for the most part and I don't think that would be in the scope of a profile since profiles really only target tones and colors. I'm merely showing an example here of what can be done with profiles. Quite frankly, there is a ton more that can be done to them outside the scope of a linear profile. Actually combining a linear profile with adjustment based profiles has proven to be a very successful starting point.
I have made and used linear profiles for all my cameras for years.
In my view, this presentation misses the primary benefit for a linear profile.
The presentation focuses on using the sliders in the basic module.
The main benefit of a linear profile is eliminating the mid-tone brightening of the Adobe default tone curve. It also eliminates the step toe and flat shoulder of the Adobe tone curve.
As a young photographer I learned to select color film emulsions as well as B&W emulsions, and developer to control the tone curve.
Lightroom offer a tone curve, as well as HSL modules to provide substantial control over the tonal characteristics for an exposure. i.e. permits me as the photographer to create a customer "emulsion tonal and color response" for each image.
Using only the basic module is overly simplistic.
You are very much correct. I use a lot more than that basic panel in my workflow, but my point was more focused on what is happening and why and using something that I know very well as the base for experimentation to compare.
The Adobe profile was the control in the experiment to test them off something I know well. This was primarily to teach those how to add something new, like a Linear Profile, to their workflow.
This was not meant to be a video on how to use the linear profile in your workflow from start to finish. As I mentioned, linear profiles would be excellent in a more complex workflow that involved luminosity masks, etc.
There is a way to apply multiple profiles. Begin in Lr/ACR, use the RAW profile (if you prefer) and do whatever else you want. Open in Ps, then use ACR as a filter, at which point, you can apply any other profile you want. You can go in/out of Ps/ACR as many times as you like, applying a different profile each time.
True! But then you aren't working on RAW data because that's ACR as a Filter and not ACR the program. That's also kind of unpredictable and could lead to more trial and error than I want as I'm working.
@@f64Academy Not if you open the original as a smart object. Then you keep all the RAW data, even when you go back and forth. Yes, much larger file size, but lots more flexibility if that is what is warranted. (as least this is how it has been explained to me, but I could be wrong)
@@lorijennings-emery8514 No, that's not true at all. If you run ACR as a smart filter, it's applying to the rasterized raw file, not the actual raw file. Not sure who told you that, but they were definitely wrong.
It wasn't until near the end that I wondered how often Blake says the word 'profile' in this video. I can't be assed re-watching and counting, though.
Make it a drinking game and then respond to this message as coherently as possible... I dare you 😂😂😂
Thank you for this explanation, it confirmed what I felt for the past few months trying to work with linear profiles, and is that it requires more work to get a good edit out of it since it flattens and dulls everything. It’s great though for some images where you’re trying to recover bright overexposed areas, but other than that I think it’s difficult to work with because it changes the nature of all the sliders, so you have to do more work just to get it back to base!
Glad it was helpful! I feel very much the same way. Although I really feel they are more for extensive PS work with Luminosity masks where you don't want to start too dark or too light.
@@f64Academy Exactly, you’re right!
I've made 1 linear profile and tested it againts Nikon Flat profile exported form NX studio,well they are 99% the same,so thats very good !Now i will use Linear profile for my Pentax K1.
THANK YOU for testing this without waiting for me to. I really appreciate someone who takes the initiative instead of waiting for someone else. Seriously, this is the kind of subscriber everyone wants ;) I appreciate you!
@@f64Academy One thing that is little bit of drawback,there is some minor color hue shift,but i guess there is not perfect world.
@@L.Lyubomirov easy enough to fix 😁
Hey Blake. Thanks for this. I was a user of linear profiles, but once I started using IP Chroma 2 I found that it really did not bring anything to the dance. I tried IPC2 both ways and found that I liked the results without the linear profile. I find that whites are indeed an issue. Still playing with them both with IPC2 though.
Glad it helped. So my process is to take a RAW file, press Auto, open it in PS. Then from there I build a LUT. I turn that LUT into a profile and thats what you use in IP Chroma. So I use Auto as the baseline on an Adobe Standard profile to create my LUT profiles in PS. You don't see all the stuff that goes into it. But the process is more of a creative one than a flatten the curve one. I feel you get more predictable results that way.
Interesting and thoughtful commentary/analysis. I started using linear profiles based on Jim Welninski's course, and find them very useful on occasion, but as you point out, not always necessary or desired. In images without 'close to' blown highlights, I often wind up trying to 'get back' to the look that another profile did. And yes, the sliders do react differently - takes a bit to get used to it.
Agreed! It can be great for some images and unpredictable for others, kinda like any profile for that matter 🤣
Thanks for doing like you do and breaking down complex topics and offering thoughtful analysis and examples. I have only dabbled with them and found no great benefit in the handful I tried. I felt it actually slowed me down in more than one because the lp made them so flat.
Yeah, the more I play with them the more I feel like they are designed for serious Ps work rather than trying to get it right in ACR. Luminosity Masks like Linear Profile data, because it gives more range with the curve in PS. That can be a very good thing.
Very helpful. Now I’m sure that I don’t want any part of linear profiles
They have their benefits for sure!
Where i see use of linears is in compositing
How about Linear profiles vs Flat profile (NIkon Flat for example) i think Flat profile is not linear as the Linear profile...?I must test this...i love working with Flat profile,gives you very realistic editing.
I find that I don't really need to bracket when using a linear profile. I still bracket in camera so I have the files if needed, but often I will only use 1 raw file.
I typically only bracket in large dynamic range scenes like shooting into the sun at Sunset. Other than that, one raw file, regardless of the profile is good as long as the exposure is correct.
When I expose to the right by 1 - 3 stops and use a linear profile I get amazing results. It may look like I’m clipping in camera but I’m able to get back so much data in post.
where can I get this linear profile(s) then ... ??? thanks in advance ..
Why do you use "auto* on linear profile? May is better use directly sliders? Thanks
It's just a starting point to move the sliders myself after. It usually gets you off to a good start.
All and any linear profile is always based of or based on the flatest camera-profile. Every Linear profile is always camera-specific so there is no real reason why to compare this to the Adobe profile. That really does not make sense. I agree it is not all that easy. But once used to linear profiles (and the ability to use these with Film-specific profiles, far better and more predictable then Film-profiles with the Adobe profiles) i have come to like and prefer them always. I have been using my favourite film-profiles sandwiched with the linear camera specific profiles. I agree that it is just a different way to work. I like it very much. I use them always. Yes I use them in conjuction with luminosity processing (not masking but selections). I also work with L-ab color-processing to differ between luminance and color. This is a very good way to introduce contrast where and when the image can use it or you as the photographer/processor wants it. Only then, not before. And I have become very accustomed to using this kind of processing so much so that my photography has changed.
I'm not comparing it to the Adobe profile for the sake of comparison. I'm comparing how the sliders interact based on the profile selected. The profile I compare it against is almost arbitrary to a certain point because we are just trying to see how the editing process changes based on the Linear curve.
Glad to hear they work for you :) Just goes to show you that workflow and the things we do are personal to the outcome we prefer.
for me, the term is actually kinda old. I think I've encountered the "linear profile" thing when reading Christian Bloch's book about HDRI (long time ago) and it has an option in Photomatix when merging bracketed image to create HDR slide. It's always turned off. Honestly, I've read that chapter about linear profiles in Bloch's book like twice or thrice and never got the hang of it and didn't know why would I do that already since things are just going fine with HDR merging in Photomatix. The option is also there in PTGUI for stitching panoramas I think, but again, I don't recall using it, and all is fine. Now your point about using it with some images of dark tones galore maybe gives it a potential and i might try to see how to do it - it might be a tool of salvation (instead of looking at those shot 12 years ago and weep for the vanished memories or something *shrug*)
Thats intersting and does go pretty far back, huh?
@@f64Academy indeed - i actually never paid attention to that thing ever after since like ... 2009 or 2010. I guess I'll pay a re-visit to see whats the deal now lol
@@nimmira ha! That's awesome!
I was on the understanding that LPs increases the Dynamic range straight off the sensor data, thoughts?
I don't think they increase the dynamic range, they just shift it more to the left. You can't really get more dynamic range of it isn't there, but you can trick the program into thinking there's more, but that's all it really does. On their own I don't find them too useful, but when used with LUT profiles, stacking them, I think there's serious potential.
@@f64AcademyUsing LR12 I've recently been testing out the dynamic range of my Fuji X Pro2 in high contrast situations. Even using ETTR, the highlight detail was often unrecoverable using the Adobe Color Profile and virtually every other standard profile I tried. However, the Adobe Neutral Profile and the linear profile I created for my camera using Adobe"s free DGN Profile app appeared to immediately recover at least two full stops of highlight detail while preserving detail in shadow areas that would otherwise require much more recovery with sliders (resulting in significantly more noise). In fact, the highlight detail preserved by using the linear profile could not be recovered by using sliders, even when ETTR exposure was used. As expected, the Adobe Neutral and the linear profile both produced a significant loss of contrast in the mid tones that had to be dealt with. This is all specific to my camera and workflow, so I can't say about what others might experience. GREAT video, Blake. Very balanced and informative (as always).
A primary and secondary with blend if! Yes!
For sure!
Could anybody explain what exactly is profile in practice? For example, I'm using camera Sony A7RIV. I can't find the profile for this camera for ACR in the internet, especially on producer's website. This suggests that there is no such need. But I can use profiles for lens corrections. Until today I was sure that using Optics section in ACR is something like combination of camera and lens properties normalization. The profile would mean something like special effects - eg conversion to BW. The linear profile sounds like another special effect downloaded from... where ?
So the profile is banked into the RAW file unless you choose a different one. These linear profiles reverse engineer that baked in profile and get the curve back to linear. It's not a special effect, it's created using Adobe DNG Creator. I didn't cover that process but others have, it's pretty straight forward when you Google search 'make a linear Raw Profile'
@@f64Academy Ahh, ok. Now I understand where these profiles come from. Thank you.
Linear or not, a profile is just a profile after all, and it does include some kind of color interpretation (how green is a green photosite for instance). And I think that regarding autotone in LR, is does provide the same exposure basic slider values whatever the selected profile. Are you sure about the pipeline order you provide by the end of the video ?
From all of my research yes that is the pipeline. A LUT profile acts different from a standard camera profile in terms of Adobe from what I gather, but what do I know, I've been wrong before.
The only issue I have with your comparison methodology is, isn't the linear profile adjusting the underlying " curve " setting?. If you apply the Linear profile is it removing the hidden curve adjustment that Adobe's colour profile is adding under the hood?. It would seem to me that if you ignored the basics panel entirely and adjusted the curve in the curves panel you would in theory be able to get the linearised raw file to look identical to the Adobe colour profile if that makes sense? Certainly that's how I understand how linear profiles work. Andy Astbury's channel features a method very similar to how linear profiles work but using a method called "process swap". In essence this process swap removes the hidden curve adjustment which is added by profiles like Adobe Colour. I assume ( rightly or wrongly ) that linear profiles are just doing the same thing as a " process swap ". On a personal level I apply linear profiles to almost all my RAW files as the 1st part of my editing workflow. For more colour critical work I create camera profiles of my own. Profiles are certainly very powerful tools for sure and are often underused within editing workflows 😊
No, not the Adobe Color Profile, the Camera Profile. If I used Adobe Standard you would see the image without the color from Adobe Color and maybe that would have been more accurate, but Adobes default profile when you open it is Adobe Color. I do get what you mean about the Tone curve as I did not use that at all in this video. Truth is, I am not a huge fan of using the tone curve in ACR as it is limited in scope compared to PS with things like blend modes, blend if, etc. Therefore, I rarely use it in my workflow.
The Linear Profile is designed to bypass all Adobe profiles and add that curve to the image to nullify the default curve from the Camera, that's why yo uhave to make one for every camera you own because no two raw profiles are the same from company to company, camera to camera.
@@f64Academy Indeed this is more confusing than I thought lol 😋 I guess I figured that the RAW file from the camera was essentially unsullied ( ie no profile was embedded ) until it got to the RAW converter ( Lightroom in this instance ). Lightroom/Adobe then applies it's interpretation (using default Adobe Standard or Colour ) of the RAW file with an additional curve added to make the image look better ( ie less flat, desaturated and lacking contrast as a RAW file would look ). So am I correct to say that whatever profile I use in camera ( I generally stick to neutral or flat ) this is carried over with my RAW file and the linear profile is essentially stripping that profile away when I use a linear profile in Lightroom? So are the camera matching profiles that appear ( eg Vivid, Landscape, Portrait, etc ) only there so I can change the embedded profile from my camera to an alternative one that matches my cameras built in profiles? Clearly I'm confused 😁
Likewise I'm not a big fan of curves in Lightroom/ACR either. I much prefer to apply curves in luminosity blend mode in Photoshop where it has less impact on my colours 😊
@@dunnymonster You are right...there are no raw profiles. Cameras have one to make the JPG and the raw editor uses an icc or DCP input profile as part of the process to convert the raw file to a color image. There is no company specific profile in the raw file..
Hi Blake .... the " linear profile route " is for sure not the path for folks how are using any " auto buttons " in LR 😉and for sure not for folks who are editing images fast and in big numbers .
Just for folks who want to have full control from start to finish .... in terms of color and tones .
In your demo is a lot of " slider wanging " involved .... well folks might like it , but for sure not those who use the " linear profile method " with great success .
I find your presentation very fast and hectic .... from beginning you are favoring your WF which is ok for me .
In the end we are all working differently and the end game counts .... just my take .
Cheers Andreas from Germany
For sure. I'm not just "slider wanging" though. I know what the sliders do and know them VERY well to the point of second nature. You are looking into my brain here, I'm not teaching the sliders, I'm deducing how to use a linear profile. It might look like slider wanging, but I know them VERY well 😉
I switched to linear profile months ago… and came back to normal raw… seems easier to have the final result…
I see great potential with them when used with LUT profiles. By themselves, I'm a little disenchanted.
There is nothing about it thats linear. If you want to see what try linear look like - import raw video to davinci and you will see. You “linear” is still more S curved than even 10bit lig
Yep, that's true. But this is the standard for photos.... I'm not talking about video 😉
anybody's, pls rember that! i wish all of you the best in your future endeavours and hope tNice tutorials year will treat us better