I'm reprocessing a bunch of photos I originally worked on in 2004, to fix various problems and deal with the "over the top" processing I applied back then when I thought saturation was the cat's meow.
One problem I am having is with blue skies. They aren't coming out right - usually too warm/cyan. I was looking around in ACR and noticed that it is set to the "Adobe Standard" camera profile -- should I be putting it on "Camera Standard" instead? When I do the blues do look better, but not sure what else I might be mucking up in the meanwhile. And sometimes, the skies look too magenta when processed this way.
Here's a quick experiment with a single file. From top to botton: the embedded JPG, Camera Standard, Adobe Standard, Camera Faithful. Camera Standard is closest, but as I suspected, too magenta.
The easy answer is to choose the profile that gives you the results that you like best. All of the profiles are to some extent someone's take on what the profile should be. There is no one perfect answer.
Beyond that, here are some things to think about:
Adobe Standard and ACR 4.4 are the new and old ways that Adobe determined to be best for your camera. The "Camera" profiles are Adobe's attempt to emulate what the camera manufacturer thinks is best for your camera, including the artistic/photo-type variations that the manufacturers usually throw in.
I actually create my own custom profile using a ColorChecker chart and Adobe's DNG Profile Editor. That gives me what I consider pleasing skin tones and it also helps tame the bright oranges and reds on my Canon 5D2.
When I am on a machine that doesn't have my custom profile for some reason, I use Camera Neutral. It usually has the least artistic tweaking, although it normally requires a saturation boost.
Remember that with whatever profile you use, you still have the ability to make adjustments in ACR. A magenta cast, for example, can normally be removed with the white balance sliders.
Now if you find that you are frequently resorting to the HSL sliders to make adjustments to a particular color (taming nuclear reds, for example, or tweaking orange skin), then that might be an indicator that another profile might work better for you.
I think you are suffering from the "paralysis of analysis".
All the blues look acceptable to me, considering that blue skies naturally have a wide range. Personally, I usually judge sky color based on the full context. If the foreground has very warm colors (reds, yellows, greens) the most "pleasing" sky color might be quite different from a foreground with cool colors.
Consider a summer or fall landscape full of green foiliage, maybe red and yellow tree leaves vs. a winter mountain covered in snow.
Bottom line, it's personal taste. Within a very broad range, there is no "by the numbers" guide for blue skies.
A side note: The Adobe camera profiles vary quite a bit based on camera model. Someone with a Canon 5d2 will see a significantly different "Camera Standard" from someone with a Nikon D80. Even within brand, the Adobe profiles for my 5D2 generate significantly different results than the same named profiles for my old Canon 1Ds or my little Canon G12 P&S.
"Paralysis by analysis" is a constant theme for me, I'm afraid.
Maybe the real solution here, is to stop trying to figure out what the "correct" profile is, and just consider that one of the parameters I check for each image, then go with whatever looks best?
