Fred Miranda wrote:
Which camera? My comment is regarding Sony's Camera "neutral" and the DXO FP (standalone). There must be a reason we are seeing different things.
In this case, it's an A7III, but it works the same way with the A9.
I don't know what you mean by Sony's Camera "neutral" ? DXO is not based on any Sony profile, I'm not sure that we understand each other.
The "neutral color, neutral rendering" profile I'm talking about is found on DXO PL4 when opening a raw file, and this profile is similar between brands (or at least they try to make them match). And I use FilmPack inside DXO and it behaves that way.
So my first point was : you can expect a more or less homogeneous rendering between brands when using FilmPack, because they are based on a neutral profile tailored by DXO which is roughly identical between cameras. So it works like Cobalt, or Dvlop presets for instance.
I don't know if it works differently with the standalone software...
Ayoul wrote:
In this case, it's an A7III, but it works the same way with the A9.
I don't know what you mean by Sony's Camera "neutral" ? DXO is not based on any Sony profile, I'm not sure that we understand each other.
The "neutral color, neutral rendering" profile I'm talking about is found on DXO PL4 when opening a raw file, and this profile is similar between brands (or at least they try to make them match). And I use FilmPack inside DXO and it behaves that way.
So my first point was : you can expect a more or less homogeneous rendering between brands when using FilmPack, because they are based on a neutral profile tailored by DXO which is roughly identical between cameras. So it works like Cobalt, or Dvlop presets for instance.
I don't know if it works differently with the standalone software... ...Show more →
Ok, it seems we are looking at different things. My previous comment was that DXO FP standalone's default profile for my Sony A7R IV (without any emulation) is very similar to Sony's 'standard' profile for this camera (not Sony's camera neutral).
It's in fact so close that I thought it was based on it.
We can even forget to remind you about the better color reproduction of Cobalt over the PRO by C1.
Just a single thing makes a huge difference; Capture One uses Single-illuminant profiles, so if the profile is made for D65, it's a fact, will be off on stda, or other illuminants.
That's why Phase One makes profiles for every illuminant on their cameras and the cameras cost many thousands of dollars; you are buying THE color reproduction after resolution and IQ.
That's why we sell TWO profiles for two different illuminants over any camera we support for C1.
So, a better color reproduction compared to the standard and for different light situation; you can love even a bad color profiles for your taste, we are not selling NICE color profiles for your cameras, we are selling PERFECT color profiles for your cameras, the artistic side is still yours, we only offer the ideal starting point for your post-production, as Phase One or Hasselblad do with their customers after the huge investment and nobody does with mainstream cameras.
Is it still crazy to have a color profile for every camera to buy after that clarification? ...Show more →
May I ask you if you could provide an example comparing a portrait with C1 default and Cobalt profile?
Thank you.
I'm just saying that I feel some other profiles might also benefit from some extra tweaking, just like I found out for the EOS R.
That way they'll only get better in the future. Win-win for everyone.
I always adjust the white balance after changing the profile.
If you want I can also send you the RAW files of that EOS R example I showed, if it could be of any help for you guys. Just let me know.
Pleasure!
thanks, we don't need more files and we are carefully inspecting the R , seems you are right!!! thanks again!
About the M9 do you have samples? everything seems perfect to me in the limits of the wb conversion between the old adobe standard (our target) and the new wb from Adobe, working as standard today.
Ulysseita wrote:
always C1 generic first and Cobalt std. second.
some samples on the fly (BUSY Saturday )
Thank you so much for your quick reply! Cobalt images looking far superior, the yellowish tint has gone. One last question: Which cam had been used to take these pictures?
jd-fineart wrote:
Thank you so much for your quick reply! Cobalt images looking far superior, the yellowish tint has gone. One last question: Which cam had been used to take these pictures?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Ok, it seems we are looking at different things. My previous comment was that DXO FP standalone's default profile for my Sony A7R IV (without any emulation) is very similar to Sony's 'standard' profile for this camera (not Sony's camera neutral).
It's in fact so close that I thought it was based on it.
I checked with the standalone app and indeed the rendering is different.
These are the Bees Knees! I created my own custom profile to combat the yellowish Sony skin tones and was pleased until now. The basic Cobalt profiles are an even better starting point for post work and the Fuji sims make my A9II images VERY close to my XT3!
Thanks for the review Gabriel and Fred for following up on these profiles. I ordered the Cobalt LR Base DNG Package for my A1 and the CCD Fever-V1, Leica Monochrome CCD-S-v2, Kodachrome, and Fuji Film Emulations. Really like the results so far and very impressed with the quality of these profiles.
Mitch Alland wrote:
... Looking at it from the perspective of the two cameras I use, Leica M10 and Ricoh GRIII, I don't see what it will give me compared to other profile/preset packages: better matching between the two cameras as a starting point for further processing, or better film simulation?
For example, I've looked at The Archetype Process ("TAP" f.k.a. C1ick Match) and the RNI packages. While RNI has profiles linked to the camera profiles in CameraRaw/Lightroom (including M10 and GRIII), the RNI profile/preset combination don't seem particularly useful.
Well, I guess they won't make your M10 and Ricoh render "the same". Those cameras are just too different: sensors, optics, metering, processing, etc. But the good profiles will make the output of different cameras look aligned as closely as possible.
Personally I quite like the RNI's approach. Their profiles seem to produce more pleasing smooth and film-like highlights than any profiles from the big vendors.
Also their tonal response and overall character look quite in line with what I would expect from the film stocks they emulate, they were certainly worked on quite a lot:
Thanks for the discount code. I was struggling with skin tones using the Adobe profiles for my a7iii. I purchased the Cobalt base pack and the standard profile seems to be an improvement. I'm not sure I will purchase any of the film simulations since I already have RNI All Films profiles, which I like.
Canon 1dxmkII
Canon 5d mkIV
Canon 5dsr
Canon Eos R
to
Canon 1dxmkII
Canon 5d mkIV
Canon 5dsr
Canon Eos R5
so in the next hours who bought this pack will find on his personal area on the website a new version to download.
How about the color accuracy?
The first step is to know that: DPP and LR have a different raw engine for saturation, exposure, etc.. these samples have NOTHING added after the opening apart from the Daylight WB.
these files are R5 raw.
On top the COBALT R5 emulation made from Lightroom
Below is the Canon DPP version of the R5 original file.
Saturation is external from the color profile and I only see this small difference; please do not forget the wider color reproduction level of the emulation built over the Cobalt profile.
Last but not least, with that pack you can have again on Lightroom the "camera matching" profiles made by us, not anymore available since the release of both R5 and R6.
Thank you, Fred, for organizing this discount. I’ve really enjoyed using the base profiles over the years and definitely will check out the film emulations.
Ulysseita wrote:
We fixed the Canon Contemporary emulation pack.
Now the list of cameras has changed from:
Canon 1dxmkII
Canon 5d mkIV
Canon 5dsr
Canon Eos R
to
Canon 1dxmkII
Canon 5d mkIV
Canon 5dsr
Canon Eos R5
so in the next hours who bought this pack will find on his personal area on the website a new version to download.
How about the color accuracy?
The first step is to know that: DPP and LR have a different raw engine for saturation, exposure, etc.. these samples have NOTHING added after the opening apart from the Daylight WB.
these files are R5 raw.
On top the COBALT R5 emulation made from Lightroom
Below is the Canon DPP version of the R5 original file.
Saturation is external from the color profile and I only see this small difference; please do not forget the wider color reproduction level of the emulation built over the Cobalt profile.
Last but not least, with that pack you can have again on Lightroom the "camera matching" profiles made by us, not anymore available since the release of both R5 and R6.
jrscls wrote:
Thanks for the discount code. I was struggling with skin tones using the Adobe profiles for my a7iii. I purchased the Cobalt base pack and the standard profile seems to be an improvement. I'm not sure I will purchase any of the film simulations since I already have RNI All Films profiles, which I like.
Almost the same story. Apart from that I had to sell my a7iii at the end. Just couldn't cope with its overcooked skintones in the shadows. Now using the old Hasselblad X1D and couldn't be happier.
And same impression about the film simulations above - they show loss of detail in both highlights and shadows, which is an opposite to what the real film actually does. For that reason I much prefer RNI - they somehow recover more detail from the highlights, separate the colours nicely and overall look and feel more like real film to my eye.
Archive 2021 · Cobalt Profiles
)
