I’d love it if PL8 would recognize which camera model each photo was generated by, so that it would automatically apply the camera model’s color profile.
When shooting with two different models and storing the day’s photos in one folder, I have to sort the photos by model, then select all the ones taken with camera A or B and manually select the appropriate color profile in the dropdown menu. It would help tremendously to have the software automatically select it for me upon import.
I have separate profiles created for each camera model, but I can only have one profile automatically applied to all RAWs, or JPEG imports.
I think you mean you want PL to automatically set the ‘type’ in the ‘Color/BW Rendering’ palette to ‘Camera Body’ AND the ‘Rendering’ to one of the options in the dropdown of that option.
Whereas here:
and here:
You definitely don’t mean ‘profile’, you mean ‘Preset’.
If so, that isn’t necessary. The default generic rendering in PhotoLab is for the camera body used to take the photo. Specifying it explicitly is only necessary if you used one camera for the photo and now want the color rendering to emulate that of another camera.
See here:
Probably - but as it happens there are already feature requests for PhotoLab to automatically apply a given preset based on the camera used:
I have a preset that automatically gets applied to all imports, but it’s only good for one camera model. It gets applied to all RAW files in the folder, including the ones that were taken with a different camera body. I then have to go in manually and change it for each photo that isn’t taken with a Z8.
Specify Type = ‘Generic rendering’ and Rendering = ‘DxO camera profile (whatever is displayed)’ if some photo is selected, or ‘Default camera profile’ if no photo is selected. The actual Rendering setting will then be adaptive. A bit confusing in the first case.
That’s easy to achieve, Jana … as @Wlodek & @Egregius are pointing out to you (above).
In your default preset, assign Type = Generic Rendering and Rendering = DxO Camera Profile … and PL will automatically select the camera profile specific to the body that captured the image.
And personally for some presets I use it at a reduced intensity, like 60% – this depends on the camera and purpose. The 0 intensity value corresponds to “Neutral color” rendering, it seems. For some specific images you may want to increase the ‘Protect saturated colors’ from the automatically set value, but that’s another story.
OK, in which case tweak that preset as already described by others.
That is how my default preset is configured so that if I open an image taken by my current camera (Canon 90D) PL applies the corrections for that model, but if I open an image taken by my previous camera (Canon 400D) PL applies the corrections for that camera.
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
11
Category: Camera body in the Color / Color rendering is often misunderstood. Its purpose is to provide possibility to apply a rendering of another camera than the one you used to shoot your photo.
Mike1 is correct, if you select a color rendering with your camera in the label it won’t apply anything. It’s meant to be able to harmonize a set of photos taken with different cameras.
Regards,
Marie
This is a very interesting answer really from one of the DXO staff members Marie.
Some years ago when my Sony A7 IV was new we in Sweden got it much earlier than they did for example in the US, and that caused a real problem for me since it took DXO no less than six month to fix us a camera profile for A7 IV. Ad we often do some of us we solved it while waiting by rename the model code in the files with a HEX-editor.
It is and was completely impossible for me to understand why it is/was possible and perfectly fine to select another profile when using a proper A7 III (yes I can change to a profile for a Z7 even if I want) but was not allowed to open an A7 IV and then select for exemple the A7 III-profile instead. In the latter case all users with new cameras are locked out because we try to open a file that is not yet supported of Photolab. Can anyone like @Marie try to explain this for me?? Some people have tried to convert to DNG too but even DNG is not allowed for unsupported file types.
Personally, I think this just has to be a deal breaker for professionals to use Photolab professionally. This is really to expose DXO for a totally unnecessary self-harming. DXO has a lot going for it with Photolab, but this is not, sorry to say, one of the more useful features of the product but get me right.
… but get me right, I´m not against using your camera profiles but I just can´t accept that this profiles logic is locking users out from the possibility to use a product they have payed the license fee to use.
… cause your cam was not recognized at the time and that has nothing to do with what @Marie has explained:
“It’s meant to be able to harmonize a set of photos taken with different cameras.”
Thank you John. This helps a lot and is the answer I was hoping for.
1 Like
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
14
Do you think this is difficult to understand Wolfgang? I´m asking because you don´t seem to have understodd this poblem at all. DXO Marie is definitely right person to listen to this and bring it to their developers!
There is no reason at all to keep that artificial barr that makes it impossible to use Photolab with the files from any new camera. If a photographer should temporarily use Photolab with a common default profile just to get in or use any other profile (like every photographer already can as long as they have files that “opens the pearly gates” of Photolab). This ought to be a choise to make by the photographer and NOT DXO. This applies for all types of new system camras and not just Sony. As I remember these problem cases are a never ending story here at DXO Forums and it is repeated every time there is a major release of any important new camera.
In my and many Swedish users case (we got A7 IV long before it was released in the US and of some strange reason it was the same when I bought my NEX 7) and many others that early bougt the Sony A7 IV we had to wait 6 months before we could use Photolab properly (without tweaking the files with a HEX-editor).
Both Lightroom and Capture One fixed profiles in about a month if we want to have some sort of perspective here.
I think this is a totally unnessessary problem that could be very easy abolished and failing to do so will just convince professional users to go somewhere else because it is absolutely unacceptable that professional photographers that have paid for a converter they can´t use to do their job. It is the manufacturer´s responsibility to fix so that will be possible.
If there is a new camera it seems to be very important that just that specific file type (read file with a supported model code) has a profile that matches that file but when using any other older camera it doesn´t seem all that important at all that this older models files are opened using profiles made for just that type of camera since it then is open for using any other profile in the list.
So with my A7 IV i could not even get in but with my older A7 III-files I got in and were able to select any Canon, Fuji or Nikon-profile to my liking. What is the logics behind that??
Making a “camera profile” may be relatively easy compared to decoding the raw image and getting lens and other metadata from camera MakerNotes. If you know C/C++, take a look at libraw sources of unpack() function to get better understanding of what mess it can be – “bugs” in file formats, encryption, unknown tags and their values, all those nasty devils in the details. Adobe is big, so probably it can get relevant information directly from camera makers and can pay royalties for using some specific libraries. Maybe the same is with CaptureOne. Others have to rely on reverse-engineering (currently mostly adapted libraw library, sometimes under special support, I think). Funny, isn’t it? For some cameras it may be easy (no big difference from previous versions), but sometimes it may be a nightmare. Calling it “very easy” is certainly wrong. If you knew what’s behind the doors, you would surely respect it.
EDIT: For “camera/lens profiles” software makers use various procedures, which are different in terms of amount of work required.
I understood you very well, but you are putting things in the wrong context.
It is and was completely impossible for me to understand why it is/was possible and perfectly fine to select another profile when using a proper A7 III (yes I can change to a profile for a Z7 even if I want) but was not allowed to open an A7 IV and then select for exemple the A7 III-profile instead.
PL’s ability to open a raw file from a (known) camera and then simulate the color rendering of another (known) model, which @Marie explained “… to harmonize a set of photos taken with different cameras”, has nothing to do with (not) detecting a “new” camera model [at the time your Sony A7 IV] … which you faked to be a (known) Sony A7 III, so that it then worked.
Deciding when to integrate “new” cameras (and lens profiles) is part of DxO’s business model and we as customers have the choice to accept & wait or abandon DxO & use another software.
The question is whether this is user-friendly (enough) … satisfy existing users and be attractive to new ones, to stay in business.
2 Likes
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
17
Yes it has and me faking a A7 III is just to “get in”. My point is that it is competely ununderstandable that they just don´t let any picture in. It ought to be up to the usr to decide wether the use a profile of a previous model or actually any model - even other manufacturers profiles. Even DXO is presenting this as a feature, have you missed That Wolfgang.
There are no reasons at all to barr user from using there Photolab, despite there are no profiles for a certain camera. That is what this is all about. I also have some old pictures where Photolab have no support for the lenses they were taken with. Still I am trusted to handle these pictures. Personally I think it is a far more serious problem lacking lens profiles than a camera profile Wolfgang, because that prevents you from using “Les Correction” and leaves you with the far inferior old “Unsharp mask”.
I have posted a few old picturs in another tread taken with a camera that has a profile but with a lens that has not. Version 8 still handled that surprisingly beautifully:
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
18
Wlodek, I would have no problem using even Canons profiles. It is no problem because these profiles are just giving me a starting poiny nothing else. If they just would let me in I would as always adapt to the circumstanses my display’s Display P3 profile is defining. Om the contrary, the the lak of a lens profile is a bigger problem for me.
What DXO is doing is just to try to get in par with what Sony already has done when writing their proprietary metadata to EXIF that later down in the workflow is used by Sonys own proprietary RAW-converter. That process could have been standardise by the industry but nobody so far seems to have had an interest of that. That is why DXO is maintaining tens of thousands of camera/lens combos which seems to take most of their resources so there isn´t very much lefyt of their R&D. Over that there is only for us users to complain