DCP profiles generated by DxO as of now are not intended to be reproduction profiles, so as the tools allow is indeed a good FINE print (as what DxO allows is very limited in scope), you also need to add an human operators skills and knowledge here in terms executing a shot …
it is not that labor intensive - you can apply the same corrections to a lot raw files at once … just make sure not to overwrite that later by applying some other preset/partial preset
what are those “white” color targets ?
if you are talking about greyscale part of the target then none of those patches are truly perfect for WB setting ( vs a simple thing like a teflon tape = DIY Reliable, Cheap, Easy-to Use Universal White Balance Reference | FastRawViewer ) using a dumb WB pipette - but assumption is that DxO code is smart enough to account for how non neutral those patches are to achieve a bit better WB … granted it is all splitting hairs here … try to test yourself - shoot target and custom made WB target from teflot tape side by side , both properly and equally illuminated and compare WB set manually off teflon, WB set manually off any of greyscale patchs, WB set by DxO off target when generating DCP profile - naturally use the same DCP profile … ( or read the article referenced above )
PS: you can try to buy a solid teflon piece ( square or round piece) of decent thickness from some chineese makers @ AliExpress or AliBaba (if somebody sells small qty @ baba ) … certain claims are that solid extruded teflon is not as good as “sinthered” ( = basically a very fine teflon powder pressed and baked into a solid piece w/o melting – as such reflection off its surface is “lambertian” = Spectralon - Wikipedia and then see how much such “sinthered” teflon target is sold by certain capitalist vendors ) teflon target, but naturally cheaper and might be more convenient ( $0.02 , I can’t promise quality of what they sell, but it is cheap enough to try - then compare w/ teflon tape , which is also not “sinthered” teflon BTW )
1 Like
Yes, I meant color patches. There are a few on the Spyder Checkr Photo that are very close to each other and a variation of “white”. I assume PL7 does indeed some math to calculate a the WB, because I could not set the same WB bij probing individual color patches (although it was close).
I’m not a professional photographer, but I make many pictures of indoor artwork and need a certain degree of good color balance. I’m now experimenting to get an improvement with the DCP profiles in PL7, looking for the low hanging fruit. I always like to understand as much as possible what is “under the hood”, in particular to ensure that I use the tools in the right way. This discussion helped a lot !
The purpose of the WB checkbox is to spare the user from having to adjust WB herself.
According to color checker data published by x-rite, not all “neutral” patches are strictly neutral (r=g=b), moreover, color reference cards are real world items that can have some variation due to manufacture, use or time. All this leads to slightly different results depending on where we sample for WB.
Note that DCP profiles created by PhotoLab aren’t dual-illuminant profiles meant to correct captures taken under any light, but profiles that are meant to correct captures taken under the then present conditions.
1 Like
As the DCP profile apparently may contain data to use for WB application related calculation, its a pitty DXO is not supporting this feature (as they calculate already a WB at DCP profile creation time). Then, in the RAW white balans setting, there could be an entry: “As DCP profile”. It would have made the workflow way simpler.
you don’t understand what was written … WB ( full “auto” ) can ONLY be calculated based on the data from your raw file that you are working with in a raw converter, but the way it is calculated ( = for you to see the values like temp/tint in UI and for code to modify the image data internally ) if that raw converter uses DCP camera profile AND its code follows DNG standard is to use certain data ( CM tag(s), etc ) from DCP camera profile ( and that data does not “say” what WB for your raw file in that raw converter shall be ) … and if you are not talking about full “auto” then you decide what what WB is ( whether by directly entering values in raw converter UI or by using some pipette tool can selecting a certain area ( “auto” based on limited area within image frame )… end result never can depend on the content of DCP file alone …
I understand your wish as that your either want DxO to have full “auto” WB option (under a different name in UI) and that when this option is used with a DCP camera profile generated by DxO PL it shall force DxO PL to use exactly the same WB that was calculated once for a target shot when that DCP profile was generated -OR- going even further that DCP camera profile has instructions for a raw converter to use only a certain WB that must be somehow coded inside DCP profile… DCP profiles indeed have a tag serving to give a hint for which “illuminant” ( or pair or triplet of illuminants ) it was calculated - but it is not precise , just approx… in a recent verstions of standard Adobe provided a way to do this in a precise manner though ( through IlluminantData* tags - that can contain the spectral data for illuminant ) - but I am not aware about your software that generates such profiles OR uses them those tags AND to use such precise data is not possible w/o a device that measures spectrum of illuminatation in the first place to be encoded there… camera alone can’t ( so it is not an option for creating profiles using a target shot with camera alone )
whether or not DxO does that ( follows DNG standard ) or not I do not know know … may be they do , may be they don’t , may be they do partially
DCP profiles can be dual-illuminant profiles, in which case they store info about corrections necessary for e.g. illuminants A and D65. This means that the profile needs to state under which lighting the checkers were captured and then, the software applying the profile can interpolate/extrapolate the corrections necessary for each photo.
Baking a specific WB correction into a profile wouldn’t make much sense, because that would only give correct results under the very same lighting as when the checker was taken.
Again, the WB checkbox is for convenience.
the same is true for single illuminant DCP profile - raw converter supposed to execute proper adaptation to WB selected by a user … and generally speaking C1 (CaptureOne) with single illuminant ICC/ICM container based camera profiles is not worse than any other raw converter with dual illuminant DCP profiles 
…
Yes indeed, that’s what I was suggesting. It’s simple to understand and should not be difficult to implement. Too much automation is not my first priority. I manipulate nearly every of my pictures individually for e.g. cropping, perspective correction or color balance finetuning…
If the original WB calculated during DCP profile generation can be stored in the DCP profile, the better. If not, it can be stored in a (DXO) sidecar file of the DCP profile.
It’s perfectly fine with me that a DXO generated DCP profile is restricted to one lighting situation. I applied as test the DCP profile with the WB setting at creation time, and I was happy with the result in 90% of more than 40 processed indoor pictures (taken in different locations with different DCP profiles and WB). The WB that is calculated when a DCP profile is generated, should be an option like “as shot”, "daylight, “cloudy” … when a DCP profile is used for rendering.