Micro 4/3 LX100 RAW Picture Profiles

Fadzai Saungweme

New Member
Dec 5, 2016
1
As you all might know, Lightroom only supports the Adobe standard color calibration profile which is extremely muted and flat. What do you guys use in your Lightroom settings to get your images to appear as they do on the camera display? I've spent all day looking for a solution, and I can't find one. The raw files are really muted and dull making them very hard to start with. Thanks in advance guys :)
 
Last edited:

porchard

Veteran
Feb 3, 2013
43
Devon, UK
Hi Fadzai, and welcome to the forum. :)

I don't have any knowledge of a specific LX100 pre-set that emulates the Jpg representation which is what will have been displayed on the camera EVF/LCD. I would advise selecting one of the supplied LR pre-sets (one which looks reasonably close to the image as it was displayed on camera) as the basis for processing, and then adjust settings from there.

BTW, just in case you weren't aware, Raw files (with no settings applied) always are muted and dull, since they consist of the 'un-processed' data.

Hope this helps, at least a little!
 

sesser

Regular
Nov 3, 2015
69
California
randy
Huelight has some camera profiles. I've been using them for some of my cameras. I find them better than the Adobe standard profile but sometimes fallback to whatever camera profiles Adobe has for a specific camera (if there is one).

Huelight Camera Profiles
 

alexw

New Member
Apr 12, 2017
1
An update for the google searchers - it looks like Adobe released a full compliment of in-camera processing profiles for the LX100 today with a Camera Raw update. I noticed as I was installing the Huelight profiles. Can anyone confirm?
 

theoldsmithy

Hall of Famer
Jan 7, 2013
124
Cheshire, England
Martin Connolly
An update for the google searchers - it looks like Adobe released a full compliment of in-camera processing profiles for the LX100 today with a Camera Raw update. I noticed as I was installing the Huelight profiles. Can anyone confirm? View attachment 124802
Yes I just updated LRCC and I can see those new profiles for LX100. They weren't there before the update.
 

SnapDawg

Rorschach Test Pilot
Apr 18, 2014
103
Canary Islands
Ken
I bought an X-Rite Color Checker passport a while ago, not exactly cheap but worth every penny IMO. It comes with a plugin for LR that allows you to create your own Camera Profiles for all your cameras and I like the results MUCH better than what I got from using Adobe's profiles.
(I almost sold my Fuji X-Trans gear some time ago but the new profiles brought new life into the system; for the first time I've been really happy with how LR5.7 renders my X-Trans files. There's no more need for any time consuming workarounds and I only use Iridient for prints larger than A3.)
 

alexw

New Member
Apr 12, 2017
1
I bought an X-Rite Color Checker passport a while ago, not exactly cheap but worth every penny IMO. It comes with a plugin for LR that allows you to create your own Camera Profiles for all your cameras and I like the results MUCH better than what I got from using Adobe's profiles.
(I almost sold my Fuji X-Trans gear some time ago but the new profiles brought new life into the system; for the first time I've been really happy with how LR5.7 renders my X-Trans files. There's no more need for any time consuming workarounds and I only use Iridient for prints larger than A3.)
1) you like the profiles you generate with the ColorChecker more than Adobe's - do you mean more than Adobe Standard? Or do you mean Adobe's calibration profiles for other cameras you've used where Adobe includes profiles for the default on-camera processing settings?
2) Could you describe your results with the ColorChecker profile? Is it flat and accurate, giving you lots to work with editing, or is it visually pleasing to you right from the start, or what?
3) Iridient? I guess that's a third-party raw processor? That you were using because you hated LR's Adobe Standard profile for your X-Trans camera(s)? Why does print size matter?

I ask (1) and (2) because I know lots of people interested in color management are interested from the standpoint of accuracy. That doesn't so much matter to me, as much as flexibility, and having a visually pleasing starting point. I don't like Adobe Standard for my LX100 (well, or 70D) on the basis not only that it's flat and boring, but also (for the LX100 profile) the colors look shifted in hue in some areas from the standard profile JPEGs from the camera. Specifically, shifted in a way that's less pleasing. I'm not sure which is correct in an absolute sense (and the LX100 JPEGs seem occasionally over saturated), but I know I like the JPEGs more for the most part.

With my 70D raws, I know that if I pick "Camera Standard" as a cal profile, that looks very faithful to the out of camera JPEG with standard settings. From there, editing an individual image, I might pick one of the other cal profiles if I think it provides a better starting point for any particular edit. But I know Adobe Standard is never that flattering a starting point, and would take much more work to get a photo to my desired endpoint.

Luckily, it looks like I've now got that with the LX100 with the new profiles they just released!
 

SnapDawg

Rorschach Test Pilot
Apr 18, 2014
103
Canary Islands
Ken
1) you like the profiles you generate with the ColorChecker more than Adobe's - do you mean more than Adobe Standard? Or do you mean Adobe's calibration profiles for other cameras you've used where Adobe
includes profiles for the default on-camera processing settings?
In case of Adobe Standard I always prefer the results (colors, tones) I get from using my X-Rite profiles. I sometimes use Adobe's on-camera simulation profiles for my Sony files (e.g. Deep, Landscape, Standard, ...) but don't care too much for their (or Fuji's) X-Trans film simulations.
2) Could you describe your results with the ColorChecker profile? Is it flat and accurate, giving you lots to work with editing, or is it visually pleasing to you right from the start, or what?
I'd say it's more accurate than 'flat', certainly more visually pleasing to me than what I get from Adobe Standard, especially when it comes to X-Trans RAWs (colors AND tonal response); even right from the start in many cases but it always depends on the individual image but these are nothing but my subjective impressions - YMMV.
3) Iridient? I guess that's a third-party raw processor? That you were using because you hated LR's Adobe Standard profile for your X-Trans camera(s)? Why does print size matter?
I don't exactly hate Adobe profiles but in case of Iridient X Transformer (for Fuji X Trans) I bought it because it has a bit of an edge over LR5.7 when it comes to rendering fine details or structures and produces less artifacts like e.g color bleeding, worms, ... than the LR sharpening algorithms for those files but to me these differences only become relevant in some larger prints, A3 and above. I just can't be bothered to waste more time than necessary on each and every RAW file but OTOH I just don't care too much for in-cam jpgs.

Iask (1) and (2) because I know lots of people interested in color management are interested from the standpoint of accuracy. That doesn't so much matter to me, as much as flexibility, and having a visually pleasing starting point. I don't like Adobe Standard for my LX100 (well, or 70D) on the basis not only that it's flat and boring, but also (for the LX100 profile) the colors look shifted in hue in some areas from the standard profile JPEGs from the camera. Specifically, shifted in a way that's less pleasing. I'm not sure which is correct in an absolute sense (and the LX100 JPEGs seem occasionally over saturated), but I know I like the JPEGs more for the most part.

With my 70D raws, I know that if I pick "Camera Standard" as a cal profile, that looks very faithful to the out of camera JPEG with standard settings. From there, editing an individual image, I might pick one of the other cal profiles if I think it provides a better starting point for any particular edit. But I know Adobe Standard is never that flattering a starting point, and would take much more work to get a photo to my desired endpoint.

Luckily, it looks like I've now got that with the LX100 with the new profiles they just released![/QUOTE]
 

Bruce McL

Regular
Dec 18, 2016
68
Yes I just updated LRCC and I can see those new profiles for LX100. They weren't there before the update.
After updating Lightroom, I see Camera Profiles for 4 Panasonic Cameras - GH5, GH4, LX100 and FZ1000. The GH5 profiles were there before, all 9 of them. The other three cameras have 6 profiles each. This is really a pleasant surprise from Panasonic and Adobe.
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom