Jump to content
fleckintosh

Capture One Pro 9 Film Simulations incl. ACROS

Recommended Posts

Could you explain why the icc profile has a colourSpace at all please? If you're working on RAW files, I thought the resulting output colourSpace is assigned later in the rendering pipeline i.e. via soft proofing before displaying on your screen and when setting your colourSpace in the process recipe.

I thought an icc-profile assigned in the Base Characteristics tab  processes the RAW data independent from a colourSpace.

 

Thanks

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you explain why the icc profile has a colourSpace at all please? If you're working on RAW files, I thought the resulting output colourSpace is assigned later in the rendering pipeline i.e. via soft proofing before displaying on your screen and when setting your colourSpace in the process recipe.

I thought an icc-profile assigned in the Base Characteristics tab processes the RAW data independent from a colourSpace.

 

Thanks

Tom

Yes I must admit I'm confused about this as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you explain why the icc profile has a colourSpace at all please? If you’re working on RAW files, I thought the resulting output colourSpace is assigned later in the rendering pipeline i.e. via soft proofing before displaying on your screen and when setting your colourSpace in the process recipe.

I thought an icc-profile assigned in the Base Characteristics tab  processes the RAW data independent from a colourSpace.

 

Thanks

Tom

 

 

Possibly related to how you set the camera for JPEGs – the colours in JPEGs are different depending on whether you’ve got the camera set to sRGB or Adobe RGB.

 

As for the profiles, oh man they’re exactly what I’ve been looking for. I use them (primarily Acros (even though it's for XPro2) and Astia) with my XE1 and they’re just lovely. They don’t match the JPEGs *perfectly* but imo I think they’re an improvement (reds don’t go a weird pink colour any more), and of course you get all the extra control over the tone curve, sharpening etc. from using raw.

 

Really good job!

Edited by Andy F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just tested the new profiles last Weekend. They are indeed better than the older versions.

Thanks for that, this is a big step forward for C1 users using Fuji.

 

Unfortunately I have to say, that they still can't compete with the original jpeg simulations out of camera.

I did a 1:1 comparison with each jpeg simulation, and I observed shadow/highlight handling and also the colors are off in direct comparison.

Especially in a tested Astia simulation, the highlights in the face were blown in comparison, and also the greens of the grass and bushes in the Background have another tonality.

 

I also tested the included film simulations in the LR trial, and the results were much more consistent there.

I often couldn't tell the difference between the jpeg and the raw simulation in LR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fleckintosh, this is KILLER!!!.Thank you indeed VERY much for this share :)

 

I have 2 fundamental issues that have been eating my brain for years. Maybe I could get some advise to clear my mind of my stupidity..

 

1) Regarding Color Profiles themselves (tech talk) I have NEVER for the life of me understood the whole thing. Aside from changing perceptually how the images are displayed  on my monitor, I cant ever understand how they affect the final results or have anything to do with color accuracy. I have always used sRGB, always. Everything else gives me one color in Photoshop, then a different color in another app, then a different color on my display. In fact I dont even understand how these color profiles are stacked.. there is one embedded in the original photo, then the image editor might use another.. but later my computer/VGA card and display, all have their own profiles to shoot the image on my screen and they all affect each other. I finally never really know what I am looking at and that is why I found thru the years that the only thing that gives me the least mount of headaches is using good old "lame" sRGB:) And even , to this day, no matter I match all profiles, calibrate my display (and the one's of others) etc, etc, etc, when I look at ANY edited photo, on my Mac laptop, on my PC desktop, on my Android Tab, on an iPad, on my TV, on anyone else's device, EVERY SINGLE SAME IMAGE will look totally different! Colors, shades, highlights,m gradation.. its the endless frustration from hell. Should I g back and re-edit my image?..maybe I screwed-up.. naaahhhhhh. it will look again ok in one device and bad in another. And lets not EVEN talk about getting an image printed, because then its the same circus a million times worse over again messing with more display and printing profiles and trying to get ANY color, to even remotely look like its displayed on my screen. So I have literally given up on the color profiles thing or am yet to understand them at all.

 

2) Maybe even more of a stupid or basic issue, but, I really cant understand the underlying differences between (again) CaptureOne's ICC profiles and DSLR profiles, and most importantly CaptureOne's own "Styles". In one way or another, with all of these we can achieve roughly the same, which is tones and parameters variations. I just dont understand the key differences, AND I gotta say that CO's native workflow of Styles works immensely better and is radically faster than switching between ICC profiles. Is there actually a way to convert them or make equivalent settings from profiles into Styles?

 

Anyway, thanks a lot for these amazing updated profiles and me gaining some (badly needed knowledge) on my ignorance regarding these matters:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the profiles. 

I moved to CaptureOne about a year ago after figuring out I like the editing workflow and final output better than other options. 

I found your first set of profiles to be the missing key to getting the color I was looking for.  It saved me a huge amount of time.

This second round is just brilliant. 

Thank you for sharing with the community.

Sincerely,

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, huge thanks Fleckintosh!

 

I too have tried the profiles on my X-E2 and they work great!

 

But I just bought an X-T2 so I'm wondering, will they (X-Pro2 versions) work on X-T2 as well?

 

I would imagine so since the sensor is the same, but I'm not sure...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for these - really, immensely.

 

Not to sound ungrateful... Some of us now have our XT-2's and with C1's 9.3 now available, will you be adjusting these profiles to be used in conjunction with my XT-2 RAF's? 

 

Hope so. They are the only first-tier profiles I use. Essential to me. They work wonders. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fleckintosh, this is KILLER!!!.Thank you indeed VERY much for this share :)

 

I have 2 fundamental issues that have been eating my brain for years. Maybe I could get some advise to clear my mind of my stupidity..

 

1) Regarding Color Profiles themselves (tech talk) I have NEVER for the life of me understood the whole thing. Aside from changing perceptually how the images are displayed  on my monitor, I cant ever understand how they affect the final results or have anything to do with color accuracy. I have always used sRGB, always. Everything else gives me one color in Photoshop, then a different color in another app, then a different color on my display. In fact I dont even understand how these color profiles are stacked.. there is one embedded in the original photo, then the image editor might use another.. but later my computer/VGA card and display, all have their own profiles to shoot the image on my screen and they all affect each other. I finally never really know what I am looking at and that is why I found thru the years that the only thing that gives me the least mount of headaches is using good old "lame" sRGB:) And even , to this day, no matter I match all profiles, calibrate my display (and the one's of others) etc, etc, etc, when I look at ANY edited photo, on my Mac laptop, on my PC desktop, on my Android Tab, on an iPad, on my TV, on anyone else's device, EVERY SINGLE SAME IMAGE will look totally different! Colors, shades, highlights,m gradation.. its the endless frustration from hell. Should I g back and re-edit my image?..maybe I screwed-up.. naaahhhhhh. it will look again ok in one device and bad in another. And lets not EVEN talk about getting an image printed, because then its the same circus a million times worse over again messing with more display and printing profiles and trying to get ANY color, to even remotely look like its displayed on my screen. So I have literally given up on the color profiles thing or am yet to understand them at all.

 

2) Maybe even more of a stupid or basic issue, but, I really cant understand the underlying differences between (again) CaptureOne's ICC profiles and DSLR profiles, and most importantly CaptureOne's own "Styles". In one way or another, with all of these we can achieve roughly the same, which is tones and parameters variations. I just dont understand the key differences, AND I gotta say that CO's native workflow of Styles works immensely better and is radically faster than switching between ICC profiles. Is there actually a way to convert them or make equivalent settings from profiles into Styles?

 

Anyway, thanks a lot for these amazing updated profiles and me gaining some (badly needed knowledge) on my ignorance regarding these matters:)

SRGB is 8 bit (per colour channel = 24 bit all in all). The same goes for ARGB. There is a bigger spread between the bits with ARGB (the range is wider), but the resolution is not higher. This is often misunderstood because "extended range" sounds better. Here, you can read a bit about it: https://fstoppers.com/pictures/adobergb-vs-srgb-3167

 

The author says you can not go from SRGB to ARGB. If you shoot RAW, that is not an issue, as RAW is neither SRGB not ARGB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are 2 examples where you can see the differences in the Astia simulation.

Look at the differences at the face and the different green tones and shadow/highlight handling.

Couple of things:

 

I've found that you need to adjust the Highlight and Shadow sliders quite a bit in order to get the tones looking similar, depending on how you've set your Highlight and Shadow Tone in-camera. You might also want to try setting the Curve (in Base Characteristics) to Film Extra Shadow then using the Curves tool to modify contrast a bit.

 

Second, by default I don't think C1 applies Light Falloff correction, so you'll have more vignetting than you see in the JPEGs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of things:

 

I've found that you need to adjust the Highlight and Shadow sliders quite a bit in order to get the tones looking similar, depending on how you've set your Highlight and Shadow Tone in-camera. You might also want to try setting the Curve (in Base Characteristics) to Film Extra Shadow then using the Curves tool to modify contrast a bit.

 

Second, by default I don't think C1 applies Light Falloff correction, so you'll have more vignetting than you see in the JPEGs.

 

 

Thanks for your suggestions.

I thought that the C1 Simulations also adjust the interpretation of shadows and highlights by themselves?

 

By the way: I already tried to match the colors and shadows/highlights by myself, but while the harsh overexposure in the face can be adjusted, the colors of the skin, the grass and the hedge still don't match the original OOC JPEG of the simulation.

I also have other examples where I compared the Velvia Simulation, on a summer scene with the blue water of a swimming pool, colorful sunshades etc. and there the colors and the shadow/highlight handling are off too.

 

Don't get me wrong - if you don't have a direct comparison the profiles are OK, and a welcome addition to the workflow.

At least they are similar to the original OOC simulations.

 

But what really bugs me is the fact, that the included simulations in Lightroom are almost 100% perfect in comparison - in colors AND shadow/highlight handling. They just look exactly the same like the JPEG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey folks,

 

Thanks to all involved for these.

 

I am a Windows 10 user and am curious if there is a Windows equivlanet to "~/Library/ColorSync/Profiles." where I should be saving these?

 

I am currently renaming them to SonyA7RM2 at the prefix (I shoot with the A7RII) and saving them in Phase One/Capture One 9/Color Profiles/DSLR

 

If I should be doing additional or different steps, please let me know, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your suggestions.

I thought that the C1 Simulations also adjust the interpretation of shadows and highlights by themselves?

 

By the way: I already tried to match the colors and shadows/highlights by myself, but while the harsh overexposure in the face can be adjusted, the colors of the skin, the grass and the hedge still don't match the original OOC JPEG of the simulation.

I also have other examples where I compared the Velvia Simulation, on a summer scene with the blue water of a swimming pool, colorful sunshades etc. and there the colors and the shadow/highlight handling are off too.

 

Don't get me wrong - if you don't have a direct comparison the profiles are OK, and a welcome addition to the workflow.

At least they are similar to the original OOC simulations.

 

But what really bugs me is the fact, that the included simulations in Lightroom are almost 100% perfect in comparison - in colors AND shadow/highlight handling. They just look exactly the same like the JPEG.

 

 

Lightroom has very exactly Simulations, that is right. But Lightroom also has a very big downside in Details and Microcontrast, as we all know. I was never satisfied with the output of lightroom, thats why i switched to Capture One Pro!

 

I wonder, how exactly the profiles have to be. You never klick just on the profile and export your image. A lot of settings are also adjusted, so you move away from the "original" OOC look, right?

 

I use the profiles just as a starting point and adjust some parameters afterwards to my taste. So I NEVER end up with the exactly OOC look.

 

This profiles are made in reverse engineering and are not official supported by Fujifilm. As you maybe know, Fujifilm is all about wonderful colours and they will never give an exactly color profile to anyone. That is a big secret ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your suggestions.

I thought that the C1 Simulations also adjust the interpretation of shadows and highlights by themselves?

 

By the way: I already tried to match the colors and shadows/highlights by myself, but while the harsh overexposure in the face can be adjusted, the colors of the skin, the grass and the hedge still don't match the original OOC JPEG of the simulation.

I also have other examples where I compared the Velvia Simulation, on a summer scene with the blue water of a swimming pool, colorful sunshades etc. and there the colors and the shadow/highlight handling are off too.

 

Don't get me wrong - if you don't have a direct comparison the profiles are OK, and a welcome addition to the workflow.

At least they are similar to the original OOC simulations.

 

But what really bugs me is the fact, that the included simulations in Lightroom are almost 100% perfect in comparison - in colors AND shadow/highlight handling. They just look exactly the same like the JPEG.

 

If you need one-click solutions, there's a great one called Fuji OOC jpegs. Sure, you might not get the full latitude of the raw file, but gosh, you'd have things be exactly as you want them otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lightroom has very exactly Simulations, that is right. But Lightroom also has a very big downside in Details and Microcontrast, as we all know. I was never satisfied with the output of lightroom, thats why i switched to Capture One Pro!

 

I wonder, how exactly the profiles have to be. You never klick just on the profile and export your image. A lot of settings are also adjusted, so you move away from the "original" OOC look, right?

 

I use the profiles just as a starting point and adjust some parameters afterwards to my taste. So I NEVER end up with the exactly OOC look.

 

This profiles are made in reverse engineering and are not official supported by Fujifilm. As you maybe know, Fujifilm is all about wonderful colours and they will never give an exactly color profile to anyone. That is a big secret ;)

 

+1

 

I'll say that I happily use these simulations as a starting point for my raw files and work the image from there. I've no need for you to provide us with an exact replication of Fuji OOC look. These establish a fantastic baseline!

 

Another inquiry into X-T2 versions for 9.3? ;-)

 

Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There IS a "one click solution" where you get the full latitude from the RAW, while having the OOC look of the film simulations: Lightroom! But everyone knows that LR has other downsides, that's why I use C1.

 

And why is it bad that people like the OOC look of the Fuji files? Fuji is famous for that, so it seems to be good for many situations.

 

I like RAW because it gives me more room for improvements in difficult situations. But I don't want to adjust every single picture to my needs! A perfectly matching style for C1 would still be a great starting point for everyone, but it could also be the "one click solution" for the ones who like the OOC look for certain pictures. It would be the best of both worlds.

 

If you need one-click solutions, there's a great one called Fuji OOC jpegs. Sure, you might not get the full latitude of the raw file, but gosh, you'd have things be exactly as you want them otherwise.

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so there is a "one-click" (LR) with other limitations. But that's my point: we are in a world of compromises.

 

I'm making no claims about "bad" anything. I'm noting that you've posted repeatedly about how other people's excellent and utter voluntary (free for you) work falls short (for you.) Yes, I've seen you voice appreciation too but your posts tend to reach beyond observation of difference toward criticism of these free, creative efforts. It's an internet tone thing - can come across as a bit unkind.

 

 

There IS a "one click solution" where you get the full latitude from the RAW, while having the OOC look of the film simulations: Lightroom! But everyone knows that LR has other downsides, that's why I use C1.

And why is it bad that people like the OOC look of the Fuji files? Fuji is famous for that, so it seems to be good for many situations.

I like RAW because it gives me more room for improvements in difficult situations. But I don't want to adjust every single picture to my needs! A perfectly matching style for C1 would still be a great starting point for everyone, but it could also be the "one click solution" for the ones who like the OOC look for certain pictures. It would be the best of both worlds.



Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so there is a "one-click" (LR) with other limitations. But that's my point: we are in a world of compromises.

 

I'm making no claims about "bad" anything. I'm noting that you've posted repeatedly about how other people's excellent and utter voluntary (free for you) work falls short (for you.) Yes, I've seen you voice appreciation too but your posts tend to reach beyond observation of difference toward criticism of these free, creative efforts. It's an internet tone thing - can come across as a bit unkind.

 

I know that the world is full of compromises. Everyone has to decide what is more important for himself.

 

You where not directly saying "bad" regarding the SOOC JPEGS, but as you said, there is a "tone thing" in your comment, that let me think your are making indirect claims about "better".

I had no Intention to disrespect the work that is done for the Fuji profiles. Maybe it's because english is not my native language, and there are certain things that I am not able to spell in a more subtile way, as I am able in my native language.

 

I fully respect the work that is done here. But what is wrong to give some examples where the profiles could be still improved?

I mean the work was released to emulate the Fuji Film Simulations, so I think they had in mind to get a close to 100% result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot! Great work on both X-T1 and X-Pro2 profiles. Since you've already spoiled us with these two sets, any chance of an X-T2 Version too?! Or will the X-Pro2 version work fine because of the same sensor...?

 

Cheers,

Eivind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...