FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Adobe Lens Profiles

Page  <1 567
Author
Micholand View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Knowledgebase Contributor

Joined: 30 October 2005
Country: Germany
Location: MUC
Status: Offline
Posts: 13288
Post Options Post Options   Quote Micholand Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2013 at 13:20
/Michael

Posting images&links FAQs | DWEs don't grow on trees
 



Back to Top
snerkler View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 15 August 2013
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Derbyshire
Status: Offline
Posts: 1
Post Options Post Options   Quote snerkler Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 August 2013 at 19:16
Hi,

Newbie photographer and LR user. Does anyone know if there's a lightroom lens profile for the Sony DT 55-300mm f4.5-5.6 SAM lens? I've not seen it on here, and there isn't one on the adobe lens profile downloader.

I've downloaded one for the Sony 16-50mm f2.8 SSM lens from the adobe downloader, and whilst it's very close it's not an exact for compared to the in camera corrections on the equivalent jpg files. Is the one on the LR downloader superior, not as good, or just different?

Cheers.
Back to Top
romke View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Knowledge Base Contributor

Joined: 03 September 2009
Country: Netherlands
Location: Putte
Status: Offline
Posts: 3138
Post Options Post Options   Quote romke Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 March 2014 at 07:45
Has anyone looked into the "quality" of the profiles that can be used with Adobe software as compared to the DXO generated profiles?

The Adobe profiles can be "home brewed" and are, according to Adobe, then more or less "exact" for a specific lens focused at a specific distance with a specific aperture.

DXO claims to base the correction on a specific lens/body combination, the focusing distance and the aperture selected - the correction that is automatically chosen in a particular situation then more or less is taken from a lookup table for that specific body/lens combination with the exif data (lens/body/focusing distance/aperture) as the input parameters. In those cases that the EXIF info is insufficient to supply focusing data, the user may choose from a few focusing ranges - which so far i have not seen to make a lot of difference.

DXO also limits the use of corrections to the combination it was designed for, whereas Adobe lets you use a correction made for a articular Canon lens for a Sony lens with quite a different design or focal length.

In a lot of situations the DXO solution thus should be far more precise. Adobe also is aware of the limitations of their approach by stating that a certain correction is optimal for a specific setting (lens/distance/aperture).

My question is: is there really a difference in precision and if so, is it clearly visible in practice when printing.

I have been using DXO for about 5 years and have been using lens corrections from the very first digital shot that I made (with the a900/24-70CZ). That is a rather good combination to convince you that lens correction has something going for it Seeing is believing - and unless you have seen results you might never have felt the need for it.....

Recently I corrected some ARW files in Lr and also noticed quite a few improvements - both with the Adobe module for that particular lens as with others....That suggests that at least correction of pincushion or barrel distortion is not that critical. If at the same time correcting CA and vignetting is involved, things may be different though - the amount of CA and vignetting correction may well vary quite a bit more with the aperture used and do so quite differently then the correction of distortion does.

Of course there are some more differences between the DXO approach and the Adobe approach. DXO for example also uses a lens softness adjustment based on the profile that more or less applies contrast based on location in the frame.

Has anyone taken the trouble to compare shots as taken and when corrected with both DXO and Adobe and maybe PT-Lens? My personal guess is that Adobe more or less acquired a license to incorporate PT-Lens in their software.
Back to Top
mikey2000 View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
OoU co÷rdinator

Joined: 10 January 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 10980
Post Options Post Options   Quote mikey2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 March 2014 at 10:03
Romke - while I haven't got DXO to compare the quality of the porfiles to my LR5 installation, I can report that I'm generally happy with the LR5 corrections.

I frequently use the built in ones for Sigma and E mount lenses (especially the E16-50 pancake!) and use one or two home brewed profiles.    

Most of my pics don't benefit much from distortion correction but I can see that the LR5 profiles work well when I do use them. For me, 'straight enough is straight enough'. I still own PTLens but have never thought, 'hmm, I must use PTLens for this pic, LR just hasn't done the job well enough...'

What I find a bit more hit-and-miss is the vignetting correction. I often finding myself dialling back that correction (especially on my homebrewed profiles) Sometimes it ends up with too-bright corners.

Maybe this is where the distance coding comes in? That said, I always thought A mount cameras don't save this into the EXIF. E mount cameras might though.

For CA correction, LR does a top notch job of removing it, even in unprofiled lenses. I have no idea how it does it but it just works.

One other useful thing in newer versions of LR is the ability to remove colour frigingin in bokeh. One click on a offending purple/green fringe removes that from all the green/purple fringes in the whole pic. It doesn't seem to really affect the overall colour either. It's not fully automatic, you still need to click with the tool to do it.    For me, this is very important - I don't like purple/green fringes in my bokeh

Finally, I bought a discounted copy of DXO Viewpoint for using with my 12-24. It has 'volume anamorphosis'(????) correction to help remove that stretchy look at the edge of UWA photos (useful where people are in the pic). It restores natural proportions but makes straight lines go a bit bendy in places. As ever, it's a trade off. For me, a slightly bendy looking room with normal faces is preferable to stretched faces in a geometrically perfect room. Architecture photographeres might prefer the other way around.... I think this is built into DXO Optics but LR can't achieve that sort of correction.

Want to know more about
  • Jozioau? Just click!
  • Back to Top
    Bob J View Drop Down
    Admin Group
    Admin Group
    Dyxum Administrator

    Joined: 23 December 2005
    Country: United Kingdom
    Location: London
    Status: Offline
    Posts: 25004
    Post Options Post Options   Quote Bob J Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 March 2014 at 10:17
    I was very impressed with ViewPoint when I tried the demo as a stand-alone product - if I had still been using DXO Pro for RAW conversion (switched to LR5 due to cost of DXO elite version to support a99), I would have bought it straight away.. As it is I'll probably hold out until I next have a pressing need for some really capable straightening software that goes beyond what PSP x6 can do.
    Back to Top
    craig66 View Drop Down
    Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined: 03 April 2012
    Country: Australia
    Status: Offline
    Posts: 636
    Post Options Post Options   Quote craig66 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 March 2014 at 11:35
    I was under the impression that Sony cameras do not report focusing distance in EXIF data. If this is so, I can't see how DXO can take into account focusing distance in lens correction profiles.
     



    Back to Top
    romke View Drop Down
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Knowledge Base Contributor

    Joined: 03 September 2009
    Country: Netherlands
    Location: Putte
    Status: Offline
    Posts: 3138
    Post Options Post Options   Quote romke Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 March 2014 at 07:54
    @Mikey2000:

    the usefulness of a correction will depend a lot on the subject. if you have straight lines that seem bent, correction obviously can help. less so with more fluent three dimensional shapes because the distortion will be less apparent.

    vignetting distortion is i suppose very aperture influenced - the need for it will be more pronounced when using a lens wide open then at f/5.6 or higher. when you make a profile for a 1.8 lens used wide open the vignetting correction that is needed for that setting may well be far too much when using smaller apertures.

    i am not sure whether the focusing distance has a bearing on the vignetting and the correction required. as far as i know the Sony EXIF does not include the focusing distance. some other camera manufacturers do. DXO gives you the opportunity to select a particular focus range if the EXIF does not report the distance, but i have never noticed that that makes a visible difference.

    volume anamorphosis is also build in DXO. actually it is not a correction. the way faces are stretched near the sides of the frame when using wide angle lenses is the correct result - but because we did not see those faces that way ourselves, we regard is as "wrong". volume anamorphosis more or less is a distortion applied on purpose - making something look more the way our own eyes saw it because we seem to have a kind of "correction system" build into our brain.

    @Mikey2000 and @Bob J:

    DXO Viewpoint is strictly speaking not a lens correction application, in the sense that it's purpose is not to correct optical aberrations like pincushion or barrel distortion. what it does is more or less bring the possibilities of a viewcamera packed into software that can be applied in PP, resulting in images that look more "correct" to us.

    @craig66

    you are correct there as far as i know. some other camera manufacturers do report the focusing distance, at least with some of their bodies.
    Back to Top
    Aldaer View Drop Down
    Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined: 14 February 2006
    Country: Czech Republic
    Location: Prague
    Status: Offline
    Posts: 809
    Post Options Post Options   Quote Aldaer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 June 2014 at 16:52
    No JPG lens profile for Sony a77 and Sony 16-50/2.8 SSM?
    http://www.projekt52.cz

    Sony a77;Sigma 10-20/4-5.6; Sony 16-50/2.8 SSM; Minolta 100/2.8 Macro D; Sigma 100-300/4 DG; Nex-3N + 16-50 PZ
    Back to Top
    kirigiri View Drop Down
    Groupie
    Groupie

    Joined: 13 May 2009
    Country: United States
    Status: Offline
    Posts: 69
    Post Options Post Options   Quote kirigiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 September 2018 at 04:28
    From my analysis of corrections for vignetting and geometric distortion, it appears that four of the Adobe lens correction profiles provide excellent correction for the following lenses when used with my A99 M2:

    Minolta AF 17-35 f/3.5 G - Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 SP AF Aspherical Di LD [IF]

    Minolta AF 28-70mm f/2.8 G - Nikon AF-S Zoom NIKKOR 28-70mm f2.8 D IF-ED

    Minolta AF 80-200mm f/2.8 G HS APO - Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 D ED

    Tamron 14mm f/2.8 SP AF Aspherical IF - Nikon AF NIKKOR 14mm f/2.8 D ED


    Edited by kirigiri - 21 May 2019 at 23:46
    Back to Top
    Ultimo View Drop Down
    Newbie
    Newbie

    Joined: 16 April 2019
    Status: Offline
    Posts: 1
    Post Options Post Options   Quote Ultimo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2019 at 23:43
    Are FF profiles made on A800/900 or A77/99 cameras compatible to pictures made on DSLM with LE-EA adapter?
    Back to Top
    kirigiri View Drop Down
    Groupie
    Groupie

    Joined: 13 May 2009
    Country: United States
    Status: Offline
    Posts: 69
    Post Options Post Options   Quote kirigiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2019 at 23:58
    An excellent question to which I don't know the answer; however, I suspect that the lens profiles that I have recommended would be with an LA-EA adapter.

    I suggest that you use the following procedure for analyzing a lens profile: take a photo of a light-colored, tiled floor, such as the floor of a shower, so that you can easily see the pincushion effect and the vignetting for a particular lens. Then apply the lens correction profile that I have recommended for that lens and see how well it corrects for pincushion and vignetting.

    I have updated my prior post to indicate that I analyzed lens profiles using my A99 M2. The four profiles that I have recommended in that post provide excellent correction of images obtained with the A99 M2.

    Back to Top
    Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Digital Darkroom Page  <1 567

    Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



    This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.

    Monitor calibration strip

    Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

    In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

    Feel free to contact us if needed.