X5s Raw DNG files look terrible in Lightroom

[Synonomau5]

Color me highly unimpressed with the still images I'm getting; Does anyone have a profile or some recommendations for how to deal with the raw DNG (still image) files shot on the X5s?

When I import them to Lightroom they look terrible. Getting them to look half decent feels akin to colorizing black and white photos (I'm exaggerating, but they are very washed out). I'm assuming this is a Lightroom/Adobe issue. Is there a way to start with a Panasonic GH4 profile, or some way to automate a solution?

It's not a simple matter of sliding the saturation slider, it's separate tweaks to all the color sliders, and even then I'm struggling to create decent color-correct results, as I've never had to make such a vast array of color corrections to an image from any other camera.

(FWIW my livelihood is higher end commercial and architectural photography, so my general experience and standards are on the high end).

Thanks for any pointers...

 

[Casey53]

Ideas in this thread: Flat RAW / DNG files from X5S (still photography)

 

[MedicFL1]

Cinema 5D did a YouTube post on this.
They have files available including LUTs.
Just passing this on, I have no affiliation with them.

 

[Synonomau5]

I'm still looking for the Cinema 5D post on RAW stills - everything I'm finding seems to regard video.

There are a number of helpful suggestions on the other inspire pilots post above, but there's no real solution from a critical perspective - I have to adjust hues, saturations and luminance on every color channel to try to bring the still images into any kind of production quality, and even then I'm not happy with any of it.

I feel like I have to shoot color cards from every angle before I fly and then correlate them with the angle of the individual photos... it's all a huge joke considering the thousands of dollars I just invested in this piece of so-called 'professional' equipment. Really disappointed so far... hope there's some kind of easy, automated fix at some point.

 

[Casey53]

It's not that hard to include a ColorChecker Passport DNG image and use their software to make a custom profile that will work in Photoshop's Camera RAW or within Lightroom for stills. I shoot fabrics at times and I have to include a chart even in the studio as the flash color changes with a power change or a light modifier and I've had reds got to a 'burple' color if not done. UV brighteners also give me a headache so the chart helps there too. I have 10 other profiles for sundry lenses too on the Nikon 800E that often photograph more magenta than others for some reason.

I just looked and found three for a Phantom P4 that I made under different lighting conditions such as 5000K, 5200K and 5500K for white balance that I set manually (I use a Sekonic Color Temp meter to start.). I also see I made some others for the PolarPro filters on that bird as they do have a color cast among the different ND filters as well. I might need to do one for the shade or cloudy at sometime for winter.

See page 55 here in the ColorChecker Passport ops manual: http://www.xrite.com/-/media/xrite/...s/c/o/colorcheckerpassport_user_manual_en.pdf

No easy answer as there are too many variables for just one standard. Just a part of the job I guess.

 

[Synonomau5]

It's not that hard to include a ColorChecker Passport DNG image and use their software to make a custom profile that will work in Photoshop's Camera RAW or within Lightroom for stills. I shoot fabrics at times and I have to include a chart even in the studio as the flash color changes with a power change or a light modifier and I've had reds got to a 'burple' color if not done. UV brighteners also give me a headache so the chart helps there too. I have 10 other profiles for sundry lenses too on the Nikon 800E that often photograph more magenta than others for some reason.

I just looked and found three for a Phantom P4 that I made under different lighting conditions such as 5000K, 5200K and 5500K for white balance that I set manually (I use a Sekonic Color Temp meter to start.). I also see I made some others for the PolarPro filters on that bird as they do have a color cast among the different ND filters as well. I might need to do one for the shade or cloudy at sometime for winter.

See page 55 here in the ColorChecker Passport ops manual: http://www.xrite.com/-/media/xrite/...s/c/o/colorcheckerpassport_user_manual_en.pdf

No easy answer as there are too many variables for just one standard. Just a part of the job I guess.

Thanks... I get it, but I just can't believe that's "part of the job" when shooting in daylight in 2017. Given the level of automation in every other aspect of this rig, the RAW files are just inexcusably bad. One shouldn't have to invest more money, and more clicks with every shoot just to get something close to 'reality'. Tweeking to taste is one thing, making massive complex wholesale adjustments is absurd. They need to address this with Adobe, there doesn't seem to be any other easy workaround.

 

[Casey53]

I agree it should be easier, but given the tolerances in our tech, it never will be an exact science, and why color calibration outfits like x-rite and Pantone exist.

I run 6 printers and I just had a look at my Windows>system32>spool>drivers>color folder and see I have 459 color profiles in it made for the sundry printers and all the various papers and canvases I print on. I wish there was only sRGB, Adobe RGB 1998, or Prophoto, but it's hopeless so that calibration task is part of the job. On the Canon, I can change a print head and all the profiles get tossed out as the new nozzles spray the same ink differently. ColorThink tells me I can get 350,000 colors out of one paper/printer combo, but another paper and I can get only 150,000 colors out of the same printer and ink combo. Go figger.

I've attended enough color seminars where they say that they cannot get two color monitors to even agree which sounds odd in this day and age. Even calibrating them gets close, but still not exact. I have a $3,000 Eizo and while it's good and hand-calibrated and certified from the factory over nine zones on the screen, it too has a Delta tolerance. Seems even Apple threw in the towel and their monitors are contrasty and vivid now which seems a general population movie preference and not necessarily accurate for full-spectrum color grading. A color grader I met in Hollywood at one seminar tossed out his new Apple Thunderbolt monitors and bought six $6K Eizo's due to contrast issues.

I somehow doubt if DJI wastes a lot of time on our toys as even Nikon's expensive glass changes color from lens to lens. ND filters are even worse today and I still cannot figure out why they cannot make a truly neutral color filter. Lee Filters has been pumping out the same blue ND Big Stopper for decades. Even the PolarPro ND drone filters change color over their density range and one would think they'd be consistent, but they aren't. The Breakthrough ND's may be closer to neutral, but you pay the price too. Maybe in the 24th century color accuracy will be simplified, but it seems costly and time consuming now and not all that accurate. It's a big costly headache really.

 

[Synonomau5]

I agree it should be easier, but given the tolerances in our tech, it never will be an exact science, and why color calibration outfits like x-rite and Pantone exist.

I run 6 printers and I just had a look at my Windows>system32>spool>drivers>color folder and see I have 459 color profiles in it made for the sundry printers and all the various papers and canvases I print on. I wish there was only sRGB, Adobe RGB 1998, or Prophoto, but it's hopeless so that calibration task is part of the job. On the Canon, I can change a print head and all the profiles get tossed out as the new nozzles spray the same ink differently. ColorThink tells me I can get 350,000 colors out of one paper/printer combo, but another paper and I can get only 150,000 colors out of the same printer and ink combo. Go figger.

I've attended enough color seminars where they say that they cannot get two color monitors to even agree which sounds odd in this day and age. Even calibrating them gets close, but still not exact. I have a $3,000 Eizo and while it's good and hand-calibrated and certified from the factory over nine zones on the screen, it too has a Delta tolerance. Seems even Apple threw in the towel and their monitors are contrasty and vivid now which seems a general population movie preference and not necessarily accurate for full-spectrum color grading. A color grader I met in Hollywood at one seminar tossed out his new Apple Thunderbolt monitors and bought six $6K Eizo's due to contrast issues.

I somehow doubt if DJI wastes a lot of time on our toys as even Nikon's expensive glass changes color from lens to lens. ND filters are even worse today and I still cannot figure out why they cannot make a truly neutral color filter. Lee Filters has been pumping out the same blue ND Big Stopper for decades. Even the PolarPro ND drone filters change color over their density range and one would think they'd be consistent, but they aren't. The Breakthrough ND's may be closer to neutral, but you pay the price too. Maybe in the 24th century color accuracy will be simplified, but it seems costly and time consuming now and not all that accurate. It's a big costly headache really.

You're right about all of that, but it's like they didn't even try in this case. I do high end to middle end work in a small town, for clients with a range of budgets. On a high end interior designer shoot, color matching is required, but on a lower end, low budget realtor shoot I do not offer the same services (everything at a price). Unfortunately, it's the nature of earning a living in a small (albeit wealthy) town. In the lower end case, I tweak to eye-guesstimation (close enough) which is generally available right out of the camera in RAW. In the DJI case, every shot still requires extensive tweaking in post, which is highly annoying when trying to slam out a bunch of work for a lower price.

 

[deltalimatango]

I agree it should be easier, but given the tolerances in our tech, it never will be an exact science, and why color calibration outfits like x-rite and Pantone exist.

I run 6 printers and I just had a look at my Windows>system32>spool>drivers>color folder and see I have 459 color profiles in it made for the sundry printers and all the various papers and canvases I print on. I wish there was only sRGB, Adobe RGB 1998, or Prophoto, but it's hopeless so that calibration task is part of the job. On the Canon, I can change a print head and all the profiles get tossed out as the new nozzles spray the same ink differently. ColorThink tells me I can get 350,000 colors out of one paper/printer combo, but another paper and I can get only 150,000 colors out of the same printer and ink combo. Go figger.

I've attended enough color seminars where they say that they cannot get two color monitors to even agree which sounds odd in this day and age. Even calibrating them gets close, but still not exact. I have a $3,000 Eizo and while it's good and hand-calibrated and certified from the factory over nine zones on the screen, it too has a Delta tolerance. Seems even Apple threw in the towel and their monitors are contrasty and vivid now which seems a general population movie preference and not necessarily accurate for full-spectrum color grading. A color grader I met in Hollywood at one seminar tossed out his new Apple Thunderbolt monitors and bought six $6K Eizo's due to contrast issues.

I somehow doubt if DJI wastes a lot of time on our toys as even Nikon's expensive glass changes color from lens to lens. ND filters are even worse today and I still cannot figure out why they cannot make a truly neutral color filter. Lee Filters has been pumping out the same blue ND Big Stopper for decades. Even the PolarPro ND drone filters change color over their density range and one would think they'd be consistent, but they aren't. The Breakthrough ND's may be closer to neutral, but you pay the price too. Maybe in the 24th century color accuracy will be simplified, but it seems costly and time consuming now and not all that accurate. It's a big costly headache really.

Standing and applauding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Best post ever....

 

[Profotog]

You're right about all of that, but it's like they didn't even try in this case. I do high end to middle end work in a small town, for clients with a range of budgets. On a high end interior designer shoot, color matching is required, but on a lower end, low budget realtor shoot I do not offer the same services (everything at a price). Unfortunately, it's the nature of earning a living in a small (albeit wealthy) town. In the lower end case, I tweak to eye-guesstimation (close enough) which is generally available right out of the camera in RAW. In the DJI case, every shot still requires extensive tweaking in post, which is highly annoying when trying to slam out a bunch of work for a lower price.

 

[Profotog]

Hi I apologise for only replying to this now, like you I am a professional photographer, have been for 20 years I find it impossible to get a decent result from any of the DJI models I have used Inspire 1 Phantom 4 and even the Mavic Air when shooting in raw. I normally grab a still from the 4K video which I find easier to work with.I ordered the Inspire 1 when it was first released and quickly found that the marketing images they used couldn’t have been taken with the standard camera/drone combination (which was all that was available at that time) I’m afraid that anything that DJI say has to be tested with a fair amount of scepticism! BTW I’m base in Scotland UK