|
You need this:
labs.adobe.com/technologies/lensprofile_creator/
All the documentation is in the zip file.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
At present the seem to have gone for the most used L series lenses and a variety of consumer lenses. I would have thought that the telephoto primes require the least fixing of any Canon lenses, even the consumer ones are pretty good. But there failure to include the nifty 50..Canon's "disposable" lens and one that most sensible people own and certainly needs some fixing is a great shame. Yet they have built a profile for the 24-70 mm f2.8...possibly the most used Canon lens in the business and the least in need of any fixing. Having tried all the settings on some images taken today I am buggered if I can see any difference!
On the 16-35 mm f2.8 it really does the business. I hadn't realised how crap this pretty expensive lens was until today!!! I am now able to use this lens in situations where in the past I would have had to get into all sorts of awkward positions in order to use the 24-70 ....
Originally posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
ambient troutmask (a group admin) edited this topic 24 months ago.
|
|
It works wonders for the 24-105L at the wide end. The telephoto primes do suffer from vignetting at large apertures, so automatic corrections there are welcome.
And the 100-400L is one of the most popular telezoom lenses, and it certainly isn't free from distortions.
(But Canon is no worse than any other lens manufacturer, it's very hard to beat raw physics :-) )
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Kinematic Digit thanks. I'll download that tool.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
BTW, I've done some extensive testing between LR3 and DxO Optics which I also own and it's nice to have LR3 with lens correction, but it's not as good as DxO Optics by a long shot. Geometry correction is also far more advanced on DxO Optics. LR3 tends to elongate things and makes things look like they are stretched.
Although both improve my 17-40L, only DxO Optics corrects for the softness on the edges as well as the distortion and CA of this lens.
DxO Optics also corrects for the 100-400L I have and it's minor, but it's something that did surprise me that LR3 didn't have.
For now it's not going to replace my architectural work that I do with the 17-40L and DxO Optics, but it's a nice start.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Is there a site where profiles can be downloaded?
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I totally want to download profiles. I downloaded that tool to make my own, but seems like loads of work which I will undoubtedly do incorrectly. It'd be nice to download some profiles made by more knowledgable people using that tool, or better yet by Adobe themselves.
The only lens I have with the profiles is the 18-55mm IS and it also works wonders at the wide end. I never even noticed how distorted the photos were before I used this.
I'd like it for my 50mm 1.8 II, and my 55-250mm IS, those are pretty low-end lenses so there should be some decent fixes for them, but lightroom doesn't come with those profiles =(.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Has Adobe published a list of the lenses included in LR3 Lens Correction?
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@nyer82
"I'd like it for my 50mm 1.8 II, and my 55-250mm IS"
Exactly the lenses I want profiles for, too. Don't get it, those lenses are so popular, why no profiles for them? The high end lenses propably don't even have that much distortion and only professionals have them. Hmm, maybe that's Adobe's thinking:
"Amateur photographers with cheap lenses won't buy Lightroom anyway... "
I just hope, they are not that elitist and provide profiles for the cheaper lenses, too. Let's flood the Adobe forums with requests.
Originally posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
Year Zero edited this topic 24 months ago.
|
|
It boils down to: Sigma helped Adobe do profiles on their lenses. Nikon and Canon did not. Perhaps you should flood Nikon (and Canon) with requests to participate in Adobe's program. (The same way they help with proprietary raw formats. :) )
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The least we could maybe get should be some photographers will fancy equipment like focusing rails will profile some of their older, lesser lenses for us regular folks and share them with the rest of the internet.
Is there a forum for people to do that?
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
nyer82 said: “The least we could maybe get should be some photographers will fancy equipment like focusing rails will profile some of their older, lesser lenses for us regular folks and share them with the rest of the internet.
” In a sense that's what the maker of PTLens did and still does. It does take a lot of time to do this so the motivation for people to do this seems tricky. I think perhaps a forum that lists all the lenses to profile, and for individuals to take it on is going to be the best bet. The profiler also likes a minimum of a 11x17 print out which most people don't have access too. I also believe you need to know where your entrance pupil is on your lens to do this correctly (which I didn't see part of the instructions). I have a proper panoramic set-up to do so and might try profiling my 100-400L over my summer, but we'll see. It takes so many shots to do it (have to do a minimum of 21 shots). I wonder if we should start a separate flickr group to address this?
There is an official forum on this: forums.adobe.com/community/labs/lensprofile_creator/
But so far it doesn't appear to have much but people discussing it.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The least we could maybe get should be some photographers will fancy equipment like focusing rails will profile some of their older, lesser lenses for us regular folks and share them with the rest of the internet.
The beauty of Adobe's tool is that you need no fancy equipment whatsoever. In fact the only requirements are that you can mount the chart flat (can be as small as 8 1/2"x11") and that you can provide constant illumination (doesn't have to be superhomogenous just constant between shots). Larger charts can be print out for little money using labs like costco's for almost nothing ($9 for a 20x30 nowadays!). Then shoot a minimum of 9 shots of the chart at several focal lengths for a zoom lens at a single aperture (11) in manual mode which you can do handheld without a loss of quality of the profile, it really doesn't matter. Then load those shots into the lens profile creator app and let it crank away. I've done this for a few of my unlisted lenses and the profiles work excellent. I've also submitted these profiles to Adobe, but unfortunately, the Lightroom engineers did not yet build in the feature you have access to in the lens correction filter in Photoshop CS5 where you can download the user submitted profiles for a lot of lenses from Adobe. This should be fixed in an upcoming update to Lightroom. For now, you either have to use CS5 to download profiles or profile the lenses yourself, which is easy. Adobe really did a great job on this tool to make it usable for folks without any special equipment. They really should make an online repository for LR users to download additional profiles though.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Where is the option to download profiles in PS? Haven't seen it there either.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Apparently there should be a Search Online button in the Lens Correction filter in Photoshop CS5. Haven't used it myself as I don't want to mess up my CS4 install with a CS5 trial as long as don't have the funds nor strong need to go to CS5.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
jaovandelagemaat said: “Apparently there should be a Search Online button in the Lens Correction filter in Photoshop CS5. Haven't used it myself as I don't want to mess up my CS4 install with a CS5 trial as long as don't have the funds nor strong need to go to CS5. ” That's pretty much correct. It's found under the Filter's menu command and when you do a search online, select the profile, then tell it to save it to local profile. Once you do that it will show up automatically for Lightroom.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ah, ok. Gotta check that out. I just opened my RAW files in Camera Raw and didn't see any option to download profiles in the lens correction tab there. Gotta check in the filter menu when I get home.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I don't have CS5, I just want to find the profiles for Lightroom. Is there any way? Maybe someone who has CS5 can look if there are profiles for Canon 50mm 1.8 II and also Canon 55-250mm IS. Thank You!!!!
PS. Someone actually told me you may need raw files with photos taken with those lenses, if that's the case I uploaded 2 to here.
www.sendspace.com/file/5twg19
Originally posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
nyer82 edited this topic 23 months ago.
|
|
There was mention of this subject in the Photoshop Support group about 6 weeks ago, from Dave Polaschek
Here and here in another thread
You might have noticed Dave's name on the Photoshop splash screen.
Originally posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
Harry Limey (a group admin) edited this topic 23 months ago.
|
|
|
Thanks Harry. I've read those. Hopefully they will definitely get around to profiling the 55-250mm and the 50mm 1.8 II, because those are some of the most popular lenses especially for beginners.
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
What!! The Canon 50mm 1.8 II ?
I was quite complacent up until you mentioned that!!
Maybe we could find some way of posting the profiles, if someone decides to create a few!! ATN central might be willing to offer some space!
Originally posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
Harry Limey (a group admin) edited this topic 23 months ago.
|
|
|
Yeah Mr. Nifty-Fifty is not in there, and it's the 2nd most popular lens people use to post shots on Flickr (at least according to www.flickriver.com/lenses/canon/).
Anyway, for now I've been playing with the Canon 50mm 1.4 profile and it helps out a bit..... well until we can have a proper profile. The auto-profiler thing makes SUCH a difference with my 18-55mm IS esp at the wide end.
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Question for you guys.
I now tried downloading profiles via Photoshop.
I'm using a Canon Eos 400d (Rebel XTi) and wanted a profile for the Canon 55-250 mm IS.
The only available profile to download was created in combination with a 7D. Does that make a difference or is the camera body not a factor in distortion?
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Adobe's position is: No, the body doesn't make a difference. Particularly in the case of a profile created on a full frame sensor, and used on an image from a same size or smaller sensor. In your case, I believe both cameras use the same size sensor. Lr automatically tries to choose a lens profile that fits that criterion. This can be confused because of the lack of standard intepretation of lens metadata between mfgs.
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Year Zero wrote or is the camera body not a factor in distortion?
The sensor size makes no difference from the inherent faults in a lens. The smaller the sensor the nearer to the rear element it is placed so the focused image is exactly the same. Some people seem to believe that a smaller sensor somehow uses less of the lens, this is not how optics work.. With very small sensors they can be placed almost touching the lens, as in a camera phone. The same lens could be used to produce an image that would cover a very large sensor, but it would have to be a heck of a way from the sensor (and would be very feint indeed).
My large format camera produces images on 5" x 4" film, rather larger than most sensor. It does this with lenses that are far smaller in diameter than any of the lenses I use on my dSLR. But the back of the camera is a long way from the back of the lens. I can use it with 120 fim and this focuses a lot closer (and gives me an extra couple of stops of light).
Where the sensor can start to be influenced by the lens is when a sensor starts to out resolve the lens because of the large number of pixels on the sensor. This does not create distortion but problems such as CA. A recent example was with the Canon G11 camera, which Canon resolved with sensor with less pixels on the G 12 a welcome return to sanity as the pixel count of many cameras is already so high that the lenses most users use just can't cope. Indeed at the present ever increasing pixel count it won't be long before the manufacturers have to take into account quantum unpredictability!!!!!
Originally posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
ambient troutmask (a group admin) edited this topic 23 months ago.
|
|
... "The sensor size makes no difference from the inherent faults in a lens. The smaller the sensor the nearer to the rear element it is placed so the focused image is exactly the same. "...
Huh? Given a specific lens with a set focal length, it doesn't matter what camera it is installed on ... It must be mounted at the same register distance from the sensor or film to focus correctly, regardless of how big or small the sensor might be.
Given a lens for an interchangeable lens mount camera line which offers bodies with various different sensor sizes, the size of the sensor determine the format of the camera and the field of view afforded by that lens. All the optical characteristics of the lens are the same, so any corrections set up for the lens are consistent with all formats on which it is used.
Of course, let's consider Canon who's DSLR bodies are available in three different formats. If you work out the lens correction parameters on the smallest format body, you might not fully correct the edges as well as if you did the work on the largest format body. So it would be better to do the correction parameter development on exposures made with the 5D and then applying them to photos made with the 1D III and 7D.
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well the math of it is over my head, I was just paraphrasing Eric Chan.
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
uf, It`s been a long time since we involved math in discussions)))
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Digital image rendering is all mathematics.
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Still waiting for the missing profiles, come on Adobe. =(.
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I really want a profile for the 24mm TS-E but I understand there could be issues with the shift or tilt adjustments not being correct and LR not having that information.
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
iso100 wrote I really want a profile for the 24mm TS-E but I understand there could be issues with the shift or tilt adjustments not being correct and LR not having that information.
I think the problem with a specific profile for a TSE lens would be that the distortions would vary according to the tilt(and lesser shift) functions of the lens. You would almost have to profile the image for every small shift you make. The amount of tilt or shift the lens goes through is not, at least on any of my bodies, recorded in any electronic way as it is a mechanical movement not controlled by any electronics, so there would be no metadata of how great a tilt or shift angle had been applied for LR to use when making automatic changes. No doubt this mechanical movement could be recorded by a body in the same way as the focal length on a zoom lens is, but it would require changes to the lens connections and the firmware on the camera.
Originally posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
ambient troutmask (a group admin) edited this topic 23 months ago.
|
|
|
Is there an adobe forum about this issue that I can watch? Does anyone know? I really want to download more profiles that people have maybe created.
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
nyer82 wrote Maybe someone who has CS5 can look if there are profiles for Canon 50mm 1.8 II Someone on the Adobe forums has made one available here
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm so dissapointed that adobe team didn't put my kit lens (nikon) on camera profile. I don't have a tripod to do it in adobe camera control creator...
Posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm surprised the manufacturer's don't supply them themselves.
There are loaaads of Sigma (Nikon fit) profiles, but few Nikon ones.
They seem to be covering the bases of popularity such as the 50mm 1.8, but if you have the 1.4 ....?
The profile maker is opensource so I'm surpised that Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus (and so on ...) don't do an 'official brand release' of profiles for their camera body/lens combinations and release them for the app.
Kinda makes sense?
Posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
>I'm so dissapointed that adobe team didn't put my kit lens (nikon) on camera profile. I don't have a tripod to do it in adobe camera control creator...
You do not need a tripod. It wokrs just fine handholding the camera. You just need some consistent lighting, which can be just halogen spots or simply some strobes you place on a steady footing (not on camera flash!). You just print out one of the charts, photograph it in a grid moving the camera so that the chart shows up in an overlapping 3x3 (or more) grid on the sensor for a set of focal lengths on your lens (the instructions are all in the . Convert the raws to dng and load them in the profile creator and let it do its job.
Posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
>I'm surprised the manufacturer's don't supply them themselves.
Sigma actually collaborated with Adobe and profiled their current line of lenses themselves. The camera manufacturers did not want to help out even though Adobe made it simple for the manufacturers to simply load in their known lens characteristics from other formats into the profile creator and write out Adobe profiles without having to do any new profiling. So Adobe had to do the current set of profiles themselves. This is obviously limited to a few lenses as full profiling (as opposed to the simple profile I describe above) takes a lot of time as you need to do different focal lengths, apertures, and focus distances, leading to a very large matrix of images you need to shoot.
Posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
>I'm surprised the manufacturer's don't supply them themselves.
Nikon has its own RAW developing software, Capture NX2!
Lightroom is a competitor to that, so you can understand why don't they help Adobe (and us, unfaithful customers...) with supplying profiles...
(not unlikely to the case with 3rd party lens on D300/D700 bodies: the AF fine tuning feature "somehow" cannot tell most 3rd party lens from each other. The solution would be simply checking a 2 byte long id instead of a 1 byte long, which is unique only the Nikon lens - but they won't do that favour to 3rd party lens users...)
Posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
jaovandelagemaat wrote The camera manufacturers did not want to help out
One of the reasons here may be that the manufacturers aren't keen on admitting that a lens you pay £1,500 for has so many faults! (or "characteristics" as they like to call them, a little like how British car manufacturers used to describe there heaps of instantly rusting cars as "characterful" , based on the fact that when your latest Rover broke down on the way out of the showroom you often resorted to "characterful" language).
Originally posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
ambient troutmask (a group admin) edited this topic 22 months ago.
|
|
|
Lucas Electronics, Prince of Darkness.
Sorry, OT, couldn't resist Pete's straight line.
Posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Adobe Lightroom /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Adobe Lightroom discussion threads
