Vintage lens profiles...

[Kell]

Not really sure where best to put this, but as it's PP-related, I thought here.

I've expanded my Minolta manual lens collection a fair bit over the recent year. And am using them on both film and digital cameras.

To that end, while I've tried to set up profiles for each lens, I'm still not convinced I've been entirely successful and wondered if a resource of profiles exists anywhere of older/vintage/non-electronic lenses?

Most of my profiles are concerned with contrast and CA, but it would be good to import some that have barrel distortion profiles as I cannot seem to master it.

I'm happy to keep plugging away as and when I need to, but it would speed up the process somewhat.

Any pointers gratefully received.

Ta.

 

[Stephen L]

I would imagine, though not certain, that IF such profiles were available, they would pertain to either the camera make the lens was intended, or at least the format (35mm, half-frame, medium format, etc.). I've certainly not heard of such a resource. I suspect the best way forward is to continue the work you have already started. Maybe then you could start a library of such profiles?

 

[woof woof]

There are quite a lot in Photoshop. If you have photoshop.



I often use my own but there are lots available and if there isn't the exact one often something else does a pretty good job.

 

[Stephen L]

I stand corrected

 

[BillN_33]

there are also quite a few in LR ........."Enable Profile Corrections" - and they do make a difference............

(if LR dose not recognise the lens automatically, if you "enable" this so that you have a record)

 

[Musicman]

there are also quite a few in LR ........."Enable Lens Corrections" - and they do make a difference............

I think they are the same since both PS and LR use the same Camera RAW engine

There are profiles for a few Canon FD lenses (smaller than the MD list IIRC) and even fewer for Contax C/Y

 

[Kell]

There are quite a lot in Photoshop. If you have photoshop.

I often use my own but there are lots available and if there isn't the exact one often something else does a pretty good job.

I'll have to check that out. Thanks. I didn't realise there was a way of searching for them as...

there are also quite a few in LR ........."Enable Profile Corrections" - and they do make a difference............

(if LR dose not recognise the lens automatically, if you "enable" this so that you have a record)

...I didn't think LR (or PS for that matter) could recognise manual lenses with no electronic connection to the camera.

 

[Musicman]

...I didn't think LR (or PS for that matter) could recognise manual lenses with no electronic connection to the camera.

It doesn’t, but you can pick them manually

 

[Kell]

Thanks all.

I think of the available profiles there's three that match three of my (11) lenses, so they'll be useful.

As you say, some of the others match focal lengths, so I can try them as a starting point.

My most used lens (35-70/3.5) unfortunately isn't there, but that's one I've created my own for.

Maybe then you could start a library of such profiles?

I would love to, but my main issue (an there are a few) is that I don't know how to correct barrel distortion effectively once and for all. By which I mean, I might correct it one photo, but then attach it to a profile and then it does something different in another pic.

Not to worry.

 

[BillN_33]

Thanks all.

I think of the available profiles there's three that match three of my (11) lenses, so they'll be useful.

As you say, some of the others match focal lengths, so I can try them as a starting point.

My most used lens (35-70/3.5) unfortunately isn't there, but that's one I've created my own for.




I would love to, but my main issue (an there are a few) is that I don't know how to correct barrel distortion effectively once and for all. By which I mean, I might correct it one photo, but then attach it to a profile and then it does something different in another pic.

Not to worry.

I've never really understand how Presets can be consistent as surely, (and as you indicate?), the results can be different image by image ...... or am I not understanding what they are supposed to do - I can see that Lens Profiles work OK as they apply a "correction" to the image ......... but who knows if these are in fact correct?

 

[Musicman]

I would love to, but my main issue (an there are a few) is that I don't know how to correct barrel distortion effectively once and for all. By which I mean, I might correct it one photo, but then attach it to a profile and then it does something different in another pic.

Not to worry.

With legacy prime lenses, it’s fairly straightforward to apply one correction for the measured distortion of the lens - it’s never going to change very much. Perhaps, maybe, there could be some variation with focal distance and aperture, but IME profiles are pretty good with a variety of settings. I have profiled some of my prime lenses and get consistent results. Vignetting does vary with aperture even with primes, but it’s straightforward to judge and correct for by eye.

However, things get more difficult across the board with zoom lenses, as you don’t have access to focal length data from the electronics. Focal length often (usually?!) has a significant effect on the distortion characteristics of a zoom lens - it may transition from barrel distortion at the wide end to pincushion distortion at the long end, vice versa, or something more complex. Finding just one canned profile that is accurate will be a challenge, to say the least.

If you are building your own profiles of your legacy zooms, profile them at multiple focal lengths, and take careful notes while shooting, I suppose it could be possible to make profiling work, but TBH I have better things to do with my time. I own and use very few legacy zooms, and I use a Contax C/Y 35-70mm f/3.4 partly because it is a well corrected design.

 

[Musicman]

I've never really understand how Presets can be consistent as surely, (and as you indicate?), the results can be different image by image ...... or am I not understanding what they are supposed to do - I can see that Lens Profiles work OK as they apply a "correction" to the image ......... but who knows if these are in fact correct?

I take a lot of photos of buildings, sometimes literally just a brick wall.

You spot quickly when lines are not straight. If the corrections are incorrect and you look well, it will be apparent.

 

[Kell]

With legacy prime lenses, it’s fairly straightforward to apply one correction for the measured distortion of the lens - it’s never going to change very much. Perhaps, maybe, there could be some variation with focal distance and aperture, but IME profiles are pretty good with a variety of settings. I have profiled some of my prime lenses and get consistent results. Vignetting does vary with aperture even with primes, but it’s straightforward to judge and correct for by eye.

However, things get more difficult across the board with zoom lenses, as you don’t have access to focal length data from the electronics. Focal length often (usually?!) has a significant effect on the distortion characteristics of a zoom lens - it may transition from barrel distortion at the wide end to pincushion distortion at the long end, vice versa, or something more complex. Finding just one canned profile that is accurate will be a challenge, to say the least.

If you are building your own profiles of your legacy zooms, profile them at multiple focal lengths, and take careful notes while shooting, I suppose it could be possible to make profiling work, but TBH I have better things to do with my time. I own and use very few legacy zooms, and I use a Contax C/Y 35-70mm f/3.4 partly because it is a well corrected design.

Thanks for that. I think my most used lens is a zoom. And while it’s widely regarded as one of the best ever made, it’s exactly as you describe. Different levels of distortion at different zoom lengths.

Not so much to be really problematic, in fact it’s probably only a handful of cases where it needs additional work.

I’m terrible at remembering what I shot and when, so I take you point about notes.

Except it doesn’t suit my scatterbrained approach.

 

[Kell]

I've never really understand how Presets can be consistent as surely, (and as you indicate?), the results can be different image by image ...... or am I not understanding what they are supposed to do - I can see that Lens Profiles work OK as they apply a "correction" to the image ......... but who knows if these are in fact correct?

I think (and it seems to be confirmed above) that it’s a lot more effective with primes than zooms.

On my AF lenses, I use the downloaded profile as a starting point as it will have already corrected any known issues with the lens. I then apply my own preferences over the top.

I tend to gravitate towards the heavy end of contrast for example - so apply that then save them as my own profiles.

I have also used different lenses in the same situation and had quite dramatically different shots out the box. So had to set up slightly different levels to get each lens shots to look good to me.

The other thing to bear in mind is that they can be used to do all sorts of things, not just correct/adjust exposure. If you pride yourself on getting most of that right in camera for example, you can still have lens profiles that just correct the distortion, chromatic aberration, reduce noise etc but leave all exposure levels as is.

In almost every instance though, I use it as a starting point. Like you say, if you just apply the same settings to every pic, it doesn’t really work.

 

[leonardo]

Not really sure where best to put this, but as it's PP-related, I thought here.

I've expanded my Minolta manual lens collection a fair bit over the recent year. And am using them on both film and digital cameras.

To that end, while I've tried to set up profiles for each lens, I'm still not convinced I've been entirely successful and wondered if a resource of profiles exists anywhere of older/vintage/non-electronic lenses?

Most of my profiles are concerned with contrast and CA, but it would be good to import some that have barrel distortion profiles as I cannot seem to master it.

I'm happy to keep plugging away as and when I need to, but it would speed up the process somewhat.

Any pointers gratefully received.

Ta.

Creating an accurate profile is not an easy task and many software are not allowing custom profiles. Contrast and CA are the most difficult aspects to compensate, not always possible. To correct Barrel distortion a quick trick is to take a picture of grid (using the same lens settings) and manually fine tune parameters until the distortion is gone.

 

[woof woof]

Creating an accurate profile is not an easy task and many software are not allowing custom profiles. Contrast and CA are the most difficult aspects to compensate, not always possible. To correct Barrel distortion a quick trick is to take a picture of grid (using the same lens settings) and manually fine tune parameters until the distortion is gone.

I'm by no means an expert and as I mentioned in another thread I'm a bit of a technophobe but I do have to say that with primes even I find creating a preset pretty straight forward although I suppose this is software dependant. I use PS2024 which uses, afaik, camera raw and presets are possible with this software.

When creating a new preset I have a few basic things saved in a sort of standard preset and I usually apply that and then tailor the settings to the lens in question and when complete I save it as the lens name. Couldn't really be simpler. With some primes the aperture and the distance you focus at may well give different results but there's no reason why you couldn't have multiple presets to cover problematic settings such as wide aperture at "x" distance and tailor the preset to take care of any special needs such as additional vignetting correction, or whatever is needed. You could do the same for zooms.

Yes it's a faff but a faff that in the best scenario only has to be worked through once and then you've got your preset to apply whenever needed and as many times as you like.

Another thing you could do is embrace the "character" of the lens and leave things uncorrected, or maybe just correct or just partially correct the very worst excesses.

 

[leonardo]

While presets and profiles are often conflated, they serve distinct purposes.

Profiles primarily address color accuracy, lens distortions, and vignetting. They are generated using specialized software (ex. Adobe Lens Profile Creator) to analyze images of calibration targets. Presets, on the other hand, apply adjustments after profile correction and offer a wider range of creative options, though some effects may overlap.

Personally, I often opt for an uncorrected look to embrace the unique character of each lens and achieve a vintage aesthetic.

 

[woof woof]

While presets and profiles are often conflated, they serve distinct purposes.

Profiles primarily address color accuracy, lens distortions, and vignetting. They are generated using specialized software (ex. Adobe Lens Profile Creator) to analyze images of calibration targets. Presets, on the other hand, apply adjustments after profile correction and offer a wider range of creative options, though some effects may overlap.

Personally, I often opt for an uncorrected look to embrace the unique character of each lens and achieve a vintage aesthetic.

I think you are playing with words a little here. The adjustments you specifically detail as being part of a profile are entirely possible using the software I specified and I can and do include them in what I termed "presets." I can't speak for other software but surely other software past the most basic will allow such alterations to be saved and applied to either individual pictures or batches.

 

[leonardo]

To illustrate the difference, consider vignetting.
A preset typically employs a single parameter, akin to a slider, to control the overall effect. In contrast, a profile utilizes multiple parameters (generally seven) for precise adjustments to the vignetting center and falloff curve. While the distinction might seem minor, accurately replicating a profile's effect using only presets can be challenging.