Linear Profiles - Should You Be Using Them?

I WILL never forget the day, back in 2005, when my buddy, Rich Pomeroy and I returned to the farm where we were staying in Vermont during a fall color trip, and we were comparing our "take." At the time, Rich (now an accomplished wildlife shooter) was a fairly "new" photographer. I had been shooting film since the 1970's and digital since about 2000. Conventional "pro" wisdom strongly recommended recording images in the camera's native "raw" format. The idea is that it is the best way to record and store a digital image is in its "raw," unchanged or altered. Converting that "raw" image to a jpg (which virtually all cameras can and many only do) or similar format results in a permanent change, akin to "cooking" it. The vast majority of consumer cameras ("point and shoot") and phone cameras convert in the camera to jpg format (and don't even offer saving as raw as an option).

ALL THIS technology has come leaps and bounds forward and even a jpg made on one of today's cameras gives a lot more latitude than "back in the day," when digital cameras first came out. A few years ago, in the early days of this blog, I posted a detailed article on "Why You Should Shoot Raw." I remain a strong believer in that. But back then, Rich was shooting all his images in jpg format, even in his DSLR camera. The reason I say I will never forget is that raw images are generally very flat and dull looking. We compared our shots of some of the scenes and his jpegs looked pretty colorful and vibrant. I was using a body that was somewhat new to me and I was crestfallen to see that my image color and quality just didn't compare well to his. Or so I thought. Later, once I move the raw file into my Photoshop program and began to process them, not only did they compare favorably, but in some cases they were actually better. And because they were raw, I could make changes that were very different from the jpg renderings from his camera. On the other hand, he really couldn't. He was stuck with the "cooked" version the jpg file presented.

OLD NEWS. We both have been shooting raw format images for years now. And over time, the so-called "raw conversion" software just keeps getting better and better. The main point of this piece is really taking the theory of using raw images another step. It has to do with "profiles." I am going to only touch on this idea in a superficial way, because I cannot begin to explain it as well as post-processing guru, Tony Kuyper can, and the best thing I can do for you is link you to this very easy-to-read and understand article: Linear Profile Repository, on his website. I will quote his clear definition of a profile, and then strongly urge you to click on over and read his piece: "A profile1 is the set of instructions that tells Lightroom (Lr), Adobe Camera Raw (CR), or other RAW processing software how to display the data from a RAW file captured by a digital camera." Tony graciously offers his profiles free of charge on his website (it may be confusing when you visit because they are downloaded through his "pay" shopping cart and so it looks like there is a charge, but there is not). Note that they are camera - specific, so if you are shooting (or have historically shot with) different models, you will have to download a profile for each camera.

LIKE THE raw image looked to me back in Vermont in 2005, the image displayed with a linear profile looks blah on its own - quite dark, kind of grey, and flat. That is because it digitally represents the actual, "raw," linear data recorded by the camera sensor. It is up to you (or your processing engine) to create your own version of the image by making adjustments. In reality, ditigally recorded files are camera-sensor specific. Every camera model yields slightly different raw data and therefore a slightly different "curve," because every different sensor will record differently. Every manufacturer records the "raw" files recorded in the camera in their own proprietary "raw file format" (e.g., Nikon = NEF; Canon = CRW; Sony - ARW, and so on). And from what I understand those proprietary "raw files" are actually some variation of a .tif file, in order to make them visible on screen. Those "flat" images I saw in my laptop from my raw shots back in 2005? Those were Nikon NEF fies. So they had already already had a curve applied to them, to make them viewable.

BUT WAIT. There's more. 😆 Our "higher end" cameras that record "raw" images, actually apply two different curves. For those who didn't already know this, the images that show up for review on your camera's rear screen are actually jpg thumbnails produced by the camera. As we have said elsewhere, without a digital conversion through software, you cannot see the recorded data on a screen. The second "curved" image is different and is applied to the recorded data by your processing software at and after the time of conversion. This is where profiles come in. Raw conversion software (I use Adobe Camera Raw, but Light Room uses the same raw conversion "engine," and the other popular raw conversion software all has this feature) has a utility that applies a profile to your raw file. In the Adobe products, there is a drop down in the conversion engine that offers you a choice of several different profiles, and gives you the ability to upload your own profiles (like the profiles offered by Tony Kuyper). Each of these profiles is a "curve" applied to the straight-line (or "linear") data recorded by the camera sensor. And each is someone's "interpretation" of the best looking rendition of the data - or at least the starting point. The linear profile offered by Tony is his best shot at showing you the actual linear "curve" (theoretically a straight line) results on screen. This gives you the opportunity to make your own interpretation of the data, applying your own curve (profile) - more or less from "scratch." Pretty cool. It is probably worth the exercise to take a look at this part of your software, and play around with the different "looks" each profile gives you. Adobe, for example, pre-loads several, including "Adobe Standard," "Adobe Vivid," "Adobe Neutral," "Adobe Landscape," and a few others. There are also some creative ones available. In the end, though, what these are are just a suggested set of adjustments to that flat, linear profile. A starting point.

SHOULD YOU be using them? My best answer is that I don't really know. It is going to depend on many factors. I like to "play" with my raw images. I process each one individually. I have the time and enjoy the "ride." For me, the processing is as much a part as the making of the original images. But I know I am not "typical," if there is any such thing. I know many shooters who primarily enjoy making images and will want to spend minimal time processing them later. For you, though I would still highly recommend you shoot raw, if for no other reason than archival purposes, you are probably going to be more satisfied choosing one (or a couple) of the provided profiles in your software and leaving that as the default application.

IN MY own case, it has become one of the many "tools" in the digital toolbox. My buddy, Rich Ennis, pointed them out to me last fall during my visit to Vermont.  For a time, I appled the linear profile to every image. Rather than working completely from scratch, Tony suggests using the "AUTO" button on LR and ACR after applying the profile, and then making your own adjustments from there. I will let him explain (see the link above) why that may be a better approach than just using one of the other profiles offered in the software. I know Rich uses the profiles for a lot of his post-processing. And he is far advanced from me (both as a photographer and processer). But after a trial period, I found myself going back to one of Adobe's profiles: "Adobe Color", and preferring it. It just seems to come closest to the look I am seeking in most of my images. Which is why I am considering the Linear Profile a "tool in the box" at this point. Something I will use on occasion, but do not currently see enough utility to go through all the steps required.

I SUPPOSE that in the end, that is "using" them. I do suggest that if you do any degree of processing of your images, you download the profile for your camera model(s); load it into your software (it works in LR and PS - ACR; I am not sure about other processing software - but he does make an offhand reference to "other raw processing software), and try it. At the very least it will give you an eye-opening look "under the hood," so to speak. And, as Tony so generously offers these profiles as a no-charge item. What have you go to lose?