@Aleph Personally what I do in respect to camera profiles is study raw output via ones that are available with camera jpg’s taken with it’s default settings less noise reduction and sharpening etc. Any editor can usually be used to open jpg’s so even the histograms can be compared.
Might seem to be a strange thing to do but camera manufacturers go to an unbelievable amount of trouble to get the best possible jpg’s out of cameras. It will account for metering and sensor characteristics.
As some one may have mentioned it can also be possible to find the icc files in the manufacturers own software. That doesn’t work out well on Nikon - you might say that they produce a fresh one for every shot the camera takes. Due to that it’s not unusual for people to use Nikon’s software for all raw development. Ufraw can be used to mimic the effect but it’s tricky to do in practice. As far as I am aware it’s the only package that offers the extra style of curve panel that is needed.
On Canon their camera profiles used to seriously limit highlights compared with what is available in raw. There is insufficient info about these days to tell if they still do. Adobe standard bought more in but the net effect has to be less contrast in highlights.
Another good source of camera profiles can be Photivo. It’s an unusual package that specialises in exotic filters to some extent and probably wont be everybody’s cup of tea. Not sure where the profiles come from but one I used on an Olympus camera some years ago was way better than any other I could find in a number of respects. Especially white balance.
John