Tell us what you want exactly, then we can tell you how to set it.
RTv4_Large is the open source version of ProPhoto, which I think is copyrighted.
Well, I managed to make a profile on my own that looks similar to default Canon. I was just commenting that Canon 5dmk4 doesn’t have an embedded profile, as he was talking about that setting in his video.
Thanks for RTV4_Large tip - didn’t know that. Will check it out!
Just to clarify, there are at least 3 different uses of profile. Colour profile as in ICC profiles, RT profile as in workflow steps and sidecar, and camera profile as in calibration (actually profile is a more accurate term but I am using calibration to help clarify the term).
The order of workflow is to profile your camera, use it as an input profile, use an ICC profile as a working profile and use the normal RT workflow to get the colours and look you want. The first two steps are technical. The last one is artistic. I.e. the default Canon aesthetic is actually an artistic one. In open source raw developers, you aren’t limited to one look. E.g. you can take photos using a Canon 5dmk4 and give it the appearance of a Leica ('sup L haters).
No. Your camera is an analytical tool that (within some boundaries) captures exactly what the scene presents. Your brain interprets things vastly differently. If you want an accurate digital representation of your scene you need to profile your camera using a color chart. Anything else is a subjective look that you, me, Canon, Olympus, etc. can define arbitrarily. With enough effort it is 100% possible to simulate any ‘great skin color’ or ‘fantastic blue’. And in terms of how RawTherapee handles things: stick this effort in a preset and you’re good to go.
Edit: just in case, I know things can be a lot more nuanced than this (considering demosaicing, noise, etc.), but my point is that color and tone both have an analytical and artistic side that should be treated differently.
1 Like
Anyway, what we are describing is difficult to grasp at first. It is a bit of a paradigm shift; however, it is the proper application of the workflow. Adobe and other commercial entities hide this process from the end user.
That said, I do understand that when you are beholden to your clients you have to deliver the look. What we are saying is that it is better to get the light, science and calibration correct before applying the look. It will take much more work and getting used to, but the end result is actually better than what you would get from DPP or Camera Raw.
1 Like
This is correct. An addition: the working profile should be large (e.g. Rec2020 or ProPhoto), the output profile for web should be sRGB, and for print you ideally need a specific printer profile for your printer, or any large profile with the caveat that you need soft-proofing if you want to emulate how your print will look like. In both cases you can deviate if you’re sure about what you’re doing.
1 Like
No, I’m not comparing any numbers, nor do I care for them. Artistic and environmental things are the core points for me when I’m deciding colors and tonality. However, I was pointing out that every company had a certain “secret sauce” that put into their JPEG engines and settings. So, Olympus was known for great blues and vibrant images - out of the box (jpg), similar to what Canon did to skin hues.
Now, of course everything can be tweaked in RAW or other editors. But, the issue for me, why I started this topic, was that I was way more satisfied how Canon rendered those colors in the thumbnails than default RT. And was merely asking what was happening and if I could tweak that initially, during import.
People explained to me what RT does and how it sees the RAW and it’s all clear now.
1 Like
And anyway, thanks everyone for these immensely helpful answers. I learned a lot.
You can freely download a set of icc profiles including ProPhotoRGB from the link below:
2 Likes
A quick and dirty technique is appropriate in some situations. Set your camera to create the biggest .jpg. Choose the color space for it, sRGB or Adobe RGB. Bring the .jpg’s into your computer, open them in something like FastStone, and save them as .tif’s. Those .tif’s will stand up to a moderate amount of adjustments in RT and other processing programs.
But for precise, caring work, RT from the beginning is it. The other raw developers seem to have their own secret sauce, too. I use DxO PhotoLab for some photos. Even with the so-called neutral, no-correction preset, the image opens with a distinct “PhotoLab look.”
1 Like
Thanks! I agree, every program has a distinctive look or the way it ‘decodes’ the raw.
Try the dcp profiles from Adobe with RT…for many camera they even have one for each camera profile ie vivid, landscape portrait etc…just install the DNG converter which is free and you will have all the dcp files and also lcp for lens correction…these will be adobe’s interpretation but maybe it will better match your expectations for a match in RT vs your camera…
1 Like
It is Adobe following the manufacturer’s look (e.g. Canon’s picture profiles) as closely as possible, the quality depending on their relationship with them. Usually it is fairly close if not exact because Adobe has demanding customers 
.
1 Like
Thanks! So far I have switched to DT, but still have RT for certain recoveries and edits. 