ICM profile for Nikon Z7 ii, when and where?

Hi guys!

Any idea when to expect ICM profile for Nikon Z7 ii camera?
I like RawTherapee and always use it for Nikon D750 becuase if its ICM profile and advanced controls (microcontrast, range compression, etc). Now switching to Nikon Z7ii and wonder wether I get same quality level as for D750. Without profile (with generic one) images look quite dull.

Looking forward!
RT rules !!!

Thank you, Niko

The Z 7ii is supposed to have the same sensor as the Z 7, so the Z 7 profile should work just fine.

1 Like

Thanx. I try

cool, let me (us) know how it goes.

My experience making profiles for recent Nikon cameras is that the spectral sensitivity is almost identical camera model-to-camera model. I think they either specify the same manufacturer’s dyes on the bayer filter or the specify the desired bandpass and tell the sensor maker to deliver it. I posted some spectral plots for a few cameras here: https://glenn.pulpitrock.net/openfilmtools_ssf_plots/
take a look at the two Nikons and regard how much the same they look. Then, find the two Canon plots - they also look the same, but different from the Nikons.

I’ve interchanged profiles between my D7000 and Z 6, and the colors looked just fine.

There is already a good quality color matrix provided in RawTherapee 5.8 (development build). See here for proof. These values come from inspecting Adobe’s DCP profiles, so should generally be of high quality.

Yes, when somebody provides us with the relevant images to create a DCP profile. See How to create DCP color profiles - RawPedia
Somebody (you?) also created an issue for this on GitHub. Nikon Z7ii · Issue #6336 · Beep6581/RawTherapee · GitHub

1 Like

I have checked development build

Well, what I see is that D300, D700, D750, D800E, D810 have 1 Mb profile files, these are nice and complete

Then, D500, D850, Z50, Z6, Z7 have only 64 kb, These are not complete, some way crippled, and not so good.

Also I do not see there D780, Z7 ii, Z6 ii…

My question remain:

  1. WHEN to expect good and working and accurate color profiles for newer cameras?
  2. How to tell RT to use Z7 profile for Z7 ii camera. Is it enough to name profile “Nikon Z7 ii.dcp” for proper identification, or something else need to be done.

Btw, wishing there will be real and accurate profiles similar to ones made for D750 and D300.

Not me. I am not familiar to GitHub and do not know how this resource and community works. It would be really nice if RT has own forum accessible from RT home page. Otherwise it is really difficult to find any relevant and up tp date information. Even help file seem to be written decade ago and does not correspond to any recent version. Many options in the software have absolutely no clue on what they do.

I understand math. I have even read scientific articles behind some filters but the names of parameters in articles and in software are different and have not explained anywhere.

Just a though.

Should I remove official 5.8 and install dev build 5.8 or I can just take profile for Z7 rename it to, probably “Nikon Z 7_2.dcp” and put into dcpprofiles folder of my existing RT installation.

I ask because no two RT installation survive under same system

This is the only I can understand from what you have quoted.

{ // Quality C
“make_model” : “Nikon Z 7_2”,
“dcraw_matrix” : [13705, -6004, -1401, -5464, 13568, 2062, -940, 1706, 7618] // DNG
},

Sorry, I am not a unix Geek, I am photographer who uses windows 10 and prefer RT to Adobe Lightroom.

Please give more precise instructions.

Great work!

D750 profiles are so far the best I have seen. I do not know who built them, but color rendition is pure and so legit and natural. After looking at it, Lightroom simply sucks.

When one of these two happens:

  1. A developer (who are also users) buys a camera and profiles it - although even most of the development team actually use step 2 because Morgan wants to review all profiles
  2. When a user provides ColorChecker shots as described in How to create DCP color profiles - RawPedia and provides them in a github issue - for example, A6300 and A6500 profiles were generated by Morgan from shots I provided in Sony A6300 ColorChecker and Sony A6500 ColorChecker

Remember, all of the developers are volunteers, so no one is going to be buying a camera unless they have a desire to use it themselves. As a result, data collected by users (such as ColorChecker shots) is extremely important.

There are ways to rip profiles out of some Adobe software, although it is problematic on Linux at the moment due to some WINE compatibility issues. The RT team can’t redistribute those profiles due to licensing issues.

1 Like

The bigger ones are likely LUT profiles …these are not always better just bigger …the smaller ones are likely matrix profiles which could be better than a crappy lut profile so you can’t tell much by the size…only the result…seems like the d750 works for you for now…

A matrix profile made from a target shot with good calibration data will render good color, as the color transforms are all along a straight line corresponding to the hue. After all the work I went through to develop LUT profiles from spectral data, I still use my matrix profiles for most work, and only dig out the LUTs when I have an extreme color challenge…

Just to corroborate that Todd is correct. The bigger profiles contain a tone curve. Whether that is what you look for is up to you.

The link is there, but at the bottom. I suppose it’s a good idea to have a link at the top as well. @paperdigits I guess that’s very easy to add? While you’re at it, I think that having the “Documentation” and “Code” links in the main menu is also worthwhile.

I know the documentation at RawPedia is sometimes a bit out of date, but not that much. Please start a new thread if you want help using/understanding a particular tool, or send me a DM.

It is perfectly possible for two installations of RawTherapee to coexist. Just download a development build and extract it to any folder you like and run rawtherapee.exe. The only thing to be aware of, is that there is no forward-compatibility. In other words: edits you make in the development version won’t show up or will look bad in the 5.8 release version. But I guess this is vastly outweighed by the benefit of having many more camera’s supported and bugs fixed (see the preliminary release notes of version 5.9).

Yeah. That can be done.