Here is the profile
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=P8PLNIAXThere are two versions. Both have the same lookup table and tone curve table, so that color rendering is the same. Difference is in color matrices that affect whitebalancing
- v1 has one color matrix borrowed from a dng
- v2 has two color matrices that I manually corrected according to your test photos, assuming tungsten illuminant for the first photo and daylight for the second
If you select As Shot whitebalance in ACR, both profiles will return the same result. But color temperature and tint calculated and displayed in ACR will be different for these profiles. So if you use some of WB presets in ACR, result will be different.
In case illuminant in those photos was significantly different from tungsten / daylight, and you see that for most photos, when WB is set to As Shot, temperature displayed in ACR is significantly different from 5500K / tint +10, I can correct this to be closer to the real value. Unfortunately, it is not possible to calculate this information without real test target and controlled illumination, so I have to set this manually and it is aproximation, hopefully better than in existing profile
Have in mind that in ACR you have to manually set corrections of vigneting, distortion, i-contrast etc to get close to result from the camera. Also, for some photos you will have to increase contrast or saturation (like in Digic III cameras) to get similar result as from camera, as color rendition depends on the scene (it seems to be fixed only in Digic II cameras), so in case of low contrast or low saturated picture, camera will boost it to get more pleasant result. Etc ...
