I've seen some of Thomas Fransson's ... for Canon cameras, installed on those three users slots available! The way the picture came out in JPG is incredibly good. Color, contrast, saturation—everything is on point. But when it comes to shooting raw photos, unfortunately, the custom picture style is not applied to the CR3 or CR2 file since it's raw. I was wondering if it's somehow possible to get the PF3 file (custom ... More on dpreview.com

I created my own with the goal for it to look like a Portra film emulation. Feel free to try it out. I like to shoot it at -0.3 exposure. Shifting the White Balance to A1 can provide extra warmth. Portra May 2021 v2 anttran Canon Picture Profile.pf3 Example images shot with that colour profile (out of camera JPEGs) Bari Vecchia Santa Ponsa Paris Milan More on reddit.com

This is a general question about Canon's Picture Style files. It appears the styles can be created on the PC and set on the camera. Is there a way to create one that simply inverts the tone curve? I tried it with Picture Style Editor 1.24.0 for Windows, but the GUI appears to limit how the two... More on dpreview.com

They're not the same, but it's easy to work around. In-camera: The main difference is the mkIII uses the older .pf2 profile format, where each profile is only about 3-6kb. The mkIV uses .pf3 profiles (as does every other camera from the 5DS R or later) which tend to be around 425-440kb. So you can immediately tell how much more information and precision is involved with the newer .pf3 profiles. This is what allowed for the creation of the Fine Detail profile, which is simply the Neutral profile but with expanded saturation range since the .pf3 can handle more before blowing out detail. As a result, the colour and tone of .pf3 cameras tends to be more neutral and nuanced than with .pf2 bodies, especially with highly-saturated colours. Some people love this as it allows for far greater accuracy or more room to twist and shift colour for a particular look. Some people don't like it because the extra nuance isn't always wanted. If you're one of those people who likes skin tones to look smoothed-out and one consistent hue, for example, then the older system can prove a bit easier to work with. To work around this and make both cameras match, the easiest but also crudest solution is to open a raw file from your mkIII with Canon's Picture Style Editor (free download on the Canon site) and, without making any changes to the picture style, simply immediately re-save as a new profile. In the save box make sure the file type is set to .pf3. You can then use EOS Utility to upload this copy of the mkIII's colour profile onto the mkIV under the User setting 1-3. You'll need to make a different file for each of the colour profiles you use (i.e. one for Standard, one for Portrait, one for Landscape, etc; note you can not duplicate monochrome profiles), and the mkIV can only have three custom profiles uploaded to it at once, but whichever three you pick will be working exactly the same as they do on the mkIII except for auto WB which is not affected by colour profiles. This will give you matching colour in-camera. Don't try to do it the other way around; you can't convert .pf3 profiles to .pf2 to use on the mkIII, only .pf2 to .pf3. A second option to get colour matching in-camera is to really tweak and create custom profiles in Picture Style Editor for both the mkIII and mkIV, so instead of just converting the mkIII's to .pf3 and hoping for the best you can really get in there and compensate for the tonal differences between the two. This is a lot of work though and unless you really need in-camera .jpgs to match perfectly, I wouldn't bother. Desktop raw editing: For raw files you can use Canon's own clumsy Digital Photo Professional to use .pf2 or .pf3 files, and in that you can even apply .pf3 profiles to the mkIII's raws. This is the easiest way to make sure colour matches, but like with in-camera colour, it's a bit crude. A better way is to use a colour reference card to create calibrated profiles for both cameras (XRite's ColorChecker Passport is the most common method), which will make brand new, mid-contrast and slightly-high-saturation profiles to use in Lightroom/Capture One/etc. Then use your raw processing software's own colour tweaking controls to shift the colour to how you like it, save that as a preset, and use it for all files from both cameras. For better accuracy, tweak and save as a preset the colour shifts for one camera and then do new colour shifts for the other camera, saving that as a second preset. This takes longer and is more effort to set up than using Canon's DPP and the profile files themselves, but you'll get more uniform results and you can ensure they are absolutely identical between both cameras, since you're controlling all the adjustments yourself. Once you've created matching profiles and/or presets like this most software has a way to have those settings automatically applied to files on a per-camera basis on import. So though it's a bit of a hassle to match everything up, you usually only have to do it once and then everything is perfect for every file. All that said, 99.9% of your clients will never notice the difference between the two camera's pictures anyway. Most people couldn't tell they're mismatching even if you deliberately processed all the raws with different colour profiles. The mkIV will hold contrast better at high ISO and of course its files will have less noise and retain more tonal detail in shadows and highlights no matter what profiles you use, but unless you're showing people files at 1:1 on a large screen, they're not going to really take notice of that sort of thing. TL;DR version: There are differences. You can convert the mkIII's profiles to work on the mkIV if you want. You can equalise the raw files if you want. I bet none of your clients ever spot the difference or care anyway. More on reddit.com