Re: Camera Profiling
Re: Camera Profiling
- Subject: Re: Camera Profiling
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 11:58:51 -0700
on 3/11/02 11:25 AM, Mark Buckner at email@hidden wrote:
>
I'm with Jack on this real-world vs. theoretical view.
I'm somewhat unclear what has been theoretical so far. Like you, I've been
able to create a single profile for cameras, use it in all situations and
get great results. No argument here from me. I've also seen cases where one
profile only works in one situation and multiple profiles are the only
solution.
I've also found the opposite to be true depending on what camera I get to
deal with. No matter the software or target I try, I get a profile that
produces quite unacceptable results. WHY?
>
If the technique for lighting and capturing the target file to be
>
read by the profiling software is flawed, let's blame that technique or the
>
poor instructions/documentation from the software publisher that led to that
>
outcome.
Well this may be considered theoretical but why is it I can take capture of
a target from a camera, produce a superb profile with Package A only to find
Package B produces poor results? Not the way the image was captured was it?
And why can the EXACT opposite happen where the only difference was a
different camera? That is, package B works great, package A doesn't?
>
If it's lousy non-transparent software that9s messing with
>
the data behind the scenes like PictureDesk (or the internal machinations
>
Nikon does to somehow give us what THEY SAY is Adobe98 from the D1x!!),
>
let's blame that.
I suspect that the host software is the blame most often. I know that with
some packages, it's simply not possible to produce a decent profile. It's
like trying to profile a scanner that is always changing it's behavior with
some kind of auto routine.
>
If
>
PictureDesk forces us to jump through hoops, let's condemn Kodak and the AP
>
or whomever is responsible for PictureDesk.
I'll carry a lighted torch into Rochester with you!
I've had my hands on dozens of different cameras and most of the time I can
profile them. But I run across a few that I can't no matter how I capture a
target or what software I use.
Some software products have an abundance of settings that make a huge
difference in the resulting quality of a profile (CompassCamera comes to
mind). A setting that works well for one camera produces awful results on
another.
Camera profiling when it works is wonderful and certainly necessary.
Andrew Rodney
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.