Re: colorsync-users digest, Vol 2 #547 - 15 msgs
Re: colorsync-users digest, Vol 2 #547 - 15 msgs
- Subject: Re: colorsync-users digest, Vol 2 #547 - 15 msgs
- From: jeffstev <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 18:30:40 -0400
RE: Of Colorful Skepticism
Michael S.Dodds wrote:
It seems to me a camera is a capture device set apart from a scanner or
"fixed" device.
Using a scanner involves using the identical light source every time.
You profile/calibrate it and it stays pretty good for awhile.
The same is true for the monitor. And, the printer for that matter...
Then, it goes to reason - that
you need to reprofile your camera for the various lighting situations
you encounter.
Because, you have introduced a variable.
Theoretically, gray balancing a digital camera to the lighting
conditions of the photo shoot should get one to the neutral state from
which the profile was made. This is exactly analagous to what film
photographers do when placing CC filters in front of the lens to correct
available light or an individual emulsion to a known balanced state,
typically daylight or 3200K lighting.The greater the difference between
the light source from which the profile was made and the new light
source, the more work the software (or filters, for film) has to do, and
more deviation is likely.
Also, very often photographers don't want to grey balance, but wish
to preserve the unique look of different conditions such as magic hour
before sunset, etc. At that point the profile should preserve the look
of the lighting compared to the measured profile under controlled
conditions.
I have seen some studio digital back profiles that do indeed funtion
well with a camera gray balance. From my own perspective working with a
Kodak DCS 660, I have yet to find software that will create a reliable
profile for my device. If anyone out there has been successful with this
chore, please let me know your methodology.
--Jeffrey Stevensen
email@hidden