Re: Digital Camera Profiling
Re: Digital Camera Profiling
- Subject: Re: Digital Camera Profiling
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:30:51 -0600
on 4/17/03 1:49 PM, Steve Upton wrote:
>
It's just that I have never really liked negatives and the way they don't fit
>
into a correctly color managed workflow. You have to resort to a "best fit"
>
scenario that bases the color fidelity of your images on that of your screen,
>
and we all know the calibration, gamut, and perceptual problems introduced
>
there!
Maybe after years of printing color negs, I have no problems there. I know
the color neg isn't going to possibly be "faithfully" reproduced due to the
nature of the capture. But I know what color and tone I want and I can get
pretty much whatever I want. I see RAW files being very similar.
>
With digital camera work it seems we have a solution that actually pulls their
>
images into a true ICC-based workflow (including custom-built profiles when
>
required). I have yet to see an example of images (including ACR) where they
>
were not improved (usually significantly) by well-built custom profiles.
I think if you're doing something like copy work of art where the color
accuracy is really critical, this might be the right place to start. With a
lot of imagery, that's not the case. I've got lots of chromes I've scanned
over the years and I hardly ever want to match the chrome but rather improve
upon it based on what I want. But then I'm scanning my own images and not
doing this for others who might want a faithful reproduction of the chrome.
Just the other day I was scanning a 4x5 chrome I shot and the white clouds
had a slight magenta cast. I neutralized the cast and improved upon the
image (IMHO) a great deal but it didn't match the chrome. But I got what I
wanted.
>
Why, after all the evangelizing we've been doing for years about the benefits
>
of custom profiles, are we now supposed to accept an solution that requires
>
tweaking for each image and is based on the fidelity of the display?
Why not? It's progress. I totally trust my display! The numbers I see in ACR
and the values I get and the appearance I see is WYSIWYG. And I don't have
to mess around with expensive hardware and software. Once I have the image
in Photoshop appearing as I like it, using the rest of the CMS, I can get
that output. So while I agree we've been promoting profiling for years,
that's no reason to keep pushing it if something better, cheaper and faster
comes along. That's not ALWAYS the case with all files/cameras and workflows
but it is the case with a good deal of them.
People have been asking for easier and less expensive CMS solutions for
years. Now we have one. I'm not about to knock it (even a 1.0 version) when
it works as well as it does as often as it does. It's not perfect (what is?)
but it's a step in the right direction.
>
In the consumer/pro-sumer space yes. In the pro space, no.
I can site several Pro's that are doing it with no worries. One alone is
able to charge $25K a day to do this and produce pretty amazing quality work
his clients are buying.
What the digital Pro needs is a better, faster way to view RAW's and edit
them. That's a HUGE issue. It still takes 5X+ or more longer to edit
digitally than it does using a good old light box! What's wrong with this
picture? Digital camera quality and color isn't a really big issue. Getting
all those files processed and edited in a shorter time than analog is a big
issue. Getting them printed in proof sheets is a big issue. This is an area
where analog photography is much more efficient. Digital is supposed to make
things faster but that's not even close to being the case as far as workflow
is concerned. I'd far rather see manufactures move past camera profiling (to
increase the quality a small percentage) and fix the big problems we now
have which is workflow.
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.