Re: Digital Camera Profiling
Re: Digital Camera Profiling
- Subject: Re: Digital Camera Profiling
- From: neil snape <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 09:59:58 +0200
on 18/04/2003 7:21, Kevin Connery wrote :
>
"Derrick L. Brown" wrote:
>
>
> Good camera profiles are based on consistent grey and/or white balance
>
> procedures being followed throughout the course of any given shoot..
>
>
> As it has been noted, digital cameras can easily see 20 to 50
>
> degrees of kelvin shift very quickly.
>
> One of the more important tools a modern digital photographer
>
> can own is a color meter.
And film doesn't? Colorimeters will give an indication of the a correlated
white balance of the source. The surround, reflections, polarization (s),
etc cannot be quantified in any given profile that's limited to grey balance
and seeing flat patches of a known substrate. That's the nature of light of
which goes beyond , far beyond the scope of colorimetry.
I knew the original poster would evoke the thread that has resulted with
it's flux of biased opinions of certain who believe so strongly that they
are blinded by the nature of digital capture and how it comes about to a
pixel image. If those people would read the others posters comments and less
assertive assumptions, more progress would be had in response to the
original question.
Thanks Tom Lianza for filling in the technical points in such an elegant,
artistic way.
Thanks also to the many posters who use and succeed to use a profiled
workflow and the kit they use.
The original poster did ask for those who succeeded in using a profiled DC
workflow, but not a debate of the viability of Adobe Camera Raw vs.
profilers. ACR brings in raw images speedily and in a method that can fetch
good pleasing color quickly, that can also be applied to the next image the
same or in batch. Profiled cameras can bring in images in a more efficient
manner, accurate color (compared to?) and a closer similarity to the
measured chart.
If profiles are working for some in out of studio conditions, great. Is that
to say the scene is reproduced as you felt then rather than a precise
colorimetric match. The ideal would be a profile in Tom's view that renders
the scene in a photographers point of view.
>
Which is a perfectly valid approach for many--if not most or even
>
all--commercial or product
>
photographers. (I'm not a commercial photographer, so I'm basing this on the
>
ones I do know
>
and how they work.) Most of the commercial photogs I know DO use their color
>
meters
>
regularly.
>
Light suppliers for film measure the temperatures regularly of the tungsten
and HMI's going out for shooting. In studio ideally one would use consistent
light sources. Reality though , each light modifier has it's own coloration.
As any meter , they are instruments aimed to help you make a decision not
imperative. In the end since a studio situation can fall into "known"
conditions profiles can be evaluated and used very successfully.
To categorize all photographers at all times using profiles sounds a bit too
enthusiastic in creating "normalized" photographers to a profiled grayness.
Neil Snape email@hidden
http://mapage.noos.fr/nsnape
_______________________________________________
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.