Re: Coloreyes 20/20 camera profiles
Re: Coloreyes 20/20 camera profiles
- Subject: Re: Coloreyes 20/20 camera profiles
- From: Mark Buckner <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:54:41 -0600
No disrespect taken at all. I really mostly agree with your points. I just
want more than "medium quality" CM tools, and therefore are willing to pay
for them if I have to. The "bundled" CMS tools that I have run into have
been pretty weak in comparison to tools such as those provided by Profile
City/basICColor. I worry sometimes that purchasers of these products will
struggle along with these "better-than-nothing" tools, possibly without even
knowing about the superior products on the market. I am amazed at hom many
working photographers think that they are using a color managed workflow
because they ran Adobe Gamma when they installed Phohtoshop.
And we do have both the EyeOne and Spectrolino available for rental, at
least here in St. Louis. Not sure how that works software-wise, as I have
never had to rent one.
We have had several discussions with top-level folks at Nikon in an effort
to get them to just CONSIDER a means of allowing the user to "install" a
custom camera profile INSIDE the D1x/h series (via firewire connection?), so
that files coming out of the camera would already have the profile applied.
I guess this would fit what you mean by integrated CMS. They just don't get
it! I don't think it's even a question of money. It's a lack of
understanding the benefits. Hopefully they will come around, meanwhile, they
don't even recognize input profiles in their software, much less in-camera!
Finally, being mostly a hockey photographer I have been fortunate in that
all of my travel to Europe has been in the cooler months, as I am completely
and hopelessly addicted to air conditioning! You have my sympathy.
Best regards,
Mark
--
Mark Buckner
Staff Photographer
St. Louis Blues Hockey Club
St. Louis, MO USA
On 1/11/03 6:22 AM, "Edmund Ronald" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
At the risk of being disrespectful Mark, European buildings do not have
>
aircon as a rule. The result is that aircon units cost a lot of money to
>
install when they are specified, and mostly do not work when they are
>
there. No one knows how to maintain them. The strange thing is that in
>
countries like the States and Japan aircon units are universal,
>
affordable, and mostly work. The same used to be true of aircon in
>
european cars. If you have evr sweltered in 40 degree Celsius heat in the
>
summer in a train or car with no aircon on the mediterranean coast you
>
will know what I mean. As for houses, no one has it here, and I was so
>
surprised when I got to Japan and Singapore and it was universal!
>
>
As for the impossibility of bundling, The HP designjet 10PS proofer model
>
which costs about $1000 has built-in calibration hardware, and as far as I
>
know HP does not lose money on printers. The reason I don't use one is
>
that the inks are not permanent, as a proofing device it is superb.
>
Similarly, Epson is bundling CMS utility software with its semi-pro
>
scanners. Bundling is possible. Integrated CMS in devices is possible.
>
>
Last, not least, If I need a set of lights for a shoot I can rent it. I
>
have done so, for evaluation purposes, although I now own all the lights I
>
need. I actually know quite a few photographers who use a lot of rented
>
lights, although of course I live in socialist europe. I assume some red
>
or liberal US photographers have also been known to occasionnally rent
>
lights rather than buy them; Now why can't I rent CMS tools, software, a
>
spectro etc ? Why does the Eye1 Match license forbid the sale of profiles
>
? Will I need to pay Nikon royalties soon on the pictures I shoot with
>
their cameras ?I have heard that even in the capitalistic USA car rental
>
is actually legal, and perfectly honorable buisnessmen have been known to
>
rent cars rather than purchase them. Indeed car manufacturers have not
>
restricted this practice, nor attempted to charge mileage on rentals.
>
>
I agree with everything you say about the usefulness of CMS tools. The one
>
thing I disagree with is the current predatory pricing/licensing approach.
>
We will get cheap integrated (medium quality) CMS, just as we got cheap
>
integrated light-meters and motor drives in our cameras.
>
>
Edmund
>
>
>
>
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Mark Buckner wrote:
>
>
> Hi Edmund,
>
>
>
> I must respectfully disagree, to a point. If we're going to make analogies
>
> to the "bad old days", the film manufacturers were only peripherally
>
> involved in CM, in the sense that they tried as best they could to get
>
> emulsions to match from batch to batch, within the limits of the chemical
>
> and mechanical processes employed. If they were really "color managed" to
>
> the extent we expect today, I would not have had to waste so much time and
>
> money on testing film emulsions prior to important assignments.
>
>
>
> I would submit that the real CM chain back then began with the scanner that
>
> "captured" the image from our chromes. Now WE are the scanner operators and
>
> the scanners are our digicams. So, the responsibility shifts from the
>
> scanner operator to the photographer.
>
>
>
> I agree that it would be great if camera manufacturers would give us a great
>
> tool like this for "free". I'd also like free monitor profiling software
>
> with my next display, free scanner profiling software with my scanner, and
>
> most of all, free profiling software and a spectro to read targets with my
>
> next printer. Not going to happen though, and if it did, we'd all be paying
>
> for it one way or another. Nothing is really "free" with software bundles.
>
> You're paying for it whether you like it or not. Ironically, the DSLR
>
> cameras which are (relatively) less expensive, actually benefit more from a
>
> carefully crafted camera profile than the more expensive medium format
>
> camera backs. This makes the investment seem more expensive compared to the
>
> cost of the camera. We photogrpahers expect to be compensated for our hard
>
> work and creativity. I don't begrudge software developers the same.
>
>
>
> Finally, I'd like to suggest that applications like Coloreyes 20/20 (and
>
> monitor, scanner and printer profiling tools as well) are just "tools" that
>
> make for better images and higher productivity. The example I like to use
>
> when talking to fellow photographers involves a carpentry analogy: You hire
>
> a professional builder to build you a house. He COULD show up to work with
>
> just a hammer and a bag of nails, but odds are he will arrive with an air
>
> compressor and a pneumatic nail gun. Increased productivity and efficiency
>
> benefits both the client and the contractor. So it is with profile building
>
> tools. Yes, they're expensive, but if using them means that occasionally I
>
> have my work finished in time to relax in front of the fire with my dogs and
>
> my wife, as I did tonight, they're a bargain. And, I do agree that we should
>
> be able to share the profiles we create for our own devices with our
>
> clients, etc. for the sake of making everyone's life easier.
>
>
>
> Just my $.02!
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Mark
_______________________________________________
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.