Belatedly, Camera Raw
Belatedly, Camera Raw
- Subject: Belatedly, Camera Raw
- From: David Foster <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 12:31:25 -0500
I'd like to combine and add to a variety of the posts on the CameraRaw and
custom camera profile discussion:
Somehow, one of my guys got a hold of a pre-release version of the Adobe
converter. (Like a Clinton-era Marine, I didn't ask, and he didn't tell.)
We tried it, it worked wonderfully, both before release and in the final
version. We noticed the shortcomings of the plug-in in a side by side
comparison with other options (such as the Canon software) but for practical
purposes, it was an improvement and is now part of our workflow.
On CR's benefits, I agree with Andrew, who wants to do more work? But its
benefits are also subjective - as a photographer, I've never measured film
with a densitometer or any other device to judge whether or not it was
better suited for the job than another film. I did side by side tests of
film stocks that were available to me at the time, using my experience on
press and my judgment of *reproducible* color quality to assess whether or
not a change in method would be a good idea. Isn't that at least part of
what I'm being hired for? This echoes what C. David Tobie has stated (among
other things): despite numerical or scientific accuracy, sometimes the
results are not subjectively pleasing. At least on my end, I don't think
that the science behind the reproduction should ever eclipse the final
quality of the image.
But Ian Lyons also makes a valid and important point: the CameraRaw misses
some of the highlight information from the chip and it should not, in a
perfect world. (In a perfect real world? In a real perfect world?)
However, from where I stand, there is much more to be considered. For
instance, what is "correct" exposure? Just as we test, expose and process
film differently at different labs and for different film stocks, we
"expose" digital cameras differently than film for the same subject, same
location, and the same light. Do the cameras or backs read the scene
incorrectly or do we lack understanding of how the camera reads the scene
and are unsure what to do with the data?
What if -on location -I adjust the exposure to save those highlights that
would have been lost and use various software packages to rescue the
shadows, produce a pleasing and reproducible image tagged in a commercially
acceptable workspace? How different is this from compensating for a
small-market's E-6 line's processing time or adjusting filtration for film
that is otherwise beautiful but has a notorious magenta streak in the
shadows?
I'd also like to echo and augment Tom Lianza's comments. It's very
important that inkjets, CMYK presses, monitors and proofers accurately
represent my file *after* I've already messed the colors up. (Given that
I've messed those colors up in a reproducible gamut.) Yes, there are times
when we have to reproduce the Cobalt Blue shirt as accurately as possible,
but it's not very often, and color input accuracy isn't as important as
gamut and predictability of the camera sensor's response to a variety of
conditions.
In general though, I think most commercial photographers are not taking
enough responsibility for the process of creating digital files for
reproduction or taking the time to learn the ways of digital capture - it's
unfortunate that something so simple as exposure is being compared to film.
I think that photographers (digital, film, commercial, fine art - add your
own modifier) should understand and be able to manage the process of
creating and distributing images because so much more is under our control.
(Although those thoughts are better suited for other groups, I think that it
also may bear on the those in color management.)
Just as the beauty of the discussions here stem from the tension between the
theoretical and the practical, I'd like to be a voice that advocates both.
CameraRaw appears to be a good, useful and solid tool that helps us with our
workflow: its fast, stable, and offers a variety of controls. If it can be
improved with the addition of custom camera profiling, then I hope it will
be; but not everyone is better off driving a standard transmission.
I've learned a lot from reading this group's messages. Although I'm really
on the outside of the color management world, I hope my comments help a
little.
Best regards,
David
--
David Foster
David Foster Photography
840 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02127 USA
Tel: 617-464-2295
Fax: 617-464-2495
http://www.davidfosterphotography.com
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
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.