Re: ICC Profile location for PS RAW
Re: ICC Profile location for PS RAW
- Subject: Re: ICC Profile location for PS RAW
- From: bruce fraser <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 18:21:16 -0800
At 3:17 PM -0500 11/4/03, Derrick L. Brown wrote:
On 11/4/03 12:24 PM, "bruce fraser" <email@hidden> wrote:
ACR isn't just about getting pretty color, although you can certainly
use it that way. On the cameras I've used, if I set a custom white
balance, ACR defaults to that white balance and pretty much nails
those colors that are nailable.
So if Mark Buckner were to simply "white balance" then his Nikon D1x color
will simply fall into place through ACR? Are you saying that it will surely
get the colors right that are right through the camera? Sounds reasonable.
I don't know what would happen with Mark Buckner's D1x, or anyone
else's D1x. I can only tell you what happened with the cameras I've
shot, and with those, yes, that's what happens.
What about the ones that arent seen right? Is this where photographic
memory color gets used?
It's called camera metamerism, and I can't really get behind your
suggestion to cavalierly dismiss it. Yes, it happened with the
goo-on-dead-animal stuff too, but to a much lesser extent and in a
much more predictable fashion since by the time we had to deal with
it, the scene had already been rendered to tristimulus data in a
predictable way.
White balance only goes so far. What we have are metameric matches to
various color temperatures. There is no artificial light source that
produces D50. Analogies to profiling printers and displays just don't
hold water, because they deal with fixed gamuts. Cameras don't.
> If you have the luxury of being able to set a manual white balance
for every shot, you may get better results with a single custom
profile than you do from Camera Raw, in which case you should do what
works best most of the time. But that's not something I've been
fortunate enough to experience.
Very curious, I suggest that you don9t have to do it for every shot at all.
That9s why you can save custom balances (like daylight). As for calling it
a luxury, nope. Balance is important period. As for practical..........Im
sure Mike Fizer, Canon Pro, doesn9t hang from a trapeze while shooting a
Cessna at 10,000 ft.
"Daylight" comes in a near-infinite number of flavors, but at least
has a smooth continuous spectrum.
Try turning on an HMI and reading the spectrum with a suitable
spectrophotometer. Watch how the spectrum changes with temperature.
You really think the fairly primitive colorimeters we generally use
to set white balance handle that kind of phenomenon well?
And I can envisage many shooting situations where there simply isn't
time to set a white balance (I've certainly experienced plenty of
them myself, and I suspect I'm not alone). In any case, with the
types of camera supported by Camera Raw, the white balance is just a
tag in the metadata-it has zero effect on the data that gets captured
when you shoot raw. White-balancing or gray-balancing those cameras
where doing so actually changes the behavior of the camera is a whole
other deal, and it's certainly not only not a luxury, it's a
necessity. But these are two different cases, and lumping them
together may generate heat, but not much light.
Let me make the following points pellucidly clear.
1.) I don't advocate the use of Camera Raw over custom profiling. I
simply point out that Camera Raw is, for good reason, incompatible
with custom profiling. I recommend that people do what works for
them. If what works for them is a custom profile with a different raw
converter, that's what they should use. My argument is not against
custom profiles, it's about the desirability of custom profiles in
Camera Raw. However...
2.) I have had zero success with building camera profiles, despite
having taking exceptional care in doing so. I haven't used your
product, I haven't said anything nasty about your product, and in
fact, when pressed, I mention that your product is the ONLY camera
profiling tool about which I've heard anything positive. But the case
of the digital camera IS fundamentally different from that of the
printer, or the monitor, or even the scanner, because a camera
doesn't have a color gamut.
3.) I can only report my own experience. That's what I've been doing
in this thread. If someone else has a different experience, I'm not
going to argue that they didn't have that experience.
Best,
Bruce
--
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.