Re: ICC Profile location for PS RAW
Re: ICC Profile location for PS RAW
- Subject: Re: ICC Profile location for PS RAW
- From: Jack Bingham <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:32:49 +0000
"That is they liked the speed and quality of ACR vs the time
it took with ColorEyes 20/20, but they did like the better quality with
ColorEyes 20/20."
Well, I find this interesting. Certainly when you compare processing one
shot through Adobe Camera Raw with building one profile and processing one
shot using it I would agree. But the thousands of shots that follow using
that profile will certainly be faster with the profile than with Camera Raw.
We have tested this scenario over and over again at seminars. Take a file,
process it through Camera Raw without touching anything, then do the same
through Capture One using a profile and not doing anything else. 100% of the
time the judgment has been unanimous The quality is far better. Could we all
get there with Camera Raw, of course. Is it faster and will the quality be
better, I have yet to see that happen once. So from my limited experience
that makes faster and better.
"For an awful lot of photographers shooting on location or in the field with
true field cameras, you'll NEVER get them to take the time, energy and
effort to shoot a target, take a spectra reading then go back and build a
profile and apply it. Not when you've got to shoot 8 or 10 setups in a day
with different lighting and all the chaos on set."
You know everyone is always saying cameras are not like printers or
scanners, but perhaps that is an error. If we had a printer that produced
10% more ink down the left side of the target, we would have a nasty time
trying to figure out how to profile that device. And yet by the example
above it seems perfectly rational to take a target out into a scene, that is
nowhere near evenly lit and build a profile for each scene. So are the areas
of the target, that are under or over lit represented the same in the scene.
That would seem like a real long shot. Further do the colors on the underlit
side of the target only appear on the underlit side of the scene. Even more
unlikely. How about are any colors in the scene unduly influencing the
target itself by reflection? And we wonder why profiling cameras does not
work?
"Sorry but I just don't hear all the people using Canon/Nikon/Fuji etc
screaming that the color they get stinks and they need a profile."
I must be reading different forums. There is clearly no shortage of people
complaining about green skin tones, or red skin tones, or purple blues, and
often opposing color problems on the same camera model. It seems to happen
with Phase One generic profiles, and Adobe Camera Raw. Are these people all
nuts. No, they have real problems, with real variations from camera to
camera.
Finally I find it mildly amusing that every day I go to work making pictures
and somehow get away with using one profile for each camera, and so does
Mark Buckner, plus many others. Derrick Brown seems to be able to convince
clients that it works too. We all seem to be living in this glorious world
where the impossible actually works. You guys should join us here. It's
nice. Or....maybe it's just a dream.
_______________________________________________
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.