Re: ICC Profile location for PS RAW
Re: ICC Profile location for PS RAW
- Subject: Re: ICC Profile location for PS RAW
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:01:22 -0700
on 11/5/03 3:32 AM, Jack Bingham wrote:
>
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.
Not necessarily. ACR as you know will batch process any number of files
based on one sample file. So I don't see this as being an issue. Plus in
ACR, you can do more than just assign a profile as you would do outside of
ACR but you can greatly affect the color and tone and there ARE big
advantages to doing this in a RAW to Working Space conversion.
>
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.
Well I don't know the specifics how what camera was used in ACR (some
perform better than others with version 1.0), what the subject is and who
evaluated the final quality. Who unanimously voted? Was the sample voted on
screen or to output? I'm not questioning your results but rather wondering
what science came about to get there.
>
You know everyone is always saying cameras are not like printers or
>
scanners, but perhaps that is an error.
I'm willing to see the tests to prove this an incorrect statement but as yet
haven't. Fundamentally a camera operates differently than any of the other
devices. Profiling a scanner to produce color based on a fixed sample (a
chrome) is a lot different than what a camera is doing. And if we're talking
RAW here, what's the role of the raw converter (Do you have any specific
suggestions of what converter is working well for you are does ColorEyes not
see a fundamental difference? You are indeed profiling the converters
handling of the raw data so I suspect the converter plays a big role here).
Your point about the target illumination certainly makes sense and IF the
idea is to profile the camera in a fixed environment, then certainly this is
a critical factor. Keep in mind that there are still those in the camera
profiling business that suggest you should shoot a target at the scene and
build profiles each time (Kodak is an example). I have seen situations where
this didn't work and I've seen situations where one profile shot as you
recommend CAN be used for virtually all subsequent captures but I've yet to
see any single scenario for camera profiling work anywhere as consistently
with multiple camera systems/targets and software.
>
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
A great deal of this is user error. As you know, the DSLR manufacturers have
gone out of their way to make the use of their camera systems in an ICC
workflow pretty difficult. Cameras that provide EXIF data saying the file is
"sRGB" when it's not or providing untagged files after which the user
assigns (or doesn't assign) the correct profile. I'm not saying people are
totally happy with the color they get but the comments of really poor skin
tones and such usually end up being user error with miss-matched profiles.
Some can easily tweak the results by simply editing the simple Working Space
profile and assigning that to the file. This has worked reasonably well for
those that have asked their cameras to convert into either "sRGB" or "Adobe
RGB." There are lots of ways to skin this cat.
>
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.
No one has suggested that custom camera profiles have no role here. What we
are saying (based on years of experience with the cameras and products we've
used or those by our customers) is that ACR provides a solution for some
that is both fast, cost effective and easy. We are saying that we've seen
inconsistent results with the various targets and software solutions
available.
ACR isn't the right answer for some while custom profiles are. But that
doesn't mean that ACR should or needs to support custom profiles and that
doing so would make the product any better for its intended audience. There
are lots of camera systems that ACR doesn't support. So if you're using say
an Imacon back or a PhaseOne back you either use the canned profile or build
a custom profile. When that process works, it's a wonderful thing.
An interesting test would be to use a custom profile package to profile on
top of ACR but I suspect this might be more work than it's worth. The other
thing I wonder about (for those people shooting in a fixed colorspace rather
than RAW) is how well a simple profile editor would be to effect the Working
Space assigned to the numbers you get.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.imagingrevue.com/
_______________________________________________
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.