Re: ICC Profile location for PS RAW
Re: ICC Profile location for PS RAW
- Subject: Re: ICC Profile location for PS RAW
- From: Mark Buckner <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:02:54 -0600
Andrew,
I think we've now gotten to the core of the matter, at least as far as I am
concerned...
>
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.
I think where we diverge here is in defining the "intended audience". For
weekend shooters who are looking for subjectively evaluated "good" color, or
even pros who's style, client requirements, etc. allow them to handle color
subjectively, I'd say that $99 for the original ACR or the upgrade price of
Photoshop CS is a good bargain. However, most of what I heard coming from
Adobe at the NY show was aimed at full-time working photographers, many of
whom must meet exacting standards where color reproduction is concerned.
That strikes me as a very different "intended audience" which IMHO are
better served by other RAW converters that allow for implementation of
camera profiles. As you know from our exchanges elsewhere, I prefer Phase
One's DSLR software for this task, and it's support of camera profiles is
only one of a long list of reasons why.
To be clear, I did try the original ACR, and frankly was unimpressed, both
with the output and the workflow. After hearing the explanations of ACR's
blending of internal profiles, etc. so kindly provided here, it is clear
that asking Adobe to consider support for user's custom profiles is
impractical. However, I guess what I'd like to see when a question like this
comes up, especially on a list with the focus that this one has, is a
simple "ACR's architecture can't handle that, you should look at other
converters which do, such as...", rather than a diatribe on the lack of
usefulness of camera profiling in general. Meanwhile, I'll give up on hoping
for a solution that embraces camera profiles from Adobe.
While I can't begin to explain or defend this in scientific terms, in
practical application I find it completely workable to gray balance in the
field and in doing so make my single camera profile work in the wide variety
of lighting conditions with which I am regularly confronted. This was true
with my original Nikon D1/D1X cameras, and continues to hold true for the
Canon 1D and 1Ds cameras that I switched to in August. I'll gladly let the
considerable scientific intellect of this list debate WHY that is.
Meanwhile, all I know is that it works for me, and for many others to whom I
have recommended ColorEyes. As David Tobie pointed out, even I am not
expecting (nor do I want) spot (PMS) color accuracy in uniforms, patches,
etc. With shiny nylon fabrics, the ripples in the cloth, angle of lighting,
etc. color will be recorded differently, which to be expected. What I do not
want is obviously WRONG colors, and that is indeed what I was getting out of
both the Nikons and Canons without profiles. With profiles, my color editing
is virtually nonexistent.
Apparently not part of the "intended audience",
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.