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 16:27:50 -0700
on 11/5/03 4:02 PM, Mark Buckner wrote:
>
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.
I'd say so too. Some very big shooters are using this product to do some
impressive work.
>
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.
That's where I'm not sure. I'd hate to think we are creating a snob shooter
based on what he or she uses to pull the RAW data from their cameras. I'm
also not sure what constitutes exacting standards (in fact when the term
"standards" come up, I get uncomfortable). Guys like Greg Gorman, Jeff
Schewe, Seth Resnick, and lots of other ACR users produce some pretty
demanding work, get substantial money to do so and work for some pretty
picky clients! Just the movie posters Gorman has done in the last year with
the Canon 1Ds and ACR would lead me to believe that his clients are not at
all concerned how he profiles or doesn't profile his camera. These guys
wouldn't use a product that didn't deliver the goods.
>
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.
If you don't need a camera profile to produce good work within something
like ACR, you don't need a profile. If you don't use ACR or can't (or the
workflow is a hindrance) a good profile is necessary. I've been able to
produce very good camera profiles over the years with many products. I've
also seen the same products produce just awful profiles. So the time, money
and reputability of this way of working seems to be just a bit rough around
the edges.
>
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.
I've seen this as well! It's just not something I've seen in all cases (and
in fact not in many cases) so that's a concern. I'd really like to see the
process be much more consistent as I've seen over the years with scanners,
displays and printers. But cameras are tricky beasts. And dealing with RAW
conversions can make or break the data you end up with. If cameras behaved
like scanners, this would be pretty simple stuff. And yet we still don't
have a solution for profiling color negs and the solution is to handle them
much as Adobe had done with RAW files.
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.