Re: ICC Profile location for PS RAW
Re: ICC Profile location for PS RAW
- Subject: Re: ICC Profile location for PS RAW
- From: Jeff Schewe <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 23:22:47 -0600
Mark Buckner wrote:
>
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.
Wow. . .thanks Mark. . .so I'm either a weekend warrior or I have clients
whose color requirements are "subjective". Cool. . .I'll pass the compliment
along to Greg Gorman, Steve Wilks, Seth Resnick, Jay Maisel, Barbara Bornick
and a few other "weekend warriors" that Mark Buckner figures that Camera Raw
is aimed right at them. . .
That's useful commentary. . .
>
To be clear, I did try the original ACR, and frankly was unimpressed, both
>
with the output and the workflow.
Uh, could it be you didn't LEARN HOW TO USE Camera Raw? Could it be that
learning how to white balance (not grey balance mind you-that's an entirely
different algorithm generally more useful to gamma encoded images) is
different? Could it be you don't know how to write actions and do batch
operations in Photoshop so using Camera Raw in an efficient workflow eluded
you?
>
it is clear that asking Adobe to consider support for user's custom profiles
>
is impractical.
Yep. . .if you want the advanced white balance capabilities (plus now the
ability to tune color through the calibrate function in CRII) you're gonna
have to forget profiles. . .because, again, you simply can NOT profile a
camera. . .you profile the camera + the light/exposure + the raw conversion.
So, CRII allows adjusting, on a camera by camera and scene by scene basis
the color, light/exposure & pretty the raw conversions. There is simply no
place in Camera Raw for a "camera profile". Now, if you want to talk to
Thomas about allowing custom camera spectral response maps you might get
some interest. . .but if you're talking the plain old ICC type device
profile, that just will not fit in.
And, forget about comparing camera + the light/exposure + the raw conversion
profiles to that of a scanner or printer or monitor. You can't make a
scanner profile for scanning negs, right? There are no IT8 target for negs.
. .because there are no standard "negs". E6 film can be profiled on a
scanner. And, if you extend the logic to printers, how would you profile a
printer whose white balance and exposure are variable. You can't.
So, if you want a pissing match, bring it on. . .I'll get my friends to meet
your friends and we'll all see who is a better photographer.
On the other hand, if you want a better and a more diverse range of tools
available for photographers (as I do) and you want some standards to be
implemented into the camera industry and standard wrappers for raw files and
some sort of non-camera company solution (as I do) perhaps you better learn
to get off your high horse and understand that CRII, C1, whatever, is better
than the offerings the camera companies provided (with the possible
exception of PhotoDesk from Kodak-course their cameras kinda suck) and
rather than denigrate tools you don't know how to use, perhaps the venting
and ranting would be better aimed at Nikon, Canon and the other camera
companies who produced hardware without any talent and skills at producing
equivalent software.
Or not. . .
Jeff Schewe
Schewe Photography
Chicago
www.schewephoto.com www.pixelgenius.com 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.