Re: camera raw and input profiles
Re: camera raw and input profiles
- Subject: Re: camera raw and input profiles
- From: bruce fraser <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:19:27 -0800
At 1:42 PM -0500 3/25/05, email@hidden wrote:
Some RAW converters (Fuji f.ex.) have B&W as an option and my
experience is that it produces
a very pretty B&W file. More attractive than B&W conversion later in
a workflow.
I was wondering if not converting to color actually increases the
actual resolution then, since you are saying all the pixels are
actually grayscale ?
No, the resolution is the same for BW or color. When the raw file is
demosaiced, each pixel in the raw file contributes one pixel to the
final image-the demosaicing process interpolates the missing color
information from the neighboring pixels. The pixel count is the same
either way.
and
are we in agreement that profiling digital cameras is not as
effective in reality as profiling displays and printers .... ?
I think so, yes.
and would it be plausible to profile each set-up for photography,
for an applications that will read these profiles,
providing no changes in lighting or other conditions occur ? I'm
thinking of something less interpretive
like a copy set-up.
Bear in mind that you'd be profiling not only the lighting setup but
also the raw conversion settings. Within those limitations, what
you're suggesting works pretty well, but it's a considerable amount
of work for a relatively small benefit, unless you're spending days
shooting widgets on white seamless or something like that.
You'll hear dissenting opinions too.
Bruce
--
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden