Re: Custom profiles with RAW
Re: Custom profiles with RAW
- Subject: Re: Custom profiles with RAW
- From: Rich Apollo <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 09:52:12 -0600
Ah, Rich, if it were only so simple! A point-and-shoot RAW converter!
And all the hours I waste trying to get it right... ;-)
Why does it seem silly to render into the CORRECT color-space?
The link Andrew gave to the ICC paper is a good starter. ICC
profiling digital cameras is a huge can of worms... and after
investing a lot of time on the problem, like most other photographers,
I've decided to work with what works, rather than beat the ideological
drum and never accomplish what I need to do. ACR works, and it's
fast, particularly with Bridge. Often what's needed is an image that
"looks good" or looks even better than the original scene - and so
much is in the eye/mind of the beholder.
Years ago, we had a client (a photo group as luck would have it) who
liked to submit RGB files. We'd go through round after round of proofs
for these guys. I stumbled onto a very good table for converting their
files to CMYK. It worked pretty darn well. That, however, did not
preclude us from adopting a color managed workflow. And we reaped the
quality benefits.
The calibration script for ACR by Thomas Fors helps eliminate
inter-camera variability and improves the accuracy of ACR.
No it doesn't. You're balancing for a certain set of RGB numbers.
You're establishing a set of "curves" or "tables" to use in your
conversion. It's roughly the same as running old scanning software.
Now, I ask you, if Adobe allowed you to choose a camera profile of your
own making that represented the abilities of your camera would you use
it? Do you suppose it would simplify or complicate the process? And
what sort of impact do you suppose it would have on the quality of your
work?
Unfortunately, white balance is one of the most important processing
variables, and auto-WB or even measured WB often will not give the
mood that you want. Small differences from "accurate" can get the
mind to give a completely different interpretation of a scene. As
Andrew also mentioned, it is literally impossible to compress the
reality of a scene into a RAW file with the current recording
capabilities of digital cameras - it's simply not possible.
Nor is it possible to render it into the even more restrictive gamut of
an offset press, and yet that is what clients ask me to do daily. In
fact, I've heard it said that from an engineering standpoint that it's
impossible for an offset press to work (nor can bumblebees or
hummingbirds fly).
So, when you hear photographers start laughing when a graphic artist
says they're going to start doing digital photography, you've got some
idea why. Just as it was with film, there's still a lot involved in
getting a good image - perhaps even more so.
I never said it was easy to be a photographer. I did, however, say that
it ain't exactly rocket-science to adequately profile a camera. Come to
the GATF Color Management Conference in Phoenix in December and you can
see it happen live. If you refrain from throwing rotten fruit, I'll
even buy you a beer. }:-{>
By the way, with all this new ICC technology that eliminates the need
for subjective adjustments, you've started hiring color-blind
pressmen, right? All they have to do now is hang plates and play with
the buttons. Back when I was a pressman, we actually had to turn the
ink fountain keys by hand... ;-)
Hey, I didn't invent this "print to the numbers" thing.
Rich Apollo
314-344-1144
email@hidden
www.prioritylitho.com
_______________________________________________
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