RE: Captures of Fine art work
RE: Captures of Fine art work
- Subject: RE: Captures of Fine art work
- From: Roger Howard <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 11:58:43 -0700
On Wednesday, May 10, 2006, at 11:54AM, Derek Cooper <email@hidden> wrote:
>>FYI, at the Getty Museum we had much better results profiling a big
>scanning camera (more like an open frame flatbed, really) with the HCT
>Precision target than others we tried. I believe we used ProfileMaker 5.
>>
>>I should have said the ColorCheckerSG or HCT Target with PMP5. If you can
>swing for the HCT Target it rocks!
>
>Scott, can you describe your lighting setup? Last time we researched back
>profiling software, we did find that PFP v5 was the best, but still we felt
>that using the Imacon backs and the FC software, we were further ahead to
>use the software's repro mode. Maybe it's time to re-visit back profiling,
>or it could be the scanning backs just lend themselves more to profiling.
I will say that we had a variety of scanning backs from Betterlight and Phase, and one-shot backs from Phase. For those camera systems, the benefits of custom profiling were less obvious when weighed against the effort to do it. Some photogs swore by it, others at it! We did build a nice profile for Phase H25 backs using the Hutch target to work around a strange issue with certain drawings, but in general the canned profiles worked well.
Where the HCT target really shined was on a large custom scanning back camera system, a CruseScan, where the lighting was highly consistent so it was really more like profiling a scanner. For the CruseScan, the HCT gave much better profiles than the other targets we tried.
_______________________________________________
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