Re: input camera porifles
Re: input camera porifles
- Subject: Re: input camera porifles
- From: Robin Myers <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 19:57:40 -0700
Dear Mr. Appert,
When the result of the digital camera images is for fine art
reproduction or color accurate product photography, camera profiles
are often the only way to get accurate color. However, none of the
existing digital camera profiling packages I have tested perform
perfectly; they all have some inaccuracies, just different for each
package. Given these problems, they are still much better than
unprofiled images.
For scenic or portrait photography, the intended results do not have
to be color accurate, just pleasing. Use of the subjective controls
in raw image converters work fine for these instances.
As for your first question, profiling after converting to an RGB
working space, I do not recommend it at all for accurate color. The
process of transforming to the working space will alter the colors,
then the profile will alter them again. You would be better off by
using the raw image converters or using a profile for the raw image.
The answer to your second question is yes. I work with professional
photographers that do this everyday. Most are involved in fine art
reproduction and product photography, where their livelihood depends
on accurate color reproduction. For them, digital camera profiling is
essential.
I am preparing a paper on digital camera profiling that, if it is
accepted, will be presented at the Color Imaging Conference. This
paper analyzes several of the most common digital camera profiling
packages to discover how well they reproduce color.
Robin Myers
www.rmimaging.com
On May 29, 2006, at 12:57 PM, eugene appert wrote:
Hello.
I would like to get feedback on a split that’s occurring in our
department with respect to the relevance of camera input profiles.
Most of the faculty were brought up to speed in digital
technologies about six or seven years ago. Six years ago camera
input profiles were prevalent for studio work, especially
reproduction, and corresponded to a simple work flow in which scene
colours were first defined by a custom profile in specific
lighting, polarisation etc and then converted to a large RGB space,
mostly Prophoto. However, six years ago cameras produced untagged
tif files from a RAW capture.
Here is the divide; one camp still believes in input camera
profiles for studio and repro work, even if that means creating an
input profile using file data that has already undergone a
conversion to an RGB space via a generic input profile. The other
camp is moving away from input camera profiles and towards using
raw converter calibration settings instead.
I am aware that there are raw converters like Bibble, that still
allow us to create untagged tiffs from raw capture, but I suspect
that this is not the general tendency among professional
photographers.
So, here are my questions
1 How much validity is there in creating a
camera profile after a conversion to an RGB workspace through a
generic input profile?
2 Is anyone still creating input camera
profiles for studio or reproduction work?
Thanks for any input
Eugene Appert
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
40rmimaging.com
This email sent to 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