Re: Canned or custom camera profiles?
Re: Canned or custom camera profiles?
- Subject: Re: Canned or custom camera profiles?
- From: Karsten Krüger <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:32:37 +0200
Chris,
It all depends on the task you are on. If you work at an outdoor
location or want to conserve the emotional aspects of the light
settings (like a sunset shot), you are better off using a standard
profile, a calibrated monitor and tools like the basICColor CaliCube:
<http://www.basiccolor.de/english/Datenblaetter_E/basICCaliCube_E/
basICCaliCube_E.htm>
For studio shots, when you want exact reproduction, local profiling
speeds up things a lot. But, like Maxwell said, there are a lot of
things to take care of to gain good camera profiles. With CaptureOne
you have the choice of both workflows, with ACR/LightRomm you are
locked into the first one. Bummer 1.
But there are other issues to consider. ACR/LightRoom will let you
process your files only to their preselected color spaces (sRGB,
AdobeRGB, ColorMatch & ProFoto). What do you do if you need ECI-RGB,
LStarRGB, SWOP, ISOcoated ? You have to do a second transformation of
your data, with all implications. If your monitor is calibrated well,
CaptureOne does a great job rendering your pictures directly into
your customers prefered output color space ! And you actually see
your image in this color space on the screen like a softproof. With
ACR/LightRoom you can see only RGB when developing RAW. You can't see
a CMYK simulation and you can't develop directly to CMYK. Bummer 2,
and for me the big one.
The output device is the limit of a digital picture. The easier and
closer you get to the output gammut, the better. It simply makes no
sense to keep the blue color within the image, when the final output
is an offset press which is not able to print it. On the other hand
green, cyan and magenta colors get killed while still being
printable. Bummer 3.
Before I discovered CaptureOne I was a Potoshop adict. Today I am
faster, get a more reliable color output and use Photoshop only to
adjust 3D distortion, something CaptureOne can't do as of today. I
have several workflows: lores sRGB for web, mid res sRGB for home
users which like to use their printer or an online service, and mid &
hires ISOcoated for professional offset output. Depending on the job
I just tick one or more workflows, click the process button, drink a
coffee and have all the files my customer needs, in any format,
available without further action. In ACR/LightRoom I have to
reprocess for each format. Bummer 4.
Conclusion:
If you don't work in a studio, only process to one of those 4 RGB
gammuts preselected by Adobe, never have CMYK output, never need
multiple output files in different resolutions and file formats for a
single job, then the ACR/LightRoom workflow is the best solution.
Otherwise you should at least have a closer look at CaptureOne.
Hope this helps,
Karsten
Am 13.10.2006 um 20:45 schrieb Chris McFarling:
I've been reading up on the subject of camera profiling to try to
get a better understanding of the current state of things. From
what I gather it seems there are two camps. In one camp are those
who believe camera profiling is more or less a waste of time and
the Adobe Camera RAW workflow is most effcient and effective. On
the flip side are those who swear they can achive better results
with camera profiles and a conversion app that supports them, such
as CaptureOne. It seems there are compelling arguments on both
sides of the issue.
Without delving into that whole argument, I'm curious about the
profile based workflow, mainly in regards to CaptureOne. PhaseOne
supplies many canned camera profiles for use with it's software. If
one is to use a profile workflow, is it better to create custom
profiles or do the supplied profiles do an adequate job?
When talking in terms of printers or monitors it seems that the
answer to that question is almost always to use custom profiles
over canned profiles if you want accurate color. But I'm not sure
if that same logic holds up for cameras. Since a camera profile
represents a specific set of conditions, once you deviate from
those conditions, the profile is no longer providing the best
result possible. With that in mind I come to the conclusion that if
you shoot under the exact same conditions as were in place when the
profile was created, then a custom profile could be of benefit. If
your shooting conditions differ from the profiling conditions,
which for most users I would suspect would be the majority of the
time, then you'll be making some corrections anyway so a canned
profile may be just as usefull. Is there any reason not to think that?
So would it not stand to reason then that shooting in CaptureOne
with a canned camera profile is nearly the same as bringing your
RAW file into ACR and processing it with ACRs built in "profiles"?
In both cases the input profile, whether it be an actual ICC
profile in C1 or the equivalent of an ICC profile in ACR, most
likely does not represent the shooting conditions so there's some
inevitable user applied corrections in play.
Chris McFarling
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
40kkrueger.de
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