Re: Canned or custom camera profiles?
Re: Canned or custom camera profiles?
- Subject: Re: Canned or custom camera profiles?
- From: Karl Koch <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 12:10:53 +0200
Chris,
Ray Maxwell and Karsten Krüger have covered this issue extensively
and in a very useful practical way.
I want to add only one aspect: If you make your own custom profiles,
you will be able to edit them so that they fit your needs and your
customers´ expectations. For example: if you are a portrait
photographer, your customers will not want their colorimetrically
correct skintone in the pictures they are paying you for. Skintone
has to look nice and warm! A correct camera profile will always make
skintones look too grayish and too cold. You edit your custom profile
once (rather your target shot, Photoshop will do the trick - no need
for a profile editor!) and convert through this profile instead of
correcting every single shot.
My take: Custom profiles are superior to canned profiles - period.
Best regards
Karl Koch
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:
40color-solutions.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