Re: maclife.de
Re: maclife.de
- Subject: Re: maclife.de
- From: Uli Zappe <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 23:08:25 +0200
Am 02.09.2008 um 19:27 schrieb Andrew Rodney:
ACR/LR, nope, and its not necessary
Says who?
No, the question is, who says it IS necessary?
No, *my* question was the other one. Are you on some crusade against
camera profiling?
I have no interest in ideological arguments of any kind. As a service
to this community, I reported some possibly interesting results from a
test I performed for a Mac magazine. The test was relatively expensive
and performed by scientific standards, and I thought the results might
be of interest to some people on this list.
I was aware of the controversy about camera profiling before I
conducted the test, and did not hold a strong opinion myself; if
anything, I was a bit sceptical. But the test results were as clear as
they can be metrologically, and just by looking at the images, the
improvement was obvious.
Of course, that does not mean that anybody is obliged to use camera
profiling. Don't if you do not want to, but do not make general
statements that are not true in their generality.
To reply to your original question, it IS necessary for those who want
to use camera profiling, and since they are entitled to their stance
as much as you are to yours, it's at least me who says it IS necessary
- because features are unnecessary only if practically *nobody* wants
them, which is not the case here.
They've totally failed to convince the smart Adobe engineers,
Looking at Adobe apps, I have my doubts about the smartness of their
engineers - but in any case, authority arguments never lead to much.
And we have tens of thousands if not more ACR/LR users happily
processing millions of images using the Adobe solution.
We also have tens of thousands of Windows users happily using
Microsoft products ... And even more users who have never used color
management at all ...
Its up to the ICC proponents to PROVE that the architecture is
flawed or they cannot, as the masses of users can, render images as
they wish.
Unfortunately you cannot read my (German) text, but if a
scientifically conducted test is no prove, I don't know what could
possibly be one.
And with the DNG editor, advanced users have tools to build custom
"proprietary profiles" or tweak existing profiles for matching the
in-camera JPEG rendering or creating their own custom rendering looks.
For my test camera, a carefully crafted DNG custom profile still
delivered worse results than Apple's default profile for Aperture ...
I posted information about a review of camera profiling. For the
usage of camera profiles, it *is* necessary.
The Adobe and Apple products have profiles.
Yep, but in a proprietary format you cannot replace by an individual
ICC profile such as one build with ProfileMaker.
I've built my share over the years with every target and software
product you can imagine. I've as yet been convinced that its useful
in anything but rare conditions like copy work. I've had no issues
producing a color appearance I desire from the tens of thousands of
Raw's I've processed in ACR/LR.
That's remarkable considering that of the factory profiles, those of
Adobe are amongst the worse.
What you can't do, and you've got to prove, is that substituting the
current solution with user built, ICC profiles is at all useful
IMHO, my tests delivered exactly that prove. That's the info I wanted
to post to this list because I thought it was an interesting result. I
certainly didn't expect that the controversy about this subject was
this religious.
to anyone but a few, vocal color geeks,
I'm certainly no color geek. Until a year ago, I had no idea about
color management at all, but was very unsatisfied with computer color
reproduction, which was the reason I started this whole thing.
And you're defining "clear improvement in color reproduction" how?
Metrologically by a reduction of color deviation, as measured by mean/
max delta E (1976), of up to 50%.
Rendering is totally subjective.
It's most definitely not. If a blue object was rendered as a red one,
there would be an almost total intersubjective agreement that the
rendering is incorrect.
We can colorimetrically match something like a Macbeth target, which
is always useful if what you're shooting is Macbeth targets under a
fixed illuminant.
My measurements revealed that it's useful *not* only under a fixed
illuminant.
The vast majority of photographers are interested in rendering the
scene as a creative endeavor.
Yep. So what? Are you saying that technologically induced flaws in
color reproduction are somehow "creative"? They're definitely not.
Flaws in color reproduction are accidental, creativity is intentional.
You can be much more creative if your starting point isn't flawed.
The DNG editor is creative tool that allows some functionality not
possible prior to its introduction using the two profiles that from
day one have been used by the Adobe Raw engine. They are not ICC
profiles, so what?
1. They are not in a standard format. (And yes, standards are
important as they give you choice.)
2. They are of much worse quality than ICC profiles build by i1 Match
or Profile Maker.
Bye
Uli
________________________________________________________
Uli Zappe, Solmsstraße 5, D-65189 Wiesbaden, Germany
http://www.ritual.org
Fon: +49-700-ULIZAPPE
Fax: +49-700-ZAPPEFAX
________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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