Re: maclife.de
Re: maclife.de
- Subject: Re: maclife.de
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 15:28:53 -0600
On Sep 2, 2008, at 3:08 PM, Uli Zappe wrote:
No, *my* question was the other one. Are you on some crusade against
camera profiling?
Just the opposite. I'd like to see a solution that actually works
well. I've worked with a number of companies in this regard. All
cameras need to be profiled. The question is how and how well!
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 simply pointing out the bias against Adobe and Apple by some
members of this list considering the inability to use ICC input,
camera profiles. You're taking it a bit personally.
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.
IF you want to do it, do it. If the product you use doesn't support
custom, ICC profiles you yourself can build, you have to decide if
that's a compelling reason not to use the product. Doesn't mean the
product is broken, that Adobe isn't building a better mousetrap or
that most users could care less if they can or can't shoot some target
and build a profile for some specific scene.
Looking at Adobe apps, I have my doubts about the smartness of their
engineers - but in any case, authority arguments never lead to much.
Maybe you can tell us based on your engineering knowledge why this is
the case and/or how their product specifically fails to provide a
desired color appearance from what is essentially Grayscale data. Or
what you expect a profile to do from a multitude of captures from
multiple scene illuminants and dynamic ranges that isn't working with
the Adobe system. What's broke?
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 ...
I use Microsoft products (and I'm on a Mac). I'm not sure what that
statement has to do with anything. As for those that never use color
management, well, its not at all useful for lots of people. The facts
are, tens of thousands of professional photographers ARE using Adobe
Raw solutions, in color managed workflows and only a very small vocal
few color geeks are yelling about this profile "issue". So either they
are all right and the real users are clueless and wrong, or the geeks
are blowing this way out of proportion. You tell me what you think is
the case.
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.
Yes I can't read the text and I have no idea other than what you've
said if its scientifically accurate or not. Even so, it doesn't have
anything to do with dismissing a solution in two major, if not the
biggest selling and installed base of Raw converters on the planet. If
it ain't broken....
For my test camera, a carefully crafted DNG custom profile still
delivered worse results than Apple's default profile for Aperture ...
Worse how? You did or didn't alter the numerous rendering sliders? You
expected that this profile all by itself, in all cases, from all
captures was what an end user wanted from his/her subjective rendering?
What's more right or wrong, Velvia or Ektachrome 100? Wrong how? Which
print of Moonrise over Hernandez by Adams is worse or better?
Yep, but in a proprietary format you cannot replace by an individual
ICC profile such as one build with ProfileMaker.
And that's a must have capability because?
That's remarkable considering that of the factory profiles, those of
Adobe are amongst the worse.
Which ones? For which cameras? Worse how? You've used the beta
profiles just supplied?
Metrologically by a reduction of color deviation, as measured by
mean/max delta E (1976), of up to 50%.
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.
I can easily make a red object blue or a blue one red using the
appropriate sliders in a good converter. The default position of those
sliders is in no way "right", custom or canned profile.
IF you're simply expecting to shoot something in Raw, apply a profile
an expect prefect color, you're greatly missing the point of why
photographers shoot Raw!
You probably need to read this:
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net/
_______________________________________________
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