Re: Camera Profiling
Re: Camera Profiling
- Subject: Re: Camera Profiling
- From: Richard Anderson <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:12:52 -0400
I believe Lindsay wants acceptable skin tone- which is may be different from a totally accurate representation of the scene from a colorimetric standpoint. Although she likes C1 Pro- perhaps from a workflow standpoint, it is not giving her the skin tone results she likes. She should double check to see what camera profile C1 is using- maybe it is using a profile from some camera other than a 7D. If it is using the correct profile- she could do some editing of the profile as has been suggested, or she could try ColorEyes 20/20. I'm not sure if ColorEyes has been updated to work with C1 v5. One of the issues with ColorEyes is that it is tied to a particular version of C1 Pro since the processing algorithms change for new versions- and of course the color rendering does as well. The last time I checked in with Jack Bingham- ColorEyes only worked with version 3 I think.
If she really wants to just get on with her life- she could consider downloading a demo of Lightroom 3. The Adobe standard profiles and raw processing are much superior to the previous versions of Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw. I agree with Ben that either the Passport Color Checker & software, or the Adobe DNG editor can improve color rendition (from a subjective standpoint) so she should probably give that a try. In my testing- the Adobe Standard profiles are the most accurate colorimetrically, but the Adobe DNG editor and the Passport CC profiles often are subjectively nicer looking- especially for skin tone.
Regards,
Richard Anderson
http://richardandersonphotogroup.com/
http://www.rnaphoto.com
http://tinyurl.com/yh2afbg
On Jul 30, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Ben Goren wrote:
> On 2010 Jul 29, at 8:00 AM, Ben Goren wrote:
>
>> My ColorChecker Passport arrived yesterday, and I hope to get a chance to put it and its software through its paces sometime today or tomorrow.
>
> I just did, and the results using the Passport and the Passport software are much superior:
>
>> Profile check complete, peak err = 1.825471, avg err = 0.267155
>
> Those are Delta E units from ArgyllCMS at the end of the profile creation routine. (I'm not sure which flavor of Delta E Argyll is using here, but with those numbers, I really couldn't give a damn.)
>
> Visually, flipping back and forth between straight-out-of-ACR and profiled-with-Argyll versions shot under modeling lights and strobes, the straight-out-of-ACR versions would pass the ``quick glance'' test. If you were photographing your aunt's oil paintings and didn't bother with profiling the input, so long as the rest of your workflow is good, she might not notice (and her husband certainly wouldn't).
>
> I need to do some for-real tests, especially once I've built my own chart, but I think this is about as good as one is going to get short of the kinds of spectral reproduction work that Dr. Burns is working on.
>
> So, to summarize: follow the recipe in my previous email but use the ColorChecker Passport and its included software. Your out-of-the-RAW-converter files should qualify for the ``80 / 20 rule,'' and your actually-profiled files should pass muster unless you're doing conservation work.
>
> Cheers,
>
> b& _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
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