Re: Re-Camera profiling
Re: Re-Camera profiling
- Subject: Re: Re-Camera profiling
- From: Richard Anderson <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 09:48:34 -0400
Linday-
If you suspect that the 7D sensor is defective- a quick way to check might be to download a LR demo and see what the default gives you. If it looks bad in LR, then the sensor may in fact be bad. If the results are good/acceptable- then you know the problem is down to an input profile for C1 V. In general, generic C1 input profiles are usually very good.
Richard Anderson
http://richardandersonphotogroup.com/
http://www.rnaphoto.com
http://tinyurl.com/yh2afbg
On Jul 30, 2010, at 10:57 PM, Lindsay Merritt wrote:
> Firstly, many thanks to all who contacted me on this list and privately.
>
> There have been many helpful suggestions and a few recommendations of new software and even an offer to build a custom profile for me. It's an awesome response.
>
> Some folks have read my use of the Kodak Grey Card as what I used to build the profile. It's what I used to establish exposure. I used both a GMB ColorChecker SG and a ColorChecker DC to use as references to build the profiles. Some e-mails and posts have indicated that my thinking was flawed. I did also check the camera histogram with a calibrated Milnotla FLash Meter 1V and they matched.
>
> This apparently was flawed thinking and the light source used far too soft so thanks to the responses, I'm revisiting that approach.
>
> The profile I wish to build has to achieve only two things:
>
> 1. Be accurate purely for my "calibrated" studio situation. This is for studio portraiture only.
> 2. Be used as an input profile for Capture One V5
>
> One response has given me several options which I'm trying to work out (thanks Sebastian). I need to get into C1 a little more to establsih exactly what parameters I'm setting for the linear gamma output file.
>
> One suggestion has been to adjust the colour within Capture One. I did try that, spent a day on it as that should have worked. The skin tones are so bad, that I couldn't adjust it out. They are a fluorescent orange and very contrasty.
>
> As my Canon 30D, 40D, 5D and 5DMkII provide excellent results with my standard exposures, lighting and C1 standard input profiles, I can only assume that the default Canon 7D is very poorly created by Phase One, or my sensor is faulty...
>
> You might ask why I insist on using the 7D. My 30D, 40D have died from the floggings they get and I like to use a cropped sensor in the studio for the work I do. I get slightly better depth of focus than from my "full frame" Canons. The 7D purchase was meant to replace the dead or dying 30D and 40D.
>
> Ideally, I'd like to be able to learn to create these camera profiles for myself. I've spent thousands over the years on CM hardware and software and hundreds of hours learning to use it and apply the fruits of my labour.
>
> I did end up getting the Match Phrase from ColorEyes 20/20 and I did download a trial copy of the BasICColor Input application as suggested. I do believe my battle though, is to provide the software with an ideal target, perfectly created and exposed. I also need to work out how to provide the software (plural) with the correct *type* of file.
>
> Again, thanks to all. I may ask more questions as I try some of your suggestions. I hope that will be OK.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Lindsay :)
> On 30/07/2010, at 5:03 AM, email@hidden wrote:
>
>> Send Colorsync-users mailing list submissions to
>> email@hidden
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> email@hidden
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> email@hidden
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Colorsync-users digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Camera Profiling (Lindsay Merritt)
>> 2. Re: Camera Profiling (edmund ronald)
>> 3. Re: Camera Profiling (Jos? ?ngel Bueno Garc?a)
>> 4. Re: Camera Profiling (Ben Goren)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:05:04 +1000
>> From: Lindsay Merritt <email@hidden>
>> Subject: Camera Profiling
>> To: email@hidden
>> Message-ID: <email@hidden>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>>
>> Hi folks.
>>
>> OK, I know the general opinion on camera profiles and their worth but
>> please, bear with me.
>>
>> I have a new Canon 7D and I use the latest version of Capture One V5
>> to process my raw files. I love the output of C1, have used it for
>> many years and don't want to change.
>>
>> The problem is, the skin-tones I get from the 7D are just awful when
>> processed in C1. The skin-tones could only be described as luminous
>> orange. I've satisfied myself that this is a C1 profile issue for this
>> camera. I did this by using a 24 patch ColorChecker card and by using
>> both the DNG profile editor and ColorChecker Passport for ACR. The
>> camera produces excellent results either with the standard profile or
>> my custom one in ACR.
>>
>> We can shoot anything up to 15 portrait sessions a day in our studio
>> and I need speed and reliability, hence Capture One. I don't like
>> using ACR and LightRoom not only will nor launch on my brand new Mac
>> Pro, I don't like the interface and dislike the external database.
>> Trust me, Capture One and I are friends...
>>
>> My camera room is painted grey so as not to add color casts. My
>> Elinchroms are gelled to match at 5250K as measured with my Minolta CT
>> meter. We use a WhiBal reference in the first frame of every shoot.
>> This is to allow as perfect a color rendition as possible with the
>> least effort required in post production. This system has worked
>> perfectly for years until now.
>>
>> I decided to build a custom profile for the 7D. I'd done them before
>> when I photographed artworks with a Kodak DCS 760. The results were
>> outstanding (and published). This process required a linear gamma tiff
>> file. I can't remember the software I used to create the profile but I
>> think it was made by Profile City (now defunct).
>>
>> I set the lighting to perfection and using a Kodak Grey Card,
>> established the exposure with the Histogram, one line dead in the
>> middle of the screen, double checked the exposure with Minolta Falsh
>> Meter 1V and it matched to the tenth of an f-stop. Lighting was even
>> (and proven so when later measured with the Eyedropper Tool in CS4).
>>
>> I photographed both the GMB ColorChecker DC card and the GMB
>> ColorChecker SG card to see which would produce the best results.
>>
>> At this point, this is where I ran into trouble. I believed that the
>> profile should have been created from a linear gamma, tiff file with
>> no embedded profile and ProfileMaker was telling me that the image was
>> too dark. It wanted a processed ProPhoto RGB tiff file. I installed
>> Canon Digital Photo Professional in the hope that this would help but
>> not only did I have to embed a proffile, the largest available was
>> Wide Gamut RGB.
>>
>> When processed, obviously a tone curve gas been applied and the file
>> looked normal, and what ProfileMaker was expecting but I knew that the
>> result would not be satisfactory and was proven right. I checked the
>> gamut volume against the Capture One standard CanonEOS7d-Generic.icm
>> profile in ColorThink 3.0 Pro. I knew then I'd not succeeded but tried
>> the profile out anyway. No deal.
>>
>> I have ColorEyes 20/20 and reinstalled that but if anyone has used
>> that, it gives you the name of an animal and you require the match-
>> phrase. I did that, received my match phrase and when I relaunched the
>> application the following day, my bloody animal had changed and the
>> match phrase no longer matched. Who knew?
>>
>> I've e-mailed for another match-phrase with the new animal but have
>> not been answered. I'm sure they believe I'm attempting multiple
>> installs...
>>
>> So finally, my question. What do I need to do here? I can't see that
>> using an exported Tiff file complete with an embedded profile and tone
>> curve applied can possibly allow me to build a profile worth a damn.
>>
>> Am I missing something? Is there software that will build an accurate
>> profile from an untouched converted linear gamma TIFF file? What
>> software (if not ProfileMaker) would Capture One be using to build
>> *their* profiles?
>>
>> I can't test ColorEyes 20/20 (no match phrase) but the manual leads me
>> to believe that I'm heading to the same dead end that ProfileMaker
>> took me.
>>
>> I'd accept any advice, am happy to provide the raw files I took of the
>> test charts etc.
>>
>> Anyone, please?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Lindsay Merritt M.Photog.
>> About Faces Photography
>> 318 Princes Highway
>> Bulli. NSW.
>> Australia 2516
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:33:21 +0200
>> From: edmund ronald <email@hidden>
>> Subject: Re: Camera Profiling
>> To: Lindsay Merritt <email@hidden>
>> Cc: "email@hidden"
>> <email@hidden>
>> Message-ID:
>> <email@hidden>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>
>> there are three issues here:
>>
>> 1 why c1 is doing so badly?
>> 2 running the profiling workflow
>> 3 lighting and photographing the card.
>>
>>
>> My suggestion would be to get in touch with Coloreyes as they are a
>> good company, and have experience in walking people through the
>> profiling process.
>>
>> Edmund
>>
>> On Thursday, July 29, 2010, Lindsay Merritt <email@hidden> wrote:
>>> Hi folks.
>>>
>>> OK, I know the general opinion on camera profiles and their worth but please, bear with me.
>>>
>>> I have a new Canon 7D and I use the latest version of Capture One V5 to process my raw files. I love the output of C1, have used it for many years and don't want to change.
>>>
>>> The problem is, the skin-tones I get from the 7D are just awful when processed in C1. The skin-tones could only be described as luminous orange. I've satisfied myself that this is a C1 profile issue for this camera. I did this by using a 24 patch ColorChecker card and by using both the DNG profile editor and ColorChecker Passport for ACR. The camera produces excellent results either with the standard profile or my custom one in ACR.
>>>
>>> We can shoot anything up to 15 portrait sessions a day in our studio and I need speed and reliability, hence Capture One. I don't like using ACR and LightRoom not only will nor launch on my brand new Mac Pro, I don't like the interface and dislike the external database. Trust me, Capture One and I are friends...
>>>
>>> My camera room is painted grey so as not to add color casts. My Elinchroms are gelled to match at 5250K as measured with my Minolta CT meter. We use a WhiBal reference in the first frame of every shoot. This is to allow as perfect a color rendition as possible with the least effort required in post production. This system has worked perfectly for years until now.
>>>
>>> I decided to build a custom profile for the 7D. I'd done them before when I photographed artworks with a Kodak DCS 760. The results were outstanding (and published). This process required a linear gamma tiff file. I can't remember the software I used to create the profile but I think it was made by Profile City (now defunct).
>>>
>>> I set the lighting to perfection and using a Kodak Grey Card, established the exposure with the Histogram, one line dead in the middle of the screen, double checked the exposure with Minolta Falsh Meter 1V and it matched to the tenth of an f-stop. Lighting was even (and proven so when later measured with the Eyedropper Tool in CS4).
>>>
>>> I photographed both the GMB ColorChecker DC card and the GMB ColorChecker SG card to see which would produce the best results.
>>>
>>> At this point, this is where I ran into trouble. I believed that the profile should have been created from a linear gamma, tiff file with no embedded profile and ProfileMaker was telling me that the image was too dark. It wanted a processed ProPhoto RGB tiff file. I installed Canon Digital Photo Professional in the hope that this would help but not only did I have to embed a proffile, the largest available was Wide Gamut RGB.
>>>
>>> When processed, obviously a tone curve gas been applied and the file looked normal, and what ProfileMaker was expecting but I knew that the result would not be satisfactory and was proven right. I checked the gamut volume against the Capture One standard CanonEOS7d-Generic.icm profile in ColorThink 3.0 Pro. I knew then I'd not succeeded but tried the profile out anyway. No deal.
>>>
>>> I have ColorEyes 20/20 and reinstalled that but if anyone has used that, it gives you the name of an animal and you require the match-phrase. I did that, received my match phrase and when I relaunched the application the following day, my bloody animal had changed and the match phrase no longer matched. Who knew?
>>>
>>> I've e-mailed for another match-phrase with the new animal but have not been answered. I'm sure they believe I'm attempting multiple installs...
>>>
>>> So finally, my question. What do I need to do here? I can't see that using an exported Tiff file complete with an embedded profile and tone curve applied can possibly allow me to build a profile worth a damn.
>>>
>>> Am I missing something? Is there software that will build an accurate profile from an untouched converted linear gamma TIFF file? What software (if not ProfileMaker) would Capture One be using to build *their* profiles?
>>>
>>> I can't test ColorEyes 20/20 (no match phrase) but the manual leads me to believe that I'm heading to the same dead end that ProfileMaker took me.
>>>
>>> I'd accept any advice, am happy to provide the raw files I took of the test charts etc.
>>>
>>> Anyone, please?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Lindsay Merritt M.Photog.
>>> About Faces Photography
>>> 318 Princes Highway
>>> Bulli. NSW.
>>> Australia 2516
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:43:02 +0000
>> From: Jos? ?ngel Bueno Garc?a <email@hidden>
>> Subject: Re: Camera Profiling
>> To: Lindsay Merritt <email@hidden>
>> Cc: email@hidden
>> Message-ID:
>> <AANLkTi=EAX19HgV67jYfmZ2aJE+yT6JW=email@hidden>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>
>> Hello Lindsay:
>>
>> Due to sensor CFA maybe never will have good transition between
>> shadows and lights in skin tones.
>>
>> The idea on create a good prifile for a fixed environment is OK, but
>> the Kodak Grey Chart is, for me, out of color management workflow
>> because the presence of in camera histogram and the lack of color
>> management asociated a this tool.
>>
>> I only use Minolta Flash Meter IV only to ensure that flat art is
>> uniformly iluminated or the contrast of a scene due to press and
>> monitor limitations.
>>
>> It is supposed that you shot WhiBal with the exposure sugested by
>> Minolta FM IV. I use the Robin Myers Digital Gray Card or Color
>> Checker Passport White Reference to make WB. With Nikon D90 have to
>> shot the reference as if it was medium gray as manufacturer advises.
>> And I think that is a good idea shot too a contrast card to make more
>> uniform the capture stage, as references are for, avoiding changes due
>> to subject/object reflection characteristics.
>>
>> You are lucky if you can afford a Color Cheker SG, but in your
>> environment a Color Cheker Classic could be enought.
>>
>> Once determined exposure (that you can change to get a prefered
>> histogram) and white balance I shot in NEF (my Pentax support DNG) and
>> convert with Adobe DNG Converter to DNG (in this step is possible to
>> give a more comprehensive name to the file) with the purpose of be
>> able to profile with DNG Profile Editor, ColorChecker Passport or
>> i1Match (Color Checker SG required). Starting with ProPhoto and Adobe
>> Photoshop softproof you can get the better of your output devices. And
>> a good alternative is ArgyllCMS based GaMapICC.
>>
>> I have recently purchased Capture One 5 (not Pro, that mean can't make
>> softproof) and find extremely slow, but with a very good highligt
>> recovery, but testing Adobe Photoshop CS 5 I have found improvements
>> that take me back to the emotional aproach to old 2.0.
>>
>> Don't mention your output devices, and again as good alternative to
>> i1Match you can calibrate and profile with ArgyllCMS based dispcalGUI.
>> Necessary to mention that need colorimeter or spectrometer (taking
>> about i1Display 2 and i1Pro) and propper environment in your
>> "lightroom".
>>
>> PD: Somewhere there is a GUI for, again, ArgyllCMS to profile your
>> camera under XP. Sorry, still waiting for a full ArgyllCMS GUI for OS
>> X.
>>
>> Salud
>>
>> Jose Bueno
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:00:09 -0700
>> From: Ben Goren <email@hidden>
>> Subject: Re: Camera Profiling
>> To: colorsync user list <email@hidden>
>> Message-ID: <email@hidden>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>
>> On 2010 Jul 28, at 9:05 PM, Lindsay Merritt wrote:
>>
>>> I decided to build a custom profile for the 7D.
>>
>> Lindsay, I feel your pain. And so does anybody else who's tried to get colorimetrically-correct results from a digital camera.
>>
>> If you don't already have a spectrophotometer, start budgeting now for an i1 Pro (or at least the Munki). It will become an indispensable tool. More on that later.
>>
>> The best workflow I've come across so far is to use well-controlled lighting; to use a manually-linearized DNG profile with the RAW conversion; and to use ArgyllCMS to build an ICC profile as well as to convert the profile to the working space.
>>
>> In just a little bit more detail:
>>
>> I recently got a Sekonic meter. Out of the box it was pretty good, but the incident and spot readings didn't quite match. The i1 has an incident light measurement mode, and Argyll will report the illuminance levels in lux when you use it that way. To convert from lux to EV(ISO100):
>>
>> EV = log2(lux / 2.5)
>>
>> The Sekonic was a couple tenths of a stop off from the i1. Once I adjusted the Sekonic to match the i1, the ambient and incident readings on the i1 were a perfect match, and both matched the in-camera meter.
>>
>> Next, I photographed a ColorChecker with just strobe modeling lights, set up in a copy-stand configuration. I adjusted the lights until the meter registered an exact stop setting, to the 1/10th, across the entire field. I set the camera to match the meter reading.
>>
>> To get the perfect white balance, don't use the eyedropper. Instead, crop the picture so just your white balance target is visible. Then, use the exposure adjustment until the histogram is somewhere near the middle (it doesn't need to be precise). Lastly, adjust the two white balance sliders until the histogram is a single white peak. In ACR, you'll probably need to type in the actual color temperature, as the 50K intervals the slider and arrow keys work in aren't very fine-grained. (Side note: DPP always shows the histogram of the entire picture, not just the cropped portion. I emailed Chuck Westfall asking him to ask The Powers That Be if they'd fix it, and he said he'd pass on the request.)
>>
>> A bit of a diversion here: for these purposes, Tyvek is the absolute best white balance target you'll find, short of Spectralon (a suitably-sized piece of which will set you back more than the camera body). Tyvek has a near-perfect flat 99% reflectivity across the entire spectrum. It's not quite as good as PTFE, but the difference isn't something you can measure with photographic equipment. (Spectralon is an almost-perfect non-specular reflector as well as being 99.9% reflective across the visible spectrum, whereas Tyvek's surface is somewhere between a matt and semi-gloss photographic paper.) The best thing about Tyvek? It's dirt cheap. You can buy Tyvek mailers at your local office supply store, and you probably already have a Tyvek CD envelope laying around somewhere. If it's a natural white plasticy paper with lots of fibrous detail, it's probably Tyvek. If a Sharpie pen spreads like mad along those fibers, it's almost certainly Tyvek. And if a plot from your spectrophoto
>> meter shows a flat line a hair's breadth below 100% reflectivity, then, congratulations, it really is Tyvek.
>>
>> (Canon sells Tyvek in roll form for banner printing. But, before you get too excited...the printable side is coated with the same FWA-rich stuff they use for their generic matt paper. The back side, however, is uncoated and shows no sign of fluorescence or other adulteration. So, if you do banner prints, get a roll, use it for its intended purpose, but also cut yourself a large blank sheet that you spray mount, back-side-up, to some foamcore for your perfect white balance target.)
>>
>> Next, remove the crop, return the exposure to neutral, and set all the other controls to their neutral (*not* default) position. In particular, brightness and contrast need to be at 0, the tone curve needs to be flat, and so on. Save these as your new defaults.
>>
>> At this point, in ACR, if you use the Camera Faithful DNG profile, you've got a not-miserable starting point for profiling, but we've still got a long ways to go.
>>
>>> From here, I opened the profile in the DNG profile editor. Though I used the chart feature to adjust the (2600K) color table, what I was really interested in was the tone curve.
>>
>> You want to start with a linear curve as the base curve, and then adjust it until the six neutral patches have the same Lab values as the ColorChecker. How to do this...is far from obvious. You'll need to know the Lab values from your ColorChecker, of course. You can find averaged values online, or you can measure your own ColorChecker with your spectrophotometer. (I did mention it'd be indispensable, no?) Unfortunately, the DNG editor doesn't give you a readout of picture values, and this isn't something you can eyeball. But...Mac OS X ships with a ``Digital Color Meter'' that will read out in Lab values. It takes the RGB levels sent to the video card and runs them through the monitor profile.
>>
>> Be sure you have the DNG editor set to apply CameraRaw adjustments, and then create a curve that gets the Digital Color Meter readout of the patches to match. Set aside at least an entire afternoon to do this...there's so much trial-and-error and frustration involved that I can't offer any specifics other than that it *can* be done, and that the simpler the curve the better. The end result should be very smooth, and all the Lab values should match to within a couple L* units. But be patient and persistent.
>>
>> Next, you want to calibrate your flash meter. Adjust the flash heads until the meter reads an exact stop. Take the shot, and see if the N/ 5 patch on the ColorChecker matches what it should (using, of course, your brand-new DNG profile and all settings at neutral). If not, change the calibration on your flash meter appropriately, re-measure and re-adjust the flash heads, lather, rinse, and repeat until the flash meter is properly calibrated.
>>
>> Then, use the shot of the ColorChecker lit with flash to create the 6500K color tables in the DNG profile you created earlier.
>>
>> (I found the auto-adjustment of the color tables to only marginally improve results, but it did improve them. 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.)
>>
>> Now, we *finally* get to the point of creating an ICC profile. Shoot the best profiling chart you've got. (I'm actually in the process of making my own, with dozens of paints -- artist's acrylics and paint store both -- applied through a silkscreen.) Be sure to use the exact same lighting conditions as you intend to use for real. Apply your shiny new DNG profile, save it as a ProPhoto RGB TIFF, and run it through Argyll to create a profile. (That last step will be non-trivial, but it's well documented and the support on the mailing list is fantastic.) (Oh -- and don't worry about the fact that it's already tagged with ProPhoto. It's a lengthy explanation, but the short version is that the profile it's tagged with is entirely arbitrary, and that's just the best to avoid clipping in the RAW converter. Argyll will take care of changing ``what it is'' to ``what it should be.'')
>>
>> Finally(!), shoot whatever it is you were planning on photographing in the first place, save it using the same workflow as you used to create the image of the profiling chart, and use Argyll to convert the image to your favorite working space. (You could simply assign the camera profile in PhotoShop and let it convert it to the working space, but Argyll does a better job. Especially if you do gamut mapping and a device link profile, though that's somewhat slower.)
>>
>> Obviously, once you've done all the preliminary work, the actual production work can be automated. If your lighting never (significantly) changes, you can reuse the same ICC profile for forever. Batch process the RAW files to TIFFs, and Argyll was designed from the start as something to be scripted.
>>
>> Is this an insane process? Yes. But it gives the best results of any I've found so far. Whether or not it's worth it is another matter...but, based on your email, I'm pretty sure you'll decide it's at least worth a try.
>>
>> An almost-final note: the state of the art in fine art reproduction is way beyond ICC profiles. Roy Burns at art-si.org is doing mind-blowing stuff, including taking multiple shots through different filters and using the result to create a spectrally-represented (rather than RGB-represented) file. And he's not the only one working on this kind of thing....
>>
>> A really-final note: I've found this linearized DNG profile to give me the best starting point for ``artistic'' photos as well as copy work. Generally, I only have to make very subtle adjustments to the black point or contrast to created the desired ``punch,'' and everything else after that is dodge-and-burn. If I could nail the lighting in the real world (obviously not possible with available light in the field), I wouldn't even have to do that much. The built-in profiles / curves / etc. have more ``punch'' out of the box, but they also clobber details and destroy color fidelity, and you can't get it back. It's much easier to start with something that's as close to the actual scene as possible and then adjust it to your specific tastes than it is to try to start from somebody else's interpretation and to re-re-re-interpret it to your liking. At least that way you get to be the one to decide which details to clobber and which colors to alter.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> b&
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Colorsync-users mailing list
>> email@hidden
>> http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
>>
>> End of Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 7, Issue 174
>> ***********************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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