Re: Feedback on success, creating a camera profile
Re: Feedback on success, creating a camera profile
- Subject: Re: Feedback on success, creating a camera profile
- From: José Ángel Bueno García <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 04 May 2013 19:02:39 +0200
Timidly, because waiting for the storm, QPcard with QPcalibration software
makes DCP.
Ben, you are talking about image engineers and research departments in
imaging software and imaging devices.
I have been watching your site's photographic images and don't see the
difference with images edited in ACR/Lightroom/RPP by myself. Have stated
that you keep "colors" slightly (natural) saturated to maintain detail and
surface texture, as opposite to camera consumer adjustements, and thats OK.
In my opinion, and as reference to Paul comments, after jump from Photoshop
CS4 to CS6 or the latest Lightroom, the image edition in shadows,
highlights, "version" of proccess and lens profiles, have been improved to
the levels of other raw editors. I suppose that people at Adobe han been
working hard and have incorporated external researchers because a bunch of
enhancements were part of research at image engineer universities that I
have been reading in the last four years.
"S" curves destroy detail in highlight and shadow?. I try to avoid presets
that don't work in my workflow, or try to adapt to my preferred appearance.
What is your image editing software?. Only RPP?
Agree with identify and make use of the best light source that you can
afford, but with special attention to SPD than to CRI.
Maybe you are true in colorimetric accuracy as general aspect on image
capture with DSLR, but the alternative, as far as I know, is to take
spectral measurements of the light source and the of the scene (talking
about reproducing art) and make use of your favourite profiling software.
Some colleagues say RGB CFA is guilty of colorimetric accuracy limitations.
Meanwhile ColorCheckers are the only generic, de facto standard, tool for
those of us that intentionality keep constancy, and try to have confidence
in color management techniques.
And what about the printing path?.
Salud
Jose Bueno
2013/5/4 MARK SEGAL <email@hidden>
> We have differing ideas about what constitutes explanation and
> justification. I'll leave it at that. The Adobe folks would be better
> positioned than me to address these contentions scientifically, if they
> chose to.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ben Goren <email@hidden>
> To: MARK SEGAL <email@hidden>
> Cc: "email@hidden List" <
> email@hidden>
> Sent: Saturday, May 4, 2013 10:09:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Feedback on success, creating a camera profile
>
>
> On May 4, 2013, at 4:48 AM, MARK SEGAL <email@hidden> wrote:
>
> > I was struck by this statement:
> >
> > "run away from DNG profiles and anything else to do with Adobe's
> processing of raw images and color profiling as far and as fast as you can."
> >
> > As most of the imaging community world-wide is spending gazillions of
> time and money using this stuff, I'm not sure such a bald, dismissive
> sentence with no explanation and no justification should pass unnoticed.
> Perhaps you would care to elaborate?
>
> I provided exactly that explanation and justification in the introductory
> clause to the sentence you only partially quoted, as well as the preceding
> sentence.
>
> Here's the full paragraph again:
>
> > If you understand that colorimetric accuracy is *not* the goal of DNG
> profiles, they serve their intended purpose rather well. But if you're
> looking for colorimetric matching, run away from DNG profiles and anything
> else to do with Adobe's processing of raw images and color profiling as far
> and as fast as you can.
>
> The key thing to understand is that Adobe's raw processing software is not
> and never has been intended to create colorimetric renderings. Its
> oft-stated goal is instead "pleasing" color. Which is a good thing for
> shareholders, because most of Adobe's customers are much more interested in
> "pleasing" color than accurate color.
>
> Or, at least they *think* they are...but that's a rant for another time.
> The short version is that virtually all of the complaints that
> photographers have, all of the holy grails they keep chasing, are a result
> of the compromises necessary to achieve "pleasing" color. For example, That
> S-curve that virtually always gets applied to "enhance contrast and give an
> image 'pop'" is what destroys shadow and highlight detail. It *has* to;
> TANSTAAFL.
>
> Anyway, the end result is that there's no way to get colorimetric accuracy
> out of Adobe's raw processing software, and even getting in the ballpark is
> a challenge. But with different software, it's quite practical to, for
> example, photograph an artwork and make a print such that the artist
> herself has to very closely and carefully examine the two side-by-side to
> spot the differences.
>
> A similar workflow can produce superlative results in general photography,
> including landscape and portraiture and the like. The key there is to
> always shoot in good light, which means finding or making good light. Which
> also means seeing good light and being able to recognize what is and isn't
> good light. Many of those techniques used for "pleasing" results are really
> just tools to fix bad light in post-processing. But that's yet another rant
> for yet another time....
>
> I should also add: so long as you don't rely upon Adobe products for the
> colorimetrically-critical parts of your workflow, especially raw
> development and profile conversion, you'll be hard-pressed to find better
> tools for the rest of your editing tasks, from noise reduction to
> sharpening to cleanup to geometry corrections to compositing to layout and
> design to all the rest. You're especially not going to find anything else
> as comprehensive and as well integrated. It's just that Adobe's engineers
> are solving a different problem from the one of colorimetric accuracy. They
> solve the problems they're intending to solve rather well, but that (of
> course! TANSTAAFL again) creates insolvable problems for those seeking
> colorimetric accuracy.
>
> TL/DR: Use the right tool for the right job, and Adobe products are great
> tools designed for uses that exclude colorimetric accuracy.
>
> 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