May 2013 - colorsync-users - lists.apple.com

Re: Generating X-Rite DNG camera profiles for LR. Did I miss something?
by Paul Schilliger 08 May '13

08 May '13

Yes Andrew, I meant sliders put to default and backed with the "To null" LightRoom default parameter (sometimes some import settings are hidden). LightRoom Camera faithful, white balance as shot. I did not perform an end points nor any WB or other setting prior to running the profiler. Should I have done that? Ben, I'll get through your message more thoroughly later, but it looks interesting! …must go for dinner! ;-) Paul Schilliger > On May 8, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Paul Schilliger <email@hidden> wrote: > > I hastily made some DNG profiles via the X-Rite 1.0.2 export module (out of unprocessed zeroed RAW). > > > The profiles leave also the white balance shift uncorrected. > > Are you using the same "unprocessed zero'd" raw settings? Is there a reason why you're using zeroed raw settings (I suspect you mean all sliders are set to zero? What PV?). > > Andrew Rodney > http://www.digitaldog.net/

2 1

Re: The Creative Gouge
by Rich Wagner 08 May '13

08 May '13

One week in Florida with "limited" internet access is not a valid test for finding the complications referred to. Last year I spent a contiguous 6 weeks with "boots on the ground" in Cambodia and relied on village solar panels to recharge camera batteries and my MacBook Air. Zero internet access except first two days in Siem Reap and the last day in Bangkok. I guess it will be like the old days with film - you can't see what you've shot (or keyword) until you get back - or use a non-Adobe product like Photo Mechanic or something comparable. Sure, most of the time this new activation will work without a hitch - but some of the time it won't. There are plenty of places that I travel to that have little or no internet access, and a longer "call home" period would be useful, but this is a relatively minor issue. Do I want to pay a hefty monthly fee for some software that I use infrequently, where I don't need the latest version? No way - I'll try to find something that does the job with a different licensing model, and/or I'll keep running what I have until the wheels fall off and hardware/OS updates force me to make changes. (Profiling software would be another great example.) I'll pay a good price to license it up front, but switch to a monthly fee and I'm out. I don't need quarterly updates (of questionable value) on any of my software. Perhaps this will spur innovation and alternative and/or open source software development. This move by Adobe to a subscription-based licensing model is not driven by user demand, but by Adobe's desire for an increased revenue stream from the same customer base. That means an increased cost to the average end user. For some - especially if their company picks up the tab - this will be a good deal. They never see the bill anyway, and updates happen frequently (needed or not). For most, it will be an added cost and more restrictions or complications using/downloading the software. The benefit to end users? None that could not be made with the old licensing model. As others have commented, part of the issue is that the software has matured and users do not see the need to purchase updates for "features" that are primarily marketing driven or of questionable value, like constant interface make-overs, so the big upgrade cycle revenue stream is broken. Like many others, I'll be hanging onto CS6 for quite a while... and carefully considering alternatives to subscription apps that I don't use frequently. Perhaps it is time to get gradually weaned off of Adobe, to whatever extent it is possible. --Rich Wagner On May 8, 2013, at 11:53:27 Thomas Lianza <TLianza(a)xrite.com> wrote: > I am not sure I understand what complications you are referring to. My > software is running on my machines and my pictures are stored on my > machines and managed by me. The only thing that comes from the cloud are > automatic updates on all the platforms. I don't need to be online to > work..I just spent the last week in the Everglades and Florida Keys with > almost no internet. I had no problems or issues.

2 1

Re: The Creative Gouge
by Henry Davis 08 May '13

08 May '13

I'm happy for you and hope your luck continues. However, your support of this scheme sounds sort of like a "like it or lump it" attitude. I think there should be a reasonable choice offered - one that doesn't punish users one way or the other. For those who enjoy the new scheme - would you like to adopt it, support it for years and then see it taken away? This is especially disappointing being that it's purely a business decision since all of the functionality for the user can be delivered without the cloud. I would be interested if you could expand on your comment: "The only thing that comes from the cloud are automatic updates on all the platforms." Henry Message: 10 Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 11:53:27 +0000 From: Thomas Lianza <TLianza(a)xrite.com> To: Iliah Borg <iliah.i.borg(a)gmail.com> Cc: edmund ronald <edmundronald(a)gmail.com>, "'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List" <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> Subject: Re: The Creative Gouge Message-ID: <613836626C7EBB4DB40B4EA32ED73B64268FE946(a)grexdag001.XRITE.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I am not sure I understand what complications you are referring to. My software is running on my machines and my pictures are stored on my machines and managed by me. The only thing that comes from the cloud are automatic updates on all the platforms. I don't need to be online to work..I just spent the last week in the Everglades and Florida Keys with almost no internet. I had no problems or issues.

1 0

Eizo CG275w and basICColor Discus compatibility.
by Axel Robert 08 May '13

08 May '13

Dear all, I would like to know if anybody already tried to install and to run the latest version of ColorNavigator 6 which is 6.4.2? The corporate Eizo website indicates a full support for the basICColor spectrophotometer in its software section. However, even after having installed it, it is not recognized while the others like DTP94, i1Display, i1Pro and i1pro2 are available. I currently run on a Mac Pro Quad-Core Intel Xeon 2.8 Ghz with an ATI Radeon HD 5770 on Mac OS X 10.6.8. I've got two monitors; the second one is a Quato intelli Proof 213. I have to mention that the Discus works well on both screens with others calibration software like basICColor Display for example. Many thanks beforehand for your answers. Best regards, Axel Axel Robert | UBISOFT Prepress, Print Studio & Graphic Chain Quality Manager ”It is important that you know where you come from, because if you do not know where you come from, then you don’t know where you are, and if you don’t know where you are, then you don’t know where you’re going. And if you don’t know where you’re going, you’re probably going wrong .”

5 5

Xrite ISIS and 343 patch Monaco Profiler/Colorport targets
by edmund ronald 07 May '13

07 May '13

Hi guys - Is anyone here capable of getting the iSIS to cooperate with Monaco Profiler 4.8? I have tried various versions of Colorport, but i1Profiler now works on my notebooks after I updated Xrite Device access, and now Colorport gets the ISIS to barf. I'm not so sure that having a working i1Profiler software is better than having working Monaco, and in fact I'd like to be able to run *both* on the same system to check. Maybe someone knows how to use i1Profiler to read the target and export it? Edmund

1 0

Re: Feedback on success, creating another! camera profile
by Paul Schilliger 07 May '13

07 May '13

Alright, I understand now why for Adobe, to add ICC profiles support to LightRoom would mean a quantum leap backwards. So what are we left with: the 24 patch ColorChecker chart and DNG Profile editor? Does that produce good profiles? Is it worth investing the eighty bucks for a chart to give it a go? (I assume that there is no practical way for me to make such profile from the HCT target, right?) Paul Schilliger

6 6

Re: RPP raw photo processor 64
by Spinnaker Photo Imaging Center 07 May '13

07 May '13

Andrew, Ben I have been using the i1 Pro revision "D" and also have the i1 Pro revision "A". i1 Publish with the dongle. I profile my Epson Pro 9900 44 inch wide printer using the i1 Publish and the i1 Pro revision "D". Targets are printed from i1Publish. Targets dry for 48 hours. I use the NEC PA 271w display, profiled daily. I meticulous in my procedures. Computers are a pair of MacBook Pro 8,3's, non-glare displays. I profile clients' displays, as well as clients' printer/ink/substrate. 16 GB RAM in both laptops. Creating the sensor/lens/lighting custom .icc profile has been with exposure with gray card or white card. Currently I am using the gray part of the CCpassport. Once exposure is locked in. I photograph the CCpassport 24 patch grid. Convert the RAW file with Adobe DNG converter then use the Adobe DNG profile editor. I won't even discuss the X-Rite software. What has got me extremely interested is the potential for an even better by the numbers camera/lens/lighting custom .icc profile with RPP. For all I know, I am on the wrong track. Maybe RPP cannot do this. This meticulous procedure is required for reproduction of artists' original art. I cannot glorify or manipulate the image file created for them. Lighting is with Paul C Buff Ultra 1800's, polarizing filters on them, and on the lens of the camera. On the camera lens is also a UV / IR filter. So………am I wasting time, energy, money with this RPP? David B Miller, Pharm. D. member Millers' Photography L.L.C. dba Spinnaker Photo Imaging Center Bellingham, WA www.spinnakerphotoimagingcenter.com 360 714 1345 On May 6, 2013, at 5:03 PM, Ben Goren <ben(a)trumpetpower.com> wrote: > David, > > Yes, what you wish to do is possible. No, it's not intuitive or simple. Yes, there are opportunities for shortcuts -- and, of course, you'll have to be the one to decide when it's ``good enough.'' > > In RPP, if you don't have any profiles installed (and RPP uses its own folder location for profiles rather than one of the system-wide ones), I *think* it automatically uses a model-specific generic profile. You might have to follow up with the developer to confirm. > > When doing your copy work, before you shoot any art, you'll first create profiles for each combination of camera / light source / lens you'll be using, though you can get away with some repurposing. This will require a chart with many more than just 24 or 50 patches. There are commercial targets available, but you can do better -- much better -- by making your own. You'll need a spectrophotometer, presumably the i1 Pro, but you're going to need that regardless. > > When shooting the actual art, you'll also shoot a target -- any target -- and use a by-the-numbers technique to perfectly normalize white balance and exposure. You'll then develop the images you take of the art using those same white balance and exposure settings, with RPP tagging it with the pre-canned profile you took earlier. > > The end result of that is a TIFF with color accuracy limited pretty much only by the quality of your technique and the chart. > > You still need to print the result, which means a good printer profile -- which is where the spectrophotometer is indispensable. Your prints will mostly be limited primarily by the printer's gamut, but that also assumes a quality color conversion process. > > Here's hoping that's a good ``50,000-foot preview'' to string you along.... > > Cheers, > > b& > > On May 6, 2013, at 4:43 PM, Spinnaker Photo Imaging Center <spinnakerphotoimagingcenter(a)dnmillerphoto.com> wrote: > >> Hello Ben. >> >> Sure I will be patient and wait. I am looking for a non subjective way to create lens/sensor/lighting profile. By the numbers. >> >> Currently I use the 24 CC Passport and the Adobe, Adobe convert, and finally Adobe DNG profile editor. (The X-Rite profile editor just is worthless for my workflow. >> >> This workflow is for digital capture of artists original art, either 2 D or 3 D. 2 D is, charcoal, oil, watercolor, pastels, acrylics, and cut cut up paper in patterns. >> >> My job is to represent the artist's art as close as possible to the original. Clients are first advised, nothing will be perfect! >> >> I cannot manipulate this client work. For me, myself, I can do what I want. >> >> Somehow I engrained in my mentality, RPP can create this 'camera' profile. I would use RPP instead of Adobe products. >> >> Please point me to the Canon camera specific profiles in RPP, in the manual. I have only been attempting to use RPP for one day. >> >> Your assistance is appreciated. >> >> Cheers, >> >> David >> >> David B Miller, Pharm. D. >> member >> Millers' Photography L.L.C. >> dba Spinnaker Photo Imaging Center >> Bellingham, WA >> www.spinnakerphotoimagingcenter.com >> 360 714 1345 >> >> On May 6, 2013, at 6:22 AM, Ben Goren <ben(a)trumpetpower.com> wrote: >> >>> On May 5, 2013, at 9:30 PM, Spinnaker Photo Imaging Center <spinnakerphotoimagingcenter(a)dnmillerphoto.com> wrote: >>> >>>> How do I read the 24 patch target with RPP to arrive at a profile for the camera sensor/lens/lighting? >>> >>> The ColorChecker is great for (empirically, not by clicking and guessing) normalizing white balance and exposure. If you can wait a week or so I'll have a detailed post on the subject. >>> >>> However, 24 (or even 50) patches isn't really enough for a quality input profile. You need a bigger target -- and, again, I'm working on a detailed post. >>> >>> In the mean time, the generic (but camera-specific) profiles included with RPP are very well constructed. If your camera is supported, see what kinds of results you get with it. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> b& >> >

2 1

Re: Feedback on success, creating another! camera profile
by Lars Borg 06 May '13

06 May '13

Mark is correct. Use the right tools for the need! Lars -------- Original message -------- From: MARK SEGAL <mgsegal(a)rogers.com> Date: 05/06/2013 3:32 AM (GMT-10:00) To: Ben Goren <ben(a)trumpetpower.com>,Paul Schilliger <pschilliger(a)smile.ch> Cc: colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com Subject: Re: Feedback on success, creating another! camera profile Adobe created DNG in an attempt to develop a universal, accessible raw format, to resolve the issue of the multiplicity of raw formats on the market each with their proprietary secret sauce and raw conversion applications. The purpose was to create perpetual, transparent and universal raw conversion capability. I have seen zero evidence from their quarter about any concern over serious deficiencies in an ICC-based workflow. Mark ________________________________ From: Ben Goren <ben(a)trumpetpower.com> To: Paul Schilliger <pschilliger(a)smile.ch> Cc: "colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com" <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> Sent: Monday, May 6, 2013 9:26:43 AM Subject: Re: Feedback on success, creating another! camera profile On May 6, 2013, at 2:11 AM, Paul Schilliger <pschilliger(a)smile.ch> wrote: > is there a chance that LightRoom 5 will see the implementation of a true ICC profiles engine like there is in Capture One? While anything is possible, I'd put the chances of ICC support in Adobe raw processing engines somewhere in the ballpark of Sarah Palin getting the *Democratic* Party presidential nomination in 2012. DNG is Adobe's baby; it performs its intended purpose rather well; and it fits their design philosophy very well. And Adobe created DNG to address what they saw were serious deficiencies in an ICC-based workflow. As far as Adobe is concerned, DNG is the solution and ICC profiles are the problem. Cheers, b& _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/mgsegal%40rogers.com This email sent to mgsegal(a)rogers.com _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/borg%40adobe.com This email sent to borg(a)adobe.com

1 0

RPP raw photo processor 64
by Spinnaker Photo Imaging Center 06 May '13

06 May '13

Downloaded and donated for the RPP raw photo processor 64. Steep learning curve as others have suggested. I would appreciate guidance to any videos available. YouTube has some, one without sound and one with Russian, I think. Further, how do I integrate the 24 patch target (X-Rite) into RPP? Maybe integrate is not the appropriated word. How do I read the 24 patch target with RPP to arrive at a profile for the camera sensor/lens/lighting? Cheers David David B Miller, Pharm. D. member Millers' Photography L.L.C. dba Spinnaker Photo Imaging Center Bellingham, WA www.spinnakerphotoimagingcenter.com 360 739 2826

2 1

Re: Feedback on success, creating another! camera profile
by Paul Schilliger 06 May '13

06 May '13

Please bear with my novice approach as I'll keep sharing some of the things I can get hold of along my slow but steady route. I shared previously on how I could assign a custom camera profile into Photoshop at time of processing with Camera Raw. But this was not exactly what I wanted since I don't want to export my RAW to see them with the right colors. Over the week-end, I briefly tried two photo editors, or three I should say. It's not that I am not interested in independent developer's software, which can be very innovative, and most of the renowned photo editors started that way. But given that I can take one thousand shots or more on a one day outing or event—but sometimes none—, and since I like to spend my time taking photos, as much as I like working on them on a computer, I need to have something quick and functional to process the images. This is what made me throw my heart on LightRoom rather than on Capture One five years ago. I'm still fond of LightRoom. It is probably the best editor for speed and ease. I like the interactive histogram, the choice of options in the synchronize menu, the dust removal tool, the local adjustments, the interface which remains easy to my eyes even on my new thin pitch monitor. LightRoom has been built for convenience and ease of use, and to deal with large photo librairies. Some other software seem built for refinement. Of course, the best photo editor is always the one one gets to know the best. So, I briefly checked the beta version of LightRoom 5. The canned Canon 1Ds3 profiles are more or less the same as in previous versions of LightRoom. I denigrated those generic DNG profiles in an earlier post, and I should probably rectify by saying that they are good for what they are intended for. They are averaged to match tens of thousands of cameras from different batches, produced over a five years period or more. Those cameras are themselves designed to produce out of the box visually pleasing or flattering images to casual photographers who know not yet much about photo editing, andto give good looks to young Japanese girls. So the problem lies perhaps not in those generic camera profiles, but rather in the fact that the possibility of making a custom camera profile is not fully integrated in those photo editing tools we use. We don't question the need to build a custom profile for any serious scanning work, and good scanners are delivered with a chart and a profiling software, but we keep using those less than average generic profiles for photography. Then I downloaded a trial version of Capture One. Having placed untouched previews from LightRoom and from Capture One side by side, there was not much difference. The way some of my images look in Capture One 7 is somewhere between Camera Faithful and Adobe Standard in LightRoom. Capture One proposes just one generic profile for the Canon, but it is quite usable. LightRoom offers a set, but one or two are acceptable and the others are, excuse me, crap or perhaps intended at another planet's people and landscapes. But Capture One has something very interesting to offer that LightRoom has not (yet?), and that's support for ICC profiles! It also offers an array of profiles, and amongst them a DNG Neutral profile and a Camera RGB profile. I don't know if that profile is intended for that use, but I exported the HCT target in the latest and could then build a wide gamut ICC beta profile for my camera with the BasiCColor Photoshop plugin. Placed in the recommended profiles folder, Capture One found it. The differences with the generic Canon 1Ds3 profile (or with LightRoom's Camera Faithful) is slight, but there is a world of difference to my eyes. It mainly corrects for that excess of yellow in skin tones I was complaining about, brings up better green, magenta and purple, and adds some gamma depth. From there, I could then explore some of the image processing features of Capture One, such as the way it deals with noise, the perspective correction tools, the RGB curves! and also the color editor with it's very selective handling of hues. I could for instance warm up the greenish-yellow from some fall foliage without affecting the green grass below, something impossible to accomplish in DxO 7 and only partially achievable in LightRoom. The highlights and shadows corrections, as well as the exposure and lightness algorithms, are very smooth — the result is a vivid but still very natural looking image, even though the edits were strong on that one. Well, I've got 59 remaining days to evaluate that soft. I'm not particularly seeking the very high end results this program is aimed at, since I'm not into studio or repro work. But if I can find my way to speed in it, I'd be tempted to switch, but that might bring another nightmare considering what should I do with the old LightRoom catalogs… DNG profiler put aside, is there a chance that LightRoom 5 will see the implementation of a true ICC profiles engine like there is in Capture One? Paul Schilliger

5 5