Re: Preview for RAW conversion
On 6/1/16 3:00 PM, colorsync-users-request@lists.apple.com wrote:
Send Colorsync-users mailing list submissions to colorsync-users@lists.apple.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to colorsync-users-request@lists.apple.com
You can reach the person managing the list at colorsync-users-owner@lists.apple.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Colorsync-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Preview's raw colour management (Martin Orpen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 14:51:18 +0100 From: Martin Orpen <martin@idea-digital.com> To: "'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List" <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> Subject: Preview's raw colour management Message-ID: <498F33DE-8DBC-491C-9ADA-5FA880245C6B@idea-digital.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
If I open a NEF in Preview it will allow me to save out a TIFF tagged with the AdobeRGB profile.
There are some colours in these conversions that I like but I can’t seem to match them in Capture One 9 (and I definitely don’t want to use Preview for the conversions).
Anybody know how Preview handles colour in raw conversions?
Or have links to documentation?
Message 2 Martin, As you say, you don't want to use Preview to output from your RAW files, and I confess that I have no idea how the software makes it decisions. Nevertheless, you have Capture One, a very capable software, and you ought to be able to achieve virtually any color you want. It might take a bit of work, but you ought to be able to come up with a satisfactory proximation of your Preview output and then save your settings as a preset. What color space are you using in Capture One?
On 1 Jun 2016, at 21:08, Neil Steinberg <software@photowork.net> wrote:
As you say, you don't want to use Preview to output from your RAW files, and I confess that I have no idea how the software makes it decisions. Nevertheless, you have Capture One, a very capable software, and you ought to be able to achieve virtually any color you want. It might take a bit of work, but you ought to be able to come up with a satisfactory proximation of your Preview output and then save your settings as a preset. What color space are you using in Capture One?
Hi Neil This is a problem that has arisen after the NEFs have been processed and twenty hours of retouching have already been invested in the project :( The supplied files needed next to no work in C1, most were sent through with the simplest recipe to convert them to AdobeRGB without any changes to exposure etc. I’ve worked with NEFs since the D100 and never had any issues with them but these D810 raws look very different when previewed in the Finder (or converted using Preview). Lighter, more open, less red, with desaturated blues and greens and not a lot of contrast. Noticeably different to the D750 raws that we processed for comparison purposes today. We had to assign a false profile and then curve + hue/sat to match the client’s expectations (they’d edited the raw sessions in the Finder on MacBooks) and I don’t want to have to waste time doing that again… If there is any documentation about Apple’s NEF conversions it’d be helpful to read through so that we can mimic the "Finder look” during the initial processing. Regards -- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd
Dear Martin, Hasselblad's Phocus still uses Apple's library for raw conversions (for raw files coming from other than their own cameras), same one the Preview is using. http://www.hasselblad.com/software/phocus -- Best regards, Iliah Borg LibRaw, LLC www.libraw.org www.rawdigger.com www.fastrawviewer.com
Seeing so much time has already been invested in the Preview work, why not just save out from Preview? Otherwise, the same library should be accessible from Phocus as Illiah says, but above all from Aperture and maybe eve n ...iPhoto or Photos or whatever that thing is called, although the output spaces may be more limited than in Preview (!). EDMUND On Jun 2, 2016 00:20, "Iliah Borg" <iliah.i.borg@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Martin,
Hasselblad's Phocus still uses Apple's library for raw conversions (for raw files coming from other than their own cameras), same one the Preview is using.
http://www.hasselblad.com/software/phocus
-- Best regards, Iliah Borg LibRaw, LLC www.libraw.org www.rawdigger.com www.fastrawviewer.com
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/edmundronald%40gmail...
This email sent to edmundronald@gmail.com
the same library should be accessible from Phocus as Illiah says, but above all from Aperture and maybe eve n ...iPhoto or Photos
Exactly right, same library is used in all Apple software, however what you are saying below is true, too, unfortunately :)
or whatever that thing is called, although the output spaces may be more limited than in Preview (!).
EDMUND
On Jun 2, 2016 00:20, "Iliah Borg" <iliah.i.borg@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Martin,
Hasselblad's Phocus still uses Apple's library for raw conversions (for raw files coming from other than their own cameras), same one the Preview is using.
-- Best regards, Iliah Borg LibRaw, LLC www.libraw.org www.rawdigger.com www.fastrawviewer.com
On 2 Jun 2016, at 14:11, edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com> wrote:
Seeing so much time has already been invested in the Preview work, why not just save out from Preview? Otherwise, the same library should be accessible from Phocus as Illiah says, but above all from Aperture and maybe eve n ...iPhoto or Photos or whatever that thing is called, although the output spaces may be more limited than in Preview (!).
Edmund The only investment in Preview was viewing the NEFs by tapping the space bar in the Finder. The raws were converted in Capture One. The problem is having to visually match the look of a Finder “preview” (not even a Preview conversion) on the uncalibrated MacBook Pro screens of people on another continent after all of the retouching has been done on a campaign :( -- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd
Ah. Beware. There are bugs and depending on Finder version colors may change. On Jun 2, 2016 15:22, "Martin Orpen" <martin@idea-digital.com> wrote:
On 2 Jun 2016, at 14:11, edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com> wrote:
Seeing so much time has already been invested in the Preview work, why not just save out from Preview? Otherwise, the same library should be accessible from Phocus as Illiah says, but above all from Aperture and maybe eve n ...iPhoto or Photos or whatever that thing is called, although the output spaces may be more limited than in Preview (!).
Edmund
The only investment in Preview was viewing the NEFs by tapping the space bar in the Finder.
The raws were converted in Capture One.
The problem is having to visually match the look of a Finder “preview” (not even a Preview conversion) on the uncalibrated MacBook Pro screens of people on another continent after all of the retouching has been done on a campaign :(
-- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/edmundronald%40gmail...
This email sent to edmundronald@gmail.com
I would put up a colorchecker preview from the same color space on that machine, do screen captures and run a profiler to compute the corrections. On Jun 2, 2016 15:48, "edmund ronald" <edmundronald@gmail.com> wrote:
Ah. Beware. There are bugs and depending on Finder version colors may change. On Jun 2, 2016 15:22, "Martin Orpen" <martin@idea-digital.com> wrote:
On 2 Jun 2016, at 14:11, edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com> wrote:
Seeing so much time has already been invested in the Preview work, why not just save out from Preview? Otherwise, the same library should be accessible from Phocus as Illiah says, but above all from Aperture and maybe eve n ...iPhoto or Photos or whatever that thing is called, although the output spaces may be more limited than in Preview (!).
Edmund
The only investment in Preview was viewing the NEFs by tapping the space bar in the Finder.
The raws were converted in Capture One.
The problem is having to visually match the look of a Finder “preview” (not even a Preview conversion) on the uncalibrated MacBook Pro screens of people on another continent after all of the retouching has been done on a campaign :(
-- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/edmundronald%40gmail...
This email sent to edmundronald@gmail.com
On 2 Jun 2016, at 14:51, edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com> wrote:
I would put up a colorchecker preview from the same color space on that machine, do screen captures and run a profiler to compute the corrections.
That wouldn’t help us match what the client was *seeing* would it? An iPhone shot of the screen with a real ColorChecker next to it would be slightly less useless. Uncalibrated MacBook Pro was easier to source though :) -- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd
On Jun 2, 2016, at 6:21 AM, Martin Orpen <martin@idea-digital.com> wrote:
The problem is having to visually match the look of a Finder “preview” (not even a Preview conversion) on the uncalibrated MacBook Pro screens of people on another continent after all of the retouching has been done on a campaign :(
Alas, there are far too many variables there to solve. Your first step is to make sure that everybody knows that what's being asked of you is about as impossible as turning bacon and eggs into hogs and hens. But maybe everybody could take a field trip to the SPCA and pick out a cute little kitten to take home, and that's good enough? The suggestion of an iPhone snapshot of the screen plus a physical ColorChecker is not a bad one. I'd amend it to suggest sending a digital ColorChecker (Bruce Lindbloom's site is a good source) and having that on the MacBook next to the picture you're trying to "match." If you do a lot of profile building, you could go that route to attempt the "match." But, if that's not something you do all the time, you're about as well off using Photoshop curves. The margin of error (big enough to sail the Titanic through) is about the same either way. First adjust the iPhone snapshot so the physical ColorChecker is "close enough" -- and, for the sake of all that's unholy, don't beat yourself up trying to get the perfect match! Then, in a new document, make a new curves layer that "matches" Bruce's ColorChecker to the now-"adjusted" iPhone snapshot. Your last step is to put the two sets of curves on top of each other. But, even more importantly...take this as a lesson for all involved -- both your clients _and_ you -- to not waste time in the future trying to "match" colors in a non-managed workflow. Anything not managed is for composition and position only. If the client sees something not managed that they like, you get a verbal description and use that to draw inspiration for your own edits, just as if the client asked you to "give it more punch" or "dial back the greens" or "make it more moody." Cheers, b& P.S. If the client gets really insistent...tell the client you'll need physical possession of the laptop for a week or so -- either they FedEx it to you or they pay your way to go to them. You can then bring all sorts of tools to bear, including colorimeters and what-not, to get reasonably (but not perfectly) close. And if it's not worth it to them to spend that kind of money, it's not worth it to you to attempt that level of precision. b&
The problem is that even a 'calibrated' laptop is basically random. An Epson print on epson paper is mostly invariant from machine to machine. On Jun 2, 2016 5:16 PM, "Ben Goren" <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 2016, at 6:21 AM, Martin Orpen <martin@idea-digital.com> wrote:
The problem is having to visually match the look of a Finder “preview” (not even a Preview conversion) on the uncalibrated MacBook Pro screens of people on another continent after all of the retouching has been done on a campaign :(
Alas, there are far too many variables there to solve. Your first step is to make sure that everybody knows that what's being asked of you is about as impossible as turning bacon and eggs into hogs and hens. But maybe everybody could take a field trip to the SPCA and pick out a cute little kitten to take home, and that's good enough?
The suggestion of an iPhone snapshot of the screen plus a physical ColorChecker is not a bad one. I'd amend it to suggest sending a digital ColorChecker (Bruce Lindbloom's site is a good source) and having that on the MacBook next to the picture you're trying to "match."
If you do a lot of profile building, you could go that route to attempt the "match." But, if that's not something you do all the time, you're about as well off using Photoshop curves. The margin of error (big enough to sail the Titanic through) is about the same either way. First adjust the iPhone snapshot so the physical ColorChecker is "close enough" -- and, for the sake of all that's unholy, don't beat yourself up trying to get the perfect match! Then, in a new document, make a new curves layer that "matches" Bruce's ColorChecker to the now-"adjusted" iPhone snapshot. Your last step is to put the two sets of curves on top of each other.
But, even more importantly...take this as a lesson for all involved -- both your clients _and_ you -- to not waste time in the future trying to "match" colors in a non-managed workflow. Anything not managed is for composition and position only. If the client sees something not managed that they like, you get a verbal description and use that to draw inspiration for your own edits, just as if the client asked you to "give it more punch" or "dial back the greens" or "make it more moody."
Cheers,
b&
P.S. If the client gets really insistent...tell the client you'll need physical possession of the laptop for a week or so -- either they FedEx it to you or they pay your way to go to them. You can then bring all sorts of tools to bear, including colorimeters and what-not, to get reasonably (but not perfectly) close. And if it's not worth it to them to spend that kind of money, it's not worth it to you to attempt that level of precision. b& _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/edmundronald%40gmail...
This email sent to edmundronald@gmail.com
On Jun 2, 2016, at 10:07 AM, edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com> wrote:
The problem is that even a 'calibrated' laptop is basically random. An Epson print on epson paper is mostly invariant from machine to machine.
Not sure I'd agree with that. All the laptops I've owned I've been able to, within the constraints of gamut and viewing angles, get single-digit DE or better profiles from. And there can be quite significant differences in gamut from one paper (and, presumably, one printer model) to another. A print made with an Epson large-format fine art printer on their exhibition glossy paper is potentially going to be radically different from one made on an Epson all-in-one scan/copy/fax printer with Epson-branded 8 1/2 x 11 inkjet ream paper. ...but that <i>does</i> suggest another alternate for Martin: if the clients can make a print they're happy with, and if they can use the exact same workflow to print a profiling target, that could potentially solve all the problems. Of course, the chances of the clients getting a print they're happy with when starting with an unprofiled random laptop are basically nil, but it's worth mentioning. And, then again, if they _are_ happy wth the "close enough" that's the best they're likely to be able to do, then they're also likely to be similarly happy with the "close enough" that they'd get from a verbal instruction to Martin. b&
I meant a print made on a decent "prosumer" Epson printer with original media - these prints tend to match from printer to printer, with same model printer and paper used, these days. Edmund ᐧ On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 2016, at 10:07 AM, edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com> wrote:
The problem is that even a 'calibrated' laptop is basically random. An Epson print on epson paper is mostly invariant from machine to machine.
Not sure I'd agree with that. All the laptops I've owned I've been able to, within the constraints of gamut and viewing angles, get single-digit DE or better profiles from. And there can be quite significant differences in gamut from one paper (and, presumably, one printer model) to another. A print made with an Epson large-format fine art printer on their exhibition glossy paper is potentially going to be radically different from one made on an Epson all-in-one scan/copy/fax printer with Epson-branded 8 1/2 x 11 inkjet ream paper.
...but that <i>does</i> suggest another alternate for Martin: if the clients can make a print they're happy with, and if they can use the exact same workflow to print a profiling target, that could potentially solve all the problems. Of course, the chances of the clients getting a print they're happy with when starting with an unprofiled random laptop are basically nil, but it's worth mentioning. And, then again, if they _are_ happy wth the "close enough" that's the best they're likely to be able to do, then they're also likely to be similarly happy with the "close enough" that they'd get from a verbal instruction to Martin.
b&
This is not "Preview" but Apple Quick Look technology, which in fact leverages the qlgenerator provided by Capture One if it is installed and should look good. Is Capture One installed on the machine where Quick Look is being used? - Jeff The only investment in Preview was viewing the NEFs by tapping the space bar in the Finder. The raws were converted in Capture One. -- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd -- Jeff NovaChief Executive OfficerColorhythm jnova@colorhythm.comMain: +1 415-399-9921Mobile: +1 510-710-9590Fax: +1 415-399-9928 1015 Battery Street, Suite CSan Francisco CA 94111http://colorhythm.com This electronic mail and the documents accompanying it are considered trade secret, confidential and/or proprietary by Colorhythm LLC. This information is intended for use by the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited.
On 2 Jun 2016, at 18:52, Jeff Nova <jnova@colorhythm.com> wrote:
This is not "Preview" but Apple Quick Look technology, which in fact leverages the qlgenerator provided by Capture One if it is installed and should look good. Is Capture One installed on the machine where Quick Look is being used?
Jeff Interesting, but I think that it’s Apple tech that is generating the previews for NEFs. And the raws processed in Preview.app match the Finder previews too. Not 100% sure, but Capture One 9’s Contents/Library/Quicklook/IIQ.qlgenerator looks like it is written to provide previews for IIQ files only? I can’t find any C1 .glgenerators loaded in /System /Library or ~/Library on my Mac. Regards -- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd
You found the right C1 qlgenerator, and it does work for more than IIQs despite its name, but I'm afraid you are likely right about NEFs. I apologize for misleading you. Perhaps Nikon or someone else has released a qlgenerator for NEFs that improves upon Apple's? http://nikonrumors.com/2015/05/29/raw-right-away-is-a-new-nef-plugin-for-mac... Please share if you have good luck! Best, Jeff
On Jun 2, 2016, at 5:52 PM, Martin Orpen <martin@idea-digital.com> wrote:
On 2 Jun 2016, at 18:52, Jeff Nova <jnova@colorhythm.com> wrote:
This is not "Preview" but Apple Quick Look technology, which in fact leverages the qlgenerator provided by Capture One if it is installed and should look good. Is Capture One installed on the machine where Quick Look is being used?
Jeff
Interesting, but I think that it’s Apple tech that is generating the previews for NEFs.
And the raws processed in Preview.app match the Finder previews too.
Not 100% sure, but Capture One 9’s Contents/Library/Quicklook/IIQ.qlgenerator looks like it is written to provide previews for IIQ files only?
I can’t find any C1 .glgenerators loaded in /System /Library or ~/Library on my Mac.
Regards
-- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/jnova%40colorhythm.c...
This email sent to jnova@colorhythm.com
-- Jeff NovaChief Executive OfficerColorhythm jnova@colorhythm.comMain: +1 415-399-9921Mobile: +1 510-710-9590Fax: +1 415-399-9928 1015 Battery Street, Suite CSan Francisco CA 94111http://colorhythm.com This electronic mail and the documents accompanying it are considered trade secret, confidential and/or proprietary by Colorhythm LLC. This information is intended for use by the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited.
participants (6)
-
Ben Goren
-
edmund ronald
-
Iliah Borg
-
Jeff Nova
-
Martin Orpen
-
Neil Steinberg