Re: Feedback on success, creating another! camera profile
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
This is a bit of off-topic, but may be useful. RawDigger program has an ability to extract CGATS directly from raw files, and additionally to use a flat field to compensate for the light setup. It is free and you can download it at http://www.rawdigger.com/news/rawdigger-0-9-16 The manual explains the process starting page 21, Selection Grid: processing color targets. For flat field, please see http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51015916 -- Best regards, Iliah Borg
On May 6, 2013, at 2:11 AM, Paul Schilliger <pschilliger@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&
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@trumpetpower.com> To: Paul Schilliger <pschilliger@smile.ch> Cc: "colorsync-users@lists.apple.com" <colorsync-users@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@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@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/mgsegal%40rogers.com This email sent to mgsegal@rogers.com
On May 6, 2013, at 7:26 AM, Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote:
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.
And then getting elected president! I agree, never going to happen (ICC camera profiles, LR supports others just fine).
DNG is Adobe's baby
True but let's not muddy DNG profiles and DNG a file format that has a large number of advantages as data container.
DNG is the solution and ICC profiles are the problem.
I'd prefer not to think they think ICC profiles are a problem especially if you recall your color management history circa 1998 and the release of Photoshop 5. Pretty much put ICC color management on the larger map for end users. Some ICC profiles can be a problem yes. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
As Mark and Andrew have pointed out, I was rather sloppy in my use of terms...it's DNG profiles versus ICC profiles for raw image development we're discussing, and expanding my comments past that very narrow context (which would indeed seem reasonable based on my poor phrasing) is inaccurate and unfair. Cheers, b&
participants (5)
-
Andrew Rodney
-
Ben Goren
-
Iliah Borg
-
MARK SEGAL
-
Paul Schilliger