Subject: Re: raw 3.1 professional custom profiles for highend digital cameras
Building a profile for each image is somewhat practical, albeit time-consuming, for photographers shooting under controlled lighting in the studio. It's a total non-starter for photojournalism, editorial stock, sports, and a great many other situations.
Part of the difference you see between the Canon and Sinar files may be due to the profile, but I suspect a great deal more is due to the camera. You typically get what you pay for.
I've worked extensively with the photographers at the National Gallery in Washington DC, which uses the Sinar for all in-house photography, and even with a custom profile for every image, we still encounter the issue of camera metamerism, and quite often the tonality imposed by the profile is not the tonality we need, but when we impose our own tonality we get color shifts. A custom profile is not a panacea, it's simply a tool that's more useful in some situations than others.
Forcing the colors to the 24 patches is exactly what Tom Fors' script does. The 24-patch color checker is extremely stable, and manufactured under stringent conditions. The spectral formulation has changed twice in its history, but the resulting tristimulus values match across generations to within the margin of intrument variation on mid-range spectrophotometers like the Gretag SPM 100 and Spectrolino. If you left one out in the sun for a year, it would probably fade some, but who does that?
When you factor in the minimum granularity of the adjustments, which are dictated by 12-bit or 14-bit camera RGB, the variation between color checker samples is smaller than the smallest adjustments you can make in the software.
View All Messages in adobe.photoshop.camera.raw
raw 3.1 professional custom profiles for highend digital cameras =>
Re: raw 3.1 professional custom profiles for highend digital cameras
Copyright © 2006 WatermarkFactory.com. All Rights Reserved.