Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: samuel_js on April 13, 2008, 04:44:47 pm
-
Hi all,
I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how get the right color out of Lightroom. Usually, C1 or C4 gives very acurate color maybe due to the Phase One profiles. Color from LR are way off. I like LR's color controls, very nice for landscapes etc.. but i don't seem to find a way to match the natural ouput from C4. Is there any way LR can read the Phase One profiles? Or is a calibration file needed?
In the next example I used a generic P20 profile, white balance "as shot" and a "extra contrast" curve for the C4 file. In the LR file I used standar settings, with balance "as shot" as well. As you can see the ouput is very different...
Any ideas?
(http://samuelaxelsson.com/images/LL/C4vsLR.jpg)
Thank's
-
Neither is accurate, one is preferable so lets start there.
Are you referring to a default rendering? Because you DO need to move the sliders to provide a desired color appearance (and then you could use that as a new default rendering, understanding that based on the capture, you may need a totally different set of rendering instructions).
No, there's no way the two products can work from one another.
-
Neither is accurate, one is preferable so lets start there.
Are you referring to a default rendering? Because you DO need to move the sliders to provide a desired color appearance (and then you could use that as a new default rendering, understanding that based on the capture, you may need a totally different set of rendering instructions).
No, there's no way the two products can work from one another.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189286\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There's no processing but "as shot" withe balance, so of course they are not perfect acurate, but the the red from the C4 file is right, the LR file is magenta.
-
There's no processing but "as shot" withe balance, so of course they are not perfect acurate, but the the red from the C4 file is right, the LR file is magenta.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189287\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The As Shot WB is only a suggestion and starting point. You may need to use the WB tool, or simply alter an existing WB rendering and use that as the new default.
-
The As Shot WB is only a suggestion and starting point. You may need to use the WB tool, or simply alter an existing WB rendering and use that as the new default.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189289\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, I tried that. It doesn't change the magenta.
-
Hi all,
I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how get the right color out of Lightroom. Usually, C1 or C4 gives very acurate color maybe due to the Phase One profiles. Color from LR are way off. I like LR's color controls, very nice for landscapes etc.. but i don't seem to find a way to match the natural ouput from C4. Is there any way LR can read the Phase One profiles? Or is a calibration file needed?
In the next example I used a generic P20 profile, white balance "as shot" and a "extra contrast" curve for the C4 file. In the LR file I used standar settings, with balance "as shot" as well. As you can see the ouput is very different...
Any ideas?
(http://samuelaxelsson.com/images/LL/C4vsLR.jpg)
Thank's
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189279\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You *could* try and run the Fors Lightroom calibration script. That should improve matters, but my expectation is that your reds will still be off if the rest is ok. You could also play with the white balance sliders.
You could also use LR in linear mode and apply a profile afterwards, in Photoshop, if someone will make you such a profile. The problem here is that you lose the ability to preview what the LR sliders are doing for you.
I feel that the Adobe color model as it stands in the released versions is simply wrong. I'm not going to argue with Andrew here, he's a very smart guy but we have different opinions on this, and he keeps defending the status quo while I preach the fact that things that just ain't right should be fixed.
Adobe makes some superb software, they listen to customers, and I'm sure the color model in ACR will be fixed sooner or later. In the mean time however I would advise anybody who has issues with the colors in ACR and LR to use C1 or Raw Developer; their profile model works better in practice even if the authors aren't billionaires.
Edmund
-
Yes, I tried that. It doesn't change the magenta.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189290\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not sure what you're actually trying to do, but you should have no issues removing Magenta either using Tint Slider (which has a green/magenta axis) or using HSL controls to target that color to name just two options.
-
Andrew, is not a question of tint or WB. The problem is LR not displaying the color balance properly (not white balance) as Eronal says.
In the example I posted the reds and yellows are off, as well as some greens, but the WB and tint is similar to the C4 file.
Lightroom has a camera calibration solution that make the files look a bit better balanced, but still not as good or natural OOTB as the C4 files.
Eronald, have you tried to make a calibration file for your P45 in Lightroom?
/Samuel
-
I use Lightroom together with Leaf (watched folder) to shoot product, so I need accuracy of colors.
The Leaf software is pretty accurate out of the box, as it were.
When the files go to Lightroom, I neutralise the white balance but certain colours are different, I guess it has to cope with raw files from numerous cameras, whereas your camera and mine have got their own individual profiles.
In my case, in particular the red spectrum, in Lightroom the reds appear more amber, so it's the opposite to yours.
Knowing this, I simply went to Hue/Saturation sliders, corrected to taste, saved this plus a few other adjustments that I like as a Lightroom Preset and that's all there is to it. I consider the Presets to be the equivalent to camera profiles.
When I shoot, the Preset is automatically applied to the file as is comes from the Watched folder, so you never have to think about this again. Perfect reds all the time.
Edward
-
I'm curious about this too since I use a phase p20 and lightroom. For some things like flowers or people, its just impossible to get the color that's believable out of LR with the p20 and also with the leica DMR. I've tried using the fors, tindeman, and rags scripts and so far none of them have given me as good a color as C1. I do like a lot of features of LR though and find myself using it as a catalog and for critical files opening up C1 to do the conversion.
I really agree that LR would be a better tool if they would allow users to create camera profiles if they wanted (or use the defaults if not). I don't understand how Adobe can put forth a DNG standard on the one hand, but hold tight to their proprietary two light source color rendering model for ACR and LR. If they want to have a standard it needs to include profiles.
-
Eronald, have you tried to make a calibration file for your P45 in Lightroom?
/Samuel
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189301\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I haven't even tried - it' s faster and easier for me to just use C1 or RD where I have tools that can deal with the color much better.
Anyway, I'm having a lot of software issues, and just realised the back needs to be fixed
Edmund
-
I don't understand how Adobe can put forth a DNG standard on the one hand, but hold tight to their proprietary two light source color rendering model for ACR and LR. If they want to have a standard it needs to include profiles.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189315\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Their DNG standard has provision for profiles. It's actually quite decently designed. It's just LR and ACR which don't implement them.
Edmund
-
For some things like flowers or people, its just impossible to get the color that's believable out of LR with the p20 and also with the leica DMR.
If you're willing to post a Raw somehow, it would be real useful to have a look. Also, some rendered image of a preferred color appearance (low rez JPEG would be fine).
-
Their DNG standard has provision for profiles. It's actually quite decently designed. It's just LR and ACR which don't implement them.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189317\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Edmund,
That's my point exactly - why does Adobe do it for DNG but not use it in ACR/LR?
Eric
-
Knowing this, I simply went to Hue/Saturation sliders, corrected to taste, saved this plus a few other adjustments that I like as a Lightroom Preset and that's all there is to it. I consider the Presets to be the equivalent to camera profiles.
When I shoot, the Preset is automatically applied to the file as is comes from the Watched folder, so you never have to think about this again. Perfect reds all the time.
Edward
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189311\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I supose you mean the camera calibration sliders in LR. I did try that. It solves the problem partially, but I see inacurancies in other colors, not only red. Anyway, I supose that's the way to go, or export the files from C4 and then work with them corrected in LR. Not space saving but...
-
Edmund,
That's my point exactly - why does Adobe do it for DNG but not use it in ACR/LR?
Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189341\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
They do it in DNG because its an open Raw format and other Raw converters obviously want such support. The don't do it in ACR/LR because no one has proven its at all useful.
-
They do it in DNG because its an open Raw format and other Raw converters obviously want such support. The don't do it in ACR/LR because no one has proven its at all useful.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189389\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Let's get this right - they use matrices in LR and ACR, allow the manufacturer to write a matrix or a profile into the file but don't allow the user to benefit from the actual use of that matrix. Very funny. I guess all those camera guys, yeah we know they cannot understand anything about color - Kodak, Fuji, Canon, Nikon, Sony, yeah, they make those useless cameras, it's obvious that *they* don't know a thing about color. No surprise then that people are starting to say that what comes out of the point and shoots is better than what comes out of Lightroom.
There's a word for this. It's called Not Invented Here.
Hehe - let's make a poll. Let's find out what the people here -most of them pros- think about the color in the files which feed them and their kids.
Edmund
-
There's a word for this. It's called Not Invented Here.
Hehe - let's make a poll. Let's find out what the people here -most of them pros- think about the color in the files which feed them and their kids.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You can have such an opinion but its as yet not backed up with any proof of concept. Look, both Thomas Knoll and Mark Hamburg are pretty smart guys. You and those who feel they are blowing it, using terms like matrix profiles might feel you've got a point to make, but so far, over the years, your camp has failed to prove the point to many, most importantly the two guys mentioned above.
Not invented here? OK, if you want to go that route, fine. If you want Thomas to implement ICC profiles, you need to work a LOT harder than that. You need to demonstrate ether mathematically (good luck) or empirically they are off base here, you're not. Historically, that's been a huge failure (or more like a non event) from your camp of "We need ICC profiles in ACR/LR" fan boys.
Go ahead, make a poll. More useless doggy posturing with no meat to back up anything.
Now if you, or your friends who build camera profiles, or the people who also write Raw converters can demonstrate your points successfully, backed up with something known as proof of concept to Thomas, you might make a bit of progress. But Thomas isn't keeping profiles out of the product because he wants to piss off you or the ICC. Prove you've got a better mousetrap.
-
As for the matrices which ACR uses at the moment it's pretty obvious that if a given camera is out of spec or the lighting is really weird that's the end of the "canned" matrices embedded in the software, so loading one from the file itself as DNG mandates might be a very good idea. I think you may be aware that if a printer is out of spec, the generic printer profile is not so good which is why the user is allowed to over-ride a generic profile with a custom profile.
As to the technicalities, I will be delighted to discuss them with Thomas, John, Tom, Peter and colleagues directly. Thomas' model was good as a first approximation, it's simply showing its age now.
My "friends" are as you well know all leading color scientists and engineers, and have made a lot of the software and hardware which you are using in your practice, and everyone else here is using, so I don't think you should call them incompetent. The fact that some of them are going through M&A at the moment hasn't stopped your spectros and software from working, has it ?
Edmund
You can have such an opinion but its as yet not backed up with any proof of concept. Look, both Thomas Knoll and Mark Hamburg are pretty smart guys. You and those who feel they are blowing it, using terms like matrix profiles might feel you've got a point to make, but so far, over the years, your camp has failed to prove the point to many, most importantly the two guys mentioned above.
Not invented here? OK, if you want to go that route, fine. If you want Thomas to implement ICC profiles, you need to work a LOT harder than that. You need to demonstrate ether mathematically (good luck) or empirically they are off base here, you're not. Historically, that's been a huge failure (or more like a non event) from your camp of "We need ICC profiles in ACR/LR" fan boys.
Go ahead, make a poll. More useless doggy posturing with no meat to back up anything.
Now if you, or your friends who build camera profiles, or the people who also write Raw converters can demonstrate your points successfully, backed up with something known as proof of concept to Thomas, you might make a bit of progress. But Thomas isn't keeping profiles out of the product because he wants to piss off you or the ICC. Prove you've got a better mousetrap.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189396\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
You can have such an opinion but its as yet not backed up with any proof of concept. Look, both Thomas Knoll and Mark Hamburg are pretty smart guys. You and those who feel they are blowing it, using terms like matrix profiles might feel you've got a point to make, but so far, over the years, your camp has failed to prove the point to many, most importantly the two guys mentioned above.
Not invented here? OK, if you want to go that route, fine. If you want Thomas to implement ICC profiles, you need to work a LOT harder than that. You need to demonstrate ether mathematically (good luck) or empirically they are off base here, you're not.
I'm sure you could base a career on arguing the nuances between different technical approaches but the people using the software (ie creatives/photographers) don't actually care!
What they do care about is having an experience which takes them to a result in a manner which is not frustrating and leaves them feeling warm and fuzzy.
Currently LR/ACR frustrates in too many cases and it would be far better to have a scenario where you can choose the input profile to start from a good canned result, and then use the LR tool-set to get creative, rather than going in and spending time tweaking away in an effort to fix the thing.
This is much more a user interface creative flow issue than anything to do with the technicalities of matrices and profiles.
Max
-
Go ahead, make a poll. More useless doggy posturing with no meat to back up anything.
I've never understood why these disucssions get so heated, when in reality and day to day use, post processing, manufacturer's color response has gotten so much better.
The digital boys always seem to get a strap on, when someone disses their favorite process, but in reality it would be nice if 3rd party convertors could exactly read the files like the manufacturers intended. V4, DPP, etc. usually produce a better result in initial view than 3rd party convertors. (I said generally as there are no absolutes in photography).
Regardless . . .
Imacon to the newest Hasselblad is night and day in color, Leaf LC10 to LC11 is a huge leap and even the previous gold standard C1 to V4 has more controls, much better previews, faster processing and some features I mentioned that make matching images so much easier.
Lightroom I guess is now the standard and I use it for some images and like the interface though I personally find the first look requigues corrections more intense than the manufacturers software.
Even small products like Raw Developer produce beautiful color if you know the look you want to optain.
If someone is looking for a one button click for great color regardless of the scene, skin coloration, lighting, I don't think that is ever going to exist.
Now it would be nice if the medium format manufacturers made it so the presets or "film" you made in their raw convertors, or even 3rd party converters could be put into the camera so what goes in is what comes out and even though you can do this with Canon, it's not always picked up by all the brands.
With about 10million different light sources, another 10 million ways to mix and match light, working studio to location, ambient to mixed, etc. etc. I don't see how one click fits all is ever going to be a standard.
Still, if you were batch processing thousands of images from a shoot 2 years ago vs today and you constantly worked under heavy deadlines, you can't help but be impressed about how far digital capture has come. Two years ago a day of location shooting would mean 12 hours in post just to produce jpegs, now it's down to about 3 or 4 hours.
I've seen test after test and known photographers that have gone weeks, even months trying to find the perfect camera, color, look, that is easy and essentially a one button push and I firmly belive it's just not possible for all situations.
What may look good to someone on a precooked jpeg out of a fuji finepix is not really going to work in progessional post production.
From the start of photography film to digital everyone is searching for that unique, personal color pallete and unless you shoot catalog where the blues must be the exact blues, the reds must be the exact reds, etc., there has and always will be a certain amount of fiddling with imagery.
I understand how and why we are at this point with cameras, computers and software.
What I never understood is why most of the traditional labs could not make the leap of taking their expertise and color knowledge of film and apply that to digital.
Tradtional labs seemed to be in the perfect position to know how to match nc100, epr, provia etc. to a P30 or Canon file, as they had film examples from some of the world's best photographers, though very few of them made the investment into full bore digital post and fewer still are around anymore.
Regardless, the cameras and software have come a long way. I hold probably 80 terabytes of data (with backups) for my clients and probably have about 1200 web galleries on line.
When I go back a few years and look at the galleries from what I use to produce to what I send today, the process is much more refiened and elegent, at least in the initial web gallery view.
Still photography gets closer to cinema production daily and not just in shooting but in the complete review, process and finish out.
Pick up any magazine of importance or flip through any awards annual and you will see post work that will rival Ridley Scott.
That's just the way the process is going, everyone wants a unique look, everyone wants an edge and though expert digital post won't fix a crappy photograph, it can enhance it in ways that we never dreamed of before.
If anyone wants easy photographs, it's just not going to happen.
JR
-
You can have such an opinion but its as yet not backed up with any proof of concept. Look, both Thomas Knoll and Mark Hamburg are pretty smart guys. You and those who feel they are blowing it, using terms like matrix profiles might feel you've got a point to make, but so far, over the years, your camp has failed to prove the point to many, most importantly the two guys mentioned above.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=189396\")
In view of the following quote from Thomas Knoll, it follows that until such time as the camera makers come up with more linear filters, it will not be possible to match the human cone responses with a simple 3 by 3 matrix conversion as used in ACR.
“Actually, to create a camera filter set that is "perfect", it is not required to exactly the match the human cone responses (or the XYZ responses). All that is required is the filter responses be some linear combination of the human cone responses. If that is the case, then a simple 3 by 3 matrix [space] can be used in software to recover the exact XYZ values.
If the filter set is not a [perfect] linear combination of the cone responses (which is the case for all current cameras), then any color calibration is going to be some kind of comprise, getting some colors correct and other colors incorrect. This is true even if you know the exact illuminant spectral curve and the exact filter spectral response curves.”
As I understand the ACR calibration process, it is merely tweaking the matrix coefficients used for conversion from the camera space to the internal working space, and some colors in the resulting conversion will be correct and others will not. ICC camera profiles have been problematic for general use. One problem is that the illuminant spectral curve is highly variable and unknown; in addition, the range of luminance and colors is highly variable. However, for some types of photography where the illuminant is constant and known, an approach using an ICC profile with lookup tables would be useful at least theoretically. One such application is the digital reproduction of museum paintings where an exact and not merely pleasing reproduction of masterpieces is desired.
[a href=\"http://www.cdiny.com/ArticlesWhitePapers/ISO%20Standards%20for%20Museum%20Imaging_cdi_v1.0.pdf]ISO Standards for Museum Imaging[/url] is written by an expert in this process and discusses some factors involved in such work. It deals mainly with luminance mapping but also concludes that the ability to use ICC profiles is essential.
Due to some info that Andrew and I are privy to, it's really, really not worth arguing about this at this stage. In the not too distant future, all of this discussion will be moot.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188873\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This cryptic comment taken in its context suggests that some changes in color management in ACR and LR may be upcoming. Indeed, a good software company should respond to the needs of their users, without the users having to submit proof in advance of their needs. However, a balance between features and software bloat must be achieved and it is not possible to be all things to all people. The museum users will probably continue to use Capture One and Adobe won't lose that much business.
Bill
-
My "friends" are as you well know all leading color scientists and engineers, and have made a lot of the software and hardware which you are using in your practice, and everyone else here is using, so I don't think you should call them incompetent. The fact that some of them are going through M&A at the moment hasn't stopped your spectros and software from working, has it ?
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189406\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're again putting words into people's mouths. I never said they were incompetent. I said they (and you) have not proven your points one bit. You say there's a solution to a problem that hasn't been proven (either the problem NOR the solution). Before Thomas nor I are even going to consider listening to your camp, you need to do both. Its that simple.
You continue to avoid simple questions such as, are you or others totally unable to render the color appearance desired and further you've not proven that even if that's true, that custom ICC profiles would be any better, or wouldn’t in fact hose other areas that work well in ACR.
That point lump the ability of my Spectrophotometer to measure color further gives me the impression you either don't want to prove your points or you wish to digress into an area that has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. My electricity still runs, as does the water; what does have to do with you proving that custom ICC profiles are the solution to a problem you have yet to prove exists?
-
I'm sure you could base a career on arguing the nuances between different technical approaches but the people using the software (ie creatives/photographers) don't actually care!
I totally agree. I don't care either (as I said in another post). All I care about is producing a desired color rendering and so far, that hasn't been any difficulties yet.
Currently LR/ACR frustrates in too many cases and it would be far better to have a scenario where you can choose the input profile to start from a good canned result, and then use the LR tool-set to get creative, rather than going in and spending time tweaking away in an effort to fix the thing.
IF someone would empirically demonstrate either a problem, or that this is indeed a viable solution, again I'd agree with you. But I'm not even close to believing this is the case based on the pundits that say there's a problem to begin with and that they have the solution. And I'm pretty certain that Thomas would like to see such proof before he just goes off and builds in what might be added complexity to the product and perhaps make the matter (if one exists) worse just because a few geeks and those who sell profiles think he should.
This is much more a user interface creative flow issue than anything to do with the technicalities of matrices and profiles.
Again I agree. Could one even propose the so called problem is user error or inability to investigate the tools provided and instead insist that there's a problem in the first place and that some magic profile, like magic underpants is the fix?
Oh, I think Mr Russell has summed up the "issues" quite well.
-
IF someone would empirically demonstrate either a problem, or that this is indeed a viable solution, again I'd agree with you. But I'm not even close to believing this is the case based on the pundits that say there's a problem to begin with and that they have the solution.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189433\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Capture One demonstrates it's viable and for the evidence please see the original post for 1 (empirical) pair of magenta trousers.
Whether its viable for LR without screwing it up is a problem for Adobe - the users, as is their nature, just want the best solution regardless.
Again I agree. Could one even propose the so called problem is user error or inability to investigate the tools provided
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189433\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Maybe but that's going to come down to whatever the Adobe software design philosophy is regarding usability. Personally I don't think they have the balance right yet in terms of the current implementation of the calibration sliders.
like magic underpants is the fix?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189433\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That would be sweet - Adobe Photoshop Lightroom CS9 Majik YFronts for all your imaging needs.
-
Capture One demonstrates it's viable and for the evidence please see the original post for 1 (empirical) pair of magenta trousers.
No, it only demonstrates you were able to produce a desired color appearance in C1. And it doesn't prove that this was due to a profile. It also doesn't prove (to me) that the rendering is impossible to produce in LR/ACR (you could however provide a Raw to at least allow us to try). And not having the ability to render the color as desired doesn't prove a profile would make this so.
What you can prove is you used two products and preferred the rendering of one, over the other. But not a lot more.
-
No, it only demonstrates you were able to produce a desired color appearance in C1. And it doesn't prove that this was due to a profile. It also doesn't prove (to me) that the rendering is impossible to produce in LR/ACR (you could however provide a Raw to at least allow us to try). And not having the ability to render the color as desired doesn't prove a profile would make this so.
What you can prove is you used two products and preferred the rendering of one, over the other. But not a lot more.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189456\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The only settings difference between the two images is the profile being applied in C4. Nothing more. This means I get the right color instantly. No need to move sliders to FIX IT.
None is saying here ACR or LR are unable to correct the images to get the colors desired after tweaking the sliders. But they are clearly not capable to read the right colors from the raw file. And I could call it "a problem".
-
You're again putting words into people's mouths. I never said they were incompetent. I said they (and you) have not proven your points one bit. You say there's a solution to a problem that hasn't been proven (either the problem NOR the solution). Before Thomas nor I are even going to consider listening to your camp, you need to do both. Its that simple.
You continue to avoid simple questions such as, are you or others totally unable to render the color appearance desired and further you've not proven that even if that's true, that custom ICC profiles would be any better, or wouldn’t in fact hose other areas that work well in ACR.
That point lump the ability of my Spectrophotometer to measure color further gives me the impression you either don't want to prove your points or you wish to digress into an area that has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. My electricity still runs, as does the water; what does have to do with you proving that custom ICC profiles are the solution to a problem you have yet to prove exists?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189429\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My point was proven long ago during the Leica M8 IR fiasco. The camera was unusable as supplied because of magenta casts. A $4500 brick. People filtered their cameras, I generated some profiles, and hey-presto the colors were fixed in C1. Summary: The camera was out of spec, but a profile could fix it totally transparently. Hundreds of people started using my profiles, and I think hundreds were using other free profiles - which had different aesthetics.
This is like having a handbrake in a European car: It's there so if the nice hydraulics fail you use it.
Consumers would benefit from ACR/LR having an over-ride so if the color is bad on one camera I can just override it.
Are you also going to argue that printer drivers don't need a switch so they can use custom profiles, in case the hardware is out of spec or you have some strange media loaded?
Finally as regards the spectros and hardware, I was pointing out that my "friends" happen to be the color scientists of various large corporations whose COLOR PRODUCTS you happen to use.Why do you suddenly assume these guys are idiots when at the ICC they say cameras need better color management ? You sound a bit like someone who has converted from the church of Custom Profile to the church of Fixed Rendering and now wants everyone else to recant their own affiliation.
Edmund
-
The only settings difference between the two images is the profile being applied in C4. Nothing more. This means I get the right color instantly. No need to move sliders to FIX IT.
None is saying here ACR or LR are unable to correct the images to get the colors desired after tweaking the sliders. But they are clearly not capable to read the right colors from the raw file. And I could call it "a problem".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189458\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Now wait. You're saying you're using just default settings in BOTH applications and the C1 is "better"?
That only illustrates that in this case, you prefer the rendering default. And it doesn't indicate a problem that can't be "fixed" if you didn't alter additional sliders in either product, only that the initial default of one converter is preferable.
I believe you're saying above "No one is saying here that ACR or LR are unable to correct the image to get the desired color after tweaking the sliders"? Because some ARE saying this. They are implying (not well) that there's an issue with ACR/LR engine that requires the addition of some magic profile.
Further, the color isn't right, its preferred. And its very possible and likely that you can submit any number of differing images to both products and find that one that produced a preferred default rendering now doesn't and the other does. Default settings out of the box are starting points. Considering you can (and should) roll your own, a process that takes but a few seconds, or even a family of such presets to start the rendering process, only further illustrates that at least in this case, there isn't a fundamental problem, only a poor (less desirable) default rendering.
Have you ever printed color negs in a darkroom? If you walk into one, pop your color neg into the enlarger and make an initial test print, the likelihood that whatever filter pack is engaged will produce a desirable first print is iffy at best. And there are some pretty sophisticated auto analyzers used to narrow this down. But its just as likely the default or even auto analyzed first print will not be what you want as it will be what you want. We have filter pack control because of this fact. IF no amount of filtering would produce a desired color print, we'd have an issue (is it the filters themselves, the neg, the enlarger light source?). If you walk into an adjacent color darkroom with a differing set of filters setup, the initial print may or may not be closer to your goal than the previous darkroom.
The issue here is, can you or can you not produce a desired color appearance? Once you can, is it 100% (I seriously doubt that is possible). Even if this is less than 100%, is it always closer to your rendering goal than using the other converter with lots of different captures?
-
My point was proven long ago during the Leica M8 IR fiasco. The camera was unusable as supplied because of magenta casts. A $4500 brick. People filtered their cameras, I generated some profiles, and hey-presto the colors were fixed in C1.
Consumers would benefit from ACR/LR having an over-ride so if the color is bad on one camera I can just override it.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189463\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Edmund, it getting progressively harder to take you seriously on this point when you use two totally different converters and processes and attempt to correlate this into any kind of evidence that there's an issue here with the ACR engine. Or suggesting that having access to custom profiles that you build in ACR would be any benefit (in fact, you've yet to prove there's an issue that needs to be fixed).
For the last time, really, the last time, could you answer a simple question specifically about the ACR engine. Are you or are you not able to produce a desired color appearance using the current set of controls in the ACR engine and if not (I'd like the Raw), can you prove that this problem is a direct result of the lack of profile access? Yes or no will do.
-
Edmund, it getting progressively harder to take you seriously on this point when you use two totally different converters and processes and attempt to correlate this into any kind of evidence that there's an issue here with the ACR engine. Or suggesting that having access to custom profiles that you build in ACR would be any benefit (in fact, you've yet to prove there's an issue that needs to be fixed).
For the last time, really, the last time, could you answer a simple question specifically about the ACR engine. Are you or are you not able to produce a desired color appearance using the current set of controls in the ACR engine and if not (I'd like the Raw), can you prove that this problem is a direct result of the lack of profile access? Yes or no will do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189466\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Get any of the old M8 files - people fixed *the appearance* of their files using a non-linear transform which mapped the deep magenta shadows to black. This is something that ACR could not do AT THE TIME BECAUSE IT WAS NOT A MATRIX. If you have an M8, go ahead, rip off the IR filter, take an image of some synthetics and try to get rid of the magenta casts. A profile cannot fix the camera but it can make the defect almost tolerable. Such profiles were widely circulated at the time in the M8 community.
Edmund
-
Get any of the old M8 files - people fixed *the appearance* of their files using a non-linear transform which mapped the deep magenta shadows to black. This is something that ACR could not do AT THE TIME BECAUSE IT WAS NOT A MATRIX.
OK so you're not going to answer the question, instead go back to color geek speak and talk about matrixes. I think its pretty clear where you're going with all this.
-
OK so you're not going to answer the question, instead go back to color geek speak and talk about matrixes. I think its pretty clear where you're going with all this.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189469\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, it is pretty clear. I just spent my afternoon doing a presentation to Fuji, and strangely enough their color geeks take me very seriously. I just got a message from the color geeks at Jenoptik who agree with my proposals and want a minor technical modification. I will be very please to talk to the camera color geeks at Adobe - geek to geek
Edmund
-
Edmund:
In layman's terms (cos I'm dumb) could you explain what a matrix is and how it differs from ACR's colour engine?
-
Edmund, it getting progressively harder to take you seriously on this point when you use two totally different converters and processes and attempt to correlate this into any kind of evidence that there's an issue here with the ACR engine. Or suggesting that having access to custom profiles that you build in ACR would be any benefit (in fact, you've yet to prove there's an issue that needs to be fixed).
For the last time, really, the last time, could you answer a simple question specifically about the ACR engine. Are you or are you not able to produce a desired color appearance using the current set of controls in the ACR engine and if not (I'd like the Raw), can you prove that this problem is a direct result of the lack of profile access? Yes or no will do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189466\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Andrew, to answer your question. No I can't get the same colors as in C4. Reason: because the inconsistences I find are not only the in reds, it's also yellow and green. Changing the tint of a specific color doesn't only change worng colors to right, but also right colors became wrong.
Again this doesn't mean LR can't produce a file a can live with, but C1 is the first option because the overall balance is simply right, well balanced and a perfect start point to work the image. And this is an important point in my workflow: Good composition and good exposure and a good RAW DEV to get the best of the Raws, no to fix things up because the program is unable the read the information right.
-
Yes, I tried that. It doesn't change the magenta.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=189290\")
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24097&pid=189446&st=148&#]Welcome[/url]...
--
-
Edmund:
In layman's terms (cos I'm dumb) could you explain what a matrix is and how it differs from ACR's colour engine?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189471\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Matrices *are* what makes ACR's color engine work. I am afraid I cannot explain in layman's terms.
Edmund
-
Welcome (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24097&pid=189446&st=148&#)...
--
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189473\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So LR renders wrong color because of my cultural background or that I (suposely) don't like orange or magenta? So why does C4 give the right red and yellow tones? Because the program likes me?
That's a good one.
-
So LR renders wrong color because of my cultural background or that I (suposely) don't like orange or magenta? So why does C4 give the right red and yellow tones? Because the program likes me?
That's a good one.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think the cultural preferences have to do with Caucasian skin tones. Persons of Asian or African origin might have different preferences.
Bill
-
Andrew, to answer your question. No I can't get the same colors as in C4.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189472\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well I'm not expecting the same color, its real difficult (but not impossible depending on the image) to get two converters to produce identical results everywhere. The question is more about producing a desired color appearance albeit with some slight differences.
Again this doesn't mean LR can't produce a file a can live with, but C1 is the first option because the overall balance is simply right, well balanced and a perfect start point to work the image.
And I'm OK with that and actually find the same thing true comparing LR and Raw Developer which I prefer in terms of rendering qualities but not workflow. But that's not the same as some who suggest (and refuse to answer) the question about the ability or inability to produce a file they can live with. For them, the product is broken and there is only one way to fix it. They as yet have totally failed to prove either point.
-
So LR renders wrong color because of my cultural background or that I (suposely) don't like orange or magenta? So why does C4 give the right red and yellow tones? Because the program likes me?
That's a good one.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There’s less hope based on your comment, but I will try again with a serious response:
assume there would be an issue at the level of colorimetric interpretation & color reconstruction which would finally render a blue sky more saturated than “accurate“, or fresh green foliage somewhat darker than following the inevitable tone curve, plus a hue shift towards red – surprise: most people would be quite happy, would find the colors to be pleasing. Maybe except those photographers who have to reproduce company logos.
But, with red hues and skin tones, things are differently: the requirement for initial hue accuracy tends to be about the same whether you attempt to capture people or logos.
Good luck.
& Cheers, Peter
--
-
There’s less hope based on your comment, but I will try again with a serious response:
assume there would be an issue at the level of colorimetric interpretation & color reconstruction which would finally render a blue sky more saturated than “accurate“, or fresh green foliage somewhat darker than following the inevitable tone curve, plus a hue shift towards red – surprise: most people would be quite happy, would find the colors to be pleasing. Maybe except those photographers who have to reproduce company logos.
But, with red hues and skin tones, things are differently: the requirement for initial hue accuracy tends to be about the same whether you attempt to capture people or logos.
Good luck.
& Cheers, Peter
--
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189505\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Peter, there's a simple answer. I want the red to be red as I saw it in reality. And as I look at these red jeans today, they are still red, not magenta. As simnple as that.
-
Peter, there's a simple answer. I want the red to be red as I saw it in reality. And as I look at these red jeans today, they are still red, not magenta. As simnple as that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189509\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not so. The output dynamic range of monitor or print is typically much smaller than reality.
You would be shocked upon seeing such a dark, dull but strictly colorimetric reproduction (i.e. linearly downscaled).
Peter
--
-
Not so. The output dynamic range of monitor or print is typically much smaller than reality.
You would be shocked upon seeing such a dark, dull but strictly colorimetric reproduction (i.e. linearly downscaled).
Peter
--
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189512\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not so small to not be accepted as a "correct rendering".
Anyway, this has nothing to do with the intention of my initial post. It's nothing that color psychology can fix really...
-
Peter, there's a simple answer. I want the red to be red as I saw it in reality. And as I look at these red jeans today, they are still red, not magenta. As simnple as that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189509\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, you want red in an output referred image to appear as you recall the red at the scene. Yes, you want red (not magenta or any other color). But when you start talking about what you saw in reality, then the only way we can define this without subjectivity is to measure the red you saw (scene referred) which as to be rendered output referred.
-
OK so you're not going to answer the question, instead go back to color geek speak and talk about matrixes. I think its pretty clear where you're going with all this.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189469\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I just purchased the LL Camera Raw Tutorial and have just finished watching the interview with Thomas Knoll and the Adobe development team. At the 26 minute mark, Michael discusses the issue of profiles with TK, who stated that support for external profiles will be available at about the time when the tutorial is released. As I suspected, the current ACR profile is limited to matrix operations. TK explained further that ICC profiles are for rendered images and have problems with scene referred data but their multidimensional lookup tables do allow for more flexible color correction. The exact nature of the external profile was not defined.
Despite canine protestations to the contrary, it does seem as if some users have convinced Mr. Knoll that external profiles might have some utility. It will be quite interesting to see what develops.
Bill
-
K explained further that ICC profiles are for rendered images and have problems with scene referred data but their multidimensional lookup tables do allow for more flexible color correction
Despite canine protestations to the contrary, it does seem as if some users have convinced Mr. Knoll that external profiles might have some utility. It will be quite interesting to see what develops.
Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189526\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My NDA doesn't permit me to say much more than you're off base with this assumption!
-
In 1984 I signed a NDA as assistant when we were one of the first to shoot the new MacIntosh. I can't remember exactly how long that NDA was for. Wonder if I can talk about it yet?
My NDA doesn't permit me to say much more than you're off base with this assumption!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189527\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Not so small to not be accepted as a "correct rendering".
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=189518\")
Well, there's probably good reason why some guys are spending their lifetime to develop [a href=\"http://www.cis.rit.edu/people/faculty/fairchild/]Color appearance models[/url], to maintain color appearance at different candlepower and illuminants. Color appearance changes significantly at the low luminance level of monitor or print. That is why we have to shift all the sliders, to come to a pleasing rendition (again).
That said, as mentioned earlier, pure reds as well as skin tones are more a subject of accuracy as far as the hue angle is concerned rather than any superimposed tweaks. The magenta skin tones you reported are symptomatic for the issue described in above link.
Perhaps you might wish to start with this article (http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf),
even though it includes a bit too much Adobe evangelism for my taste.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with the intention of my initial post. It's nothing that color psychology can fix really...
Oh, I'm sorry.
Peter
--
-
In 1984 I signed a NDA as assistant when we were one of the first to shoot the new MacIntosh. I can't remember exactly how long that NDA was for. Wonder if I can talk about it yet?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189529\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well considering what Thomas said on the video, I'll simply say this: Listen to what Hamburg says about presets, what Zalman says about the number of people who should make "profiles" then what Michael says about his experience building ICC camera profiles (something Adobe wouldn't want to subject users having to experience), then draw your own conclusions until we can talk more legally!
The term "profiles" is loosely used in the discussion (for good reason!). So are presets. It will be interesting to discuss the distinctions.
-
Bill -
I guess we should say "Well Done" to Michael for asking the right questions.
We have some floating point ICC profiles now, they've been voted through although the published spec doesn't reflect this yet.
Brian of Raw Developer fame has just informed me that much of what we have been talking about is actually implemented in RD.
I have created a new post in the Processing section of the forum to discuss this as it is technical.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=24706 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24706)
Edmund
I just purchased the LL Camera Raw Tutorial and have just finished watching the interview with Thomas Knoll and the Adobe development team. At the 26 minute mark, Michael discusses the issue of profiles with TK, who stated that support for external profiles will be available at about the time when the tutorial is released. As I suspected, the current ACR profile is limited to matrix operations. TK explained further that ICC profiles are for rendered images and have problems with scene referred data but their multidimensional lookup tables do allow for more flexible color correction. The exact nature of the external profile was not defined.
Despite canine protestations to the contrary, it does seem as if some users have convinced Mr. Knoll that external profiles might have some utility. It will be quite interesting to see what develops.
Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189526\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
We have some floating point ICC profiles now, they've been voted through although the published spec doesn't reflect this yet.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189534\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The sooner you forget ICC profiles in respect to this product, the better.
Yes, well done to Michael. He's also a smart enough guy not to try to connect dots where there is no connection or he wasn't explicitly informed about. You should follow suite!
-
The sooner you forget ICC profiles in respect to this product, the better.
Yes, well done to Michael. He's also a smart enough guy not to try to connect dots where there is no connection or he wasn't explicitly informed about. You should follow suite!
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=189535\")
Andrew, we each have our NDA's - and I also have my own self-written code which can do some very cute things
I suggest you read the info by Brian carefully and see what opportunities it offers to consultants.
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24706]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=24706[/url]
By the way, most of what I'm doing here is targeted at getting things right for the camera industry geeks to supply results to the end-users. It's not targeted directly at having normal end-users without special hardware build profiles.
Edmund
-
And this has what to do with the ACR pipeline?
-
My NDA doesn't permit me to say much more than you're off base with this assumption!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189527\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Way off base? Hardly. I merely repeated in my post what Mr. Knoll stated in the interview. He said, "there are some things the ICC profiles can do that we can't do, yet. ... version of Camera Raw ... will have support for external profiles that you can load." He did not say ICC profiles, but the implication is that they are more than presets, which can not do what ICC profiles can.
Bill
-
Way off base? Hardly. I merely repeated in my post what Mr. Knoll stated in the interview. He said, "there are some things the ICC profiles can do that we can't do, yet. ... version of Camera Raw ... will have support for external profiles that you can load." He did not say ICC profiles, but the implication is that they are more than presets, which can not do what ICC profiles can.
You heard what you wanted to hear, some of it using terms that you think are familiar when they may not be. Don't fall in love with the word profile any more than the word preset. But I'm not going to say much more (I've said enough on the subject).
-
You heard what you wanted to hear, some of it using terms that you think are familiar when they may not be. Don't fall in love with the word profile any more than the word preset. But I'm not going to say much more (I've said enough on the subject).
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=189551\")
I just got another email from Brian indicating that Leaf's Raw format can do a lot of interesting things, including embedding "look" profiles. The MF world is clearly using more complex solutions than Lightroom, which explains what the poll is showing regarding color quality
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24695]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=24695[/url]
Edmund
-
I just got another email from Brian indicating that Leaf's Raw format can do a lot of interesting things, including embedding "look" profiles.
It would be useful for you define what a profile is, then what a Look Profile is, then what a rendering preset is and how they all differ. Math isn't necessary, end results to the end user are.
-
It would be useful for you define what a profile is, then what a Look Profile is, then what a rendering preset is and how they all differ. Math isn't necessary, end results to the end user are.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189664\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Regardless of what the look is called, profile, presets, etc. it would be of tremendous value if what you set in C1, Dpp, LC11, etc. would be picked up exactl the same in lightroom and ACR.
This is not to say lightroom is bad, there is no bad in terms of converters and lightroom is the most full featured, but I find with all of my cameras, Nikon, Canon, Leica and Phase it does take a lot of movements to get to the original look in lightxroom I get from the manufacturer's converters, at least as a starting point.
I break digital capture down to three parts. The on set view which is to assure yourself and the client that your going in the right direction. The second step is processing for web galleries and/or contacts which is a defined but general view of the look and the selection and of course the third is the final finish out that should be dead on perfect.
What would be nice actually what would be great, is if we could preset a series of "film looks" for all the cameras and backs, embed them into the cameras and all of the converters would read this looks as we shot and when we went to process.
Right now it's a mixed bag and most of us shoot, then make the film look up at a later stage and taking a p30 file for instance, going from c1 3.7, c1 v4, Raw Developer, Lightroom etc. in initial view looks like you shot with three or four different cameras. Sometimes this is ok, but usually just confusing and requires a lot of work to get back to the basics or to the "film look" you envisioned when you were shooting.
JR
-
Regardless of what the look is called, profile, presets, etc. it would be of tremendous value if what you set in C1, Dpp, LC11, etc. would be picked up exactl the same in lightroom and ACR.
Not sure I'm following you. You want a "look" that could be used equally and identically in all the above converters? Or you want to have a "look" you create somehow, applied in LR/ACR?
I seriously doubt its possible to build a cross application "Look" if that's what you're suggesting. And if you did, it probably would have to be applied after the rendering since all the other stuff is totally proprietary from converter to converter.
-
Have you ever printed color negs in a darkroom?
-Yes, as a professional printer at an extremely good color lab back in the day.
If you walk into one, pop your color neg into the enlarger and make an initial test print, the likelihood that whatever filter pack is engaged will produce a desirable first print is iffy at best.
-Not if someone had previous access to the enlarger settings and film type and made some tests, perhaps a few tests under different lighting and exposures. Then I would imagine that I could be very close to a good print right off the bat.
-I hope you can appreciate the analogy. Just as processing digital images was a real pain a few years ago so it remains today. There is so much more improvement to come. We are just talking about how it can be improved, and made more simple.
And we are trying to talk about it without arrogance and snideness. I think if one cannot carry out a conversation without these deleterious qualities it might be better to just not post at all.
-
-Not if someone had previous access to the enlarger settings and film type and made some tests, perhaps a few tests under different lighting and exposures. Then I would imagine that I could be very close to a good print right off the bat.
Well it might but we'd have to have the same film stock, same processing and exposure (as the mask is based on all the above) etc. So this would be akin to shooting a Raw in two totally different locations but both having very, very similar properties, then of course, the same preset would work as you point out. But the farther the deviation of the two negs, or two captures scenes, the less likely the same preset or filter pack would work.
One reason we can profile a scanner is its very consistent in terms of its behavior, much like having two different but similar negs or scenes we capture.
-
http://www.deathtofilm.com/2008/04/08/how-...he-competition/ (http://www.deathtofilm.com/2008/04/08/how-lightroom-has-phased-out-the-competition/)
interesting point, even i don't agree at all with it
-
So does no one notice that this comparison is completely wrong. They have used the ICC profile from Leaf for the AFi 5 Portrait 4 in Capture One on a Phase One back. I wish people would stop acting like experts when they can't get some basics done correctly.
Phase one profiles on Phase backs are very good and far superior than ACR/LR defaults. Case closed. I wish the non-working-photographers/experts/scientists would realize working photographers just want all this shit to work well, quickly and look good at the onset. We are happy to tweak to our own look but not to have to correct what the color scientists and others refuse to get, make the digital realm more friendly as was film stock.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189733\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Though I don't know the specifics now, Initirally Michael Britt was pretty much hooked into using Leaf so at that time during the V8-LC10 transition, Adobe products were the only real realiable way to batch and process, so his familiarity is probably deep with Adobe software.
Still, I agree that regardless if you want to call them profiles, color looks, film looks or potatoe chips, it still is better to start with a file that looks good (I know good is a moving target) on set and let us then tweak and work from there.
I'm not dissing lightroom, it's very good software, but I don't find the presets anywhere near the way I shoot when tethered to C1 3.78 or processing in V4 and this also holds true for Leica in C-1 and the Canons in DPP.
Still, all of this comes down to personal preference. If you find Lightroom is the one, then we all have that option, nothing right or wrong with that.
It's the proprietary thing that bugs me. Why I can't see as a out of camera look in lightroom that I see in DPP using a Canon, or any of the manufacturer's software doesn't make our life easier.
JR
-
Phase one profiles on Phase backs are very good and far superior than ACR/LR defaults. Case closed. I wish the non-working-photographers/experts/scientists would realize working photographers just want all this shit to work well, quickly and look good at the onset. We are happy to tweak to our own look but not to have to correct what the color scientists and others refuse to get, make the digital realm more friendly as was film stock.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189733\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The camera manufacturers all get this and make good looks for their cameras. In fact, ask Yair or Thierry, they pride themselves on the quality of their imagery.
But the minute you use Lightroom, you throw all this away in the name of workflow, and get Adobe Vanilla Color, whatever the camera you use. Now Andrew tells us any flavor can be made with Vanilla. That may be true, but so far it ain't the case.As the poll shows.
My take on this is IF THE CONSUMER WANTS THE MANUFACTURER RENDERING, HE HAS A RIGHT TO SEE IT, WHATEVER THE CONVERTER. Buying a software license from Adobe does not mean Adobe gets a license to castrate your imagery.
But for the user to get the manufacturer rendering from LR both the camera guys and Adobe have to play ball:
- The manufacturer needs to encode his cam2xyz mapping and profile in the file metadata.
- Adobe needs to pick up the matrix or profile and apply them as requested.
Strangely enough, the manufacturers mostly don't write their data and profiles in the files and even when they do LR and ACR ignores them. Everyone's happy - the camera guys keep their trade secrets, Adobe keeps its lock-in, the user keeps getting vanilla s***.
Edmund
-
One such application is the digital reproduction of museum paintings where an exact and not merely pleasing reproduction of masterpieces is desired.
ISO Standards for Museum Imaging (http://www.cdiny.com/ArticlesWhitePapers/ISO%20Standards%20for%20Museum%20Imaging_cdi_v1.0.pdf) is written by an expert in this process and discusses some factors involved in such work.
Bill
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=189413\")
Sorry to go back to this but I passed the link to a friend who has written processing software, notably cornerfix for the LeicaM8 [a href=\"http://sourceforge.net/projects/cornerfix]http://sourceforge.net/projects/cornerfix[/url]
I quote his response to the section which invites readers to check how the various converters do not handle files well.
Quote
Not to take away from the point made in the original article that color management as currently practiced is a mess, the example quoted above is just plain wrong - it based on a misunderstanding of what the Photoshop and Lightroom RGB values are actually reading.
Photoshop reads on a 0-255 scale, so 118 is 46.27%, not 50%
As regards Lightroom, Lightroom's RGB readout is in the Melissa RGB space, which is a proprietary Adobe space - basically, it uses ProPhoto's color values, and an sRGB gamma curve. If you convert lab 50,0,0 to Melissa RGB you get 0.4649,0.4649,0.4649, exactly what Lightroom is reading. You can try that in Apple's ColorSync utility if you want.
If you then adust the exposure setting, your are changing the color away from lab 50,0,0. So when you then export your new color, its no longer lab 50,0,0. That's entirely correct behaviour. RGB 50,50,50 is actually lab 53.39,0,0 - again you can check that with Apple's ColorSync.
For those interested, I wrote extensively on color spaces and RGB readout for Lightroom, Aperture and C1 here: ChromaSoft: Lightroom, Aperture and Capture One Mini-Review Part 1
http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2008/01/lig...ne-mini_24.html (http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2008/01/lightroom-aperture-and-capture-one-mini_24.html)
End quote
I wanted to clarify this as the article is interesting and worthwhile but the expert may not be an expert in all aspects of this complex area.
-
And that is what so nice about Raw Developer. What I see in the Leaf LC11 is what comes out of Raw Developer.
It's a no brainer. Open the folder, press the button and the resulting file looks just like it did in LC11. No sliders, no adjustment...unless of course you want to change it.
The camera manufacturers all get this and make good looks for their cameras. In fact, ask Yair or Thierry, they pride themselves on the quality of their imagery.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189749\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
And that is what so nice about Raw Developer. What I see in the Leaf LC11 is what comes out of Raw Developer.
It's a no brainer. Open the folder, press the button and the resulting file looks just like it did in LC11. No sliders, no adjustment...unless of course you want to change it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189760\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Exactly - Brian has implemented what I talk about, and so has Leaf. You want the Leaf rendering for a Leaf file, you *can* get it in RD. That's the honest way to implement a third party converter: GIVE THE USER THE CAMERA HE BOUGHT.
Edmund
-
And that is what so nice about Raw Developer. What I see in the Leaf LC11 is what comes out of Raw Developer.
It's a no brainer. Open the folder, press the button and the resulting file looks just like it did in LC11. No sliders, no adjustment...unless of course you want to change it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189760\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Exactly - Brian has implemented what I talk about, and so has Leaf. You want the Leaf rendering for a Leaf file, you *can* get it in RD. That's the honest way to implement a third party converter: GIVE THE USER THE CAMERA HE BOUGHT.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189764\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Completely agree.
-
Hi,
Thanks for a lot of good mailings. Just a few comments...
I think that one of the issues is that sensors don't have narrow band filters but wide band overlapping filters. That means the it would be hard to characterize them with simple ICC-like profiles. Reasons driving these choices of filters is probably:
1) Sensivity, wide band filters pass more light
2) Similarity to eyesight
3) Cost
Having wide band filters means that tricolor signals are much dependent on the spectrum of the illumination. It would probably possible to design a profile that behaved like Velvia for instance, but that would require that:
a) The transmission characteristics of the RGB filters on the sensor would be similar to that of Velvia.
b) The spectral composition of the illuminant would be the same.
If these, and possibly other, conditions would be fulfilled you could probably reproduce "Velvia" characteristics using a profile or "preset". It would not be possible to reproduce the characteristics of Ektachrome with the same characteristics of filters, however.
Best regards
Erik
Regardless of what the look is called, profile, presets, etc. it would be of tremendous value if what you set in C1, Dpp, LC11, etc. would be picked up exactl the same in lightroom and ACR.
This is not to say lightroom is bad, there is no bad in terms of converters and lightroom is the most full featured, but I find with all of my cameras, Nikon, Canon, Leica and Phase it does take a lot of movements to get to the original look in lightxroom I get from the manufacturer's converters, at least as a starting point.
I break digital capture down to three parts. The on set view which is to assure yourself and the client that your going in the right direction. The second step is processing for web galleries and/or contacts which is a defined but general view of the look and the selection and of course the third is the final finish out that should be dead on perfect.
What would be nice actually what would be great, is if we could preset a series of "film looks" for all the cameras and backs, embed them into the cameras and all of the converters would read this looks as we shot and when we went to process.
Right now it's a mixed bag and most of us shoot, then make the film look up at a later stage and taking a p30 file for instance, going from c1 3.7, c1 v4, Raw Developer, Lightroom etc. in initial view looks like you shot with three or four different cameras. Sometimes this is ok, but usually just confusing and requires a lot of work to get back to the basics or to the "film look" you envisioned when you were shooting.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189680\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Completely agree.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189771\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I even found out that when you process Hasselblad FFF files through RD and attach a Leaf profile to it it will also come very close to a leaf file processed by Leaf 11.
No kidding. Some tweaks you need to do afterwards but you really do come close (don't ask why I felt the urge to do this, I was just curious).
-
Hey all,
Thank you to those of you who pointed out the mistake we made in our assessment. We corrected the error and redid our test. I invite you all to take another look at the article and let us know what you think!
http://www.deathtofilm.com/2008/04/08/how-...he-competition/ (http://www.deathtofilm.com/2008/04/08/how-lightroom-has-phased-out-the-competition/)
-Adam
www.imagemechanics.com
www.deathtofilm.com
-
Hey all,
Thank you to those of you who pointed out the mistake we made in our assessment. We corrected the error and redid our test. I invite you all to take another look at the article and let us know what you think!
http://www.deathtofilm.com/2008/04/08/how-...he-competition/ (http://www.deathtofilm.com/2008/04/08/how-lightroom-has-phased-out-the-competition/)
-Adam
www.imagemechanics.com
www.deathtofilm.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190031\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Edmund, how can this be true? C1 isn't using matrix profiles right?
Signed, Confused...
-
Edmund, how can this be true? C1 isn't using matrix profiles right?
Signed, Confused...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=190036\")
Andrew, I really don't know what is what - you can see what members of this group think of the color in the various processors by looking at the poll -
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24695&st=0&p=189751&#entry189751]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....51&#entry189751[/url]
I have no problems admitting that the Adobe guys are the best programmers in the world, in any case they are the richest - but it would seem that most members of this forum do think that the manufacturer color is better than Adobe color when color feeds their family. As software is one area where you can have your pie and eat it too, I would suggest embedding the manufacturer rendering would solve most color issues.
As for Phase profiles, they are horrid - they are spiky like porcupines. I reverse-engineered 180 Phase profiles once with my tools, and cleaned a few of them up and smoothed them out, just to see whether it could be done. However, even with the mediocre quality of the native profiles, the phase profile editor does allow one to make some very interesting and useful color corrections. I honestly prefer working files in the Phase software rather than ACR.
By the way, don't tke this as a blanket endorsement of Phase, it isn't, my P45+ back is broke yet again.
Edmund
-
Andrew, I really don't know what is what - you can see what members of this group think of the color in the various processors by looking at the poll -
Ah yes, the poll. I've seen it. Good to know that sound scientific practices are being considered on your part of this "argument". I guess the article above is iffy based on their testing prior to the poll. 53 actual votes, why go on?
I sometimes wonder why we Americans even vote, lets just have a poll and be done with it.
-
Ah yes, the poll. I've seen it. Good to know that sound scientific practices are being considered on your part of this "argument". I guess the article above is iffy based on their testing prior to the poll. 53 actual votes, why go on?
I sometimes wonder why we Americans even vote, lets just have a poll and be done with it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190039\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When I see that article, clearly the LR file looks better - on the other hand, I'd like to see the Raw
I've pushed tens of thousands of files through ACR - I had to have my Canon's shutter replaced - and after that I have my own qualified opinion of the merits of ACR and C1. I wish ACR were really better - the Adobe workflow is certainly better and it's a relief to work inside PS; But the files
Edmund
-
Ah yes, the poll. I've seen it. Good to know that sound scientific practices are being considered on your part of this "argument". I guess the article above is iffy based on their testing prior to the poll. 53 actual votes, why go on?
I sometimes wonder why we Americans even vote, lets just have a poll and be done with it.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=190039\")
We talk about this all the time, same subject, almost the same cameras, since the RG days when the first digital back spouted an lcd, or the first Canon files turned orange in ACR.
As a photograher, not a color scientist, not a pre press specialist, not a color profile maker, I see things in a different manner.
What I want, I'm sure my clients want, what I know the printer, the publication, the web designer wants is an image that comes up on screen is the visual representation the photographer wants to present and I'm not just talking about numbers like under 255 or techniques like expose the histogram to the right, (actually I've never viewed a histogram on the back of a camera.)
What we need is a reliable standard that everyone can "visually" see.
Nothing freaks me or a client out like looking at orange faces, or blown out highlights whehter it's on a camera or an Eizo. Nothing adds more work in post processing than to drop a file into a converter and the file must be tweaked with 24 minute changes, just to get to where we were, or thought we were" in the first place.
You really want to freak out a client, show them a file in linear non profiled mode and all but the most savvy will have a stunned look.
You want to really freak out a film photographer that is moving to digital, let them shoot 500 frames and lock them in the room with an I-mac, any software suite and a deadline.
I firmly believe and understand that Canon, Nikon, Leaf, Phase, Sinar, Hasselblad, Leica, Sony, Adobe, . . . all strive to make the very best equipment and software possible.
I also firmly believe and understand that everyone of these companies wants to cover their own unique territory, but none of them have the same exact post processing routines as the other and the interfaces from V4, C1 3.78, Lightroom, Raw Developer, Flexcolor, LC110, V8, are all so different and unique you MUST work them for days, weeks and months, just to learn the basics, much less the nuiances.
Some files require conversion to dng, some decomressed, some converters read the whole profile, some just make it up as you go, some make it look film like, some are so far from any film I've ever seen that I know it's going to be a though night.
I know this is going to sound far fetched, or give the impression that I'm looking for a non post production workflow, but how great would it be to have a huge detailed lcd, that just plugs into the camera.
You shoot a file, turn some knobs on the handheld calibrated device (yes knobs, not lcd sliders)
change the color, tone, saturation and hue and once set, those settings go into the camera, into the files that all the converters read exactly like the lcd.
Or better yet, take your file in the handheld device, pull down nc100, provia, trix, Agfa 100x, Kodak EPR, whatever and the "film look" stays with the whole process unless you change your mind at a later date.
I can't imagine the time savings this would give us and better yet, I can't imagine how happy a client would be to look at a non orange face, a non flat shadow, a non blown highlight and a look, snap, feel of film right out of the camera.
I know post production is here and probably here to stay and I work files as hard an deep as anyone, but when I think back on my first volme digital camera, the Canon 1ds, my workflow was 1/10th of what it is today.
The camera made raws and the corresponding jpegs were in srgb. with a few simple WB adjustments the jpegs were right on for web galleries and contact sheets, usually without as much as a single tweak.
Then came the 1ds2 that all of a sudden switched to adobe 98 jpegs if you wanted a more neutral look, which required batch converting them to srgb for the web.
Now, since medium format backs don't make any preview worthy of putting online, I (and about a billion other photographers finish each shoot staring into a computer for hours on end, trying to roll our own film.
Sure, the converters are better, more full featured, faster and many have become much more stable, but still at the end of the day, we're still futzing with files and all of us only have so much time.
This is a copy of an original unretouched 1ds jpg. out of camera shot in 2004.
[a href=\"http://www.ishotit.com/4D5U6843%20copy.jpg]http://www.ishotit.com/4D5U6843%20copy.jpg[/url]
It's not perfect, obviously needs retouching, obviously will be worked in color and tone once selected, but for a first proof it's good.
4 years later we're still fighting to get the first proof image processed to this level for web galleries.
Today was a perfect example of time management. I spend 6.5 hours in front of the computer working on files and 1.2 hours talking to clients on future and current business.
Guess which one was the most profitable and rewarding?
JR
-
James,
Clearly stated.
So say we all
Five years and two camera generations later we're all here again -the RG crowd- talking the same talk.
What's on the table at the moment is using a standard intermediate color space (xyz) so that the cam2xyz mapping can be calibrated for every camera, so that the photographer can then, later, overlay the same "look" over each camera -as far as possible, just like with printers, except in reverse.
The technology is there, I've seen the hardware and even coded most of the software myself. If Adobe and the camera guys played ball with that idea, we'd be living your dream; or rather you'd get back those 5 hours of tweaking after the shoot and be able to buy models and friends a drink
Edmund
We talk about this all the time, same subject, almost the same cameras, since the RG days when the first digital back spouted an lcd, or the first Canon files turned orange in ACR.
As a photograher, not a color scientist, not a pre press specialist, not a color profile maker, I see things in a different manner.
What I want, I'm sure my clients want, what I know the printer, the publication, the web designer wants is an image that comes up on screen is the visual representation the photographer wants to present and I'm not just talking about numbers like under 255 or techniques like expose the histogram to the right, (actually I've never viewed a histogram on the back of a camera.)
What we need is a reliable standard that everyone can "visually" see.
Nothing freaks me or a client out like looking at orange faces, or blown out highlights whehter it's on a camera or an Eizo. Nothing adds more work in post processing than to drop a file into a converter and the file must be tweaked with 24 minute changes, just to get to where we were, or thought we were" in the first place.
You really want to freak out a client, show them a file in linear non profiled mode and all but the most savvy will have a stunned look.
You want to really freak out a film photographer that is moving to digital, let them shoot 500 frames and lock them in the room with an I-mac, any software suite and a deadline.
I firmly believe and understand that Canon, Nikon, Leaf, Phase, Sinar, Hasselblad, Leica, Sony, Adobe, . . . all strive to make the very best equipment and software possible.
I also firmly believe and understand that everyone of these companies wants to cover their own unique territory, but none of them have the same exact post processing routines as the other and the interfaces from V4, C1 3.78, Lightroom, Raw Developer, Flexcolor, LC110, V8, are all so different and unique you MUST work them for days, weeks and months, just to learn the basics, much less the nuiances.
Some files require conversion to dng, some decomressed, some converters read the whole profile, some just make it up as you go, some make it look film like, some are so far from any film I've ever seen that I know it's going to be a though night.
I know this is going to sound far fetched, or give the impression that I'm looking for a non post production workflow, but how great would it be to have a huge detailed lcd, that just plugs into the camera.
You shoot a file, turn some knobs on the handheld calibrated device (yes knobs, not lcd sliders)
change the color, tone, saturation and hue and once set, those settings go into the camera, into the files that all the converters read exactly like the lcd.
Or better yet, take your file in the handheld device, pull down nc100, provia, trix, Agfa 100x, Kodak EPR, whatever and the "film look" stays with the whole process unless you change your mind at a later date.
I can't imagine the time savings this would give us and better yet, I can't imagine how happy a client would be to look at a non orange face, a non flat shadow, a non blown highlight and a look, snap, feel of film right out of the camera.
I know post production is here and probably here to stay and I work files as hard an deep as anyone, but when I think back on my first volme digital camera, the Canon 1ds, my workflow was 1/10th of what it is today.
The camera made raws and the corresponding jpegs were in srgb. with a few simple WB adjustments the jpegs were right on for web galleries and contact sheets, usually without as much as a single tweak.
Then came the 1ds2 that all of a sudden switched to adobe 98 jpegs if you wanted a more neutral look, which required batch converting them to srgb for the web.
Now, since medium format backs don't make any preview worthy of putting online, I (and about a billion other photographers finish each shoot staring into a computer for hours on end, trying to roll our own film.
Sure, the converters are better, more full featured, faster and many have become much more stable, but still at the end of the day, we're still futzing with files and all of us only have so much time.
This is a copy of an original unretouched 1ds jpg. out of camera shot in 2004.
http://www.ishotit.com/4D5U6843%20copy.jpg (http://www.ishotit.com/4D5U6843%20copy.jpg)
It's not perfect, obviously needs retouching, obviously will be worked in color and tone once selected, but for a first proof it's good.
4 years later we're still fighting to get the first proof image processed to this level for web galleries.
Today was a perfect example of time management. I spend 6.5 hours in front of the computer working on files and 1.2 hours talking to clients on future and current business.
Guess which one was the most profitable and rewarding?
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190075\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
James,
Clearly stated.
So say we all
Five years and two camera generations later we're all here again -the RG crowd- talking the same talk.
What's on the table at the moment is using a standard intermediate color space (xyz) so that the cam2xyz mapping can be calibrated for every camera, so that the photographer can then, later, overlay the same "look" over each camera -as far as possible, just like with printers, except in reverse.
The technology is there, I've seen the hardware and even coded most of the software myself. If Adobe and the camera guys played ball with that idea, we'd be living your dream; or rather you'd get back those 5 hours of tweaking after the shoot and be able to buy models and friends a drink
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Don't get me wrong, I believe we live in wonderous times.
The quality I get from less than 645 sized capture just amazes me and the 35mm digital cameras, even the 'prosumer" versions just rock past 35mm film in overall quality.
I'm not even concernced with the costs. The money I have invested in two backs and a dozen contax lenses and 4 bodies, is about equal to two good cinema lenses and these cameras cover a lot of territory from handheld "almost 35mm ease to full studio view camera like capture", so 50k for that is nothing in the modern world of $875,000 1 bedroom apartments in Santa Monica.
The ability to first edit in the back of a car, or backup on set while I'm shooting is much more than anyone could imagine.
Still, with all this great capture ability comes the roll your own method of film, which is good when you want pure uniqueness, but bad when you want it to look like the films of the past.
What suprises me even more is that it's Phase and Adobe and small players like Raw Developer who have become the labs, (and in a way the films). Where is Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, when it comes to writting software to become the film and the labs?
I am pretty amazed that I can take a photo with my i-phone, send it around the world in 2 minutes and if the person on the receiving end has an I-phone they see exactly what I'm seeing.
Somehow this is a very small demonstration of where this needs to go. A single device or system that makes setting color and tone (film) easier and allows viewing to be quick and reliable.
Someday I think (well maybe not) that I am going to to laugh when I think about all the thousands of hours we've spent making "jpegs" for galleries.
Then again maybe this isn't the way we're going. I like lightroom, V4, etc. but all have a level of options (good) that we didn't have two years ago, but also a level of complexity, (bad) that we never thought we would have to ramp up to learn.
It's interesting that I've learned my lessons the hard way. I know now to do everything possible to start tethered to a good computer, even if that requires generators, aps backups, and a magliner the size of a small Toyota, because if I'm close to where I want to be going in, I spend a whole lot less time getting the images out.
I've also learned to try to keep it into one system. Shooting to 3.78 usually means jpegs in 3.78 because no other processor is going to see my settings and except for a few cases like LC11 to Raw Devleoper that holds true for all the makers.
Still, when you think about that it takes 300 lbs of rolling cart to repace 2 lbs of polaroid equipment, it's somewhat like building a helicopter to replace a kite.
JR
-
Hey all,
Thank you to those of you who pointed out the mistake we made in our assessment. We corrected the error and redid our test. I invite you all to take another look at the article and let us know what you think!
http://www.deathtofilm.com/2008/04/08/how-...he-competition/ (http://www.deathtofilm.com/2008/04/08/how-lightroom-has-phased-out-the-competition/)
...Hmmm
Still "af-i S portrait something" in the ICC profile tag, on http://www.deathtofilm.com/2008/04/08/how-...ition/#more-296 (http://www.deathtofilm.com/2008/04/08/how-lightroom-has-phased-out-the-competition/#more-296) link
Sorry...
-
[span style=\'font-size:8pt;line-height:100%\']
Hey all,
Thank you to those of you who pointed out the mistake we made in our assessment. We corrected the error and redid our test. I invite you all to take another look at the article and let us know what you think!
http://www.deathtofilm.com/2008/04/08/how-...he-competition/ (http://www.deathtofilm.com/2008/04/08/how-lightroom-has-phased-out-the-competition/)
...Hmmm
Still "af-i S portrait something" in the ICC profile tag, on http://www.deathtofilm.com/2008/04/08/how-...ition/#more-296 (http://www.deathtofilm.com/2008/04/08/how-lightroom-has-phased-out-the-competition/#more-296) link
Sorry...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190149\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/b][/span]
What I think is that saying: "Did we mention that we spent over 20 minutes tweaking the image in C1 to get a good result? (Compared to 20 seconds in Lightroom" shows how unprofessional and biased this "test" is. But thank you for you effort anyway.
-
Here's another example about how LR reads my PhaseOne files.
The first one is from C4. The second one is from LR with it's own WB (same grey point as in C4 gives different WB numbers). And the third one is from LR with same WB numbers as in C4.
This one was from a H20 digital back:
(http://samuelaxelsson.com/images/LL/C4vsLR_2s.jpg)
If you want to see a bigger version click HERE (http://samuelaxelsson.com/images/LL/C4vsLR_2.jpg)
The Raw file is available HERE (http://download.yousendit.com/96B6B2422385DC65) for those interested. The download is limited to 100 and 7 days.
-
Here's another example about how LR reads my PhaseOne files.
The first one is from C4. The second one is from LR with it's own WB (same grey point as in C4 gives different WB numbers). And the third one is from LR with same WB numbers as in C4.
This one was from a H20 digital back:
(http://samuelaxelsson.com/images/LL/C4vsLR_2s.jpg)
If you want to see a bigger version click HERE (http://samuelaxelsson.com/images/LL/C4vsLR_2.jpg)
The Raw file is available HERE (http://download.yousendit.com/96B6B2422385DC65) for those interested. The download is limited to 100 and 7 days.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190570\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Here C4 looks the best to me....
Don't you guys find in the Other post with Link that the skin tones look really magenta in LR example?
Snook
-
Samuel,
I downloaded your raw file, and just as you show, it looks awful in Lightroom. It's giving me a White Balance as Shot of 2600, and the reds look really pink and awful. Impossible to correct in Lightroom, too far from where they should be.
You must know, that this does nor happen, not even remotely, with Leaf files, the Leaf files look pretty close in the Leaf application versus Lightroom, and because of the incredible amount of tweaks that you can do in Lightroom, particularly with the HSL sliders, you can -in my opinion- surpass the Leaf software, or at the very least match it pretty easily, a reason why I use Lightroom "tethered" via the watched folder. I could just as easily use Leaf, but I use Lightroom because it's far faster and stable.
It could be that Phase and Lightroom aren't fined tuned yet, maybe the nature of the raw files makes it difficult to achieve, unlike other brands. Lightroom has been reading Leaf files for a long time.
Certainly, if your Phase files are representative and other Phase users are finding similar bad results, I would say Adobe shouldn't have announced compatibility (if they have), because judging only by your file, it doesn't appear to be ready yet.
As a matter of interest, what white balance is Capture1 reading. I mean 2600 is way down normal conditions. What lighting did you use?
Anyone reading might have come to the conclusion that Lightroom is really awful, when in fact, at least in my experience, it's bloody good!
Edward
PS. I just downloaded a raw Leaf file from their website (because I'm at home now and don't have my own here). Opened it in Leaf C11.1, and it looks very good. I chose the file with vegetables and red apples, oranges, since your problem is mainly with the reds. Perfect in every colour.
Then I opened it in Lightroom, absolutely perfect too. Just for your info.
-
I found a raw P45 somewhere and when opened it in Lightroom, the reds seemed OK, although there were few reds to form a proper opinion. Also, the white balance as shot was 5600.
-
I found a raw P45 somewhere and when opened it in Lightroom, the reds seemed OK, although there were few reds to form a proper opinion. Also, the white balance as shot was 5600.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190689\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Edward, my P21 files are better but still not as good as in C4. This is maybe something related to some DB (older).
(http://samuelaxelsson.com/images/LL/C4vsLR_3.jpg)
I really like Lightroom and I want to be able to use it but the H20 & P20 files are a big disappointment.
-
Right, math isn't necessary, nor are empirical red pants! This thread has taken on a life of it's own and should probably be put to rest. If enough people ask, Adobe will include the ability to select an ICC profile (input or export) in LR. Although they are the only ones who can define 'enough' at this point, they do listen.
-N
It would be useful for you define what a profile is, then what a Look Profile is, then what a rendering preset is and how they all differ. Math isn't necessary, end results to the end user are.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189664\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Here's another example about how LR reads my PhaseOne files.
The first one is from C4. The second one is from LR with it's own WB (same grey point as in C4 gives different WB numbers). And the third one is from LR with same WB numbers as in C4.
This one was from a H20 digital back:
(http://samuelaxelsson.com/images/LL/C4vsLR_2s.jpg)
Here's my rendering of the image through ACR. The default white balance was horrible, and the Calibration sliders needed some adjustment, but adjusting calibration defaults only needs to be done once:
[attachment=6209:attachment]
ACR/Lightroom is capable of much better color than the defaults if you take the time to get to know it. Not having a Color Checker in the shot makes it difficult to tell what the correct color is, but there are definitely far better possibilities than the default rendering available.
-
ACR/Lightroom can apply any matrix. The problem is that the camera can tell it which one it wants, but Adobe have chosen to ignore that information and use either their own or one determined by the user. It would be smarterto have the *option* to pick up the matrix from the file.
Edmund
Here's my rendering of the image through ACR. The default white balance was horrible, and the Calibration sliders needed some adjustment, but adjusting calibration defaults only needs to be done once:
[attachment=6209:attachment]
ACR/Lightroom is capable of much better color than the defaults if you take the time to get to know it. Not having a Color Checker in the shot makes it difficult to tell what the correct color is, but there are definitely far better possibilities than the default rendering available.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190722\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Hi,
Michael Reichman made an interview at the Phase One factory. As far as I can recall each Phase One back is individually profiled. The images are said to contain about 1 MByte of characterization data. According to Phase One these data, which are proprietary, are one of the reasons they cannot support an open RAW format or DNG.
I presume that Capture One can read that data and Lightroom can not.
Also, as pointed out by others, it would be much easier if a standard set of colors like the "Macbeth" Color Checker was included in the picture. We can see that the colors are ugly but can only guess what they should be.
Erik
ACR/Lightroom can apply any matrix. The problem is that the camera can tell it which one it wants, but Adobe have chosen to ignore that information and use either their own or one determined by the user. It would be smarterto have the *option* to pick up the matrix from the file.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190726\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Here's my rendering of the image through ACR. The default white balance was horrible, and the Calibration sliders needed some adjustment, but adjusting calibration defaults only needs to be done once:
[attachment=6209:attachment]
ACR/Lightroom is capable of much better color than the defaults if you take the time to get to know it. Not having a Color Checker in the shot makes it difficult to tell what the correct color is, but there are definitely far better possibilities than the default rendering available.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190722\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The reds are still off. I know LR very well, and my point is that I should not need too much time just to get the colors right. LR is capable of much better color tweak than C4 but isn't capable of reading the right colors from the beginning. That's the problem.
-
The reds are still off. I know LR very well, and my point is that I should not need too much time just to get the colors right. LR is capable of much better color tweak than C4 but isn't capable of reading the right colors from the beginning. That's the problem.
Have you tried running any of the calibration scripts (Fors, etc) to set the Calibration parameters? Shooting a Color Checker and running a script doesn't take that long, and only ever has to be done once. Invest an hour or so per camera, and then you have good color and the workflow advantages of LR/ACR/Bridge.
And since I didn't have a Color Checker as a reference, I was guessing at the colors.