Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: bjanes on November 09, 2009, 09:44:50 am
-
Micheal's review of the X-rite Passport editor informed us of an interesting new product and was thus useful. However, a complete review compares the new product to existing alternatives, giving the reader guidance which he may choose to heed or ignore. However, the concluding remarks in Micheal's review are not all that helpful:
How good are these profiles created by Colorchecker Passport? Are they as good as the standard Dual Illuminant ones that Adobe creates and includes with camera Raw and Lightroom?
Likely not, since Adobe uses calibrated light sources and a much larger set of colour patches to make their profiles. But, when compared side by side I find the Passport DNG profiles to be very good, and a couple of colour gurus that I've spoken with are similarly impressed.
In summary, I now regard the xrite Colorchecker Passport as a must-have – a standard part of my field kit. It's a simple as that.
An alternative to using the Adobe supplied profiles is to tweak them with the Adobe DNG editor, which does not make a profile de novo but merely refines existing profiles. Since the Adobe provided camera profiles are made using sophisticated techniques with many patches, one would think that it would be advantageous to tweak such a profile rather than making one anew using only the patches on a Colorchecker. Of course, one could use the Colorchecker Passport with the DNG Profile Editor as well as the x-rite editor. Has anyone done comparisons? One could measure color accuracy objectively using Delta Es or merely use subjective comparison with important memory colors such as human flesh tone, blue sky, or foliage.
-
An alternative to using the Adobe supplied profiles is to tweak them with the Adobe DNG editor, which does not make a profile de novo but merely refines existing profiles.
Actually, if you use a color patch chart in conjunction with the Adobe profile editor, it pretty much creates a new profile; comparing what's in the original profile to the new one shows that only the color matrixes are preserved. Which I'd think would also be the case for X-Rite. On that basis, I'd think that there would not be much difference at all between the DNG profile editor and the X-Rite product. Of course the X-Rite has the advantage of greater convenience.
Sandy
-
Actually, if you use a color patch chart in conjunction with the Adobe profile editor, it pretty much creates a new profile; comparing what's in the original profile to the new one shows that only the color matrixes are preserved. Which I'd think would also be the case for X-Rite. On that basis, I'd think that there would not be much difference at all between the DNG profile editor and the X-Rite product. Of course the X-Rite has the advantage of greater convenience.
Sandy
The color matrices are a very critical part of the profile. As I understand things, the DNG profile editor tweaks the matrix profile with lookup tables to correct individual colors. This impression was verified by Eric Chan (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=38546&view=findpost&p=319052).
Therefore, your statement that there might not be much difference between the two editors may not be correct.
-
Micheal's review of the X-rite Passport editor informed us of an interesting new product and was thus useful. However, a complete review compares the new product to existing alternatives, giving the reader guidance which he may choose to heed or ignore. However, the concluding remarks in Micheal's review are not all that helpful:
Well at least based on the testing I did with the product and a Canon 5DMII, Michael’s off base, I preferred the Passport profiles to the custom profiles I also built using the Adobe DNG profile editor. It was hardly night and day, but the differences were visible. YMMV (as may Michaels).
And custom DNG profiles using the Adobe product were IMHO, better than those suppled (canned profiles) which you’d kind of expect.
-
Well at least based on the testing I did with the product and a Canon 5DMII, Michael’s off base, I preferred the Passport profiles to the custom profiles I also built using the Adobe DNG profile editor. It was hardly night and day, but the differences were visible. YMMV (as may Michaels).
And custom DNG profiles using the Adobe product were IMHO, better than those suppled (canned profiles) which you’d kind of expect.
Andrew, was it your (beta) version that was able to make ICC profiles ? can you, please, post 2 profiles (dcp and icc) made from the same target shot ? does not matter how good or accurate they are - I just want to see at least what we lost once XRite disabled ICC/ICM generation in the final version of the software... unless posting such examples again violates some NDAs, etc... thank you.
-
As I understand things, the DNG profile editor tweaks the matrix profile with lookup tables to correct individual colors.
I'm a bit lost - so far as I understand, they both do that.
What's your understanding of the difference?
Sandy
-
Andrew, was it your (beta) version that was able to make ICC profiles ? can you, please, post 2 profiles (dcp and icc) made from the same target shot ? does not matter how good or accurate they are - I just want to see at least what we lost once XRite disabled ICC/ICM generation in the final version of the software... unless posting such examples again violates some NDAs, etc... thank you.
I can’t really discuss the beta and ICC profiles due to NDAs.
-
I can’t really discuss the beta and ICC profiles due to NDAs.
even the resulting icc profile covered ? damn it !
-
I don't have a Passport, but I do have a mini Color Checker. I was able to download the X-Rite software by creating an account on their website, which worked with the Color Checker. Maybe that's an option?
-
I don't have a Passport, but I do have a mini Color Checker. I was able to download the X-Rite software by creating an account on their website, which worked with the Color Checker. Maybe that's an option?
You don’t need anything more really. X-Rite decided to make the software free since you already purchased a Macbeth color checker. They could have (not should have, sorry) made software that only worked with a new target you had to buy. If you have a 24 patch color checker, the Adobe and X-Rite solutions don’t cost you a dime.
-
Both are going about correcting colors by modifying the color matrix. The Passport is fully automated, easily transported, easily learned without any understanding of manually editing color patch values.
It is a great move on X-Rite's part to have the software work on the regular checker as well. It doesn't have the nice extras the Passport chart does but the profile part should be pretty much the same.
I did make my custom camera calibrations in ACR/ with various charts but they were not as reliable nor easy as the passport.
For example this afternoon I had to shoot some products, with mixed variable daylight and flash. It was so easy to throw the Passport in the picture which picked up all the surrounding reflections and made accurate color a snap. That is what it is about, how you get there now has more than one way.
-
I did make my custom camera calibrations in ACR/ with various charts but they were not as reliable nor easy as the passport.
For example this afternoon I had to shoot some products, with mixed variable daylight and flash. It was so easy to throw the Passport in the picture which picked up all the surrounding reflections and made accurate color a snap. That is what it is about, how you get there now has more than one way.
You don't say if you made your previous calibrations with Bruce Fraser's manual method, an automated script (such as the Fors script) or the DNG editor. If you think that Passport profile is more reliable, can you post some data? The Digitaldog preferred the DNG editor profiles. Michael was uncertain, but assumed that the Adobe profiles would be more accurate.
I posted some testing that I did in another thread (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=39083&view=findpost&p=324632). I did not find the Passport profile superior nor did Erik Kaffehr (who also posted in the referenced thread).
The ability to include the Passport in the scene is an advantage. Is the miniature Colorchecker in Passport mounted on durable plastic or merely cardboard? Can it stand up to field use?
-
The ability to include the Passport in the scene is an advantage. Is the miniature Colorchecker in Passport mounted on durable plastic or merely cardboard? Can it stand up to field use?
Everything is in a hard plastic clam shell case. Go to the website and see Seth Resnick's video on its use: http://www.xritephoto.com/ (http://www.xritephoto.com/) I've had it out in the field for a month now and it is extremely useful.
-
You don't say if you made your previous calibrations with Bruce Fraser's manual method, an automated script (such as the Fors script) or the DNG editor. If you think that Passport profile is more reliable, can you post some data? The Digitaldog preferred the DNG editor profiles. Michael was uncertain, but assumed that the Adobe profiles would be more accurate.
I posted some testing that I did in another thread (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=39083&view=findpost&p=324632). I did not find the Passport profile superior nor did Erik Kaffehr (who also posted in the referenced thread).
The ability to include the Passport in the scene is an advantage. Is the miniature Colorchecker in Passport mounted on durable plastic or merely cardboard? Can it stand up to field use?
Did I say it was more accurate?
It is more reliable, and for me that is what counts. Yes I used both Bruce Fraser's recommendations and Eric Chan's. In fact Eric helped me with the use of the SG Color Checker which is probably the root of the variability. Many others have tried with the SG, it has proven not reliable.
I simply do visual comparisons on calibrated monitors, the HP Dream Color being the more reliable as the extended gamut covers the Color Checker patches very well.
Using the Adobe Profile Editor introduces more variability , thus your results will differ depending on your input. If you are careful there is no reason why the results cannot be just as good as PassPort, which is why I said which ever way you get there is up to you, yet the PassPort is the easier route, faster, more fun. That said if the chart is not photographed correctly , the results will be less than optimal in any case too.
-
Both are going about correcting colors by modifying the color matrix.
Not the case for the DNG profile editor. The matrixes are unchanged; what is written is a new HueSatMap table.
Sandy
-
Not the case for the DNG profile editor. The matrixes are unchanged; what is written is a new HueSatMap table.
Sandy
Is not the HSL adding a power curve on the matrix?
-
Did I say it was more accurate?
It is more reliable, and for me that is what counts. Yes I used both Bruce Fraser's recommendations and Eric Chan's. In fact Eric helped me with the use of the SG Color Checker which is probably the root of the variability. Many others have tried with the SG, it has proven not reliable.
I simply do visual comparisons on calibrated monitors, the HP Dream Color being the more reliable as the extended gamut covers the Color Checker patches very well.
Using the Adobe Profile Editor introduces more variability , thus your results will differ depending on your input. If you are careful there is no reason why the results cannot be just as good as PassPort, which is why I said which ever way you get there is up to you, yet the PassPort is the easier route, faster, more fun. That said if the chart is not photographed correctly , the results will be less than optimal in any case too.
I'm not certain how you are using the terms reliability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_%28statistics%29)and accuracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy). In statistics, reliability is getting the same results on repeated measurements and is essentially the same as precision. Accuracy is how close the measured value is to the actual or true value, and the results may vary from measurement to measurement. In practice, one wants both accuracy and precision (reliability). A reliable method may give the same incorrect results on repeated measurements.
Are you just looking at the results on your calibrated monitor, or are you actually making measurements (i.e. how the rendered patches differ numerically from what they should be)? If you are just looking at the results, then you are not being that scientific. Imatest allows both methods. Shown below are my results for profiles made with Passport and the DNG profile editor. I would advise opening both images on screen and placing them side by side. The DNG profile has more accurate flesh tones (patch 2) and foliage tones (patch 4). The DNG profile editor gives the user the opportunity to further tweak the profile. I did not test reliability by repeating the measurements multiple times.
Of course, in many instances one wants pleasing color, not accurate color. Back in film days, landscape photographers switched from the more accurate Kodachrome to the more saturated Velvia. However, for skin tones Kodachrome or Astia was preferable. For landscapes with my D3 I often use the Adobe supplied Camera Landscape profile since it pumps up saturation, especially the greens. I could use the DNG profile editor to make my own landscape profile, but have found no need to do so. With the Passport, this would not be possible.
[attachment=17918:090904_M...t_colors.png]
[attachment=17919:DNG.png]
-
Yes I did say any comparisons I do are on screen, not measured. Accuracy would be defined by measured values for which I don't need to do. I don't believe any of these profile editors are made for accurate colour repro from scene rendering anyway, rather targeting a closer precision for output.
Reliability comes from the simple notions of varying light and reproductions of the colour I see of thins like make up the all important key for what I do.
Problem is with Canon raw images the reds are way out of reality compared to what your eye sees. With the Beta1+2 shipping calibrations in LightRoom there was a huge improvement in all areas including the reds. The advantage of the DNG editor or Passport is the ability to customise your camera and light to bring the output closer to your expectations.
While I found the DNG edits to perform very well for that condition, I find the calibration/profile to not work as well in varying light, which perhaps is the same in Passport, but as I said, you simply and easily shoot a card for each set up and it's pretty much an automatic and the new profile makes the set up reliable. Now you could do so in DNG editor for each and every set up and why wouldn't the results be as good?
Hope this shows a little into where I see making a workflow more reliable, which is closer to what I said in that both will get you there , which you use is up to you.
PS. I didn't work on the beta/alpha of this chart, I did have some knowledge of it's existence, and it's works, but I'm not at all an expert in the math, numbers etc .
I am pretty sure that Adobe and X-Rite worked on this together, hence my assumption that the underpinnings lead to a similar result or goal inside the frameworks.
I just looked at the two images above. Mind you the profiles were stripped out> but if I tag them as sRGB, I see the same type of stuff between PassPort, DNG, Beta1+2 profiles etc.
The PAssport has better blue green, cyans, The DNG edit profile closer reds pinks and orange showing a more true (less saturated) colours closer to my PassPort chart which is different of course to my other charts....
-
Is not the HSL adding a power curve on the matrix?
Don't know what you mean by power curve in this context, sorry.
Sandy
-
I'd say both are better than the "Adobe Standard" - which should come as no surprise. AS is geared towards maximum usability under many different conditions, and can therefore not be as "sharp" in the huecorrections as a "one-condition-only" profile. I do however prefer the Adobe Profile Editor, as the passport software very often does exactly what the examples that bjanes showed above; oversaturate and undercorrect. Hues are slightly more off (than the Adobe solution), and to saturated. Do also note the difference in exposure curve, I find the Adobe more natural, and the Passport to contrasty.
But it has also been mentioned that accuracy isn't always the ultimate goal, "visually pleasing" is also a factor to be added into the equation. But also here, I find the Adobe solution preferable - but that's highly personal preference based, not a case of "right" or "wrong"! Others may find they like output from the passport software more.
What I check in a profile is mostly that similar hues are placed at CORRECT DISTANCES from eachother, after this comes colour saturation per hue in "equal-saturation" slices of the gamut, then brightness per hue. I find this prioritization order to give the most freedom in post-processing choices (some would call it "processability") and usability/flexibility. Only in controlled shoots (mostly product/studio work) is it worthwhile to aim for very "sharp" or "accurate" correction. The sharper you correct, the worse the "worst case" errors get when your lighting conditions deviate from the conditions the sample shot was taken under.
There will be more products available for automatically tuning both icc and dcp/dng profiles in the near future (one launch that I know of should be around February). People outside the "product/corporate" sector are starting to realize that they spend thousands of dollars on colour accuracy in screen/print but next to no though at all of what they put IN to the workflow. Most people that I know (or have heard from) are very unanimous in the feeling that after they started to use calibrated input into their workflows they have actually LOWERED their workload in PP - not increased it.
Thank you for your work with the dcp/dng "hue-twist" question btw, Sandy - I've learned a lot from it!
-
The Passport profiles are too contrasty compared to the base calibrations I agree.
But For the above images and many of my own the Passport profiles in some regions are more visually correct than the Adobe ones and vice versa as noted above .
Yes also to the use in studio.
I never thought that I would want to use a color correction for input, other than creating a custom calibration.
As it turns out I wasn't expecting a chart to build DNG profiles so easily which is exactly what is needed for correcting the camera input.
Any testing I had done years ago with camera profiles, showed that the only really solid use was studio copy lighting or very standardised lighting.
I am not yet convinced that these profiles work in so many different lights with variable ISOs, but do know the Passport is easy enough to include in any series and it builds a profile that approximates what is needed to align color input. I have already seen here that the Passport profile shot at ISO 800 is not working at other speeds so it tells me that trying a one size fits all is not the method I am going to use.
The Passport is too new to me to know how effective it will be in extreme conditions, time will tell.
Since I use a lot of gels on some pictures, I'll have to rely on a profile at that ISO then let it go. In that case whether or not it is an edited DNG profile or PassPort would work out well.
-
In a sense, it is not too different from the printer profile scenario, where one can take a set of (possibly averaged) measurements from a target and feed it to different profile-building software. They will all result in different "perceptual intents" in the resulting printer profile, optimized for different metrics, with different subjective results. See Bill Atkinson's site for more info.
-
Both are going about correcting colors by modifying the color matrix. The Passport is fully automated, easily transported, easily learned without any understanding of manually editing color patch values.
Not the case for the DNG profile editor. The matrixes are unchanged; what is written is a new HueSatMap table.
Sandy
I looked at the sizes of a Passport generated .dcp profile and one generated by the DNG profile editor.
The Passport profile was 1.47 KB whereas the DNG profile editor generated was 27.6 KB. 1.47 KB is not a lot of room for much of a lookup table, and is not that much larger than a matrix profile. I do not currently have any profile inspector software installed, but can you tell us exactly what is in these profiles?
Bill
-
The passport profiles are quite low-resolution, they divide the HSV colour-space into 6 divisions of hue (six huepoints or specific colours), 6 divisions of saturation of each specified hue, and 3 division of value (brightness) - making a very sparsely populated LUT of 6*6*3=108 points of correction.
+one matrix of course, but they're only 3x3 big - not much "space" needed there!
A typical dcp created/modified by the Adobe profile Editor will typically contain at least four matrices, and two LUT's of at least a thousand correction points each, depending on how densely you populate the HSV cylinder.
-
Just had to add this quick remark also; Colour accuracy does not mean "colour exactly as reality" to me, as I learned CM in pre-press environments - it means that specific colours (a "colour" being a specified hue, saturation and radiation intensity) retain their approximate distances from each other all the way from reality to print. THIS orange is approximately this much brighter and more yellow than THAT orange. And when these oranges look "correct", intense red has the right hue - not too blue, not too yellow, not too weak/saturated. When this condition of "equal distances" is roughly satisfied for all the reproduceable colours all the way around the colour space that you have available in your presentation format (digital OR print), then you have a "good" profile.
-
Just had to add this quick remark also; Colour accuracy does not mean "colour exactly as reality" to me, as I learned CM in pre-press environments - it means that specific colours (a "colour" being a specified hue, saturation and radiation intensity) retain their approximate distances from each other all the way from reality to print. THIS orange is approximately this much brighter and more yellow than THAT orange.
OK fine, but how do you measure or place a matrix on accuracy here? We can all measure things with a rubber ruler but anyone else can call into question the accuracy.
Or you can say “from a scale of one to ten, ten being best...” That’s fine but again, its subjective.
How do you propose one describes and measures “their approximate distances from each other“?
-
Well, that's easy from one point of view, and hard from another... :-)
A certain "hue", "saturation" and "brightness" can be measured, but only if you give the measurement some certain starting points. Then you have to decide by what metric the distances are to be measured in, which is not easy as humans are a lot more sensitive to hue-change in some hues, and more sensitive to other hue changes in darker lighting conditions or other lighting temperatures. same goes for brightness changes in different hues. That's also why it CAN'T be objectively measured, the metrics are (and cannot be!) the same as the ones used for measuring reality. You have to stay within the target output referred space, with the set whitepoint of that media. Those will never be the same as "reality". Well, they CAN be, but that's only the case in very specific situations, not likely to correspond to any photograph that you can take in an actual, physical situation...
"Approximate difference" means that when something that looks a certain green in a certain light and another thing looks a certain red in the same light, they will appear to have the same inter-relation to each other when reproduced in/on another media. That if they seemed to have the same saturation and brightness in reality, that that impression is preserved in the output referred media. How that is done, or "measured" is up to you. Others have spent years of their lives doing this, and there are still several thousand man-hours per day spent around the world on this in research centers, software development companies, print-shops, pre-press development departments and so on doing exactly this.... When you have a definite answer, give me a call. I'll be wanting to get in on that.
-
I looked at the sizes of a Passport generated .dcp profile and one generated by the DNG profile editor.
The Passport profile was 1.47 KB whereas the DNG profile editor generated was 27.6 KB. 1.47 KB is not a lot of room for much of a lookup table, and is not that much larger than a matrix profile. I do not currently have any profile inspector software installed, but can you tell us exactly what is in these profiles?
Bill
A typical DNG profile editor based profile has:
a. Two color matrixes
b. Two forward matrixes
c. A HueSatDelta table of 90x25x1
d. A tone curve with 96 entries
Plus the other bits and pieces you'd expect to create a valid profile.
As regards the Passport version, post one somewhere and I'll be happy to deconstruct it, but I would think that what TheSuide says a post above would be right.
Sandy
-
A typical DNG profile editor based profile has:
a. Two color matrixes
b. Two forward matrixes
c. A HueSatDelta table of 90x25x1
d. A tone curve with 96 entries
Plus the other bits and pieces you'd expect to create a valid profile.
As regards the Passport version, post one somewhere and I'll be happy to deconstruct it, but I would think that what TheSuide says a post above would be right.
Sandy
Good to know.
So in the end, what exactly is changed when you use the DNG editor. I had thought it would have been some type of curve, but can't be if there are only matrix grids. Are the forward matrices and HueSatDelta changed according to your user input?
you can download a dcp here: PassPort profile (http://www.neilsnape.com/iso800Canon5DIIshade.dcp.zip)
I am very curious to find out what is going on in the profiles.
-
Neil, if you select a Passport profile as your "Base Profile" in DNG Profile Editor, it will respect all the contents of that profile as the starting point for your edits. This includes the color matrices, tone curve, and lookup table. Any edits you apply get "folded in" on top of the base profile.
However, if you choose to use the Chart Wizard feature of the DNG PE (as opposed to your own edits in the first 3 tabs of the DNG PE), then it will start over from scratch. You'll know this because if you go back to check the first tab of the DNG PE, you'll see that the Base Profile has been switched to "ColorChecker" instead of whatever your Passport profile is named.
-
Neil, if you select a Passport profile as your "Base Profile" in DNG Profile Editor, it will respect all the contents of that profile as the starting point for your edits. This includes the color matrices, tone curve, and lookup table. Any edits you apply get "folded in" on top of the base profile.
However, if you choose to use the Chart Wizard feature of the DNG PE (as opposed to your own edits in the first 3 tabs of the DNG PE), then it will start over from scratch. You'll know this because if you go back to check the first tab of the DNG PE, you'll see that the Base Profile has been switched to "ColorChecker" instead of whatever your Passport profile is named.
Thanks!
I just noticed that this afternoon. I like the logic behind the editor. It is easy to use, and perhaps combined with the new chart (PassPort) it gives you chance to tweak or personalise a profile.
Early on in this thread someone wrote that the matrices are not changed. I am curious as to what happens when we fold in our colour preferences into the newly created profile?
-
Good to know.
So in the end, what exactly is changed when you use the DNG editor. I had thought it would have been some type of curve, but can't be if there are only matrix grids. Are the forward matrices and HueSatDelta changed according to your user input?
you can download a dcp here: PassPort profile (http://www.neilsnape.com/iso800Canon5DIIshade.dcp.zip)
I am very curious to find out what is going on in the profiles.
Neil,
Thanks for that file. It has:
1. a single color matrix, with the light source set to D55
2. No Forward matrix
3. A HueSatDelta table of 6x6x3
4. No tone curve.
Pretty interesting, actually - that they are using a three-D table is a bit of a surprise. Although the delta Vs that they are using are very small, and closely clustered to unity. So e.g., the a sample of the three V entries are:
<Element HueDiv="5" SatDiv="5" ValDiv="0" HueShift="0.000000" SatScale="1.000000" ValScale="1.000000"/>
<Element HueDiv="5" SatDiv="5" ValDiv="1" HueShift="0.753359" SatScale="0.997588" ValScale="1.029834"/>
<Element HueDiv="5" SatDiv="5" ValDiv="2" HueShift="0.635227" SatScale="0.997903" ValScale="1.022837"/>
Not sure what they're getting from such small shifts.
Sandy
-
My understanding by looking at the passport profiles is that they are trying to avoid channel clipping at the black end, as you would/could get by trying to modify a HSV matrix when RGB values are zero or close to zero. Deconvoluting the HSV to RGB would push values below zero if you try to "shift" the hues/saturations.
-
Hello,
If, as Sandy indicates, the Passport software makes a much smaller profile with fewer parts, we might expect this to translate into different quality. So far, I can see visual differences between PP profiles and profiles made by DNG PE, but can't tell much about the differences or whether there is a "better". I sure like the PP user interface better, showing the sampling squares that will be used. Does anyone have insight into this?
Also, Sandy indicated that the PP profile she dissected used a light source of D55. Is this always used? Or does the editor choose a light source based on the white balance patch in the ColorChecker? Likewise, what light sources does it use for two-chart profiles?
Thanks,
Michael
-
Eric, I am trying to understand your comment about the "Chart Wizard" tab of the Adobe DNG Profile Editor. If I use the "Chart Wizard" tab of the Adobe DNG Profile Editor does you comment mean that it makes no difference what I select as a base profile, the resulting profile is independent of the base profile selected?
If this is the case, is there any way to use the Adobe DNG Profile Editor to calibrate the colors of the "Base Profile" to a standard like the 24 patch color checker chart and keep all the other characteristics of the "base Profile"?
-
FWIW, last weekend I used the Passport Editor to create some dual-illuminant profiles for my D3x, M9 and GF-1. The results were sort of mixed. The D3X profile it created only varied slightly from the canned Adobe profile. The M9 profile was better than the Adobe standard, but not as good as the 'embedded' profile. And the GF-1 seemed to cause more highlight clipping than the Adobe standard. I'm beginning to think that the main use of this little plastic folder will be in creating custom white balances when shooting. As a previous poster pointed out, the creation of a standard color profile is not always a strictly objective numerical task. Ultimately, it has to look right, no matter what your numbers may be telling you.
-
Eric, I am trying to understand your comment about the "Chart Wizard" tab of the Adobe DNG Profile Editor. If I use the "Chart Wizard" tab of the Adobe DNG Profile Editor does you comment mean that it makes no difference what I select as a base profile, the resulting profile is independent of the base profile selected?
If this is the case, is there any way to use the Adobe DNG Profile Editor to calibrate the colors of the "Base Profile" to a standard like the 24 patch color checker chart and keep all the other characteristics of the "base Profile"?
You can - but only by applying some "manual" work. You need the reference values for the target you're shooting, and then you just add control-points in the HSL-adjustment pane and start tweaking manually.