Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: nilo on August 05, 2011, 09:28:25 am
-
Can anyone tell me the differences between the new i1 Publisher software and ProfileMaker, especially regarding the creation of camera ICC profiles. I read but do not get the info.
regards
nino
-
i1Profiler cannot create camera profiles.
(and if you're on the OS X side of things) I1Profiler works with Lion.
Profile Maker can make camera profiles.
(again if you're using OS X) Profile Maker doesn't work with Lion.
-
...but on x-rite's site I see under "all products" only a plug-in for PM. PM is not listed anymore under software, but under discontinued products!?
-
PMP 5 is no longer available (excepting the "ProfileMaker 5 Packaging i1 Bundle – The total colour solution for packaging printing " at £8k)
Which might make your enquiry rather academic unless you've been offered a second-hand copy.
-
I was wondering how the new product stands in regard to the trusted.
-
PMP 5 is no longer available (excepting the "ProfileMaker 5 Packaging i1 Bundle – The total colour solution for packaging printing " at £8k)
Which might make your enquiry rather academic unless you've been offered a second-hand copy.
BTW from what I see "ProfileMaker 5 Packaging" does contain only "Monitor and Scanner Profiling" not the camera module.
-
i1Profiler cannot create camera profiles.
(and if you're on the OS X side of things) I1Profiler works with Lion.
Profile Maker can make camera profiles.
(again if you're using OS X) Profile Maker doesn't work with Lion.
and PM with camera module aka "photo studio pro" is discontinued. So the CC24 "Passport" is replacing it, right? LOL
-
So the CC24 "Passport" is replacing it, right?
Wrong.
The Passport software only makes .dng camera profiles, for use in ACR/Lightroom.
PMP makes(made) proper .icc camera profiles
-
Wrong.
;)The Passport software only makes .dng camera profiles, for use in ACR/Lightroom.
PMP makes(made) proper .icc camera profiles
That's what I'm saying!
No ICC camera profile software available anymore from x-rite, the cc24 "passport" is replacing it! LOL
-
Yup (if one can call an ICC camera profile proper <g>).
-
Yup (if one can call an ICC camera profile proper <g>).
what would you do with a DB? and using C1 in a pro studio setup?
-
what would you do with a DB? and using C1 in a pro studio setup?
move to LR/ACR?
-
what would you do with a DB? and using C1 in a pro studio setup?
DB?
My experience building ICC camera profiles over the years has been hit or miss. With the right target, lighting, software, raw processing software and the stars aligning properly, in studio profiles are doable.
But ICC camera profiles have one severe issue, they are output referred. The path Adobe took with DNG profiles (which does limit their use in their processors) makes a lot more sense and work pretty well. IF I were using C1 I’d be looking for them to sort out the secret sauce in their processing and hopefully supply good profiles with perhaps some tools to tweak rendering to produce a desired appearance.
The biggest issue with ICC camera profiles is the idea you can treat a raw capture like a scanner.
-
but when I give them these kind of arguments at P1, they answer me, and to others in their forum, that it's a conscious choice against the Adobe way ;-)
-
[...] IF I were using C1 I’d be looking for them to sort out the secret sauce in their processing and hopefully supply good profiles with perhaps some tools to tweak rendering to produce a desired appearance[...]
Now, I would really would like to know how to go about that ;) Hello C1 users do you hear me?!
-
DB?
My experience building ICC camera profiles over the years has been hit or miss. With the right target, lighting, software, raw processing software and the stars aligning properly, in studio profiles are doable.
But ICC camera profiles have one severe issue, they are output referred. The path Adobe took with DNG profiles (which does limit their use in their processors) makes a lot more sense and work pretty well. IF I were using C1 I’d be looking for them to sort out the secret sauce in their processing and hopefully supply good profiles with perhaps some tools to tweak rendering to produce a desired appearance.
The biggest issue with ICC camera profiles is the idea you can treat a raw capture like a scanner.
You can make ICC profiles work with cameras, just ask Jack Holm. The output-referred argument was an expression of Thomas Knoll's NIH attitude, I had this discussion with him.
Profiles work so well with C1 that they asked me to make some some years ago, when a lot of Leica users were using my profiles. But they were not very friendly buisnesswise, they refused to take legal responsibility for the product, and when I realized they were involved with Microsoft I bailed out because of other small developers who told me their life became hell after they did business with Microsoft. I used to be a computer journalist.
Raw developer also uses ICC profiles to good effect, I believe.
I had a custom camera profiling and editing suite with some tools I wrote myself.
Edmund
-
Read my post again. I never said you can’t make ICC profiles for cameras. I said its hit or miss and highly dependent on a lot of factors. Its also not IMHO, or Knoll’s and others the best way to deal with the data (output referred) based on the path in which its used in a raw processor. Conversations I’ve had with Jack and Eric Walowit and posts to the CS list (see: Camera profiling with ICC et al) seem to provide a general agreement that the current implementation, which isn’t moving a lick, is far from ideal.
On the other hand, using a target as simple and as common as a 24 patch Macbeth and a product like the X-Rite passport, anyone can produce good (better) results from a custom DNG profile. The entire process is super fast and easy.
-
You could have high quality digital camera ICC Profile but the issue is X-Rite does not do it well, so they give up digital camera ICC Profile and launch passport.
If you request high quality camera ICC profile, I prefer to use Vopho from Qualux than 24 patch passport.
-
Read my post again. I never said you can’t make ICC profiles for cameras. I said its hit or miss and highly dependent on a lot of factors. Its also not IMHO, or Knoll’s and others the best way to deal with the data (output referred) based on the path in which its used in a raw processor. Conversations I’ve had with Jack and Eric Walowit and posts to the CS list (see: Camera profiling with ICC et al) seem to provide a general agreement that the current implementation, which isn’t moving a lick, is far from ideal.
On the other hand, using a target as simple and as common as a 24 patch Macbeth and a product like the X-Rite passport, anyone can produce good (better) results from a custom DNG profile. The entire process is super fast and easy.
Andrew,
Let's stop mugging for the gallery. A spectral description of the sensor automates the profiling problem, . One can buy a device which does it for you (http://www.image-engineering.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73&Itemid=63).
Edmund
-
I was wondering how the new product stands in regard to the trusted.
You might find lots of different opinions there. I never liked the profiles generated by Profile Maker and much preferred Monaco Profiler. Although i1Profiler has some quirks, I find the quality of the profiles it generates to be an improvement over what Monaco Profiler was capable of.
Cheers, Joe
-
You might find lots of different opinions there. I never liked the profiles generated by Profile Maker and much preferred Monaco Profiler. Although i1Profiler has some quirks, I find the quality of the profiles it generates to be an improvement over what Monaco Profiler was capable of.
Cheers, Joe
+1
Edmund
-
+1
Edmund
But i1Profiler doesn't profile cameras!
This camSPECS (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/world/middleeast/06israel.html) machine looks amazing. It's price might be slightly over what I can justify. Who has got this machine? I would like to send a few cameras in (seriously).
-
But i1Profiler doesn't profile cameras!
This camSPECS (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/world/middleeast/06israel.html) machine looks amazing. It's price might be slightly over what I can justify. Who has got this machine? I would like to send a few cameras in (seriously).
There's a second one, camspecs Express.
I don't think there are 100 people in Paris who would pay to get there camera profiled, although they would pay to buy a Passport. People over here are weird, they don't like to pay for service.
Edmund
-
There's a second one, camspecs Express.
I don't think there are 100 people in Paris who would pay to get there camera profiled, although they would pay to buy a Passport. People over here are weird, they don't like to pay for service.
Edmund
Who has got this machine? Whose profiling service with such a machine can I get?
On the topic of ICC profiling vs DNG tweaking, I once again gave the Passport-way a try. I photographed a CC24 attached to my JUST viewing Wall, but used Profoto D4 heads to light it evenly. WB was made on a BabelColor white target. I made one x-rite/Adobe profile and a ICC with Argyll, which I am just trying to get to know (once again). I applied the profiles once in LR and once in C1 to the same image shot immediately after the CC24 in the exact same spot and the identical conditions. Each time linear and Auto. I agree all this is not scientific, but I tried to get an idea for myself. There is at least one major difference, and this is why I stay with ICC profiling through C1 (and it's not even the color).
-
Quote from: shewhorn on Today at 11:33:53 AM
You might find lots of different opinions there. I never liked the profiles generated by Profile Maker and much preferred Monaco Profiler. Although i1Profiler has some quirks, I find the quality of the profiles it generates to be an improvement over what Monaco Profiler was capable of.
Cheers, Joe
+1
Edmund
Expect PROFILER didn’t build camera profiles. Joe must be referring to printer profiles.
-
Who has got this machine? Whose profiling service with such a machine can I get?
On the topic of ICC profiling vs DNG tweaking, I once again gave the Passport-way a try. I photographed a CC24 attached to my JUST viewing Wall, but used Profoto D4 heads to light it evenly. WB was made on a BabelColor white target. I made one x-rite/Adobe profile and a ICC with Argyll, which I am just trying to get to know (once again). I applied the profiles once in LR and once in C1 to the same image shot immediately after the CC24 in the exact same spot and the identical conditions. Each time linear and Auto. I agree all this is not scientific, but I tried to get an idea for myself. There is at least one major difference, and this is why I stay with ICC profiling through C1 (and it's not even the color).
Sidenote. The image is inks. It's not a real object.
Edmund
-
I agree all this is not scientific, but I tried to get an idea for myself. There is at least one major difference, and this is why I stay with ICC profiling through C1 (and it's not even the color).
Attributing the ‘quality‘ differences in two raw converters rendering as being solely due to the differences in profiles would be hardly scientific.
-
Attributing the ‘quality‘ differences in two raw converters rendering as being solely due to the differences in profiles would be hardly scientific.
I understand that. From an empirical end-user perspective though, when I use the generic profile supplied with C1 than the difference in the rendering is a lot less noticeable. In fact, with a little bit o tweaking, I'll get very similar results. In these repeated exercises though, I try to compare them using one and the same cc24 image to create a standard profiles for each of the raw converters, once ICC and once DCP. The resulting differences in the distribution of tones is, even with a lot of work, not deniable (you'd have to get out of the raw converter to get closer). The point is that, this particular difference between the raw converters is not as noticeable with the canned profiles.
Also, the same way you would use the Colorchecker passport, you can do icc profiles for each lighting condition outdoors.
EDIT: added illustration.
-
Expect PROFILER didn’t build camera profiles. Joe must be referring to printer profiles.
Yep... my bad. You are correct (brain went off topic... thanks for the catch). Never built ICC camera profiles before. Occasionally I do DNG profiles if I'm in a situation where I know the lighting might be a PITA (just throw up the Passport and take a shot, if I can't get acceptable results in LR then I can make a DNG profile).
I used to use the Magne profiles when I shot with the Canon 5D and 1DMkII...
http://www.etcetera.cc/pub/index.php (obviously there's been no action here in about 5 years)
Capture One's default response at the time really overcooked yellows and greens and it was most noticeable if you were shooting in afternoon sunlight... grass would often be fluorescent yellow. The Magne profiles did a good job to correct that. I'm now shooting Nikon D700's and the processing is done in LR. Most of the time I find Eric Chan's updated (DNG) profiles for the D700 (specifically the Camera Neutral V3 profiles) to produce good results and if something is off there's usually enough control in LR to bring it back to where I want it.
Integrated Color has a camera profiling package which I don't think has been mentioned yet. I don't know much about it though.
http://www.integrated-color.com/cecamera/index.html
Cheers, Joe
-
Expect PROFILER didn’t build camera profiles. Joe must be referring to printer profiles.
Strangely enough, Monaco Profiler Platinum did build camera profiles.
Edmund
-
Strangely enough, Monaco Profiler Platinum did build camera profiles.
Indeed it did, (my bad in not specifying that specific build) however other versions (Gold) did not with all targets designed for cameras. I used MonacoDCcolor for this task (or ProfileMaker Pro), again with limited success.
-
Strangely enough, Monaco Profiler Platinum did build camera profiles.
Edmund
D'OH... that's actually the version I have. Came with a target for scanner profiling... the ColorChecker SG had to be purchased separately if you wanted to do camera profiles if I remember correctly.
Cheers, Joe
-
Integrated Color has a camera profiling package which I don't think has been mentioned yet. I don't know much about it though.
http://www.integrated-color.com/cecamera/index.html
now discontinued. came with a glossy target.
regards
nino
-
... A spectral description of the sensor automates the profiling problem, . One can buy a device which does it for you (http://www.image-engineering.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73&Itemid=63).
Edmund
I went there but could not find pricing. How much is the entire set up including the "modified slide projector with a stabilized power supply, a special filtering of the light source and a customized optical system. A set of 39 narrow-band interference filters is used to generate the narrow-band light."?
Here is the context of my question:
I am a working commercial photographer meaning I have to deal with getting colors right and doing so efficiently. I know from experience with an advertising client of mine who is incredibly picky about color, that I am delivering -- and these are their words not mine - " the best and most accurate color in their products that they have ever gotten from a photographer." which is saving them a lot of time and money in pre-press corrections. I am using both the ColorChecker Passport software and Adobe's DNG profile editor software and generating a DNG profile for each different lighting set up.
If there is a better solution I want to know about it but based on the feedback I am getting, spending hundreds or thousands of dollars chasing after a 1-2% increase in quality in my raw files (I am delivering Tiffs) doesn't make sense.
-
I went there but could not find pricing.
Click on the cart button and you're there.
To save you the sums; 9332 euro + VAT = $16,000 (US) ...............presumably plus postage
-
Click on the cart button and you're there.
To save you the sums; 9332 euro + VAT = $16,000 (US) ...............presumably plus postage
Thanks, I was a little confunded by their website. $16,000? Yowsa.
-
Thanks, I was a little confunded by their website. $16,000? Yowsa.
Now you understand why I'm looking for someone who bought that wonder machine. At the camSPECS website they told me that none of their costumers they were aware of, was offering a profile service... BTW I wonder who buys this very intriguing device, and thinks of it as, according to the description on the website, affordable!
-
BTW I wonder who buys this very intriguing device, and thinks of it as, according to the description on the website, affordable!
I would imagine either very high end photographers or scientists who require very specific profiles for photography in a lab?
If there is a better solution I want to know about it but based on the feedback I am getting, spending hundreds or thousands of dollars chasing after a 1-2% increase in quality in my raw files (I am delivering Tiffs) doesn't make sense.
It might be worth looking at PictoColor inCamera (http://www.pictocolor.com/incamera.htm) + the Digital ColorChecker SG and building a custom reference file to compare with your current workflow. This would be about $450 US+ to set up, more to get an i1Pro if you require it for building the custom reference file.
-
I would imagine either very high end photographers or scientists who require very specific profiles for photography in a lab?
It might be worth looking at PictoColor inCamera (http://www.pictocolor.com/incamera.htm) + the Digital ColorChecker SG and building a custom reference file to compare with your current workflow. This would be about $450 US+ to set up, more to get an i1Pro if you require it for building the custom reference file.
After a few years testing and experimenting with a variety of Profile software and targets, I would say IMHO, that you can get best results for U$D 10! Get ArgyllCMS for U$D 0, and only two command lines to enter! (Profile Maker is admittedly handy but unfortunately discontinued without replacement for its camera profiling capabilities). I pair it with a simple it8 chart, from Wolf Faust U$D 10. The glossy surface helps with rich saturated colors. It really works if you apply all the rules to photographing the chart, meaning no reflections at all (I use a mirror to double check. A good introduction video: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/coloreyes-commercial.shtml). It's easier to use the matt target #4 from CMP-color (70 Euros).