Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 »
 61 
 on: Today at 01:51:07 PM 
Started by torger - Last post by Tim Lookingbill
Yes it's probably true that daylight temperature is not that important for the profile result, I've used free outside daylight so far for my profiles and it seems to work well. It's something I want to test in my experiments though, I do this both for making profiles to use, but also learn something about how camera profiling works and maybe write a little article about my findings.

Since I now have three process versions of Adobe imaging apps CS3, CS5 & LR4.4 and their subsequent updating to their DNG converter and Adobe DNG PE AND what others say about Base Profiles as starting points such as Adobe Standard for DNG camera profiling, I've now noticed the differences applying the old profiles generated using the same daylight lit CCchart in CS3 vs LR4.4 but only to a wide range of legacy images.

The differences vary depending on the image scene some slight and some more pronounced especially the LR4.4/Adobe Standard Base Profile created from a CCchart lit by overcast clouds vs direct sun. But I didn't start noticing these differences at first because the LR4.4 with current DNG PE made the CCchart target image look less saturated (more accurate by the numbers) than the old CS3 profiles that I took that as an improvement. Now I'm finding the hue/sat differences on some images don't produce desirable results and keep reverting back to using either ACR4.4, Adobe Standard or the old CS3 custom single and dual illuminant profiles.

This discovery between these profile versions was an unfolding process so I'ld have to conduct a rigid test to see what was influencing what due to all the variables in order to track down whether the changes are due to the newer updated software, Base Profile in the DNG or illuminant CCchart.

I know for my camera Adobe Standard neutralizes the entire image to appear less greenish yellow which does make the CCchart gray patches look reddish blue but I don't know if the DNG PE CCchart Wizard is removing the Base Profile's influence on WB of the gray patches before it automatically corrects the cast and builds the new custom tables. I do notice this particular Adobe Standard/LR4.4 sourced DNG profile makes images look different than the old CS3 made profiles.

 62 
 on: Today at 01:43:39 PM 
Started by dreed - Last post by ButchM
I'm not rationalising anything. To repeat, I pointed out how the relaxed Lightroom licensing is a welcome contrast to the recent peremptory behaviour pattern....

To repeat. The relaxing of the Lightroom licensing was not based upon pure benevolence ... the move had a purpose that in all likelihood had no connection to generosity.

 63 
 on: Today at 01:38:46 PM 
Started by bellimages - Last post by Colorado David
Buy a Trasharoo.  http://trasharoo.com/TRASHAROO%20/About.html

 64 
 on: Today at 01:36:21 PM 
Started by haefnerphoto - Last post by klane
Seriously shocking... just had a conversation with him a a couple of weeks ago.  Very sad news indeed.  Embarrassed

 65 
 on: Today at 01:36:18 PM 
Started by JGU1956 - Last post by Alan Goldhammer
Well done Kevin.  Reminiscent of Lee Friedlander's Factory Valley work.

 66 
 on: Today at 01:35:39 PM 
Started by Redcrown - Last post by Redcrown
I've been playing with DNGPE making lots of ACR camera profiles for testing. I created a lot of files and a mess of the file names, so I tried renaming some "dcp" profiles. Found a problem and a mystery.

When I rename any profile that was created from the Adobe Standard base profile, all looks good. But when I rename a profile that was created from any other Adobe base profile (faithful, neutral, landscape, etc.) the renamed version behaves quite differently than the original.

When I apply the profiles in ACR, the renamed profile is brighter with more contrast than the original. The histogram stretches in both directions. The renamed profile looks like it has a different tone curve. The same thing happens if I take an Adobe profile, dupe it and rename it. A duped and renamed Adobe Standard profile looks the same as the original, a duped and renamed Camera Faithful profile does not.

I've used two separate tools to do the renaming. First the Xrite DNG ProfileManager, then DcpTools. With DcpTools, I decompiled the profile to xml format, editied that to change the name, then recompiled back to dcp. When I do that I get the following two messages:

Information: ReductionMatrix1 has zero dimensions
Information: ReductionMatrix2 has zero dimensions

However, I get those same messages if I just decompile and re-compile any profile without editing the xml. I've decompiled several original/renamed pairs and compared the xml files using a file difference utility. It shows no difference other than the profile name.

I've run DNGPE and loaded the renamed profiles as "base" profile so I could inspect the base tone curve. I see no difference in the base tone curve between the original and renamed profiles.

So I'm stuck with the mystery, looking for hints on what to try next.

How did I get here? I foolishly generated a series of profiles named "Temp1, Temp2... Temp5". Tested them and decided "Temp3" was the best. Then wanted to rename "Temp3" to something more meaningful. Not a big problem because I can easily regenerate "Temp3" with a proper name, but the mystery remains.

 67 
 on: Today at 01:33:54 PM 
Started by Dan Glynhampton - Last post by ned
What browser do you use? I've tried on OSX with both firefox and chrome and also on W7 with chrome. Both show the same behavior.

 68 
 on: Today at 01:33:36 PM 
Started by klane - Last post by klane
Replacing my back up A7 with another A7R.  This A7 is basically new, includes all original accessories and original box. Im also throwing in an arca style L plate.

asking $925 


Photos to come shortly

If you have any questions email or PM me!

Thanks! Kyle

 69 
 on: Today at 01:33:29 PM 
Started by dumainew - Last post by Isaac
Am curious as to why the stick's not in focus because it's so close to the Spanish Moss which is.

The Spanish Moss is close horizontally-in-2d but further away from-the-camera-in-3d than the stick.

There doesn't need to be a large difference in distance from the camera for there to be a quite noticeable difference in near-focus.

 70 
 on: Today at 01:28:34 PM 
Started by felix5616 - Last post by felix5616
Still available
Pentax 67/67II wooden handle and pentax 67 Focusing magnifier.

Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 »