Fashion Raws from Phase One IQ3 100mp (16 bit mode)

[Doug Peterson]

Every time a new camera is released a slew of test images begin appearing. One of the most common is a photo of a model’s face with a Color Checker. We wanted to create a test image that was, first and foremost, a good image. So we worked with makeup/hair artist Kara Graves to riff off the cliche of the Color Checker + Model cliche.

The article, including links to download 6.5 gb worth or raw files and 100% JPGs here:
Phase One IQ3 100mp 16 bit Raw File Fashion Test

[alan_b]

Love the makeup! 

[Doug Peterson]

Love the makeup! 

Thanks.

Makeup and hair were done by: https://www.instagram.com/maskaramua/?hl=en available for hire in NYC

Later we turned it up a notch...



(raw for this available through the link in the first message)

[BernardLanguillier]

Thanks for sharing Doug, those look very good.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Don Libby]

  But don't piss off your wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend/cat/dog and miss dinner......

Voice of experience?

[G_Allen]

Hey Doug,
Thanks for taking the time to put these up.

I would love to see full/half body shots, particularly with finely-woven fabrics. I'm curious if this back has any problems with moire, as I shoot mostly fashion and advertising.

My P65+ never got moire, I didn't have to think about it. And now I have the IQ250 which gets moire frequently when shooting half-length portraits (covers), which was a surprise.

[bjanes]

Doug,

Nice shots! In the second image is the model naked? if so, more extended views might prove popular. 

Regards,

Bill

[torger]

Just for fun, here's the same image processed in RawTherapee (patched to handle 16 bit IIQ) with a DCamProf DNG camera profile made from the colorchecker on the model's head. No adjustments, except for white balance picker on the white colorchecker patch.

As you may know Phase One likes to render colors with a warm tone (more yellow), which is the main difference that can be seen color wise (plus some differences in contrast and saturation).

When making the profile it the software had to do more LUT stretching than you would expect from a modern camera so it's probably some minor mismatch with my reference data, so don't consider the profile to be high quality, more controlled conditions is required for that.

DNG profile attached.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Just for fun, here's the same image processed in RawTherapee (patched to handle 16 bit IIQ) with a DCamProf DNG camera profile made from the colorchecker on the model's head. No adjustments, except for white balance picker on the white colorchecker patch.

Hi Anders,

Looking at the edge of the Passport CC, it seems like a fair amount of glare might influence the target. Did you do anything specific in DCamProf to adjust for that?

Cheers,
Bart

[torger]

Looking at the edge of the Passport CC, it seems like a fair amount of glare might influence the target. Did you do anything specific in DCamProf to adjust for that?

Just the glare matching code, but it requires flat fielded shot to work ideally. I edited the message above to state that the profile should not be considered high quality. Modern sony sensors get very low delta E's with just a matrix, which did not happen this time which is an indication of non-ideal conditions or issues matching reference data.

Despite the issues it's probably pretty close to what a high quality profile would look like with the same design target.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Just the glare matching code, but it requires flat fielded shot to work ideally. I edited the message above to state that the profile should not be considered high quality. Modern sony sensors get very low delta E's with just a matrix, which did not happen this time which is an indication of non-ideal conditions or issues matching reference data.

Thanks. I do understand that this was not an ideal profiling shot (and not intended to be), so the result should be treated as such anyway.

Despite the issues it's probably pretty close to what a high quality profile would look like with the same design target.

Yes, the target is relatively usable in potential glare situations, so it does produce a usable profile, not perfect but usable.

Cheers,
Bart