As to accuracy of color: I want to make my prints look good. That usually means I have to make decisions based on what color renderings look best. How many photographers have had a bride complain because they look better in their wedding pictures than in real life? You know, glowing skin tones, no blemishes, whiter teeth and eyes... Accurate color is overrated. Anybody remember Fuji film? It did not capture accurate colors, per Kodak fans, but I loved the punch it gave to greens and reds. OK, now everybody can attack.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114425\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
James, I agree completely. I never had a client demand to take the print and compare it side-by-side with the original... except one. She's an artist, I copy stuff for her and she DEMANDS "accuracy". Prints next to the paintings, same lighting, same position. Luckily, the Flexcolor/DNG/LR route gets close enough for her to keep using me.
But that's a one off. Like it or not, the present state of hard/software just can't be accurate. I for one don't care if it ever does. The only reason I struggle on trying to make a living this way is that it pleases me. I still get a great feeling about playing with shots when I get them home. Even the boring stuff sometimes excites me. Like shots I'm working on right now - a Victorian hat factory (sadly about to close), north of England, 6am, old Polish guy in a room full of original machines, steam coming up through vents on the floor, sunlight pouring in through high narrow windows... I'm giving it some wellie in LR, really blasting the atmosphere, and find myself shouting "Yeah! ******n great!" The client is going to love it too. But it aint accurate. But was Shakespeare a journalist? (NOT equating myself with that level of performance - just the concept)
If I have to be "accurate" to make a living this way, I'll find something else. We write fiction, not instruction manuals. Passion doesn't crave accuracy.