Profiling

[digitaldog]

To me it makes sense.  It is comparative to using a canned printing profile as compared to making your own printing profile.
JP
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160493\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Poor analogy as some canned profiles can be as good as custom. The canned profiles for the Pro line of Epson printers are superb. I've tested canned and custom, the differences are often tiny and indistinguishable.

Assuming a profile for a camera is the same as a profile of a printing device (or display, or scanner), is quite a stretch.

[Leonardo Barreto]

That is a discrepancy ok. They probably want to dissect the profiling process and instead of attempting to make a dish with many flavors, just go with one. Basically they want to profile the response of a given digital back, --with a given lens(es)--. And the color balance would sort itself out with the gray card.

Some people obsess with something and tell other (profile gicks) that "its ok, you don't have to obsess with that -- that happens to be the main point in the other persons TO DO list of preoccupations.

A friend told me today that "this is all in its infancy", so things will probably begin to sort themselves out, for example, if this $600 per kit system is selling like crazy, then they may be doing something wright, if it crashes and burn, then they are probably wrong... if they survive, then they do because of the murky waters where we are all snorkeling in...    

You picked up on just one of the many discrepancies of this commercial (I only wish Michael had picked it up). They tell you that you should use a single light because no two are identical in terms of the illuminant (it would be interesting to actually measure the differences of two good stobes using an EyeOne Pro Spectrophotometer). OK, so now, how when I use a world of other lighting (just the differences in daylight throughout the day), does this magic profile now somehow not 'care'?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160469\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[digitaldog]

That is a discrepancy ok. They probably want to dissect the profiling process and instead of attempting to make a dish with many flavors, just go with one. Basically they want to profile the response of a given digital back, --with a given lens(es)--. And the color balance would sort itself out with the gray card.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160499\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So you think this 'response' is unaffected by the illuminant? And that no matter the exposure or illuminate, its all coming out in the wash thanks to a gray balance on a card?

I'd agree that profiling the capture in one environmental condition, treating a camera like a scanner can probably work. Hence, copy work (although you have to wonder, they recommend one light, who's now going to shoot copy work that way? What about adding polarization filters?).

[jpjespersen]

That is exactly what I meant.  Some canned printing profiles are great, and sometimes you need custom profiles.  I too have done side by side tests with over 20 kinds of paper.
I imaging that some canned camera  profiles are great and some will look better with proper profiling.

I never said anything about a camera profile being the same as a printing profile.

Poor analogy as some canned profiles can be as good as custom. The canned profiles for the Pro line of Epson printers are superb. I've tested canned and custom, the differences are often tiny and indistinguishable.

Assuming a profile for a camera is the same as a profile of a printing device (or display, or scanner), is quite a stretch.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160496\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Prakash Patel]

I profile my A75S for every light set up in a studio and name the profile with the name of the specific  model or client and the take number. The whole process for setting profiles in 3 folders for color, brightness and contrast , and saturation takes me about 5-7 minutes. I am shooting people so I always aim for the best and most flattering skin colors. The profiles attached by Leaf  software are totally useless and sometimes just scary. I can see how someone not knowing better can freak out by using portrait profile on A75S and exposing it just right. Your image looks like the model skin is a combination on lemon and orange. Profiling Leaf is however so easy that my 11 year old son can truly do it on his own even though ( because of the harsh USA under age labor laws ) he only works part time in my sweat shop studio. Leaf colors are however amazing due to the chip they use and this comment comes from someone who use P1 for 6 year before switching.
If you get Aptus I can help you with basic understanding of the process. It took me under a week to feel confident and happy with Leaf.
Http://Andrenapier.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160291\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Andre,

What is the process to profile your back? Do you use the Gretag device with dongle that Leaf sells as an add-on?
Shooting interiors with various mixed light sources is the exact opposite of the lighting condition you use. But I am curious to find out if I can get to my final result with less time in photoshop.
 It seems that using your method under a specific light source would be a better beginning point
than the canned Leaf profiles. Specifically I have found my A22 is very sensitive to the green cast
from flourescent light sources in mixed lighting situations or maybe the Aptus canned profiles are
a bit too green out of the box.

[eronald]

So you think this 'response' is unaffected by the illuminant? And that no matter the exposure or illuminate, its all coming out in the wash thanks to a gray balance on a card?

I'd agree that profiling the capture in one environmental condition, treating a camera like a scanner can probably work. Hence, copy work (although you have to wonder, they recommend one light, who's now going to shoot copy work that way? What about adding polarization filters?).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160502\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

C'mon Andrew, camera profiling does seem to work quite well for copy work, and there is always a hope that technical improvements may get it to work for all-purpose profiles.

I don't think we'll get there in one step, but I did see an on-chip spectro presentation at CIC, so those might get incorporated into cameras or meters, camera calibration technologies are also improving as people are talking about making cheap monochromators, so there seems to be hope of progress at least on the hardware side ...

The next ICC meeting is in Munich, we could discuss possible improvements in this area, eat some bratwurst, drink some beer

Edmund

[EricWHiss]

Anyone besides me notice that the downloadable samples from coloreyes are rigged.  Why provide a before sample converted with ACR, and an after sample converted with C1? That's not a good comparison.  If their profiles were so great why not go head to head with the C1 profiles?

I know that a few have offered profiles for C1 and with reportedly great feedback on the forums so I'm not saying it can't be done or done well.  Was it Magne Neilson that made them for the canon bodies?   I've heard great things about them.

Edmund,
What do you charge for your profiles?


Eric

[digitaldog]

C'mon Andrew, camera profiling does seem to work quite well for copy work, and there is always a hope that technical improvements may get it to work for all-purpose profiles.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160536\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I believe I addressed copy work.

Until we can get both the spectral properties of the chip AND the scene illuminate, building profiles for copy work will likely be the most effective use of this technology.

[jpjespersen]

I agree that the C1 profiles are great, especially for my p45+.  However ACR can be quicker for me to get the results I need on my repro work.  A custom camera profile would probably provide a much better image in my ACR conversion, hopefully closer to the C1 conversion.

Anyone besides me notice that the downloadable samples from coloreyes are rigged.  Why provide a before sample converted with ACR, and an after sample converted with C1? That's not a good comparison.  If their profiles were so great why not go head to head with the C1 profiles?

I know that a few have offered profiles for C1 and with reportedly great feedback on the forums so I'm not saying it can't be done or done well.  Was it Magne Neilson that made them for the canon bodies?   I've heard great things about them.

Edmund,
What do you charge for your profiles?
Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160538\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[digitaldog]

Anyone besides me notice that the downloadable samples from coloreyes are rigged.  Why provide a before sample converted with ACR, and an after sample converted with C1? That's not a good comparison.  If their profiles were so great why not go head to head with the C1 profiles?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160538\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good point. And since Camera Raw and Lightroom don't allow the use of custom ICC profiles (and I'd argue don't need them), it makes the comparison even more suspect and silly. Same with Aperture.

Perhaps the marketing boys there are afraid of pissing off C1 by implying the canned profiles are no good? Far better to knock Aperture and LR/CR since that architecture disallows the use of their profiles. We don't know the care used in working with the rendering controls either (did they even calibrate using the Fraser method?).

Yes, if you want to show your custom profiles are good, you'd load the same Raw file in C1 with the 'generic' profile and the custom profile without altering anything else, just as how you'd test a canned and custom print profile. You wouldn't print an image on a Canon with a custom profile and the same image on an Epson with a canned profile and then attempt to prove a point.

Like I said, these guys may have the best current solution around, but the marketing BS is overwhelming. I expect to hear from Derrick or Jack here at any time....

[digitaldog]

I agree that the C1 profiles are great, especially for my p45+.  However ACR can be quicker for me to get the results I need on my repro work.  A custom camera profile would probably provide a much better image in my ACR conversion, hopefully closer to the C1 conversion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160540\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ain't going to happen because you can't use ICC profiles in CR or LR. They guy who invented a product called Photoshop, DNG and Camera Raw has some very good reasons why as well.

[eronald]

I believe I addressed copy work.

Until we can get both the spectral properties of the chip AND the scene illuminate, building profiles for copy work will likely be the most effective use of this technology.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160539\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Your're completely right, and we should be moving in that direction.

As I remarked above, we are moving to spectros cheap enough to mount in/on a camera and to cheaper instrumentation (monochromators) that can enable people to characterize the camera sensors more easily. Both these technologies were floating around CIC.

Edmund

[eronald]

I charge $100, but people can test them and pay only if they like them. I've had good feedback on some of the Phase profles, for instance Ric Agudelo (forum name Ric Agu)  is using them professionnally, and some of my Leica profiles had great takeup when I made them, but I have had profiling failures with the Canon 5D, while Magne's seem to make people happy there - it's an art not a science, still.

Click here for an example. On the LEFT Phase Profile color, on the RIGHT Edmund Ronald Profile Color. Ric's name was mistyped - apologies. I'll repost the image tomorrow, inline.

Edmund

Anyone besides me notice that the downloadable samples from coloreyes are rigged.  Why provide a before sample converted with ACR, and an after sample converted with C1? That's not a good comparison.  If their profiles were so great why not go head to head with the C1 profiles?

I know that a few have offered profiles for C1 and with reportedly great feedback on the forums so I'm not saying it can't be done or done well.  Was it Magne Neilson that made them for the canon bodies?   I've heard great things about them.

Edmund,
What do you charge for your profiles?
Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160538\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[EricWHiss]

.....And since Camera Raw and Lightroom don't allow the use of custom ICC profiles (and I'd argue don't need them), it makes the comparison even more suspect and silly. Same with Aperture.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160542\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well ACR and LR might work well for mainstream cameras  - was okay with my 1Ds and 5D - but it stinks to high heaven for my Leica DMR files and the color is way off on my P20 files.  I guess I should be happy because Aperture won't even handle these files.  But C1 does all of them and does a better job on the canon files as well as Phase's own back. But that's only for detail and noise. The profiles for skin are off in my opinion.  I'd like to have one made for me.

I think if you have a camera that's popular (in terms of volume, then you can count on the conversions in ACR/LR being decent but I don't think they spend enough time on the lesser cameras.  That's why they need to allow for input profiles.  C'mon you an use the stock profiles for printing but its open and you can make your own. Why not set LR up that way.  Same goes for the OS-X/Aperture team.  If they aren't going to get around to building support for all the cameras or even a majority of them, why not at least make the process available for people to roll their own?

[rainer_v]

brumbaer tools have integrated a fast profiling function which works with greatag colorchecers, 24 field or DC. even two profiles can be assigned and interpolated between them ( interpolation is made based on the exif info  ) , although i never use this.
on location i make profiles for artwork which works very well.
otherwise i have two profiles, one written under overcast weather which give less saturated reds for portarits e.g. and a second one under sunlight which give very saturated reds. very fast and very usefull.

[Leonardo Barreto]

This is the difference that I get from a Pret a Porter P25 profile.

This is an image that was processed on C1 using the C1 profile. After that, once as a Photosop TIFF i used the custom profile and assigned it in IMAGE>MODE>ASSIGN PROFILE

There is a huge difference in this image... I think that the proper way to do it would be to make the profile work ON C1 so that it comes processed with the custom profile.


This is the "PHASE ONE"[attachment=4246:attachment]

THIS is home made [attachment=4247:attachment]




This is a note after posting: it is strange, the images as I see them on my display show a big difference, but as I see them here not so much. I don't know what happens

[Leonardo Barreto]

I want to try with this other image.

CUSTOM 2
[attachment=4248:attachment]

PHASE 2
[attachment=4249:attachment]

[Leonardo Barreto]

I want to try with this other image.

CUSTOM 2
[attachment=4248:attachment]

PHASE 2
[attachment=4249:attachment]
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Again it killed the profile. Probably when I upload to the server the profile is eliminated, let me try posting them on my server...

... few minutes latter ... [a href=\"http://leonardobarreto.com/zBlog.html]http://leonardobarreto.com/zBlog.html[/url] ... also the images get equalized the moment I put them on the internet. They look totally different on Dreamweaver ... I know you wont believe me ...

[thsinar]

They DO SHOW a HUGE difference, on my screen and using Safari, Leonardo.

Best regards,
Thierry

This is the difference that I get from a Pret a Porter P25 profile.

This is an image that was processed on C1 using the C1 profile. After that, once as a Photosop TIFF i used the custom profile and assigned it in IMAGE>MODE>ASSIGN PROFILE

There is a huge difference in this image... I think that the proper way to do it would be to make the profile work ON C1 so that it comes processed with the custom profile.
This is the "PHASE ONE"[attachment=4246:attachment]

THIS is home made [attachment=4247:attachment]
This is a note after posting: it is strange, the images as I see them on my display show a big difference, but as I see them here not so much. I don't know what happens
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160627\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Dustbak]

Because Safari is profile-aware and IE for instance not (neither is Opera what I use mostly). Though I thought IE7 would be but I don't think it is.

If a browser is not profile-aware (able to cope with different profiles) it will show everything as if it has one (sRGB) profile.

Please anyone that can give a more exact or better reason feel free