inCamera color correction

[Dan Sroka]

[font color=\'#000000\']Interesting points John.

I do quite a lot of my photography digitally. However, one of the things that keeps me returning to my film camera is it's variable color space. For just $5 (+ $10 for processing), I can completely change this camera's interpretation of color -- making it cheap and easy experiment with a wildly different color spaces, from Velvia to good ol' Polapan.

It is interesting how with film, we all tend to accept their idiosyncracies, and actually celebrate them as part of it's beauty. But when a digital camera is not "perfect", we tend to drop kick it as far as we can. It's that cost factor -- you invest so much in one color space, you need it as neutral as possible.

Hmm.. I wonder, how does this change how we photograph? With film, the choice of color space was integral to the capturing of the subject. ("Ah, let's use this Velvia for this forest scene to get the saturated colors"). But now, we have moved that color space choice to the digital darkroom. ("Hmm, let's add a Hue/Sat layer here to punch up the greens".) It will be interesting to watch ourselves to see if this has an effect on our creative decision making.[/font]

[Ethan Hansen]

[font color=\'#000000\']By using camera profiles, I can get very controlled color spaces.  I start with a neutral, accurate profile.  A good profile editor such as Gretag's ProfileEditor or ColorBlind Edit makes editing a specific range of colors much easier than doing it in Photoshop.  I can make a profile that boosts the saturation of foliage without blocking up reds in the way Velvia does.  I also have a sunset profile, etc.  None of these produce more accurate color, but that is not the goal.

Nonetheless, after being almost entirely digital for a year and a half, I admit to still thinking in film terms.  I see a scene, and think Provia, Reala, Astia, Velvia, NPZ...[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']If you're shooting in RAW mode (which you should be if you are looking for maximum image quality) then these settings don't mean anything. Same with White Balance. They can all be applied during RAW conversion. This is much preferable.

Michael[/font]

[jdemott]

[font color=\'#000000\']I posted this in the old discussion forum just shortly before the demise of the old forum software.  Since there really wasn't any chance for anyone to reply, I decided to re-post and see if anyone has any comments.

Michael's review of the inCamera color profiler rightly begins and ends with a question--do you really need exactly accurate color? For what I do, the answer is no. I need reasonably accurate color that is visually pleasing. Nonetheless, I found the article to be very thought-provoking, as it suggests some questions I have been puzzling about since I began spending some significant time with a digital camera recently-- a Nikon D100.

As film photographers, we know that different films have different color palettes. Some are very saturated, some are warm, some are cool, some are contrasty, etc.

How would you describe the color palette of your digital camera? I find the D100, when using the Adobe RGB color space and correct white balance, to be very neutral over a wide range of subjects and colors. In other words, it seems to have very good color accuracy right out of the box.

It would be interesting to see how well the color accuracy of various pro films would compare with a typical high end digital SLR. I assume that a film like Fuji Velvia, which is so popular with landscape photographers, would score rather poorly when rated solely for accuracy because of its highly saturated character. Whether it is pleasing is another question. However, if we are happy with the accuracy of Velvia (or Provia, which is more neutral) for landscape shots, it seems likely we can be satisfied with digital SLRs, without the need for a product like inCamera.

Obviously there are photographic applications that demand optimal color accuracy, but I don't think landscape photgraphy falls in that category. I find that my post processing of digital landscape images often includes a little tweaking of the color, such as increasing warmth or saturation, to enhance the mood of the shot, but seldom requires much adjustment to get the colors to appear accurate and realistic. This is in contrast to processing scans of film shots for which I often have to work carefully to get the color balance right.

For landscape photographers, and perhaps many others, it might be more useful to have a software product that produced different color palettes, like Velvia, Portra etc., rather than one designed to achieve perfect accuracy.


John DeMott[/font]

[mmurph]

[font color=\'#000000\']The Kodak DCS Pro back offers profiles to emulate specific films.  I haven't used the camera, but I understand that the Kodak films are named directly while other brands - Fuji, etc. - are available under coded names.

I assume this is a feature all high end cameras will offer eventually.  It would also be easy to apply similar profiles in Photoshop or other software when working with a raw file with an 11 stop dynamic range.

For film scanning purposes Portra NC or Fuji Astia would give you the most options in adjusting contrast, saturation, etc. I was experimenting with Agfa Optima II 100 recently.  I found that I could match it fairly well in Photoshop using Portra 160 NC by increasing saturation +40.  Also needed to tweak the colors some, though I decided I preferred the Portra yellows, reds, and greens anyway.  Under bright sunshine at least, I haven't compared under overcast conditions.

Best,
Michael T.[/font]

[Ray Robertson]

[font color=\'#000000\']Would anyone like to comment on the parameters settings in cameras like the D60. Here we have 3 differents settings for contrast, sharpness, saturation and color tone. Combinations of these settings could emulate the effects of many different types of color films. I haven't done much experimentation yet.[/font]