This is a continuation of the discussion from Hening's Shooting Color Targets thread
, as it digressed into different approaches to camera profiling. I would first like to say that I don't think that there is anything out rightly wrong with DNG/ICC profiles or one method of working compared with another. Each will have its own limitations, and it would be unfair to demand performance outside these limitations. It is surprising that until now nobody has done any comparative testing on various approaches to camera profiling and subsequent raw processing for color.
It would probably be necessary to unravel how DNG/ICC profiles are made, and how raw converters utilize these profiles and make the necessary decisions to transform or extrapolate color. Some portion of that would likely be propriety and would require reverse engineering or inside knowledge, for us to be able to comment better on each approach without being uncertain about where any fault may lie.
I shall begin a list of interesting areas for potential testing:DNG Profiles
ColorChecker + Adobe DNG Profile Editor
ColorChecker + X-rite ColorChecker Passport Software
QPcard 203 + QPcalibration
(Datacolor's solution is absolute bosh, let's avoid that please.)ICC Profiles
ColorChecker + ArgyllCMS
ColorChecker SG + ArgyllCMS
QPcard 203 + ArgyllCMS
QPcard 203 + QPcalibration (with additional ICC plugin)Raw Convertors
Possibly just ACR/Lightroom to compare DNG profiles and "neutral state" rendering of the 800 pound gorilla
Capture One? Lots of folks claim that they get "better color"
Let's add to this list, and also discuss how we are going to design the testing for all of it.