Have you dropped the no-profile approach by ColorPerfect that you mentioned yourself? I find it gives very convincing results on scanned 3f-files.
BTW it strikes me that the monitor profiling software ColorEyes seems to follow the same philosophy, it just deals with grayscale and red, green and blue.
Hening, no I have not dropped ColorPerfect. I am trying to get up to speed with ColorPerfect, and have been corresponding with David to clarify certain image quality issues I noted. I have used it for digital raw images, not for scanner files. Generally speaking, it gives wonderful results at its default settings when compared to ACR's default settings. It also does not have a hidden baselineexposure offset and the color rendering is quite good considering that there is no typical "profile" of any sort, just balance for grays and let the colors fall where they may. However, I have gotten used to my custom camera profile and the way it renders color in ACR, and rightly I am biased. I tend to shy away from the default settings in ACR (too much contrast and saturation) and prefer to begin with a linear tonal representation of zeroed settings. I will comment more on ColorPerfect when I have a better grasp on how to use it and what it does. The current UI is so user-unfriendly that it is hindering my learning of its novel approach. I am also unsure if I would see improvement in the results if I custom gray calibrated my camera instead of using the generic calibration in ColorPerfect.
I appreciate the simplistic approach to all this. You always gain some and lose some in a profile. For display calibration, with low end displays, twisting it's native behaviour with a LUT profile may introduce artifacts, especially for low end displays. Question is, is a DNG or ICC camera profile ruining your "color integrity" - the main argument behind ColorPerfect's alternative approach?
you are a natural light photographer, are you not ?
I am open to learning about how camera profiles behave under different lighting situations. In an earlier post, I expressed interest in a copy studio setup with artificial lighting, despite my favor for natural light. In addition, I was interested to see if my new QPcard 203 really outperforms the CC under that illuminant, because that was what it is marketed to do. Untwisting the standard profile and comparing it alongside was a simple matter, and I was curious about how it performed. I think it would give us all a broader picture of what works when, if we look at a greater number of situations that just the ones we face.
Yes, I am also interested to learn how RT deals with DNG/ICC profiles, in particular the former and its dual matrices.