but then you do not need to intentionally use an artificial light w/ spectrum like sodium vapor or fluorescent light, do you ? why 'd you equip a studio w/ such light instead of a something w/ proper spectrum ? for some special effects ? but then you might be exactly looking for a bad color reproduction for that purpose
I think you have misread my intentions. I was specifically told when I wrote in to QPcard that I would see clear
advantages when profiling for fluorescent light sources, and that I should try that, so I decided to include that with my initial testing for the QPcard vs CC (some additional comments in the other thread), and I just dropped a simple comment on fluorescent light performance that's all. Eric Chan also mentioned elsewhere that folks will probably be much happier with custom camera profiles for unique spiky light sources as the Adobe Standard profiles are really meant for tungsten-daylight images, that's part of the reason why the DNG PE was made available. I'm not surprised with the results that I got, except for the fact that I could come reasonably close to the real deal with camera profiling from such a limited set of color patches in a target, made from limited materials that Ernst pointed out in my other thread, is most probably because of sheer luck than any camera profiling wizardry has got to do with it.
If it pleases you I'm sure that we will not be bothering to further test profiles for fluorescent light sources in this thread. No need to get worked up over this small issue.
you can manually set baseline exposure to zero in your .dcp profiles - so that is not a reason at all
I must be mistaken. I know I can remove the Base Tone Curve for dcp profiles, not the BaselineExposure offset. Bjanes has documented that issue elsewhere on this forum. If you know how to offset that in the dcp profile manually, I'm all ears.