I would like to know wich camera system offer that nice color

[Gulag]

Hi,

Just wondering, did you use the same white balance for both renderings, or did you re-adjust WB based on the specific profile choice?

Cheers,
Bart

No,  i didn't do anything except I used different camera profile. My raw conversion is very simple because I just take whatever raw convert gives,  in my case ACR, using all the default values. All other stuff are done in Photoshop. That's why I prefer very flat raw capture so that color,  contrast and tones can be completely manipulated in Photoshop.  I feel C1Pro8 adds too much contrast and saturation and it completely ignores embedded jpeg of raw file.

[Chris Livsey]

it completely ignores embedded jpeg of raw file.

I am curious as to why you want the RAW converter to "copy" "mimic" "mirror" the jpeg. The jpeg is set in camera with, in Nikons, considerable adjustments already cooked in. If you want your RAW when processed to look like the jpeg produced by the in camera settings, and I can see why in some circumstances you may want that, why not just use the jpeg?

[Doug Peterson]

No,  i didn't do anything except I used different camera profile. My raw conversion is very simple because I just take whatever raw convert gives,  in my case ACR, using all the default values. All other stuff are done in Photoshop. That's why I prefer very flat raw capture so that color,  contrast and tones can be completely manipulated in Photoshop.  I feel C1Pro8 adds too much contrast and saturation and it completely ignores embedded jpeg of raw file.

So change the default base characteristics in c1 to linear. No contrast will be added by default and you can roll your own curves.

[Gulag]

So change the default base characteristics in c1 to linear. No contrast will be added by default and you can roll your own curves.

Thanks. That's the way to do it. Now I learn.

[Gulag]

I am curious as to why you want the RAW converter to "copy" "mimic" "mirror" the jpeg. The jpeg is set in camera with, in Nikons, considerable adjustments already cooked in. If you want your RAW when processed to look like the jpeg produced by the in camera settings, and I can see why in some circumstances you may want that, why not just use the jpeg?

 I have mentioned earlier that I like to do very very flat raw capture because I use my own modified Picture Control profile similar to Nikon D810 Flat profile but even flatter. The embedded jpg is what I see on the LCD and I also need to see that same start RAW image right after I bring it into Photoshop before I decide what to do with it.

[Chris Livsey]

I have mentioned earlier that I like to do very very flat raw capture because I use my own modified Picture Control profile similar to Nikon D810 Flat profile but even flatter. The embedded jpg is what I see on the LCD and I also need to see that same start RAW image right after I bring it into Photoshop before I decide what to do with it.

I understand now, thanks for your patience.

[synn]

I can understand wanting a flat file to be taken to PS, but not setting white balance in the raw converter is a bad practice.

Also, in the two samples shown, to my eyes the iq250 profile has better transitions between areas in the skin (cheek to edges of the face) with more aubtones while the D800 profile has that "global" color look that I am not a fan of. Again, this is subjective as unlike gulag, I cook my RAWs a bit before I take them to PS.

[Gulag]

I can understand wanting a flat file to be taken to PS, but not setting white balance in the raw converter is a bad practice.

Also, in the two samples shown, to my eyes the iq250 profile has better transitions between areas in the skin (cheek to edges of the face) with more aubtones while the D800 profile has that "global" color look that I am not a fan of. Again, this is subjective as unlike gulag, I cook my RAWs a bit before I take them to PS.

Over the years I have found Photoshop is far superior to any raw converters. In Photoshop, for example,  I can turn a layer into a smart object and open it in ACR  on the fly if I need to modify WB to a particular setting or for a particular area of an image. In addition, I can manipulate hue, color, saturation, contrast based on tons of selection methods that are not available in any raw converters. In other words,  normally I am not after any global adjustments.  Of course, I wouldn't use Photoshop if I had to shoot events and ended up with tons of images since that's what raw converters really intended for. As to skin tones,  there are more than fifty ways to manipulate them in Photoshop, quickly and easily. That is not an issue at all. Back to the original question, I believe Photoshop can give you all the controls for color work. For example, one of the latest tools is the 3D Color Lookup Table.

[synn]

Yes, I do use all those tools in PS as and when needed and I still prefer to do some basic adjustments in the raw converter. I pointed out white balance specifically because the moment you take it to PS, even as a 16 bit, prophoto RGB tiff, you're assigning a color space and you have to work within that gamut. I am sure people who are more tech inclined than me can explain the intricacies of this better.

But as I said, this is a subjective issue and there's a 1001 ways to post process, each having its own pluses and minuses. Mine works for me but with your workflow, I don't see a different color profile adding any value. Like Doug said, using the linear curve will give you the sort of file you want.

[Gulag]

Most people do care about 16-bit vs 32-bit, that kind of stuff. As far as I know, many top-notch professional retouchers, I mean the ones who work with big budget big name project, normally only work with 8-bit workflow in Photoshop. Of course, 16-bit color raw file is nice but 14-bit or even 12-bit doesn't matter much for the final output, at least for them. Back to the OP, if you are after color,  learn Photoshop or GIMP well in addition to lighting. Alternatively, you can hire the best retouchers that you can afford.

[synn]

Most people do care about 16-bit vs 32-bit, that kind of stuff. As far as I know, many top-notch professional retouchers, I mean the ones who work with big budget big name project, normally only work with 8-bit workflow in Photoshop. Of course, 16-bit color raw file is nice but 14-bit or even 12-bit doesn't matter much for the final output, at least for them. Back to the OP, if you are after color,  learn Photoshop or GIMP well in addition to lighting. Alternatively, you can hire the best retouchers that you can afford.

We clearly know different retouchers, then.

Still image editors work with bigger color depth and then output in 8 bit for the same reason as video editors working in Prores 422/ 444 and exporting as h.264 420. You should have as much headroom as possible while pushing color values to avoid clipping.
If you do not care about bit depths etc. Just shoot a flat profile JPEG in camera. The RAW file will add no real advantage to the workflow and you can go straight to PS.

[eronald]

Gulag,

You want to preserve the workflow which starts with your own tailored Nikon in-camera profile and Jpeg, which helps you with shooting.

There is no reason why Phase One's software or Adobe's in fact, should be *best* to help you with a Nikon workflow. In fact, Nikon's software is the one tailored for Nikon cameras and the one to be employed when one wishes to reproduce on the computer side all the quirks of the Nikon in-camera processing.

Your most appropriate workflow would be via the Nikon raw conversion software, which should be able to recognize your personal edited in-camera picture profile. I think even the free Nikon View can do what you want, and export Tiffs. C1 just renders the way its authors decided to do things, which happens to suit many of their customers, while Adobe go to some pains to imitate the stock Nikon or Canon profiles, but I don't think they will recognize and apply your own embedded picture profile - the one you use to create the in-camera Jpeg that is to your personal liking.

It may take some work to configure the Nikon software to apply your picture profile, either it picks it up from the file or you'll have to bring it across to the computer with the picture profile utility or recreate it on the computer with Nikon's picture profile editor.

A question on a Nikon forum should elicit an answer from a real Nikon software expert. Some of the people above who have schooled you on postprocessing are associated with Phase, and it is only natural that they should view the world through the prism of the software which they use daily. They are genuinely helpful, their advice is good, but it is more intended for people who look at a C1 screen with a tethered camera running C1, with a view to using the same C1 color for retouch, than it is for someone looking at the screen on the back of a Nikon to make shooting decisions. If you really want to shoot what you see on a preview based on in-camera picture profiles, the obvious way to get what you want is to stay with the Nikon software.

If I may use an analogy, the advice you're being given is like being told how to filter Kodachrome to try and make it look a bit more like Fujichrome. While it might have been possible to do this, it sounds more logical to just try and stay with the brand that has the look you want.

Edmund

PS. The problem with all these look emulations is that the "signature" of a look is often not in the core zones of the images. The emulsion or look shows off its personality most strongly in the falloff behavior, the shadow and highlight tints, eg. the face shadows or where the spaces between leaves go dark or show the sun, and these limit behaviors are really hard to replicate, be it in picking up the signature of an emulsion or just that of a digital camera.

[Gulag]

We clearly know different retouchers, then.

Still image editors work with bigger color depth and then output in 8 bit for the same reason as video editors working in Prores 422/ 444 and exporting as h.264 420. You should have as much headroom as possible while pushing color values to avoid clipping.
If you do not care about bit depths etc. Just shoot a flat profile JPEG in camera. The RAW file will add no real advantage to the workflow and you can go straight to PS.

Yes, that is the orthodoxy. BUT, reality can bite mercilessly. It's not uncommon to have hundreds if not thousands layers in a single psd file. There's nothing gained without a loss. Like everything else in life,  it's all about trade-offs,  unfortunately.

[Gulag]

Thanks for the detailed explanations.