DNG Camera Profile, please check my logic…and a question.

[TGM123]

My understanding is that I don’t need a whole lot of camera profiles. It is clear to me that one daylight profile will work for all times of day regardless of the color of the light. The artificial light is where I have some ambiguity. Can I assume that I only need one camera profile for all incandescent lighting sources (tungsten, halogen) and one for fluorescent lighting. The area I am a little confused on is around lights like like LED (which on one level is similar to incandescent as it is heating up a element with electricity) and sodium vapor (not really a filament but excite sodium gas). Also, my understanding is that Speedlites operate via xenon gas exposed to an electronic current.

So can I get away with two profiles?

1) Daylight

2) Incandescent which will cover - tungsten, halogen.

3) Fluorescent

How would you handle: LED, sodium vapor and Speedlights, bin them in one of the above or a separate profile?

Thank you very much.

Best,

Tom

[digitaldog]

Yes, you are on the right track. You could build a dual illuminate profile for Daylight + Tungsten. The maybe one for Fluorescent, one for metal halide, perhaps LED and you're about done. Without seeing the spectrum of the illuminant, it's a guess but I suspect you could get away with 3-5 profiles max.

[Simon Garrett]

I've found the same as Andrew describes.  A dual-illuminant cloudy plus tungsten does for most of my needs.  I've created a number of others, but most end up looking the same as the cloudy-tungsten dual-illuminant one. 

[TGM123]

Yes, you are on the right track. You could build a dual illuminate profile for Daylight + Tungsten. The maybe one for Fluorescent, one for metal halide, perhaps LED and you're about done. Without seeing the spectrum of the illuminant, it's a guess but I suspect you could get away with 3-5 profiles max.

Thanks Andrew.

[TGM123]

I've found the same as Andrew describes.  A dual-illuminant cloudy plus tungsten does for most of my needs.  I've created a number of others, but most end up looking the same as the cloudy-tungsten dual-illuminant one. 

Thanks Simon.

I seems you used the word "cloudy" in your dual illuminant suggestion (as opposed to sunny or the generic daylight), why is that?

Thanks,

Tom

[Simon Garrett]

Thanks Simon.

I seems you used the word "cloudy" in your dual illuminant suggestion (as opposed to sunny or the generic daylight), why is that?

Thanks,

Tom

Because (rightly or wrongly) I thought it might be better to get a wider range between the two illuminants.  One was tungsten light somewhere around 2700K WB and one up at around 6500K, rather than 5500K of sunlight.  I'm not sure if that's the right logic, but maybe Andrew might be able to explain. 

[digitaldog]

Don't worry about specific CCT values within reason, this is about the overall illuminants SPD. That's why WB and DNG camera profiles are not attached at the hip. Thankfully.

[TGM123]

Don't worry about specific CCT values within reason, this is about the overall illuminants SPD. That's why WB and DNG camera profiles are not attached at the hip. Thankfully.

Andrew,

Sorry to dumb what you said to my level...but I just want to be clear.

I think what you said was along the lines of - take a shot under any tungsten source plus at any time of day to get the daylight profile and the daylight/tungsten profile will work just fine.

Is that correct?

Thanks,

Tom

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would say that a dual illuminant profile should cover all continuous spectrum illuminations. For complex spectra like fluorescent it will be best to have different profiles.

With dual illuminant the white balance matters a lot. Shoot a grey card when feasible.

Best regards
Erik

I've found the same as Andrew describes.  A dual-illuminant cloudy plus tungsten does for most of my needs.  I've created a number of others, but most end up looking the same as the cloudy-tungsten dual-illuminant one. 

[digitaldog]

What Erik said.