Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: raoul21 on January 27, 2008, 02:14:21 pm
-
hello ,
i found some web site that sells the " digital target " here : http://pagesperso-orange.fr/christophe.met...l%20target.html (http://pagesperso-orange.fr/christophe.metairie.photographie/eng%20digital%20target.html)
it sounds good to me but i would like to know if someone tried before i buy this target for my 5D
regards,
raoul
-
hello raoul ,
yes i tried the digital target and made ICC profiles for my cameras, this guy christophe metairie is a photographer well known here in france and he's the maker of what he sells, not only reseller.
maniac
-
thank you " maniac "
corrected pictures are really better with the icc profiles on ? or just a slight improvement ?
raoul
-
Be aware that whereas "profiling" cameras may produce a more "accurate" image, it may not produce a more pleasing image.
So unless you need to have highly accurate colour for commercial reproduction purposes you may in fact find that a profiled camera takes less pleasing shots than one that isn't.
When profiles for Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom are created they are first made to be accurate and then "tweaked" to be pleasing when reproducing "memory colours" such as skin tones. One can easily then further tweak and create a calibration setting of ones own if you disagree.
Just don't go down the path that says that "accurate" is necessarily preferable.
Michael
-
To add further, you can't use ICC profiles in Camera Raw nor Lightroom, instead you can calibrate these products yourself using a Macbeth color checker and working in the Calibrate Tab (check out the tutorials here with Jeff and Michael). So IF you're using ACR or LR, don't spend money for a profile you can't even use (and probably don't need).
On the web page, the before and after examples look like something anyone could do with a few tweaks on the rendering controls in LR or ACR, then just save a preset and you're done.
And as Michael points out, "accurate" color (a pretty lose term) is often not pleasing color.
-
i'm using CMP profiles in DxO software, and colors are not very good with dxo color profiles , but pictures look very natural with very good low lights with the " negative " profiles from CMP .
i found informations of this target at first on norman koren's website and his words were very positive about mr metairie and his digital target
maniac
-
And as Michael points out, "accurate" color (a pretty lose term) is often not pleasing color.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170334\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you investigate, Christopher Metairie does not promise accurate colour, but pleasing colour:) He provides a profile pack that includes 2 chrome type renderings and 2 colour negative type renderings, giving a choice of saturation and contrast.
Mike
-
And what do you think about ACR Calibrator ?
http://www.fors.net/chromoholics/ (http://www.fors.net/chromoholics/)
I made a test with a D300. Colors are more accurate on the Macbeth Colorchecker, but I was very surprised by the exposition modification:
exposure - 2.2
Brightness +114
(Exposition was fine of course)
Any explanation ?
-
And what do you think about ACR Calibrator ?
http://www.fors.net/chromoholics/ (http://www.fors.net/chromoholics/)
I made a test with a D300. Colors are more accurate on the Macbeth Colorchecker, but I was very surprised by the exposition modification:
exposure - 2.2
Brightness +114
(Exposition was fine of course)
Any explanation ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170561\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've not tried calibrating ACR yet, though I've got a colour checker chart at the ready, but iirc the fors script suggests that you ingnore the other calibration outputs apart from the tint and rgb hue and sat values.
Mike
-
If you investigate, Christopher Metairie does not promise accurate colour, but pleasing colour:) He provides a profile pack that includes 2 chrome type renderings and 2 colour negative type renderings, giving a choice of saturation and contrast.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170534\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The point is, pleasing color is often just a slider or two move away.
When I see a Raw converter with a canned or custom profile that produces preferred rendering every time with no user intervention, I'll be a sold man.
-
The point is, pleasing color is often just a slider or two move away.
When I see a Raw converter with a canned or custom profile that produces preferred rendering every time with no user intervention, I'll be a sold man.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170579\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Unfortunately I don't want many pictures to look as though they were shot on velvia (or name your poison...)
I still adjust each image individually:)
Mike
-
sojournerphoto wrote:
I've not tried calibrating ACR yet, though I've got a colour checker chart at the ready, but iirc the fors script suggests that you ingnore the other calibration outputs apart from the tint and rgb hue and sat values.
From what I understood of ACR Calibrator, if you are working in real life, with light, color temp, contrast etc. and of course your own taste, you ignore the other calibrations.
But I made the test into my studio, with professional light. The idea is to use all calibrations if you don't move the light and do reproductions or packshots. With these conditions, I suppose a perfect reproduction of the MacBeth colorchecker, with all the calibrations, should be working to be accurate. I'm not trying to do an image but the best reproduction I can do.
If you investigate, Christopher Metairie does not promise accurate colour, but pleasing colour:)
It doesn't make sense to my eyes. We have all different taste. That's why I'm a photographer by the way. It has sense to have accurate colour, or more precisely the most accurate colour your camera can do, and to change them because of your own feelings. But why should I see my photographs the way Metairies think they are pleasing ?
-
sojournerphoto wrote:
From what I understood of ACR Calibrator, if you are working in real life, with light, color temp, contrast etc. and of course your own taste, you ignore the other calibrations.
But I made the test into my studio, with professional light. The idea is to use all calibrations if you don't move the light and do reproductions or packshots. With these conditions, I suppose a perfect reproduction of the MacBeth colorchecker, with all the calibrations, should be working to be accurate. I'm not trying to do an image but the best reproduction I can do.
It doesn't make sense to my eyes. We have all different taste. That's why I'm a photographer by the way. It has sense to have accurate colour, or more precisely the most accurate colour your camera can do, and to change them because of your own feelings. But why should I see my photographs the way Metairies think they are pleasing ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170673\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In reverse order:)
I completely agree that I don't need to see my photographs the way CM sees them. I haven't used his calibration procedure and, as I said above, process each image to suit how I feel. Sometimes I use DXo sometimes LR/ACR and sometimes I addin the DXo filmpack, these are just tools to achieve the look I want for any particular picture.
Having said that and in answer to both points, I also agree that it is often helpful to have accurate colour to start with and then to work from there. This is particularly the case with skin tones, which LR/ACr struggled to do a good job with out of the box for files from my 5D. I have made adjustments to the calibration just to help make that area of workflow easier.
Mike