Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: paulbk on February 22, 2007, 08:03:12 pm
-
I thought the use of camera profiles was/is a useful feature in Capture One and RawShooterPremium. It appears not possible in LR v1.0. Fiddling with the camera calibration sliders is only slightly less frustrating than calculating your AMT (alternative minimum tax).
Don't get me wrong. I think Lightroom is a fantastic piece of software. But there's always room for improvement.
p
-
LR uses Adobe Camera Raw for raw conversions which doesn't use profiles like other converters. If you search around on the forums you'll find a number of discussions on the subject.
In the mean time here are a couple useful tutorials:
http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/21351.html (http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/21351.html)
http://visual-vacations.com/ColorManagemen...01/04camera.htm (http://visual-vacations.com/ColorManagement/cm_101/04camera.htm)
And a PS script for calibration:
http://www.fors.net/chromoholics/ (http://www.fors.net/chromoholics/)
-
The calibrator script has not worked for (at least) the last two versions of ACR. More, it never worked very good. Hard to beat a well done camera profile.
-
The calibrator script has not worked for (at least) the last two versions of ACR. More, it never worked very good. Hard to beat a well done camera profile.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102537\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thomas Knoll has already rejected using camera profiles. It's come up a few times and the answer is always the same: Profiles only work for fixed lighting conditions so it won't be included.
-
The calibrator script has not worked for (at least) the last two versions of ACR. More, it never worked very good. Hard to beat a well done camera profile.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102537\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This argument is as old as the hills so I'm not going to get into it with you, but if you look around at the research you're likely to discover that camera profiles are really only useful in a very limited number of situations due to the limits of current profiling technology (the main problem being that flat pieces of cardboard with paint swatches on them are not representative of the luminosity values present in any scene any photographer is likely to encounter unless they happen to be shooting 2D artwork on a copy stand, and that means that all profiles generated from data gathered in this manner are rough guesses at best). While there are a handful of instances where they will be highly effective, in most cases they simply are not, and the decision to omit ICC support from ACR was a highly conscious one made by a gentleman with a great deal of digital image processing experience. The calibration interface seems awkward at first, but give it a chance.
-
As I've read/heard the actuality is ACR has two calibrations for each camera. One for daylight and one for tungsten light. As you adjust white-balance it chooses the appropriate one and even blends between the two as you move from one to he other.
Due to the variances in manufacturing tolerances cameras can deviate from ACRs initial calibration. My 300D is a prime example for that as it's default color in ACR is frigg'n-bad. Higher-end cameras have less deviation due to higher quality manufacturing process. The calibration tab in ACR/LR is there to correct for your particular camera's deviation.
The real problem is not that ACR doesn't use profiles, it's that there is no real easy way to calibrate a camera. (the script doesn't always work).
-
The calibrator script has not worked for (at least) the last two versions of ACR. More, it never worked very good. Hard to beat a well done camera profile.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102537\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Also, a new script is out that works for current ACRs...
-
I thought the use of camera profiles was/is a useful feature in Capture One and RawShooterPremium. It appears not possible in LR v1.0. Fiddling with the camera calibration sliders is only slightly less frustrating than calculating your AMT (alternative minimum tax).
Don't get me wrong. I think Lightroom is a fantastic piece of software. But there's always room for improvement.
p
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102491\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
AMT is the devil!
-
re: This argument is as old as the hills so I'm not going to get into it with you, but if you look around at the research you're likely to discover that camera profiles are really only useful in a very limited number of situations ....
Maybe. But is it better than no profile?
From Mike Channey (Qimage): "If we can develop a profile that improves color over the "default" color reproduction of the raw developing tool, we can say we have a successful/useful profile. Some may question whether or not it is possible to develop a single profile that works under all lighting conditions, or whether it is imperative to develop one profile for each lighting condition: sunlight, fluorescent, incandescent, mercury vapor, etc.. Again, the true scientific answer here can get complex, but I've found that when profiling the true raw data, a "generic" profile can be developed using direct sunlight. As lighting conditions (color temperature) shift from direct sunlight to warmer lighting such as incandescent lighting, the profile will become less accurate but the shift is not normally so extreme as to cause gross errors....."
More here: Profiling a Camera with an IT8 Target -- Mike Chaney (http://www.steves-digicams.com/techcorner/January_2007.html)
YMMV,
PS........ I can not make Calibrator Beta 3.8, Last updated: 6/19/06, work with ACR v3.7 latest.
-
From Mike Channey (Qimage): "If we can develop a profile that improves color over the "default" color reproduction of the raw developing tool, we can say we have a successful/useful profile. Some may question whether or not it is possible to develop a single profile that works under all lighting conditions, or whether it is imperative to develop one profile for each lighting condition: sunlight, fluorescent, incandescent, mercury vapor, etc.. Again, the true scientific answer here can get complex, but I've found that when profiling the true raw data, a "generic" profile can be developed using direct sunlight. As lighting conditions (color temperature) shift from direct sunlight to warmer lighting such as incandescent lighting, the profile will become less accurate but the shift is not normally so extreme as to cause gross errors....."
I'm not personally apt to listen to the aesthetic opinions of a man whose company has a website that looks like some 15 year old's Geocities nightmare circa 1994, nor to those of any person who is in the business of selling camera profiles or camera profiling software/targets. If profiles make you happy, then by all means, buy all the targets and software you can afford. 90% of the world can get by with a gray card, and that's why Adobe doesn't choose to support the ICC method in this particular instance. If you're doing scientific rather than artistic work with your camera, then this might not be the solution for you, but then again, neither would an off-the-shelf camera.
-
You either believe in the value of a color managed workflow, or not. This includes input devices (camera) as well as output devices (monitor, printer). Use of a gray card is not color management. It is an aid to white balance. (And a crude one at that.) Word on the street is that Adobe didn’t design in use of input ICC profiles for “simplicity.” There was a time when that was a valid argument. As the ICC literate user base grows, so goes the software. It’s a matter of time.
Adobe says: "ICC-based color management workflows are becoming the standard ...." (http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/adobergb.html)
-
You either believe in the value of a color managed workflow, or not. This includes input devices (camera) as well as output devices (monitor, printer). Use of a gray card is not color management. It is an aid to white balance. (And a crude one at that.) Word on the street is that Adobe didn’t design in use of input ICC profiles for “simplicity.” There was a time when that was a valid argument. As the ICC literate user base grows, so goes the software. It’s a matter of time.
Adobe says: "ICC-based color management workflows are becoming the standard ...." (http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/adobergb.html)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102734\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
ACR is calibrated for each camera. It's just done differently than the ICC profile method and you don't have access to the original profiles. The calibrate option lets you tweak the existing profile if your camera deviates from the initial calibration.
If color management wasn't being used as you suggest the color produced by ACR would be considerably different than what you see now.
-
re: "If color management wasn't being used as you suggest..."
I suggest that use of input ICC profiles is not possible in ACR or Lightroom. And that it ought to be. And predict someday will be. Further, that shooting a Gretagmcbeth card and tweaking camera calibration sliders is a tedious deterrent. Not impossible, just clumsy and error prone. The point of an ICC profile is to preserve color fidelity between devices without a lot of eyeball tweaking. And since we do all this work in a digital environment, it ought to be automated, repeatable, and deterministic.... aka, an ICC profile.
-
It's no more error prone than the ICC profile system. Both systems can be very error prone in the wrong hands and both can be very good in the right hands. The system ACR uses is repeatable and can provide very consistent results even amongst cameras from different manufacturers if you spend the time fine-tuning it (Tip: calibrate ACR by the numbers, not your eyeball).
And there lies the rub. I agree with you that there needs to be a better system for automation than there currently is.
-
fyi.. I’ve been using Bruce Fraser’s method since before it was published (2004). In my view it’s a kludgy poor man’s calibration, and not repeatable. Try it. Hide the results from the first go-round. Then do it again. Then do it again. If you get the same results within 2% (Lab numbers in the calibrated file), you have a color god in your favor. Bruce F. was an expert and did this for a living. The typical user simply wants good color management without making a career of it.
That was one of the reasons I went to Capture One, then RSP. Use of camera profiles for various conditions. Way cool.
btw... I'm trying to build a spread sheet that converts 8-bit RGB values (Adobe 1998 or ProPhoto) to Lightroom style "Melissa RGB" expressed in percentages. If anyone out there has done this, please share. fyi.. per A. Rodney: "For this reason, the histogram and numeric values provided in Lightroom are based on ProPhoto RGB, using the sRGB Tone Response Curve (primarily based on a 2.2 gamma with a tweak to the tone curve in the shadows)."
I believe Photoshop's native space is Lab, Lightroom not. And so it goes..
enjoy, photography is so much fun!
p
-
Like I said, it takes patience but I have been able to get the cameras I've calibrated zeroed in quite well. The only camera that is still off is my 300D, but that is an issue with the camera itself and not ACR.
On that note and as an example of variance in manufacturing that effects color, my 300D had great color in C1. That lead me to think along the same lines as you are at first. RSE was then released and my 300D had crap color in it. Ditto for Bibble. This goes to show Mr. Knoll had a sample 300D that produced color in one way that didn't match my sample but was similar to the sample the RSE people had. The C1 developers had a sample that reproduced colors the same as mine.
Unless you have a higher-end camera with higher-quality manufacturing tolerances the only way to get accurate color from any raw developer is to build a custom profile of your own. The good news here for ACR is this only requires the cost of a CC chart. The ICC-based system requires more expensive tools to build the profile in addition to a CC chart.
The percentage scale should be simple to figure out. Simply convert the RGB numbers in whatever color space into percentages of that space. I.E. 128/256=50% I hope by the time PS3 is released they include a percentage scale for the info pallet.
P.S. Photoshops native color space is not Lab. It works directly in whatever mode/colorspace you set it in. Lab is used as a base for color conversions between spaces.
-
i shoot studio and controlled lights....i have used C1 exclusively for a couple years now (i am on phase backs so no choice anyway)....even with my lights, my set-up i still have to tweak color in the coloreditor...it works, but not even half as well as LR does....the amount of control is incredible....
i wonder if c1v4 will have more controls or the coloreditor somehow more included in the "main" software.....
for me the profiles work, but have to be adjusted almost every time, in a way the whole "looks" idea is a variation on profiles and LR has the same thing....and i still have to adjust for every shoot....
-
FWIW....... I ran a GretagMcbeth Color Checker calibrate script in ACR 3.7 and was abe to simply transpose all the Camera Calibrate setting directly into the Lightroom Camera Calibrate dialog. Looks very good. So even though color management is somewhat different from Photoshop to Lightroom, the RAW convert setting are mostly interchangeable.
Lightroom -- Recommend you make the Camera Calibrate settings a Preset. That way you have them saved in a Preset file and can apply or not.
btw...... I used Rags Gardner's calibrate script. It's a better (much improved) version of Thomas Fors. Get Rags script here:
Rags Gardner Calibrate Script (http://www.rags-int-inc.com/)
Click around. It's under Technology > ACR Calibrate
Interesting site. Thanks to Rags......!
p
-
Paul,
In response to a PM query on Fred Miranda's forums, I posted the following:
You need need to manually copy the settings over and save as a preset.
Perhaps this might also work: Apply only the calibration to a file in ACR 3.7. Save the XMP. Import into Lightroom and then in Develop save the calibration as a Develop Preset.
Could you check the second part? I don't have 3.7 (only on CS). It should work, but I've no way to check and it should be quicker than manually copying settings.
-
Paul,
In response to a PM query on Fred Miranda's forums, I posted the following:
You need need to manually copy the settings over and save as a preset.
Perhaps this might also work: Apply only the calibration to a file in ACR 3.7. Save the XMP. Import into Lightroom and then in Develop save the calibration as a Develop Preset.
Could you check the second part? I don't have 3.7 (only on CS). It should work, but I've no way to check and it should be quicker than manually copying settings.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102972\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sean,
Yes.... it works exactly as you described.
Once you've run the calibration script on a RAW file in ACR, then, all you have to do is IMPORT that same RAW file into Lightroom. The Camera Calibrate setting come with it the sidecare XMP file. Cool!
p
-
Sean,
Yes.... it works exactly as you described.
Once you've run the calibration script on a RAW file in ACR, then, all you have to do is IMPORT that same RAW file into Lightroom. The Camera Calibrate setting come with it the sidecare XMP file. Cool!
p
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102983\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks,
I figured it would, but not having access etc, couldn't check.
Sean.
-
Maybe. But is it better than no profile?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102682\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's my understanding from Bruce Fraser's book that ACR, and therefore probably Lightroom, does have profiles. In fact, it uses two profiles and moves between them as you shift the white balance in the image.
In other words, it is color managed - it just doesn't allow user-defined profiles.
There is some discussion of this in Andrew Rodney's book. I'll have to go re-read it.
-
Thomas Knoll has already rejected using camera profiles. It's come up a few times and the answer is always the same: Profiles only work for fixed lighting conditions so it won't be included.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102538\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not really. He's rejected 3rd party ICC profiles of which almost all have issues. He uses two profiles in Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in (BTW, the product I'm told is no longer called ACR). These are not ICC profiles but camera profiles built based on his own software and needs for the rendering pipeline.
There's really little need for mucking around with profiles in these products anyway, we have the calibration tab for tweaking the existing profiles which, if the cameras are consistent from batch to batch, should need little tweaking (more than is necessary with the provided tools).
-
I'm not personally apt to listen to the aesthetic opinions of a man whose company has a website that looks like some 15 year old's Geocities nightmare circa 1994, nor to those of any person who is in the business of selling camera profiles or camera profiling software/targets. If profiles make you happy, then by all means, buy all the targets and software you can afford. 90% of the world can get by with a gray card, and that's why Adobe doesn't choose to support the ICC method in this particular instance. If you're doing scientific rather than artistic work with your camera, then this might not be the solution for you, but then again, neither would an off-the-shelf camera.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=102689\")
We sir are in total agreement!
I also would ask Mike (and anyone else) to define "accurate color" (oh boy, here he goes again).
Scene referred is accurate and often ugly. Few want or need it. Here's what the ICC has to say about this:
[a href=\"http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_20_Digital_photography_color_management_basics.pdf]http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_20_Di...ment_basics.pdf[/url]
Read it, embrace the idea of accurate color being a big ambiguous term used mostly by those in marketing. If they say accurate, is that colorimetrically correct scene referred color? Do you the image creator like it? End of story.
The question should be, is anyone using LR or Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in having an inability with produce the desired color rendering using the tools provided (before even mucking around with profiles)?
-
We sir are in total agreement!
I also would ask Mike (and anyone else) to define "accurate color" (oh boy, here he goes again).
Scene referred is accurate and often ugly. Few want or need it. Here's what the ICC has to say about this:
http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_20_Di...ment_basics.pdf (http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_20_Digital_photography_color_management_basics.pdf)
Read it, embrace the idea of accurate color being a big ambiguous term used mostly by those in marketing. If they say accurate, is that colorimetrically correct scene referred color? Do you the image creator like it? End of story.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=103230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Andrew,
White paper #20 is anonymous, but the style of writing is similar to yours. Is this a coincidence? At any rate, it is well done.
Bill
-
He uses two profiles in Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in (BTW, the product I'm told is no longer called ACR).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=103228\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So... what are they going to call it now?
If it follows the same bad renaming process of Lightroom mabye, "Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Camera Raw" or APLCR for short. Rolls of the tongue. :D
-
Andrew,
White paper #20 is anonymous, but the style of writing is similar to yours. Is this a coincidence? At any rate, it is well done.
Bill
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=103233\")
I wrote it with Jack Holm of HP.
This subject will hopefully be discussed in far greater detail at PMA:
[a href=\"https://pma07.bdmetrics.com/portal/ViewSession.aspx?id=1390720]https://pma07.bdmetrics.com/portal/ViewSess...aspx?id=1390720[/url]
-
I'm not a colour scientist and maybe missing all the fine nuances and technical detalis, but for me this whole issue can be reduced to the following questions:
Is 'colorimetrically accurate' or 'objective (read unadjusted for psycho-visual adaptation)' colour representation of the scene important for your work?
Do you have full control over both the scene lighting conditions AND the display conditions of the final photo product?
If the answer to both these questions is yes then input ICC profiles might offer a solution, provided the ICC profile is correct and accurate. This will depend on profiling under the exact same light as for the scene and profiling in a correct way.
If the answer to either of these questions is no, or profiling cannot be accurately performed for whatever reason, I think that input ICC profiles is a waste of time.
It's all too easy to say that if you're colour managed then be so all the way, but I'm of the opinion that colour managing the camera input does not really address the same problem as screen and output profiling is.
As for my particular needs, the notion of having a separate profile for my 'shade-under-the-big-green-tree-in-my-garden' lighting conditions and for my 'direct-sunlight-at-12am-in-June-near-my-ochra-painted-wall' lighting conditions sounds absolutely ludicrous.
-
Not really. He's rejected 3rd party ICC profiles of which almost all have issues. He uses two profiles in Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in (BTW, the product I'm told is no longer called ACR). These are not ICC profiles but camera profiles built based on his own software and needs for the rendering pipeline.
There's really little need for mucking around with profiles in these products anyway, we have the calibration tab for tweaking the existing profiles which, if the cameras are consistent from batch to batch, should need little tweaking (more than is necessary with the provided tools).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=103228\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for the clarification Andrew. I did mean ICC profiles, but on review it looks broader than that.
-
I'm not a colour scientist and maybe missing all the fine nuances and technical detalis, but for me this whole issue can be reduced to the following questions:
Is 'colorimetrically accurate' or 'objective (read unadjusted for psycho-visual adaptation)' colour representation of the scene important for your work?
Do you have full control over both the scene lighting conditions AND the display conditions of the final photo product?
If the answer to both these questions is yes then input ICC profiles might offer a solution, provided the ICC profile is correct and accurate. This will depend on profiling under the exact same light as for the scene and profiling in a correct way.
If the answer to either of these questions is no, or profiling cannot be accurately performed for whatever reason, I think that input ICC profiles is a waste of time.
It's all too easy to say that if you're colour managed then be so all the way, but I'm of the opinion that colour managing the camera input does not really address the same problem as screen and output profiling is.
As for my particular needs, the notion of having a separate profile for my 'shade-under-the-big-green-tree-in-my-garden' lighting conditions and for my 'direct-sunlight-at-12am-in-June-near-my-ochra-painted-wall' lighting conditions sounds absolutely ludicrous.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=103484\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
you are absolutely right.....color is extremely subjective and with different display mediums it is downright ridiculous to talk about the correct color....because even if you match it to a swatch, everybody still sees it differently!
i have seen art directors match my pics (the dresses in the photos) with pantone swatches..they have never asked me for anything like that at the shoot.....
there is no way to calibrate film, and the final presentation is up to the printer so they would do the swatches.....
for fine art the most important thing is how the artist sees the color...everything else does not matter......
what i like about IP were the different profiles for different lightconditions.....
btw: i treid to download the IP demo last night....i really know my way around the software, but hte install did not work, when it finally did, it could not find the printer, then it could not activate the printer.....all this just for the demo, not even dealing with the usb plug......i really wanted to see the difference to my custom profiles on FAP on my 4800....i guess i will give it a try again sometime and see...
-
What I find entertaining is that Thomas Knoll, and all the Lightroom crowd tell me that ICC profiles aren't appropriate for cameras, and then just about everyone on this forum adds that I'm an idiot.
On the other hand, the C1 Leica crowd amongst which working photographers say thank you for my M8 profiles and send me money for them *after* testing them under various real-world lighting conditions.
Of course, payment is the sincerest and most acceptable form of flattery, but I still wonder why something that cannot and should not be done works so well in practice
Or maybe it just works well for idiots who do not use Adobe raw converters
Edmund
-
Unless you have a higher-end camera with higher-quality manufacturing tolerances the only way to get accurate color from any raw developer is to build a custom profile of your own.
Great, got a simple workflow to achieve this for us dummies. Would love to have both the daylight and tungston presets in the calibration tool specific for my 5D.
-
Unless you have a higher-end camera with higher-quality manufacturing tolerances the only way to get accurate color from any raw developer is to build a custom profile of your own.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111239\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What's accurate color? And how does a profile ensure that?
-
*cough* ...pleasant color... *cough*
-
*cough* ...pleasant color... *cough*
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111248\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Haven't had any issues producing pleasant colors San's ICC profiles for years.
-
Haven't had any issues producing pleasant colors San's ICC profiles for years.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111309\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Me neither. But camera profiles are an easy way to "package" a choice of rendering and deliver it to a third party. At least, in the way they are used by the C1 converter.
Edmund
-
Me neither. But camera profiles are an easy way to "package" a choice of rendering and deliver it to a third party. At least, in the way they are used by the C1 converter.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111442\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
At DIMA, I sat in on the ICC meeting where the discussion of using ICC profiles with edits for rendering was discussed. Thomas Knoll dismissed this and I agree based on his arguments here. For one, the lack of a perceptual rendering intent is an issue. For another, we have plenty of rendering control in our converters. The ONLY thing this brings to the table is that you could try to apply the same rendering using multiple raw converters but in the end, they wouldn't match since you have to deal with bringing the data into an output referred from scene referred rendering so there goes the match. ICC profiles for rendering tweaks are poorly designed tools with poor options and add a huge layer of complexity and expense for the user. Profiles have traditionally been used to define device behavior. A capture device as complex and used in as many variable conditions as a camera makes finger-printing these devices difficult to say the least. That's why they are useful in fixed situations (think copy work). To use that model as a rendering option IMHO is a solution in search of a problem. As Thomas said about this idea at the open DIMA session on ICC profiles for his task "when all you know is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". We have far better, faster, cheaper rendering tools than ICC profiles.
-
At DIMA, I sat in on the ICC meeting where the discussion of using ICC profiles with edits for rendering was discussed. T
We have far better, faster, cheaper rendering tools than ICC profiles.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111470\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Show me !
Do we really have better tools for editing *raw* ?
At present the advantage of the profile is that you feed it to the Raw converter (which is not PS) and, while you edit, the converter previews the rendered image, incorporating both the Raw settings edits and the "camera profile" edits, and (maybe even ?) the output profile gamut compression. In Photoshop ACR this is not possible as you first need to convert and then apply your curves.
I won't defend the "science" of camera profiles coz' there ain't one. I will defend the profile workflow, which can be applied to many things that are not strictu sensu profiles ...
I feel very uncomfortable, obviously, arguing these workflow issues with people vastly more able than I am, but given the success I seem to have with camera profiles I am starting to suspect that they actually serve some function, where before I assumed they were only perceived to serve one.
Edmund
-
In Photoshop ACR this is not possible as you first need to convert and then apply your curves.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111942\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What? You lost me.
-
Also, what gives you the idea ACR doesn't use profiles? It does (two).
-
What? You lost me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111944\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Andrew -
It's just a user workflow issue.
- In ACR/PS:
I take a Raw image. Open with ACR. Twiddle the ACR sliders. Get it roughly right. Then move to PS, apply curves etc. Now only can I see my final image *with my signature curves*.
- In C1/PS:
I load my image and set my *signature camera profile*. Now, as I twiddle the C1 controls, my *signature look* is already overlaid on the image. I haven't yet even opened PS !!!!
Edmund
-
Also, what gives you the idea ACR doesn't use profiles? It does (two).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111946\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, I know. One happens to be the profile of Thomas Knoll's lightbox.
Sorry, I couldn't resist
Edmund
PS. This comes from the story of how Thomas profiled his cameras at home with his lightbox.
Actually as I write this, I'm browsing the source code of dng_validate.cpp which Adobe has released as free code to show the world how they convert DNG files.
Edmund
-
Hum... I can't say I have the same problem. I do 95% of all global corrections in Lightroom (ACR would apply since they have the same rendering controls).
What's that got to do with input profiles? Can't you build a custom rendering preset in ACR that accomplishes the same thing? IOW, you could use a profile or you could just tweak the rendering controls as you wish, save it. Not at all different from scanning too (I used to build presets that did alter curves and other tweaks in FlexColor when I used an Imacon).
I see the need for rendering controls that produce a desired appearance that you can save and use often on other similar files. The same could be done with a profile but when the rubber meets the road, what's the difference? A LUT, a Profile or a set of metadata corrections.
-
Actually he uses a GretagMacbeth Judge with two illuminants to build his profiles.
-
Hum... I can't say I have the same problem. I do 95% of all global corrections in Lightroom (ACR would apply since they have the same rendering controls).
I see the need for rendering controls that produce a desired appearance that you can save and use often on other similar files. The same could be done with a profile but when the rubber meets the road, what's the difference? A LUT, a Profile or a set of metadata corrections.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111952\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The result is the same of course, but the workflow different.
It's the overlay effect: I'm twiddling one set of controls, but looking at the effect through the "filter" of my "signature look profile". I have several of these, I dial in a look, and twiddle. Say the look says less magenta (for faces) then even while I add saturation, the faces have less magenta ...
Edmund
-
Andrew,
To cut and paste on a Mac you get the material and then go to the edit point and paste in, or as I remember on some older machines (Xerox ?) you would mark an edit point and then go gather the material. The effect is the same - but the mental workflow is not.
Edmund
-
I've put up a blog post about this topic. Nothing new, but better written.
http://photofeedback.blogspot.com/2007/04/...s-raw-film.html (http://photofeedback.blogspot.com/2007/04/camera-profiles-as-raw-film.html)
Edmund
-
Maybe next version?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112117\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Don't hold your breath...
-
Don't hold your breath...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112128\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm sure the next version will have added a few more sliders, though
It's the old mouse vs. keyboard debate. As a Director of IBM told me once "We don't need mice - we aren't children!". Nanny always thinks she knows best what interface you should be using.
Edmund