Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: nilo on December 16, 2010, 01:42:59 pm
-
Till now I did not have the need for more than a visual correction of the generic Phase One profiles available in Capture One.
I need something more accurate for the next studio jobs (and at the same time get rid of the Canon 5D2's red).
The only solution I could come up with was Argyll, but I did not manage to find the time to learn all that. (I keep going back there and do not even now where to start...)
BTW I find it interesting that X-rites new i1PhotoPro package does only include the colorchecker to work with Adobe products. So what do I do when I want to use C1?
many thanks in advance
nino
-
right hand side -> "Input"
http://www.basiccolor.de/english/index_E.htm
I once made a profile for my camera with BC Input and was actually shocked how usable it was out of the box for the exact same lighting conditions.
I also was shocked how unsable it was for different lighting conditions (even just slight differences).
Camera profiling is not trivial ... I think you need a lot of experience to create a profile that (1) looks good and (2) behaves good.
I'd rather tweak the generic 5D profile C1 provides.
C1 V6 features multiple color read outs... which should help to adjust a capture towards a regular gretag chart.
-
right hand side -> "Input"
http://www.basiccolor.de/english/index_E.htm
I was hoping for a cheaper/free solution. If somebody would tell me that he tried Argyll, than I would maybe start all over again with that.
I once made a profile for my camera with BC Input and was actually shocked how usable it was out of the box for the exact same lighting conditions.
I also was shocked how unsable it was for different lighting conditions (even just slight differences).
That's exactly what I need. A profile for one precise shot under controlled conditions.
Camera profiling is not trivial ... I think you need a lot of experience to create a profile that (1) looks good and (2) behaves good.
I'd rather tweak the generic 5D profile C1 provides.
I'm aware of the difficulties involved with camera profiling. I could have gone to the x-rite/adobe solution with the colorchecker, but the result is not up to this studio task.
Tweaking the available profiles is what I did till now. For most everything that's enough. But to get something overall correct is impossible through visual assessment.C1 V6 features multiple color read outs... which should help to adjust a capture towards a regular gretag chart.
regards
nino
How would you do that? The read out will be meaning full if it matches the target. I will have to set the film curve to linear and furthermore apply a curve to bring the black and the white patch into the range of the target values. After this I can start to try to get the colors into sinc via the read outs. I did that. The result was not nice, because while you tweak here you untweak there. I guess you know what I mean. (BTW the read-outs from my c1 v6.0.1 copy are meaningless - I filed a case)
I need to do something. The colors are simply wrong. Especially the Canon red.
EDIT: The mentioned Color Editor issue has been fixed. It was due to a corrupt ProPhotoRGB profile.
-
How would you do that? The read out will be meaning full if it matches the target. I will have to set the film curve to linear and furthermore apply a curve to bring the black and the white patch into the range of the target values. After this I can start to try to get the colors into sinc via the read outs. I did that. The result was not nice, because while you tweak here you untweak there. I guess you know what I mean. (BTW the read-outs from my c1 v6.0.1 copy are meaningless - I filed a case)
in this case (tweaking the generic profile of the 5D2) you should set the film curve to "film standard". The linear curve is only useful if you start to create a new profile from scratch.
As to the "how to"...
1.) I'd shoot a color chart
2.) load (or create) a gretag chart with the correct Lab values, convert the file to your desired working space in Photoshop
3.) read out the RGB values from the info palette in photohop
4.) set C1 to the same working space
5.) tweak the colors in C1 so that they match the respective RGB values of the gretag chart in Photoshop
... but, as you've said, it's very difficult if they all have to match dead on ... so if this is your target a decent profiling software is the way to go (that's what it is for after all).
Don't know about the workflow in Argyll, sorry.
edit: "(BTW the read-outs from my c1 v6.0.1 copy are meaningless - I filed a case)"
you are right. The read out values refer to sRGB (for some reason).
Oh man ...
-
Thanks for these hints, thomas!
[...]
2.) load (or create) a gretag chart with the correct Lab values, convert the file to your desired working space in Photoshop
I am not sure if I understand the "load (or create)" part correctly. Do you mean an actual reference image, like the artificial one by Bruce Lindbloom?
-
Do you mean an actual reference image, like the artificial one by Bruce Lindbloom?
yes!
-
yes!
thanks again, thomas!
Maybe you also know about the available software options for icc profiling of cameras?
-
Maybe you also know about the available software options for icc profiling of cameras?
no, I have no overview here... I'm sorry!
-
Ok, so I'll try your suggested work flow with the Lindbloom image.
many thanks
regards
nino
-
edit: "(BTW the read-outs from my c1 v6.0.1 copy are meaningless - I filed a case)"
you are right. The read out values refer to sRGB (for some reason).
not quite right.
Only if you are working in the camera profile (i.e. "embed camera profile" set as recipe... that's what I do) the read outs show sRGB values.
If you set any other color space as output recipe the read out values are correct.
-
I once made a profile for my camera with BC Input and was actually shocked how usable it was out of the box for the exact same lighting conditions.
I also was shocked how unsable it was for different lighting conditions (even just slight differences).
Camera profiling is not trivial ... I think you need a lot of experience to create a profile that (1) looks good and (2) behaves good.
Yes indeed! Its not trivial and often results in failure. My experiences mimic yours. In the days when I actually built ICC camera profiles, they worked pretty well with consistent (studio like) conditions.
-
[...] In the days when I actually built ICC camera profiles, they worked pretty well with consistent (studio like) conditions.
Andrew, that's exactly why I thought that in this case, which is a controlled studio shot, an ICC profile would be the way to go. And without ICC profiles there is no profiling in Capture One, as you know.
-
not quite right.
Only if you are working in the camera profile (i.e. "embed camera profile" set as recipe... that's what I do) the read outs show sRGB values.
If you set any other color space as output recipe the read out values are correct.
Unfortunately, here Win7x64 with C1Pro 6.0.1, the values are really meaningless in the color editor, and as soon as you change something it really gets fancy like the Blue Patch being R0 G255 B46. Also, the values above the viewer do not change when I modify something in the editor! I really hope they gonna fix that soon.
regards
nino
-
Unfortunately, here Win7x64 with C1Pro 6.0.1, the values are really meaningless in the color editor, and as soon as you change something it really gets fancy like the Blue Patch being R0 G255 B46. Also, the values above the viewer do not change when I modify something in the editor! I really hope they gonna fix that soon.
so the rebirth of this error...? -> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=44342.0
okay, that's different on Mac. There is just the read out error when the output is set to "embed camera profile" (however the RGB values in the viewer are correct).
-
so the rebirth of this error...? -> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=44342.0
okay, that's different on Mac. There is just the read out error when the output is set to "embed camera profile" (however the RGB values in the viewer are correct).
Yes, there are also two or three other old issues that where buried and now live again...
-
I tried to build a camera ICC profile. The result gave very very good colors, far better than the generic profile! But the profile makes the image too dark, the blacks are crushed!? What am I doing wrong? Could anyone point me to a source where I could learn how to do build a camera profile properly?
I did the following with basICColor Input:
1.) I shot the chart in the exact same conditions as the shot for which I need a profile.
2.) I processed a Tiff file in C1 with "film standard curve" and "Embed Camera Profile"
3.) Create the profile in basiICColor Input with "colorchecker24 spectral.txt" (instead of "colometric custom.txt", Keep camera gray" and "Add absolute white" unchecked, no spectral conversion and observer left at 2 degrees.
regards
nino
-
I tried again with basICColor. Same result crushed shadows. Too dark. What am I doing wrong?
- I used a CC24, evenly illuminated (variation of one to two unites across the whole board). White balanced with BabelColor. I tried various exposures. Nothing helps.
- With C1 I tried the standard curve as well as the linear curve. Both with or without applying additional curves in C1 in order to get to the "ideal" values for the gray patches on the CC (as indicated here http://www.pictocolor.com/UserGuides/inCamera40/CaptureChartCC.html )
- I processed with ICC Profile in base characteristics set to "No color correction" and output profile "embeded camera profile"
-
WOW! I had a few minutes to try Argyll. I feel like having a new camera. Gorgeous sumptuous colors! Accuracy is not yet the point, but the sheer depth and richness of tones is wonderful.
No blocked up shadows anymore. No posterization. I have unleashed the beast in the 5D Mrk2.
I have still a long way to. Colors appear more accurate but the Argyll's profile check gives me a DeltaE peak at 17.6 and an average at 7.8! That feels like a lot. I tried a few recipes but don't know what I am doing wrong. The CC24 is evenly illuminated. Exposure is spot on, as is WB. I process with all color corrections off.
???
P.S.: Argyll is quick and easy, once I have set it up!
-
Anybody?
where should I turn to to find some help and answers?
-
I don´t have personal experience, but I found this site (french) from a reference in the DXO site (since DXO also can use ICC Camera profiles)
The guy there offers a 570 color patches test chart for more precise profiles and offers to create the profile (paid). Maybe the 24 color chart you´re using is not enough.
http://www.christophe-metairie-photographie.com/eng digital target.html (http://www.christophe-metairie-photographie.com/eng%20digital%20target.html)
-
XRite ColorChecker Passport has a stand alone program. Doesn't that fit your needs?
-
Anybody?
where should I turn to to find some help and answers?
Are you still trying to make profiles for free?
-
I don´t have personal experience, but I found this site (french) from a reference in the DXO site (since DXO also can use ICC Camera profiles)
The guy there offers a 570 color patches test chart for more precise profiles and offers to create the profile (paid). Maybe the 24 color chart you´re using is not enough.
http://www.christophe-metairie-photographie.com/eng digital target.html (http://www.christophe-metairie-photographie.com/eng%20digital%20target.html)
Thank you Francisco I'll try to find out about this guy. Who is it? How to contact him?
It might not be so important to use a bigger chart as indicated here http://www.betterlight.com/downloads/conference06_notes/myers_artRepro_color.pdf
regards
nino
-
XRite ColorChecker Passport has a stand alone program. Doesn't that fit your needs?
thank you for the suggestion, but as I wrote in my original post, DCP, for the moment, is not what I need (We'll see in the future, when a the Profile editor comes out of the Beta phase).
... and x-rite sells two professional profiling solutions, for a bit less than USD 2.000, ProfileMaker and Profiler. They are also ICC based.:
here is my OP
Till now I did not have the need for more than a visual correction of the generic Phase One profiles available in Capture One.
I need something more accurate for the next studio jobs (and at the same time get rid of the Canon 5D2's red).
The only solution I could come up with was Argyll, but I did not manage to find the time to learn all that. (I keep going back there and do not even now where to start...)
BTW I find it interesting that X-rites new i1PhotoPro package does only include the colorchecker to work with Adobe products. So what do I do when I want to use C1?
many thanks in advance
nino
EDIT: Here is a fine intro to the problem of color accuracy: http://www.betterlight.com/downloads/conference06_notes/color_Accuracy-ppt.pdf
-
Are you still trying to make profiles for free?
Sorry I don't get the message, Chris. Please help me to understand you!
regards
nino
-
I'll try to find out about this guy. Who is it? How to contact him?
The only reference I have is an interview in the DXO web site. At the end there is an email address.
http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_optics_pro/advanced_color/color_calibration_with_c_metairie (http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_optics_pro/advanced_color/color_calibration_with_c_metairie)
From a post in another forum (which I assume is yours) you are trying to achieve maximum color accuracy for art reproduction. This is IMHO one of the most challenging situations. Besides achieving an outstanding ICC profile, there are still issues like metameric failure and out of gamut colors. How good and uniform is your light?
I would think that Chris suggestion was that you need professional advice/consulting (not free)
-
Francisco, Art reproduction is indeed a challenging situation, but I like challenges because I like to learn ;-)
For the light is use my profoto d4 and/or natural day light in the studio.
I Chris meant that I should get professional consulting/advice, than I understand. Only I am trying to get expertise myself and not only get profiles for free but also get money for the work. In general try to be as good as possible in what I do.
The only reference I have is an interview in the DXO web site. At the end there is an email address.
http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_optics_pro/advanced_color/color_calibration_with_c_metairie (http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_optics_pro/advanced_color/color_calibration_with_c_metairie)
[...]
Thank you again! I'll look it up
regards
nino
-
Sorry I don't get the message, Chris. Please help me to understand you!
I was wondering if you are spending money on ICC profile targets and software, or if you are looking for methods of making profiles that do not cost anything.
In my experience, you get what you pay for. I've profiled drum scanners, cameras, printer and monitors. To me (and my clients) it's worth it to buy a quality profiling product, or pay for a quality profiling service.
When profiling a camera, I found it imperative that the ICC profile be made using the raw capture/processing software that you'll normally use. Don't make a camera profile using Capture One, then go use Aperture or Raw Developer for all your work.
This brings me to another point. To keep costs low, I suggest you try Raw Developer (http://iridient.com/products/rawdeveloper.html) as a capture & process program. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
-
Chris,
I was wondering if you are spending money on ICC profile targets and software, or if you are looking for methods of making profiles that do not cost anything.
In my experience, you get what you pay for. I've profiled drum scanners, cameras, printer and monitors. To me (and my clients) it's worth it to buy a quality profiling product, or pay for a quality profiling service.
I agree with you, we try to only use quality gear. We spent a lot of money in the last years to convert to digital.
I am willing to spent what it takes, BUT I also spent sometimes money on the best there is, just to find out that for some reason it did not work as advertised, or as "pros", "advisers" and "insiders" tell you. Evidently only good was meant, and you can proof no wrong. But it happens over and over again...
In this forum, on the contrary, there are people who know what they talk about. I should ask them to do a job for me? Your are right, but I would have to fly them in over a few oceans and continents, for most of them, and I spare you all the other problems that there would be. Or I could send them my cameras. I can't afford it.
In my location, there is simply no quality service (which is obviously not true where you are). Here, even big international corporations rely on quite unqualified staff and "experts". Some clients here know that.
In conclusion, I started to learn myself quite successfully ;-).
When profiling a camera, I found it imperative that the ICC profile be made using the raw capture/processing software that you'll normally use. Don't make a camera profile using Capture One, then go use Aperture or Raw Developer for all your work.
This brings me to another point. To keep costs low, I suggest you try Raw Developer (http://iridient.com/products/rawdeveloper.html) as a capture & process program. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
We still use C1 in my studio (We'll see in the future when/if I'll move over to the DNG profiling camp, as I get tired of being a paying P1 beta tester).
-
We still use C1 in my studio (We'll see in the future when/if I'll move over to the DNG profiling camp, as I get tired of being a paying P1 beta tester).
Since you use C1, you need to eliminate its influence on the colors and tones when making an ICC camera profile.
For example, this tidbit is from the Raw Developer site (http://iridient.com/products/rawdeveloper.html):
"Processing Disabled" Output Mode
Ability to bypass all image adjustments and all color matching operations for fast, high quality export of linear files intended for further processing with other image processing programs or RAW workflows. Also useful for creating non-color matched output for use in generating custom camera or scene profiles with ICC camera profiling software.
-
Since you use C1, you need to eliminate its influence on the colors and tones when making an ICC camera profile.
But Capture One's "Color view" (former "Phase Ono - no color corrections") setting in addition to the output setting "Embed camera profile" does exactly that AFAIK. You have other info?
-
But Capture One's "Color view" (former "Phase Ono - no color corrections") setting in addition to the output setting "Embed camera profile" does exactly that AFAIK. You have other info?
Are any curves applied?
-
Are any curves applied?
everything zeroed out in Capture One, but the image looks like there are still some curves applied, so I tried with and without applying additional curves in order to make the data linear. now that you ask me, I understand that this C1 behavior could be one source for the profiles getting too dark or too light, too saturated ....
-
everything zeroed out in Capture One, but the image looks like there are still some curves applied, so I tried with and without applying additional curves in order to make the data linear. now that you ask me, I understand that this C1 behavior could be one source for the profiles getting too dark or too light, too saturated
Is the "film curve" off?
No profile is being applied?
No sharpening?
No clarity?
etc.
-
Is the "film curve" off?
No profile is being applied?
No sharpening?
No clarity?
etc.
yes
-
What is the gamma setting in Capture One?
-
Chris,
I have set it to Linear, if that is what you meant ?!
BTW The above mentioned "Color Editor issue", where readout values would not make sens, has been fixed. It was due to a corrupt ProPhotoRGB profile.
-
Nino,
Is this your workflow?
- Capture One is zeroed out across all input parameters
- You photograph your ICC profiling target (provided by basICColor Input)
- No ICC profile is being attached or referenced when an image is captured
- You locate the raw file and run the image through the ICC profiling software (basICColor Input)
- You create the profile
- You capture an image of a scene/product/person and apply the ICC profile in Capture One
- This captured image is too dark with over-saturated colors
Is this correct?
-
yes, except that before buying the ridiculously expensive basICColor target I did a test with the cc24 (as you can see in this paper http://www.betterlight.com/downloads/conference06_notes/myers_artRepro_color.pdf the difference between cc24 and SG exists, but is not that dramatic). When I changed to Argyll, I got, with the same shot, rid of the darkness, but saturation was way down.
-
Chris,
I was inquiring in LL\CaptureOne about the specific settings. I posted a screen shot with the illumiation readout http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49793.msg410398#msg410398
-
Before you import the TIFF file into Basiccolor, open it in Photoshop and strip out the ICC profile.
Edit > Assign Profile > "Don't color manage this document".
Then proceed to Basiccolor.
-
I tried it immediately, but the result is the same, way too dark.
???
-
The darkness in fact is not critical. I mean, I could edit the icc for that. Just what about the crushed shadows? Maybe that realy stems from the CC24 lack of black patches? The question could therefore be SG vs basICColor target
regards
-
Chris,
here is a little piece of it where you can see the horrible posterization:
what is causing this? the cc24?
-
Chris,
here is a little piece of it where you can see the horrible posterization:
what is causing this? the cc24?
Possibly, and 24 patches is not enough for a good Camera profile, that's why the Colorchecker SG has 140.
I've made camera profiles in the past with the i1Match software that comes with the EyeOne Pro, but for better profiles you'll probably need something like ProfileMaker Platinum. I'm waiting for the new X-rite i1Publish Pro (looks like they are not going to make 2010Q4 release time), to see how the integration is for camera profile generation and tweaking.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart,
thank you for tuning in!
The new x-rite i1 solutions will not include ICC profiling for cameras according to Andrew Rodney , and according to what can be understood from their web page (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49647.msg409494#msg409494).
ProfileMaker didn't do better on this exact same file. Here is a comparison of the renditions of PM vs basICColor vs ArgyllCMS with the same file once linear and once standard curve in Capture One Pro 6.0.1: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49793.msg410438#msg410438
On CC24 vs SG, here is a paper which shows that there is not so much difference between them as one might think: http://www.betterlight.com/downloads/conference06_notes/color_Accuracy-ppt.pdf
But, like you, I also tend do believe that this is the problem. If so the basICColor target should do a much better job than the SG (and cost also much much more).
???
regards
-
The best results should be possible with the basICColor target, but processed in ArgyllCMS.
-
Bart,
thank you for tuning in!
The new x-rite i1 solutions will not include ICC profiling for cameras according to Andrew Rodney , and according to what can be understood from their web page (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49647.msg409494#msg409494).
Yes, it seems like it won't, initially anyway. We'll see how that pans out. I'm still sceptical about just using 24 patches though, e.g. based on printer profiles based on many more patches which are significantly more successful in nailing the output characteristics.
ProfileMaker didn't do better on this exact same file. Here is a comparison of the renditions of PM vs basICColor vs ArgyllCMS with the same file once linear and once standard curve in Capture One Pro 6.0.1: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49793.msg410438#msg410438
It's hard to judge someone else's workflow, especially since there usually is a learning curve involved in mastering the various software solutions. I haven't tried generating profiles with those pakages yet, so I can't help with that.
On CC24 vs SG, here is a paper which shows that there is not so much difference between them as one might think: http://www.betterlight.com/downloads/conference06_notes/color_Accuracy-ppt.pdf
However, do note that the 24 patches in the center of the SG, are not the same as the ones on the 24-patch CCs! They look the same, but require different reference data for profiling.
But, like you, I also tend do believe that this is the problem. If so the basICColor target should do a much better job than the SG (and cost also much much more).
Assuming one gets a good reference data file, and the profile making software does a good job with it. Profile making involves a lot of compromises, interpolation, and choices. There are also many variables involved that can spoil the party. One needs to work very structured and accurate, and then still tweak the result to one's liking.
Also note that you can use the Capture One Pro's general camera profile for your camera, and with C1 save an adjusted ICC profile.
Cheers,
Bart
-
what is causing this? the cc24?
To me, this looks a gamma issue. That's what I would investigate, and I'd look very closely at Basiccolor. I have not used Basiccolor before, so I don't know how it treats a TIFF file from a raw capture (I use ColorEyes). Have you contacted them for support?
I also don't know how the number of patches affects a profile (I would think that more is better, but I've never seen capture targets with nearly as many patches as print/output targets).
Off the Wall Suggestion:
Use your new ColorChecker to make custom DNG camera profiles using Adobe's DNG Profile editing software (http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles:Editor). Use the two-illuminant method, too. You have spent so much time without getting any results, you might as well try this method. I've made DNG profiles for my cameras and get very good results. This would require you to use Adobe Camera Raw, though.
-
Anybody?
where should I turn to to find some help and answers?
ArgyllCMS mailing list - invaluable source of any information you could (or even couldn't) imagine. There's a lot of helpful participants and - most of all - tireless, omniscient Graeme Gill.
But I'd also bet it's only a matter of CC24, and huge colorimetric distance between its paches. CC SG should give better validation results, as I belive.
-
[...]
It's hard to judge someone else's workflow, especially since there usually is a learning curve involved in mastering the various software solutions. I haven't tried generating profiles with those pakages yet, so I can't help with that.
What software/hardware do you use? I included the shot of the target with spot color readouts for checking the evenness of illumination in that same thread, as well as all the setting details http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49793.msg410398#msg410398 To be fair in the comparison, I only used the standard settings and no tweaking.
[...]
Also note that you can use the Capture One Pro's general camera profile for your camera, and with C1 save an adjusted ICC profile.
as I said, this approach is a bit like the DNG Profile Editor, quite useless in a lot of situations, because, while you tweak here you untweak there. Just think of a portrait shot including some orange, red, pink... product!
-
To me, this looks a gamma issue.
I also though to check this more thoroughly. But I don't understand why the standard procedures to not give a somewhat usable result. I still think that I do something wrong.
That's what I would investigate, and I'd look very closely at Basiccolor.
why?
[...] (I use ColorEyes). Have you contacted them for support?
waiting for an answer
I also don't know how the number of patches affects a profile (I would think that more is better, but I've never seen capture targets with nearly as many patches as print/output targets).
and why shouldn't a standard IT8 chart do marvels? It has a lot of patches and is glossy too (I tried it -no reflections here- and got bad results)Off the Wall Suggestion:
Use your new ColorChecker to make custom DNG camera profiles using Adobe's DNG Profile editing software (http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles:Editor). Use the two-illuminant method, too. You have spent so much time without getting any results, you might as well try this method. I've made DNG profiles for my cameras and get very good results. This would require you to use Adobe Camera Raw, though.
Yes, I am using the x-rite/Adobe way too, for some jobs, but I largely prefer the 5D2, the HDH40 and the occasional Leafs through C1, particularly for portraits and landscape. For reproduction I had to resort to CameraRaw and DNG "profiles"
-
Thank you Czornyi for you reply,
ArgyllCMS mailing list - invaluable source of any information you could (or even couldn't) imagine. There's a lot of helpful participants and - most of all - tireless, omniscient Graeme Gill.
I follow the list now, and have a try
But I'd also bet it's only a matter of CC24, and huge colorimetric distance between its paches. CC SG should give better validation results, as I belive.
As I said, I too believe that, but x-rite/Adobe goes with the cc24!? Also, did you see this: http://www.betterlight.com/downloads/conference06_notes/color_Accuracy-ppt.pdf
I'll maybe write them...
-
After a few more tests, it seams clear that the crushed shadows, the posterization, is due to the nature of the cc24.
I tried a simple IT8 chart. There a lot of patches, more than on the CC SG. Also the IT8 is glossy for rich saturated colors.
Results are very impressive with Monaco EZcolor, a scanner software! I had to use this software, because it was the only software that accepted the .mrf reference file provided for this target by x-rite.
Contrary to what is repeated everywhere, the results are very portable. Compared to the generic Canon 5D Mrk2 ICC profile, this one gives far better results indoor and outdoor in a variety of lighting conditions! (Due to the use of this basic and cheap scanner software, I could get a very neutral profile, ideal for reproduction.)
The assertions in this instructive LL video proof to be accurate indeed http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/coloreyes-commercial.shtml The key to success is the way you shoot the target: One light only @45 degrees and at a great distance from target, cutter cards to further even out the illumination, Black environment to reduce reflection and color casts, perfect WB, spot on exposure for the white patch, a glossy target and an exact reference file for this particular unit.
regards
EDIT: The results are similar to the generic CaptureOne profile, but the differences exist! The main being "accuracy" in the reds, but don't forget to have a look at the green too. The new IT8/EZcolor profile is more linear and therefore very suitable for reproduction. It feels like an expansion of the gamut of the camera.
-
After a few more tests, it seams clear that the crushed shadows, the posterization, is due to the nature of the cc24.
I tried a simple IT8 chart. There a lot of patches, more than on the CC SG. Also the IT8 is glossy for rich saturated colors.
It looks like Basiccolor is the culprit. Did you use the IT8 target with that software?
-
It looks like Basiccolor is the culprit. Did you use the IT8 target with that software?
Well, I didn't want to report negative things again, so I choose to focus on good news ;-) One thing is that Monaco Ezcolor does not come with a .txt reference file for this IT8 target, because, guess what, x-rite does not supply one, only ".mrf" [EDIT: se note below]. I therefore believe, that similar results should be obtainable from different software with a target made by a different manufacturer.
I don't mind the linear/flat output of the scanner software, on the contrary. I prefer to edit the ICC profile later myself and not let the software decide. I than save the edited profile as a new ICC profile. This is possible with ProfileMaker5 et al. The latter would also offer presets for such edits (which on can further tweak) for various basic profiles: generic, repro, product, portrait, outdoor, b&w...
In the light of this result, the next step for a further gain in quality, if such a thing is possible, should be the HutchColor target. I can't find any better than that, certainly I do see no advantage for the CCSG, do you? The skin tone patches, should also be addressed by the large amount of patches on the HutchColor target. Also,the CCSG is only semi-gloss, which seems like a compromise for practical reasons. Lastly, the argument that the CCSG contains the CC24 is a non-starter for me, because, for one, who doesn't have one, but mainly because the measured values are NOT the ones of the CC24 (see for example this http://cea4p.free.fr/IMG/pdf/Compa_SG_DC.pdf)
regards
P.-S. Once more I would like to emphasize how practically valid I found the arguments by "Integrated color -ColorEyes" to be http://www.integrated-color.com/cecamera/ The profile is very portable and NOT noticeably SCENE DEPENDENT. A profile for every lens and situation would maybe be even better, but , as mentioned in the video referenced above, other factors will the results a grate deal more than this.
EDIT: meanwhile I found that to get the *.CIE data out of the *.mfr (Monaco Reference File), one just has to rename the *.mrf to *.zip, than unzip, et viola the *.cie! Just rename the unzipped file to .txt.
-
I now made a DNG profile out of the carefully shot CC24 file. I also made some quick shots of the CC24 in different studio lighting setups. When I apply them in Camera Raw I can't see any difference between them!
EDIT: but definitely differences with "Adobe standard" and huge differences with the Adobe Canon profile imitations "Standard", "Faithful", "Neutral"..., mainly in hue.
-
I now made a DNG profile out of the carefully shot CC24 file. I also made some quick shots of the CC24 in different studio lighting setups. When I apply them in Camera Raw I can't see any difference between them!
Did you use a dual-color temperature setup?
-
Did you use a dual-color temperature setup?
I don't understand why that should make anything better, regarding the carefully shot CC24, or for any studio shoot. What too temps should that be?
-
I don't understand why that should make anything better, regarding the carefully shot CC24, or for any studio shoot. What too temps should that be?
Most digital camera sensors respond differently under different illuminants (e.g., switching from daylight to tungsten). DNG camera profiles address these differences by allowing color adjustments to be specified separately for two different illuminants (usually Illuminants A and D65). See info here (http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles:Editor#tutorial_cc2).
-
Most digital camera sensors respond differently under different illuminants (e.g., switching from daylight to tungsten). DNG camera profiles address these differences by allowing color adjustments to be specified separately for two different illuminants (usually Illuminants A and D65). See info here (http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles:Editor#tutorial_cc2).
I was aware of that, just what should do for a studio shoot. I don't get what that be should be good for?
-
I was aware of that, just what should do for a studio shoot. I don't get what that be should be good for?
A good thread with an explanation by Erin Chan is here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=43733.0).
-
A good thread with an explanation by Erin Chan is here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=43733.0).
Thanks for that link, Chris. I had read that too. Still, I don't see what that should do for a pure studio work, for fashion and products?
towards the end of that thread:
[...]
If all you shoot is under daylight such as in landscapes then a single table is all that's necessary.
and than, as mentioned in this whole thread here and elsewhere, DNG "profiling" wont do that much for you. Just think, that middle formats RAW converters, like PhaseOne/Mamyia/Leaf, do not use DNG. Only ICC profiling there. And if you believe them, it has theoretical and practical reasons.
From what I understood till now, DNG is/was geared to photographers shooting under various lighting conditions and/or not willing to invest in professional means like targets and a ICC software (the now legacy ProfileMaker ... ~2K U$D). But what interests me, and I am certain a lot of others, is a pure studio perspective with tightly controlled lighting conditions. I don't mind to spend time, effort and money to get to the best result.
regards
EDIT: "[...]Camera profiling is appropriate for static shooting conditions such as a studio setup. Raw calibration is more appropriate for dynamic shooting conditions. [...]" Rags Gardner http://www.rags-int-inc.com/PhotoTechStuff/ColorCalibration/
-
Yes, I agree.
Since you were having such a difficult time with Basiccolor, I thought maybe ACR calibration with dual-illuminants would help you. Why dual-illuminant? Because I don't know how you work and you may be a guy who whips out a 1000W fresnel at times (I do).
-
Yes, I agree.
Since you were having such a difficult time with Basiccolor, I thought maybe ACR calibration with dual-illuminants would help you. Why dual-illuminant? Because I don't know how you work and you may be a guy who whips out a 1000W fresnel at times (I do).
you are right, I could be that guy ;-) BTW, I'm sorry if that didn't come across, but I truly appreciate your help!
The result with the simple scanner software, EZcolor, is astonishing though. I still try to feed that .cie file to Argyll.
regards
-
Going back to one of my earlier questions about input gamma curves, I think Basiccolor uses a gamma that doesn't work with any resulting TIFF file produced from a raw processor program. Just a guess, though. Their site is pretty cryptic.
-
Going back to one of my earlier questions about input gamma curves, I think Basiccolor uses a gamma that doesn't work with any resulting TIFF file produced from a raw processor program. Just a guess, though. Their site is pretty cryptic.
I tried to see that info myself, but can't find it. Could you post a link. BTW in my copy of basICColor Input even the Help is dead.
Meanwhile the result It8+simple scanner software, gives excellent results. I now have to wait for a new target that includes a standard reference file, to be able to feed it correctly to the other applications.
regards
-
I've found something that might be interesting:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/dcp2icc/
-
I've found something that might be interesting:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/dcp2icc/
I didn't manage to make this work under Win7x64. Did you? Anyone?
-
I didn't manage to make this work under Win7x64. Did you? Anyone?
You need to use command line interface to make it work - create a c:\dcp2icc folder, put the application, the library and some .dcp profile into the folder, then run cmd.exe, and in command line write: dcp2icc profilename.dcp 5000
-
I didn't manage to make this work under Win7x64. Did you? Anyone?
Yes, i did. note however that the developer did not complete the code, and the resulting icc file is therefore not complete, but tools like gamutvision are able to read it and show the colorspace envelope. Gives interesting results, fi all nikon D700 dcp profiles (I own a D700), as well as adobe standard profile for instance (as provided with Lightroom) are in shape and size more or less like adobe rgb (the "Neutral" one obviously the most). However when creating a dcp with colorchecker passport or dng profile editor, it size and shape more resembles that of prophotorgb.