Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: ErikKaffehr on October 19, 2012, 01:14:35 am
-
Hi,
We had a lot of discussions recently about color rendition in different raw converters, much of the discussion being about color rendition of the Nikon D800 which seems not be to everyones liking. Some users suggested the need of three different raw converters for different purposes.
Personally, I have little issues with camera color, but I don't shoot portraits or commercial work, I see that needs are different.
I got the impression that both Michael Reichmann and Jeff Schewe feel that a good raw converter like the one in LR 4.2 and ACR can be tweaked to give a satisfactory color whatever the need.
My reasoning may be that it may be better to spend some time tweaking a single raw converter to your taste than live with several ones.
For me, a reasonable approach would be to "zero out" the camera/raw processing pipeline by creating a DNG profile using the DNG Profile Editor from Adobe or Xrite's Color Checker Passport.
DNG Profiles can be tweaked in DNG Profile Editor. In my humble opinion the smartest approach would be to just create some preset for different kind of color rendition.
What is your take on the issue?
-
I've always taken it for granted that I'd profile each body for general use, and occasionally for specific use.. especially where heavy greens and red come into play.
And I've always missed my Mange Nilsen profiles. I still have and use them for my 1ds2. But I miss not having them for my 5d's, 1ds3's, etc..
Color is all about the eye, and more than one color takes more brain bits, more than two even more brain bits, etc, etc,, until lately I'm running a 14bit brain. Unfortunately it's becoming increasingly less compatible with my 4 bit body. ::)
-
Colours should be processed to suit the vision of the photographer who took the image - unless working for a client - and I don't see it as a complicated - in theory - issue. Use the converter that suits your vision. I agree with the zerod out theory. Start with a neutral setting in the converter and processing to taste. As a test take an image you like and process it from as a neutral position as possible. Leave it for a week. Start over from scratch a week later and process it again. Repeat a couple of times if you wish and look at the results side by side. They will have differences in the final output. Now which is the correct one with regards to "accuracy"? None of them. They all will be pleasing rather than "accurate."
-
I'm not sure I can help, but a little anecdote:
I have a Canon 5d. Color is attractive with RAW processed in Adobe or Canon software. Very easy to get pleasing color.
I've shot a couple movies in RAW mode with a certain "popular" digital cinema camera. Color rarely looks pleasing coming out of the RAW converter. (there is only one RAW converter available). After RAW conversion, the images need a lot of work to look good. But they never really look the way they did to my naked eye. They can be good, but different.
An example: A woman in a bright red dress. When the skin is pleasing, the dress is dull with too much cyan in the dress. Yes, one can select the color range of the dress and correct it, but it's a pain.
Another: Two white men in the same frame, in the same lighting. One looks normal, the other like a lobster. Why?
It's either/or both the RAW conversion math. Or, the colored filters on the chip are not pure enough. I don't know the answer here. Could be a combination. Perhaps in an effort to boost ISO sensitivity, weak colors filters are used on the chip that can't be decoded accurately in the RAW converter.
I don't know if the above applies to your Nikon D800, but my point is not to assume that because something is recorded in RAW mode that any correction is possible if you have the skill. Sometimes the hardware/software makes an important contribution. Not all RAW data is equal.
-
For me, a reasonable approach would be to "zero out" ...
When I years ago shot dslr I shot Nikon D200. One of things that frustrated me most was that the colors were not at a "zero out" stage (not correct and not pleasing colors when I opened at defaults). Instead they needed to be tweaked to first bring towards "zero out", prior to that I was comfortable with making my own adjustments. Ok, that was some five years ago. I have since shot MFDB and have not had the same problem because already at defaults, in particular in Capture One Pro, there is a "zero out" as I open at defaults and upon for me to make adjustments.
Simply, I feel any camera at this time should already be able to provide "zero out" for us to have a decent (pleasing) departure point to commence adjustments from. If like some have reported there are reddish hues on skin tones from D800 there sounds something wrong, either with profiles in the RAW converter, or perhaps in the processing chain in the camera? Is it perhaps that the D800 is so poor calibrated or profiled from factory, or simply that Nikon has not work with others to distribute their profiles etc?
Regarding landscapes vs. portraits. Actually I used to experience more difficult to arrive at pleasing rendition of landscapes than portraits, and it can still be so. There are more colors in landscapes simply, while for portraits the important is the skin tones. Best converter I have used for adjusting skin tones and colors and more is Capture One Pro.
Of course, one could calibrate any camera to a color checker in Lightroom or Camera RAW, but... then I guess the camera would adhere to Color Checker standard, which we may or may not find as pleasing. For my current Leaf back I would not dream of doing so because I find the colors very pleasing at my defaults in Capture One Pro. Colors are critical for an image, and it would seem that ten years into making of dslrs such D800 reddish hues or Canon greens should be things from past?
For someone using Capture One Pro for e.g. D800 and having problems, it would appear logical to open a report case to get help towards getting the issue resolved from Phase One, or at least narrowed down to if in fact it is the camera that is problem and thereby request Nikon to fix it?
Best regards,
Anders
-
as for C1 one needs to check if D800 profile is in fact D800 profile (and not something else)... couple of years ago PhaseOne released C1 with profile for cameras like Pentax K5 (Sony 16mp) simply copied 1:1 from Pentax K7 (Samsung 14mp sensor)... and not only for Pentax K5 - they did the same for some other cameras (Panasonic GH2, GF1, etc).
-
What is your take on the issue?
I am only interested in one color/profile: the "neutral" or "natural" one - as accurate as possible within the technical limits of camera, screen, print, software. To this end, I have made an ICC profile for my camera using the ColorChecker and Argyll. Then I process in Raw Developer with this profile as input and output profile, everything else zeroed. Later, in my pixel editor (PhotoLine) I "normalize" to Lab. (Convert to ProPhoto for print only; to sRGB for web). As far as I can see, this is the most "accurate" color I can muster. Since I shoot landscape in daylight exclusively, I feel I can get away with just one profile.
I find that the white balance is a parameter of gross impact, but that is a topic of its own.
In my next go at improving my workflow, I look forward to trying the QP target and software:
QPcard 202 http://www.qpcard.com/en_b2c/color-reference-cards.html
QPcalibration ICC http://www.qpcard.com/en_b2c/applications/qpcalibration-icc-profile.html
I also look forward to explore CIECAM02.
-
I am only interested in one color/profile: the "neutral" or "natural" one - as accurate as possible within the technical limits of camera, screen, print, software. To this end, I have made an ICC profile for my camera using the ColorChecker and Argyll. Then I process in Raw Developer with this profile as input and output profile, everything else zeroed. Later, in my pixel editor (PhotoLine) I "normalize" to Lab. (Convert to ProPhoto for print only; to sRGB for web). As far as I can see, this is the most "accurate" color I can muster. Since I shoot landscape in daylight exclusively, I feel I can get away with just one profile.
I find that the white balance is a parameter of gross impact, but that is a topic of its own.
In my next go at improving my workflow, I look forward to trying the QP target and software:
QPcard 202 http://www.qpcard.com/en_b2c/color-reference-cards.html
QPcalibration ICC http://www.qpcard.com/en_b2c/applications/qpcalibration-icc-profile.html
I also look forward to explore CIECAM02.
you might want to consider RPP ( www.raw-photo-processor.com/ ) - it is quite suitable for what you do...
latest beta = http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/RPP64_1608Beta.zip
you can output to Lab, camera RGB w/o any color transforms (16 and 32 bit), Beta RGB (16 and 32 bit), etc
create your own profiles with embedded Argyll from xrite, qpcard and other targets natually or use embedded camera profiles prepared by Iliah Borg.
-
Hi Anders,
The idea with the color checker is to reproduce colors correctly. So, there is no color checker standard. The color checker is simply a card with 16 very well defined colors. The colors are chosen to be somewhat relevant photographically but also to have good metameric properties, what I mean be relatively consistent under different types of illumination.
So you take a picture of the color checker under two illuminations, daylight and incandescent (halogen for instance) and generate a profile that reproduces the colors as well as possible. So, in the ideal case, the color checker would reproduce exactly. Such a profile would be correct, but not necessarily pleasant. What I have seen generally that raw converters exaggerate saturation a bit.
Lars Kjellberg has produced another standard card called QPCard with accompanying software. The QPCard has a different set of color patches that may possibly more suited for portraiture.
Anyway, what I would suggest is to use either Color Checker or QPCard to generate a calibrated color and tweak the colors for pleasantness.
Another post indicated that Capture One is quite sloppy with camera profiles, it seems that they just copied and renamed camera profiles for several cameras. I guess that some of the fault lies with the camera manufacturers, they probably don't give all necessary information to developers of raw processors.
Michael Reichmann and Jeff Schewe have often indicated the need for standardized raw file formats. That would make life much easier for everyone, camera vendors, developers of raw converters and also photographers.
Sorry for the long explanation, but I'm interested in both taking pictures and in the science that allows us to make pictures.
Best regards
Erik
Of course, one could calibrate any camera to a color checker in Lightroom or Camera RAW, but... then I guess the camera would adhere to Color Checker standard, which we may or may not find as pleasing. For my current Leaf back I would not dream of doing so because I find the colors very pleasing at my defaults in Capture One Pro. Colors are critical for an image, and it would seem that ten years into making of dslrs such D800 reddish hues or Canon greens should be things from past?
Best regards,
Anders
-
you might want to consider RPP ( www.raw-photo-processor.com/ )
Hi deejjjaaaa,
thanks for the reminder of RPP, which looks really flexible. I have considered, but not tried it. I have so far stuck with Raw Developer due to its deconvolution sharpening. First if that could be done elsewhere in the pipeline would I seriously try out other converters. ACR has that now, but last time I compared (CS5), I found Raw Developer superior.
Good light!
-
Hi deejjjaaaa,
thanks for the reminder of RPP, which looks really flexible. I have considered, but not tried it.
try - you might like what you see, subjectively of course
I have so far stuck with Raw Developer due to its deconvolution sharpening. First if that could be done elsewhere in the pipeline would I seriously try out other converters. ACR has that now, but last time I compared (CS5), I found Raw Developer superior.
Good light!
deconvolution sharpening anyways is done there (in Raw Developer) post conversion... I am yet to hear about raw converter that does sharpening somehow before demosaick/color transforms (unless it is a feature of demosaick algorithm itself somehow)... photoline is supposed to support .8bf plugins ? focus magic then might work for example
-
Another post indicated that Capture One is quite sloppy with camera profiles, it seems that they just copied and renamed camera profiles for several cameras.
they corrected, at least further updates after that issue was raised in their U2U forum were shipping with different profiles... but that happened... I 'd assume that also happened because cameras in question were a 3rd tier (after P1 backs - 1 and after top level C&N - 2)... but who knows
-
Michael Reichmann and Jeff Schewe have often indicated the need for standardized raw file formats. That would make life much easier for everyone, camera vendors, developers of raw converters and also photographers.
standard raw format does not guarantee a good profile there embedded, does it ?
-
Hi Anders,
The idea with the color checker is to reproduce colors correctly. So, there is no color checker standard. The color checker is simply a card with 16 very well defined colors. The colors are chosen to be somewhat relevant photographically but also to have good metameric properties, what I mean be relatively consistent under different types of illumination.
So you take a picture of the color checker under two illuminations, daylight and incandescent (halogen for instance) and generate a profile that reproduces the colors as well as possible. So, in the ideal case, the color checker would reproduce exactly. Such a profile would be correct, but not necessarily pleasant. What I have seen generally that raw converters exaggerate saturation a bit.
Lars Kjellberg has produced another standard card called QPCard with accompanying software. The QPCard has a different set of color patches that may possibly more suited for portraiture.
Anyway, what I would suggest is to use either Color Checker or QPCard to generate a calibrated color and tweak the colors for pleasantness.
Another post indicated that Capture One is quite sloppy with camera profiles, it seems that they just copied and renamed camera profiles for several cameras. I guess that some of the fault lies with the camera manufacturers, they probably don't give all necessary information to developers of raw processors.
Michael Reichmann and Jeff Schewe have often indicated the need for standardized raw file formats. That would make life much easier for everyone, camera vendors, developers of raw converters and also photographers.
Sorry for the long explanation, but I'm interested in both taking pictures and in the science that allows us to make pictures.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
I know and have color checker!!
I am only interested in one color/profile: the "neutral" or "natural" one - as accurate as possible within the technical limits of camera, screen, print, software. To this end, I have made an ICC profile for my camera using the ColorChecker and Argyll. Then I process in Raw Developer with this profile as input and output profile, everything else zeroed. Later, in my pixel editor (PhotoLine) I "normalize" to Lab. (Convert to ProPhoto for print only; to sRGB for web). As far as I can see, this is the most "accurate" color I can muster. Since I shoot landscape in daylight exclusively, I feel I can get away with just one profile.
I find that the white balance is a parameter of gross impact, but that is a topic of its own.
In my next go at improving my workflow, I look forward to trying the QP target and software:
QPcard 202 http://www.qpcard.com/en_b2c/color-reference-cards.html
QPcalibration ICC http://www.qpcard.com/en_b2c/applications/qpcalibration-icc-profile.html
I also look forward to explore CIECAM02.
Above is process I do not need to go through with Leaf files for Capture One Pro. Colors at defaults are already at a good departure point for my 80MP as they were for my older 28MP. Additionally there are Leaf image setting presets that can be chosen in Capture One that modifies parameters of that good departure point.
My points made; a camera should provide colors well calibrated and profiled from factory, and RAW conversion should give good departure point at defaults, with options. Good departure point should be correct colors but at same time pleasing. Thereupon makes simple to make our own further adjustments to pleasing taste for an image.
I think above is not too much to ask... Or a camera is still behind in colors compared to film.
Best regards,
Anders
-
Hi,
I don't think it is much about camera calibration. To my best knowledge cameras are pretty constant.
It seems that several posters found issues with different raw processors. It has been also said that Nikon NX has good colors although being a crappy converter. So I don't think this is camera calibration issue, but probably more related to raw converters not supporting the camera in a proper way. That may depend on Nikon (and other vendors) not giving proper data to raw file vendors. Data that would be most helpful is probably spectral response data or color conversion matrices.
For some vendors having first class raw developers, like Phase One, keep info close to chest my be a competitive advantage. For customers having another raw conversion pipeline it is simply a disadvantage. It seems that Capture One has a history with improper profiles for cameras of lesser market share.
I'd also say that it is a great advantage if a user can stay with a single raw converter. Raw converters are complex products and it is better to have one that you know in and out.
By the way, there is a contradiction between correct colors and pleasing colors. You can have either but not both. Correct colors is what you would use for reproduction. Now, correct color is not exactly easy to achieve.
So my suggestion is that the best way may be to establish a baseline that gives correct colors and then apply a set of tweaks that gives pleasantness in your eyes. Adding pleasantness mostly includes increasing midtone gradient and adding some saturation or vibrance.
There is a company called x-equals who makes presets for different films. For my part I never liked film, really, but that was the medium we had until 2004 or so. I essentially rested my Pentax 67 around that time and used it very little since. So my history is a bit different than yours.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
...
My points made; a camera should provide colors well calibrated and profiled from factory, and RAW conversion should give good departure point at defaults, with options. Good departure point should be correct colors but at same time pleasing. Thereupon makes simple to make our own further adjustments to pleasing taste for an image.
I think above is not too much to ask... Or a camera is still behind in colors compared to film.
...
Best regards,
Anders
-
I don't think it is much about camera calibration. To my best knowledge cameras are pretty constant.
I think it's worth pointing out that we're not just talking about the camera sensor here. It's the whole optical chain, sensor > lens > filter.
When one starts to multiply up manufacturing tolerances, there could be a difference between different combinations that some people would find worth building a profile for.
-
Hi,
That is a good point.
Best regards
Erik
I think it's worth pointing out that we're not just talking about the camera sensor here. It's the whole optical chain, sensor > lens > filter.
When one starts to multiply up manufacturing tolerances, there could be a difference between different combinations that some people would find worth building a profile for.
-
Achieving good color? Now there's a standard that needs to be established. Forget Raw converter camera profiles.
So what is good color? No one in this thread has demonstrated or explained what that parameter really looks like.
A color checker target is not a standard for "good color". It's a measurable target that has Lab numbers associated with it so you can compare the numbers in front of the camera to what the digital processing pipeline renders on a calibrated display. It's not a guarantee for getting accurate and/or "good color" for every scene being shot under various lighting conditions. It's a ballpark starting point. Is that good color?
Examining the incamera processing of jpegs from both a Fuji F10 P&S and Pentax K100D DSLR clearly show they tweak the color tables on output to render sky blue with either a periwinkle to cerulean to cyan hue irregardless of WB appearance. Even green foliage will have either a heavy yellowish to orangish or bluish hue. The images viewed on their own look gorgeous and somewhat what I remember how the scene appeared but with something extra.
That "something extra" is as far away from accurate as you can get after going back and examining the original landscape scene. The same thing happens with Raw except the starting point lacks that "something extra" which is really hue tweaks to cool against warm hues that imbues a harmonious color design much like the renaissance painters did.
Is that good color?
-
So what is good color? No one in this thread has demonstrated or explained what that parameter really looks like.
Good color is in the eye of the beholder! Seriously, we don't take pictures of Color Checkers for display; it's a tool like any other and given the entire complexity of the image capture to print chain, aren't we trying to make things too complex? Sure, lots of things can be tweaked and they are to varying degrees. Ultimately it's the print that matters (and the colors within unless one is a dedicated B/W printer in which case there are other issues to address.
-
Achieving good color?
Forget Raw converter camera profiles.
?? Then how do you output? Or do you just mean *canned* profiles?
So what is good color? No one in this thread has demonstrated or explained what that parameter really looks like.
I'll try then.
A (bottom) is a screen shot of an image with bad color. Raw with the "little extra": rosified, oversteepened, oversaturated. Raw Developer default.
B (top) is my take on "good" (at least: better) color. This satisfied my then fresh memory much more than A. My ColorChecker-based profile. WB as shot, Tint set to zero.
(Don't mind difference in crop and sharpness. A is just 1 out of 5 focus slices, B is my final image).
Good light!
-
Informative demo, Hening.
From that I gather we all have somewhat the same reasonable idea on getting good color out of a Raw conversion.
Erik's mentioning at the start of this thread of zeroing out all settings seems to indicate a desired starting point that suggests converter defaults render most images with too much contrast no matter what type of camera profile is used.
I've often thought of developing an optimum starting point Raw converter default that would require the least amount of tweaking because my custom camera profiles and canned ones in ACR don't do a lot of correcting. Most require drastically reducing contrast combined with camera profile (which tweaks hue/sats) especially when shooting in constantly changing non-studio lighting conditions.
Maybe a more helpful goal would be to achieve an optimum or middle ground dynamic range converter setting that matches up with consistent exposures based on preserving highlights.
Just simply brightening an image in ACR causes the highlights to lose definition more unevenly than the rest of the tonal scale where I have to apply highlight curve tweaks to retain detail. Otherwise I have to settle for an overall darker looking image.
-
Hi,
By 'zeroing out' I didn't necessarily meant to set controls to zero (I would leave them at default). The intension is to get a baseline using a DNG-profile (or similar) based on a color checker. The setting would take camera peculiarities and illumination spectrum into account.
Having that you can adjust rendering to taste, and possibly save as preset (in Adobe speak).
Best regards
Erik
Informative demo, Hening.
From that I gather we all have somewhat the same reasonable idea on getting good color out of a Raw conversion.
Erik's mentioning at the start of this thread of zeroing out all settings seems to indicate a desired starting point that suggests converter defaults render most images with too much contrast no matter what type of camera profile is used.
I've often thought of developing an optimum starting point Raw converter default that would require the least amount of tweaking because my custom camera profiles and canned ones in ACR don't do a lot of correcting. Most require drastically reducing contrast combined with camera profile (which tweaks hue/sats) especially when shooting in constantly changing non-studio lighting conditions.
Maybe a more helpful goal would be to achieve an optimum or middle ground dynamic range converter setting that matches up with consistent exposures based on preserving highlights.
Just simply brightening an image in ACR causes the highlights to lose definition more unevenly than the rest of the tonal scale where I have to apply highlight curve tweaks to retain detail. Otherwise I have to settle for an overall darker looking image.
-
Erik's mentioning at the start of this thread of zeroing out all settings seems to indicate a desired starting point that suggests converter defaults render most images with too much contrast no matter what type of camera profile is used.
Why would you think that ?
When everything is zeroed, LR/ACR is working at it's default values, with the Adobe's standard camera profile for that model. I don't think that suggests at all that raw converters are too contrasty by default.
I think most people who expose normally will find that a very good starting point and accounts for why so many people choose LR/ACR as their raw conversion software of choice.
Going down the custom profiling route doesn't necessarily make huge changes to the colour rendition, sometimes it's difficult to see much difference. It can improve the "accuracy" of the profile, it's also possible to edit the file to give a particular 'look' if you're unhappy with the standard rendition of the camera.
As Erik suggests, if you're not happy with the defaults of LR/ACR (and I presume most other raw converters) it's possible to set up an import preset that allows every image you import to start off with a different set of base parameters.
Personally in process 2012 I use a preset that uses a custom QP card profile for my 5Dii, has slightly higher than default sharpening and a little noise reduction. That suits how I like most of my shots now, but with past cameras and processes I chose slightly different base settings.
Overall this workflow gives me 'good colour', plus I have the controls to change the rendition if I think I'd like an image to look different.
I think matches Erik's original proposal, that the best way to good images is to understand one process and get good at it.
-
Hi Bill,
thank you for your response.
> my custom camera profiles [...] don't do a lot of correcting
I don't understand that. Are you sure you have zeroed everything? This will give you a tiff with the gamma of the output profile, 1.8 for ProPhoto, but without other tweaks.
If this does not work, how do you make your profiles? If you are using the DNG profile editor, are you sure you have set everything to zero there, too? Even then, there is visual judgement implied, which may lead to bias. The Passport works automatically, but the results I have seen did not convince me. ICC profiles are created by the parameters you enter, but without visual interference.
BTW you seem to have changed your view of color since the last time we talked on this forum :-) I recall that you had abandoned Raw Developer because you found the default rendering too *dull* :-)
My procedure does indeed give an image that looks dull in the first place - but the rest is a job for the tone response curve. In my final image shown above, it was this one:
This curve is working on the L axis of the Lab image alone.
Best regards - Hening.
-
When everything is zeroed, LR/ACR is working at it's default values, with the Adobe's standard camera profile for that model. I don't think that suggests at all that raw converters are too contrasty by default.
Did you happen to see Hening's before and after demo pix? He basically adjusted contrast which influenced shadow and highlight detail. Didn't see hardly any color change into "good color".
The real issue here is that Raw converters and digital editors in general don't provide controls that apply an equal adjustment across the entire tonal scale otherwise Adobe wouldn't have provided Fill and Recovery sliders as well as two sets of curve tools. And this isn't just Adobe's software. Other Raw converters do the same thing.
Just on this observation I've surmised that the more what seems redundant tools a software vendor provides suggests that the data isn't such a stable, consistent and predictable medium to work in whether jpeg or Raw in getting consistent "good color".
The custom camera profile probably remedies about 20% of the work and thank god Adobe provides this tool for free. But I find contrast adjustments profoundly affects the rest of the image unequally for both color and local and global contrast over any other tool adjustment except for my mentioning what Brightness/Exposure increases do to flattening highlight detail while the rest of the image retains definition and separation of detail.
Note in Hening's edited image the flattening of the foliage detail in shadow. I get that as well when I make similar edits where I have to apply pinch nodes on a custom curve to bring out separation and beef up definition. It's a lot of work.
I find contrast being the most unequalized adjustment of the bunch with regards to making colors turn into NOT "good color" working on both jpegs/tiffs and Raw files.
-
I don't understand that. Are you sure you have zeroed everything? This will give you a tiff with the gamma of the output profile, 1.8 for ProPhoto, but without other tweaks.
If this does not work, how do you make your profiles?
It doesn't matter what default ACR setting you make your DNG profiles from as instructed by Eric Chan. The DNG Profile Editor Wizard is going to adjust hue/sat and a bit of color luminance which is influenced by the chosen illuminant (either A or D65 or both in the case of a dual illuminant profile). The camera profile is not designed to act as an image restorer/fixer. That's the job the photographer.
So, no, I don't zero out any settings. I just build my DNG profiles from ACR's default settings.
This isn't my point, anyway. I'm discussing the unequal behavior with regard to definition and separation of detail applying tool adjustments which has nothing to do with camera profiles. In fact the camera profile at least helps in maintaining a hue/sat balance relationship when trying to overcome this unequal tonal adjustment behavior.
Tim Lookingbill
-
BTW you seem to have changed your view of color since the last time we talked on this forum :-) I recall that you had abandoned Raw Developer because you found the default rendering too *dull* :-)
Its core color engine is Lab. I prefer Thomas Knoll's color engine which applies saturation equally down into the shadows where Raw Developer doesn't which is the characteristic of working in Lab on a gamma encoded output space and display.
IOW ACR/LR is more optically pleasing to work with because it follows traditional cool against warm color adaptation characteristics established by renaissance painters who never if rarely used straight black paint to form shadow detail. Shadows are not colorless optically speaking. I see this happening in your previous before and after demo.
Tim Lookingbill
-
Did you happen to see Hening's before and after demo pix? He basically adjusted contrast which influenced shadow and highlight detail. Didn't see hardly any color change into "good color".
Yes, and where doe he mention anything other than colour correction ?
....
B (top) is my take on "good" (at least: better) color. This satisfied my then fresh memory much more than A. My ColorChecker-based profile. WB as shot, Tint set to zero.
(Don't mind difference in crop and sharpness. A is just 1 out of 5 focus slices, B is my final image)......
-
@ tlooknbill:
> Did you happen to see Hening's before and after demo pix? He basically adjusted contrast which influenced shadow and highlight detail. Didn't see hardly any color change into "good color".
Indeed it seems that my dissatisfaction with default renderings is primarily a matter of contrast, which I find to steep, and the over-saturation to which this leads. And obviously, compared to you, my ignorance makes me more easily satisfied with what I get out of my procedure. In the first line of defense, I am happy if I can get something that looks more natural than this exaggerated stuff which is tailored to "please". Obviously, my problem is on a more basic level than your observations on shadow color.
For this reply, I had hoped to be able to present a version of the image with Raw Developer default colors, just the tone curve set to linear, then with my tone curve applied. Unfortunately this is not possible to do. However, just moving the Tint slider from the default +17 to zero is a step in the direction of better color, in my eyes, rather: to my then fresh memory.
> It doesn't matter what default ACR setting you make your DNG profiles from as instructed by Eric Chan. The DNG Profile Editor Wizard is going to adjust hue/sat and a bit of color luminance which is influenced by the chosen illuminant (either A or D65 or both in the case of a dual illuminant profile).
It's a while since i used the DNG profile editor, but IF memory serves me, Eric also advised how to make a profile for a scene-referred image, and that implied setting all contrast controls to zero.
@ Rhosssyd:
> When everything is zeroed, LR/ACR is working at it's default values, with the Adobe's standard camera profile for that model.
If memory serves me, it is possible in ACR to combine your own profile with zero settings everywhere else.
-
Just found this guy's work linked to at Photo.net...
http://lucasfoglia.com/a-natural-order/
Frame 5 is what I call good digital color under natural light. Shots like that usually start out with too much contrast and very flat or sometimes murky tonal definition in the shadows with my DSLR.
-
Hi,
As a comment, I generally think that default colors are oversaturated. My impression is that default processing pushes saturation a bit and may add something of an S-curve to increase midtone contrast. Both changes are intended to give pleasant color.
Best regards
Erik
@ tlooknbill:
> Did you happen to see Hening's before and after demo pix? He basically adjusted contrast which influenced shadow and highlight detail. Didn't see hardly any color change into "good color".
Indeed it seems that my dissatisfaction with default renderings is primarily a matter of contrast, which I find to steep, and the over-saturation to which this leads. And obviously, compared to you, my ignorance makes me more easily satisfied with what I get out of my procedure. In the first line of defense, I am happy if I can get something that looks more natural than this exaggerated stuff which is tailored to "please". Obviously, my problem is on a more basic level than your observations on shadow color.
For this reply, I had hoped to be able to present a version of the image with Raw Developer default colors, just the tone curve set to linear, then with my tone curve applied. Unfortunately this is not possible to do. However, just moving the Tint slider from the default +17 to zero is a step in the direction of better color, in my eyes, rather: to my then fresh memory.
> It doesn't matter what default ACR setting you make your DNG profiles from as instructed by Eric Chan. The DNG Profile Editor Wizard is going to adjust hue/sat and a bit of color luminance which is influenced by the chosen illuminant (either A or D65 or both in the case of a dual illuminant profile).
It's a while since i used the DNG profile editor, but IF memory serves me, Eric also advised how to make a profile for a scene-referred image, and that implied setting all contrast controls to zero.
@ Rhosssyd:
> When everything is zeroed, LR/ACR is working at it's default values, with the Adobe's standard camera profile for that model.
If memory serves me, it is possible in ACR to combine your own profile with zero settings everywhere else.
-
If memory serves me, it is possible in ACR to combine your own profile with zero settings everywhere else.
Using a preset allows you to do almost anything on import.
-
Just found this guy's work linked to at Photo.net...
http://lucasfoglia.com/a-natural-order/
Frame 5 is what I call good digital color under natural light. Shots like that usually start out with too much contrast and very flat or sometimes murky tonal definition in the shadows with my DSLR.
So it seems we agree, and not only frame#5, for my part.
-
Puzzling thing about those Foglia images is that rarely does he force dynamic range optimization on most of his work. The blacks in a lot of his overcast outdoor daylight shots don't go below 20RGB sampled in sRGB space such as in the deepest dark areas of grass and tree foliage but yet he still maintains definition and separation down into the darkest shadows.
Never thought of doing that. I've always tried to expand the tonal range as far as I could to where the blackest black went to at least 5,5,5RGB in most of my edits regardless of lighting/exposure parameters in a captured scene.
Wonder if that was intentional in Foglia's edits if in fact he even applied edits seeing he used a 30MP digital back on a Hasselblad body. I downloaded frame 18 and tested DR expansion optimizing the black point to 5,5,5RGB using Levels in Photoshop and noticed an improvement to definition but not much change to color. It's as if Foglia desired that somewhat flat soft look. Of course it could be his display is calibrated differently than mine.
-
By 'zeroing out' I didn't necessarily meant to set controls to zero (I would leave them at default). The intension is to get a baseline using a DNG-profile (or similar) based on a color checker. The setting would take camera peculiarities and illumination spectrum into account.
As a comment, I generally think that default colors are oversaturated. My impression is that default processing pushes saturation a bit and may add something of an S-curve to increase midtone contrast. Both changes are intended to give pleasant color.
S-curves, or tone curves in general, always have their side effect on color saturation when applied on RGB data.
It is a math thing in the first instance, whether we find it pleasing or not.
The Chart wizard of the DNG profile editor does not delete the tone curve supplied by the source profile,
it is maintained (see Tone Curve tab: Base Tone Curve = Base Profile),
unlike with the "LookTable" e.g. from the Adobe Standard profile or the default Camera matching profiles which are stripped off, thus returning to the baseline matrix (matrices) before building the Hue/Sat.-corrections per patch.
But, this tone curve - even though being part of the profile - is ignored when the Hue/Sat.-corrections are built. My understanding is that the HueSatDelta table resulting from the Chart wizard always refers to a linear state, while the tone curve and its side effect on saturation comes on top. Color saturation is increased from the shadows to the mid tones and decreased again towards the highlights.
From a mechanistic point of view, it can be of help to consider the tabs from left to right as given below. The Hue/Sat.-corrections resulting from the Chart wizard are dependent on the Calibration tab settings (left), but are independent from the Tone Curve tab setting (right). The Base profile: ColorChecker which appears in the Color Tables tab after running the Chart wizard indicates the baseline matrix obtained from the source profile after removal of the LookTable.
If desired, the tone curve can finally be eliminated a.) within the profile by selecting Base Tone Curve: Linear, while staying with the camera default settings in LR/ACR PV2010: Brightness 50, Contrast 25, Point Curve: Medium Contrast), or b.) by selecting Base Tone Curve: Camera Raw Default, and a linear preset in LR/ACR PV 2010: Brightness 0, Contrast 0, Point Curve: Linear.
However, unlike with accurate Hue/Sat. which may not deliver a preferred rendition but which is typically not perceived as way off, such scene-referred tonality is quite dark and dull and it may not be everyone’s case even as a starting point for editing.
Best regards, Peter
--
-
Quote tlookibill
The blacks in a lot of his overcast outdoor daylight shots don't go below 20RGB sampled in sRGB space such as in the deepest dark areas of grass and tree foliage but yet he still maintains definition and separation down into the darkest shadows.
Never thought of doing that. I've always tried to expand the tonal range as far as I could to where the blackest black went to at least 5,5,5RGB in most of my edits regardless of lighting/exposure parameters in a captured scene.
Unquote
That I believe is the philosophy behind Lightroom 4 and ACR 7. It is a big change from PS thinking and takes a bit of getting used to. Adjust exposure, 1/4 tones, 3/4 tones and contrast and then the endpoints, if at all?
-
That I believe is the philosophy behind Lightroom 4 and ACR 7. It is a big change from PS thinking and takes a bit of getting used to. Adjust exposure, 1/4 tones, 3/4 tones and contrast and then the endpoints, if at all?
That answers some questions concerning digital image editing, but it doesn't solve the consistency and efficiency issue on knowing where and when to stop editing. I don't think Adobe or anyone else can solve it because all of this technology is still in its infancy and we humans IMO weren't meant to use our eyes this way tone mapping images with such immediacy. Airbrush and photo realistic painters had to take time to get the image the way they wanted. Their eyes and mind had time to ponder and adjust.
For example this discussion got me to go back and rework what I thought was a problem image when in fact I found the problem was with my eyes not adjusting and adapting quick enough (or too long in some instances), along with my misjudging my use of one ACR tool over another that caused me to take longer when either tool, method or approach delivered the same results.
I actually saved three settings that I swear my eyes saw each as progressively improving the image over the other by starting over from scratch when after clicking on each setting and watching the preview change didn't really make that much of a difference. I just wasted so much time finding this out. And I end up doing this on a lot of images.
My main issue fixing/editing primarily contrasty images is whether to just Brighten first and reduce Contrast or just add Fill and reduce Exposure and tweak shadows with a curve adjust. Each different scene seems to respond better using one over the other when it turns out there isn't that much of a difference.
-
Here's an example of what I'm talking about.
Below I've posted the original unedited Raw image I worked on last night where I was trying to brighten and bring out the separation of the stone work and shaded porch detail since it started out so flat, dark and murky.
This is not a typically exposed image I tend to start out with. Most are much closer to finish but still have that flat, dull appearance that needs some "pop", clarity and definition that a simple Clarity slider and Brightening adjust along with camera profile don't often deliver at least it appears that way to my eyes.
The first edit took some time coaxing the separation in the stone work, toning down the grass highlight and opening up and adding separation in the shaded porch detail. It involved tweaking a custom curve and fiddling around with Fill, Contrast and Brightness sliders with Recovery & Clarity set to +100.
The second version is the above saved edit and setting the custom curve back to Medium Contrast, hitting ACR's Auto and maxing out Brightness slider to 150 and keeping the rest the same.
Do you see a big difference or improvement to either one?
And each individual image requires something slightly different every time.
-
Faced with this situation I would have tried to lighten the dark areas in PS by creating a luminosity mask and inverting it on a layer and change the blend mode to screen and adjusting the opacity to suit. A good starting point for a little dodging and burning if needed. I don't think your image is easily sorted in LR or ACR . PS is the way to go?
-
In his Kelby Training title There Are No Bad Originals, Dan Margulis demonstrates that just using default values in ACR and doing the rest editing in Photoshop can ALWAYS produce much better results.
http://kelbytraining.com/course/margulis_no_bad_originals2/
(http://kelbytraining.com/wp-content/uploads/KT_TANBO2_Margulis_0_intro_720p.mp4.001-220x123.jpg)
Which is the Original? (09:14)
Is the RAW file the real original?
-
Faced with this situation I would have tried to lighten the dark areas in PS by creating a luminosity mask and inverting it on a layer and change the blend mode to screen and adjusting the opacity to suit. A good starting point for a little dodging and burning if needed. I don't think your image is easily sorted in LR or ACR . PS is the way to go?
You made that sound more complicated and time consuming than doing it in ACR.
Oh wait a minute, I see what you're getting at. Thanks for bringing me back to reality. I'll stop complaining.
-
If the light and dark areas are well defined - it looks like they are in your image - then it wouldn't take long and if the image really means something to you then go for it. I find you need to be in the mood to undertake such processing and if you try to rush it you get frustrated. In another other thread someone talked about editing hundreds of images, one after another. Must have terrific patience? :)
-
got the impression that both Michael Reichmann and Jeff Schewe feel that a good raw converter like the one in LR 4.2 and ACR can be tweaked to give a satisfactory color whatever the need.
My reasoning may be that it may be better to spend some time tweaking a single raw converter to your taste than live with several ones.
For me, a reasonable approach would be to "zero out" the camera/raw processing pipeline by creating a DNG profile using the DNG Profile Editor from Adobe or Xrite's Color Checker Passport.
DNG Profiles can be tweaked in DNG Profile Editor. In my humble opinion the smartest approach would be to just create some preset for different kind of color rendition.
I agree wholeheartedly about workign with a single raw convertor.
Lately I have also been working with keeping the camera calibration set to Adobe's default profile for a camera and then using a H/S/L preset created using the Datacolor SpyderCHECKR system as well. I'm not saying it is better (or worse) than using either the DNG profile Editor or the Xrite ColorChecker Passport created profile, but it gives me another wrench in my digital darkroom toolbox.
-
Great color can always be obtained in Photoshop.
take a good look at Schmidt's work: http://www.christianschmidt.com/#/News/Page_1
-
Great color can always be obtained in Photoshop.
Can't argue with that, but...
take a good look at Schmidt's work: http://www.christianschmidt.com/#/News/Page_1
Good colour ?? most looks like it's been through a cheap phone app :(
-
I would like to _be able to_ recreate a scene as accurately as possible - i.e. if I had the possibility to inspect the print or my display "side-by-side" with the original scene at the time of capture, I want them to appear subjectively identical.
I might not choose to use that option for all images, but that should be my conscious choice, not some default camera/raw-developer behaviour.
My setup:
*calibrated wide-gamut display (Dell 2711),
*Canon 9000 mk2 printer with paper-supplier profiles
*Canon 7D
*Colorchecker passport
*Adobe Lightroom/Windows 7
I was very dissatisfied with the default Lightroom profiles for my 7D after I got the wide gamut display: saturated reds appeared over-saturated and/or with the wrong hue. My own colorchecker profiles result in a lot more neutral look to me.
I have tried profiling in daylight, incandescent light, direct flash, flash pointed towards my white ceiling, and have concluded that a single profile seems to be sufficient for most of my needs.
Some random thoughts:
1. A given camera might not be able to differentiate between two colors that we humans are able to differentiate, due to differences in color filtering. Should a camera profile render as "color A" or "color B" then?
2a. The CIE observer response is based on measurements on a set of test people. There may be "noise" in that measurement, and any single user may have a response that is more or less different (I hear that some women have 4 primary colors - explains a lot to me)
2b. The CIE measurements are based on some idealized conditions (e.g. size of patches). In different conditions, the response may be different.
3. Color profiling is probably not only about "mapping each measurement to the closest available color". If you "sample" color by 16 patches, most codes will be some interpolated correction. So should you fit some parametric model? What happens if you allow for this model to have more free variables than warranted by the measurements? Perhaps banding? Perhaps visible clipping?
-h
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/cs6/DNGProfile_EditorDocumentation.pdf
-
Can't argue with that, but...Good colour ?? most looks like it's been through a cheap phone app :(
If that's what the commercial world wants, that's what the commercial world gets. After all, photogs are the whores (or sluts) of the industries.
-
Is a color checker good enough? I remember seeing camera color mapped on a gamut chart at some review website. The variances official color to camera color were usually small vectors pointing in different directions. In other words moving R,G,B curves to match a point would not fix other points. The camera has to be as good as possible from the start.
For those that have corrected with a color checker how's about a test? Take a picture of an IT8 target that came with your scanner from film days. Print it. Take a picture of the IT8 beside the printout. Post it here. For those that aren't familiar with an IT8 it is like a color checker with many more shades.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/IT8target.jpg)
-
Or a camera is still behind in colors compared to film.
Best regards,
Anders
We do a lot of prints reproducing art work. Most of the time the original art is digitally photographed, but sometimes we get a 4x5 tranny to scan. We have a very accurate scanner profile for our Imacon scanner, made with the Hutchcolor target, and the scans look very much like the transparency. But when we compare the original art work with the print we've made, there is a huge difference in some colours. Not in all colours, but in some. It is soooo much easier to get a good repro print when the art work was reproduced with a good digital camera.
So I can't agree with you that digital cameras is behind film. If you're talking about accurate colours, I find digital cameras far superior.
-
...But when we compare the original art work with the print we've made, there is a huge difference in some colours. Not in all colours, but in some. It is soooo much easier to get a good repro print when the art work was reproduced with a good digital camera.
So I can't agree with you that digital cameras is behind film. If you're talking about accurate colours, I find digital cameras far superior.
I agree with you.
I don't believe film is completely reliable in accurately recording all possible spectral reflectance characteristics reflected back under artificial or direct sunlight even with the most robust of calibration/profiling packages and especially for recording paints, dyes and pigments for reproduction. Even my consumer level Pentax K100D DSLR records a wider range of color more accurately or at least requiring the least amount of editing with or without a DNG camera profile.
This thread...
http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00ayu3
...is typical of the level of editing performed on a simple outdoor portrait shot on Velvia just to get the skin correct. The distortion to the color tables that had to be fixed in ACR's HSL panel along with wacky WB settings just shows how off the charts film can go recording what reflected light does to natural objects.
I never have to do that much work shooting any subject let alone artwork with my DSLR. And I get better results shooting under a wider range of light.
-
Velvia was never designed for skin tones, it was for dramatic landscapes with lush color.
Otherwise I agree that current DSLRs have more faithful color reproduction than most films.
-
In his Kelby Training title There Are No Bad Originals, Dan Margulis demonstrates that just using default values in ACR and doing the rest editing in Photoshop can ALWAYS produce much better results.
Hog wash! A great workflow for those that charge by the hour however. Dan is great to listen to or maybe read if you have a rendered image that needs serious work IN Photoshop. He can polish an awful turd of an image like few others. Create ugly images in LR/ACR then tune the turd in Photoshop? Seriously?
Dan used to tell folks to set all ACR settings to zero values (talk about an ugly image). Has he actually changed his tune to set em to default?
-
Create ugly images in LR/ACR then tune the turd in Photoshop? Seriously?
not ugly, but unpostprocessed...
-
Hog wash! A great workflow for those that charge by the hour however. Dan is great to listen to or maybe read if you have a rendered image that needs serious work IN Photoshop. He can polish an awful turd of an image like few others. Create ugly images in LR/ACR then tune the turd in Photoshop? Seriously?
Dan used to tell folks to set all ACR settings to zero values (talk about an ugly image). Has he actually changed his tune to set em to default?
It really depends on whether or not you're a professional retoucher. From I read, many best photographers always hire the best professional retouchers that they can afford, for example, Annie Leibovitz has been using Pascal Dangin's Box Studios for past twenty plus years.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/12/080512fa_fact_collins
-
not ugly, but unpostprocessed...
Why?
I can't find a date for this video. Zero siders in ACR now and in previous versions (PV 2012 or 2010/2003) is significant. The recommendation I have from this source is, set all settings to zero (this is PV2003 days). Pretty fugly looking.
The sliders and various controls that produce really flexible parametric edits non destructively are best set at zero instead of a preferred rendering for what reason?
-
Why?
I can't find a date for this video. Zero siders in ACR now and in previous versions (PV 2012 or 2010/2003) is significant.
I bet that was said before "process 2012"... but even now nothing can prevent you from selecting "process 2010" if you want (consider it as a part of zeroing sliders)... but I say that in Margulis' approach you actually do not need ACR/LR at all (except may be to use ACR as a part of post-processing for blown highlights if such need exists).
The recommendation I have from this source is, set all settings to zero (this is PV2003 days). Pretty fugly looking.
but that is not the end of the work in this approach, so why shall you expect an intermediate result to be nice ?
The sliders and various controls that produce really flexible parametric edits non destructively are best set at zero instead of a preferred rendering for what reason?
because apparently "sliders and various controls that produce really flexible parametric edits non destructively" (and what those adjectives, that every raw converter has and had even before ACR or LR appeared, a-la "16 bit MFDB raw files", have to do with the quality /do not mix with usability/ of the final result that he wants and is talking about) are just an obstacle for his workflow in PS, that's it - unless you better know how to get the results in his own workflow, which I doubt... he does his rendering in PS and does not need that to be tainted by any post-processing in ACR/LR... it is just what he does.
-
he does his rendering in PS and does not need that to be tainted by any post-processing in ACR/LR... it is just what he does.
Tainted?
If all you know (how to use) is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
-
standard raw format does not guarantee a good profile there embedded, does it ?
It can't and shouldn't. Every converter would require a different profile so how could you embed such a thing.
Embedding the spectral reading at the scene (illuminant), that might be darn useful. Currently expensive.
-
...because apparently "sliders and various controls that produce really flexible parametric edits non destructively" (and what those adjectives, that every raw converter has and had even before ACR or LR appeared, a-la "16 bit MFDB raw files", have to do with the quality /do not mix with usability/ of the final result that he wants and is talking about) are just an obstacle for his workflow in PS, that's it - unless you better know how to get the results in his own workflow, which I doubt... he does his rendering in PS and does not need that to be tainted by any post-processing in ACR/LR... it is just what he does.
When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail to you...
Dan is a Photoshop expert...he's very, very good at Photoshop, but he's not a photographer (by any stretch). So, since he's a Photoshop expert, everything he does is done in Photoshop...that's what his career is based on.
That worked ok back in the old days where you shot a ton of film but scanned only a few chromes for imaging. That way is not very practical now that shooters shoot digital because you end up with a ton of digital files you must deal with...do selection edits and find an efficient method of processing the images.
If you do a shoot and the client wants the best hero images, you may have many images to process...do you ignore the workflow of optimizing the images in raw (ACR or LR) and hand process each image in Photoshop from scratch from a flat non-optimized raw image? That is a primitive and time consuming workflow...
A more efficient workflow is to do 80-90+% of the heavy lifting in ACR/LR and only do that small amount of work needed in Photoshop.
But that's not what Dan sees...he sees Photoshop being relegated to a much less important role...and thus his role (and value) reduced...
Actually, he's anti ACR/LR primarily because Thomas Knoll refused Dan's request to have the curve control have a luminance only mode without impacting color. If Thomas had said yes, then I suspect Dan would not consider ACR/LR to provide non-professional tools...which is why he hammers on doing nothing in ACR/LR and do the work in Photoshop...because Dan is a hammer :~)
-
Actually, he's anti ACR/LR primarily because Thomas Knoll refused Dan's request to have the curve control have a luminance only mode without impacting color. If Thomas had said yes, then I suspect Dan would not consider ACR/LR to provide non-professional tools...
Schewe, you absolutely need to include a chapter in your book w/ such lore... seriously !
-
Schewe, you absolutely need to include a chapter in your book w/ such lore... seriously !
Yeah, ya know, there's a lot of stuff I know that I'm not really at liberty to talk about...maybe some day when the guilty are gone (and forgotten)...it's been an interesting ride and a lot of stuff has gone on behind the scenes (for good and ill). But the bottom line has been Thomas Knoll has consistently done the "right things" for all the "right reasons" (and that purely pisses off some folks because he can't be "bought").
I actually included a bunch of background about ACR & LR in The Digital Negative...things like why LR was developed and the fact that Adobe RGB was based on a typo. I walked a very fine line but vetted stuff for accuracy (but not comfort value).
The utter irony is that Photoshop (and all things developed by John & Thomas Knoll) exist because George Lucas signed a waiver allowing John and Thomas to "sell" Photoshop to Adobe...so Photoshop (and ACR/LR) are derived from "Star Wars" in more ways than people know.
Now Disney has bought everything George Lucas (including Kerner Optical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerner_Optical)) which was Industrial Light & Magic's (ILM) code name...I remember getting completely lost in San Rafael, California when trying to find ILM when I shot a portrait of John Knoll...the really cool thing was I finally found the offices because I saw a bunch of Storm Troopers lined up waiting to get tickets to ILM's Christmas Party...I waited in line and was offered tickets (depending on what department I was in). The receptionist was kinda miffed when I said I was there to shoot John. I think I missed the boat by not going to the X-mas party :~)
So, yeah...I could tell ya some stories :~)
But not just yet...
-
Schewe, you absolutely need to include a chapter in your book w/ such lore... seriously !
Before that, maybe you can answer the questions addressed to you. How is using ACR tainting and how is it an effective or superior workflow for me or other readers here to zero out this fine tool, end up with an ugly image (PV2003) just to fix a big honking pixel based image in Photoshop?
-
But that's not what Dan sees...he sees Photoshop being relegated to a much less important role...and thus his role (and value) reduced...
Well he did say this on his list:
On Apr 18, 2008, at 2:32 PM, Dan Margulis <DMargulis@aol.com> wrote:
There are a lot of open questions about how raw files should be handled in
the context of this workflow; this is one of the main reasons I decided not to do
a book on the subject--just too much testing of the various possibilities.
The interesting and as yet unanswered question is as to whether such
opportunities exist in raw converters--that is, opportunities to do things that
appear to be harmful yet eventually result in a superior look. I have done
some testing with this with other modules but as yet don't have conclusive
results.
Open questions? Perfect Dan line. Adobe raw processors that 'appear to be harmful' (this from the guy who thinks high bit data is just a big waste).
Actually, he's anti ACR/LR primarily because Thomas Knoll refused Dan's request to have the curve control have a luminance only mode without impacting color.
He writes as well:
Only Adobe products use a master curve when extending range. All the
cameras I've looked at extend the range in each channel independently.
Only Adobe products. Wonder how many others he looked at (no comment of course).
All the cameras he's looked at how?
Of course one isn't supposed to ask the master such questions, just take the blanket statements as fact.
-
Before that, maybe you can answer the questions addressed to you.
chill
How is using ACR tainting
one more time... for Dan's workflow he (Dan) does not need any postprocessing (except I guess a WB, which in ACR/LR is still a postprocessing operation, because it is applied to demosaicked data converted to a regular colorspace, linear gamma does not change that fact) in ACR/LR because he (Dan) can achieve his goals using PS... raw conversion ends with demosaick and color transform to a regular color space (RGB or non RGB)... the rest is a postprocessing... granted ACR/LR (and other raw converters) gain (and simplify a work for an average Joe) because they are tuned to do that postprocessing along w/ raw conversion before it... but whatever you do w/ UI in ACR/LR is just postprocessing... Dan does postprocessing in PS... are we clear now ?
and how is it an effective or superior workflow for me or other readers
do not speak on behalf of other readers...
here to zero out this fine tool, end up with an ugly image (PV2003) just to fix a big honking pixel based image in Photoshop?
1) why do you try to slip adjectives ("fine") again ? fine or not fine is irrelevant to Dan' workflow.
2) who says 2003 ? 2010 shall be OK too... the last process version when you still can have a minimum ACR/LR postprocessing through UI
3) ACR is also dealing with "pixel based image" BTW...
-
chill
So the answer from you about a workflow question is 'chill'? Not real useful. Seems to be you don't want to explain yourself.
one more time... for Dan's workflow he (Dan) does not need any postprocessing (except I guess a WB, which in ACR/LR is still a postprocessing operation, because it is applied to demosaicked data converted to a regular colorspace, linear gamma does not change that fact) in ACR/LR because he (Dan) can achieve his goals using PS... raw conversion ends with demosaick and color transform to a regular color space (RGB or non RGB)
It doesn't need any post processing in Photoshop after setting as he instructs (zero settings for PV2003 and 2010)? Sure looks like it does on the raw files I look at set that way. Maybe my display isn't properly calibrated like Dan's <g>.
do not speak on behalf of other readers...
Just speak on behalf of yourself if you can. Can you find any justification for using ACR on raw data as Dan describes? Is this your workflow? Why not just shoot JPEG?
-
Yeah, ya know, there's a lot of stuff I know that I'm not really at liberty to talk about..
come on - just revisit your postings here and there I bet you can get an extra chapter of such stories that were already "posted"... it will be a good read in one place :)
-
do not speak on behalf of other readers...
Andrew can speak on my behalf on this and I'm sure others will think the same way.
This thread is supposed to be about getting good colour in RAW conversion, not whether you can get the same result by other means.
FWIW there's a huge amount of convenience in being able to do everything at the RAW stage as it makes so many workflows substantially more efficient.
-
do not speak on behalf of other readers...
I share Andrew's views on this subject. Even though I cut my digital imaging teeth restoring scanned photos using Photoshop starting around '98, I still wished they had ACR back then as the scanner software. Things would've been much easier.
I will NEVER work an image in Lab space as long as I'm editing my own photos. I've edited in Lab and it's a big PITA especially on the eyes with regard to color perception. Don't care for the interface of the tools, either.
As for defining where the "post processing" occurs along the Raw data conversion pipeline, I look at working in ACR as "pre-processing" the instructions written into an xmp file driven by the user's response to the converter's preview whose core color engine behaves according to human perception with regard to color constancy issues and other human optical phenomenon.
Working in Lab just looks and behaves way too funky for my comfort and the way I SEE color.
-
So the answer from you about a workflow question is 'chill'? Not real useful. Seems to be you don't want to explain yourself.
you know that "chill" was the answer to your line "Before that, maybe you can answer the questions addressed to you", the tone of which I did not like.
-
Can you find any justification for using ACR on raw data as Dan describes?
there shall be some raw converter before PS... ACR is not the ideal one for his workflow, but ACR has an advatange of being supplied free w/ PS... you have PS = you have ACR, that's it
Is this your workflow?
no... I am using ACR to post-process images after other raw converters... ACR is a good post processing tool, it is a pity that it does not allow a more suitable way to work in non RGB color spaces though...
Why not just shoot JPEG?
I guess you know that JPG is the result of raw conversion + post processing, both done by camera's firmware... I guess that will answer your question why JPG is not an ideal source for postprocessing - too much of it was done already before PS.
-
FWIW there's a huge amount of convenience in being able to do everything at the RAW stage as it makes so many workflows substantially more efficient.
true - but not exactly in Dan's workflow... you don't like it, fine - nobody is pushing it down your throat... the point is that for his workflow the less post-processing done outside (well - before) of PS the better he (the author) thinks, that's it...
-
Many top-level professional retouchers that I know tend to do little in ACR or C1 if anything at all.
-
Many top-level professional retouchers that I know tend to do little in ACR or C1 if anything at all.
Depends on the definition of retouch and what encompasses "doing little" in ACR. Everybody's got their own way of defining "Retouch" and methodology which makes your statement too broad in its scope.
You want to at least get color, tone and capture sharpening right as a starting point for further edits in Photoshop. You get it to look right overall in the Raw converter or else you may be correcting artifacts brought out in Photoshop especially at the output sharpening stage that weren't taken care of in the RC like maybe lens distortion and noise which can affect overall color zoomed in at 100% but look different downsizing for output.
I primarily use ACR to restore and expand dynamic range and color due to uncontrolled, suboptimal shooting conditions meaning not in a studio using expensive lights. Not everyone is a fashion and product photographer.
-
Depends on the definition of retouch and what encompasses "doing little" in ACR. Everybody's got their own way of defining "Retouch" and methodology which makes your statement too broad in its scope.
You want to at least get color, tone and capture sharpening right as a starting point for further edits in Photoshop. You get it to look right overall in the Raw converter or else you may be correcting artifacts brought out in Photoshop especially at the output sharpening stage that weren't taken care of in the RC like maybe lens distortion and noise which can affect overall color zoomed in at 100% but look different downsizing for output.
I primarily use ACR to restore and expand dynamic range and color due to uncontrolled, suboptimal shooting conditions meaning not in a studio using expensive lights. Not everyone is a fashion and product photographer.
Maybe just some WB adjustments in ACR and that's it. Yes, if an image calls for much more dynamic range, two or more versions of the same RAW file will be created for blending in Photoshop. They tend not to touch contrast, sharpening, color-correction, color-grading, sharpening, or lens corrections at all in ACR.
-
Many top-level professional retouchers that I know tend to do little in ACR or C1 if anything at all.
Yeah, ya know, that doesn't surprise me at all because "retouchers" by and large are Photoshop experts (not unlike Dan M.) and want to make what they do look like "magic"...(meaning the retouchers don't really like to explain exactly how they do what they do and prolly would not admit to relying on the ACR/LR toolset).
Also add to the fact most retouchers are getting rendered files not raw files, the raw files are rendered by somebody-either the photographer or the client.
I think that most retouchers don't really know how to process raw files. Not unlike Dan M. they want to do all their stuff in Photoshop. And, I'm ok with that...I'm really good at Photoshop (I've worked in Photoshop since version 2.0) so I know what the differences are between ACR/LR and Photoshop. But it's foolish to ignore tools that are useful and improve workflow simply because "they" don't know how to use ACR/LR. A smart photographer will use any and all tools to get the image right..and that means using ACR/LR and Photoshop for doing what each can do the best. If you ignore ACR/LR, you are being foolish.
-
... but not exactly in Dan's workflow... you don't like it, fine - nobody is pushing it down your throat...
You are, and it's not what the OP is asking.
-
Jeff has given a very balanced point-of-view.
Essentially use Photoshop only to do what cannot be done in Lightroom or ACR, seems simple enough, but not for everyone, obviously.
Tony Jay
-
Here's some more balanced information...
The thread below shows what can be done with one of the worst images on the planet and a web jpeg at that all corrected in ACR. No Photoshop except for downsizing. I can assure you it took more than a little WB fixing.
http://photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00YmG4
I think my version looks the best. ::)
Tim Lookingbill