(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Color/ColorTuning/small/20130802-CF043653_C1_vsmall.jpg) | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Color/ColorTuning/small/20130802-CF043653_AdobeStandard_vsmall.jpg) |
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Color/ColorTuning/small/20130802-CF043653_Adobe_DNG_DI_adjusted_vsmall.jpg) | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Color/ColorTuning/small/20130802-CF043653_Adobe_DNG_DI_vsmall.jpg) |
Best regards
Erik
So, what is your reason for posting? Do you have a question? Or a statement? Sorry, I just don't understand what your desire here is...yes, different processors will differ...yes different DNG profiles can also impact output...but what are you trying to accomplish?
1. Whatever gave you the idea that you can print out the colorchecker and use it as some kind of reference? It completely changes the spectral characteristics of the chard and therefore is absolutely worthless and bears no relation whatsoever to the original.
2. You can not indiscriminately use the paper white as a reference for white balance because of the brightners which also influences the spectral characteristics etc.
4. You have previously posted a colorchecker passport shot which was overexposed. You also want to avoid that.
5. I am currently of the opinion that LR tends to oversaturate and possibly change the luminance of colors because of its contrast curve and how it is applied. I also get the impression that a lot of people that use the DNG profiler try to compensate for that behavior in the profile. This would be a very wrong approach to the problem as you are trying to correct non-linear errors before they are even introduced. This will lead to very unpredictable results where sometimes errors are nullified, but under other circumstances different errors may actually be exaggerated.
Number 5 may be what you are currently running into.
Additionally, i have seen several of your images that do not do the MF equipment you have any justice. This is not a criticism, just an observation. I get a distinct impression that the images have no lens corrections applied. Does LR not support the lenses you use via profiles? Does it properly apply chromatic aberration correction if you request it?
Here are some crops which imo show a significant different amount of microdetail. LR should be able to come close to this, although it may be somewhat harder to achieve with the multitude of options they have.
Additionally, i have seen several of your images that do not do the MF equipment you have any justice. This is not a criticism, just an observation. I get a distinct impression that the images have no lens corrections applied. Does LR not support the lenses you use via profiles? Does it properly apply chromatic aberration correction if you request it?
Here are some crops which imo show a significant different amount of microdetail. LR should be able to come close to this, although it may be somewhat harder to achieve with the multitude of options they have.
I fail to see your point, I don't feel my image has less microdetail than yours (my to the left yours to the right)
Feel? You shouldn't judge microdetail with your gut, but with your eyes… ;)
Do you see the "ringing" in your conversion?
If not, are you viewing on an LCD or CRT?
The ringing seems to coincide with the CA, which could mean that the sharpening is actually sharpening luminance residue from the CA.
The ringing obscures microcontrast. It does so for the entire image. It gives the impression of looking at an upscaled image that actually has lower resolution. It is very tiring to the eyes. I have to admit that i can't find the correct parameters in LR to get a similar result as in my conversion, but that may be bias since that is my exact problem with LR. Too many sliders that just don't quite do what you want.
(Note also that my images are jpg compressed which may obscure some of the effect.)
I am aware of the ringing. I am pretty sure that it is coming from my sharpening settings. It is coming from my use of deconvolution (detail fully to the right in LR). I have noticed it, and one of the results of our discussion may be that I use a different default on sharpening.
Most images are not critically sharp, as critical sharpness only exists in a single plane. When shooting MF I also tended to use smaller apertures which need more sharpening because of diffraction. I expected MF to need less sharpening than my DSLRs, but I found that my settings work well for most images.
This image shows more ringing than I like, especially in the reds. The reds are sampled at half the linear resolution of the sensor.
I didn't want to invent a special kind of sharpening for this image, as I try to keep as many factors constant as possible. Also, this thread is more about color than acutance.