New profile making software: Lumariver Profile Designer

[scyth]

What is the desired workflow / use case?

one might assume to use tools like www.3dlutcreator.com (with quite developed UI) and then just save time by moving that into dcp profile to get similar output directly from ACR/LR w/o going to PS or so

[sebbe]

What is the desired workflow / use case?

- dE-values/result documentation/export after each step (optimization, tone curve, look or at least at the end). that way I can easily see what impact a change has. At the moment LUT optimization, TRO-variant, gamut compression, base look are some kind of a black boxes.
- load and save of "edit look adjustements"
- show target grid (with the reference values) are visible on all slides and not only on "target".

[sebbe]

Useful Digital Transitions/Phase One guide to creating repro profiles for Capture One:

https://dtdch.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Public-Color-Guide-DTDCH-v2.pdf

Malcolm

Thanks!

[Guillermo Luijk]

I'm right now so f**king pissed I'm considering pulling the software all-together, but of course I have the responsibility to my paying customers.

I understand your disappointment. What about adding new features/improvements to the software making every pirated version obsolete?. They would serve in the same way as the console version: to let people know what the software can do and generate an interest on the "full"/upgraded version.

You'd need to manage the upgrade policy with present paying customers, so as introducing a better protection on the new released versions.

Regards

Enviado desde mi ALE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

[scyth]

I understand your disappointment. What about adding new features/improvements to the software making every pirated version obsolete?. They would serve in the same way as the console version: to let people know what the software can do and generate an interest on the "full"/upgraded version.

You'd need to manage the upgrade policy with present paying customers, so as introducing a better protection on the new released versions.

Regards

Enviado desde mi ALE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

I can only repeat the suggestion - do not make fully enabled code to be available for download - compile binaries on demand, email the links ...

[Rhossydd]

I've recently bought the basic version and, so far, am very happy with it and looking forward to trying out some of the options to build different profiles.

One aspect does slightly frustrate me is the model/pricing strategy.
Whilst the basic version is a good price, the pro version is a rather big jump in price for casual users of CO like myself. I understand that the repro version can command a serious premium.
From Guillermo's suggestion;

What about adding new features/improvements to the software making every pirated version obsolete?.

How about an amateur version that can build both DCP & ICC profiles without all the advanced options (at a slightly high price than the current basic version, say 45euros) and a Pro version for advanced users. Less versions to worry about and maybe a bigger market for the cheaper version.

Also some upgrade pricing between versions wouldn't go amiss either.

[alain]

... Whilst the basic version is a good price, the pro version is a rather big jump in price for casual users of CO like myself. I understand that the repro version can command a serious premium.
...

Basicaly the same question:

On one side I'm happy that CO is considered pro and Lightroom not, but on the other side it is a big difference.

[Doug Gray]

Just bought the Repro 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Just bought the Repro 

Same here.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Basicaly the same question:

On one side I'm happy that CO is considered pro and Lightroom not, but on the other side it is a big difference.

I do not see it as a Pro / non-Pro thing, but rather that e.g. ICC based profiles are more of a challenge due to the different ways that different Raw converters treat them. DNG profiles are more strict/uniform in their requirements, which can also be a benefit for those who live in the Adobe ecosphere.

The price difference probably also has something to do with potential target audience size (and possibly support requirements, something that's no mean feat for a one-man operation).

Cheers,
Bart

[alain]

I do not see it as a Pro / non-Pro thing, but rather that e.g. ICC based profiles are more of a challenge due to the different ways that different Raw converters treat them. DNG profiles are more strict/uniform in their requirements, which can also be a benefit for those who live in the Adobe ecosphere.

The price difference probably also has something to do with potential target audience size (and possibly support requirements, something that's no mean feat for a one-man operation).

Cheers,
Bart

The pro gives extra options too, that are rather interesting.

[alain]

Hi

As a Capture One user, a question:

If I read the info here and the manual correctly the new ICC profile (as done using the "normal" Capture One instructions), will make a "pleasing" neutral "look", but keeps the tone curves from Capture One.

Will that be a drastic other look or quite similar, but with "correcter" colours?

 

[torger]

Regarding pricing, nearly all C1 users I've had contact with are pro users or very high level non-professionals, and C1 is not a cheap raw converter so the volumes are lower and pricing higher, and there's also more user support as users this segment more often have an interest in making advanced tuning. Lots of medium format users or very high end 135 cameras. The DCP space is more volume, more casual and less professional, and thus I made a specific product for that. It's the Basic edition that's intended to be the odd one out, not the others. I see it as a big jump down rather than a big jump up :-). Sure I'd love to sell tens of thousands of this and just need to charge €10, but profiling is niche software which quite few use, it's a connoisseur thing, and the relative low volume leads to steeper pricing (LRPD isn't the most expensive profiler out there...). Otherwise you can just as well give it away for free like DCamProf or Adobe DNG Profile Editor.

That said I might still consider a Basic/ICC version later on if the interest is proven to be large but I haven't seen much of that so far.

[torger]

Hi

As a Capture One user, a question:

If I read the info here and the manual correctly the new ICC profile (as done using the "normal" Capture One instructions), will make a "pleasing" neutral "look", but keeps the tone curves from Capture One.

Will that be a drastic other look or quite similar, but with "correcter" colours?

What some users think is an almost undetectable difference others think is a drastic difference, so it's a bit hard to say. It depends on subject material, the more colorful like flowers etc the easier it is to spot differences, otherwise the differences are quite subtle. I'd say that for most subject material it's quite similar but with more realistic color reproduction. It does depend a bit on camera model too as C1 doesn't have the exact same look for all models, but often makes overly warm looks (if you prefer more realistic reproduction), while LRPD default is more neutral.

[Rhossydd]

Regarding pricing, nearly all C1 users I've had contact with are pro users or very high level non-professionals,

It's hardly got much publicity yet so you're selling to the CM enthusiasts who've followed your other high end ventures. Sell at a high price and users will demand a lot of support.

CO doesn't have to be expensive. People like myself who bought CO early on can still follow a relatively cheap upgrade path to keep current. It's cost me less than LR overall to stay on the latest version.

That said I might still consider a Basic/ICC version later on if the interest is proven to be large but I haven't seen much of that so far.

The people you need to listen to are potential customers, they're the ones that will generate new income. Not the nit picking obsessives who want every possible option they've ever heard of, but 99% of people won't understand/want/need.

[torger]

It's hardly got much publicity yet so you're selling to the CM enthusiasts who've followed your other high end ventures. Sell at a high price and users will demand a lot of support.

CO doesn't have to be expensive. People like myself who bought CO early on can still follow a relatively cheap upgrade path to keep current. It's cost me less than LR overall to stay on the latest version.
The people you need to listen to are potential customers, they're the ones that will generate new income. Not the nit picking obsessives who want every possible option they've ever heard of, but 99% of people won't understand/want/need.

Good points. I'll think about it. It won't change in near-time though, it's early days and everything needs some time to set. Price vs expected support thing is not really matching, just try making a mobile app and you'll see

[Rhossydd]

Price vs expected support thing is not really matching,

Support is often proportional to the number of features available.
Make a basic version for dcp and icc WITHOUT all the high end options and you'll cut down your potential support issues.

[sebbe]

Regarding pricing, nearly all C1 users I've had contact with are pro users or very high level non-professionals, and C1 is not a cheap raw converter so the volumes are lower and pricing higher, and there's also more user support as users this segment more often have an interest in making advanced tuning. Lots of medium format users or very high end 135 cameras. The DCP space is more volume, more casual and less professional, and thus I made a specific product for that. It's the Basic edition that's intended to be the odd one out, not the others. I see it as a big jump down rather than a big jump up :-). Sure I'd love to sell tens of thousands of this and just need to charge €10, but profiling is niche software which quite few use, it's a connoisseur thing, and the relative low volume leads to steeper pricing (LRPD isn't the most expensive profiler out there...). Otherwise you can just as well give it away for free like DCamProf or Adobe DNG Profile Editor.

That said I might still consider a Basic/ICC version later on if the interest is proven to be large but I haven't seen much of that so far.

The prices for lumariver are fine. It reflect the work Anders put into dcamprof, the GUI for lumariver and the very detailed documentation of the process itself. On the other hand, if you're about profiling photography is at least a serious hobby for you. This means you put hundreds of hours a year into it and hundreds of dollars a year too. This program adds more creativity to my process and it gives me a better starting point for my processing which leads to less time "boring" processing. Therefore I have more fun with my hobby. In my oppinion a very good thing. And if I'm looking after the money I spend into this hobby (camreas, lenses, travels, software, accessories like flashes/tripods, cleaning, services, ...) the price of a repro-version is certainly below 1% of the money spent over the last 10 years.

[sebbe]

Support is often proportional to the number of features available.
Make a basic version for dcp and icc WITHOUT all the high end options and you'll cut down your potential support issues.

In my experience (most time) support is just a marketing gag.

There is a good basic profiling program without all the high end options on the market: basICColor input. But maybe the price tag may surprise you.

[TommyWeir]

Hi

As a Capture One user, a question:

If I read the info here and the manual correctly the new ICC profile (as done using the "normal" Capture One instructions), will make a "pleasing" neutral "look", but keeps the tone curves from Capture One.

Will that be a drastic other look or quite similar, but with "correcter" colours?

As a fellow C1 user, Fuji shooter and with a Color Checker sitting unused on a shelf... I ended up buying Lumariver. 

And Ive been really pleased with the results.  At least for the current conditions, cloudy summer..., a better color rendition for sure but also tonally a little subtler.  Skin noticeably more accurate.   Very pleased overall.