Why, with the exception of the shorts having far more vibrancelSaturation, does everything else in the image look (subjectively) WORSE?
Ok, I think you’re going too far. I replied and gave arguments, screenshots and answers to every single critic that you told me; all I see from you is a person that simply jumps to another new small detail to criticize when I reply to the last one. And in this your last post, you're laughing about the project I've been working slowly for 4 years.
Let me tell you something, Andrew: when I came here to share this my project, I expected to have a nice discussion with many experts here. A discussion on where some would like my chart and some don’t. I will totally respect their opinion, of course, but as well as I would never throw shit over other person’s project, I expect them to not do that to me. Because I know he may have spent hundreds, thousands of hours on it, that would be a really dirt thing from myself to do that. Because that hurts.
There always should be a respect for others work, because we can all discuss without going low.
Let's say you have written a book (I know you did) and come to a forum to share it. I’d first ask about several things. Never criticize first. Get all the important information, then I can discuss with arguments. In the end, if I don’t like it, I just don’t buy it! But I'd never start a ‘campaign’ to discredit, even less with childish arguments that take the tangent path from the important stuff.
Now I see you’re not that kind of person. I hope you don’t face with that in your own person from others.
So now you’re telling me that the everything else in the image looks 'WORSE'. And you laugh.
You might not seen the answer and images of the CC24 I've already posted, on where it can be seen that the profiled capture is almost spot on.
But after you said that, now I can see that you ignore how phosphor colors behave, which in the end tells me that you might know Ps very well, but regarding camera profiling you're lacking quite some knowledge.
Also, if you ever come to a Spanish forum on where I use to be, I will first welcome you (because that’s gentleman do when a new one comes and introduces himself) and then will start to discuss. But I won’t try to find out any mistake or misspelling in your book just to hit hard with my finger on it. In fact, if I find some I will email you privately just to help you correct it. That’s my DNA, and i.e. Guillermo knows that.
I don't know if you know Chris Murphy or if he is also here, but you can ask him how did I treated him when I managed to bring him to a big intl. photo show in Barcelona a few years ago. We both performed a conference about color management, together.
Would you like if I read your book and post here every single and small mistake I find out? And, trust me, I will find them. Even that it’s not in my mother language.
Now, that said, let me answer the main question: That 'strange', 'WORSE' appearance is totally normal when faithfully reproducing phosphor colors, because they reflect more visible light than they receive, thus need under-develop, to avoid color clipping. That makes the non-phosphor colors underexposed.
The CC4 was almost spot-on, except for the scaling down of the RGB values.
Now, let me tell you that I wasted enough time replying to this; I won’t be replying unless you keep a respectful position.
PS: Regarding your last post, If you ever asked me to add another examples to make the comparison more fair/complete/real/whatever, I’d kindly find some time to add them. Now you achieved the opposite from me.