I remember a workshop I had when student at ICP and the big thing was the Zone System. We used to make a test to get the exact ISO using one particular film/lens/film/development method so that density and contrast would remain the same whenever we used the same components and procedures.
That was some type of profiling, --the color variable was not in--.
In the present day the components are: not the "scene", but the light sources illuminating the scene -- I thinkt -- the camera, lens, digita sensor and light meter etc.
If you have a "scene" that was, for example, a wall in the MoMa, and you could set the lights exactly the same, or leave the as they where when the profile was done, then, in theory and practice that "scene" was profiled and any painting that you put on the wall will have consistent color.
On the other side, I have also noticed that the methodology of profiling (cameras or camera plus light source(ses) is as disputed territory as El Putumayo (guerrilla controlled, Colombia).
I have not reached the conclusions part of this book, on the contrary, we could go point by point, for example..
POINT ONE (not in any particular order)
Do we want o use one light source? The proponents of this notion, the friend's of jpjespersen, say, with some logic to it, that the only way to be sure that there the target is going to be illuminated by uniform light is by using a single lamp (they also prefer daylight flash).
OK, who is against POINT ONE and why//.
As a marketing video, it seems OK. I however wasn't at all convinced, as Michael seemed to be and found many of the various points about the process by the ColorEye's boys to be conflicting.
You can attempt to profile a camera. How do you profile a scene? A scene as you see it, someone else, some other device?
Yes, the title is appropriate, its a Commercial!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160445\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
