Hi,
I don't think so. I am pretty sure that it is about pleasantness. Let's assume that we have a Delta E of say 7. It does say that the Lab coordinates are 7 units of, but the deviation could be bluish, pinkish, reddish, yellowish, reddish or so on. It tells about the amount but not about the direction.
What I have seen a bit is that skin that C1 rendition is a bit yellowish while LR 5 may go more in the direction of pinkish.
A photographer I have great respect for is Tim Parkin, he did not compare LR5 and Capture One, but he looked a lot at colour rendition of cameras. The worst offender he has found is the P45+ and the best one he knows is the Alpha 900, two cameras I also happen to have.
He compared something called SMI (Sensor Metamerism Index) which measures the ability of the sensor to achieve a metameric match for 8 different colours, of course taken from the ColourChecker. He has found a very strong correlation between SMI and his perception of colour quality.
Sony A900 87
Sony NEX7 85
Canon 5D 84
Nikon D5000 83
Nikon D700 83
Samsung GX20 82
Nikon D90 82
Panasonic G3 81
Panasonic GX1 81
Nikon V1 81
Phase IQ180 80
Phase P40 80
Canon 5dMkII 80
Olympus E5 80
Panasonic GH1 79
Nikon D3S 79
Nikon D3X 79
Hassleblad H50 78
Canon 7D 78
Panasonic GH2 77
Fuji X100 77
Phase P65+ 76
Fuji X10 76
Leica M9 76
Canon G11 76
Panasonic LX5 75
Hassleblad H39 75
Aptus Leaf 75
Samsung EX1 74
Phase P45 72
As you can see, the Sony Alpha 900 is on the top of the list and the Phase P45 on the bottom. What Tim says is that all the cameras he has access to fit well into this list. Now, this is about sensors and not raw converters, but it is notable that the MF cameras are not near the top of the list. It may also put the issue a little bit in perspective.
My guess is that MFDBs and raw converters are a bit optimised for skin tones and rendering that is perceived to be good under studio lighting, while cameras with high SMI and perhaps Adobe raw processing pipeline are optimised to give accurate, but possibly less pleasant rendition.
The most important factor is probably white balance, 99% of my shots don't include a WB card, and it is very hard to compare colour rendition without a good white reference. The images I used for evaluation included a ColourChecker which I used for WB.
These images show rendering differences between tools and profiles in landscape:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/79-p45-colour-rendition?start=4And this is a portrait in natural light:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/79-p45-colour-rendition?start=5In the portraits I added a small patch on my forehead using a sample of the hue of my skin, and I also added a small patch on the shirt. The shirt is a bit outside Adobe RGB, incidentally. The skin sample was taken in the winter and the portrait in the summer, but skin colour is said to be quite constant.
What it shows, I think, is that Adobe Standard is not really nice.
My first test shot with the P45+ resulted in somewhat blush red on the flower I used in the test, although the colours on the colour checker were quite accurate. Generating a DCP profile helped a lot. The accuracy of the ColorChecker card rendition was not improved but my rd flower was rendered red and not bluish red.
Best regards
Erik
Best regards
Erik
Maybe it is your setup of C1. C1 is widely regarded to have excellent color. The fact your Imatest variances all show a blue vector on the errors and Bart noted a D65 vs D60 difference may let you fix how C1 operates on your system if you are interested. Just the fact so many people put up so many good images using C1 should tell you it is not the software. If C1 has a weakness relative to the other top raw converters it is in an artificial look to fine detail, sometimes even mazing. It is not on color.
