Date   

Re: By the numbers ?

Rob Outlaw <routlaw@...>
 

Dan writes:

The problem seems to be not a defect in the camera itself, but rather that
in a lot of these cameras, and Nikon products in particular, there is some
very hamhanded, clumsy, and, of course, undocumented, automated color
correction going on before we even open the file. In the ones I've looked
at, there seems to be no way to defeat this automated "correction."
This seems like a case for implementing digital camera profiles after all,
be it from
Profile Maker or the Praxisoft solution. FWIW in a direct comparison between
the D1 and Phase One Lightphase this summer in my studio, I found the
LightPhase
captures without utilizing the canned profiles from Phase One to be
extremely dead
with some fairly drab color. In fact some colors on a simple Kodak color
chart did
not even show up regardless of how I captured and what profile that used.
Trying to make
something out of the Lightphase raw captures (files that had not been
converted with their
canned profiles) was way more trouble than it was worth in my experience.
Even after implementing the profiles from Phase One I found that I had to
edit the images
considerably more than with a D1 image.

Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that you can not get spectacular
images from
the more expensive cameras, its just that it is not always the cake walk
many of these
manufacturers would have you believe. Its sort of like we are still in the
Wild West Days
of digital imaging and I think this makes a strong case for Color Management
in order to obtain
some sort of standard so that we are all playing on level field. At least
for me thats the
promise that I see with CM, though it may not be there 100% yet.

Selecting is usually unnecessary. For this category of images ONLY, I find
that a preliminary use of Hue/Saturation in RGB can help, because it can
specify a particular shade and move that. In this case you would click on
the fleshtone and move it in the yellow Hue direction, plus possibly
desaturate it. Another alternative when the skintone is too magenta, again
in RGB, is to blend the red channel into the green, Lighten mode, at
around
20% opacity.
In addition I have also found that shooting with the D1 with the low
contrast
setting (and then adjusting for contrast later in PS) yields a better image
with
less flesh tone problems.

The problem is, the preliminary "correction" these cameras make isn't
lighting-specific, it's image-specific
Although a number of users tend to have more problems while using the SB28dx
flash unit with the camera. A UV filter placed over the flash will help here
but
not totally eliminate the problem.

My own experience is that Apple
RGB or sRGB is a better choice most of the time, but it really depends on
the character of the image.
I still will stick with Adobe RGB space since it has given me little
problems even with the D1.

Rob Outlaw


Re: By the numbers ? and the D1

Bob Smith <rmsmith@...>
 

Rob Outlaw wrote:

D1, capturing images in raw mode and converting with Nikon Capture, while
totally ignoring the NTSC working space.
which is exactly how it ought to be done. NTSC is just an issue for camera
processed files. My experience with D1 jpegs is nil... just going by
experiences of others that I trust and my very few efforts at trying to help
someone with some D1 jpegs. Except possibly on some studio type rigs, I
don't think any digital camera images from any company are tagged coming out
of the camera. It makes no sense to waste precious writing speed and disk
space on data that would be exactly the same for every image... especially
on a camera who's main claim to fame is photojournalistic use.

Bob Smith


Re: By the numbers ?

Andrew Rodney <andrew@...>
 

on 1/1/01 11:26 PM, jbmmmac@... at jbmmmac@... wrote:

Problem of bad fleshtones is called Magenta problem but in reality it is
problem of Reds having too much Magenta and Cyan and not enough Yellow (and
Yellows  being contaminated with Cyan). The first step to correct this
problem is to pull red curve to reduce Cyan in midtones and next puling Green
curve to reduce magenta. Combined effect of pulling red and green curves
increase yellow and reduce cyan in skin tones, reds and yellows. Converting
from NTSC to ColorMatch is helpful to bring other colors and reducing overall
dullness due to different gamma of those color spaces.

That’s an awful lot of work to basically make a file tagged incorrectly LOOK correct in a  newly assigned Working Space. By simply tagging the D1 file with the correct description of the RGB you are getting would solve all these problems without altering the data in the file! Then you would convert into any RGB Working Space you want (the preview wouldn’t change at this point either). What you are basically doing is viewing a file in a condition where it’s not producing a proper preview. Then after you get it looking as you like, you Assign your Working Space. This is very similar to working with color neg scans. Since we can’t produce a profile for color negs, the best we can do is make the image look good on a calibrated display and then convert into the Working Space (usually using the custom display profile as the source, something you could try with the D1 if you didn’t want to deal with profiling the beast).

Andrew Rodney


Re: By the numbers ? and the D1

Rob Outlaw <routlaw@...>
 

Bob writes,
Its not a matter of being wider. Its a matter of matching what Nikon was
targeting their output to. Why, I don't know... but Nikon has said that
Nikon D1 in camera processing is done with output to NTSC rgb in mind. It
has to be going to some definition of RGB and that's what Nikon chose.>>
Actually as I understand it Nikon has only "chosen the NTSC working space as
a color characteristic" but has not embedded, tagged, or otherwise forced
the issue
of using this as a working space or profile.

Dan writes:

I have played with a D1 but don't claim any expertise in it. What I can
say
for sure is, if the problem is that fleshtones are too magenta, then
assuming that the files are NTSC is going to make that problem worse, not
better.
You are so right here Dan. If one looks at the color points on a color gamut
map it is clear to see that the NTSC working space has a red point that is
virtually passed human vison and certainly passed Adobe RGB let alone
Colormatch.
By utilizing the NTSC as part of your workflow
whether converting from or into regardless of the space that you do this
from,
will only exacerbate the red flesh tone problem. I have spent literally
dozens
of hours experimenting with this situation. My conclusions are that totally
ignoring NTSC in any shape form or fashion is a better solution at least for
flesh tones anyway.

Over the last year I have had the opportunity to shoot some four or five
assignments
where the decision was made to shoot D1 images alongside film (in this case
Astia and
Provia F my films of choice). In not one of those assignments did the film
outperform
the color of my D1, capturing images in raw mode and converting with Nikon
Capture,
while totally ignoring the NTSC working space. All files were opened in PS
5.5 into the
Adobe RGB space without any other conversions taking place and saved as
such.
I am not saying that some minor tweaking of the color in some cases was not
needed and
most of that was done in the Hue and Sat window where I could selectively
edit colors
(mainly red channel for flesh tones and the yellow channel for overly green
yellows)
in 16 bit mode.

Having said all that I will admit to the fact that this situation for bad
flesh tones
with the D1 seems to be worse for jpeg files as opposed to raw file capture.
I have
no idea why this is the case either. However I am not sure it is worse for
outdoor
shots as compared to on camera flash, but the placement of a UV filter over
the flash unit does help while not completely eleminating the overly
red/magenta
flesh tones.

Rob Outlaw


Re: By the numbers ?

Andrew Rodney <andrew@...>
 

on 1/1/01 10:50 PM, Dan Margulis at 76270.1033@... wrote:

I have played with a D1 but don't claim any expertise in it. What I can say
for sure is, if the problem is that fleshtones are too magenta, then
assuming that the files are NTSC is going to make that problem worse, not
better.

Nikon claims the D1 shots into NTSC but I don’t know if Nikon really has a clue either way. I can tell you with a custom input profile for the D1, the problem skin tone issues disappear. And not just the magenta but a problem with highlights blocking up (or I should say appearing to block up). Bringing a file into Photoshop assuming it’s one RGB space when it’s a mile away from that space makes a profound impact on what we see and what we eventually get when converting to an output space. Simply assigning the correct profile in Photoshop 6 makes this all disappear (because in reality, it’s not really there). The files appear magenta and print poorly because we are making a very bad assumption about the RGB we have. It’s as if we had a file in SWOP Uncoated newsprint but viewed it as if it were SWOP coated glossy stock. The preview would be wrong, the file would output wrong with that incorrect tag to SWOP coated. Take the file and output on the right device (or Assign the correct profile) and the preview and output are fine and dandy!

Andrew Rodney


newbie: channels

Dan Margulis <76270.1033@...>
 

Todd writes,

In Professional Photoshop the individual channels are shown as grayscale
images. How do you view them that way when you are in CMYK or RGB?>>

In Edit: Preferences>Display & Cursors, UNCHECK the box "Display Color
Channels in Color," which is on by default.

Dan Margulis


newbie: channels

tflash <tflash@...>
 

In Professional Photoshop the individual channels are shown as grayscale
images. How do you view them that way when you are in CMYK or RGB?

Todd


Re: By the numbers ?

Dan Margulis <76270.1033@...>
 

Bob writes,

Its not a matter of being wider. Its a matter of matching what Nikon was
targeting their output to. Why, I don't know... but Nikon has said that
Nikon D1 in camera processing is done with output to NTSC rgb in mind. It
has to be going to some definition of RGB and that's what Nikon chose.>>

I have played with a D1 but don't claim any expertise in it. What I can say
for sure is, if the problem is that fleshtones are too magenta, then
assuming that the files are NTSC is going to make that problem worse, not
better.

But it really depends on the image. I've shot over ten thousand exposures
with lower-end Nikons and it's pretty clear that NTSC isn't the right RGB
for them, although it may be for the D1 for all I know. OTOH, I was in the
hardest-hit county of the northeast storm this Saturday and went out and
shot in it when the snow was at its heaviest. Those exposures would have
been better opened in NTSC. But the bottom line is that the quality of the
data was phenomenal and if I had to produce a printable picture of the
blizzard I'd prefer to start with that cheap capture than with a chrome and
a drum scan.

What's needed on the lower end cameras is an option to deliver raw files
for
those that want to milk these things for all they can do. Access to the raw
files allows a tremendous amount of control over what the image looks
like.>>

Agreed.

Dan Margulis


Re: By the numbers ?

Bob Smith <rmsmith@...>
 

Dan Margulis wrote:

Similarly, Bob's suggestion of using a wider-gamut RGB definition works
some of the time.
Its not a matter of being wider. Its a matter of matching what Nikon was
targeting their output to. Why, I don't know... but Nikon has said that
Nikon D1 in camera processing is done with output to NTSC rgb in mind. It
has to be going to some definition of RGB and that's what Nikon chose.
Kodak Pro cameras output RGB (via std acquire module processing) that very
closely approximates ColorMatch RGB. Pull Kodak files straight into
ColorMatch RGB and they'll need only minor color tweaking. Pull them into
something like Adobe RGB without compensation and you've got a whole
different task ahead of you. Even when the camera is set to deliver a
finished file, there's no profile embedded in the camera file to describe
its RGB space. Why write redundant data to every image when disk space and
write speed are at a premium?

Processing in a camera like the D1 is quite different from the auto
processing so prevalent in the lower end models. You can put a camera like
the D1 or the pro Kodaks into a condition where they auto-processes color,
but that's unusual and certainly not generally recommended.

What's needed on the lower end cameras is an option to deliver raw files for
those that want to milk these things for all they can do. Access to the raw
files allows a tremendous amount of control over what the image looks like.
I stayed with Kodak cameras and passed on the D1 mainly because it offered
such poor support for handling raw data files. Kodaks (the pro level
models) are built around the concept of having the camera deliver raw data
and then processing later. Its been fun to watch D1 shooters discover what
they can do with raw data. I've seen more than a few who were ready to
chunk the camera over color woes. Then they got hold of good piece of
software for handling raw data and thought they had a new camera. Raw data
files are now available on the new Olympus E-10... a sub $2k model. I bet
we see it on more even lower end models in the not too distant future.

Bob Smith


By the numbers ?

Dan Margulis <76270.1033@...>
 

Joey writes (and Crissy similarly),

With the advent and popularity of digital cameras in newspaper
photojournalism a new beast has really reared its head.It seems that unlike
film that absorbs light consistently across the spectrum (at least in
theory) the digital CCDs on some digital cameras (specifically the Nikon
D1) the absorption seems to inconsistent (i.e. skin tones are absorbing
more magenta than say wood).>>

The problem seems to be not a defect in the camera itself, but rather that
in a lot of these cameras, and Nikon products in particular, there is some
very hamhanded, clumsy, and, of course, undocumented, automated color
correction going on before we even open the file. In the ones I've looked
at, there seems to be no way to defeat this automated "correction."

Much of the time, this "correction" does what it's supposed to. And for a
nonprofessional user who hopes to use the image without further correction,
it's probably a good idea. For us, however, it can be a real PITA.

In the Nikon case what is happening is that the capture software is forcing
a neutral black point to occur no matter what. The CCDs seem to be a lot
more sensitive to color in shadows than conventional film is. I will skip
the technical discussion but the bottom line is that when an image is
dominated by a single color in the shadow area this will often result in a
countercast in the midtones. If you are seeing skintones too magenta I'll
bet that a lot of these pictures are taken outdoors. Crissy, OTOH, sees
skintones too cyan, which suggest different backgrounds.

Trying not to over explain but often time I have, say a jacket, with an
appropriate CMYK value and faces with way too much magenta. Short of
selecting each object with the wrong value is there another way, as I try
to
use the magic wand as little as possible?>>

Selecting is usually unnecessary. For this category of images ONLY, I find
that a preliminary use of Hue/Saturation in RGB can help, because it can
specify a particular shade and move that. In this case you would click on
the fleshtone and move it in the yellow Hue direction, plus possibly
desaturate it. Another alternative when the skintone is too magenta, again
in RGB, is to blend the red channel into the green, Lighten mode, at around
20% opacity.

Warning: don't try this with images shot conventionally. Using Hue/Sat
prematurely or channel blending to change color is ordinarily a good way to
mess things up beyond repair. It's only when you're trying to fix things
that have already been messed up by somebody else that the approach makes
sense.

The problem is, the preliminary "correction" these cameras make isn't
lighting-specific, it's image-specific, so doing something automated like
writing a curves script or trying to profile the camera, as Chris suggests
will work well with some images and make things worse with others.

Similarly, Bob's suggestion of using a wider-gamut RGB definition works
some of the time. It has the impact of making the image darker and more
vivid. That isn't likely to be right where the fleshtones are too magenta,
but it might be right if they are too cyan. My own experience is that Apple
RGB or sRGB is a better choice most of the time, but it really depends on
the character of the image.

I think that we're going to be hearing a lot more about this issue in the
future.

Dan Margulis


Re: By the numbers ?

jbmmmac@...
 

In a message dated 1/1/01 11:55:01 PM, 76270.1033@compuserve.com writes:

<< I have played with a D1 but don't claim any expertise in it. What I can say
for sure is, if the problem is that fleshtones are too magenta, then
assuming that the files are NTSC is going to make that problem worse, not
better. >>

Problem of bad fleshtones is called Magenta problem but in reality it is
problem of Reds having too much Magenta and Cyan and not enough Yellow (and
Yellows being contaminated with Cyan). The first step to correct this
problem is to pull red curve to reduce Cyan in midtones and next puling Green
curve to reduce magenta. Combined effect of pulling red and green curves
increase yellow and reduce cyan in skin tones, reds and yellows. Converting
from NTSC to ColorMatch is helpful to bring other colors and reducing overall
dullness due to different gamma of those color spaces. Whenever I tell D1
user he needs to make D1 image redder to make it better he thinks I am joking
but I really don't. It is too much CYAN and MAGENTA in flesh tones that make
it ugly and the only way to reduce Cyan is to make image temporary more red
untill puling green will reduce magenta and increase yellow.

Janusz


Seeking CM reference site

Gordon Pritchard <gordon_pritchard@...>
 

Whenever the question is asked at a GATF or GRACoL conference, that I have
attended in the past five years, about the usage of ICC color managed
workflows typically out of audiences of about 5-700 people less than 10
usually raise their hand. Most of those that do use it primarily fo manage
their color inkjet proofers.

I will try and track down the following reference sites of Chris and Andrew:

"A customer of mine, without my intervention, was encouraged to use and was
provided an ICC profile by their printer, Courier Printing, a book printer.
The profile made good separations, and is being used to produce in-house
soft proofs and hard proofs."

"There is a local company in Denver that reportedly uses ICC profiles,
although I'm not sure to what degree. The name of that printer is
Communigraphics."

"Courier Printing, a book printer."

"Bennett Graphics in Atlanta"

In the meanwhile, Chris or Andrew, or any other consultants on this
forum...do you have any printer customers clients yourselves that you have
set up with an ICC color managed workflow that I could visit?


thx - gordo

Gordon Pritchard
Commercial Print Specialist
CreoScitex
Vancouver Canada
T: 604.451.2700 ext 2870
C: 604.351.2437
gordon_pritchard@creoscitex.com
http://www.creoscitex.com

Print, the original dot com<


Re: Seeking CM reference site

Andrew Rodney <andrew@...>
 

on 1/1/01 2:21 PM, Dan Margulis at 76270.1033@compuserve.com wrote:

none of these successful printers have
come forward in trade shows or in the press, or to advertise their success
with ICC methods to prospective clients.
That's just not so! Your buddy and mine, Herb Paynter wrote a very in-depth
article for the magazine GATF World (July/August 2000) about a printer
(Bennett Graphics in Atlanta) implementing ICC and what was required to do
so. Did you not see Herb's piece???

Andrew Rodney


Re: By the numbersŠ

Andrew Rodney <andrew@...>
 

on 1/1/01 1:49 PM, Chris Murphy at lists@... wrote:

I understand Pictographics has a new product called inCamera
Professional. I haven't had a chance to use it yet. Praxisoft also has a
digital camera product as well. Andrew?


The stuff from Pictographics is pretty nice. I like how you can control the number of patches on the new Gretag target to avoid the gloss patches if you wish. They need to clean up the UI but the product seems to work well.

I’ve seen huge improvements in D1 capture by simply creating a custom profile and assigning it then converting to the Working Space. There is an example of some skin tone off a D1 with and without a profile at http://www.digitaldog.net on the tips page. It’s a small download and illustrates how the difference simply describing the color off the D1 (or any digital cameras) provides so much better results.

Andrew Rodney


Re: By the numbersŠ and the D1

Bob Smith <rmsmith@...>
 

Joey Benton wrote:

(specifically the Nikon D1) the absorption seems to inconsistent (i.e. skin
tones are absorbing more magenta than say wood).

I have jumped through some major hoops with the curves and a mixture of
plate blending in both RGB and CMYK with sometimes great results and
sometimes a horrific outcome.
One of the biggest "problems" with the D1 is its choice of color space for
its internal processsing. If the photographer shoots with the D1 set to
make JPEGs in camera as opposed to shooting raw files... and most
photojournalists do because its so much faster and media efficient... then
the D1 produces files that should be assumed to be in NTSC RGB space. Since
NTSC is quite a bit different from the spaces that most will edit in, it
will yield somewhat unusual results if you don't compensate for it.
Assuming D1 files are in NTSC won't cure all of your problems, but it should
get you started from a better point.

If you haven't done so already, check out http://www.bibblelabs.com. Its a
program for processing D1 raw (NEF) files. It will also help with browsing
and color correcting D1 jpegs. Many regular D1 shooters heap loads of
praise on this over Nikon's offering. It started as a shareware piece
written by a D1 user who like many was not thrilled with the way Nikon
handled image processing.

Bob Smith


Re: confusing color management & color correction, was: Color settin gs and upgrades

Chris Murphy <lists@...>
 

Chris, It is possible to have a dot for dot digital proof in a filmless CTP
workflow (wherever there is a dot on plate there will be a dot on press
sheet).
Yes it is. Another benefit of digital proofs over analog proofs,
especially in CTP applications.


A transfer curve can effect a tonal match when presswork must match proofs
from different vendors. In so doing there will be an impact on color.
At least in SWOP applications, most of the variations between SWOP
Certified proofing systems are adjusted on press, not with transfer
curves. But, to get to that point at all, yes transfer curves are used so
that the press will exhibit ~18% dot gain in order to conform with SWOP.
Without the use of transfer curves (or rather, linear transfer curves),
the dot gain would be more like 9-11%.

(But we both know this already so it's mostly a conversation for the
benefit of others.)


However, it is unlikely that a transfer curve will be able to compensate for
the differences in hues of the base colorants of the different proofing
media. Hence it is unlikely that the presswork, no matter how much
"adjusted" will "match" conflicting original proofs.
Right. A digital proof would suffer the same problem. It needs to be
matched to an inkset. If rhodamine is being dumped into magenta for press
work without this being explicitely compensated for in the proof, no
amount of transfer curves will solve the resulting mismatch.

And once again I've used up my three allotted posts for the day.

Chris Murphy


Re: Seeking CM reference site

Chris Murphy <lists@...>
 

Mysteriously, however, after this half-decade of
continually increasing adoption, none of these successful printers have
come forward in trade shows or in the press, or to advertise their success
with ICC methods to prospective clients.
I know this is not true off the top of my head. At Seybold Boston, Best
Practices Conference in a session called Cases in Outstanding Color
moderated by Don Carli, there was a speaker who did discuss their use of
ICC profiles. I'd have to log onto the Seybold web site to get the
transcript and find out who this was because I don't remember the speaker
or company.

Also, a customer of mine, without my intervention, was encouraged to use
and was provided an ICC profile by their printer, Courier Printing, a
book printer. The profile made good separations, and is being used to
produce in-house soft proofs and hard proofs.

There is a local company in Denver that reportedly uses ICC profiles,
although I'm not sure to what degree. The name of that printer is
Communigraphics.

I know that R.R. Donnelly is using ICC profiles to some degree, although
I don't know to what degree (I'm not their consultant unfortunately).

Everone who is using Photoshop 6 to make any kind of conversion is using
ICC profiles whether they want to or not because Photoshop 6 only uses
ICC profiles. The idea you can get away from this is ridiculous.


or b)
They have calibrated (or had someone calibrate for them) certain of their
devices, and it happens that this involves the use of third-party software
to create an ICC profile, IOW they are grafting an ICC profile onto
traditional methodology.
So what's the point? That if they graft ICC profiles onto traditional
methodology that they aren't using ICC profiles? That they aren't using
color management? I don't understand what you're getting at Dan.

Look at every CTP implementation on the planet and you'll see they are
grafted onto traditional workflows as well. Does that mean these printers
aren't using CTP? Or they aren't real CTP workflow? What? Please clarify.


Chris Murphy


Re: By the numbers ?

jbmmmac@...
 

I know the problem you are talking about as I use D1 to shoot weddings and
"Magenta" problem is well known problem particulary to those shooting people
pictures. Part of bad skin tones color problem is due to making color
corections in wrong color space as in camera color processing use color space
close to NTSC characteristics and conversion to CMYK is done from let say
AdobeRGB/ColorMatch color spaces. Another problem with D1 files is that CCD
sensor has big sensitivity to Ultraviolet and Infrared light what makes
properly exposed files contain too much cyan in reds and yellows. If you add
not accurate White Ballance settings on some captures (auto WB is very bad so
try to set it manualy). As a experiment convert raw D1 file to CMYK from NTSC
color space and open the same file into your working space (without asigning
NTSC) and change mode to CMYK and you will see big difference beetween those
two CMYK files. The best way to deal with Nikon D1 files is to process them
by using Bibble or MacBibble software that was created for processing RAW Nef
D1 files (without need for expensive Nikon Capture software) but works great
with in camera processed JPGs or TIFs as well. For those processing in
Photoshop asigning NTSC color space and converting to working color space
plus pulling green and red curves can also do the trick. If anyone is using
ColorMacth I have to add that adjusting gamma is also neccesary as properly
exposed D1 file has gamma closer to 2.2 than native ColorMatch gamma 1.8
Properly adjusted D1 files can have beautiful color if you want to see sample
open this image below:
http://janusz.11net.com/D1/001a.jpg
Happy New Year
Janusz


Seeking CM reference site

Dan Margulis <76270.1033@...>
 

Gordo writes,

Much has been written on this forum about the increasing adoption and
success of ICC color management among printers.>>

Much has been written about this increasing adoption and success for more
than five years now. Mysteriously, however, after this half-decade of
continually increasing adoption, none of these successful printers have
come forward in trade shows or in the press, or to advertise their success
with ICC methods to prospective clients.

The "ICC color management" being used by such printers as have been even
peripherally identified with the concept has, in all the cases I'm aware
of, amounted to either a) They will, if asked, honor an embedded tag in an
incoming client file, although they don't embed tags in their own; or b)
They have calibrated (or had someone calibrate for them) certain of their
devices, and it happens that this involves the use of third-party software
to create an ICC profile, IOW they are grafting an ICC profile onto
traditional methodology.

If any printers are doing more, I'd certainly love to hear about it from a
credible observer (i.e. not a vendor of color management services) and I
imagine that others in the group would feel the same way. So, if you should
encounter such a company, I know we'd like a report, even if the company
can't be named.

Dan Margulis


Re: By the numbersŠ?

Chris Murphy <lists@...>
 

Short of
selecting each object with the wrong value is there another way, as I try to
use the magic wand as little as possible?
You can use selective color, or replace color to fix these areas.
Alternatively, the camera can be profiled. The resulting profile for the
digital camera isn't just based on curves, but is actually a table. This
table is capable of allowing conversions from cameraRGB to some other
space (either Adobe RGB or your preferred CMYK space) with color-in-color
moves similar to what selective color uses. That is magenta would be
reduced in skin tones and increased in wood (or whatever the issue is
with your specific digital camera).

The results I've had with Kodak Input Profile Builder are quite good, and
I think Andrew has had very good results with Gretag Macbeth's solution
for making digital camera profiles. While you can use a regular Color
Checker for making a good profile, I've seen anywhere from 5% to 30%
improvements (camera dependent) using the new Color Checker DC which was
specifically designed for profiling digital cameras.

Now what this is going to do is balance the image and get it as close to
the original scene as possible. It's not going to fix bad exposures, and
won't do color correction, sharpening or image enhancement. It'll just
significantly reduce the amount of "hassle color correction" that you use
to solve weird camera behavior problems mentioned as examples in two
previous posts on this subject.

I understand Pictographics has a new product called inCamera
Professional. I haven't had a chance to use it yet. Praxisoft also has a
digital camera product as well. Andrew?


Chris Murphy

33161 - 33180 of 33212