ICC profiles and digi-cam


Chris Brown <cb@...>
 

Hi,

I just purchased a digital camera (Olympus E-10) and wanted to know how to
implement ICC profiles into my workflow.

I have a Photoshop work space, a monitor profile and many profiles for
various output devices, but none for the camera yet.

When I open the images in PS, how would I implement/use a camera profile?

Thanks,
Chris
@
Chris Brown Photography
http://www.chrisbrownphoto.com
Vox: (217) 356-0540 * Fax: (217) 356-1394


Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. <mlidaka@...>
 

Check the website for Qimage Pro - a printing specialized program competitor
to Quibble for digital cameras. http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/

They supply (sell) an Olympus 3-10 profile for use with Qimage and which is
represented to be usable in "any ICC aware application".

http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/plugins/e10icc.htm

Maris Lidaka

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Brown" <cb@...>
To: "eGroups color theory" <colortheory@...>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 11:06 AM
Subject: [colortheory] ICC profiles and digi-cam


| Hi,
|
| I just purchased a digital camera (Olympus E-10) and wanted to know how to
| implement ICC profiles into my workflow.
|
| I have a Photoshop work space, a monitor profile and many profiles for
| various output devices, but none for the camera yet.
|
| When I open the images in PS, how would I implement/use a camera profile?
|
| Thanks,
| Chris
| @
| Chris Brown Photography
| http://www.chrisbrownphoto.com
| Vox: (217) 356-0540 * Fax: (217) 356-1394
|
|
| To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
| colortheory-unsubscribe@...
|
|
|
| Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
|
|


Ron Bean <rbean@...>
 

Dan Margulis <76270.1033@...> writes:

The less consistent your shooting conditions are, the less likely there'll
be any benefit to a custom profile.
I've always wondered about this. Traditionally, photographers
divided the universe into "daylight" and "tungsten", and this was
considered sufficient (flourescents were considered hopeless).

The E10 has seven white-balance settings, plus "manual" and "raw".
Would you need seven different profiles, or does it depend more
on having a good *match* between the white balance setting and
the actual lighting conditions? If you used the "manual" setting
all the time (ie, point the camera at something white and push a
button that says "define this as white"), could you use one
profile for everything?

It seems to me it would be better to shoot a color target each
time and use that to generate a source profile on the fly
(I assume there is software that could do this without manual
intervention).

Even in a non-ICC workflow, this would give you a lot of
information about the lighting conditions. Since the
highlight/shadow/neutral numbers were traditionally considered
sufficient data for color correction (with the rest being
subjective), does this imply that the manual white balance
setting is sufficient to normalize the camera's behavior?


Dan Margulis
 

Ron writes,

I've always wondered about this. Traditionally, photographers divided the universe into "daylight" and "tungsten", and this was considered sufficient (flourescents were considered hopeless).>>
Sure, just as printing from video captures or from scans of Polaroids or printing full page ads from 1 mb captures was hopeless, but nowadays we have to do all these things regularly, as well as deal with a large number of images that were taken under flourescent lighting.

The E10 has seven white-balance settings, plus "manual" and "raw". Would you need seven different profiles, or does it depend more on having a good *match* between the white balance setting and the actual lighting conditions? If you used the "manual" setting all the time (ie, point the camera at something white and push a button that says "define this as white"), could you use one profile for everything?>>
Just because white has been balanced doesn't mean that black has been or that a midtone gray has been. Yes, it's better than doing nothing.

It seems to me it would be better to shoot a color target each time and use that to generate a source profile on the fly (I assume there is software that could do this without manual intervention).>>
Considering that one is probably going to open the file to examine the numbers anyway, this seems like an unduly time-consuming solution, not to mention the fact that there are a lot of situations, like photographing a football game on Sunday afternoon, where the lighting changes every 30 seconds and there's no time to reprofile every time a touchdown is about to be scored.

Dan Margulis


Ron Bean <rbean@...>
 

DMargulis@... writes:

Just because white has been balanced doesn't mean that black has
been or that a midtone gray has been.
True, but I don't hear anyone complaining about it. They could
have included an 18% gray balance, since you can get an 18% gray
card at any photo store.

It seems to me it would be better to shoot a color target each
time and use th at to generate a source profile on the fly (I
assume there is software that could do this without manual
intervention).>>

Considering that one is probably going to open the file to
examine the numbers anyway, this seems like an unduly
time-consuming solution,
How time consuming is it to take one (1) extra shot with the
color chart? I was assuming the profile conversion would be
automated, if not then it's probably not worth it in any case.

When people first started talking about digital color management,
I think some of them were hoping it would improve the quality of
low-budget jobs, where they don't really pay much attention to
the color. Of course, if the customer doesn't care about quality
in the first place (and a lot of them don't) then they're not
going to bother setting up the profiles properly.

I can imagine two cases-- either the quality is important enough
to correct by hand, or it's not important enough to do anything
more than pick the right preset for color balance. Are there any
in-between cases? Maybe a case where you're dealing with a large
number of images, and don't want to hand-correct each one.

not to mention the fact that there are
a lot of situations, like photographing a football game on Sunday
afternoon, where the lighting changes every 30 seconds and
there's no time to reprofile every time a touchdown is about to
be scored.
In other words, it varies from one job to another. Some people
shoot nothing but sports, others never shoot sports (this is a
common split in the photography newsgroups, since it puts different
demands on the equiment).


Andrew Rodney <andrew@...>
 

on 6/16/01 11:40 PM, Ron Bean at rbean@... wrote:

I can imagine two cases-- either the quality is important enough
to correct by hand, or it's not important enough to do anything
more than pick the right preset for color balance. Are there any
in-between cases? Maybe a case where you're dealing with a large
number of images, and don't want to hand-correct each one.
I¹m not sure what this has to do with a camera profile for a digital camera.
Profiles don¹t correct, they describe. With the right description, NOW you
can view the image properly, convert to a Working or output space and get on
with your work.

Photoshop needs a description of the color of a file to properly preview it
to you and then to convert to some other space. If you shove an untagged
file at Photoshop, it simply assumes that the file is in the preferred
working space you set in color preferences. Say you have ColorMatch RGB set
there. Every untagged file from a digital camera is assumed to be in
ColorMatch RGB. IF the file is in that space (unlikely) or even close, then
the preview looks fine and the resulting conversions will be OK. But what if
your digital camera doesn¹t produce RGB that is in any way similar to any
RGB Working Space you have loaded in the color preferences (or you assign)?
You get ugly looking color. Yes, you can try and ³fix it² but there is
nothing wrong with the color. And this fixing is counter-productive! The
file isn¹t broken.

Example. In the Kodak DCS line of pro cameras, I can ask for a 12 bit,
linear file. This is exactly what I want for profiling and control over this
data because it insures I get raw (no auto corrections) from the acquire
module. I profile the camera capturing this data. When I open the file in
Photoshop 6, it¹s untagged. It looks VERY bad! It¹s dark and the colors look
pretty awful. That is because Photoshop 6 is assuming (in my case) that this
raw, linear data is ColorMatch RGB. It¹s not. You can Assign any number of
profiles you might have and it looks awful. Now simply assign the correct
profile (the one that was made using linear capture) and the preview looks
beautiful! The colors are looking great, the dark preview is gone. Was the
data changed? NO. Was the file every poor to begin with? NO. The key here
was having a description of the RGB data the camera produced and then
assigning that profile for Photoshop 6 to produce the correct preview AND
convert into the Working Space.

You basically get two choices with digital cameras; you get raw data that is
undefined (so you have to define it with a profile). Or you get a camera
manufacturer that forces (or funnels) the color into something ³common² like
sRGB or perhaps ColorMatch RGB. Both methods have advantages or
disadvantages. But in both cases, you have a clear definition of the color.
That¹s what¹s key here. From this point on, color correction comes into
play. This part has NOTHING to do with profiles.

Andrew Rodney


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Ron Bean <rbean@...>
 

Im not sure what this has to do with a camera profile for a digital camera.
Profiles dont correct, they describe. With the right description, NOW you
can view the image properly, convert to a Working or output space and get on
with your work.
Right, but my question was whether one profile is correct for all
lighting conditions. If it's sometimes a little off, then you'll
need more correction in those cases. If it's always right on,
then in theory you won't need any correction much of the time (at
least, that's what some people seem to be hoping). For example,
traditional film photographers, using a type of film they're
familiar with, expect to get good color right out of the camera--
their fear is that the printer will screw it up rather than
improving it.

Obviously if you're shooting in a studio, then you have total
control and it's not an issue (in that case it's more like
profiling a scanner). But in the field, lighting varies (like
having a scanner with an inconsistent light source) and the
results will depend on setting the white balance correctly. But
does that completely compensate for the differences in lighting,
or does it always require some hand work?

Sometimes the budget doesn't allow for any handwork. In that case
you could argue that it doesn't matter, the customer gets what
they get. But it would be nice to be "pretty close".


Andrew Rodney <andrew@...>
 

on 6/17/01 6:52 PM, Ron Bean at rbean@... wrote:

Right, but my question was whether one profile is correct for all
lighting conditions.
If you gray balance (and you want neutral gray) then one profile *can* work
in some situations. The jury is out if this is always the case or just
sometimes the case.

Andrew Rodney


Lee Varis
 

Hi all,

I have been a working commercial/advertising photographer for 25 years
and have been involved in digital imaging for the last 15 - capturing
photos digitally almost exclusively for the last 2 years. My current
views on digicams, icc profiles, ect.. in response to some of the
questions in this thread:

regarding white balance and profile issues:

The E10 has seven white-balance settings, plus "manual" and "raw".
Would you need seven different profiles, or does it depend more
on having a good *match* between the white balance setting and
the actual lighting conditions?
White balance for digital camera files is intended to match the color
response of the capture to the color temperature of the light source. It
is relatively easy for manufacturers of digital cameras to build into
their software "developers" a number of different color responses - this
means more choices for the photographer which is mostly a good thing.
White balance is kind of like applying a profile to the "raw" data. The
danger is that one can easily overcomplicate the whole thing. You can
create profiles to use with every white balance setting which becomes
sort of like applying profiles on top of profiles. The thing to remember
however is that for most of the history of color photography a choice
between "daylight" and "tungsten" has been good enough to get high
quality images that could be scanned and converted into good color on
press even without profiles.

If you used the "manual" setting
all the time (ie, point the camera at something white and push a
button that says "define this as white"), could you use one
profile for everything?

Most consumer oriented digital cameras do some sort of "auto" white
balance where the brightest thing in the scene is assumed to be white
and the color is neutralized to that. This works surprisingly well for
scenes with a full range of values. It will fall apart where you have
more limited value ranges or monochromatic scenes with a dominant hue.
If you know the color temperature of the light and you can pick a
setting that matches it you WILL get a color response that will render a
neutral gray as neutral. In the real world nothing is ever very certain
and picking a color setting manually is a guess at best. If you can
perform a "manual" white balance you are way ahead of the game. Almost
all digital cameras will perform as well as film does in delivering
neutral color for most scenes even without icc profiles. This does not
mean that digital captured color will be perfect any more than
Ektachrome will capture prefect color every time. With high end digital
cameras you can capture a target (like a Macbeth color chart or a
Munsell chart) that has neutral gray patches and calibrate to the gray (
forcing RGB values to be equal). Once this is done a camera file can be
opened up in Photoshop and assigned any of the standard working spaces
and give you a very reasonable starting place for color. The only time a
custom profile will be of any value is when you desire to work with 16
bit "raw" data from the camera in Photoshop. The short answer is that
you CAN use one profile for everything that has been manually white/gray
balanced or you can simply ASSIGN one of the standard working spaces to
the white/gray balanced file in Photoshop. Neither of these approaches
will be quite as good as using a VERY good "custom" profile for the 16
bit "raw" data file but both of these approaches are much more practical
for the vast majority of images you need to capture.

Regarding custom profiles for lighting situations:

It seems to me it would be better to shoot a color target each
time and use that to generate a source profile on the fly
(I assume there is software that could do this without manual
intervention).
It seems to me that this would be far more trouble than it is worth
because to my knowledge there is no software that can do this without
some kind of manual intervention and there are plenty of times when you
simply can't shoot a target. The benefits are not great enough to
warrant the extra trouble either - it is expensive and time consuming to
get a custom profile that would be better than simply assigning a
workspace to a white/gray balanced file for even 50% of the subject
matter you are likely to photograph.

...my question was whether one profile is correct for all
lighting conditions.
Nothing can possibly be "correct" for all lighting conditions. Even if
you white balance every shot you can screw up the color because there is
always an emotional component that can never be fully accounted for. For
instance, if you manually white balance a sunset scene you will "balance
out" the overall red color and completely destroy the feeling of the
sunset in the image. It is the same thing with profiles. If you apply
ANY automatic color compensation scheme you are bound to generate a
majority of mediocre images unless you ALSO apply some intelligent
interpretation along with that automatic "correction". We can expect to
get good color right out of the camera but mostly, even with film, we
simply get what we get and call it good or adjust it in some way after
the fact. I think the challenge for photographers or anyone dealing with
digital photographic images is to create great images by interpreting
color in the most emotionally satisfying way. With all the controls we
can exert digitally we should not have to stop at "pretty close" nor
should we have to agonize over what the "correct" color is. Experience
working with Photoshop's color controls can make the task of generating
GOOD color relatively easy and painless especially with images that we
capture digitally.

--
regards,

Lee Varis
varis@...
www.varis.com
888-964-0024


Andrew Rodney <andrew@...>
 

on 6/18/01 7:50 AM, Lee Varis at varis@... wrote:

White balance for digital camera files is intended to match the color
response of the capture to the color temperature of the light source. It
is relatively easy for manufacturers of digital cameras to build into
their software "developers" a number of different color responses - this
means more choices for the photographer which is mostly a good thing.
White balance is kind of like applying a profile to the "raw" data.
I don¹t agree because I see a huge difference between an input profile and
the role of white balancing. Again, profiles describe color, nothing more.
White balancing affects the response of the color. That¹s a good thing. But
a profile only works when it reflects the capture. That is, if one captures
a file and that method doesn¹t match how a profile was created in the first
place, the profile is invalid. You may end up with perfect ³white balance²
or whatever but when you apply the profile, the results will suffer. So
ideally one gray/white balances and shoots a target like the ColorChecker
DC. Then they build the profile with this gray/white balance in place. It¹s
like ³calibrating² the camera so it¹s capture is consistent and the profile
remains valid. No matter how you gray/white balance (or don¹t), you don¹t
get a description of the RGB data to provide Photoshop 6 without a profile.

The danger is that one can easily overcomplicate the whole thing. You can
create profiles to use with every white balance setting which becomes
sort of like applying profiles on top of profiles.
No, it¹s more like having a slew of profiles to reflect a slew of balances
which is complicated and usually not necessary.

Almost
all digital cameras will perform as well as film does in delivering
neutral color for most scenes even without icc profiles.
Because again, the role of the profile isn¹t to set or alter gray balance.
It¹s only to describe what the camera saw at any given moment. That¹s why
you do want to gray balance and then build a profile. That¹s why after
building the profile, you want to gray balance for each scene. This
accomplishes two things. It insures gray balance (which sometimes you don¹t
want but often do) and it places the capture into a condition that matches
how the original capture was produced to build that profile. So with gray
balance, the profile is valid. The profile will have NO role of the
neutrality of the capture. The profile only records a condition. You have
have a file with a gray and Assign or not assign a profile and the RGB
numbers of the gray will not change a lick.

Once this is done a camera file can be
opened up in Photoshop and assigned any of the standard working spaces
and give you a very reasonable starting place for color.
No! It will only insure you have a neutral gray. If what you say is true,
you could capture the scene as you suggest and Assign sRGB and Wide Gamut
RGB and you¹d get to the same place. Nothing could be further from the
truth. Assigning a profile only describes to Photoshop 6 the MEANING of the
numbers in the file. As you assign different profiles, the numbers NEVER
change. But the preview (and any further conversions FROM the assigned
profile) will change. IF you have a file that is reasonably close to say
ColorMatch RGB, assigning it ColorMatch RGB will work pretty well. Assigning
any space that moves further from ColorMatch RGB will hose the file (Preview
and conversions) farther and farther from the true meaning of the data.
Assuming a digital camera file is in ColorMatch may work or may fail. But if
you actually profile the camera, you know the exact meaning of the numbers.
Realize too that the Working Spaces you can Assign are not based on any real
device. They are synthetic RGB models that work well because they all have
R=G=B as a neutral. You can actually gray balance a digital camera file and
find that this raw capture has data where R, G and B do not equal UNTIL you
convert into the Working Space! Input colorspaces do not insure R=G=B yet
you still have a neutral.

The benefits are not great enough to
warrant the extra trouble either - it is expensive and time consuming to
get a custom profile that would be better than simply assigning a
workspace to a white/gray balanced file for even 50% of the subject
matter you are likely to photograph.
Depends on the camera and what the raw data is. Be my guest and assign any
Working Space to a Nikon D1 image and I assure you they all look like crap.
Assign a custom profile and the color and even tonal range appear much
better because the data was just fine, the preview was hosed in Photoshop 6
because Photoshop 6 didn¹t know what the proper meaning of the raw numbers
were and just assumed whatever RGB Working Space you pick in the color
preferences for untagged data. Raw D1 RGB isn¹t anything like any of the
supplied RGB Working Spaces. You can¹t assume that an input device is
creating RGB that is in any way close to an RGB Working Space you might
have.

For instance, if you manually white balance a sunset scene you will "balance
out" the overall red color and completely destroy the feeling of the
sunset in the image. It is the same thing with profiles.
No, input profiles don¹t change the data, they only describe the data. IF
you built a profile assuming a white balance, you have to white balance.
That act of white balance hoses your sunset, not the profile.

I think the challenge for photographers or anyone dealing with
digital photographic images is to create great images by interpreting
color in the most emotionally satisfying way.
How do you interpret 1¹s and zero¹s? That¹s all a digital file is. That is
why Photoshop 6 needs the proper profile to be assigned. Now you have
properly interpreted the data for Photoshop 6 to provide a correct preview.
You¹ve got the meaning of the numbers necessary to convert to a Working or
Output space. Once you take your ³great² image and Assign the wrong
profile, it¹s not so great anymore, at least visually.

Andrew Rodney


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Ron Kelly <abcolor@...>
 

Lee Varis wrote:

We can expect to
get good color right out of the camera but mostly, even with film, we
simply get what we get and call it good or adjust it in some way after

the fact.
Mr. Varis:
Thanks for that concise appraisal of this thread; like many
photographers who still shoot exclusively film I have been keeping an
eye on the digital business. It's good to hear from someone who has lots
of experience shooting digitally as opposed to those with "store bought"
opinions; I can read spec sheets too. What you say makes a lot of sense
to me.

Cheers,
Ron Kelly


Ron Bean <rbean@...>
 

Lee Varis <varis@...> writes:

White balance is kind of like applying a profile to the "raw" data.
to which Andrew responded:

I don1t agree because I see a huge difference between an input profile and
the role of white balancing. Again, profiles describe color, nothing more.
White balancing affects the response of the color.
OK, I said "kind of like" not exactly like..
White balance is like a profile in this sense:

When you change the color of the light falling on an object
you're going to photograph, you are in effect changing its
colorspace-- the inherent color of the object doesn't change,
just the way it's "encoded" by the light reflecting from it.

Changing the white balance setting of the camera does *not*
change the data that comes from the CCD, it only describes the
color of the light source-- like assigning a "profile" to it.
I believe some cameras can record the raw CCD data with a "tag"
that tells you the white balance setting on the camera when the
shot was taken, but without altering the data. You can later
change the tag, which again does not alter the data-- just like
assigning a different profile.

At some later time (or more commonly inside the camera), the
white balance setting is used to transform the CCD data so it
looks like what you would have gotten under the lighting you used
when you profiled the camera (or at least close to it). So it's
changing the data from the "light source colorspace" to the
"camera colorspace".

There is a difference in that you can run into things like
metamerism, where a different light source gives you a result
that can't be matched no matter what kind of profile you apply.

Andrew responds:

Because again, the role of the profile isn1t to set or alter gray balance.
It1s only to describe what the camera saw at any given moment.
"What the camera saw" is the raw CCD data, which is not affected
by the white balance setting. The white balance is applied after
the image is captured-- maybe only milliseconds later, in the
camera, or maybe much later, when you transform the raw data into
RGB.

If you like, you can pretend that this after-the-fact
transformation takes place inside a "black box" called the
camera-- just like you can't tell how many colorspace
transformations a file has gone through before you got it.


Andrew Rodney <andrew@...>
 

on 6/19/01 10:28 AM, Ron Bean at rbean@... wrote:

"What the camera saw" is the raw CCD data, which is not affected
by the white balance setting. The white balance is applied after
the image is captured-- maybe only milliseconds later, in the
camera, or maybe much later, when you transform the raw data into
RGB.
So is the ColorChecker you process to run to the CMS software to create the
profile. Some cameras allow raw RGB to be captured (Linear, raw data). You
can profile that too. But you must decide what you want out of the camera
and then use that mode to capture an image of the ColorChecker DC to build
the profile. So if you apply some white balance, you need to do that when
you capture the target and you must do this for all subsequent images you
use the profile on.

If you like, you can pretend that this after-the-fact
transformation takes place inside a "black box" called the
camera-- just like you can't tell how many colorspace
transformations a file has gone through before you got it.
Doesn¹t matter as far as profiling is concerned if you have no choice. If
you do, capture raw linear data and profile that. What ever the black box
does or doesn¹t do, that processing has to happen to the target to make the
profile. In reality, ALL the camera provides is a grayscale file. The rawest
file produced hasn¹t had color created yet! You don¹t get that data (nor do
you want it). Single capture, single CCD cameras produce a grayscale file.
We need a series of black boxes, perhaps just one to get that linear color
file, perhaps two to get ³processed² color.

Andrew Rodney


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


John Denniston <john_denniston@...>
 

At 10:00 AM 06/18/2001 , Andrew wrote:
... assign any Working Space to a Nikon D1 image and I assure you they all
look like crap.

We have been totally digital with Kodak NC2000's for 6 years. Last year we
purchased one Nikon D1 and have found that unlike the NC2000's 95% of the
pictures from this camera can go into the paper with little colour
correction. We have never profiled the camera.

The pictures are saved in the camera as jpegs and the photographer selects
the lighting balance from the control panel on the camera while shooting.

This may not seem like an ideal solution but it is quick. Last month
pictures from our provincial election arrived in the office at 11:30pm.
They were edited, captioned and one was processed with an RGB to CMYK
script we use, and placed on the front page (Quark) by 11:45pm. Speed like
this is normal when we shoot NHL hockey or NBA basketball but what was
unusual here is that the pictures were taken under various lighting
conditions: on camera flash, TV lighting, fluorescent, incandescent and all
pictures from the scene had acceptable colour except for a few where the
flash didn't recycle in time.

The picture on the front page was not crap and my question is why?

1. Our photogs process their pictures in ps3.01 - would this have an effect?

2. The RGB CMYK conversion was made in ps5.5 which is set to ignore
profiles but does use a colourmatch RGB space. Is the ideal for Jpegs?

3. Is your, and please don't take this unkindly, definition of "crap"
different from my mine; ie purely technical but not visual?

I ask these question because more D1's are on the way, plus an upgrade to
PS6, and I don't want to spend a lot of money on the photoshop upgrade and
change a simple and quick process into a slow and complicated one.

Regards, John
John Denniston,
Photo Editor, The Province, Vancouver, BC
604-605-2001
john_denniston@...
jdenniston@...


Ron Bean <rbean@...>
 

Andrew Rodney <andrew@...> writes:

In reality, ALL the camera provides is a grayscale file. The rawest
file produced hasnt had color created yet! You dont get that data (nor do
you want it).
Actually some cameras can give you this data, but it's in a
proprietary format, so you have to use their software to do the
transformation to RGB (which includes the adjustment for white
balance). But in at least one case there is now software
available from a third party that will do it...

And it's not really a grayscale file in the normal sense-- it
only has one channel, but each pixel is a different "color".
The color is "created" by the filter on the CCD, it's just not
in a readable format yet.

Before Kodachrome, Agfa had a color film that worked this way
(but without interpolation-- it had a shadow mask like a TV screen).


Dan Margulis <76270.1033@...>
 

John Denniston writes,

We have been totally digital with Kodak NC2000's for 6 years. Last year
we
purchased one Nikon D1 and have found that unlike the NC2000's 95% of the
pictures from this camera can go into the paper with little colour
correction. We have never profiled the camera.>>

Nor is there any need. Your photographers shoot in random lighting
conditions and make subjective exposure decisions. Under these
circumstances, any method of acquiring the images will work well on certain
images and less well on others. Unless you can detect some type of
consistent pattern of inadequacy when you open the images now (e.g.
generally too light, generally have green cast to the shadows), adding an
input profile is useless.

The picture on the front page was not crap and my question is why?
1. Our photogs process their pictures in ps3.01 - would this have an
effect?>>

No.

2. The RGB CMYK conversion was made in ps5.5 which is set to ignore
profiles but does use a colourmatch RGB space. Is the ideal for Jpegs?>>

Depends on the camera. Bob Smith has reported previously that certain
cameras seem to do better with Adobe RGB, and so, apparently, does the
camera described earlier this week by Kiki. The majority, however, seem to
open best in ColorMatch RGB or Apple RGB, by all reports.

3. Is your, and please don't take this unkindly, definition of "crap"
different from my mine; ie purely technical but not visual?>>

"Crap" equates to "not requiring expenditures on a custom profile."

I ask these question because more D1's are on the way, plus an upgrade to
PS6, and I don't want to spend a lot of money on the photoshop upgrade and
change a simple and quick process into a slow and complicated one.>>

In this and other areas of imaging, beware anyone offering to make things
more complex, and at the very least insist on proof that the complex method
provides better quality than the obvious one.

Dan Margulis


Chris Murphy <lists@...>
 

When I open the images in PS, how would I implement/use a camera profile?
If there are profiles for the camera already you would go to
Image:Mode:Assign Profile and select profiles until you find the preview
on screen sufficient. The preview will change with each selection of
profiles, but the RGB values will remain intact. Once you find a suitable
preview, then click OK. Next go to Image:Mode:Convert to Profile and
convert the image to your preferred RGB working space.

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (tm)
Boulder, CO
303-415-9932


Chris Murphy <lists@...>
 

Would you need seven different profiles, or does it depend more
on having a good *match* between the white balance setting and
the actual lighting conditions?
You might need seven differet profiles - actually you might find it's
just not doable at all.

If you used the "manual" setting
all the time (ie, point the camera at something white and push a
button that says "define this as white"), could you use one
profile for everything?
Manual is better because it allows you to "perfectly" adapt the camera to
the specific conditions, instead of hoping a generic setting will work.
Once white is set, then you have a better chance of one profile helping
out more often than hurting.

HOWEVER, there is a missing component. I'm not hearing if there is a gray
or black balance setting. It only sounds like there is a white point
setting. Ideally one would have both a gray and a white setting to gray
balance the camera to the conditions you're currently in, and then you
have an even better chance that one profile will be helpful more often
than not.

It seems to me it would be better to shoot a color target each
time and use that to generate a source profile on the fly
(I assume there is software that could do this without manual
intervention).
One might think so. There are problems with this method however. If you
shoot under a sunset, you are doing this for a reason. You want
everything to have the strong orange-pink cast that you get from shooting
under a sunset. If you produce a profile under this condition, the
profiling process is going to say "wow, this camera has a really nasty
orange-pink cast to it, I'm going to remove it." This conversation
doesn't really occur obviously (and it's not exactly technically accurate
either); BUT the idea is valid. Basically the process is going to remove
the sunset because it doesn't know the difference between a desired
ambient lighting effect and a device caused color cast.


Even in a non-ICC workflow, this would give you a lot of
information about the lighting conditions. Since the
highlight/shadow/neutral numbers were traditionally considered
sufficient data for color correction (with the rest being
subjective), does this imply that the manual white balance
setting is sufficient to normalize the camera's behavior?
Probably not. It's better than no setting at all, but it's possible for
the whitepoint to have a minor cast and for gray to have a nasty cast,
possibly even vice versa (although that would be peculiar).

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (tm)
Boulder, CO
303-415-9932


Chris Brown Photography <cb@...>
 

Chris Murphy wrote:

HOWEVER, there is a missing component. I'm not hearing if there is a gray
or black balance setting. It only sounds like there is a white point
setting. Ideally one would have both a gray and a white setting to gray
balance the camera to the conditions you're currently in, and then you
have an even better chance that one profile will be helpful more often
than not.
With this particular camera, the Oly E-10, it uses on-board software to
locate and sample the brightest highlight (which may or may not be a
specular highlight). The raw files attest to this; they are very dark and
contrasty.

As for a mid-tone, it doesn't seem possible for an algorithm to locate a
"neutral" gray. Not as well as an operator who can ID the proper spot in any
given scene.

Chris Brown


Bob Smith <rmsmith@...>
 

Dan Margulis wrote:

Depends on the camera. Bob Smith has reported previously that certain
cameras seem to do better with Adobe RGB
must have been one of those other Bob Smiths... this one hasn't experienced
a digicam who's images go directly into Adobe RGB well. Most I've worked
with fit better into one of the spaces that more closely matches a typical
monitor like Apple, sRGB or ColorMatch. Maybe the confusion is that I
typically use Adobe RGB for my workflow, so I've probably stated that the
first move I make on one of these digicam files is from one of those spaces
to Adobe RGB.

I've seen a number of posts on other lists where someone is complaining
about the native color of a particular camera. Closer examination often
reveals that they are opening the files directly into Adobe RGB space
because someone told them that Adobe RGB was a good versatile space.
However, they've made no compensation to the files to get them into Adobe
RGB. That usually results in at least an over-saturated image. It looks
great for some images as it puts some added pop into an otherwise slightly
dull image so the user is unaware of the error of this process. On other
images though, the over-saturation just exaggerates what might otherwise be
a very minor color problems in the file and the user blames the camera.
Adobe RGB is a nice working space, but in the hands of someone who doesn't
fully understand how to use it, its a problem.

still on this camera profiling thread... I wonder if someone who does a lot
of camera profiling (Andrew?) could comment on a post by Mike Chaney on the
dpreveiew site.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=1111242

Mike is the author of one of the third party pieces of software that's often
used for processing Nikon D1 files. I believe he also sells a very low cost
(under $10?) generic profile that he's made available for a D1. I've seen a
number of D1 users speak very positively about the benefits from using it.
In the post referenced above, Mike makes the case that building a profile
based on a simple RGB space definition (like a custom RGB working space) is
going to be better suited for using the camera under a broad range of
conditions than a profile based on LUTs as most input profiles are. With
the D1, I believe that what Mike has done is simply come up with a custom
working space that more closely fits the D1's usual RGB than any of the
built in spaces in Photoshop. Files are then moved from that space to a
more normal space upon opening in Photoshop. Comments?

Bob Smith