>So are you saying that maybe I really don't want to bother with the custom profile?
For a CAMERA Profile?
IMHO if you shoot RAW in locations outside a single studio (with set lighting equipment), it's not worth bothering.
Well, the idea was to generate a D200 profile(s) for ACR that would give me comparable color to NX2. So far, the supplied profiles aren't getting me there.
I tend to agree with Ann. But if you are attempting to do a color match as to fabric swatches or similar, then some sort of reference would be welcome, if at least to facilitate problem solving.
Of coures, we never have those, do we! :D
Weird. I just opened a problem file in both ACR and NX2 and the colors are much closer than they were when I tried this a few days ago. Either I'm now color blind (or was then) or I need to shove all this aside and look at it again when I have a few more functioning brain cells.
Well, applications like Raw Developer and CaptureOne use actual bona fide camera input profiles, not this sort of interpolate between two non accessible profiles that ACR and LR use, and those profiles work exceptionally well for both in studio and out of studio experiences. Furthermore, they just don't need the tweaking that everyone seems to want to go through with ACR. But hey, it's a big ol' goofy world out there and it's different strokes, I guess.
It was the arrangement of the piece that I found embarrassing. I am not a fan of John Williams, but this was a low point even for his pedestrian standards.
>So are you saying that maybe I really don't want to bother with the custom profile?
Only saying that camera profiling is widely discussed. Some people have worked out how to do it, and that's fine. Others say that it's impossible to do across the board, because variations in lighting and other circumstances mean that it will never be a true calibration.
Think about it. Will you always be using the same ISO? Will you always be shooting in the same light that you shot the Color Checker in?
For me, the better plan is to include a good grey card in the scene and "calibrate" from that.
>It was the arrangement of the piece that I found embarrassing.
I, as others here, found it a refreshing change. From the look on Mr. Ma's face during the performance, I would say that he was not embarrassed.
As far as civil behavior, I find you embarrassing, Castañeda.
Please re-plonk me at your earliest convenience.
I live with a professional classicaly trained performing musician. We both found the performance and arrangement inspiring and exhilarating. The blending especially of Perlman's fiddle and Ma's cello were beautiful. All of the musicians were of the highest caliber. And to sound so great outdoors in cold weather.
But of course, the critic could have done so much better.
If you need to check the MacBeth chart peridically shoot a new one in absolute controlled lighting conditions, process to a known parameter and colour drop the colours. Do this again now and again if and see if anything changes.....as others have said though a grey card is probably all you need in most situations but make sure it is in a critical area nd at the right angle of the view area.
Most important is a profiled monitor and printer then you can see what's happening.
[Duplicate post deleted by poster.]
That might be a quick and dirty check, provided you can recreate said lighting conditions at will and be confident of their reliability, including the framing of the Color Checker card a highly unlikely circumstance.
There are at least two methods of comparing two allegedly identical digital images:
c Comparing allegedly identical images in Photoshop
(The time-honored Photoshop "Difference" Test should be reviewed. If there should be a very small difference in a given pixel, the otherwise 255,255,255 pixel would then appear as 255,254,255 or 254,255,255 or something similar, which you would still see as black on your monitor, regardless of magnification.)
Two better, more definitive testing methods would be (a) one suggested by Bruce Fraser himself (below), and (b) a new (to me) method suggested by someone in the Color Managament and Photoshop Windows forums, which follows:
(NOTE: only the methodology is of interest and pertinent, not the questionable context in which it has brought up and used.)
* 1) Open the two images to be compared in Photoshop
* 2) Move one image as a layer over the other one
* 3) select "Difference" as blending mode in the layers palette
* 4) now the whole image should appear seemingly black on the monitor
[So far this is the traditional, "time honored" method.]
* 5) select the magic wand tool with these settings: Tolerance: 0/ Anti-alias: no/ Contiguous: no/ Sample All Layers: yes
* 6) click somewhere into the formerly gray area
[This refers to an image of a Color-Checker type of card that had wide gray border around it. The test, therefore, requires a pure gray image in the image, something highly unlikely to change, in order for the magic wand to select all pure-black images (255,255,255). Such a border can easily be created around an image by increasing the canvas size and filling the newly created space with pure gray (128,128,128). ]
Explanation: you just selected all completely black pixels (0,0,0) i.e. all pixels that are identical in both layers.
* 7) you should see "marching ants" forming rectangular patterns
* 8_) invert the selection (Shift Command I)
Explanation: the selection now covers all the other pixels, i.e. all pixels which are different between both layers.
* 9) create a new empty layer and select it in the layers palette
* 10) set the foreground color to white
* 11) fill the selection with white (Alt+backspace on Windows, accordingly on Mac)
* 12) set the blending modes of all layers back to normal
Explanation: you now see all identical pixels in their respective color and all different pixels in white.
This method is a lot more sensitive than the traditional one which stops at step #4 above.
Another method suggested by Bruce Fraser:
A better way of comparing images with identical pixel dimensions is to use Apply Image > Subtract with an offset of 128.
Difference only shows pixels that are lighter in the source than in the target (or maybe it's the other way aroundI forget) where Subtract with Offset 128 shows differences in both directions.
Pixels that are identical in both images come in as RGB 128 gray, those that are different come in at a value that exactly reflects how different they are.
It also makes it much easier to spot subtle differences
c [EDITED formatting]
Differential measurements are a time honored method of close examination, aided by an offset capability. In my days in oscilloscope work, I could routinely make accurate measurements into the microvolt range sitting on top of 100 volts. I frequently use this method in Photoshop as well, but usually to discover inaccuraciees of other kinds.
I'll have to try the Apply Image method. Thanks for sharing, Ramon.
As to the John Williams piece, embarrassing is a curious choice of words. As I mentioned earlier, I had the opportunity to listen again without the visual clues and found the work rather dry. Also, the almost direct quote in the final exposition of the "Gift to Be Simple" by Williams of Copeland to be so close it generated the feeling not of embarrassment, but rather of regret. It sounded as if it was lifted verbatim from the Copeland to the Williams, stopping only to transcribe it for piano.
I want to hear it again recorded in a different venue.
>As to the John Williams piece, embarrassing is a curious choice of words.
Well, embarrassment is what I felt.
The choice of musicians was a nice bow to diversity. One Israeli violinist, one Chinese cellist, one African American clarinetist and a Venezuelan pianist.
i The choice of musicians was a nice bow to diversity.
Yes, I thought so too.
i Well, embarrassment is what I felt
Yes, of course.
I wasn't being very clear. What I meant to infer is that embarrassment in such a context is something I felt when obviously ungifted musicians proceed to prove it to the world. My comment is about me, not you, Ramon.
I should have let morning coffee take over first!
"That might be a quick and dirty check, provided you can recreate said lighting conditions at will and be confident of their reliability, including the framing of the Color Checker card a highly unlikely circumstance. "
Yes totaly confident Ramon, as we used to do batch film checks to +/- wratten 2.5cc. Simple, if you know what you are doing.. not like a clueless knitwit !!
I was a consultant to a major professional film processing and print organization, Geof, and i would rather do the digital version.
Getting consistency with respect to the people involved in those days was 99% the battle. They thought nothing of tweaking the screwdriver calibration screw for VC printing heads all the way to the stop, on an occasional print head!
So far as lighting conditions, north light has always been my standard, diffuse north light to be exact. I still use it to do the final check of my prints. No need to wonder about the client's viewing conditions. Of course, if their viewing conditions are set in stone, and is other than north light, I have to replicate it if I have major submissions required. Yet, I'll still start with north light as a standard.
Good point to discuss Lawrence but if you mean North light as natural daylight this can vary 2000 to 3000 kelvin + depending on where you live and the time of year. I would suggest a static know light source for testing colour balance. Bulbs change kelvin temperature during use so do electronic flash tubes from the same manufacturer. but used at the same setting and recharging at the same speed should be accurate....but won't always be. A check with a colour temperature meter shows a whole swath of inconsistences to manufactures claims.
But accurate enough for most non-scientific purposes.Geof
I know it can vary and I don't have information as to those shifts where i live.
Since recal at the camera level needs not to be often, one can pick the same time of year and cloud cover type as the reference point. So far, that even works for film. The equinox and Solstice make good reference points.
An OCD approach would be to buy a really fine colorimiter and have it calibrated against a Primary Standard such the it becomes a Secondary Standard. Then you use still another meter cal'ed against that for routine measurements.
like I said, OCD.:D
>that even works for film.
Fil'm, as in fill 'em up! :D
>What is film?
WARNING....don't try the north light test in New Zealand ! Geof
Film, it's sort of plastic rolls or cut up into pieces then you load it in the dark and put an invisible image on itand put it in caustic chemicals for 1/2 an hour......Bob Newhart could
have a Walter Raleigh story to tell. G
i WARNING....don't try the north light test in New Zealand ! Geof
Hmmm, what to do at the Equator?
No! Don't go there! :D
How funny is it that Perlman et al were faking it? I thought the Williams piece was dull, although it was the first thing of his I can remember that wasn't the theme from E.T., refried.
> How funny is it that Perlman et al were faking it?
Not funny, but perfectly straightforward. See my post from yesterday (before the official confirmation) at http://www.gearslutz.com/board/3841450-post70.html - there was much debate among audio people on whether it was live or recorded and I'm happy to say I plumped for the right answer after some careful study. But I spent an absurd amount of time on the matter, and really should get a life. And I should give more respect for the subject of this thread! :)
One of the things about the replay of the piece on KBPS was the remarkable lack of background noise, although it could have been the result of close miking.
The other quality was the remarkable intonation, especially with respect to the piano. Either it had been covered and kept reasonably warm with heaters, or the piano had been out in the cold for many hours then retuned. Or, electronic piano, perhaps?
Somehow, the specter of a Ma and a Perlman faking it feels wrong.
> Somehow, the specter of a Ma and a Perlman faking it feels wrong.
I think it was probably a daft idea in the first place to try to play such a piece live in a noisy location out of doors. It would have sounded pretty naff if they'd gone for the real thing, and what's wrong is that these fine musicians were put in the situation in the first place. Their professionalism in the way they handled it is a great credit to them.
From the New York Times:
Cannot believe a photograph or a live performance any more. :-(
Mr. Ramon G or anyone,
Please help I have followed your directions to a T. I went to the root folder all the way to CS4 and put the plugin for camera raw there. I then open up CS4 look under about plugins I have one camera raw listed, when I click on it it say version 5.2. If i try to open camera raw under bridge I get "Camera Raw editing requires that a qualifying product has been launch at least once to enable this feature."
Please help photography student here trying my hardest to understand.
>CS4 look under about plugins I have one camera raw listed, when I click on it it say version 5.2.
Then you've installed that correctly. :D
>If i try to open camera raw under bridge I get "Camera Raw editing requires that a qualifying product has been launch at least once to enable this feature."
Just how are you trying to "open" Camera Raw? The only way to launch Camera Raw is by opening one or more raw image files. Camera Raw is only available when you have at least one raw image file open in it. You cannot just launch or access Camera Raw by itself.
Camera Raw is not an independent application but a plug-in which can be hosted either by Photoshop or by Bridge.
Make sure you have launched both Bridge and Photoshop, and Purge the Cache for each folder containing raw files through the Tools menu in Bridge. Then double-click on a raw file in Bridge.
Thank you very much Ramon G. your instruction where correct, and everything is working...You have no idea how much this helps me for school...thank you.thank you thank you....
What Color Checker 24 (CC24) you are using with DNG profile editor? There are two CC24 available. They are Macbeth and X-Rite. These two CC24 have different RGB valued for color and grey patches. I have calibrated my camera with X-Rite CC24 then read back the RGB values and non of them was close.
Adobe technical support by call has confirmed that the X-Rite CC24 is compatible with Adobe DNG Camera Profile editor.
Adobe, thank you for help.
"Dark fade" is more properly called "thermal fade" or "thermally-induced fade". And it doesn't just occur in the dark. It refers to the fading reactions that are initiated by heat and occurs even while an image is in an illuminated environment. Along with light-induced and thermally-induced dye reactions, the other two of the Big Four are humidity and gas fade (fade due to to pollutants in the air, largely ozone these days, but also sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides and others in special environments). To make things more complicated, these four factors can interact, sometimes in a non-linear or non-additive fashion.
The first company to advocate testing all four factors was Eastman Kodak who also completed the only worldwide environmental study to determine how these factors should be balanced in typical keeping environments. Wilhelm Imaging Research, which in the past had ignored everything except light fade, made predictions for the image lifetime of some products that turned out to be completely bogus because of unaccounted for ozone-induced fade. The WIR website still has reports of contracted tests for some products that say ozone "Test in Progress" years after the first posting (ozone tests are amongst the quickest to perform).
While all materials will undergo thermal fade, good printed materials like color charts tend to be quite resistant and thus have a long lifetime if kept out of the light. Depending on the precision you require, most people can count on color charts stored in a dark, room temperature environment and away from pollutants to pretty much last a lifetime.
Inkjet materials using pigmented inks also have excellent thermal keep, probably in excess of 100 years for the best materials.
Thermal keeping at its best is not a linear function of temperature (it is governed by the Arrhenius equation) and a very. very rough rule of thumb is that thermal fade reactions double in rate for every 10 degree C rise in temperature. Thus, the colder you can store your images the better.
Also, I've referred to thermal "fade". Actually, a better term is degredation as some materials do more than fade; they yellow (that is, increase in blue density), usually most noticeably in the white areas, but the same yellowing is occuring in imaging areas as well, thus changing the density of color patches.
More than you wanted to know, but like so much in life, this is a complicated subject.
Message was edited by: PhotoSci: corrected typos