Why would I? I want to select my camera profile as the input profile... (And in C1 I do have multiple choices there as well, depending on what profiles I have loaded for my camera.)
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
C1 Pro -- Could not generate preview?
- Thread starter cam
- Start date
was more like a question...
But if you would do so you would have to create your own set of presets to gain a certain look. But you would edit the files from the very beginning in the wider colour space and therefore make sure that all captured colours are present in the RAW file. The Phase profiles are edited. They certainly describe device behaviour to some extend but if you look at the gamuts you'll see that they are actually not really "big". I've once created a profile with a camera profiling software and that profile was HUGE. But rather unusable under different lighting conditions... that is one part of the "art" of making camera profiles: to edit them in a way so that they reproduce good colour even under different lighting coniditions.
Anyway... as long as I don't edit my files in a way that exceeds the camera profiles gamut I see no reason to store them in any other colour space. I convert my files in Photoshop to whatever is needed whenever it is needed. Mostly I directly convert to the printer profiles without prior conversion to an intermediate colour space.
Thomas,
We agree on most all of this -- my earlier edit of being an idiot re confusing the 2.2 standard with 2.0 aside
.
My point is that most everybody calibrates to 2.2 regardless of editing space or system nowadays, so setting to that standard makes some sense, even if the working space you are in has a 1.8 gamma -- at the end of the day, the errors generated are going to remain pretty small and can be mitigated by editing technique...
We agree on most all of this -- my earlier edit of being an idiot re confusing the 2.2 standard with 2.0 aside
.My point is that most everybody calibrates to 2.2 regardless of editing space or system nowadays, so setting to that standard makes some sense, even if the working space you are in has a 1.8 gamma -- at the end of the day, the errors generated are going to remain pretty small and can be mitigated by editing technique...
Agreed. And unless you have a specific reason to do otherwise, my recommendation is to use 2.2
oh, okay!!!We agree on most all of this -- my earlier edit of being an idiot re confusing the 2.2 standard with 2.0 aside
now that explains it.I agree - Gamma 2.2 is the most common standard.
Me personally I calibrate to Gamma 1.8 as this is the TRC of the camera profiles. So I can see the maximum of gradations my display is able to produce.
That's a fact Jack
I will not photograph a wedding without shooting all the "must have, no time for a second shot" ... with a dual card camera. When I shot Canon it was a 1DMKIII & 1DsMKIII ... now with Nikon it's the D3/D3X combo. Don't like the weight, but having seen an entire wedding card go south with nothing retrievable (not mine thank God!) ...
I love the new Sony A900, but until they make one that shoots to two cards simultaneously it can never be my main wedding camera.