Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 114

Thread: Capture One or LR6?

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,740
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by RVB View Post
    "I truly find it amazing that C1 uses that color space as a default." Isn't the color space based on the chosen profile in the output recipe?

    I think you can also change it in the "View" section under "proof profiles".. screen grab attached.

    Attachment 120050
    Thanks for your input.

    Since I wrote that post I have changed my process recipe to Prophoto and also found that somehow my images ICC were not correct in that they were set to "flash" with some generic 1998 Adobe color space. Now that I have them set correctly for my camera system and "outdoor daylight", all is well and I can process without issue and now C1's full potential can be used.

  2. #52
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    65
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Thanks Anders for your follow-up analysis. I look forward now to having multiple profiles to compare between C1 and ACR conversions on different types of scenes.

    John

  3. #53
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1021

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    My workflow FWIW...

    I typically convert and output a 16-bit tiff as my "base working file" from C1, then send that to CS for final tweaking based on output. However, my C1 workflow is based on what my intended output is, which is almost always print. Anyway, as such I usually edit in the camera capture space, or occasionally in Prophoto if I think I'm going to push colors around quite a bit in C1, though I rarely do. Next, when I get ready for print is when I toggle between the output profile and working profile in CS (CMD-Y) to make sure colors will look the way I expect them to. With my particular workflow, they usually match extremely closely, but on rare occasion I apply small corrections, and then have several saved "minor" print curves to make slight corrections to saturation and/or contrast as well as black and white points for the specific papers I use.

    This discussion will ultimately lead to print rendering intents which definitely can make a difference in the final print. *Usually* for my style of landscape images, Perceptual with BPC works very well. However, when doing certain demanding client work, RC will be superior.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  4. #54
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    975
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Hi Graham,

    I went back to the castle and have taken some samples and mesaured with my Color Munki Photo, which is a spectrometer. I took some samples on the petals, the green and brow area of the blades of the pelargonium and the red petals and used the spectral data to create colour patches using Babel Color's "Patchtool" in Prophoto RGB. The set of patches was then pasted into raw conversions from LR6 (actually CC 2015.6) and Capture One.

    So I guess this is a close you get on the question of actual colours.

    Just to say, the question was a very good one and I am glad to be able to give an answer.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-07-25 at 20.06.49.jpg 
Views:	22 
Size:	20.6 KB 
ID:	120066

    Best regards
    Erik



    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    The obvious question to Erik is what colour were the blue/purple flowers in real life?

    A common problem with digital files and raw rendering is the classic bluebell/purple bell/pink bell flowers. In the UK it was something that would drive me crazy as some cameras and their raw converters produced distinctly different colours for the same shot. Now we know of course that the human eye is sometimes fooled by the fact that what the camera captures and the eye sees/processes can be very different both in absolute terms and in context of other colours and tones.

  5. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    65
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Erik,

    Thanks for the update! To clarify: the color patches you show represent the "ground truth" (i.e., what the colors really looked like) regarding the purple, green and red hues, correct?

    John

  6. #56
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    975
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Hi John,

    Yes, measured data on actual samples, taken from the same flower, but a few days later. Time between cutting of the blades and measurement less than an hour.

    Best regards
    Erik


    Quote Originally Posted by jng View Post
    Erik,

    Thanks for the update! To clarify: the color patches you show represent the "ground truth" (i.e., what the colors really looked like) regarding the purple, green and red hues, correct?

    John

  7. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Ouch! It shows the P45+ hardware is capable to match the hue, but the C1 profile mess it up. Way too large hue error to my taste. Modulating lightness and to some extent saturation for subjective reasons is fine, but hue changes I think one should be really careful with as a profile designer.

    It would be interesting to know why Phase One chose that, because the error is so large it must be deliberate. I guess they have fixed it with later backs?

  8. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    65
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Ouch indeed! Although I sometimes struggle a bit with hue shifts in the yellows, such large shifts in the purple/blue range don't seem to be an issue with the newer IQ160 using either ACR or C1, at least in my hands.

    When I first saw Erik's examples I was reminded of my own past struggles with the way that purples rendered inaccurately in my old D700 files!

    John

  9. #59
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    975
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Hi Anders,

    The reason I started this discussion was that it is mostly suggested that MFD must be used with vendors software and Adobe products give inferior results. I am not particularly fond of being forced to use a specific vendor's product.

    So, I wanted to discuss/find out how much of the purported advantages of C1 for Phase One files was related to profiles and how much was inherent in the raw processor.

    What I think this thread demonstrates clearly is colour profiles play a very significant role in colour rendition and they don't just affect hues but also tone curves.

    I would say that C1 has some advantages in suppressing aliasing compared to ACR/LR6 and I seriously think Adobe has a lot of homework in that area, but those aspects were not visible on the subjects here. Just for completeness, here are some links to discussions on that issue:

    http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/...?topic=94812.0
    http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/...topic=104708.0

    Another point I would make is that this demonstrates one of the great advantages of parametric workflow. I use mostly profiles created with DCamProf for my new images, but once I have worked trough the profiles I can apply them to older images, too. When I did my profiling shots I include most of the cameras I have used since 2008. Just minimal work. Once the images in TIFF, profiles cannot easily be applied.

    Best regards
    Erik

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    Ouch! It shows the P45+ hardware is capable to match the hue, but the C1 profile mess it up. Way too large hue error to my taste. Modulating lightness and to some extent saturation for subjective reasons is fine, but hue changes I think one should be really careful with as a profile designer.

    It would be interesting to know why Phase One chose that, because the error is so large it must be deliberate. I guess they have fixed it with later backs?

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Just a few comments on using a spectrometer for getting a reference color to compare to; ideally you should also measure the illuminant that was used in the photo, but if you shoot under sunny daylight approximating it as D50 is okay, and cloudy D65. Golden hour light or sky light after sunset can have more extreme temperatures making it more important to also record the spectrum. And if it's low light our eyes gradually goes into night vision which also affects our color vision.

    The flower shots seems to be shut under daylight sun, approx D50, so very good light to test hues.

    A good profile which has a film curve must modulate the colors a bit to compenaste for the psychovisual effects of contrast. However it's really only saturation (and lightness which the curve itself affects), the hue should not change except for special cases near/past gamut clipping. That is when you compare with a measured patch you should expect that saturation can be different, but hue should not be much different.

    Many camera profiles do adjust hue to some extent, warming up colors is common for example, but those changes does not need to be very large. Broadly speaking even after subjective hue changes the colors have the same names, eg purple is still purple although possibly a slightly different shade. However in this case when the color even has changed name, purple has become blue, then I think one has the right to complain on the profile , it should not be that large differences.

    As I've said before it's more difficult to get highly saturated colors right from a technical aspect, but still purple should not become blue, that must be some odd design choice by Phase One in this case. I really wonder what they have been thinking. In many genres you rarely come across colors as saturated as this though, so I guess that's why Phase One has gotten away with it. But say if I was a product photographer and shot saturated plastics or indeed flowers, hue errors at this level would not be acceptable. I simply see no reason why a camera profile should change hues so much that it gets a different name, eg purple becomes blue.

  11. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    I admit to finding this thread way beyond me, I don't understand it!

    My idea of a RAW converter is pretty simple, it has to take the image I captured and allow me unhindered ability to create the final image, nothing more, nothing less. What I want that image to be depends on a myriad of factors, personal, business, creative, the mood I'm in, the list is pretty long. That being said, how the image looks when I open it is far less important to me than how the image looks when I am finished and ready for print or delivery to the client. As the way an image looks on opening is infinitely adjustable, what comes standard from C1 means nothing to me personally, it's just a starting point. For some images it could of course be perfect, for others, miles off, the point for me is that when I want to make minor or major alterations, the software should allow me to do that.

    For me, C1 has far more options for alterations, colour editor, RGB curves, layers, masks from colour selections etc. etc. happen to work well for me, that doesn't make it better than LR, it just makes it better for me. If opening an image in LR you get exactly what you want then that's right for you. In C1 if the image is too contrasty I can do global, local and individual colour changes, same for saturation and all other parameters, I personally find the sharpening excellent and as I am experimenting more with grain on images, the C1 grain options are miles ahead of LR which are all reasons why C1 works for me.

    As with all software, it takes getting used to, but I don't think it's possible to judge it's performance if you don't know how to use it properly, also even if you judge it as being poor for you, doesn't mean it is for anyone else. After reading Anders comment "As I've said before it's more difficult to get highly saturated colors right from a technical aspect, but still purple should not become blue, that must be some odd design choice by Phase One in this case. I really wonder what they have been thinking. In many genres you rarely come across colors as saturated as this though, so I guess that's why Phase One has gotten away with it." I shot a purple flower outside and opened it in C1 and LR and the flower is purple, or at least as purple as the original is, but more important than that, if I want it to be bluer or redder, then that is my choice in the colour editor, I can leave it as shot or use my own creativity to make it what I want, there isn't that level of control in LR.

    Anyway, these are personal opinions, we are able to chose everything from subject to lens to camera to software to print or web, as long as those things work for the individual then that's all that matters isn't it?

    Mat
    http://matrichardson.com/
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  12. #62
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1021

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Erik,

    If you have time, could you dropbox me the original file with the blue/purple flowers? I'd like to take a closer look at it.

    And just curious where and how you chose the WB for each of the processed versions, as they all seem pretty significantly different looking at the pot, wall and floor surrounding the flower area?

    Thanks!

    (jack-at-getdpi-dot-com)
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  13. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    462
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    Anyway, these are personal opinions, we are able to chose everything from subject to lens to camera to software to print or web, as long as those things work for the individual then that's all that matters isn't it?

    Mat

    And that sums it up very nicely.
    Too much to list, let's just say I have a bad case of GAS.........
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  14. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    I guess they've reduced those hue oddities for their later backs. After-all "common knowledge" has been that "Kodak" had less accurate color than "Dalsa", eg P45+ has been considered to have some issues, while P65+ and later was better, and from a hardware point that is actually true, it is easier to make a profile that produces a realistic look with a Dalsa than the Kodaks, but the profile has incredible power to mangle the colors and clearly purple flowers don't have to be blue even with the P45+. That is the hardware is not necessarily the reason.

    In the film days the film itself had to make the "post-processing", so we got films like Fuji Velvia with a distinct saturated contrasty look popular for landscapes. When cameras became digital post-processing can be made in raw converters or by look profiles, but it only half-heartedly turned out that way -- still much of the film thinking has been kept with more or less strong subjective looks in the default camera profiles. This makes it a bit of a mess to change camera brand or raw converter.

    Personally I like the default starting point to be neutral and realistic, and then I add my personal look on top. It's a logical and practical way to work, and regardless of camera used I can use the same methods and replicate the same looks. A common argument is that if you change the colors to your liking anyway, then it really doesn't matter which colors you start with. Maybe if you're a color and post-processing wizard with a super-memory, but I find it hard to start with any starting point and end up with the same end result, thus I think the starting point matter.

    A neutral and realistic starting point suits me (and I do leave some images at that, depending on subject and context), but I perfectly understand that one might prefer the experienced folks at Phase One choose a starting point for us. I find it odd though that for cameras at this level often actually lack the choice of a realistic look, there's only subjective ones to pick. The only way to achieve it is by making a custom profile using some obscure open source software

    AFAIK DCamProf is the only software available for users that can make general-purpose profiles (that is embed a contrast curve and actually take that into account, not just slap it on top of a reproduction profile), and it's certainly not for all in its current state. So most users have to live with what comes bundled, it's not too bad though as the profiles aren't that crazy.

    Profile making is no money-making business so we haven't seen much third-party products as said. The myth that camera color is mostly about hardware (rather than mostly about profile) is still strong and photographers in general seems pleased with the situation that cameras produces rather different looks for no reason, probably because most still believe that it's hardware-related rather than profile-related. I'd love to make a change, to give power of color to the photographers. The next step would be to make DCamProf a user-friendly product and make people aware that there is a different approach to color. It's unfortunately a huge project though.

  15. #65
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    975
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Hi Jack,

    I would suggest that you use this image instead: https://www.dropbox.com/s/a9l5e4f99o...47205.eip?dl=0

    The main reason is that image contains a grey card, it is exactly the same flowers, but another day.

    The image used in the original posting is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Ar...2-CF047246.iiq, but that image was not intended for colour comparisons so it does not contain a grey card.

    The grey card is the small one on the left of the fake ColorChecker. It is the WB side of my ColorChecker Passport.

    Both images look very bright in Capture One at default settings, but they are correctly exposed to the right as checked with RawDigger (please note that I use log values on Y-axis)

    Part of the reason the images look quite different is that the different profiles have different tone curves. My ambition was not to make the images similar but show the differences with minimal manipulation. DCamProf profiles have a different look from C1 profiles.

    Here is an earlier image that I took in connection with a discussion with Tim Parkin of OnLandscape com that shows a similar issue: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zyzz57livf...46070.iiq?dl=0, that one was shoot with studio flash.

    Measured colour samples on that shot:


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-07-26 at 17.51.33.jpg 
Views:	5 
Size:	20.4 KB 
ID:	120114
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-07-26 at 17.53.12.jpg 
Views:	6 
Size:	20.7 KB 
ID:	120115

    Best regards
    Erik



    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Erik,

    If you have time, could you dropbox me the original file with the blue/purple flowers? I'd like to take a closer look at it.

    And just curious where and how you chose the WB for each of the processed versions, as they all seem pretty significantly different looking at the pot, wall and floor surrounding the flower area?

    Thanks!

    (jack-at-getdpi-dot-com)

  16. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    We all work in very different ways Anders, I guess that as I spend at the very least, 2hrs a day, every single day on C1, often much longer than that, and have done for the last 18 months, I understand exactly what I'm getting when I import an image. I have preset styles I have created depending on the work I'm doing, portrait is obviously very different to landscape etc, I even have styles that I can use depending on which lens I am using, some I just prefer to tone down or increase contrast/saturation etc. I guess these are just mini profiles based on the tools within C1. This all means that with Phase files, I can never get close to a pleasing look with LR but that is as much down to familiarity as anything else. I am not necessarily always looking for the same output, in fact personal work I am always trying to find something new that appeals to me so I make use of lots of functions. I very rarely have to alter colours, almost never in fact but I know that should I feel something is over saturated or would be more visually pleasing at a slightly different hue then it is easy to do that.

    Bottom line for me is that I am far happier with an image I process in C1 over the same image in LR for whatever reason and have never had an issue with the default opening image in C1 or the way colours are handled, I have far more problems with the image content or lack of!

    Mat
    http://matrichardson.com/
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  17. #67
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1021

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Here is my 2 cent look and observations, FWIW.

    First, I noted you captured the image with your back WB set to 3000 Color Temp. In itself, this is trivial as we work with raw files, however it will affect histo readout and may cause an exposure quirk if you rely on the histo -- so my reco is to set your back to flash (or daylight, but not auto) as it generally renders more accurate histos.

    Next, re the file,

    1) I undid your reduced exposure adjustment and returned it to zero, just to have all adjustments zeroed;
    2) I set cam profile to Flash Easy Gray;
    2a) I used the film std curve;
    3) I set WB to Flash.

    That's all I did for this result. I do not know if this rendering is a more "accurate" rendition of the petal actual color, but it appears to my eyes it is? Also note the WB readouts on your gray-card with these settings (Edit: I just noted the top flag on the checker -- I obviously slipped while clicking and grabbed a 4x4 pixel split between the top gray patch and dark gray border for the averaged 195 readout), and then I included flags for the flowers and wall just for reference and your comparisons. Here's a screenshot crop of my C1 and your image, but note that I flagged it while in working RGB but converted it to an sRGB jpeg for posting:



    For whatever reason, the P45+ back color responded much better to the flash WB and profile, why I do not know. (This was not the case with the later Phase backs I've owned.) Anyway, it's the reason for my earlier reco you set the cam profile to Flash Easy Gray and set capture WB to Flash for that back.

    Cheers,
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  18. #68
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    975
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Hi Jack,

    Thanks for checking out the file and for your 2 cent look.

    Yes, I have noticed the WB-setting on the back and I think fixed it before the next shot. Must have pressed the wrong button. But normally use white balance card based WB. So WB setting on the back doesn't matter at all. In this case the exposure was pretty optimally ETTR as I could see in the histograms from RawDigger.

    Choosing Phase One P45+ Flash - Easy Gray in combination with WB set to Flash seems to solve the problem. I used the WB card for white balance, and doing shifts colours to the blue.

    Using FLASH for WB makes the violet petals OK but turns the Pelargonium leaves into yellowish green. So we are trading one problem for another one.

    I would also say the -0.3 EV adjustment is needed, the image is far to bright. The buckets holding the flowers are painted black. Also if you check my "fake" ColorChecker the 4-th grey field should be around Lab 52 but your processing gives 79, so it is far to bright.

    I don't really understand how you got 240,240,240 on the WB card as I got different numbers. If I use FLASH WB, I get 243, 240, 237. If I click on the WB card I get 241, 241, 240 and blue flowers

    I enclose a screen dump. Settings on the left are yours (I hope) and on the right is a clone of your settings, but setting WB on the WB card. So you see the flowers turn blue. I guess it is good that your newer backs don't show this behaviour.

    Incidentally, I had some lengthy discussion with Tim Parkin on the issue and he essentially said he "wouldn't touch the P45+ with a barge pole" and he was equally negative on the Hasselblad H3D39 that uses the same sensor chip.

    On the other hand Anders Torger really likes the Kodak sensors. He says it's tricky to get good colour out of it, but can be done.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-07-26 at 23.53.45.jpg 
Views:	8 
Size:	20.9 KB 
ID:	120126

    Best regards
    Erik






    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Here is my 2 cent look and observations, FWIW.

    First, I noted you captured the image with your back WB set to 3000 Color Temp. In itself, this is trivial as we work with raw files, however it will affect histo readout and may cause an exposure quirk if you rely on the histo -- so my reco is to set your back to flash (or daylight, but not auto) as it generally renders more accurate histos.

    Next, re the file,

    1) I was able to undo your reduced exposure adjustment and return it to zero as you can see;
    2) I set cam profile to Flash Easy Gray;
    2a) I used the film std curve;
    3) I set WB to Flash.

    That's all I did for this result. I do not know if this rendering is a more "accurate" rendition of the petal actual color, but it appears to my eyes it is? Also note the WB readouts on your gray-card with these settings, and then I included flags for the flowers and wall just for reference and your comparisons. Here's a screenshot crop of my C1 and your image, but note that I flagged it while in working RGB but converted it to an sRGB jpeg for posting:

    For whatever reason, the P45+ back color responded much better to the flash WB and profile, why I do not know. (This was not the case with the later Phase backs I've owned.) Anyway, it's the reason for my earlier reco you set the cam profile to Flash Easy Gray and set capture WB to Flash for that back.

    Cheers,

  19. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    So I guess the purple-became-blue flowers is a bug in one of the P45+ profiles then, or was it something more?

    It would be interesting to know what Tim would think about the P45+/H3D-39 with a DCamProf profile. AFAIK the problem he had with the P45+ was green separation, or lack of green separation in landscapes? And the assumption was that it was due to the design of the color filters on the sensor, and this both P45+ and H3D-39 failed.

    This is really interesting to me as I haven't really seen a camera fail to separate normal-saturation colors. I don't say it can't happen, I just haven't seen an example with screenshots etc. So it would be great to revisit if possible.

    I don't particularly like the Kodak sensor's color filters as they don't make it easy for us to make neutral color, lots of non-linear corrections are then required, and as non-linear corrections can hurt gradients, we relax them and thus the colors tend to end up less on the mark than for a more modern sensor. However, I've found the problem to be small in practice, it's not like purple turns blue or anything like that. And as the Kodak was the last sensor with proper tech lens support, it's a natural choice for me. I made a tradeoff. But is it still bad at separating greens? I haven't noticed anything, but perhaps if I got to know details from Tim's observations I could find something?

  20. #70
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1021

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Re P45+ greens...

    Greens were the main reason I went to the P45+ and medium format in general -- they looked so much better than anything else I had used till then, and that was when I was using Canon.

    This image was one of the first I made with the camera. Bob was with me on this trip, and if I recall correctly, it's the image that convinced him to make the MFDB move simply because of the green range:



    Sometime later, I made this image on one of our workshops, also shows pretty nice green separation IMHO:



    But, there is more to the story It took a bit of work with WB, hue and sat sliders to get good green separation with those files, even with C1 -- in fact, I would often use some light color editor to aid green separation in my landscape images. Regardless, the fact I *could* get it was still paramount to me and I was very happy with the images I made with that back. However, as soon as the P65+ came out, I was even more impressed with native green separation. It took basically zero effort to "get it out of the file" as it was pretty much there from the start. Hence my P45+ was immediately traded in for the P65+...
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  21. #71
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1021

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post

    I don't really understand how you got 240,240,240 on the WB card as I got different numbers. If I use FLASH WB, I get 243, 240, 237. If I click on the WB card I get 241, 241, 240 and blue flowers
    What proofing profile do you have selected? See View>Proof Profile. If you have "selected recipe" which is recommended for accurate output, C1 will use the profile in your highlighted process recipe, which is not necessarily the checked recipe for actual output processing(!)

    My guess is you have something limited chosen there, perhaps Adobe RGB that trims high blues and violets? Try setting it to Profoto or your back profile and you should see my same result.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  22. #72
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    975
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Hi Jack,

    I have "selected recipe", but it doesn't really matter as I do my comparisons in Photoshop CS, with the image converted into 16 bit Prophoto RGB.

    Anyway, there is something fishy. Clicking on the WB-card gives around 241,241,240 but changes flowers into blue, and using "Flash" as WB shifts them a bit off neutral.

    Best regards
    Erik


    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    What proofing profile do you have selected? See View>Proof Profile. If you have "selected recipe" which is recommended for accurate output, C1 will use the profile in your highlighted process recipe, which is not necessarily the checked recipe for actual output processing(!)

    My guess is you have something limited chosen there, perhaps Adobe RGB that trims high blues and violets? Try setting it to Profoto or your back profile and you should see my same result.

  23. #73
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    975
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Hi Anders,

    I need to go back to my communications with Tim. His take on the issue was not green separation but greens having an unremovable yellow tint. Tim is good friend with British landscape photographer Joe Cornish and he also had the same issue. Of the digital cameras he tested, Tim found that the Sony Alpha 900 delivered best colour and the P45+ the worst. Tim also found a good match between DxO-marks SMI and his perception of colour rendition. Sony Alpha 900 on top and P45+ at the bottom.

    Getting back to the violet flowers turning into blue the major factor seems to be white balance. Using Flash (5500K, 0) renders flowers violet and greens yellowish green.

    WB on white card gets me 4719K, -2.1.

    "Daylight" mode gives 4284K, 1.6, this always confused me with C1.

    WB on the grey card using your DCamProf in Lightroom profile gives (5500K, 9)

    The screen dump below shows the effect of WB, left is with WB set to "Flash" and right is WB on the white card. I have seen a similar problem on Sony Alpha 99 files under studio flash, so I don't think it is a P45+ issue. This page is a good demo: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Ar...or/SimpleCase/

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-07-27 at 07.06.00.jpg 
Views:	6 
Size:	22.0 KB 
ID:	120139

    Best regards
    Erik





    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    So I guess the purple-became-blue flowers is a bug in one of the P45+ profiles then, or was it something more?

    It would be interesting to know what Tim would think about the P45+/H3D-39 with a DCamProf profile. AFAIK the problem he had with the P45+ was green separation, or lack of green separation in landscapes? And the assumption was that it was due to the design of the color filters on the sensor, and this both P45+ and H3D-39 failed.

    This is really interesting to me as I haven't really seen a camera fail to separate normal-saturation colors. I don't say it can't happen, I just haven't seen an example with screenshots etc. So it would be great to revisit if possible.

    I don't particularly like the Kodak sensor's color filters as they don't make it easy for us to make neutral color, lots of non-linear corrections are then required, and as non-linear corrections can hurt gradients, we relax them and thus the colors tend to end up less on the mark than for a more modern sensor. However, I've found the problem to be small in practice, it's not like purple turns blue or anything like that. And as the Kodak was the last sensor with proper tech lens support, it's a natural choice for me. I made a tradeoff. But is it still bad at separating greens? I haven't noticed anything, but perhaps if I got to know details from Tim's observations I could find something?
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 26th July 2016 at 22:53.

  24. #74
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    I have zero issues with the 260 on colours so went back to look at some old files, I like greens so looked at some old P25+ files, obviously not a P45+ back but from the same era. These are a few years old but I still think the way greens are handled is pretty good. No idea what make of sensor was in the P25+, is it the same make as in the P45+?

    This is a 50% crop from original file so quality may not look great but I think it's pretty nice, not great light either.



    Here's one from home, shot in pretty crap bright light but still I think it holds up well

    http://matrichardson.com/
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  25. #75
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    Getting back to the violet flowers turning into blue the major factor seems to be white balance.
    One experiment one can do is to slowly change white balance and watch how the colors gradually change. If a color suddenly changes rapidly compared to the general trend that means that there is a strong non-linear correction in the camera profile at that point. I use this sometimes to sanity check profiles. If I find that the profile has such a sudden change, I relax the LUT more.

    If one prefers to have some sort of tint or otherwise "creative" white balance it's actually better to set the white balance for white first, and then use other color controls than white balance to achieve the creative tint. This is because the profile is per definition designed to make its corrections relative to white, and if there are strong non-linear corrections in the profile it can behave in unstable ways if the white balance is set differently.

    What's strange here is that the white card white balance throws the profile out of balance. There's not a huge difference between the two white balance examples either, so I guess it's unstable for blue/purple there.

  26. #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    I have zero issues with the 260 on colours so went back to look at some old files, I like greens so looked at some old P25+ files, obviously not a P45+ back but from the same era. These are a few years old but I still think the way greens are handled is pretty good. No idea what make of sensor was in the P25+, is it the same make as in the P45+?
    The P25+ also has a Kodak sensor. The IQ260 has a Dalsa sensor. The Kodaks had quite saturated filters on the sensor, meaning that the sensor itself has quite subjective color, and as a profile designer you need to "fight" more to get the color where you want it. I don't really know but my guess is that Kodak's intention was to take some of the subjectivity from their color films into the sensor. The Dalsa has color filters similar to the modern CMOS sensors, that is lower saturation and more neutral and versatile. (Lower saturation filters require a lower noise sensor though as the profile will increase saturation and thus enlarge noise.)

    I don't know how the color filters differ between the P25+ and P45+ (and Hasselblad's 50MP CCD backs which also use Kodak), but I think they are a bit different but still similar. The IR filter on the back can also modulate the response even if the sensor's color filters are the same.

    In any case when the P65+ was released (Dalsa) many said there was big improvement in color over the P45+. This could be more about Phase One's profiles than the actual hardware, but indeed the color filters are much different between them too.
    Last edited by torger; 27th July 2016 at 00:45.

  27. #77
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    I need to go back to my communications with Tim. His take on the issue was not green separation but greens having an unremovable yellow tint. Tim is good friend with British landscape photographer Joe Cornish and he also had the same issue. Of the digital cameras he tested, Tim found that the Sony Alpha 900 delivered best colour and the P45+ the worst. Tim also found a good match between DxO-marks SMI and his perception of colour rendition. Sony Alpha 900 on top and P45+ at the bottom.
    The Phase One profiles have a yellow tint, but it's not only the P45+, the yellow tint / warm tone seems to be something that's incorporated to Phase One's trademark look . Also Hasselblad adds in a bit yellow to the greens if I remember correctly, but to a smaller extent, and indeed in my own Neutral+ look I add in some yellow to the greens (in scenes with sunlit and shadow areas mixed such a change make up for a more pleasing look according to many). It should be easy to remove though, and I know Tim (and Joe) is a skilled photoshop user so I guess there must be some more to it than just the default rendering?

    The SMI only says how well a camera can match X-Rite's CC24 with a linear matrix so I don't think it would mean that much. A good value does meant that less non-linear corrections is required in the normal range, but cameras can still turn out to be problematic with high saturation colors as those are not covered by the CC24, and this is indeed the case with some of the Sonys which I've had significant problems with in the saturated blue range due to very high sensitivity there, which is good for tungsten light but makes it unbalanced for daylight and dusk.

    The thing is that camera profiles affect color rendition a lot so I think no color rendition analysis can skip past them. Still most do, and instead search for explanations to what they see in the hardware data, and I think that is because still most think that hardware is 90% of the color rendition and profile 10%, but I'd say it's the other way around. That said I've got the impression that my own DCamProf profiles are much more "designed" than the typical bundled profile which instead is a thinner layer on top of a linear matrix and as such let through more of the hardware's native look. It's a speculation at this point though.

  28. #78
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Anders, what is the relationship between hardware and software when it comes to colour in your opinion? I noticed you wrote this..

    "The myth that camera color is mostly about hardware (rather than mostly about profile) is still strong and photographers in general seems pleased with the situation that cameras produces rather different looks for no reason, probably because most still believe that it's hardware-related rather than profile-related. I'd love to make a change, to give power of color to the photographers."

    And also in your last post this..

    "The Kodaks had quite saturated filters on the sensor, meaning that the sensor itself has quite subjective color, and as a profile designer you need to "fight" more to get the color where you want it. I don't really know but my guess is that Kodak's intention was to take some of the subjectivity from their color films into the sensor. The Dalsa has color filters similar to the modern CMOS sensors, that is lower saturation and more neutral and versatile."

    Is it an even split or biased towards one or the other? My personal view as a non technical understander of the design and implementation of cameras and software, is that different cameras have different looks because they are different cameras! I buy a camera because I prefer it's output over another camera but don't look much further than that. I remember opening a Leica S portrait file in C1 after I had processed it in LR as normal just to see, and immediately thinking WTF!! It was like a 10% white layer had been lifted and all this beautiful rich tone was released, did the same with Nikon files and felt I had wasted so many shots by not processing them in C1, so I understand software and profiles make a huge difference, just wondering what the relationship really is?

    Mat

    Edit.. We were writing at the same time, you have answered by saying it's 10% camera and 90% profile.

  29. #79
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    We were writing at the same time, you have answered by saying it's 10% camera and 90% profile.
    Yes, but I can't say that I've drilled down too deeply into that. 10/90 I would guess is an exaggeration, and I also think that many profiles let the camera filters "show" more than my DCamProf profiles do. When a DCamProf profile is rendered it tries to make all cameras look the same, but as non-linear corrections are relaxed to make good gradients they will still differ a bit.

    At some point I may write an article on the subject as I'm curious about this myself. My current view that it's much more about profile than camera's color filters is from stray observations here and there I've got when I've worked with profiles, but I haven't really made a focused effort to answer that specific question.

    The most obvious "stray" observations:

    1) two different cameras used with profiles designed for the same target renders colors highly similar.
    2) the same camera with two different profiles designed differently can produce vastly different looks.

    The large difference in default look between LR and C1 comes down to profile.

    I have noticed hardware differences though, you can't make two different cameras look exactly the same if you want the profile to make good gradients, that is one cannot have too much non-linear corrections but instead be closer to a linear matrix which means closer to the hardware response. Anyway the broad brush strokes are decided by the profile - the overall "look" is profile, but some details in things like color separation can be hardware related.

    And there's a special case about high saturation colors when you use the edge of the color filters, then cameras can behave very differently in ways the profile can't do much about.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  30. #80
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    975
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Hi,

    This is what I got from Tim, where he referes to Joe...

    "I spoke with Joe about the P45 endlessly and he had a whole workflow to try to 'fix' the colour which all went out of the window when the IQ180 came in. He now does almost nothing to the files to get what he wants. It's definitely mostly grassy stuff but quite often skies and reflected colour that are problematic. Also shadows in geology can be an issue (I presume infra red effects as well).

    They're not a problem for some subjects and an absolute nightmare for others. I can still 'see' Joe's P45+ files as long as they have some greenery in them (or sometimes from the sky)."

    So they found the issues went away with the IQ-180, that uses a Dalsa sensor. I don't know what conversion they used.

    My main concern in that discussion was not if P45+ colour rendition was good or bad but rather if it could be fixed with proper profiles. The other question was if I can get good colour rendition out of LR by using colour profile generation tools demanding reasonable skills.

    I think that Jack's suggestions illustrate one of the issues, much is counter intuitive:

    • Use an electronic flash profile for a daylight shot
    • Use WB-setting "Flash" instead of grey card included in the picture.


    So, it takes some time to master a new raw converter. Also, using a set of tools for ten years introduces some bias. I was mostly happy with Lightroom/Sony rendering. So I am a bit biased to that look. But, I feel that DCamProf has great promise so I will probable shift my workflow to it.


    Best regards
    Erik





    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    The Phase One profiles have a yellow tint, but it's not only the P45+, the yellow tint / warm tone seems to be something that's incorporated to Phase One's trademark look . Also Hasselblad adds in a bit yellow to the greens if I remember correctly, but to a smaller extent, and indeed in my own Neutral+ look I add in some yellow to the greens (in scenes with sunlit and shadow areas mixed such a change make up for a more pleasing look according to many). It should be easy to remove though, and I know Tim (and Joe) is a skilled photoshop user so I guess there must be some more to it than just the default rendering?

    The SMI only says how well a camera can match X-Rite's CC24 with a linear matrix so I don't think it would mean that much. A good value does meant that less non-linear corrections is required in the normal range, but cameras can still turn out to be problematic with high saturation colors as those are not covered by the CC24, and this is indeed the case with some of the Sonys which I've had significant problems with in the saturated blue range due to very high sensitivity there, which is good for tungsten light but makes it unbalanced for daylight and dusk.

    The thing is that camera profiles affect color rendition a lot so I think no color rendition analysis can skip past them. Still most do, and instead search for explanations to what they see in the hardware data, and I think that is because still most think that hardware is 90% of the color rendition and profile 10%, but I'd say it's the other way around. That said I've got the impression that my own DCamProf profiles are much more "designed" than the typical bundled profile which instead is a thinner layer on top of a linear matrix and as such let through more of the hardware's native look. It's a speculation at this point though.

  31. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    As I've noted before though, I think that before my DCamProf there was no profile maker on the market that could do proper general-purpose profiles (all was geared to reproduction work, ie profiles without curves), and DCamProf is quite new and is a command line software etc so it's not mainstream stuff, and if you do like to design a look into it, it becomes even more difficult.

    In other words, for most people the only way to get good general-purpose profiles is to use bundled profiles that come with raw converters. And if you can't control the profile, you simply have to view the camera + raw converter as a whole and it becomes natural to not even consider the profile as it's a factor you can't control.

    If profile making tools ever become mainstream, that is nice GUIs and "easy" to produce both neutral looks but also more subjective looks like Leaf's and Phase One's I think the way people choose cameras will change, as they will then always produce a profile for it to see how well it works with their own look. And in that case I think the result will be that it will be less important if it's a Phase One, Hasselblad, Leica or anything else in terms of color, but it will be more about the camera handling instead.

    With medium format there's the special case that C1 only support their own cameras, so C1 can still be a decisive factor when it comes to choosing say Phase One over Hasselblad even if you make your own profiles, as C1 is a very good raw converter in terms of all its adjustment tools.

  32. #82
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Thanks, it all sounds very interesting, but I would need image examples where issues are pointed out to really understand. I find it unlikely that it would be hardware related, but I don't exclude the possibility.

    What I would like to do is to make a DCamProf profile for both the P45+ and a camera not having the problems, like the IQ180 or Sony A900. The cameras would then look very similar. Then one should shoot a problematic scene with both cameras, and make a blind test comparing the results of the two. If the P45+ still turns out to be problematic and not the other camera, that's a very strong indication that it indeed is hardware related. If it's hard to see which one is better, it's then more likely a profile issue.

    A problem here I think that Tim at the time of testing have had a strong assumption that profile is not involved, and having a strong assumption of something is likely to affect how one interprets the result.

    I've done some brief color separation simulations, and the result from those was that it seems like any reasonable camera can separate any color in the normal range, while there are significant differences in ultra-high saturation colors. However also in the normal range there will be differences regarding how much noise affects separation, if the camera has strong separation the profile doesn't need to strengthen it (and noise is then low), if it has weak separation in some area noise can become more of a problem.

    /Anders

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    Hi,

    This is what I got from Tim, where he referes to Joe...

    "I spoke with Joe about the P45 endlessly and he had a whole workflow to try to 'fix' the colour which all went out of the window when the IQ180 came in. He now does almost nothing to the files to get what he wants. It's definitely mostly grassy stuff but quite often skies and reflected colour that are problematic. Also shadows in geology can be an issue (I presume infra red effects as well).

    They're not a problem for some subjects and an absolute nightmare for others. I can still 'see' Joe's P45+ files as long as they have some greenery in them (or sometimes from the sky)."

    So they found the issues went away with the IQ-180, that uses a Dalsa sensor. I don't know what conversion they used.

    Best regards
    Erik

  33. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    I'm firmly in this camp!

    "In other words, for most people the only way to get good general-purpose profiles is to use bundled profiles that come with raw converters. And if you can't control the profile, you simply have to view the camera + raw converter as a whole and it becomes natural to not even consider the profile as it's a factor you can't control."

    I must be a camera makers ideal customer because I look at it just as tool, the output from the camera through the software is what I look at and I either like it or I don't, if I could make all cameras look the same then I wouldn't need to upgrade beyond ergonomics or file size. I did look a while back at your profile maker and decided 2 things, the first was that I wasn't seeing an issue with colours in my own work, second was that it was so far beyond my abilities that combined with not seeing an issue, it just wasn't worth the hassle. That's not to say that it wouldn't be a vast improvement, I am simply not motivated or capable of doing it.

    When a new camera is released I try and get hold of some raw files and look at them processed how I like, if there's no great difference then I wouldn't bother, if by adding a profile I could make them indistinguishable then I guess that would end up being an issue for manufacturers as suddenly people are only looking for profiles not new cameras?

    Mat
    http://matrichardson.com/
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  34. #84
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    When a new camera is released I try and get hold of some raw files and look at them processed how I like, if there's no great difference then I wouldn't bother, if by adding a profile I could make them indistinguishable then I guess that would end up being an issue for manufacturers as suddenly people are only looking for profiles not new cameras?
    Maybe, but if you look at Hasselblad they have adapted the approach to make all their cameras look highly similar. They don't even have a profile choice in Phocus (they have an own proprietary profile format, multi-illuminant based on white balance setting, icc profile is only used for custom profiles).

    I haven't personally had the opportunity to compare many Hassy's side by side at the same time so I don't know exactly how similar they look, but I've heard pro photographers state that they can switch cameras in the middle of the shoot which has different sensor manufacturers even and not have problems.

    I like the Hasselblad philosophy, especially since their look is more neutral than most manufacturers choose, and sure if you don't present the user with a profile choice it makes sense to not go too crazy with look .

    Still even with little or no difference in global look, there will be micro differences, and I think we've seen before that micro differences are enough for many to upgrade so I think that it is the way it is may be more about tradition than business strategy, and tradition being that digital cameras was made to replace film cameras and film shooters probably expected to get an attractive subjective look per default as film provided that.

    I haven't made enough testing to know how big those micro differences are and how they are manifested. Maybe they're small but significant, maybe not. The general trend however seems to be that modern cameras have more similar color filters than they had before, so I think the micro differences are smaller now than it was before. Kodak and Dalsa hardware color response differences are much larger than between say Dalsa and Sony.

    Here's a post from "the Suede" on Fred Miranda talking about hardware color differences between cameras:
    Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference - FM Forums
    which knows much more than me about hardware responses.

    However I suspect that the hardware differences are at such a low level, espeically today, that profile has the power to control them. The Suede is probably right about the differences he lists, but I just don't think it has as large impact as he suggests, or at least doesn't need to have that. In high noise scenarios like in high ISO or older cameras, I think hardware response had a larger impact.

    But I must be humble as my actual testing in this area is limited.

  35. #85
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    975
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Hi Anders,

    I made a decent (I think) set of ColorChecker exposures with the P45+ and the A900, to be used with DCamProf.

    I am a bit skeptic about the Sony A900, I would assume the sensor is very close to most other sensors used by Sony. On the other hand the postings by "The Suede" you link to explains a lot of things.

    Shooting a problem scene can be arranged once it has been decided what defines a problem scene.

    The blind test part may be the hard one.

    Regarding my discussion with Tim it was a bit of hardware vs. profile, with me more thinking profiles. Another point may be that chlorophyll has high IR contents, that is vegetation is bright in IR photography. So efficiency of IR filtering may play a role. But I don't think that it matters a lot in reality.

    Best regards
    Erik




    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    ...
    What I would like to do is to make a DCamProf profile for both the P45+ and a camera not having the problems, like the IQ180 or Sony A900. The cameras would then look very similar. Then one should shoot a problematic scene with both cameras, and make a blind test comparing the results of the two. If the P45+ still turns out to be problematic and not the other camera, that's a very strong indication that it indeed is hardware related. If it's hard to see which one is better, it's then more likely a profile issue.
    ...
    A problem here I think that Tim at the time of testing have had a strong assumption that profile is not involved, and having a strong assumption of something is likely to affect how one interprets the result.

    ...

    /Anders
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 27th July 2016 at 04:44.

  36. #86
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    I fully understand uniformity within brands, not sure about having uniformity between all cameras, I don't think it would be necessary to make a 'blad file look exactly the same as a P1 file or vice versa, personally I'm buying a product which for me is a combination of ergonomics, files, processing, the most suitable for me being the one that allows me to produce the file I want in print or on the web. I think it's good that you can buy in to a hasselblad look or a phase one look depending on what floats your boat, manufacturers want to provide a difference between their products I'm sure.

    Mat
    http://matrichardson.com/
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  37. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    I fully understand uniformity within brands, not sure about having uniformity between all cameras, I don't think it would be necessary to make a 'blad file look exactly the same as a P1 file or vice versa, personally I'm buying a product which for me is a combination of ergonomics, files, processing, the most suitable for me being the one that allows me to produce the file I want in print or on the web. I think it's good that you can buy in to a hasselblad look or a phase one look depending on what floats your boat, manufacturers want to provide a difference between their products I'm sure.
    Many manufacturers vary a fair bit between models too, and also exclude any profile that is as neutral/realistic as possible. I think that is a bit problematic as a user. Making it possible to make different cameras look the same is not necessarily about letting the final images look the same, it's just about a different way to split the color handling: neutral image in => look profile on top => manual adjustments per subject => final image. That is subjectivity is left to a separate step, and manufacturers could have different "look profiles". This was not possible in the film days, but is very much possible today with digital, and I think it's a bit unfortunate that the manufacturers didn't break with the film tradition in this regard.

    It would just be much easier for the users, us, if we had a starting point that didn't vary so much between brands. It wouldn't make our images look the same as most do personal post-processing, it would just mean that if we change camera brand/model we can still keep the same look as we had before without having to change anything in our workflow. At least I think that would be an advantage. I think cameras should just record stuff, sort of a measurement instrument, I don't want it to add unnecessary subjectivity, as I want to be the one that contributes that to my images, and when making those artistic decisions I think it's an advantage to have a reference that I know doesn't have various subjective elements.

    Should be said that as 100% neutral/realistic is not possible and there is no standard which tradeoffs to make different brands would still differ in look, but to a much smaller extent than they do today.

  38. #88
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    I do honestly understand what you are saying Anders, I just don't agree! Haha. I look at all the ways my photography can improve and having a file that is standard across brands doesn't factor in to it for me, it's almost exclusively content and light that I need to work on. I appreciate fully that it would for you but that is the glorious nature of creative pursuits, we all appreciate different things. I like the fact that brands have different looks, sometimes a change in brand opens up entirely new ways of seeing or processing an image, if you don't get something new that you like then it's not the right move. Anyway, it's a fairly moot point, I can't imagine all the manufacturers sitting down and deciding that they should all look the same, this is blue, this is red etc. For those that really feel it is a benefit then there will always be people like you to help them out.

    Mat

  39. #89
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    This entire thread matches well with my real world experience, especially with Phase One products made in the last eight years.

    - The overwhelming majority (95%?) of our clients prefer the native look of C1 to the native look of LR
    - With effort you can tweak LR to close the gap a bit; most will still prefer C1's native look

    Given the above I generally tell people to use C1 and, if needed, make minor tweaks using C1's Color Editor or our Capture One Style Pack (or similar packs by others).

    That said, if you're an engineer or color scientist you may enjoy the effort involved in tweaking or profiling in LR, or if you're one of the 5% who just plain prefer the color coming out of LR to start with, then your opinion will differ and is no less valid.

    It's great that we have more than one good option.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  40. #90
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    I like the fact that brands have different looks, sometimes a change in brand opens up entirely new ways of seeing or processing an image, if you don't get something new that you like then it's not the right move. Anyway, it's a fairly moot point, I can't imagine all the manufacturers sitting down and deciding that they should all look the same, this is blue, this is red etc. For those that really feel it is a benefit then there will always be people like you to help them out.
    There's a reason why profile making isn't a money-making business, and that is because your preferred way is the common way to see things and I think it is pretty solidly so. Although I certainly would have liked that profile making could be a business, it is the way it is.

    Camera makers wouldn't need to standardize, there would only need to be a change in tradition, that customers would expect the camera being able to capture the scene in a realistic way and consider that to be a plus. Perhaps not as the only look, but at least one of the looks. I think it's pretty bizarre that even the highest end cameras don't provide a reasonable neutral look to customers. There's an interesting exception with Leaf that according to what I've heard got a demand from advanced users to add a neutral profile and they did add one (they call it "ProPhoto", which is a bit confusing as it has nothing to do with the color space), unfortunately that profile doesn't seem to be designed for curve use though. Still a very good starting point for personal/advanced post-processing work.

    Anyway, more reasonable than relying on camera makers would be a third-party profile making industry so those that wanted could pick their favorite software and make their own profiles for several of their cameras.

    I've heard stories from some users along the lines that they've had clients that have good color perception but little knowledge of cameras and complained that the color of building/product/whatever in the photo did not match the real thing. For example they would complain about that yellow building in the first post is too pale and has too little red in it. But I guess it's pretty rare, otherwise the big names would more often provide more realistic renditions than they do now.

    In minimal I'd like more people to know the impact the profile has, to end the myth that it's all about hardware. To pull it to an extreme -- I think there are some people that spend $50k on a medium format system because they thought the superior color was due to the hardware, and if they had only knew what the profile can do and if the software was there they would have been satisfied with a much cheaper smaller format system. I think a good profile maker enables users to work with cameras that otherwise has less good color, profiles for the 645z and A7r cameras have been popular with DCamProf. I also like people to know that profiles actually are subjective. I've seen people suggesting that some brands of cameras are just more "accurate" than others, when it's pretty obvious to anyone with a trained color perception that the profiles have been designed with a great deal of subjectivity.

    With greater knowledge among a wider group of users about these aspects of camera color, perhaps there will eventually be a healthy business for third-party profile making .

  41. #91
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    It's an interesting discussion Anders, I can only talk for my own situation, maybe I just don't understand what you mean by a "more realistic way" I simply don't open a file at default settings and think, jeez that's just miles off, I would guess that I am not alone in that view but I don't know. Maybe for the majority, you wanting to promote your profiles is simply solving a problem that doesn't exist for most people? I don't shoot art repro or have clients that require a pantone match on their logo, there are those that do though for sure, I wonder how they go about getting completely accurate work? I have shot with a colour checker in the frame previously to build a profile per shoot but ended up with clients telling me the images were too sterile so I now produce what appeals to me and tell them they can have colours in any way they want but I have never had anyone ask for a change, that's just how it works for me though.

    I have never heard about the myth that colour is all hardware, I asked you about it before because it's not something I know about, I just buy what I like and shoot with it, understanding how the colours are controlled is of little real importance to me, they are what they are and C1 gives me the option to add or subtract as I see fit, I'm sure it's the same in LR for those who prefer that option

    I have no doubt that turning this in to a business for you is a driving factor, if I felt I needed it I'd buy it but just being told that a more efficient way to work is to avoid the unrealistic files I get as standard and have you produce a flat profile so I can add my own stamp from a controlled starting point just doesn't make sense to me, there's nothing wrong with the starting point I have.

    I do wish you all the best with it though, maybe there are loads of people who want it, you could start a realistic colour revolution! You don't need everyone to buy in to it to be a success I'm sure. Me, I am noting that the more I look at photography that really inspires me, the less I focus on post processing and the more I strive for better ideas.

    Mat
    http://matrichardson.com/
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  42. #92
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1021

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    Hi Jack,

    I have "selected recipe", but it doesn't really matter as I do my comparisons in Photoshop CS,
    But it does matter in C1 when you're working in C1 So what "recipe" do you have selected -- meaning highlighted -- and what profile is tagged in that recipe? That will answer a lot.

    And,

    So, it takes some time to master a new raw converter. Also, using a set of tools for ten years introduces some bias. I was mostly happy with Lightroom/Sony rendering. So I am a bit biased to that look. But, I feel that DCamProf has great promise so I will probable shift my workflow to it.
    Yes indeed. There is also the issue of any given user not fully understanding how a particular software works, and unknowingly imparting user-based errors. C1 while extremely powerful, robust and excellent when used properly, is more prone to misuse than other less robust tools; more toggles + more tools that have them = more room for mistakes... We've corrected a number of misperceptions about C1 and various backs on our workshops, and it's almost always an improperly used software tool or camera setting -- and frequently a little of both
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  43. #93
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Just to make one thing clear -- turning profile making into a business is not a driving factor in this case. I've made open source software since the 90s both own projects and contributing to others. I also make commercial projects, sometimes they overlap sometimes not, so it's understandable that you may think that, but I'm not here to sell, at least not for the moment . I believe in my ideas though, and try to explain why. The talk about profile making not a business is just my explanation to that despite digital photography is quite old we don't already have at least a few commercial software offers to make general-purpose profiles. There are X-Rite profile maker etc but I don't really count them as they simply don't have the ability to design profiles with curves and subjectivity in the way manufacturers do with their inhouse systems.

    Anyway this could go back and forth forever, I think we both have our views quite clear to the readers, so I'll make it a short(ish) reply for once

    I also love being relaxed about post-processing. I don't really need to care which camera (oh, well sensor and brand) or which raw converter I use (I need only a basic set of functions for post-processing, that even Phocus has), as long as I get to make a decent profile. So perhaps I'm anal about color and profiles, but it makes me much more relaxed in other areas .

    So what do I say about C1 or LR? I say pick any, and make a custom profile in both cases. It's not the right answer to all users, but that's how I see it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    It's an interesting discussion Anders, I can only talk for my own situation, maybe I just don't understand what you mean by a "more realistic way" I simply don't open a file at default settings and think, jeez that's just miles off, I would guess that I am not alone in that view but I don't know. Maybe for the majority, you wanting to promote your profiles is simply solving a problem that doesn't exist for most people? I don't shoot art repro or have clients that require a pantone match on their logo, there are those that do though for sure, I wonder how they go about getting completely accurate work? I have shot with a colour checker in the frame previously to build a profile per shoot but ended up with clients telling me the images were too sterile so I now produce what appeals to me and tell them they can have colours in any way they want but I have never had anyone ask for a change, that's just how it works for me though.

    I have never heard about the myth that colour is all hardware, I asked you about it before because it's not something I know about, I just buy what I like and shoot with it, understanding how the colours are controlled is of little real importance to me, they are what they are and C1 gives me the option to add or subtract as I see fit, I'm sure it's the same in LR for those who prefer that option

    I have no doubt that turning this in to a business for you is a driving factor, if I felt I needed it I'd buy it but just being told that a more efficient way to work is to avoid the unrealistic files I get as standard and have you produce a flat profile so I can add my own stamp from a controlled starting point just doesn't make sense to me, there's nothing wrong with the starting point I have.

    I do wish you all the best with it though, maybe there are loads of people who want it, you could start a realistic colour revolution! You don't need everyone to buy in to it to be a success I'm sure. Me, I am noting that the more I look at photography that really inspires me, the less I focus on post processing and the more I strive for better ideas.

    Mat

  44. #94
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    975
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Hi Jack,

    Mea culpa, the output recpie setting is: Embed camera profile

    So what would I use?

    Recommended colour spaces are:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-07-27 at 20.30.21.jpg 
Views:	5 
Size:	11.6 KB 
ID:	120147

    So all these three colour space are small gamut, not covering Pointer's gamut.

    If you choose all profiles you get a list of all ICC profiles installed on the system:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-07-27 at 20.33.43.jpg 
Views:	6 
Size:	20.2 KB 
ID:	120148

    This list includes some interesting ones like "wide gamut RGB" and ProPhoto RGB. But is ProPhoto RGB the input profile from Leaf or the ROMM RGB developed by Kodak.

    Fortunately, this choice should not really matter as Photoshop would handle embedded profile. Except when the embedded RGB is to small, like Adobe RGB.

    So, there may be a few questions around. I don't think a training video like the one on LuLa directly discusses output profiles.

    I sort of assume that my output settings as shown below would export the image in ProPhoto RGB (meaning ROMM RGB) and that information would be correctly handled by Adobe's colour management system.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-07-27 at 20.42.27.jpg 
Views:	6 
Size:	18.3 KB 
ID:	120149


    Sorry what you write makes me dizzy…

    • Use Flash profile for daylight
    • Use Flash preset instead of white balance of WB-card
    • Set a colour space in the recipe, does that override output profile in the export dialogue? Would that matter as long as the image is correctly tagged and is within a suitable sized colour space?


    Best regards
    Erik



    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    But it does matter in C1 when you're working in C1 So what "recipe" do you have selected -- meaning highlighted -- and what profile is tagged in that recipe? That will answer a lot.

    And,



    Yes indeed. There is also the issue of any given user not fully understanding how a particular software works, and unknowingly imparting user-based errors. C1 while extremely powerful, robust and excellent when used properly, is more prone to misuse than other less robust tools; more toggles + more tools that have them = more room for mistakes... We've corrected a number of misperceptions about C1 and various backs on our workshops, and it's almost always an improperly used software tool or camera setting -- and frequently a little of both
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 27th July 2016 at 12:18.

  45. #95
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    975
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Hi Anders,

    I would mostly agree with your writing…

    It seems that there is a profile making business, but it is more about selling reference cards than profiling tools. Cards cost money but the tools are free. Also that industry is leaning towards ACR/Lightroom as Capture One is generally not supported. The packages hold great promise but are overselling quite a bit.

    My take is that what you need is:

    • A dual illuminant input profile for continous spectrum.
    • A single illuminant input profile for your studio flash, which seems to be sort continuous spectrum with a hump at the centre, not really needed but if you are shooting a lot in the studio it may be worth the effort.
    • A single illuminant input profile for any spiky light source, like D50 tubes.
    • A good WB exposure on a good WB card


    Once you have made those profiles, you can forget about profiling and just use the grey card for WB and the ColorChecker for accuracy checking.

    Just to say, on the ColorChecker Passport it is better to use the WB card than the second grey field on the ColourChecker as the WB card is very neutral and the light grey patch is slightly bluish. OK, very slightly bluish.

    I am highly impressed by the effort you have put into DCamProf, it is a great tool and reading the discussions about it is a great learning experience.

    I would say that the structured approach you use in DCamProf is quite obviously the right way to do it. Build a profile that is colourmetrically optimal and than apply a look on that profile. So I can start with that optimal profile and use the make my girlfriend from Venus look great "look" on top of it, or use that make my boy friend from Mars a jerk "look"…

    Best regards
    Erik







    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    There's a reason why profile making isn't a money-making business, and that is because your preferred way is the common way to see things and I think it is pretty solidly so. Although I certainly would have liked that profile making could be a business, it is the way it is.

    Camera makers wouldn't need to standardize, there would only need to be a change in tradition, that customers would expect the camera being able to capture the scene in a realistic way and consider that to be a plus. Perhaps not as the only look, but at least one of the looks. I think it's pretty bizarre that even the highest end cameras don't provide a reasonable neutral look to customers. There's an interesting exception with Leaf that according to what I've heard got a demand from advanced users to add a neutral profile and they did add one (they call it "ProPhoto", which is a bit confusing as it has nothing to do with the color space), unfortunately that profile doesn't seem to be designed for curve use though. Still a very good starting point for personal/advanced post-processing work.

    Anyway, more reasonable than relying on camera makers would be a third-party profile making industry so those that wanted could pick their favorite software and make their own profiles for several of their cameras.

    I've heard stories from some users along the lines that they've had clients that have good color perception but little knowledge of cameras and complained that the color of building/product/whatever in the photo did not match the real thing. For example they would complain about that yellow building in the first post is too pale and has too little red in it. But I guess it's pretty rare, otherwise the big names would more often provide more realistic renditions than they do now.

    In minimal I'd like more people to know the impact the profile has, to end the myth that it's all about hardware. To pull it to an extreme -- I think there are some people that spend $50k on a medium format system because they thought the superior color was due to the hardware, and if they had only knew what the profile can do and if the software was there they would have been satisfied with a much cheaper smaller format system. I think a good profile maker enables users to work with cameras that otherwise has less good color, profiles for the 645z and A7r cameras have been popular with DCamProf. I also like people to know that profiles actually are subjective. I've seen people suggesting that some brands of cameras are just more "accurate" than others, when it's pretty obvious to anyone with a trained color perception that the profiles have been designed with a great deal of subjectivity.

    With greater knowledge among a wider group of users about these aspects of camera color, perhaps there will eventually be a healthy business for third-party profile making .
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 27th July 2016 at 13:17.

  46. #96
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1021

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    • Use Flash profile for daylight
    • Use Flash preset instead of white balance of WB-card
    • Set a colour space in the recipe, does that override output profile in the export dialogue? Would that matter as long as the image is correctly tagged and is within a suitable sized colour space?
    3 separate issues.

    1) Flash profile is a BACK profile so software knows which "camera" you used and in this case since it's a Phase back, how you used it -- in the P45's case, Flash Gray gives us the best native color for landscape. Agree that's odd, but it's reality for that back! Daylight worked very well for daylight imaging on all my subsequent backs.
    2) Flash WB is only a WB default, though one that works very well for *most* P45+ outdoor images, especially when combined with the flash gray as your capture profile. Again an oddity, but a reality for that back.
    3) The PROCESS tab chooses the OUTPUT or "color space" profile, AND renders your screen image IN THAT COLOR SPACE so that all edits you make render properly to the chosen space. Obviously Phase does this for most accurate editing purposes. >> How I use it: In this tab I typically use "selected recipe" and then have several recipes pre-built for 2000px 8-bit sRGB JPEG, 8-bit Adobe RGB tiff and 16-bit Prophoto tiff, along with several others. So I can check say 3 different recipes and output 3 different versions of the same image all the same time. However it's important to understand the recipe that is highlighted while I'm processing dictates the color space being edited to visually onscreen and not any of the others, EVEN IF I HAVE NOT CHECKED THIS RECIPE for process output. IOW, I can edit to one recipe whilst outputting to a different one -- not a good idea, but a frequent "mistake" made by new users of C1 that leads to poor, or at least confusing, color output AND associated inaccurate onscreen rendering. So in this case only my 16-bit Prophoto output tiff will be rendered most accurately since that's what I have highlighted. (Though for most applications using it still allows the smaller sRGB and Adobe RGB spaces to be equally well rendered. This is especially true if you've chosen "perceptual" rendering intent in the software preferences, which I also reco over absolute or relative.) Note that SOME people choose to edit in the back's capture profile to purposefully keep all colors inside the camera space, there are a few technical reasons to do so, and this is what you have chosen. However with older backs that had less than desirable native profiles -- like the P45+ -- it can be problematic at the final color output stage as you've seen, and so I'd reco you edit in the Profoto color space for that back for the best overall color result. Of course if you have a specific application for the image like untagged web or a client-specified Adobe RGB 8-bit tiff, then for sure you should edit to those color spaces so they render most accurately for your intended use.

    Hopefully this makes better sense now
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  47. #97
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,740
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Jack

    Any hints along these P45+ lines for new users of C1 and the IQ100MP back?

    I use the IQ100MP and "outdoor daylight" for camera profile.

    I edit (highlight) in Profoto 16bit tiff for my "selected recipe" and output ("process" many different ones to save time).

    Sounds about right or other suggestions which might work better?

  48. #98
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,670
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    With C1 I would always output to either Adobe 1998 or Prophoto.

    I prefer Mostly Adobe 1998 as it is very easy to take a prophoto color space image out of gamut for a Epson inkjet especially the blues. Once out of gamut it's very hard to get back in my experience. Most monitors also can't begin to display anywhere near the full 16 bit prophoto color space. Most of the newer monitors can get mot if the Adobe 1998 space 98 to 99 ish.

    LR keeps all editing in prophoto but you can pick the output space.

    Another issue is display for the web selected color space but that is a different discussion.

    Paul C

  49. #99
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1021

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by algrove View Post
    Jack

    Any hints along these P45+ lines for new users of C1 and the IQ100MP back?

    I use the IQ100MP and "outdoor daylight" for camera profile.

    I edit (highlight) in Profoto 16bit tiff for my "selected recipe" and output ("process" many different ones to save time).

    Sounds about right or other suggestions which might work better?
    Hi Al,

    I have not worked with the 100MP back, so cannot answer definitively. However, since the base profiles for every back after the P45+ have been excellent, I seriously doubt you will find any issues similar to the P45+ with the 100. But the color managed workflow I outline above should be followed for any Phase back in C1 -- IOW, choose your back profile (IQ3-100 Outdoor DL) and you base WB which can be DL or AUTO/SHOT and later droppered if desired, and then edit in your chosen output space, which for me is Prophoto.

    I print on an Epson X900, but in contrast to Paul, I still like editing in 16-bit Prophoto. Yes, you can in fact push some of the capture colors outside the Epson X900 gamut, but in most cases using a good paper profile with "Perceptual + BPC" rendering intent will attenuate any issues. Moreover, I print from CS and can easily toggle between Prophoto and my paper profile to see exactly what colors get pushed or squeezed, and more importantly if they harm the image in any way. Most of the time they do not, but on occasion I will do a minor output edit to correct something I'm not 100% happy with -- usually it's paper-specific and requires only a minor contrast or sat tweak on certain high colors which I'll impart via a channel curve. I then save and name that curve for future use on that paper.
    ~~~

    Getting slightly OT again, but in the interest of thread posterity here is an image I found from the IQ180 back to try and show relative color improvement made over the generational backs. This is not a great image in itself, but one that captured red flowers, purple flowers and greens. This image is processed in C1 basically straight out of cam as captured, and note the image was made in very flat, early AM light. The Lupine, (purple flowers) and Indian Paintbrush (red flowers) are very close to their true color in nature, and then it's pretty easy to infer the excellent native green separation from this back:



    And one more IQ180 shot taken in more normal early AM "daylight" also processed essentially as shot in cam to again highlight green separation:

    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  50. #100
    Workshop Member Wayne Fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Draper, Utah
    Posts
    794
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    122

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul2660 View Post
    With C1 I would always output to either Adobe 1998 or Prophoto.

    I prefer Mostly Adobe 1998 as it is very easy to take a prophoto color space image out of gamut for a Epson inkjet especially the blues. Once out of gamut it's very hard to get back in my experience. Most monitors also can't begin to display anywhere near the full 16 bit prophoto color space. Most of the newer monitors can get mot if the Adobe 1998 space 98 to 99 ish.

    LR keeps all editing in prophoto but you can pick the output space.

    Paul C
    I believe C1 also keeps all the data in a "large gamut" space which is probably a derivative of ppRGB like LR. The recipes control the rendering into the output file. But I've new

    I've never really had a problem letting the color management system map the full gamut ppRGB 16bit file into the Epson output color space. I also feel the gamut of the Epson printers in the blue regions exceed the gamut of AdobeRGB, so forcing the output tiff into AdobeRGB clips some of the available color to the printer.

    The entire concept of color management is allowing the device profiles to manipulate the colors into the visible output space, so even though we can't "see" a color, the way it is rendered allows us to see the colors as they relate to each other, which is more important in the scheme of human vision that the actual color that might be there scientifically.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •