The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Capture One or LR6?

torger

Active member
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.
 

torger

Active member
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

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
 
M

mjr

Guest
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
 

torger

Active member
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.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
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




...
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:
M

mjr

Guest
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
 

torger

Active member
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.
 
M

mjr

Guest
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
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
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.
 

torger

Active member
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 :).
 
M

mjr

Guest
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
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
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 ;)
 

torger

Active member
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.

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
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Jack,

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

So what would I use?

Recommended colour spaces are:
Screen Shot 2016-07-27 at 20.30.21.jpg

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:

Screen Shot 2016-07-27 at 20.33.43.jpg

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.
Screen Shot 2016-07-27 at 20.42.27.jpg


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



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:

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
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







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:

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
  • 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 ;)
 

algrove

Well-known member
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?
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
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
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
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:

 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
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.
 
Top