Would you bother to LCC this for colour (rather than light falloff)

[tashley]

A little mystery file for you - who thinks it needs colour correction rather than just falloff?

https://tashley1.zenfolio.com/p499067865/ebed7307a

 

[MGrayson]

Extremely mysterious. It looks like a little box with a question mark in it.

 

[dougpeterson]

Extremely mysterious. It looks like a little box with a question mark in it.

Maybe this is a sound-of-one-hand-clapping question?

I can say, definitively, based on what I (don't) see: definitely no need for LCC .

 

[pegelli]

The file doesn't show for me either, but I followed the link, downloaded the file and opened it in PS

Then I converted it to LAB colour and started looking around in the file.

No surprise, L varies greatly: about 50 in the darkest spots (top corners) vs. around 84 in the brightest area (middle, 2/3 down)
But the a and b values are relatively stable: a between -3 and 0, b between 3 and 6
So the colour seems relatively stable and just correcting for light falloff will probably do the trick. However that will also depend on the subject, if it's a painting against a white wall in a museum the colour variation might still be too much, but for a landscape shot with a nice blue sky it probably doesn't matter at all.

Only the bright spot seems decentered vertically, much brighter near the bottom vs. the top of the image. Since the filename has the term "shift" in it I think that will probably explain why this is the case.

 

[tashley]

Sorry guys, there is some weirdness going on with permissions at Zenfolio and it's stopping me from embedding. So I edited the original post to contain a link that will show you the file. As Pegelli (the detective!) says, this is shifted file. In fact it's an IQ4 150 with the Alpa version of the Rodie 40 HR shot at 10 rise, 3 tilt. Pretty cool methinks.

So now the decision time comes: is a back that finally might 'often' or 'usually' allow you to 'get away without' shooting an LCC the holy grail? Or will I find myself thinking 'usually' 'getting away' with it isn't enough and end up being anal and shooting LCC just in case?

Tough call. If the 'Capture One' in camera claim was fully correct then I'd go for it but as it is, it is my understanding that you can't create and apply LCC in camera.

The reason this matters to me is that, in the field, shot discipline is rarely perfect and that means that when you get back to base, knowing with certainty which LCC went with which shot can be tough. Add that to the fact that now twice since I went Phase, C1 has 'lost' my LCC connections and I have strong reasons to want to shoot without.

What I would really like is the ability to name LCCs in camera with a B designation - so for example CF0000123.IIQb or something similar....

 

[dougpeterson]

My experience is you can't tell much about the actual real-world consequence of a given amount color cast from looking at the white plexi file. Do you have a real-world scene before/after applying this LCC? My guess is you'd be surprised how little it matters (assuming you're not doing art reproduction or scientific imaging or such); at least that's been my experience with the IQ4 so far.

 

[tashley]

My experience is you can't tell much about the actual real-world consequence of a given amount color cast from looking at the white plexi file. Do you have a real-world scene before/after applying this LCC? My guess is you'd be surprised how little it matters (assuming you're not doing art reproduction or scientific imaging or such); at least that's been my experience with the IQ4 so far.

I have the real world scene image but it isn't fair of me to share since it contains matter that might be considered private, at a real stretch. But I can confirm that it has nothing colour wise that would disturb me. However, I am less sensitive to colour casts than some people, unless they are cyan skies, which really bug me.

 

[dchew]

So now the decision time comes: is a back that finally might 'often' or 'usually' allow you to 'get away without' shooting an LCC the holy grail? Or will I find myself thinking 'usually' 'getting away' with it isn't enough and end up being anal and shooting LCC just in case?
.

I’ve been thinking about that a lot since my morning with Doug.

I think I would still take the LCC. But I would turn off the dark frame and might dump the center filter. That dramatically reduces capture time at dusk.

Dave

 

[jng]

I find the dust removal feature in C1's LCC correction panel to be quite useful, so try to shoot an LCC whenever possible, even when using lenses that don't require it. Although in my experience C1's dust spotting tool can leave halos, I find that the dust removal function works quite well when applied to the LCC file. The minimal amount of effort at the time of capture can save a lot of tedium in removing any dust bunnies one by one.

So, one less reason for upgrading to the IQ4 150. Or so I keep telling myself. :ROTFL:

John

 

[etrump]

Yes, it has a fair amount of slight color changes mainly green and peachy orange.

A little mystery file for you - who thinks it needs colour correction rather than just falloff?

https://tashley1.zenfolio.com/p499067865/ebed7307a

 

[Wayne Fox]

Why would you bother to LCC for light falloff and not go ahead and fix the color?

Or are you trying to skip the LCC all together and use other means to soften/remove the vignetting? Personally I don’t think the slight color shift would be detectable in most files, but based on subject matter I think it might show up once in a while.

 

[tashley]

Why would you bother to LCC for light falloff and not go ahead and fix the color?

Or are you trying to skip the LCC all together and use other means to soften/remove the vignetting? Personally I don’t think the slight color shift would be detectable in most files, but based on subject matter I think it might show up once in a while.

Hoping to dump it altogether and deal with light falloff as and when. For me, the other new features of the back aren’t reason enough to pay for the upgrade - in fact I think 150 mp is overkill. But I’d dearly love a life with no LCC...

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Hoping to dump it altogether and deal with light falloff as and when. For me, the other new features of the back aren’t reason enough to pay for the upgrade - in fact I think 150 mp is overkill. But I’d dearly love a life with no LCC...

I think many are having the same considerations. Minimally, I am wondering if this will create more situations where you don't shoot the LCC, and in the case where you've underestimated that an LCC would have helped to some degree, allow yourself the post capture LCC process at a later time to come into play. If you don't capture an LCC at the time, in most situations you are not totally screwed, you do have that post capture option to still grab LCC files.

Because I think what everyone is really after is the shooting process being changed, and not shooting the LCC captures is a substantial improvement to the shooting experience itself (IMO). What you're left with are the quality issues. From that standpoint, you've always had the option of post capture LCC, but who really wants to do that to such a degree as required on the older digital backs? With the IQ4 150, the limited times you might need to, present that as a more viable option (if you truly want to dump shooting LCC's while in the subject environment).


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[tashley]

Thanks Steve, I get that but I’m afraid it isn’t a realistic likelihood as workflow for me and I suspect for a lot of landscape and architectural shooters. You can only do LLC post hoc if you have an accurate record of the movements you made. It is generally quicker and easier to capture an LCC than it is to fumble with notebooks and pens making notes you’ll no doubt misplace when you need them later.

I know, I should have better discipline, but frankly I am already carrying and marshaling so many bits and pieces in the field that what I want is a real slim down of the process. I appreciate that it might not be possible from a technology point of view but that really is the thing that makes me lean towards not upgrading. Other people’s mileages will certainly vary!

I think many are having the same considerations. Minimally, I am wondering if this will create more situations where you don't shoot the LCC, and in the case where you've underestimated that an LCC would have helped to some degree, allow yourself the post capture LCC process at a later time to come into play. If you don't capture an LCC at the time, in most situations you are not totally screwed, you do have that post capture option to still grab LCC files.

Because I think what everyone is really after is the shooting process being changed, and not shooting the LCC captures is a substantial improvement to the shooting experience itself (IMO). What you're left with are the quality issues. From that standpoint, you've always had the option of post capture LCC, but who really wants to do that to such a degree as required on the older digital backs? With the IQ4 150, the limited times you might need to, present that as a more viable option (if you truly want to dump shooting LCC's while in the subject environment).


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[faberryman]

A little mystery file for you - who thinks it needs colour correction rather than just falloff?

Looks like a slight color cast and noticeable light fall-off to me. But I'm likely to adjust the color palette in an image anyway so maybe it doesn't matter much.

 

[dchew]

You can only do LLC post hoc if you have an accurate record of the movements you made. It is generally quicker and easier to capture an LCC than it is to fumble with notebooks and pens making notes you’ll no doubt misplace when you need them later.

Agree completely. Of course, if Phase One would add a simple screen where this stuff could be added to the file via the digital back interface, we wouldn't have to worry about keeping track, now would we??
shift x
shift y
focus distance
f-stop (ok, that one is already there)

The fields are there in the metadata, and appear in C1. The millions of tech camera users have been screaming for this for years. Ok, tens of thousands of tech camera users.

Tens?

Dave

 

[Don Libby]

I'd rather see the RAW file as I don't think I could make a decision on a Jpeg file. Then again I hate jpeg for anything other than posting...

 

[jng]

And out of the legions of tech cam users, some of us are insane enough to tether in the field and yet still forget to enter shifts etc. in C1 or the f-stop in the back.... :loco:

John

Agree completely. Of course, if Phase One would add a simple screen where this stuff could be added to the file via the digital back interface, we wouldn't have to worry about keeping track, now would we??
shift x
shift y
focus distance
f-stop (ok, that one is already there)

The fields are there in the metadata, and appear in C1. The millions of tech camera users have been screaming for this for years. Ok, tens of thousands of tech camera users.

Tens?

Dave

 

[dchew]

And out of the legions of tech cam users, some of us are insane enough to tether in the field and yet still forget to enter shifts etc. in C1 or the f-stop in the back.... :loco:

John

Guilty as charged, at least as it applies to the f-stop. But that doesn’t mean I can’t be a hypocrite and complain regardless!

Dave

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Thanks Steve, I get that but I’m afraid it isn’t a realistic likelihood as workflow for me and I suspect for a lot of landscape and architectural shooters. You can only do LLC post hoc if you have an accurate record of the movements you made. It is generally quicker and easier to capture an LCC than it is to fumble with notebooks and pens making notes you’ll no doubt misplace when you need them later.

I know, I should have better discipline, but frankly I am already carrying and marshaling so many bits and pieces in the field that what I want is a real slim down of the process. I appreciate that it might not be possible from a technology point of view but that really is the thing that makes me lean towards not upgrading. Other people’s mileages will certainly vary!

Yes, I agree. But then again, I've learned that with the wide variety of individual photographers we work with, to never rule anything out. And the BSI sensor is going to be more tolerant to a "ballparked" guess at a shift movement position than previous sensors. I can see where someone may often have pretty consistent lateral shift progressions, and the main wild card would be vertical shift for manipulating sky or foreground framing. So, knowing that your lateral shift positions were 15-0-15 for most of your shooting, then your lateral recall could be incrementally added in at 2mm steps, then applied in C1. I could see many post capture LCC results being there in 1or 2 attempts. But having the ability to enter the shift movements into the metadata would be another logical step in the realization that the BSI technology promises.


Steve Hendrix/CI