Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: C4 vs. LR color rendition  (Read 20323 times)
samuel_js
Guest
« on: April 13, 2008, 03:44:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi all,
I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how get the right color out of Lightroom. Usually, C1 or C4 gives very acurate color maybe due to the Phase One profiles. Color from LR are way off. I like LR's color controls, very nice for landscapes etc.. but i don't seem to find a way to match the natural ouput from C4. Is there any way LR can read the Phase One profiles? Or is a calibration file needed?

In the next example I used a generic P20 profile, white balance "as shot" and a "extra contrast" curve for the C4 file. In the LR file I used standar settings, with balance "as shot" as well. As you can see the ouput is very different...



Any ideas?




Thank's
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9218



WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2008, 04:05:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Neither is accurate, one is preferable so lets start there.

Are you referring to a default rendering? Because you DO need to move the sliders to provide a desired color appearance (and then you could use that as a new default rendering, understanding that based on the capture, you may need a totally different set of rendering instructions).

No, there's no way the two products can work from one another.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #2 on: April 13, 2008, 04:09:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Neither is accurate, one is preferable so lets start there.

Are you referring to a default rendering? Because you DO need to move the sliders to provide a desired color appearance (and then you could use that as a new default rendering, understanding that based on the capture, you may need a totally different set of rendering instructions).

No, there's no way the two products can work from one another.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189286\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There's no processing but "as shot" withe balance, so of course they are not perfect acurate, but the  the red from the C4 file is right, the LR file is magenta.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2008, 04:09:46 PM by samuel_js » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9218



WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 13, 2008, 04:18:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There's no processing but "as shot" withe balance, so of course they are not perfect acurate, but the  the red from the C4 file is right, the LR file is magenta.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189287\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The As Shot WB is only a suggestion and starting point. You may need to use the WB tool, or simply alter an existing WB rendering and use that as the new default.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #4 on: April 13, 2008, 04:22:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The As Shot WB is only a suggestion and starting point. You may need to use the WB tool, or simply alter an existing WB rendering and use that as the new default.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189289\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, I tried that. It doesn't change the magenta.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4205



« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2008, 04:30:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi all,
I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how get the right color out of Lightroom. Usually, C1 or C4 gives very acurate color maybe due to the Phase One profiles. Color from LR are way off. I like LR's color controls, very nice for landscapes etc.. but i don't seem to find a way to match the natural ouput from C4. Is there any way LR can read the Phase One profiles? Or is a calibration file needed?

In the next example I used a generic P20 profile, white balance "as shot" and a "extra contrast" curve for the C4 file. In the LR file I used standar settings, with balance "as shot" as well. As you can see the ouput is very different...
Any ideas?


Thank's
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189279\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You *could* try and run the Fors Lightroom calibration script. That should improve matters, but my expectation is that your reds will still be off if the rest is ok. You could also play with the white balance sliders.

You could also use LR in linear mode and apply a profile afterwards, in Photoshop, if someone will make you such a profile. The problem here is that you lose the ability to preview what the LR sliders are doing for you.

I feel that the Adobe color model as it stands in the released versions is simply wrong. I'm not going to argue with Andrew here, he's a very smart guy but we have different opinions on this, and he keeps defending the status quo while I preach the fact that things that just ain't right should be fixed.

Adobe makes some superb software, they listen to customers, and I'm sure the color model in ACR will be fixed sooner or later. In the mean time however I would advise anybody who has issues with the colors in ACR and LR to use C1 or Raw Developer; their profile model works better in practice even if the authors aren't billionaires.

Edmund
« Last Edit: April 13, 2008, 04:36:43 PM by eronald » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9218



WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 13, 2008, 04:33:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes, I tried that. It doesn't change the magenta.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189290\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not sure what you're actually trying to do, but you should have no issues removing Magenta either using Tint Slider (which has a green/magenta axis) or using HSL controls to target that color to name just two options.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #7 on: April 13, 2008, 05:15:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Andrew, is not a question of tint or WB. The problem is LR not displaying the color balance properly (not white balance) as Eronal says.
In the example I posted the reds and yellows are off, as well as some greens, but the WB and tint is  similar to the C4 file.
Lightroom has a camera calibration solution that make the files look a bit better balanced, but still not as good or natural OOTB as the C4 files.

Eronald, have you tried to make a calibration file for your P45 in Lightroom?

/Samuel
Logged
E_Edwards
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228


« Reply #8 on: April 13, 2008, 05:56:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I use Lightroom together with Leaf (watched folder) to shoot product, so I need accuracy of colors.

The Leaf software is pretty accurate out of the box, as it were.

When the files go to Lightroom, I neutralise the white balance but certain colours are different, I guess it has to cope with raw files from numerous cameras, whereas your camera and mine have got their own individual profiles.

In my case, in particular the red spectrum, in Lightroom the reds appear more amber, so it's the opposite to yours.

Knowing this, I simply went to Hue/Saturation sliders, corrected to taste, saved this plus a few other adjustments that I like as a Lightroom Preset and that's all there is to it. I consider the Presets to be the equivalent to camera profiles.

When I shoot, the Preset is automatically applied to the file as is comes from the Watched folder, so you never have to think about this again. Perfect reds all the time.

Edward
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2439



WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 13, 2008, 06:20:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm curious about this too since I use a phase p20 and lightroom.  For some things like flowers or people, its just impossible to get the color that's believable out of LR with the p20 and also with the  leica DMR.   I've tried using the fors, tindeman, and rags scripts and so far none of them have given me as good a color as C1.   I do like a lot of features of LR though and find myself using it as a catalog and for critical files opening up C1 to do the conversion.

I really agree that LR would be a better tool if they would allow users to create camera profiles if they wanted (or use the defaults if not).   I don't understand how Adobe can put forth a DNG standard on the one hand, but hold tight to their proprietary two light source color rendering model for ACR and LR.   If they want to have a standard it needs to include profiles.
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4205



« Reply #10 on: April 13, 2008, 06:37:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Eronald, have you tried to make a calibration file for your P45 in Lightroom?

/Samuel
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189301\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I haven't even tried - it' s faster and easier for me to just use C1 or RD where I have tools that can deal with the color much better.

Anyway, I'm having a lot of software issues, and just realised the back needs to be fixed

Edmund
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4205



« Reply #11 on: April 13, 2008, 06:39:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't understand how Adobe can put forth a DNG standard on the one hand, but hold tight to their proprietary two light source color rendering model for ACR and LR.   If they want to have a standard it needs to include profiles.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189315\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Their DNG standard has provision for profiles. It's actually quite decently designed.  It's just LR and ACR which don't implement them.

Edmund
« Last Edit: April 13, 2008, 06:40:18 PM by eronald » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9218



WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 13, 2008, 08:14:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
For some things like flowers or people, its just impossible to get the color that's believable out of LR with the p20 and also with the  leica DMR.

If you're willing to post a Raw somehow, it would be real useful to have a look. Also, some rendered image of a preferred color appearance (low rez JPEG would be fine).
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2439



WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 13, 2008, 11:22:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Their DNG standard has provision for profiles. It's actually quite decently designed.  It's just LR and ACR which don't implement them.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189317\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Edmund,
That's my point exactly - why does Adobe do it for DNG but not use it in ACR/LR?
Eric
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2008, 04:29:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Knowing this, I simply went to Hue/Saturation sliders, corrected to taste, saved this plus a few other adjustments that I like as a Lightroom Preset and that's all there is to it. I consider the Presets to be the equivalent to camera profiles.

When I shoot, the Preset is automatically applied to the file as is comes from the Watched folder, so you never have to think about this again. Perfect reds all the time.

Edward
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189311\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I supose you mean the camera calibration sliders in LR. I did try that. It solves the problem partially, but I see inacurancies in other colors, not only red. Anyway, I supose that's the way to go, or export the files from C4 and then work with them corrected in LR. Not space saving but...
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9218



WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2008, 08:06:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Edmund,
That's my point exactly - why does Adobe do it for DNG but not use it in ACR/LR?
Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189341\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

They do it in DNG because its an open Raw format and other Raw converters obviously want such support. The don't do it in ACR/LR because no one has proven its at all useful.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4205



« Reply #16 on: April 14, 2008, 08:22:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
They do it in DNG because its an open Raw format and other Raw converters obviously want such support. The don't do it in ACR/LR because no one has proven its at all useful.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189389\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Let's get this right - they use matrices in LR and ACR, allow the manufacturer to write a matrix or a profile into the file but don't allow the user to benefit from the actual use of that matrix. Very funny. I guess all those camera guys, yeah we know they cannot understand anything about color - Kodak, Fuji, Canon, Nikon, Sony, yeah, they make those useless cameras, it's obvious that *they* don't know a thing about color. No surprise then that people are starting to say that what comes out of the point and shoots is better than what comes out of Lightroom.

There's a word for this. It's called Not Invented Here.

Hehe - let's make a poll. Let's find out what the people here -most of them pros- think about the color in the files which feed them and their kids.

Edmund
« Last Edit: April 14, 2008, 08:32:34 AM by eronald » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9218



WWW
« Reply #17 on: April 14, 2008, 08:39:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There's a word for this. It's called Not Invented Here.

Hehe - let's make a poll. Let's find out what the people here -most of them pros- think about the color in the files which feed them and their kids.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You can have such an opinion but its as yet not backed up with any proof of concept. Look, both Thomas Knoll and Mark Hamburg are pretty smart guys. You and those who feel they are blowing it, using terms like matrix profiles might feel you've got a point to make, but so far, over the years, your camp has failed to prove the point to many, most importantly the two guys mentioned above.

Not invented here? OK, if you want to go that route, fine. If you want Thomas to implement ICC profiles, you need to work a LOT harder than that. You need to demonstrate ether mathematically (good luck) or empirically they are off base here, you're not. Historically, that's been a huge failure (or more like a non event) from your camp of "We need ICC profiles in ACR/LR" fan boys.

Go ahead, make a poll. More useless doggy posturing with no meat to back up anything.

Now if you, or your friends who build camera profiles, or the people who also write Raw converters can demonstrate your points successfully, backed up with something known as proof of concept to Thomas, you might make a bit of progress. But Thomas isn't keeping profiles out of the product because he wants to piss off you or the ICC. Prove you've got a better mousetrap.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4205



« Reply #18 on: April 14, 2008, 09:32:18 AM »
ReplyReply

As for the matrices which ACR uses at the moment it's pretty obvious that if a given camera is out of spec or the lighting is really weird that's the end of the "canned" matrices embedded in the software, so loading one from the file itself as DNG mandates might be a very good idea. I think you may be aware that if a printer is out of spec, the generic printer profile is not so good which is why the user is allowed to over-ride a generic profile with a custom profile.

 As to the technicalities, I will be delighted to discuss them with Thomas, John, Tom, Peter   and colleagues directly. Thomas' model was good as a first approximation,  it's simply showing its age now.

 My "friends" are as you well know all leading color scientists and engineers, and have made a lot of the software and hardware which you are using in your practice, and everyone else here is using, so I don't think you should call them incompetent. The fact that some of them are going through M&A at the moment hasn't stopped your spectros and software from working, has it ?


Edmund

Quote
You can have such an opinion but its as yet not backed up with any proof of concept. Look, both Thomas Knoll and Mark Hamburg are pretty smart guys. You and those who feel they are blowing it, using terms like matrix profiles might feel you've got a point to make, but so far, over the years, your camp has failed to prove the point to many, most importantly the two guys mentioned above.

Not invented here? OK, if you want to go that route, fine. If you want Thomas to implement ICC profiles, you need to work a LOT harder than that. You need to demonstrate ether mathematically (good luck) or empirically they are off base here, you're not. Historically, that's been a huge failure (or more like a non event) from your camp of "We need ICC profiles in ACR/LR" fan boys.

Go ahead, make a poll. More useless doggy posturing with no meat to back up anything.

Now if you, or your friends who build camera profiles, or the people who also write Raw converters can demonstrate your points successfully, backed up with something known as proof of concept to Thomas, you might make a bit of progress. But Thomas isn't keeping profiles out of the product because he wants to piss off you or the ICC. Prove you've got a better mousetrap.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189396\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: April 14, 2008, 09:36:26 AM by eronald » Logged
maxmoose
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #19 on: April 14, 2008, 09:35:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You can have such an opinion but its as yet not backed up with any proof of concept. Look, both Thomas Knoll and Mark Hamburg are pretty smart guys. You and those who feel they are blowing it, using terms like matrix profiles might feel you've got a point to make, but so far, over the years, your camp has failed to prove the point to many, most importantly the two guys mentioned above.

Not invented here? OK, if you want to go that route, fine. If you want Thomas to implement ICC profiles, you need to work a LOT harder than that. You need to demonstrate ether mathematically (good luck) or empirically they are off base here, you're not.


I'm sure you could base a career on arguing the nuances between different technical approaches but the people using the software (ie creatives/photographers) don't actually care!

What they do care about is having an experience which takes them to a result in a manner which is not frustrating and leaves them feeling warm and fuzzy.

Currently LR/ACR frustrates in too many cases and it would be far better to have a scenario where you can choose the input profile to start from a good canned result, and then use the LR tool-set to get creative, rather than going in and spending time tweaking away in an effort to fix the thing.

This is much more a user interface creative flow issue than anything to do with the technicalities of matrices and profiles.

Max
« Last Edit: April 14, 2008, 09:47:31 AM by maxmoose » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad