Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: C4 vs. LR color rendition  (Read 19125 times)
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 14, 2008, 10:05:27 AM »
ReplyReply

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


I've never understood why these disucssions get so heated, when in reality and day to day use, post processing, manufacturer's color response has gotten so much better.

The digital boys always seem to get a strap on, when someone disses their favorite process, but in reality it would be nice if 3rd party convertors could exactly read the files like the manufacturers intended.  V4, DPP, etc. usually produce a better result in initial view than 3rd party convertors. (I said generally as there are no absolutes in photography).

Regardless . .  .

Imacon to the newest Hasselblad is night and day in color, Leaf LC10 to LC11 is a huge leap and even the previous gold standard C1 to V4 has more controls, much better previews, faster processing and some features I mentioned that make matching images so much easier.

Lightroom I guess is now the standard and I use it for some images and like the interface though I personally find the first look requigues corrections more intense than the manufacturers software.

Even small products like Raw Developer produce beautiful color if you know the look you want to optain.

If someone is looking for a one button click for great color regardless of the scene, skin coloration, lighting, I don't think that is ever going to exist.

Now it would be nice if the medium format manufacturers made it so the presets or "film" you made in their raw convertors, or even 3rd party converters could be put into the camera so what goes in is what comes out and even though you can do this with Canon, it's not always picked up by all the brands.

With about 10million different light sources, another 10 million ways to mix and match light, working studio to location, ambient to mixed, etc. etc. I don't see how one click fits all is ever going to be a standard.

Still, if you were batch processing thousands of images from a shoot 2 years ago vs today and you constantly worked under heavy deadlines, you can't help but be impressed about how far digital capture has come.  Two years ago a day of location shooting would mean 12 hours in post just to produce jpegs, now it's down to about 3 or 4 hours.

I've seen test after test and known photographers that have gone weeks, even months trying to find the perfect camera, color, look, that is easy and essentially a one button push and I firmly belive it's just not possible for all situations.

What may look good to someone on a precooked jpeg out of a fuji finepix is not really going to work in progessional post production.

From the start of photography film to digital everyone is searching for that unique, personal color pallete and unless you shoot catalog where the blues must be the exact blues, the reds must be the exact reds, etc., there has and always will be a certain amount of fiddling with imagery.

I understand how and why we are at this point with cameras, computers and software.

What I never understood is why most of the traditional labs could not make the leap of taking their expertise and color knowledge of film and apply that to digital.

Tradtional labs seemed to be in the perfect position to know how to match nc100, epr, provia etc. to a P30 or Canon file, as they had film examples from some of the world's best photographers, though very few of them made the investment into full bore digital post and fewer still are around anymore.

Regardless, the cameras and software have come a long way.  I hold probably 80 terabytes of data (with backups) for my clients and probably have about 1200 web galleries on line.

When I go back a few years and look at the galleries from what I use to produce to what I send today, the process is much more refiened and elegent, at least in the initial web gallery view.

Still photography gets closer to cinema production daily and not just in shooting but in the complete review, process and finish out.

Pick up any magazine of importance or flip through any awards annual and you will see post work that will rival Ridley Scott.

That's just the way the process is going, everyone wants a unique look, everyone wants an edge and though expert digital post won't fix a crappy photograph, it can enhance it in ways that we never dreamed of before.

If anyone wants easy photographs, it's just not going to happen.  

JR
« Last Edit: April 14, 2008, 10:15:32 AM by James R Russell » Logged

bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2756



« Reply #21 on: April 14, 2008, 10:20:46 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.

[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In view of the following quote from Thomas Knoll, it follows that until such time as the camera makers come up with more linear filters, it will not be possible to match the human cone responses with a simple 3 by 3 matrix conversion as used in ACR.

“Actually, to create a camera filter set that is "perfect", it is not required to exactly the match the human cone responses (or the XYZ responses). All that is required is the filter responses be some linear combination of the human cone responses. If that is the case, then a simple 3 by 3 matrix [space] can be used in software to recover the exact XYZ values.

If the filter set is not a [perfect] linear combination of the cone responses (which is the case for all current cameras), then any color calibration is going to be some kind of comprise, getting some colors correct and other colors incorrect. This is true even if you know the exact illuminant spectral curve and the exact filter spectral response curves.”


As I understand the ACR calibration process, it is merely tweaking the matrix coefficients used for conversion from the camera space to the internal working space, and some colors in the resulting conversion will be correct and others will not. ICC camera profiles have been problematic for general use. One problem is that the illuminant spectral curve is highly variable and unknown; in addition, the range of luminance and colors is highly variable. However, for some types of photography where the illuminant is constant and known, an approach using an ICC profile with lookup tables would be useful at least theoretically. One such application is the digital reproduction of museum paintings where an exact and not merely pleasing reproduction of masterpieces is desired.

[a href=\"http://www.cdiny.com/ArticlesWhitePapers/ISO%20Standards%20for%20Museum%20Imaging_cdi_v1.0.pdf]ISO Standards for Museum Imaging[/url] is written by an expert in this process and discusses some factors involved in such work. It deals mainly with luminance mapping but also concludes that the ability to use ICC profiles is essential.

Quote
Due to some info that Andrew and I are privy to, it's really, really not worth arguing about this at this stage. In the not too distant future, all of this discussion will be moot.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188873\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This cryptic comment taken in its context suggests that some changes in color management in ACR and LR may be upcoming. Indeed, a good software company should respond to the needs of their users, without the users having to submit proof in advance of their needs. However, a balance between features and software bloat must be achieved and it is not possible to be all things to all people. The museum users will probably continue to use Capture One and Adobe won't lose that much business.

Bill
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 14, 2008, 11:14:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189406\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You're again putting words into people's mouths. I never said they were incompetent. I said they (and you) have not proven your points one bit. You say there's a solution to a problem that hasn't been proven (either the problem NOR the solution). Before Thomas nor I are even going to consider listening to your camp, you need to do both. Its that simple.

You continue to avoid simple questions such as, are you or others totally unable to render the color appearance desired and further you've not proven that even if that's true, that custom ICC profiles would be any better, or wouldn’t in fact hose other areas that work well in ACR.

That point lump the ability of my Spectrophotometer to measure color further gives me the impression you either don't want to prove your points or you wish to digress into an area that has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. My electricity still runs, as does the water; what does have to do with you proving that custom ICC profiles are the solution to a problem you have yet to prove exists?
Logged

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

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 14, 2008, 11:19:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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!

I totally agree. I don't care either (as I said in another post). All I care about is producing a desired color rendering and so far, that hasn't been any difficulties yet.

Quote
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.

IF someone would empirically demonstrate either a problem, or that this is indeed a viable solution, again I'd agree with you. But I'm not even close to believing this is the case based on the pundits that say there's a problem to begin with and that they have the solution. And I'm pretty certain that Thomas would like to see such proof before he just goes off and builds in what might be added complexity to the product and perhaps make the matter (if one exists) worse just because a few geeks and those who sell profiles think he should.

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

Again I agree. Could one even propose the so called problem is user error or inability to investigate the tools provided and instead insist that there's a problem in the first place and that some magic profile, like magic underpants is the fix?

Oh, I think Mr Russell has summed up the "issues" quite well.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2008, 11:22:44 AM by digitaldog » Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
maxmoose
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #24 on: April 14, 2008, 12:28:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
IF someone would empirically demonstrate either a problem, or that this is indeed a viable solution, again I'd agree with you. But I'm not even close to believing this is the case based on the pundits that say there's a problem to begin with and that they have the solution.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189433\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Capture One demonstrates it's viable and for the evidence please see the original post for 1 (empirical) pair of magenta trousers.

Whether its viable for LR without screwing it up is a problem for Adobe - the users, as is their nature, just want the best solution regardless.

Quote
Again I agree. Could one even propose the so called problem is user error or inability to investigate the tools provided
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189433\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Maybe but that's going to come down to whatever the Adobe software design philosophy is regarding usability. Personally I don't think they have the balance right yet in terms of the current implementation of the calibration sliders.

Quote
like magic underpants is the fix?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189433\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That would be sweet - Adobe Photoshop Lightroom CS9 Majik YFronts for all your imaging needs.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 14, 2008, 12:35:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Capture One demonstrates it's viable and for the evidence please see the original post for 1 (empirical) pair of magenta trousers.

No, it only demonstrates you were able to produce a desired color appearance in C1. And it doesn't prove that this was due to a profile. It also doesn't prove (to me) that the rendering is impossible to produce in LR/ACR (you could however provide a Raw to at least allow us to try). And not having the ability to render the color as desired doesn't prove a profile would make this so.

What you can prove is you used two products and preferred the rendering of one, over the other. But not a lot more.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #26 on: April 14, 2008, 12:47:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No, it only demonstrates you were able to produce a desired color appearance in C1. And it doesn't prove that this was due to a profile. It also doesn't prove (to me) that the rendering is impossible to produce in LR/ACR (you could however provide a Raw to at least allow us to try). And not having the ability to render the color as desired doesn't prove a profile would make this so.

What you can prove is you used two products and preferred the rendering of one, over the other. But not a lot more.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189456\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The only settings difference between the two images is the profile being applied in C4. Nothing more. This means I get the right color instantly. No need to move sliders to FIX IT.
None is saying here ACR or LR are unable to correct the images to get the colors desired after tweaking the sliders. But they are clearly not capable to read the right colors from the raw file. And I could call it "a problem".
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3881



WWW
« Reply #27 on: April 14, 2008, 01:05:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You're again putting words into people's mouths. I never said they were incompetent. I said they (and you) have not proven your points one bit. You say there's a solution to a problem that hasn't been proven (either the problem NOR the solution). Before Thomas nor I are even going to consider listening to your camp, you need to do both. Its that simple.

You continue to avoid simple questions such as, are you or others totally unable to render the color appearance desired and further you've not proven that even if that's true, that custom ICC profiles would be any better, or wouldn’t in fact hose other areas that work well in ACR.

That point lump the ability of my Spectrophotometer to measure color further gives me the impression you either don't want to prove your points or you wish to digress into an area that has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. My electricity still runs, as does the water; what does have to do with you proving that custom ICC profiles are the solution to a problem you have yet to prove exists?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189429\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My point was proven long ago  during the Leica M8 IR fiasco. The camera was unusable as supplied because of magenta casts. A $4500 brick. People filtered their cameras, I generated some profiles, and hey-presto the colors were fixed in C1. Summary: The camera was out of spec, but a profile could fix it totally transparently. Hundreds of people started using my profiles, and I think hundreds were using other free profiles - which had different aesthetics.

This is like having a handbrake in a European car: It's there so if the nice hydraulics fail you use it.

Consumers would benefit from ACR/LR having an over-ride so if the color is bad on one camera I can just override it.

Are you also going to argue that printer drivers don't need a switch so they can use custom profiles, in case the hardware is out of spec or you have some strange media loaded?

Finally as regards the spectros and hardware, I was pointing out that my "friends" happen to be the color scientists of various large corporations whose COLOR PRODUCTS you happen to use.Why do you suddenly assume these guys are idiots when at the ICC they say cameras need better color management ? You sound a bit like someone who has converted from the church of Custom Profile to the church of Fixed Rendering and now wants everyone else to recant their own affiliation.

Edmund
« Last Edit: April 14, 2008, 01:38:14 PM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #28 on: April 14, 2008, 01:06:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The only settings difference between the two images is the profile being applied in C4. Nothing more. This means I get the right color instantly. No need to move sliders to FIX IT.
None is saying here ACR or LR are unable to correct the images to get the colors desired after tweaking the sliders. But they are clearly not capable to read the right colors from the raw file. And I could call it "a problem".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189458\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Now wait. You're saying you're using just default settings in BOTH applications and the C1 is "better"?

That only illustrates that in this case, you prefer the rendering default. And it doesn't indicate a problem that can't be "fixed" if you didn't alter additional sliders in either product, only that the initial default of one converter is preferable.

I believe you're saying above "No one is saying here that ACR or LR are unable to correct the image to get the desired color after tweaking the sliders"? Because some ARE saying this. They are implying (not well) that there's an issue with ACR/LR engine that requires the addition of some magic profile.

Further, the color isn't right, its preferred. And its very possible and likely that you can submit any number of differing images to both products and find that one that produced a preferred default rendering now doesn't and the other does. Default settings out of the box are starting points. Considering you can (and should) roll your own, a process that takes but a few seconds, or even a family of such presets to start the rendering process, only further illustrates that at least in this case, there isn't a fundamental problem, only a poor (less desirable) default rendering.

Have you ever printed color negs in a darkroom? If you walk into one, pop your color neg into the enlarger and make an initial test print, the likelihood that whatever filter pack is engaged will produce a desirable first print is iffy at best. And there are some pretty sophisticated auto analyzers used to narrow this down. But its just as likely the default or even auto analyzed first print will not be what you want as it will be what you want. We have filter pack control because of this fact. IF no amount of filtering would produce a desired color print, we'd have an issue (is it the filters themselves, the neg, the enlarger light source?). If you walk into an adjacent color darkroom with a differing set of filters setup, the initial print may or may not be closer to your goal than the previous darkroom.

The issue here is, can you or can you not produce a desired color appearance? Once you can, is it 100% (I seriously doubt that is possible). Even if this is less than 100%, is it always closer to your rendering goal than using the other converter with lots of different captures?
Logged

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

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #29 on: April 14, 2008, 01:11:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My point was proven long ago  during the Leica M8 IR fiasco. The camera was unusable as supplied because of magenta casts. A $4500 brick. People filtered their cameras, I generated some profiles, and hey-presto the colors were fixed in C1.
Consumers would benefit from ACR/LR having an over-ride so if the color is bad on one camera I can just override it.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189463\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Edmund, it getting progressively harder to take you seriously on this point when you use two totally different converters and processes and attempt to correlate this into any kind of evidence that there's an issue here with the ACR engine. Or suggesting that having access to custom profiles that you build in ACR would be any benefit (in fact, you've yet to prove there's an issue that needs to be fixed).

For the last time, really, the last time, could you answer a simple question specifically about the ACR engine. Are you or are you not able to produce a desired color appearance using the current set of controls in the ACR engine and if not (I'd like the Raw), can you prove that this problem is a direct result of the lack of profile access? Yes or no will do.
Logged

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

Posts: 3881



WWW
« Reply #30 on: April 14, 2008, 01:21:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Edmund, it getting progressively harder to take you seriously on this point when you use two totally different converters and processes and attempt to correlate this into any kind of evidence that there's an issue here with the ACR engine. Or suggesting that having access to custom profiles that you build in ACR would be any benefit (in fact, you've yet to prove there's an issue that needs to be fixed).

For the last time, really, the last time, could you answer a simple question specifically about the ACR engine. Are you or are you not able to produce a desired color appearance using the current set of controls in the ACR engine and if not (I'd like the Raw), can you prove that this problem is a direct result of the lack of profile access? Yes or no will do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189466\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Get any of the old M8 files - people fixed *the appearance* of their files using a non-linear transform which mapped the deep magenta shadows to black. This is something that ACR could not do AT THE TIME BECAUSE IT WAS NOT A MATRIX. If you have an M8, go ahead, rip off the IR filter, take an image of some synthetics and try to get rid of the magenta casts. A profile cannot fix the camera but it can make the defect almost tolerable. Such profiles were widely circulated at the time in the M8 community.

Edmund
« Last Edit: April 14, 2008, 01:26:13 PM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 14, 2008, 01:26:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Get any of the old M8 files - people fixed *the appearance* of their files using a non-linear transform which mapped the deep magenta shadows to black. This is something that ACR could not do AT THE TIME BECAUSE IT WAS NOT A MATRIX.

OK so you're not going to answer the question, instead go back to color geek speak and talk about matrixes. I think its pretty clear where you're going with all this.
Logged

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

Posts: 3881



WWW
« Reply #32 on: April 14, 2008, 01:30:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
OK so you're not going to answer the question, instead go back to color geek speak and talk about matrixes. I think its pretty clear where you're going with all this.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189469\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, it is pretty clear. I just spent my afternoon doing a presentation to Fuji, and strangely enough their color geeks take me very seriously. I just got a message from the color geeks at Jenoptik who agree with my proposals and want a minor technical modification. I will be very please to talk to the camera color geeks at Adobe - geek to geek

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
maxmoose
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #33 on: April 14, 2008, 01:30:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Edmund:

In layman's terms (cos I'm dumb) could you explain what a matrix is and how it differs from ACR's colour engine?
Logged
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #34 on: April 14, 2008, 01:31:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Edmund, it getting progressively harder to take you seriously on this point when you use two totally different converters and processes and attempt to correlate this into any kind of evidence that there's an issue here with the ACR engine. Or suggesting that having access to custom profiles that you build in ACR would be any benefit (in fact, you've yet to prove there's an issue that needs to be fixed).

For the last time, really, the last time, could you answer a simple question specifically about the ACR engine. Are you or are you not able to produce a desired color appearance using the current set of controls in the ACR engine and if not (I'd like the Raw), can you prove that this problem is a direct result of the lack of profile access? Yes or no will do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189466\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Andrew, to answer your question. No I can't get the same colors as in C4. Reason: because the inconsistences I find are not only the in reds, it's also yellow and green. Changing the tint of a specific color doesn't only change worng colors to right, but also right colors became wrong.
Again this doesn't mean LR can't produce a file a can live with, but C1 is the first option because the overall balance is simply right, well balanced and a perfect start point to work the image. And this is an important point in my workflow: Good composition and good exposure and a good RAW DEV to get the best of the Raws, no to fix things up because the program is unable the read the information right.
Logged
Peter_DL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 421


« Reply #35 on: April 14, 2008, 01:31:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes, I tried that. It doesn't change the magenta.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24097&pid=189446&st=148&#]Welcome[/url]...

--
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3881



WWW
« Reply #36 on: April 14, 2008, 01:35:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Edmund:

In layman's terms (cos I'm dumb) could you explain what a matrix is and how it differs from ACR's colour engine?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189471\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Matrices *are* what makes ACR's color engine work. I am afraid I cannot explain in layman's terms.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #37 on: April 14, 2008, 01:40:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Welcome...

--
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189473\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
     
So LR renders wrong color because of my cultural background or that I (suposely) don't like orange or magenta? So why does C4 give the right red and yellow tones? Because the program likes me?

That's a good one.
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2756



« Reply #38 on: April 14, 2008, 01:53:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
     
So LR renders wrong color because of my cultural background or that I (suposely) don't like orange or magenta? So why does C4 give the right red and yellow tones? Because the program likes me?

That's a good one.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think the cultural preferences have to do with Caucasian skin tones. Persons of Asian or African origin might have different preferences.

Bill
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 14, 2008, 02:08:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Andrew, to answer your question. No I can't get the same colors as in C4.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189472\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well I'm not expecting the same color, its real difficult (but not impossible depending on the image) to get two converters to produce identical results everywhere. The question is more about producing a desired color appearance albeit with some slight differences.

Quote
Again this doesn't mean LR can't produce a file a can live with, but C1 is the first option because the overall balance is simply right, well balanced and a perfect start point to work the image.

And I'm OK with that and actually find the same thing true comparing LR and Raw Developer which I prefer in terms of rendering qualities but not workflow. But that's not the same as some who suggest (and refuse to answer) the question about the ability or inability to produce a file they can live with. For them, the product is broken and there is only one way to fix it. They as yet have totally failed to prove either point.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2008, 02:10:38 PM by digitaldog » Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad