Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: C4 vs. LR color rendition  (Read 19124 times)
bryanyc
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


« Reply #60 on: April 15, 2008, 09:51:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog,Apr 14 2008, 02:06 PM

Have you ever printed color negs in a darkroom?

-Yes, as a professional printer at an extremely good color lab back in the day.

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.

-Not if someone had previous access to the enlarger settings and film type and made some tests, perhaps a few tests under different lighting and exposures.  Then I would imagine that I could be very close to a good print right off the bat.  

-I hope you can appreciate the analogy.   Just as processing digital images was a real pain a few years ago so it remains today.  There is so much more improvement to come.  We are just talking about how it can be improved, and made more simple.

And we are trying to talk about it without arrogance and snideness.  I think if one cannot carry out a conversation without these deleterious qualities it might be better to just not post at all.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2008, 10:04:51 AM by bryanyc » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #61 on: April 15, 2008, 10:05:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
-Not if someone had previous access to the enlarger settings and film type and made some tests, perhaps a few tests under different lighting and exposures.  Then I would imagine that I could be very close to a good print right off the bat. 

Well it might but we'd have to have the same film stock, same processing and exposure (as the mask is based on all the above) etc. So this would be akin to shooting a Raw in two totally different locations but both having very, very similar properties, then of course, the same preset would work as you point out. But the farther the deviation of the two negs, or two captures scenes, the less likely the same preset or filter pack would work.

One reason we can profile a scanner is its very consistent in terms of its behavior, much like having two different but similar negs or scenes we capture.
Logged

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

Posts: 179


« Reply #62 on: April 15, 2008, 10:19:41 AM »
ReplyReply

http://www.deathtofilm.com/2008/04/08/how-...he-competition/

interesting point, even i don't agree at all with it
Logged
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #63 on: April 15, 2008, 12:26:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So does no one notice that this comparison is completely wrong. They have used the ICC profile from Leaf for the AFi 5 Portrait 4 in Capture One on a Phase One back. I wish people would stop acting like experts when they can't get some basics done correctly.

Phase one profiles on Phase backs are very good and far superior than ACR/LR defaults. Case closed. I wish the non-working-photographers/experts/scientists would realize working photographers just want all this shit to work well, quickly and look good at the onset. We are happy to tweak to our own look but not to have to correct what the color scientists and others refuse to get, make the digital realm more friendly as was film stock.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189733\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Though I don't know the specifics now, Initirally Michael Britt was pretty much hooked into using Leaf so at that time during the V8-LC10 transition, Adobe products were the only real realiable way to batch and process, so his familiarity is probably deep with Adobe software.

Still, I agree that regardless if you want to call them profiles, color looks, film looks or potatoe chips, it still is better to start with a file that looks good (I know good is a moving target) on set and let us then tweak and work from there.

I'm not dissing lightroom, it's very good software, but I don't find the presets anywhere near the way I shoot when tethered to C1 3.78 or processing in V4 and this also holds true for Leica in C-1 and the Canons in DPP.

Still, all of this comes down to personal preference.  If you find Lightroom is the one, then we all have that option, nothing right or wrong with that.

It's the proprietary thing that bugs me.  Why I can't see as a out of camera look in lightroom that I see in DPP using a Canon, or any of the manufacturer's software doesn't make our life easier.

JR
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3880



WWW
« Reply #64 on: April 15, 2008, 01:45:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Phase one profiles on Phase backs are very good and far superior than ACR/LR defaults. Case closed. I wish the non-working-photographers/experts/scientists would realize working photographers just want all this shit to work well, quickly and look good at the onset. We are happy to tweak to our own look but not to have to correct what the color scientists and others refuse to get, make the digital realm more friendly as was film stock.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189733\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The camera manufacturers all get this and make good looks for their cameras. In fact, ask Yair or Thierry, they pride themselves on the quality of their imagery.

But the minute you use Lightroom, you throw all this away in the name of workflow, and get Adobe Vanilla Color, whatever the camera you use. Now Andrew tells us any flavor can be made with Vanilla. That may be true, but so far it ain't the case.As the poll shows.

My take on this is IF THE CONSUMER WANTS THE MANUFACTURER RENDERING, HE HAS A RIGHT TO SEE IT, WHATEVER THE CONVERTER. Buying a software license from Adobe does not mean Adobe gets a license to castrate your imagery.

But for the user to get the manufacturer rendering from LR both the camera guys and Adobe have to play ball:

- The manufacturer needs to encode his cam2xyz mapping and profile in the file metadata.
- Adobe needs to pick up the matrix or profile and apply them as requested.

Strangely enough, the manufacturers mostly don't write their data and profiles in the files and even when they do LR and ACR ignores them. Everyone's happy - the camera guys keep their trade secrets, Adobe keeps its lock-in, the user keeps getting vanilla s***.

Edmund
« Last Edit: April 15, 2008, 01:52:50 PM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Chris Livsey
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 249



« Reply #65 on: April 15, 2008, 02:19:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
One such application is the digital reproduction of museum paintings where an exact and not merely pleasing reproduction of masterpieces is desired.

ISO Standards for Museum Imaging is written by an expert in this process and discusses some factors involved in such work.
Bill
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry to go back to this but I passed the link to a friend who has written processing software, notably cornerfix for the LeicaM8  [a href=\"http://sourceforge.net/projects/cornerfix]http://sourceforge.net/projects/cornerfix[/url]
I quote his response to the section which invites readers to check how the various converters do not handle files well.
Quote

Not to take away from the point made in the original article that color management as currently practiced is a mess, the example quoted above is just plain wrong - it based on a misunderstanding of what the Photoshop and Lightroom RGB values are actually reading.

Photoshop reads on a 0-255 scale, so 118 is 46.27%, not 50%

As regards Lightroom, Lightroom's RGB readout is in the Melissa RGB space, which is a proprietary Adobe space - basically, it uses ProPhoto's color values, and an sRGB gamma curve. If you convert lab 50,0,0 to Melissa RGB you get 0.4649,0.4649,0.4649, exactly what Lightroom is reading. You can try that in Apple's ColorSync utility if you want.

If you then adust the exposure setting, your are changing the color away from lab 50,0,0. So when you then export your new color, its no longer lab 50,0,0. That's entirely correct behaviour. RGB 50,50,50 is actually lab 53.39,0,0 - again you can check that with Apple's ColorSync.

For those interested, I wrote extensively on color spaces and RGB readout for Lightroom, Aperture and C1 here: ChromaSoft: Lightroom, Aperture and Capture One Mini-Review Part 1
http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2008/01/lig...ne-mini_24.html

End quote

I wanted to clarify this as the article is interesting and worthwhile but the expert may not be an expert in all aspects of this complex area.
Logged

ATB
Chris Livsey
http://www.flickr.com/photos/red_eyes_man/

Photographer- not a job description, a diagnosis.
snickgrr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 270


WWW
« Reply #66 on: April 15, 2008, 02:30:10 PM »
ReplyReply

And that is what so nice about Raw Developer.  What I see in the Leaf LC11 is what comes out of Raw Developer.
It's a no brainer.  Open the folder, press the button and the resulting file looks just like it did in LC11.  No sliders, no adjustment...unless of course you want to change it.

Quote
The camera manufacturers all get this and make good looks for their cameras. In fact, ask Yair or Thierry, they pride themselves on the quality of their imagery.


Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189749\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3880



WWW
« Reply #67 on: April 15, 2008, 02:39:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And that is what so nice about Raw Developer.  What I see in the Leaf LC11 is what comes out of Raw Developer.
It's a no brainer.  Open the folder, press the button and the resulting file looks just like it did in LC11.  No sliders, no adjustment...unless of course you want to change it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189760\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Exactly - Brian has implemented what I talk about, and so has Leaf. You want the Leaf rendering for a Leaf file, you *can* get it in RD. That's the honest way to implement a third party converter: GIVE THE USER THE CAMERA HE BOUGHT.

Edmund
« Last Edit: April 15, 2008, 02:41:09 PM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #68 on: April 15, 2008, 03:10:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And that is what so nice about Raw Developer.  What I see in the Leaf LC11 is what comes out of Raw Developer.
It's a no brainer.  Open the folder, press the button and the resulting file looks just like it did in LC11.  No sliders, no adjustment...unless of course you want to change it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189760\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Quote
Exactly - Brian has implemented what I talk about, and so has Leaf. You want the Leaf rendering for a Leaf file, you *can* get it in RD. That's the honest way to implement a third party converter: GIVE THE USER THE CAMERA HE BOUGHT.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189764\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Completely agree.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2008, 03:11:28 PM by samuel_js » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


WWW
« Reply #69 on: April 15, 2008, 03:29:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Thanks for a lot of good mailings. Just a few comments...

I think that one of the issues is that sensors don't have narrow band filters but wide band overlapping filters. That means the it would be hard to characterize them with simple ICC-like profiles. Reasons driving these choices of filters is probably:

1) Sensivity, wide band filters pass more light
2) Similarity to eyesight
3) Cost

Having wide band filters means that tricolor signals are much dependent on the spectrum of the illumination. It would probably possible to design a profile that behaved like Velvia for instance, but that would require that:

a) The transmission characteristics of the RGB filters on the sensor would be similar to that of Velvia.
b) The spectral composition of the illuminant would be the same.

If these, and possibly other, conditions would be fulfilled you could probably reproduce "Velvia" characteristics using a profile or "preset". It would not be possible to reproduce the characteristics of Ektachrome with the same characteristics of filters, however.

Best regards

Erik

Quote
Regardless of what the look is called, profile, presets, etc. it would be of tremendous value if what you set in C1, Dpp, LC11, etc. would be picked up exactl the same in lightroom and ACR.

This is not to say lightroom is bad, there is no bad in terms of converters and lightroom is the most full featured, but I find with all of my cameras, Nikon, Canon, Leica and Phase it does take a lot of movements to get to the original look in lightxroom I get from the manufacturer's converters, at least as a starting point.

I break digital capture down to three parts.   The on set view which is to assure yourself and the client that your going in the right direction.  The second step is processing for web galleries and/or contacts which is a defined but general view of the look and the selection and of course the third is the  final finish out that should be dead on perfect.

What would be nice actually what would  be great, is if we could preset a series of "film looks" for all the cameras and backs, embed them into the cameras and all of the converters would read this looks as we shot and when we went to process.

Right now it's a mixed bag and most of us shoot, then make the film look up at a later stage and taking a p30 file for instance, going from c1 3.7, c1 v4, Raw Developer, Lightroom etc. in initial view looks like you shot with three or four different cameras.  Sometimes this is ok, but usually just confusing and requires a lot of work to get back to the basics or to the "film look" you envisioned when you were shooting.

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189680\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2359


« Reply #70 on: April 15, 2008, 03:46:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Completely agree.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189771\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I even found out that when you process Hasselblad FFF files through RD and attach a Leaf profile to it it will also come very close to a leaf file processed by Leaf 11.

No kidding. Some tweaks you need to do afterwards but you really do come close  (don't ask why I felt the urge to do this, I was just curious).
« Last Edit: April 15, 2008, 03:47:52 PM by Dustbak » Logged
Adam Kleifield
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #71 on: April 16, 2008, 05:41:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Hey all,

Thank you to those of you who pointed out the mistake we made in our assessment. We corrected the error and redid our test. I invite you all to take another look at the article and let us know what you think!

http://www.deathtofilm.com/2008/04/08/how-...he-competition/

-Adam

www.imagemechanics.com
www.deathtofilm.com
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #72 on: April 16, 2008, 05:56:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hey all,

Thank you to those of you who pointed out the mistake we made in our assessment. We corrected the error and redid our test. I invite you all to take another look at the article and let us know what you think!

http://www.deathtofilm.com/2008/04/08/how-...he-competition/

-Adam

www.imagemechanics.com
www.deathtofilm.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190031\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Edmund, how can this be true? C1 isn't using matrix profiles right?

Signed, Confused...
Logged

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

Posts: 3880



WWW
« Reply #73 on: April 16, 2008, 06:11:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Edmund, how can this be true? C1 isn't using matrix profiles right?

Signed, Confused...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Andrew, I really don't know what is what - you can see what members of this group think of the color in the various processors by looking at the poll -


[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24695&st=0&p=189751&#entry189751]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....51&#entry189751[/url]

I have no problems admitting that the Adobe guys are the best programmers in the world, in any case they are the richest - but it would seem that most members of this forum do think that the manufacturer color is better than Adobe color when color feeds their family. As software is one area where you can have your pie and eat it too, I would suggest embedding the manufacturer rendering would solve most color issues.

As for Phase profiles, they are horrid - they are spiky like porcupines. I reverse-engineered 180 Phase profiles once with my tools, and cleaned a few of them up and smoothed them out,  just to see whether it could be done. However, even with the mediocre quality of the native profiles, the phase profile editor does allow one to make some very interesting and useful color corrections. I honestly prefer working files in the Phase software rather than ACR.

By the way, don't tke this as a blanket endorsement of Phase, it isn't, my P45+ back is broke yet again.

Edmund
« Last Edit: April 16, 2008, 06:14:54 PM by eronald » Logged

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

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #74 on: April 16, 2008, 06:16:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Andrew, I really don't know what is what - you can see what members of this group think of the color in the various processors by looking at the poll -

Ah yes, the poll. I've seen it. Good to know that sound scientific practices are being considered on your part of this "argument". I guess the article above is iffy based on their testing prior to the poll. 53 actual votes, why go on?

I sometimes wonder why we Americans even vote, lets just have a poll and be done with it.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2008, 06:17:40 PM by digitaldog » Logged

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

Posts: 3880



WWW
« Reply #75 on: April 16, 2008, 06:21:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ah yes, the poll. I've seen it. Good to know that sound scientific practices are being considered on your part of this "argument". I guess the article above is iffy based on their testing prior to the poll. 53 actual votes, why go on?

I sometimes wonder why we Americans even vote, lets just have a poll and be done with it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190039\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

When I see that article, clearly the LR file looks better - on the other hand, I'd like to see the Raw
I've pushed tens of thousands of files through ACR - I had to have my Canon's shutter replaced - and after that I have my own qualified opinion of the merits of ACR and C1. I wish ACR were really better - the Adobe workflow is certainly better and it's a relief to work inside PS; But the files

Edmund
« Last Edit: April 16, 2008, 06:35:23 PM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #76 on: April 16, 2008, 11:40:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ah yes, the poll. I've seen it. Good to know that sound scientific practices are being considered on your part of this "argument". I guess the article above is iffy based on their testing prior to the poll. 53 actual votes, why go on?

I sometimes wonder why we Americans even vote, lets just have a poll and be done with it.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


We talk about this all the time, same subject, almost the same cameras,  since the RG days  when the first digital back spouted an lcd, or the first Canon files turned orange in ACR.

As a photograher, not a color scientist, not a pre press specialist, not a color profile maker, I see things in a different manner.

What I want, I'm sure my clients want, what I know the printer, the publication, the web designer wants is an image that  comes up on screen is the visual representation the photographer wants to present and I'm not just talking about numbers like under 255 or techniques like expose the histogram to the right, (actually I've never viewed a histogram on the back of a camera.)

What we need is  a reliable standard that everyone can "visually" see.

Nothing freaks me or a client out like looking at orange faces, or blown out highlights whehter it's on a camera or an Eizo.  Nothing adds more work in post processing than to drop a file into a converter and the file must be tweaked with 24 minute changes, just to get to where we were, or thought we were" in the first place.

You really want to freak out a client, show them a file in linear non profiled mode and all but the most savvy will have a stunned look.

You want to really freak out a film photographer that is moving to digital, let them shoot 500 frames and lock them in the room with an I-mac, any software suite and a deadline.

I firmly believe and understand that Canon, Nikon, Leaf, Phase, Sinar, Hasselblad, Leica, Sony, Adobe,   . . . all strive to make the very best equipment and software possible.

I also firmly believe and understand that everyone of these companies wants to cover their own unique territory, but none of them have the same exact post processing routines as the other and the interfaces from V4, C1 3.78, Lightroom, Raw Developer, Flexcolor, LC110, V8, are all so different and unique you MUST work them for days, weeks and months, just to learn the basics, much less the nuiances.

Some files require conversion to dng, some decomressed, some converters read the whole profile, some just make it up as you go, some make it look film like, some are so far from any film I've ever seen that I know it's going to be a though night.

I know this is going to sound far fetched, or give the impression that I'm looking for a non post production workflow, but how great would it be to have a huge detailed lcd, that just plugs into the camera.

You shoot a file, turn some knobs on the handheld calibrated device (yes knobs, not lcd sliders)
change the color, tone, saturation and hue and once set, those settings go into the camera, into the files that all the converters read exactly like the lcd.

Or better yet, take your file in the handheld device, pull down nc100, provia, trix, Agfa 100x, Kodak EPR, whatever and the "film look" stays with the whole process unless you change your mind at a later date.

I can't imagine the time savings this would give us and better yet, I can't imagine how happy a client would be to look at a non orange face, a non flat shadow, a non blown highlight and a look, snap, feel of film right out of the camera.

I know post production is here and probably here to stay and I work files as hard an deep as anyone, but when I think back on my first volme digital camera, the Canon 1ds, my workflow was 1/10th of what it is today.

The camera made raws and the corresponding jpegs were in srgb.  with a few simple WB adjustments the jpegs were right on for web galleries and contact sheets, usually without as much as a single tweak.

Then came the 1ds2 that all of a sudden switched to adobe 98 jpegs if you wanted a more neutral look, which required batch converting them to srgb for the web.

Now, since medium format backs don't make any preview worthy of putting online, I (and about a billion other photographers finish each shoot staring into a computer for hours on end, trying to roll our own film.

Sure, the converters are better, more full featured, faster and many have become much more stable, but still at the end of the day, we're still futzing with files and all of us only have so much time.

This is a copy of an original unretouched 1ds jpg. out of camera shot in 2004.

[a href=\"http://www.ishotit.com/4D5U6843%20copy.jpg]http://www.ishotit.com/4D5U6843%20copy.jpg[/url]

It's not perfect, obviously needs retouching, obviously will be worked in color and tone once selected, but for a first proof it's good.

4 years later we're still fighting to get the first proof image processed to this level for web galleries.

Today was a perfect example of time management.  I spend 6.5 hours in front of the computer working on files and 1.2 hours talking to clients on future and current business.

Guess which one was the most profitable and rewarding?

JR
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3880



WWW
« Reply #77 on: April 17, 2008, 04:20:40 AM »
ReplyReply

James,

 Clearly stated.

 So say we all


 Five years and two camera generations later we're all here again -the RG crowd- talking the same talk.

 What's on the table at the moment is using a standard intermediate color space (xyz) so that the cam2xyz mapping can be calibrated for every camera, so that the photographer can then, later, overlay the same  "look" over each camera -as far as possible, just like with printers, except in reverse.

 The technology is there, I've seen the hardware and even coded most of the software myself. If Adobe and the camera guys played ball with that idea, we'd be living your dream; or rather you'd get back those 5 hours of tweaking after the shoot and be able to buy models and friends a drink

Edmund


Quote
We talk about this all the time, same subject, almost the same cameras,  since the RG days  when the first digital back spouted an lcd, or the first Canon files turned orange in ACR.

As a photograher, not a color scientist, not a pre press specialist, not a color profile maker, I see things in a different manner.

What I want, I'm sure my clients want, what I know the printer, the publication, the web designer wants is an image that  comes up on screen is the visual representation the photographer wants to present and I'm not just talking about numbers like under 255 or techniques like expose the histogram to the right, (actually I've never viewed a histogram on the back of a camera.)

What we need is  a reliable standard that everyone can "visually" see.

Nothing freaks me or a client out like looking at orange faces, or blown out highlights whehter it's on a camera or an Eizo.  Nothing adds more work in post processing than to drop a file into a converter and the file must be tweaked with 24 minute changes, just to get to where we were, or thought we were" in the first place.

You really want to freak out a client, show them a file in linear non profiled mode and all but the most savvy will have a stunned look.

You want to really freak out a film photographer that is moving to digital, let them shoot 500 frames and lock them in the room with an I-mac, any software suite and a deadline.

I firmly believe and understand that Canon, Nikon, Leaf, Phase, Sinar, Hasselblad, Leica, Sony, Adobe,   . . . all strive to make the very best equipment and software possible.

I also firmly believe and understand that everyone of these companies wants to cover their own unique territory, but none of them have the same exact post processing routines as the other and the interfaces from V4, C1 3.78, Lightroom, Raw Developer, Flexcolor, LC110, V8, are all so different and unique you MUST work them for days, weeks and months, just to learn the basics, much less the nuiances.

Some files require conversion to dng, some decomressed, some converters read the whole profile, some just make it up as you go, some make it look film like, some are so far from any film I've ever seen that I know it's going to be a though night.

I know this is going to sound far fetched, or give the impression that I'm looking for a non post production workflow, but how great would it be to have a huge detailed lcd, that just plugs into the camera.

You shoot a file, turn some knobs on the handheld calibrated device (yes knobs, not lcd sliders)
change the color, tone, saturation and hue and once set, those settings go into the camera, into the files that all the converters read exactly like the lcd.

Or better yet, take your file in the handheld device, pull down nc100, provia, trix, Agfa 100x, Kodak EPR, whatever and the "film look" stays with the whole process unless you change your mind at a later date.

I can't imagine the time savings this would give us and better yet, I can't imagine how happy a client would be to look at a non orange face, a non flat shadow, a non blown highlight and a look, snap, feel of film right out of the camera.

I know post production is here and probably here to stay and I work files as hard an deep as anyone, but when I think back on my first volme digital camera, the Canon 1ds, my workflow was 1/10th of what it is today.

The camera made raws and the corresponding jpegs were in srgb.  with a few simple WB adjustments the jpegs were right on for web galleries and contact sheets, usually without as much as a single tweak.

Then came the 1ds2 that all of a sudden switched to adobe 98 jpegs if you wanted a more neutral look, which required batch converting them to srgb for the web.

Now, since medium format backs don't make any preview worthy of putting online, I (and about a billion other photographers finish each shoot staring into a computer for hours on end, trying to roll our own film.

Sure, the converters are better, more full featured, faster and many have become much more stable, but still at the end of the day, we're still futzing with files and all of us only have so much time.

This is a copy of an original unretouched 1ds jpg. out of camera shot in 2004.

http://www.ishotit.com/4D5U6843%20copy.jpg

It's not perfect, obviously needs retouching, obviously will be worked in color and tone once selected, but for a first proof it's good.

4 years later we're still fighting to get the first proof image processed to this level for web galleries.

Today was a perfect example of time management.  I spend 6.5 hours in front of the computer working on files and 1.2 hours talking to clients on future and current business.

Guess which one was the most profitable and rewarding?

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190075\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: April 17, 2008, 04:32:00 AM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #78 on: April 17, 2008, 09:44:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
James,

 Clearly stated.

 So say we all
 Five years and two camera generations later we're all here again -the RG crowd- talking the same talk.

 What's on the table at the moment is using a standard intermediate color space (xyz) so that the cam2xyz mapping can be calibrated for every camera, so that the photographer can then, later, overlay the same  "look" over each camera -as far as possible, just like with printers, except in reverse.

 The technology is there, I've seen the hardware and even coded most of the software myself. If Adobe and the camera guys played ball with that idea, we'd be living your dream; or rather you'd get back those 5 hours of tweaking after the shoot and be able to buy models and friends a drink

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Don't get me wrong, I believe we live in wonderous times.

The quality I get from less than 645 sized capture just amazes me and the 35mm digital cameras, even the 'prosumer" versions just rock past 35mm film in overall quality.

I'm not even concernced with the costs.   The money I have invested in two backs and a dozen contax lenses and 4 bodies, is about equal to two good cinema lenses and these cameras cover a lot of territory from handheld "almost 35mm ease to full studio view camera like capture", so 50k for that is nothing in the modern world of $875,000 1 bedroom apartments in Santa Monica.

The ability to first edit in the back of a car, or backup on set while I'm shooting is much more than anyone could imagine.

Still, with all this great capture ability comes the roll your own method of film, which is good when you want pure uniqueness, but bad when you want it to look like the films of the past.

What suprises me even more is that it's Phase and Adobe and small players like Raw Developer who have become the labs, (and in a way the films).  Where is Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, when it comes to writting software to become the film and the labs?

I am pretty amazed that I can take a photo with my i-phone, send it around the world in 2 minutes and if the person on the receiving end has an I-phone they see exactly what I'm seeing.

Somehow this is a very small demonstration of where this needs to go.  A single device or system that makes setting color and tone (film) easier and allows viewing to be quick and reliable.

Someday I think (well maybe not) that I am going to to laugh when I think about all the thousands of hours we've spent making "jpegs" for galleries.  

Then again maybe this isn't the way we're going.  I like lightroom, V4, etc. but all have a level of options (good) that we didn't have two years ago, but also a level of complexity, (bad) that we never thought we would have to ramp up to learn.

It's interesting that I've learned my lessons the hard way.  I know now to do everything possible to start tethered to a good computer, even if that requires generators, aps backups, and a magliner the size of a small Toyota, because if I'm close to where I want to be going in, I spend a whole lot less time getting the images out.

I've also learned to try to keep it into one system.  Shooting to 3.78 usually means jpegs in 3.78 because no other processor is going to see my settings and except for a few cases like LC11 to Raw Devleoper that holds true for all the makers.

Still, when you think about that it takes 300 lbs of rolling  cart to repace 2 lbs of polaroid equipment, it's somewhat like building a helicopter to replace a kite.


JR
Logged

ctz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #79 on: April 17, 2008, 09:50:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Adam Kleifield,Apr 17 2008, 12:41 AM
Hey all,

Thank you to those of you who pointed out the mistake we made in our assessment. We corrected the error and redid our test. I invite you all to take another look at the article and let us know what you think!

http://www.deathtofilm.com/2008/04/08/how-...he-competition/



...Hmmm
Still "af-i S portrait something" in the ICC profile tag, on http://www.deathtofilm.com/2008/04/08/how-...ition/#more-296 link

Sorry...
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad