Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Colorchecker Passport review  (Read 10360 times)
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1606


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 13, 2009, 02:32:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
Thanks. So the question still remains: what (if any) use there is for this hundred dollar "must buy" product if the results are similar to the Adobe profiles?
See: Neil Snape's post at  http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=39142   It's far more than just a one time camera profiler.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2009, 02:33:39 PM by Alan Goldhammer » Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 13, 2009, 02:59:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Alan Goldhammer
See: Neil Snape's post at  http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=39142   It's far more than just a one time camera profiler.

Thanks, that did make sense - so in effect it's a more accurate and complete version of a grey card to get colors correct in tough lighting conditions, not only white point?
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7257


WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 13, 2009, 03:57:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Feppe,

I'd just point out two things:

1) The software is actually free. A Color Checker Card is all you need.
2) There are some situations were this my be of interest
a) You camera doesn´t correspond to Adobe Standard profile
 Your illumination is not like Illuminant A and Illuminant D50 on which Adobe Profiles are based. A good example may be flourescent illumination sometimes used for product photography or electronic flash. Neither have well behaved spectra but contains spikes. With a special profile based on your illumination you may get better results than with a standard profile.

I'd suggest that the Adobe DNG Profile editor may be more useful, because the profiles can be tweaked (for taste).

Quote from: feppe
Thanks. So the question still remains: what (if any) use there is for this hundred dollar "must buy" product if the results are similar to the Adobe profiles?
Logged

bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2756



« Reply #23 on: November 13, 2009, 04:26:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
Could you provide a plain-English summary for the laypeople here, please
In addition to what Eric said, you should look at the Imatest Web Site for more detailed documentation and an explanation of terms.
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2756



« Reply #24 on: November 13, 2009, 04:44:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Feppe,

I'd just point out two things:

1) The software is actually free. A Color Checker Card is all you need.
2) There are some situations were this my be of interest
a) You camera doesn´t correspond to Adobe Standard profile
 Your illumination is not like Illuminant A and Illuminant D50 on which Adobe Profiles are based. A good example may be flourescent illumination sometimes used for product photography or electronic flash. Neither have well behaved spectra but contains spikes. With a special profile based on your illumination you may get better results than with a standard profile.

I'd suggest that the Adobe DNG Profile editor may be more useful, because the profiles can be tweaked (for taste).

In addition to what Eric pointed out, the Passport does include a small version of a Colorchecker and white balance card in a small portable package with a plastic case. The full sized Colorchecker is about the the size of letter paper (8.5 X 11 inches) and is mounted on cardboard; it is rather delicate and not something you would want to carry in the field. In addition to the large Colorchecker, there is also a miniature Colorchecker that some carry in the field and the version included in the Passport appears to be similar to the smaller version. I don't know if it is mounted on cardboard or on a more durable plastic backing.

For my purposes, I carry a WhiBal card in the field. This card is of a durable plastic, not cardboard and can withstand field use. If you need to make profiles in the field and don't have a white balance card, I would think that the Passport would be useful, but I would not consider it must have for my type of photography. I wonder if the white balance card of durable plastic.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7257


WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 13, 2009, 04:52:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks!

I wanted to add that but forgot!

Erik

Quote from: bjanes
In addition to what Eric said, you should look at the Imatest Web Site for more detailed documentation and an explanation of terms.
Logged

Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1606


WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 13, 2009, 07:25:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bjanes
For my purposes, I carry a WhiBal card in the field. This card is of a durable plastic, not cardboard and can withstand field use. If you need to make profiles in the field and don't have a white balance card, I would think that the Passport would be useful, but I would not consider it must have for my type of photography. I wonder if the white balance card of durable plastic.
there is a full Passport size white balance card as part of it along with a number of patches that allow you to create custom white balances as well.  I've found this to be quite useful out in the field when lighting conditions change.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1889


WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 14, 2009, 01:04:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
So the question still remains: what (if any) use there is for this hundred dollar "must buy" product if the results are similar to the Adobe profiles?
If you haven't already got a color checker chart the passport package is very good value. It also offers a few extra tweaks for white balancing that aren't available on the normal CC chart.

For what it's worth my own, less scientific, findings are similar to others here; Not much difference between the Adobe editor and the Passport software, but the passport software profiles seem a little too saturated. I'll use the Adobe editor as first choice.

It seems a shame that XRite failed to add the option of using the digitalSG chart for building profiles. It would be interesting to know if the extra gamut and samples would have given better profiles.
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #28 on: November 14, 2009, 06:24:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rhossydd
It seems a shame that XRite failed to add the option of using the digitalSG chart for building profiles. It would be interesting to know if the extra gamut and samples would have given better profiles.

+1. Having additional data points certainly couldn't hurt profile quality...
Logged

harryshin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #29 on: November 23, 2009, 11:12:05 AM »
ReplyReply

1.  I've been following this topic with interest and have several associated questions:
     
    a.  Pragmatically, what's the difference between using a whibal vs colorchecker passport?  

    b.  It would be interesting to read Michael's response to the original question re: confusing conclusion.  

2.  The reason I'm interested in a product that'll give me an accurate color profile (or whatever the proper term is) is that my Ricoh GX200 is consistently off when the DNG files are opened up in ACR.   Unlike all of my other cameras, this one seems to require a tint of around -18 in most shots to look normal.   When I use the whibal with this camera, the white balance is corrected, but I'm wondering if the relationship between the other colors is correct in the first place (which is where perhaps the colorchecker passport may come in?).  

Thanks for any comments / help.  Harry Shin

Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7257


WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 23, 2009, 03:10:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The Color Checker passport software creates a profile for your individual camera which tries to reproduce the 24 color patches correctly. The Whibal just tries to set a grey patch neutral. In practice it's not so easy, because we don't want to see correct colors, they would be dull.

Best regards
Erik



Quote from: harryshin
1.  I've been following this topic with interest and have several associated questions:
     
    a.  Pragmatically, what's the difference between using a whibal vs colorchecker passport?  

    b.  It would be interesting to read Michael's response to the original question re: confusing conclusion.  

2.  The reason I'm interested in a product that'll give me an accurate color profile (or whatever the proper term is) is that my Ricoh GX200 is consistently off when the DNG files are opened up in ACR.   Unlike all of my other cameras, this one seems to require a tint of around -18 in most shots to look normal.   When I use the whibal with this camera, the white balance is corrected, but I'm wondering if the relationship between the other colors is correct in the first place (which is where perhaps the colorchecker passport may come in?).  

Thanks for any comments / help.  Harry Shin
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7257


WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 23, 2009, 03:32:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The Color Checker passport software creates a profile for your individual camera which tries to reproduce the 24 color patches correctly. The Whibal just tries to set a grey patch neutral. In practice it's not so easy, because we don't want to see correct colors, they would be dull.

Best regards
Erik



Quote from: harryshin
1.  I've been following this topic with interest and have several associated questions:
     
    a.  Pragmatically, what's the difference between using a whibal vs colorchecker passport?  

    b.  It would be interesting to read Michael's response to the original question re: confusing conclusion.  

2.  The reason I'm interested in a product that'll give me an accurate color profile (or whatever the proper term is) is that my Ricoh GX200 is consistently off when the DNG files are opened up in ACR.   Unlike all of my other cameras, this one seems to require a tint of around -18 in most shots to look normal.   When I use the whibal with this camera, the white balance is corrected, but I'm wondering if the relationship between the other colors is correct in the first place (which is where perhaps the colorchecker passport may come in?).  

Thanks for any comments / help.  Harry Shin
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad