Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: i1 Publisher Pro vs PM5  (Read 6629 times)
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 4117



« Reply #20 on: August 06, 2011, 02:50:53 PM »
ReplyReply

You might find lots of different opinions there. I never liked the profiles generated by Profile Maker and much preferred Monaco Profiler. Although i1Profiler has some quirks, I find the quality of the profiles it generates to be an improvement over what Monaco Profiler was capable of.

Cheers, Joe

+1

Edmund
Logged
Nino Loss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433


« Reply #21 on: August 06, 2011, 02:55:55 PM »
ReplyReply

+1

Edmund

But i1Profiler doesn't profile cameras!

This camSPECS machine looks amazing. It's price might be slightly over what I can justify. Who has got this machine? I would like to send a few cameras in (seriously).

Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 4117



« Reply #22 on: August 06, 2011, 04:06:55 PM »
ReplyReply

But i1Profiler doesn't profile cameras!

This camSPECS machine looks amazing. It's price might be slightly over what I can justify. Who has got this machine? I would like to send a few cameras in (seriously).



There's a second one, camspecs Express.

I don't think there are 100 people in Paris who would pay to get there camera profiled, although they would pay to buy a Passport. People over here are weird, they don't like to pay for service.

Edmund
Logged
Nino Loss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433


« Reply #23 on: August 06, 2011, 04:31:18 PM »
ReplyReply

There's a second one, camspecs Express.

I don't think there are 100 people in Paris who would pay to get there camera profiled, although they would pay to buy a Passport. People over here are weird, they don't like to pay for service.

Edmund

Who has got this machine? Whose profiling service with such a machine can I get?

On the topic of ICC profiling vs DNG tweaking, I once again gave the Passport-way a try. I photographed a CC24 attached to my JUST viewing Wall, but used Profoto D4 heads to light it evenly. WB was made on a BabelColor white target. I made one x-rite/Adobe profile and a ICC with Argyll, which I am just trying to get to know (once again). I applied the profiles once in LR and once in C1 to the same image shot immediately after the CC24 in the exact same spot and the identical conditions. Each time linear and Auto. I agree all this is not scientific, but I tried to get an idea for myself. There is at least one major difference, and this is why I stay with ICC profiling through C1 (and it's not even the color).
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9187



WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 06, 2011, 04:53:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote from: shewhorn on Today at 11:33:53 AM
You might find lots of different opinions there. I never liked the profiles generated by Profile Maker and much preferred Monaco Profiler. Although i1Profiler has some quirks, I find the quality of the profiles it generates to be an improvement over what Monaco Profiler was capable of.

Cheers, Joe

+1

Edmund

Expect PROFILER didn’t build camera profiles. Joe must be referring to printer profiles.
Logged

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

Posts: 4117



« Reply #25 on: August 06, 2011, 05:08:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Who has got this machine? Whose profiling service with such a machine can I get?

On the topic of ICC profiling vs DNG tweaking, I once again gave the Passport-way a try. I photographed a CC24 attached to my JUST viewing Wall, but used Profoto D4 heads to light it evenly. WB was made on a BabelColor white target. I made one x-rite/Adobe profile and a ICC with Argyll, which I am just trying to get to know (once again). I applied the profiles once in LR and once in C1 to the same image shot immediately after the CC24 in the exact same spot and the identical conditions. Each time linear and Auto. I agree all this is not scientific, but I tried to get an idea for myself. There is at least one major difference, and this is why I stay with ICC profiling through C1 (and it's not even the color).

Sidenote. The image is inks. It's not a real object.

Edmund
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9187



WWW
« Reply #26 on: August 06, 2011, 08:59:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree all this is not scientific, but I tried to get an idea for myself. There is at least one major difference, and this is why I stay with ICC profiling through C1 (and it's not even the color).

Attributing the ‘quality‘ differences in two raw converters rendering as being solely due to the differences in profiles would be hardly scientific.
Logged

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

Posts: 433


« Reply #27 on: August 07, 2011, 05:35:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Attributing the ‘quality‘ differences in two raw converters rendering as being solely due to the differences in profiles would be hardly scientific.
I understand that. From an empirical end-user perspective though, when I use the generic profile supplied with C1 than the difference in the rendering is a lot less noticeable. In fact, with a little bit o tweaking, I'll get very similar results. In these repeated exercises though, I try to compare them using one and the same cc24 image to create a standard profiles for each of the raw converters, once ICC and once DCP. The resulting differences in the distribution of tones is, even with a lot of work, not deniable (you'd have to get out of the raw converter to get closer). The point is that, this particular difference between the raw converters is not as noticeable with the canned profiles.  
Also, the same way you would use the Colorchecker passport, you can do icc profiles for each lighting condition outdoors.

EDIT: added illustration.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2011, 06:21:37 AM by Nino Loss » Logged
shewhorn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 540


WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 07, 2011, 11:08:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Expect PROFILER didn’t build camera profiles. Joe must be referring to printer profiles.

Yep... my bad. You are correct (brain went off topic... thanks for the catch). Never built ICC camera profiles before. Occasionally I do DNG profiles if I'm in a situation where I know the lighting might be a PITA (just throw up the Passport and take a shot, if I can't get acceptable results in LR then I can make a DNG profile).

I used to use the Magne profiles when I shot with the Canon 5D and 1DMkII...

http://www.etcetera.cc/pub/index.php (obviously there's been no action here in about 5 years)

Capture One's default response at the time really overcooked yellows and greens and it was most noticeable if you were shooting in afternoon sunlight... grass would often be fluorescent yellow. The Magne profiles did a good job to correct that. I'm now shooting Nikon D700's and the processing is done in LR. Most of the time I find Eric Chan's updated (DNG) profiles for the D700 (specifically the Camera Neutral V3 profiles) to produce good results and if something is off there's usually enough control in LR to bring it back to where I want it.

Integrated Color has a camera profiling package which I don't think has been mentioned yet. I don't know much about it though.

http://www.integrated-color.com/cecamera/index.html


Cheers, Joe
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 4117



« Reply #29 on: August 07, 2011, 11:49:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Expect PROFILER didn’t build camera profiles. Joe must be referring to printer profiles.

Strangely enough, Monaco Profiler Platinum did build  camera profiles.

Edmund
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9187



WWW
« Reply #30 on: August 07, 2011, 12:07:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Strangely enough, Monaco Profiler Platinum did build camera profiles.

Indeed it did, (my bad in not specifying that specific build) however other versions (Gold) did not with all targets designed for cameras. I used MonacoDCcolor for this task (or ProfileMaker Pro), again with limited success.  
Logged

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

Posts: 540


WWW
« Reply #31 on: August 07, 2011, 01:08:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Strangely enough, Monaco Profiler Platinum did build  camera profiles.

Edmund

D'OH... that's actually the version I have. Came with a target for scanner profiling... the ColorChecker SG had to be purchased separately if you wanted to do camera profiles if I remember correctly.

Cheers, Joe
Logged
Nino Loss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433


« Reply #32 on: August 07, 2011, 03:58:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Integrated Color has a camera profiling package which I don't think has been mentioned yet. I don't know much about it though.

http://www.integrated-color.com/cecamera/index.html

now discontinued. came with a glossy target.

regards
nino
Logged
Ellis Vener
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1815



WWW
« Reply #33 on: August 12, 2011, 06:56:41 PM »
ReplyReply

... A spectral description of the sensor automates the profiling problem, . One can buy a device which does it for you.

Edmund
I went there but could not find pricing. How much is the entire set up including the "modified slide projector with a stabilized power supply, a special filtering of the light source and a customized optical system. A set of 39 narrow-band interference filters is used to generate the narrow-band light."?

Here is the context of my question:

I am a working commercial photographer  meaning I have to deal with getting colors right and doing so efficiently. I know from experience with an advertising client of mine who is incredibly picky about color,  that I am delivering -- and these are their words not mine - " the best and most accurate color in their products that  they have ever gotten from a photographer." which is saving them a lot of time and money in pre-press corrections.   I am using both the ColorChecker Passport software and Adobe's DNG profile editor software and generating a DNG profile for each different lighting set up.

If there is a better solution I want to know about it but based on the feedback I am getting, spending hundreds or thousands of dollars chasing after a 1-2% increase in quality in my raw files (I am delivering Tiffs) doesn't make sense.
Logged

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com
Creating photographs for advertising, corporate and industrial clients since 1984.
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #34 on: August 13, 2011, 03:40:43 AM »
ReplyReply

I went there but could not find pricing.
Click on the cart button and you're there.
To save you the sums; 9332 euro + VAT = $16,000 (US) ...............presumably plus postage
Logged
Ellis Vener
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1815



WWW
« Reply #35 on: August 13, 2011, 12:28:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Click on the cart button and you're there.
To save you the sums; 9332 euro + VAT = $16,000 (US) ...............presumably plus postage

Thanks, I was a little confunded by their website. $16,000? Yowsa.
Logged

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com
Creating photographs for advertising, corporate and industrial clients since 1984.
Nino Loss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433


« Reply #36 on: August 13, 2011, 05:23:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, I was a little confunded by their website. $16,000? Yowsa.
Now you understand why I'm looking for someone who bought that wonder machine. At the camSPECS website they told me that none of their costumers they were aware of, was offering a profile service... BTW I wonder who buys this very intriguing device, and thinks of it as, according to the description on the website, affordable!
Logged
PhilipCummins
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 103


« Reply #37 on: August 13, 2011, 11:52:53 PM »
ReplyReply

BTW I wonder who buys this very intriguing device, and thinks of it as, according to the description on the website, affordable!

I would imagine either very high end photographers or scientists who require very specific profiles for photography in a lab?

If there is a better solution I want to know about it but based on the feedback I am getting, spending hundreds or thousands of dollars chasing after a 1-2% increase in quality in my raw files (I am delivering Tiffs) doesn't make sense.

It might be worth looking at PictoColor inCamera + the Digital ColorChecker SG and building a custom reference file to compare with your current workflow. This would be about $450 US+ to set up, more to get an i1Pro if you require it for building the custom reference file.
Logged
Nino Loss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433


« Reply #38 on: August 14, 2011, 12:09:53 AM »
ReplyReply

I would imagine either very high end photographers or scientists who require very specific profiles for photography in a lab?

It might be worth looking at PictoColor inCamera + the Digital ColorChecker SG and building a custom reference file to compare with your current workflow. This would be about $450 US+ to set up, more to get an i1Pro if you require it for building the custom reference file.

After a few years testing and experimenting with a variety of Profile software and targets, I would say IMHO, that you can get best results for U$D 10! Get ArgyllCMS for U$D 0, and only two command lines to enter! (Profile Maker is admittedly handy but unfortunately discontinued without replacement for its camera profiling capabilities). I pair it with a simple  it8 chart, from Wolf Faust U$D 10. The glossy surface helps with rich saturated colors. It really works if you apply all the rules to photographing the chart, meaning no reflections at all (I use a mirror to double check. A good introduction video: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/coloreyes-commercial.shtml). It's easier to use the matt target #4 from CMP-color (70 Euros).
« Last Edit: August 14, 2011, 12:12:19 AM by Nino Loss » Logged
Nino Loss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433


« Reply #39 on: August 18, 2011, 07:19:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, I was a little confunded by their website. $16,000? Yowsa.

I asked the CamSPECS company how much they would charge to measure the spectral response of a camera. They would charge 450 Euro. The company is situated near Cologne in Germany. That device realy looks tempting. I might send them a camera, just to see. Anyone else wanting to give it a try? If you do, PLEASE REPORT BACK here!

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

Ad
Ad
Ad