Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Rosco #002 gel 'ed light and Adobe's fail to handle such simple light  (Read 9489 times)
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« on: December 23, 2012, 05:25:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Rosco #002 gel 'ed light and Adobe's fail to handle such simple light (even lowly SilkyPix has no issues).

here are 2 DNG files (xrite passport's cc24 and WB patch) :

https://www.box.com/s/0noo1vdy6doum0hmnuv5

https://www.box.com/s/40na6yvk8njr34jjfxhd


please let me know how to get a proper WB in ACR or create a profile using regular Adobe (no QPCard or other 3rd party) tools  Wink ... am I missing something here ?

PS:


Logged
Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 815



WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2012, 05:47:29 PM »
ReplyReply

What is your light source in this example? 5500˚K strobe?
Logged

~ CB
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2012, 05:57:10 PM »
ReplyReply

What is your light source in this example? 5500˚K strobe?

around that plus some residual ambient...

just to save time for readers =



raw data is quite good, no clipping, good sensor saturation =



and then what ? we bring N1 raw converter into action and ... epic fail
« Last Edit: December 23, 2012, 06:04:57 PM by Vladimirovich » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7926


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 24, 2012, 06:23:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

That picture is extremely magenta. You would need quite a lot of green tint to compensate.


Do you have the latest versions of the Adobe tools?

Best regards
Erik
« Last Edit: December 24, 2012, 07:13:08 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #4 on: December 24, 2012, 10:25:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

That picture is extremely magenta. You would need quite a lot of green tint to compensate.


that was not the question, Erik... of course I know that it is magenta and I know what raw converter has to do - my light, my gel, my camera... it is magenta on purpose... that is the light and the raw converter shall be able to WB it in no time, like SilkyPix does (click and done) or like RPP... and ACR can't... and Adobe DNG Profile editor, touted as "you can build your own profiles for a non standard light", can't build a profile for a non standard light... so the question is (about ACR) - why (I know why - they put a hard limit in what your can do through UI) ACR can't work with a quite good (raw data wise) raw file to get me a properly WB'd image... so what was the purpose of that ? yet again Adobe knows better what we need or it is internal deficiency of Adobe's approach to profiles/WB'ing ? or just a mere bug... there is nothing wrong with raw file and noting wrong with the light... you can get that in a theater or some similar venues for example.

Do you have the latest versions of the Adobe tools?

ACR 7.3.0.71
Adobe DNG PE 1.0.0.46 Beta
« Last Edit: December 24, 2012, 10:29:58 AM by Vladimirovich » Logged
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1231



WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 25, 2012, 07:15:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Explain how I fixed this wacked out heavily green biased JPEG in ACR 4.6 in this thread?...

http://photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00YmG4

You're not telling the whole story.

Scroll down to my post user name Tim Lookingbill which is my real name to see the fixed version.
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #6 on: December 25, 2012, 09:34:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Explain how I fixed this wacked out heavily green biased JPEG in ACR 4.6 in this thread?...

I am sorry, what my question about 2 DNG files (posted above, you can download both and try to WB or build profile yourself) has to do w/ your heavily green biased JPEG files ?

You're not telling the whole story.

My story is very plain and simple - 2 DNG files provided - try to get a proper WB (WB patch from XRite passport is in one shot) or build a profile (XRite Passport shot is also supplied in another shot) using Adobe software (ACR/LR and PE)...

I was very amused that Adobe's software can't (won't allow) to work with a good raw data, from shots under a very simple illumination Cool, are you ? I bet you can't read this in that DNG book, can you ?

Logged
JRSmit
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 404


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 26, 2012, 03:20:19 AM »
ReplyReply

What is the point you want to make?
Logged

Fine art photography: janrsmit.com
Fine Art Printing Specialist: www.fineartprintingspecialist.nl


Jan R. Smit
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1231



WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 26, 2012, 04:26:12 AM »
ReplyReply

I am sorry, what my question about 2 DNG files (posted above, you can download both and try to WB or build profile yourself) has to do w/ your heavily green biased JPEG files ?

My story is very plain and simple - 2 DNG files provided - try to get a proper WB (WB patch from XRite passport is in one shot) or build a profile (XRite Passport shot is also supplied in another shot) using Adobe software (ACR/LR and PE)...

I was very amused that Adobe's software can't (won't allow) to work with a good raw data, from shots under a very simple illumination Cool, are you ? I bet you can't read this in that DNG book, can you ?




So you can't explain how I can fix a seriously botched WB in a cooked pixel jpeg?

I'm trying to understand what lack of WB functionality I've never seen anyone throughout the years ACR/LR and digital Raw processing has been in existence have a problem with. I've never had to read a DNG book because I've never had a problem fixing WB in the 1000 or so Raws I've shot and processed in ACR. And I've never had a problem fixing WB with jpegs and tiffs as well.

If you're under the impression that all Raw images WB should be able to be fixed with one click and it's done solution, then  I have to assume you and I don't have the same experience processing Raw images. I don't have your problem and I'm pretty sure no one else does either.

And I shoot and process under the crappiest lights in existence with the green image I linked to being the worst but it took more than a one click and it's fixed WB solution as it did with the 1000 or so Raw's I've processed. I really don't even rely anymore on a neutral reference to click for WB because it doesn't give the desired results creatively speaking.
Logged
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1231



WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 26, 2012, 04:48:45 AM »
ReplyReply

You've set up a situation that requires a complicated technical answer the majority of photographers don't have a problem with nor do they understand so I'll just take your word for it and agree with you that Adobe software fails to neutrally WB a rosco #002 filtered light source lit scene using a one click X-rite neutral reference target.

I can't explain why it does this because I don't understand the complexity behind it and don't use Rosco filters.

I suggest you use the SilkyPix software which I have a copy of that came with my Pentax K100D and NEVER use BTW because it's a very uncomfortable piece of software to edit Raws even after upgrading to the latest version for the Mac. The main thing I don't like about it is its interface and preview zoom function. It's unbearable.

I'll take the Adobe WB fail that you've pointed out very thoroughly any day over using SilkyPix.
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #10 on: December 26, 2012, 08:57:17 AM »
ReplyReply

What is the point you want to make?

that Adobe does not deliver to the extent that they should be able on a very basis, fundamental level - to be able to WB and to be able to build profile...
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #11 on: December 26, 2012, 09:04:16 AM »
ReplyReply

So you can't explain how I can fix a seriously botched WB in a cooked pixel jpeg?

I appreciate your best efforts to turn the table, but I do not care about the case when you can - THE problem is with the case where you can't...  Grin

I'm trying to understand what lack of WB functionality I've never seen anyone throughout the years ACR/LR and digital Raw processing has been in existence have a problem with.

download the 2 DNG files (links were posted above) and you shall see, so simple...

If you're under the impression that all Raw images WB should be able to be fixed with one click and it's done solution, then  I have to assume you and I don't have the same experience processing Raw images.

that is very true  Grin

I don't have your problem and I'm pretty sure no one else does either.

of course you don't, because you do not understand the problem to start with (that example with your JPGs is telling).


And I shoot and process under the crappiest lights in existence with the green image I linked to being the worst but it took more than a one click and it's fixed WB solution as it did with the 1000 or so Raw's I've processed. I really don't even rely anymore on a neutral reference to click for WB because it doesn't give the desired results creatively speaking.

so please tell me how to build a profile and WB the DNG files that were posted... instead of filling the thread w/ non relevant mumbling.
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #12 on: December 26, 2012, 09:10:21 AM »
ReplyReply

You've set up a situation that requires a complicated technical answer the majority of photographers don't have a problem with nor do they understand so I'll just take your word for it and agree with you that Adobe software fails to neutrally WB a rosco #002 filtered light source lit scene using a one click X-rite neutral reference target.

and my posting was not addressed to the majority, why did you even think about that ?... but to the few who can understand and tell me what happened

1) Adobe knows better what do we need and this is not something that we need (what a heresy to have a raw file with all 4 channels exposed/saturated quite good... no, real photographers always have a good deal of underexposure in at least 2 channels or else !)

2) Adobe can't do this because their processing model can't work with such cases (hard to believe in that)

3) this is a simple bug in UI in ACR(LR) and PE and it will be fixed

4)  this is a simple bug in UI in ACR(LR) and PE and it will not be fixed, because N1
Logged
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1199



« Reply #13 on: December 26, 2012, 09:38:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Vlad, there's a saying, "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar."  If you are actually seeking a useful response/discussion, you might want to check your attitude.  Just sayin'
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3884


« Reply #14 on: December 26, 2012, 09:48:37 AM »
ReplyReply

and my posting was not addressed to the majority, why did you even think about that ?... but to the few who can understand and tell me what happened

1) Adobe knows better what do we need and this is not something that we need (what a heresy to have a raw file with all 4 channels exposed/saturated quite good... no, real photographers always have a good deal of underexposure in at least 2 channels or else !)

2) Adobe can't do this because their processing model can't work with such cases (hard to believe in that)

3) this is a simple bug in UI in ACR(LR) and PE and it will be fixed

4)  this is a simple bug in UI in ACR(LR) and PE and it will not be fixed, because N1

Hi,

I do agree that it is odd that ACR seriously fails to do a 'simple' WB where other converters (I just tried Capture One Pro V7 which had little problem rendering somewhat pleasing colors), although the Rosco did alter the illuminant's spectrum into something that doesn't look like a normal blackbody emission, and relative scene-color distances are significantly altered in the captured data (which is the function of a filter).

Color rendering, even after a 'successful' WB, will still suffer from an unbalanced scene illumination. Whether, and how reliable, a custom profile will be, remains to be seen (depends also on Bayer CFA characteristics and scene colors). What I don't completely follow is why one would butcher the illumination and then attempt to correct that with a profile, unless that illumination 'quality' is encountered commonly, and a post-capture fix is the only remedy possible (I'd prefer to do it pre-capture if color accuracy is that important).

Our sensors with their tri-chromatic color filtering already create potential Color Inconstancy and Metamerism issues, so why throw another spanner in the works?

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: December 26, 2012, 10:40:19 AM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #15 on: December 26, 2012, 11:30:35 AM »
ReplyReply

What I don't completely follow is why one would butcher the illumination

butcher ? I have enough light to saturate all raw channels sufficiently - where is any butchering exactly in a raw histogram posted ? ... and then a normal raw converter shall allow me to WB that as I want...

Our sensors with their tri-chromatic color filtering already create potential Color Inconstancy and Metamerism issues, so why throw another spanner in the works?

I see only a raw converter (some of them) issue... gel used will not create any additional metamerism beyond what was already present w/o it.
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #16 on: December 26, 2012, 11:33:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Vlad, there's a saying, "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar."  If you are actually seeking a useful response/discussion, you might want to check your attitude.  Just sayin'

indeed... I was unfortunately irritated by a couple of green tinted JPG files example which is totally irrelevant to the issue that I have... my apologies.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3884


« Reply #17 on: December 26, 2012, 12:17:32 PM »
ReplyReply

butcher ? I have enough light to saturate all raw channels sufficiently - where is any butchering exactly in a raw histogram posted ? ... and then a normal raw converter shall allow me to WB that as I want...

Hi,

Enough signal in the different channels is not the issue with metameric color issues. It's the seemingly disrupted contributions between the Bayer filters that will cause potential issues, hence the 'butchering'. But that's probably not your original issue, because I presume that the CC pigments are chosen for their insensitivity to metamerism, and other converters do better (with a significant tint and temperature adjustment) than ACR.

Quote
I see only a raw converter (some of them) issue... gel used will not create any additional metamerism beyond what was already present w/o it.

Only for well chosen combinations of illumination and pigments. Our digital camera sensors are not spectrophotometers, but rather tri-chromatic sampling devices, so color inconstancy and metamerism is always a potential issue when pigments are not chosen carefully. Again, this is unlikely to be the issue with the CC profiling with a tri-chromatic sampling device here, because other Raw converters do a better job.

But even with Capture One Pro V7 (example attached), while the overall color balance is more acceptable, it is not perfect (because the light quality was compromised with a Magenta/Pink filter which changed the demosaicing balance between color bands for specific colors, especially those crossing CFA filter band boundaries).

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: December 26, 2012, 12:24:09 PM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1231



WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 26, 2012, 03:42:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Bart, could you assign your monitor profile to that screengrab, save and repost and even better yet if so desired convert to sRGB? There's no embedded profile in the image you posted.
Logged
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1231



WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 26, 2012, 03:58:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I find it a strange coincidence that these Rosco filters are getting mentioned several times between two photo discussion forums within the last month namely at LuLa and Photo.net when I've never heard of the brand for the ten years I've participated in both forums.

In fact there's a discussion over at Photo.net started by a long time member in the Lighting forum having issues with Rosco's pinkish blue tint to neutrals which I pointed out to the OP.

http://photo.net/photography-lighting-equipment-techniques-forum/00bADm

A while back in another topic discussing gels/filters someone posted the video which was the first I heard of this brand. I'm not a long standing pro photographer going back to the film days (right now just a digital imaging enthusiast), so if Rosco says they've been around 100 years according to that video, I'll just take their word for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqxFvOOT7RY

Maybe complaints to Rosco's gel/filter formulation should be addressed to them rather in this thread and/or complain directly to Adobe about this.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2012, 04:01:01 PM by tlooknbill » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad