Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Just because it's on the Internet doesn't mean it's true....  (Read 1039 times)
kbolin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 220



WWW
« on: March 02, 2013, 03:56:41 AM »
ReplyReply

My fiance is quickly learning LR and Photography (it's that or she spends a lot more time alone..lol).  In doing so she decided to download an iPad app called "Lightroom 4 Quickstart" (I'll keep the authors name silent). 

The overall production of the iPad app is done quite nicely and covers a lot of basic functions of LR.  HOWEVER, it contains some errors in Develop processing that I scratch my head on. 

At one point in the Develop module he starts with a base RAW file and starts to do some develop processing on it.  Does a good job even though he does things different than I would do it but that's just the flexibility of LR and how people are comfortable with their approach.

So the developed image is complete but he adds yet one more step.  He gets to the "Camera Calibration" section of the Develop panel and starts changing the Profile from "Adobe Standard" to perhaps "Camera Faithful", "Camera Landscape", etc... and will then decide which version he likes best.

So of course my fiance asks me "Why haven't you shown me this before?".  I further check it out I had to explain the real purpose of the Camera Calibration Profile and that it is not intended as a final develop function but to rather mimic the "Picture Style" from a given camera.  Like really?  Why go through all the develop work in Basic, Tone Curve, Detail, Lens Corrections, etc. sections only to completely change the results by changing the Camera Calibration Profile?

Just goes to show that sometimes too little knowledge can be dangerous.

Oh, I don't profess to be an expert but at least I educate myself before I go spouting off.  I've been using LR since Beta V1 so I think I know a few things or two about LR.

Logged

stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2631


« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2013, 04:37:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I can see where you are coming from. If I use the Calibration Profile I try it at the start to see if it "helps" a rendered raw file. Conversely if I develop an image to taste in LR and import it to PS what I sometimes do is then duplicate the image as a layer and change the blend mode to soft light which is akin to a Calibration Profile but the effect can be altered by reducing opacity and masking areas to taste. I think the Calibration Profile should be used as a starting point but all the advice given is to start in LR with the exposure slider and work your way to the bottom where the Calibration Profile resides. Confusing?
Logged

kbolin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 220



WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2013, 05:06:12 AM »
ReplyReply

I think the Calibration Profile should be used as a starting point but all the advice given is to start in LR with the exposure slider and work your way to the bottom where the Calibration Profile resides. Confusing?

Confusing?  Not to me but I can see how someone can be easily lead down a wrong path.  When someone looks at their JPG image and wonders why the RAW doesn't look the same the Camera Calibration is a good place to reconcile this difference.

I must say that my fiance has learnt some things from the videos; so it's not a complete slam on them, just concerning that some people will learn things that are contrary to good practices of using LR.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1913


WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2013, 07:42:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I had to explain the real purpose of the Camera Calibration Profile and that it is not intended as a final develop function but to rather mimic the "Picture Style" from a given camera. 
I don't think that's an accurate or good explanation of what 'camera calibration' does or offers.
Whilst it's true that there are profiles that attempt to match different picture styles, camera calibration is much more than just a tool to match JPG output. I regard it as a control for the overall colour response of the camera.

Read back through recent threads in the Color management sections (along with ACR & LR) here and you'll find a lot of serious discussion about what camera profiles do and what methods of building them work best.

For me, having built a profile I like more than the default offerings, I apply that on import. I'd only look at alternatives if I'm having problems getting the look I want, or I know that a specific shoot is likely to be problematical and shot a CC24/QP203 at the time to deal with the anticipated problem with a custom profile.

I think that being something you rarely need to change, putting it at the bottom of the panel makes sense. The changes are usually quite subtle, so getting the tonal state correct through the basic panel is probably the first step to getting a good image before worrying about tiny colour shifts.




Logged
kbolin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 220



WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2013, 08:02:07 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think that's an accurate or good explanation of what 'camera calibration' does or offers.
Whilst it's true that there are profiles that attempt to match different picture styles, camera calibration is much more than just a tool to match JPG output. I regard it as a control for the overall colour response of the camera.

Read back through recent threads in the Color management sections (along with ACR & LR) here and you'll find a lot of serious discussion about what camera profiles do and what methods of building them work best.

For me, having built a profile I like more than the default offerings, I apply that on import. I'd only look at alternatives if I'm having problems getting the look I want, or I know that a specific shoot is likely to be problematical and shot a CC24/QP203 at the time to deal with the anticipated problem with a custom profile.

I think that being something you rarely need to change, putting it at the bottom of the panel makes sense. The changes are usually quite subtle, so getting the tonal state correct through the basic panel is probably the first step to getting a good image before worrying about tiny colour shifts.


I completely agree with you!   Smiley

My point more than anything is why would someone go through all the develop functions that are available to get to a completed image only to then apply Camera Calibration Profiles to get a different result?  To me that defeats the purpose of doing all the develop work along the way.  Start with a Profile (during import) and go from there.  At least that is my workflow. 

Trying to explain to a novice photographer (my fiancé) what Camera Calibration is is the approach I took.  I could have gone down your path however I would have received a glazed look back.   Huh   At least she understood my basic explanation.  Smiley   I also have her shooting RAW.  Smiley




Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1913


WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2013, 08:48:56 AM »
ReplyReply

My point more than anything is why would someone go through all the develop functions that are available to get to a completed image only to then apply Camera Calibration Profiles to get a different result? 
As I said; You need to get the overall tonality and colour balance of the image close to correct before worrying about the finer and far more subtle issues of camera calibration. Staring from a preferred, known and chosen profile makes sense, but for a complete novice it matters less what profile you start from as there are more important things to understand and get right.

I can understand why mentioning camera profiles might end up as being a final footnote to workflow, if trying to explain the basics.

Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad