Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Colour of light matters  (Read 12613 times)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #40 on: July 11, 2013, 08:36:09 AM »
ReplyReply

You just added yet another reason to trust your perception, dear Andrew Wink

I'll take that as no, you have nothing to back up your 'theories'. All us users are just blind to 'the problem'.

Let's put it this way, until you do so, I don't trust your perception, I suspect I'm not alone.
Logged

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

Posts: 410


« Reply #41 on: July 11, 2013, 08:43:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I'll take that as no, you have nothing to back up your 'theories'. All us users are just blind to 'the problem'.

Let's put it this way, until you do so, I don't trust your perception, I suspect I'm not alone.

Your use of quotes is funny. Theories are theories, they may be right and may be wrong, but they do not need quotes. You like ACR, I have nothing against it. It is a fact that ACR does not allow easy ways to compensate for spectrum, and you may continue arguing as much as you wish. If you do not see it in your images, what can I say...

As far as your "I suspect..." - of course you are not. You are not alone, but that does not make you right.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #42 on: July 11, 2013, 08:48:28 AM »
ReplyReply

It is a fact that ACR does not allow easy ways to compensate for spectrum, and you may continue arguing as much as you wish.

You are suggesting there's a problem only you can presumably see! The facts are, I and I suspect thousands of other users have no issues producing a rendering we desire as I stated several times. You 'seem' to want to invent a problem that doesn't exist and can't provide any means to prove your point. You can continue to argue that point as much as you wish and the rest of us will use this product to produce a rendering we desire. If we can't, then we have something to discuss. I've asked two of you to provide such examples and I'm still waiting which is a tad telling. I'm not suggesting the ACR engine is perfect, far from it. I'm stating that you are inventing a problem and further, saying it's there and I (and others) just can't see it. Which is fine since if I can't see it, it's NOT A PROBLEM. Get it?
Logged

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

Posts: 410


« Reply #43 on: July 11, 2013, 09:01:05 AM »
ReplyReply

You are suggesting there's a problem only you can presumably see! The facts are, I and I suspect thousands of other users have no issues producing a rendering we desire as I stated several times. You 'seem' to want to invent a problem that doesn't exist and can't provide any means to prove your point. You can continue to argue that point as much as you wish and the rest of us will use this product to produce a rendering we desire. If we can't, then we have something to discuss. I've asked two of you to provide such examples and I'm still waiting which is a tad telling. I'm not suggesting the ACR engine is perfect, far from it. I'm stating that you are inventing a problem and further, saying it's there and I (and others) just can't see it. Which is fine since if I can't see it, it's NOT A PROBLEM. Get it?

Well. You are turning your nervous side on.

The fact is - thousands prefer other raw converters to Adobe products, and that is because many of them do have problems producing the renditions they find believable.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #44 on: July 11, 2013, 09:04:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Well. You are turning your nervous side on.
If that's how you want to read it fine. It's simply your perception which like the problem you've invented, seems to be solely inside your own head. I'm fine with that!

Quote
The fact is - thousands prefer other raw converters to Adobe products, and that is because many of them do have problems producing the renditions they find believable.

Yes they do prefer other converters but for a host of reasons. That doesn't mean those who use ACR have this invisible problem you fail to illustrate! I'm fine with that too, it is simply a data point in ignoring your lack of science as faith based.
Logged

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

Posts: 410


« Reply #45 on: July 11, 2013, 09:12:25 AM »
ReplyReply

If that's how you want to read it fine. It's simply your perception which like the problem you've invented, seems to be solely inside your own head. I'm fine with that!

Yes they do prefer other converters but for a host of reasons. That doesn't mean those who use ACR have this invisible problem you fail to illustrate! I'm fine with that too, it is simply a data point in ignoring your lack of science as faith based.

The problem is visible for those who want to see, and it is easy to demonstrate. Profile for D65, shoot under office fluorescent, compute deltaE.

As far as "the host of reasons", please give me at least 5.
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #46 on: July 11, 2013, 09:59:32 AM »
ReplyReply

As far as "the host of reasons", please give me at least 5.

1) price
2) camera support (Sigma for one)
3) color rendition (not better or worse - but just personal taster vs effort/ability to get it)
4) certain technical aspects like : may be a particular person prefers demosaick/NR/sharpening options/blown highlights "recovering", etc)
5) certain technical aspects like : raw histogram, readouts in certain colorspaces, output to certain colorspaces, camera profiling abilities, etc

PS: #4 is clearly different from #5
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #47 on: July 11, 2013, 10:00:33 AM »
ReplyReply

The problem is visible for those who want to see, and it is easy to demonstrate. Profile for D65, shoot under office fluorescent, compute deltaE.

Here you go. Shot under Fluorescents, using Adobe Standard profile to boot. It appears exactly as I desire, there's no problem in producing this rendering. See the Solux lights in the bkgnd which are 'warm'? Not a problem for me and easily fixed with selective editing.



Quote
As far as "the host of reasons", please give me at least 5.

1. Camera support (or lack thereof)
2. Easier to match to camera generated JPEG and use of proprietary camera metadata for proprietary camera processing
3. Tethering
4. Prefer UI
5. Performance
6. Bonus answer: anything that isn't made by Adobe (a prejudice).

Speaking of which, in terms of transparency, don't you have some vested interest in a 3rd party raw converter?
http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Overview.html
Logged

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

Posts: 1320


« Reply #48 on: July 11, 2013, 10:05:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Speaking of which, in terms of transparency, don't you have some vested interest in a 3rd party raw converter?
http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Overview.html
and pixelgenius is selling software for Adobe platform... 1:1
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #49 on: July 11, 2013, 10:12:42 AM »
ReplyReply

and pixelgenius is selling software for Adobe platform... 1:1

Yes, PG does sell a PHOTOSHOP plug-in! And that's totally transparent in my case as all you have to do is click on the link in my signature and you'll see this on my web page, or look at what is reported by LuLa about me. Now try that with Iliah's link here.



That's WHY I brought up transparency, it's not about the film <g> but the person making posts.
Logged

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

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #50 on: July 11, 2013, 10:37:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I purposely ignored this dE rabbit hole for the following reasons:

dE of how many colors from the scene, a few, a few hundred? Kind of makes an Avg dE report skewed depending on this selection. Colors that I know are easy to hit (paper white of the print) or far more difficult like the dark orange area's of the shirt Eric is wearing or the fellow in the red shirt next to him? If the dE values are off but I prefer the rendering, that means what? I should apply edits to produce an image who has numbers someone says are correct (based on what reference) or render the image as I desire?

Again, here's an image shot under Fluorescent with a daylight profile that appears as I wish it to appear. No problem.
Logged

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

Posts: 1320


« Reply #51 on: July 11, 2013, 10:41:03 AM »
ReplyReply

That's WHY I brought up transparency, it's not about the film <g> but the person making posts.

interested readers do know what both he & you are involved with... so that is irrelevant...  on a positive side "we" (you both excluded) all can see images from both ACR/LR and RPP that "we" envy and images from both tools that "we" consider a junk ("colorwise")... so Iliah naturally tries to steer the topic to dE* to eliminate personal tastes/preferences/tolerances.
Logged
Iliah
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 410


« Reply #52 on: July 11, 2013, 10:43:22 AM »
ReplyReply

> there's no problem in producing this rendering

Sorry not my cup of tea.

> Speaking of which, in terms of transparency, don't you have some vested interest in a 3rd party raw converter?
http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Overview.html

And? What is my interest? How vested is it?
Logged
Iliah
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 410


« Reply #53 on: July 11, 2013, 10:47:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Transparency... LOL

> 1. Camera support (or lack thereof)
> 2. Easier to match to camera generated JPEG and use of proprietary camera metadata for proprietary camera processing
> 3. Tethering
> 4. Prefer UI
> 5. Performance
> 6. Bonus answer: anything that isn't made by Adobe (a prejudice).

before:

>1) price
> 2) camera support (Sigma for one)
> 3) color rendition (not better or worse - but just personal taster vs effort/ability to get it)
> 4) certain technical aspects like : may a particular person prefers demosaick/NR/sharpening options/highlights "recovering", etc)
> 5) certain technical aspects like : raw histogram, readouts in certain colorspaces, output to certain colorspaces, camera profiling abilities, etc

> PS: #4 is clearly different from #5

That is funny.
Logged
Iliah
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 410


« Reply #54 on: July 11, 2013, 10:49:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I purposely ignored this dE rabbit hole for the following reasons:

dE of how many colors from the scene, a few, a few hundred? Kind of makes an Avg dE report skewed depending on this selection. Colors that I know are easy to hit (paper white of the print) or far more difficult like the dark orange area's of the shirt Eric is wearing or the fellow in the red shirt next to him? If the dE values are off but I prefer the rendering, that means what? I should apply edits to produce an image who has numbers someone says are correct (based on what reference) or render the image as I desire?

Again, here's an image shot under Fluorescent with a daylight profile that appears as I wish it to appear. No problem.

True reason is that converters do not stand the test. None of them, unless a specific profile is possible.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #55 on: July 11, 2013, 10:50:23 AM »
ReplyReply

interested readers do know what both he & you are involved with... so that is irrelevant...

I don't see how you can speak for all LuLa readers. I do know one of us has decided to provide much information about themselves, the other as little as possible. It's irrelevant because you feel it is, but please let other's speak for themselves.

Quote
on a positive side "we" (you both excluded) all can see images from both ACR/LR and RPP that "we" envy and images from both tools that "we" consider a junk ("colorwise")... so Iliah naturally tries to steer the topic to dE* to eliminate personal tastes/preferences/tolerances.
Yet no examples of the invisible problem I am unable to detect. Do you really think the vast majority of photographers who process their raw files wish to eliminate personal tastes/preferences/tolerances?
Logged

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

Posts: 410


« Reply #56 on: July 11, 2013, 10:51:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Yet no examples of the invisible problem I am unable to detect.

The image you just posted is a perfect example of the problem, and not just this one.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #57 on: July 11, 2013, 10:55:49 AM »
ReplyReply

The image you just posted is a perfect example of the problem, and not just this one.

Sure it is, sure it is... Despite the fact that I as the image creator have no issues with it. You're losing credibility as you keep typing. I'd say let's agree to disagree but you've done so little to express your point I don't know what to disagree with! You've invented a problem that doesn't exist except for those who believe you based on blind faith. You are of course entitled to your opinion but not your own facts. Time to move on unless you can, as requested, provide a sample of this problem anyone reading these posts can evaluate on their end.
Logged

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

Posts: 410


« Reply #58 on: July 11, 2013, 11:00:24 AM »
ReplyReply

> You're losing credibility as you keep typing.

Sorry Andrew, but it is the other way around.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #59 on: July 11, 2013, 11:35:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Transparency... LOL

> 1. Camera support (or lack thereof)
> 2. Easier to match to camera generated JPEG and use of proprietary camera metadata for proprietary camera processing
> 3. Tethering
> 4. Prefer UI
> 5. Performance
> 6. Bonus answer: anything that isn't made by Adobe (a prejudice).

before:

>1) price
> 2) camera support (Sigma for one)
> 3) color rendition (not better or worse - but just personal taster vs effort/ability to get it)
> 4) certain technical aspects like : may a particular person prefers demosaick/NR/sharpening options/highlights "recovering", etc)
> 5) certain technical aspects like : raw histogram, readouts in certain colorspaces, output to certain colorspaces, camera profiling abilities, etc

> PS: #4 is clearly different from #5


That is funny.

Sorry not my cup of tea.

This is the kind of response one expects from 'true believers' who's faith based opinions divert from those who simply ask for actual examples to understand the potential issues. We've been told there is some problem with the ACR engine. We are told we can't see it. I was asked to provide an image captured in a fixed way, processed in ACR. It was ignored or course (not my cup of tea). That I the image creator have no issues with the rendering is ignored and the so called problem is said to be there but can't be illustrated. We are asked to provide examples of why people would use other raw processors, more than the requested examples were provided and of course, ignored. The poster assumes I only use one raw processor (wrong again), and I can't see the problem that I can't see but that's of course my fault. Iliah ignores the fact that his level of transparency is as little as one could provide here. One simply needs to go to the link I provide where more negative opinions about raw processors are found but little facts to backup the opinion. What a waste of time! At least Iliah is amused.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad